F55: Sony PL lenses - kits?? RANT.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

maybe they are thinking people who bought the f3 kit with the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm would buy that set to complete focal lengths?

Yes, the poor sob's who bought those could 'complete' their set (which sony promised on but never delivered) with these much more expensive yet better lenses. If you bought into the older Sony PL's because of the price point, and were waiting for more lengths, you'd be very disappointed to find that after a long period of nothing new, the focal lengths that you are supposed to buy to complete the set are at another price point.

'The three focal lengths with more to come' promise that Sony made is something I warned everyone about back then for reasons I can rehash if you'd like. DVXuser search Sony PL lenses and you'll probably find it.

 

[optitek]

Wow
Proper F2 PLs (not rehoused) 20, 25, 35, 50, 85, 135 for $18K? All F2s? please show me worthy competition for less than double that.
Good Luck!!!
Seems that the FLs are right on the money as well. You don't have to like Sony but give credit where credit is due.
Would you prefer them to stay with plastic housings after all the whining here? So they listened and updated to metal.
Want to save money and keep your F3 set ? Fine -they'll sell you updated to metal missing FLs...
Want to buy whole updated set? they'll let you do that too.
What's wrong with that?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

How do you get 18k? Assuming the 35, 50, and 85 are the original F3 PL's?

 

[FilmDude]

If you bought into the older Sony PL's because of the price point, and were waiting for more lengths, you'd be very disappointed to find that after a long period of nothing new, the focal lengths that you are supposed to buy to complete the set are at another price point.

'The three focal lengths with more to come' promise that Sony made is something I warned everyone about back then for reasons I can rehash if you'd like. DVXuser search Sony PL lenses and you'll probably find it.

very much part of my point trying to be made... Sony is showing themselves to really not care about the customer and are quick to ditch them if THEY want to. No dedication to a line of camera or now lens.

I don't trust my money in lenses with this company, and I don't trust their marketing team to handle any kind of quality "hype" so to speak to ensure an investment in their lenses would be worth it in the long haul, and not see the lenses end up like their first 3 lens batch. Which by the way I see on ebay trying to sell for $4,000 and no buyers for months and months.

They lost their worth immediately with no other lenses as promised, all they did was put out a VERY expensive and useless wide angle lens that didn't complete the matching set. Now they have a matching set, but out priced themselves in their own market already, and making their sets only available as an "all or nothing" situation is really not what their marketed for anyway.

They are making cheap re-houses T2 lenses, from their already made F3 PL's... They have no name, and no following for lenses, nore the expertise for making lenses, yet they want someone to buy a full set, on top of that with their reputation of dropping cameras and lenses like fly's on a whim, why would I invest a house payment in lenses with a company like that?


And no I didn't have my heart set on these lenses at all, I just had hoped that someone there reads this and realizes they are doing things backwards when it comes to what the market is doing right now. Lets not make them out to be what they are not... Camera makers yes... lens makers... no... In fact since these are the same lenses in the plastic version, whats there to buy into? Obviously there was no OMG moment in the lens market when they first came out. I read many reviews from "lens guys" stating that they "were poorly built, and lacked any character and felt boring, and weren't contrasty at all, and didn't have good characteristics" So why would anyone want to spend even MORE money on these lenses just because they were rehoused in metal??? Why not get some Cooke Speed Pancros and get them rehoused for the same price?? A few places are doing that now, and those are excellent lenses, might be a little harder to find, but then again, you get name and quality.

My rant is to bring out the sillyness in their marketing:

We (Sony) don't have a reputation of making lenses, but our first attempt failed, we made plastic lenses, promested to keep making more and never did.

Then We (Sony) make the same lenses in a new housing, we don't tell you what optics the lenses are, or any coating information. Then we don't make them avalible to buy unless you wanna spend $25,000 on a whole set.

We (Sony) have a reputation of losing return value on some of our newest cameras - IE: Sony F3 444 upgrade ect...

So with all this bad rep, they decide to act like none of that happened and sit big and tall and say, screw you little guys, take it or leave it, same low quality lenses, all you get is a full set or nothing, and we wont even match prices with the original lenses we made.


I just don't like it, you dont have to agree with me, but I really really dont like how they are handling their ways with what they sell. I'll stick with real lens makers, you guys can like Sony Glass all you like, but mark my words You'll never get a client asking by name anything other than Zeiss or Cooke for as long as you own them. I'm not Trying to Sony bash, I'm just being realistic. I would have much rather see them put out the rest of their plastic PL lenses at a good price point, that would have been smart. They could have finally made true on their word for the hundreds if not thousands of people who bought the F3 kit with lenses, who though more would be coming at a great price. Instead all of those people got shafted, just like the people who spent a TON of money on S-LOG upgrade, only for it to drop in price to being FREE within months.

They seem to have no self awareness. I wont rant anymore, but I'd love to hear other opinions, but I say price and quality and COMPANY behind the glass really matters, without the quality or company, you cant sell at a high price. I think these lenses are priced too high for the risk involved in investing in them.

 

[optitek]

Eh,

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. I'm sure some will do it, but really, is anyone here actually considering spending $13,000 on an odd set to fill out their much cheaper F3 lenses??? Thats a lot of money to spend just to keep the same quality of your most used lenses...

here

 

[FilmDude]

Wow
Proper F2 PLs (not rehoused) 20, 25, 35, 50, 85, 135 for $18K? All F2s? please show me worthy competition for less than double that.
Good Luck!!!
Seems that the FLs are right on the money as well. You don't have to like Sony but give credit where credit is due.
Would you prefer them to stay with plastic housings after all the whining here? So they listened and updated to metal.
Want to save money and keep your F3 set ? Fine -they'll sell you updated to metal missing FLs...
Want to buy whole updated set? they'll let you do that too.
What's wrong with that?

Where do you get 18K from? Their list price is $24,588 for the set... even if street price is a few thousand less.. say $22-$22,000 you then pay taxes when you buy them... which brings you back to the price of around $24,000 USD

I see no 18K price happening.

Also I'm giving them the credit I feel is due, and the credit is poor. Yes I'd prefer them to make due on their word that they'd continue putting out the original plastic PL lenses at a great price. There is a huge difference in lens price here. I'm pretty sure most of the users that bought into their 5K extra PL kit though for around the same price (1.5K a lens) they'd get a wide angle option for primes, an 18 or 20mm .. instead they got nothing. Now they have to spend 10K plus to get wide or telly option or spend 25K to get a whole new kit and have to find someone to buy their incomplete plastic set?

 

[optitek]

I think you are missing the perspective here.
These are proper PL lenses.
Like UPs, S4s, Schneiders.
Don't count on (proper) PL lenses for less than $5K a piece. Not going to happen for a simple reason- the market is too small.
As for the Plastic housing attempt- you must have been busy working because Sony got their earfull for it- that's for sure .So they listened-simple.
As far as the $18K price- you've said it yourself. Just keep the original 35, 50, 85 set and buy the new metal mini set. 18K...
It's not that complicated...

 

[FilmDude]

I think you are missing the perspective here.
These are proper PL lenses.
Like UPs, S4s, Schneiders.
Don't count on (proper) PL lenses for less than $5K a piece. Not going to happen for a simple reason- the market is too small.
As for the Plastic housing attempt- you must have been busy working because Sony got their earfull for it- that's for sure .So they listened-simple.
As far as the $18K price- you've said it yourself. Just keep the original 35, 50, 85 set and buy the new metal mini set. 18K...
It's not that complicated...

They are maybe "proper PL lenses" in their housings, but there is no way to compare them to UP, S4 ect... no one has them on hand. And I dare anyone to say that any lens could be silky movement as S4's. Thats a whole different ball game. Just because its metal and has gears, doesn't mean there wont be bumping and grinding and ramping happening. Without proper design, the internal of these lenses could really suck, and worse... be very hard to get serviced considering they are new.

And last time I checked Zeiss CP.2s go for 3,880 brand new, and those are proper PL lenses, which also hold a great name behind them and are asked for a lot....

All and all... why would anyone spend this kind of money on a Sony brand PL lens when you have CP.2s (and now the CP2 Supers) for the same or less price, and you can buy ANY lens you want. They are serviced ALL AROUND the world, have a name thats asked for and trusted, are color matched, are smooth geared... ect... I think they are priced too high for being the same lenses that we've already seen in plastic. Also all the mystery around the lenses isn't comforting at all.

We know who makes S4's and the coatings, we know who makes UP's and the coatings, we know who makes Augx, CP2, Alura, Schneider, Canon.... Who the heck makes Sony glass, what are the optical coatings used? Whats the quality control?? Whats the element make up, groupings... ect ect...

All of that information is up front with mostly all other manufactures of professional PL lenses... Sony obviously buys the glass from a 3rd party, then puts them in housings.. The fact that I have no idea what kind of glass I'm actually spending money on is a problem in its self... You want to spend over 24K on something and you have no idea who actually made it?? I like knowing who made the glass in brand new lenses. Where it was made... china?? if so, I aint buying, sorry. Japan, Germany, Swiss? where is this glass from, who controls this?

I don't like it one bit.

 

[optitek]

Everyone knows that the CPs are rehoused ZFs.
And they are not even Zeiss- they are Cosinas that Zeiss adopted.
Their apertures are all over the place and some of them are dogs.
The 50 f1.4 is as bad as they get. And yes -I did project it.
The "new" superspeeds are a rehash of the original CPs.Really?!!!
How dumb do they think we are?
The CPs are an insult to my intelligence.
I also projected the original Sony lenses. Even compared them to an MP. Did you know that they have a ball bearing cam focus drive like the Cooke S4s (and the MPs)?
Did you know that they have a non linear cam for focus so the scale is linear? Also similar to the Cooke s4s
And guess what.... I got scolded when I mentioned the results on the forum. It wasn't good for business... whatever.....
As far as sources and coatings- who cares.. it takes me, or any pro, about 30 seconds on the projector to determine the lens performance.
Some of the DPs I know can do it even faster and more accurate through the camera viewfinder.
Did you know that Cooke used to put multi red coatings on their older lenses like the panchros instead of typical multi green to get the warm look?
Do you care?
The bottom line is that until we see them dissing is just childish. I for one can't wait to project them and find out their performance. I welcome anyone that expands the market. Even Sony- the company everyone loves to hate...

 

[FilmDude]

I think you missed my point... We KNOW they are rehoused stills glass... but we also know everything about those still lenses. And can even buy them from pretty cheap to test. We know who and where they are made, and we know coatings (which is important to a lot of people) We DONT know a damn thing about Sony lenses, where they were made, are the rehoused stills glass from Tokina? Fuji make them? Is this glass completely new and desigend from the ground up as cinema glass?? There is NO information at all.

And the apertures are all over the place only because they were the ZF's rehoused. Point is we knew everything about them, and their quality is asked for way more than most other "cheap" lenses on the market in PL... Why? because people trust the quality of ZF's and Zeiss's ability to control the manufacturing of the housings and correctly design them.

The new super speed Zeiss's are yet again being controlled by one of the biggest lens manufacturers in the world... I think they are in good hands. The sharpness is not everything, its the quality of the lenses image. Older Cooke glass can be the most pleasing image for actors and is stilled used on big features till this day.. do they "project well" nope, they are most likely resolving less than 2K in some cases im sure, but what does that matter?? You can have a super sharp lens that is flat and unpleasing to the eye.

I dont want soft/sharp lenses, I want quality lenses. There is a level of care put into the manufacturing of Zeiss lenses that is evident in the build materials and quality of image. There is a reason why they manufacture most of the worlds best glass.

And maybe you got a bad copy of the 50 1.4, but I never heard anyone saying anything bad about ZF lenses for quality of image. They might breath, but they also might be worth it because the image is pleasing to what you're subject is.

I'm sure if you project the new Sony's you'll get 4K resolving lenses... but what does that matter if its not pleasing to look at? Dull, uncharacteristic, and most importantly - without the name brand backing them, who is going to care to pick them over the other already established lenses out there?

What is there to sway me to buy a set of unknown lenses priced as the same as lenses that are asked for and rent well? Are they going to have a "Cooke Look" built in thats pleasing but instead called the "Sony Look"?? There's a lot to a name as well. Simple branding of some kinda name would have been good...

Compact Primes, Pancrhos, Cine-Xenar, Master Primes, Ultra Primes, Pro-Primes, Alura, DP Rouge, Primo, Optimo, Optar Ilumina, the list goes on and on... they branded their names, so people can remember them and have a stay, they dont use the manufacture name.... I know its getting nit picky but come on... Sony primes? doesn't that seem a little... cheap sounding?

 

[optitek]

What's with the "coating" fetish? Why do you need to know that?
What do you think the lens coatings do? They have a very simple task... minimize reflection, sometimes they color correct some exotic glass that's all...
If you like the CPs so much just buy them. They are cheap, they rent well, what's holding you?
BTW the old panchros resolve way past what I would guess you consider 4K (what does that mean anyway? 4k on what ? M43, Red , Sony S35, Arri S35, 2/3", ?-these are all different (lens) resolutions. 92 lps is not that much for lens to resolve.
Don't take it personally please, There is so much misinformation on forums and I'm just trying to make sense out of it. I've never encountered so many terms open to interpretation related to something as well defined as optical performance..

 

[yoclay]

And maybe you got a bad copy of the 50 1.4, but I never heard anyone saying anything bad about ZF lenses for quality of image. They might breath, but they also might be worth it because the image is pleasing to what you're subject is.

Nope, the 50/1.4 is an absolute dog. Always has been, ZE/ZF/CP.2, not worth the metal it is housed in.
I cannot understand why ANYONE would continue manufacturing this lens in its current iteration. And it has been years now.
Not decent until F2.8. See here and compare it to their 50/F2 macro:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=727&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Everyone knows and says this is a bad lens in the photo community, even Barry Green has stated that on several occasions on this very forum.

In terms of the CP.2s, they are entry level, they are lightweight, have great witness marks and are cheap to rent. They are good investment from a business point of view. There is a lot of non-cinema, entry level work out there, in fact the majority of the work out there. I am considering purchasing a set. I know I will earn my money back on them, but mostly because of their name and the reputation of their manufacturer and the fact that you can also put them on a 5D, and maybe too, because in less than a year the dragon update will leave many new RED owners with a sensor that only works with these lenses and stills glass. Do I think these are reallly good glass? No, not really. If you have spent any time on a bench, you will know that they are acceptable wide open, but not that amazing. Kind of boring and soulless if you ask me, and certainly VERY inconsistent from one lens to the next. Heck an old set of Mark III Superspeeds looks bloody sharp and clear next to some of the CP.2's and we KNOW they are soft wide open. The CP.2's will never have the character or consistency of the Cookes (or the Super speeds)for instance, and that's ok, but I don't think most people really know how run of the mill they actually are. The coatings are great, but they sweeten the image with added contrast (not always a good thing) and the lens housings are excellent, but the glass? Bleh. I have an old set of Pentax takumars which I purchased for 200 USD back in the day which blow them out of the water at equivalent apertures. Pretty much all glass looks decent at F2.8,and certainly by F5.6 everything is maxed out, but you put a set of leica C lenses on a bench at F1.4 and you will know why that company has the reputation it deserves.

Zeiss is a great company too, but the CP.2's are the Chucky Cheese of cinema lenses. Putting them on an Alexa would be the virtual equivalent of requesting a bottle of Ripple with your Sauté de Veau at a fine French restaurant. Perhaps it could be done in some mystical client-is-king California bistro, but the staff is likely to place you in the back room of the restaurant the next time you come in for a meal and for years ever after.

 

[Viddovation]

This is exhausting. If you don't approve of the product Sony is offering, don't buy it. CP2 lenses have plenty of faults, but they rent steadily. So buy them. Really, it's unreasonable to ask that Sony just offer these lenses to market at a lower price, when the cost in making them likely makes that prohibitive.

You're right that producers ask for lenses by name, and that the Sony lenses won't be getting those rentals. But there are also plenty of clients out there who only look at the shooter's reel, and want the end result, and don't want to be bothered with details like the gear list. "Can you do X?" they ask, and you just say "Yes" and they'll never ask what glass you're using. These lenses will find plenty of use. Just not by you, clearly.

Sony can't build reputation overnight. These look like in a step in the right direction when compared to the plastic housing version. Sony is listening, even if they're not giving you what you want.

 

[MPB]

All and all... why would anyone spend this kind of money on a Sony brand PL lens when you have CP.2s (and now the CP2 Supers) for the same or less price, and you can buy ANY lens you want.

i think that sums it up. Sony is not a lens company.

i appreciate the frustration that those who bought the f3 package lenses might have, if they were hoping that Sony would flesh out the set. but i think we've learned not to count our chickens with Sony, and that's with cameras. they frequently don't seem to have a coherent plan.

 

[FilmDude]

i think that sums it up. Sony is not a lens company.

i appreciate the frustration that those who bought the f3 package lenses might have, if they were hoping that Sony would flesh out the set. but i think we've learned not to count our chickens with Sony, and that's with cameras. they frequently don't seem to have a coherent plan.

Yeah I guess thats what it all comes down too.

Again remember folks this was a Rant and labeled as such. My frustration is with the whole situation, not just one. Their business models, their prices, and the way they package their gear. I don't hate Sony, I'm just simply stating things that should be on the minds of the people at Sony.

I'm an inventor part time, I understand the complexities of designing a product, but you really need to know what your place in the market is. I feel like Sony is completely unaware of how these things work, and someone over in Sony should know.

They are a very disconnected company when it comes to their camera line, a lot is handled in Japan with engineering on one end, and sales people on another. There is no clear communication path and we see that as a direct result with their products and selling schemes.

I'm not even downing the lenses, they might be fine for what they are, but I think Sony locking you into buying a whole set is ridiculous, and only going to hurt their ability to sway customers, not gain them. And my other complains were simple branding issues. Sony has no idea how to hype their pro-camera series anymore.... RED, ARRI, GO-PRO, CANON, they all know how to make people turn heads and look at their product, and want it, and sell it, and create a name that is wanted and asked for.


I guess my problems all span down to this. I was an F3 owner. I spent a lot of money invested into my Sony F3 kit. It paid for itself sure, but only because I fought a lot just to get people to look passed RED or a 5D time and time again. It cost me money, time, effort just to gain any kind of acceptance to the camera. That shouldn't be my job, thats the manufacturers job.

I have a great video reel and really great clients, but that doesn't stop the clients from scratching their heads when they hear I'm shooting with an F3 (which no one really ever heard of) and I'd have to explain to them S-Log, 444, ect... It's time consuming, frustrating, and in the end its one of the main reasons I dumped all my Sony gear. I wanted a camera that wasn't just professional and made good images, but was also asked for by name, or at least understood. I get a simple question (what are you shooting on? ) I say F3 - they sctach their heads, and immediately they call into question a lot of things. Now I own RED, I get asked that same question... They say, oh ok great. Conversation is done. That alone is enough to sway me right there.


My points all go back to that I guess and my frustration with the way the handle their products. HUGE company, little minds in marketing. Super restricted in every way, when it comes to what they put out.

A change is needed, I'm making this rant to fight for you guys, the F3 owners who bough into $6,000 extra in lenses with a word that they'd continue making them, and at that price. They didn't. 6,000 is not a small amount of money. Thats rent money, mortgage payments, car payments, a whole lot. Just simply Sony breaking their word on those lenses, directly effects someones living. When you look at it that way I think you'll understand my rant more. It's not like these are TV's we're buying. These are professional tools that make US our LIVING. If the company bails out, its not like we can say, oh well it was just a novelty item that never came to market. It's a tool we needed that wasn't backed by a company we trusted.

So me being very a voice for this I think is still welcomed. Fighting for Sony to realize they aren't putting out TV's, they are putting out tools that directly support someones lively hood, their bills, their home, their children's food. ect... When I buy a camera, I expect the full support to help along the way with the company who makes the product. This ensures my wellbeing and life security. I'm a DP by living and thats all I do, I can't fall back on something else if the company bails on me, or if I buy into something, when I'm told theres more coming soon, only to have that never happen.


If you read this and you think its silly, thats fine, its ok. But I know there are others who do understand what I'm talking about, and have felt the direct hit of these things, including lenses, camera bodies, and upgrades, that hurt people financially. These things aren't cheap, we deserve to be treated like we're spending the money that we are, not to be treated as if its some kind of TV or DVD player.


There is a moral issue I think im trying to bring up with the company. Not just "big" people/companies spend money on this gear, little people do too. Freelancers don't have the comfort that a rental house does. It would just be nice for Sony to step up and realize their marketing effects peoples livelihood when it comes to this gear, it's not just a toy, its a tool used to make a living. They should treat it as such.

 

[optitek]

If you think $6K for 3 PL lenses is a lot of money, you should not be using PL lenses.
You have two choices- up your game and get clients that pay enough to get you ROI
Or use different lenses. We make a very nice EF smart mount for the F3 that mechanically turns Canon EF mount lenses into PL lenses and drives the focus and iris internal lens motors by wire.
We made it just for guys like you seeking bridge financing to the next level
$2K in the still world will get you pretty much any lens you want, maybe except the long teles, but these are specialty lenses anyway.
Make no mistake- it's not Sony's responsibility to sell your package to the producers- it's your responsibility.
Gear does not sell itself- your reel should be doing the talking for you.
Producers don't care for the gear much if you meet their visual requirements and stay in their budget. That's their prerogative, not what gear you use.
As for Sony listening- let's see:
The new camera does simultaneous recording 2K/4K
Codec ready to edit
Metal construction
modular design
small and light
proper viewfinder
built in NDs
global shutter
If that's not listening I don't know what is
Right now no other camera offers all these features.
But it won't be free for you. And your rant won't change that.
Technology and features cost money-Sony or no Sony

 

[Viddovation]

I guess my problems all span down to this. I was an F3 owner. I spent a lot of money invested into my Sony F3 kit. It paid for itself sure, but only because I fought a lot just to get people to look passed RED or a 5D time and time again. It cost me money, time, effort just to gain any kind of acceptance to the camera. That shouldn't be my job, thats the manufacturers job.

I fundamentally disagree with you here. It's not the manufacturer's job to sell your client on the camera - that's your job. Now, mind you, it certainly behooves a manufacturer to brand their camera well, because then they sell more units. But it's not their responsibility, moral, legal or otherwise. I get the frustration you have - I too am a freelance DP by trade, but I don't fundamentally hold the manufacturer responsible for these things. And I do think we're treated differently than the people buying a $150 Bluray player.

As far as Sony backing their gear, well, my Sony equipment doesn't tend to break or malfunction on set. In the few instances where I've had parts damaged on prior cameras I've been able to get service manuals and order parts directly from Sony. They have worldwide service centers. Their firmware releases are stable. I call that backing their product.

As far as Sony not making more crappy plastic lenses, I say bravo. $6,000 isn't small but it shouldn't be the end of the world either. And you can probably unload them for at least $3,000, so that cuts your loss in half. RED owners just suffered a $15k price drop on the RED Epic. Tech moves on.

You absolutely have the right to rant on a forum, but I don't really agree.

 

[FilmDude]

Just to clarify, I didn't buy the Sony lenses in the kit. I didn't think they were worth the money. I invested into RED PL zooms instead.

And I think it is their job to educate the public about their products. If you break it down, Sony is the only company in this biz that isn't tooting its own horn. Meanwhile Canon, RED, and Arri are putting out a new story every week about their gear, it being used, and what new director/film is using their products. From twitter, facebook, their own websites, events, ect...

Sony is the only one trying to literally HIDE their information. You had to "sign up" to know about their new F series, they didn't even want to release info to everyone... Thats so ass backwards.


I have a facebook account with all of those manufacturers as "friends". I see every few days Arri putting out a new article, sub-story, photo bank, or other about their line of Alexa cameras, M, Studio, or standard... I see Canon which does the same. And we all know how RED does it, they scream at the top of the world just like the rest.

Then there is Sony Pro... I see a ton of talk about new OLED screens, and alike tech... Do I see them pushing any stories about who used the F3 on a shoot? Nope, do I hear them talking about how this and that was shot with Sony(x_) nope, I see every once and a while a little thing here or there. But there's no splash, panaz, just dud like.


Its my job to sell my creative abilities. And I'm good at what I do, but this is fundamental... I DONT PAY MYSELF. Someone else is in charge of that payment, and if they are wanting an Alexa, C-300/500, ect.... what am I to do? Charge them more because I need to rent it? It's my job to select camera too, but guess what, in the independent biz, that doesn't fly. Heck even in major hollywood pictures digital was a hard sell all the way up until last year.... Even the biggest top DP's in the world could change the studios mind on Film use vs. Digital. The studios had a workflow and they trusted their old pals and name brands they knew for years... No ones going to take a gamble on a production. They want to know what they are getting.

My producers want to know what they are getting, including the gear I bring on board. I've been shooting high-end infomercials (not sham-wow type cheezy ones) but the big budget 30min ones with big studios, sets, and 4 cameras. I tried at one time talking about Sony F3, they had no idea what I was talking about... they though it was a small camera with less quality than an EX3 (which by the way most people DO know)

I think they just dropped the ball after the EX-1/3 market died down. They lost their hype, their balls I believe. They need to make a name for themselves again in the film market, right now. The F65 isn't even doing well. I personally talked to a guy who owns one, and he can't even get it out the door. Alexa's taking over the entire market, how did they do it? Spreading the word and showing great footage.

 

[optitek]

So you've invested in Red lenses and complaint about Sony's transparency? Good God....

 

[MPB]

I fundamentally disagree with you here. It's not the manufacturer's job to sell your client on the camera - that's your job. Now, mind you, it certainly behooves a manufacturer to brand their camera well, because then they sell more units. But it's not their responsibility, moral, legal or otherwise. I get the frustration you have - I too am a freelance DP by trade, but I don't fundamentally hold the manufacturer responsible for these things.

you're right, i believe, to make the distinction about what Sony may be "responsible" for. i would put the matter in different terms, about the cost/benefit aspect of investing in their products. Sony's business plan is up to them. and there are so many factors these days that might make that plan less predictable, or discernable, to those of us who are trying to incorporate their products into our own business plans.

i think for many f3 owners, that investment may have turned out to be ill-timed. for me, i held off on a purchase until i had a project that would at least make a dent in the cost. and then i pitched the f3 for the project because i believed it was the best picture at the price point. this was the same reasoning i applied in my purchase of an ex3. in retrospect, while i think my reason (the technical ability of the camera) was sound, my decision may not have been. as a cameraman, i want the best camera i can afford, and i want to be enthusiastic about my own tools. but recently Sony's cameras haven't proved to be the most marketable. and now the f3 is being superseded, not just by competitors but by Sony themselves, after having been on the market a short time.

so, while we're all responsible for our own ROI, it's getting more difficult to make an informed decision in that regard with some of the CineAlta department's offerings.