F3: Sony PMW-F3 price drop.

[morgan_moore]

stuff

Nothing you say is untrue.

This shows that selecting a camera is very personal to ones business. My experience is just that the F3 really didn't fit into many holes.

For example touting the thing as a cheap solution to use with PL glass.. well that doesn't really happen because once you are rocking a $50g set of glass.. well you are probably going to be renting an F55 or suchlike.

Using it with a 07q - again I just don't see it 'cos if you are buying that sort of kit you are no longer in the budget arena.

The budget arena usually has a small crew (maybe of one!) - which really likes a light camera - and minimal post budget - which really likes a widely accepted workflow.

Yep - for shooting de-sat indy work on a private collection of vintage cine with your unpaid mates crewing and grading your own it could add up. Really nice projects can be made like that.

S

 

[IronFilm]

For example touting the thing as a cheap solution to use with PL glass.. well that doesn't really happen because once you are rocking a $50g set of glass.. well you are probably going to be renting an F55 or suchlike.

I think you're reading all the arguments for an F3 totally wrong and missing the big picture.

It would be very unusual indeed for a person to buy an F3 primarily to use with PL lenses. But it is a super handy *bonus* feature about the F3! Especially if you believe the mantra glass matters more than the camera.

Many small micro budget productions can swing the cost to hire one PL lens (or even a set of three or four) for a couple of days, but if you then add on top of that the cost of an F55.... you're taking the total beyond their reach.

Using it with a 07q - again I just don't see it 'cos if you are buying that sort of kit you are no longer in the budget arena.

Disagreed again, lots of people use an Odyssey 7Q with an A7s, and that would be regarded as a "budget" set up by many.
Plus there are drastically cheaper options such as the upcoming BMD Video Assist, or an even cheaper Atomos Ninja from eBay.

The budget arena usually has a small crew (maybe of one!) - which really likes a light camera - and minimal post budget - which really likes a widely accepted workflow.

Small crew makes the F3 a great pick over other options such as a R1 MX.
Minimal post budget means small file sizes (not raw) and having the flexibility to bake in the look on location makes the F3 perfect option over many others.


Yes, the F3 suits its own little niche, but I believe it is a much broader niche than you give it credit for.

 

[Viddovation]

Ah yes, global CCD is a compelling reason why a person could prefer it for their niche usage over an F3. However I assume it is also much much worse in low light? For me personally, giving up that (AND the drastically smaller sensor) is just too much to ask to give up for those gains in return :-/ (what are you planning on using your F23 for?)

Still, I'd be very curious to see head to head comparisons between the two to see how much better on screen this "true RGB 444" delivers (as F3 boasts of 444 too). Got any good links to comparisons to share?

I don't have it in my hands yet, so I have no personal experience yet, however...

Yes - base ISO is lower - it's rated at 320 while the F3 has a rating at 800. 320 may sound higher than you expected - on one hand, the sensor size is smaller, but there are three of them, and unlike a bayer sensor, you don't end up wasting light going into the wrong photosites. Certainly not the ideal camera for low light night work...

However, it kills at greenscreen. The deeper depth of field is even an asset there (you don't want focus blur on the edge of your actors for green screen compositing! Greenscreen is one thing I plan to try the camera at.

As for links, none personal yet, but go check out Cloverfield, Public Enemies, How I Met Your Mother, Californication, Damages, Dexter, Gossip Girl... and plenty more.

 

[starcentral]

There were lots of guys with the F3 using PL glass now and then, and some who owned full sets of primes or just a few RED zooms. I don't think PL sways you to or away from the F3, it's just there if you want it and its very sturdy.

I do a agree with Sam however that the color and whatnot is something I could just never really get to look great either, maybe I missed a menu item at the time, maybe I didn't jump to a 10-bit external recorder soon enough. Either way the newer cams are far better in my opinion in so many ways, just having internal 10-bit 422 is something many people here might not even appreciate if the FS7 is say their first "expensive" camera. Then add on top of that the LUTs, new color science, S&Q and so much more…

At $4000 maybe it is a steal.

 

[IronFilm]

At $4000 it's still maybe a steal.

Remember however its used price is roughly half that, that's less than a Sony A7s! :-o
And I found mine even cheaper than that, half the price of an A7s.

So most would buy an F3 second hand. But even if you're somebody who *MUST* buy brand new, nothing brand new can compare at that brand new price. Not with all the same features.

 

[morgan_moore]

It totally depends on your needs - I got rid of my F3 and bought a gh4 (and FS7)

The gh4 is so completely different to an F3 that I would not swap.. because the gh4 is a good Bcamera and the F3 is not. The gh4 mounts on a dashboard, does a high angle shot with a Cstand, pops in a thinktank.. it is the size of the F3 battery charger!

S

 

[Nirv]

Yes, the F3 suits its own little niche, but I believe it is a much broader niche than you give it credit for.

The F3 might be bought by those who already own one or two which is perfectly valid but going forward but I can't see many people being drawn to the F3 from cold despite it being "cheap". It would require a lot of investment in ancillary equipment that might be better spent putting into a new package like the FS7. When I'm buying camera equipment I'm looking at least 2 years down the line possibly 3 and I don't think the comparatively soft image of the F3 is going to cut it. Client expectations can move very bloody quickly even budget client because they've probably seen GH4 footage which has become the benchmark for cheap visuals.

I don't believe the mantra about glass mattering more than the camera, you can put all the Cine glass you like on the FS100 and it isn't going to cut it next to an FS7 with some DSLR glass.

I'm not seeing any big picture in the F3 as it's one of Sony's strangest and borderline absurd design choices from form factor, to weight, to lens mount etc etc. I don't know how well they sold but I never saw one being used professionally.

 

[Viddovation]

I'm not seeing any big picture in the F3 as it's one of Sony's strangest and borderline absurd design choices from form factor, to weight, to lens mount etc etc. I don't know how well they sold but I never saw one being used professionally.

From what I've heard, it sold quite well. That fact is part of why it has had it's used value so thoroughly trashed to where Iron Film apparently got one for about $1k. Supply and demand. And in this case, used supply is tremendous, because all the folks willing to spend $14k on a new PMW-F3 moved to 4k cameras at about the same time as each other.

 

[starcentral]

For me the F3 had its place, I finally got out of the 35mm ground glass adapter arena and into something that was more "real" and had insane ISO capability.

I talk with lots of kids going to film school and they always talk about using the F3 at school and what a great camera it is.

So she's a still kicking in many ways which is great to hear.

 

[morgan_moore]

Id say it was a commercial flop. Simply Canon popped in with the C300 - half the mass and broadcast codec onboard, sweet baked Canon look and a load of love from 5d ers and a simple move for their glass. Not to mention huge promo from VLF, Shane Herbert et al, not cool guys.. but cooler than Ali Chap.

Only the FS7 is clawing that back (until people realise how good the C300ii is with AF).. the 5/55 kind of misfired too due to various f_uckwhittery like locking out the 4k, on the F5, huge media cost, breaking evf cables etc.

An F55 (or C500).. that is something Id be keen on a basement price!

S

 

[Donny 123]

Yo.. Who be saying Alister chapman is not cool.. you be lying in chalk in my hood.. you feel me..

C300 11 is not cool at all.. still looks like a kettle.. HFR.. ??? its actually even bigger and weighs more than its predecessor .. the F5 is a way better camera ..and cheaper.. I think even Shane would agree there.. what do you base the F5/55 being a misfire.. the F55,s have sold a ton.. go to any rental house .. if all the C300 11 has going for it is AF.. they are going to have to put the price right down to attract the users who find this a big buying point..

 

[Nirv]

Only the FS7 is clawing that back

I think Sony finally got their sh1t together with the FS7. The budget end of the Sony S35 Line had clearly been filled with deep confusion about what they're trying to offer. The FS100, F3 and FS700 were all absurd in some way and clearly developed with a mindset of not treading on the big boys' feet. Mr. Sony somewhere along the line decided that future growth might actually depend on cannibalising higher end sales and to not get overly hung up about it. I think people would be daft to invest in the dead line of the F3 because next NAB will no doubt have some of us FS7 owners feeling miffed with even better specced cameras.

 

[morgan_moore]

Yo.. Who be saying Alister chapman is not cool.. you be lying in chalk in my hood

I feel ya. Id side with a taciturn Brit over a brash Yanks any time. But Im not the market.

Who will buy the C300ii? - small/med prodcos who are sending out DirectingResearcherEditorGeneralShooter* people with a C300i who are coming back with 90% out of focus right now. That is the people creating 70% of what is broadcast. With a C300ii they can cut the age and the wage even further

F5 - I dont follow it now but it came out the gate as locked to 1080 - which is not what you spend over 10 large on. The 55 is less of a mess but had a price point too high for that mass market prodco sector.

IMO

*have I come up with a new acronym?

 

[Donny 123]

Good point about the sending out the intern with AF.. then they will screw it up even more... I guess that should be encouraged .. yes when the FS7 came out ..Boom.. the F5 with no 4K didnt look good..it did always have 2K, not much value unless shooting RAW.. the hack actually probably forced a bit of good PR on Sony .. to at least enable it for $1,000.. it does seem in retrospect maybe the FS7 and an F45 ? might have been better.. to cover their markets.. still with the F65 as the flagship to do battle with Alexa..

 

[stokstad]

Wow this thread got confused!

Don't buy into the 4K nonsense, if an image looks got it looks good. The F3 (image) looks really good, and have a good feature set, and cost very little (its perfectly fine to shoot with it bare-bones aswell). If a client needs 4k I would buy a GoPro

 

[Harry Lime]

Id say it was a commercial flop.
S

According to my dealer in Burbank and a few other sources Sony sold the F3 by the truckload. My guess is a lot of them went into industrial / corporate video, documentaries, weddings, events shooters, concerts etc. I bet that a lot of people who had an EX3 upgraded to the F3.

You also have to keep in mind that in the past 4 years the price performance ratio has changed dramatically. When the F3 came out it was a bargain. Super 35 sensor, super clean high asa, 13.5 stops and uncompressed 10bit RGB 444 slog output, SDI and HDMI out, FZ / PL mount etc for $14,000. The ergonomics were ridiculous, but the F3 was a reliable, professional piece of gear from a reputable company.

The only competition it had was the Scarlet. The jump above it meant an Epic or Alexa. It took over a year for the BMC to appear and in many ways the F5 was the first real alternative to the F3. The FS7 really put the nail in the coffin of the F3, but that didn't happen until almost 3 years after its release.

And frankly I'm loath to trade my F3L for an FS7, because of the laters DSLR mount. I have PL and BNCR mount primes and the last thing I need is a flimsy mount that flexes under stress and throws my footage out of focus. In terms of IQ I highly doubt that there are a lot of people out there who can tell the difference between properly shot HD footage out of the F3L and FS7. The difference in image quality is not like day and night. When I do upgrade it will have to be to a camera with either a PL or preferably Sony FZ-mount. And that probably means a used F5 or something Sony hasn't released, yet.

I think that if you already own something like an Odyssey 7Q and can find a used F3L for $2000-2500 it represents one of the best values on the market.

 

[starcentral]

I'm soo tempted to buy one of these new F3's even though I absolutely hate the color from it.

Do these new F3's come with SLog/RGB upgrade?

 

[Viddovation]

I'm soo tempted to buy one of these new F3's even though I absolutely hate the color from it.

Do these new F3's come with SLog/RGB upgrade?

Yes, they do. It says "RGB" right in the title.

Edit: Longer version is, after the C300 came out, Sony scrambled. They offered rebates to people who had paid nearly $4k for the RGB key. They drastically reduced the key price for existing F3 owners. And they made all new F3 units come with the key included for the base price. All of this only happened to fix pricing to be in line with the Canon C300 pricing.

 

[Nirv]

Forum Specs Klaxon...

The F3 has 13.5 stops!

Must come as some surprise to Sony.

As you were.

 

[Lenilenapi]

I don't understand the big deal about the 444 Slog key. How many people using an F3 want files as big as 444. Every F3 has Slog - all you need is a pro Res recorder and a samurai can be had cheap. 442 10 bit Slog - best deal around.