Sony PMW F55

J

Jonathany26

Active member
Hi guys, I wanted your opinion / input…
I currently have two Sony F3 cameras that I still love!!! I use the atomos samurai blade recorders with them via SDI so I get 10 bit 4:2:2 pro res, I only use them for some sit down interviews, i only shoot in S-log and still love the image from these old cameras, I also own a Sony A7SIII I mostly use this for run and gun and gimbal work, I love it! I also own a Blackmagic 6K Pro that I use for some documentary work, my question is since I need another camera for my sit down interviews and other stuff, I was thinking a used FS7II or I have always dreamed about owning the F55 I know the F3, F5, FS100, FS700, FS7 and FS7II all had the same or almost similar sensor and I think the F55 had the same sensor but a better color gamut and global shutter. My question for you guys is since I have the opportunity to pick up a lightly used F55 for about $6,000 or I could get a used FS7II for around the same price, which would you guys do? I know the F55 is at least 8 years old but I’m still blown away with the image I get from my 10 year old Sony F3, and I know the F55 would be MUCH better than my F3 quality wise, I would like to hear you guys opinion on which you would get and why, Sony FS7II or F55?
 
Things to consider when comparing those cameras.

What viewfinders do they come with?
Do you have enough SxS cards to suit your needs for 4K recording?
Do you own v-mount batteries and chargers?
The F55 can't take any e-mount lenses that you may already own.

I still use both my F55 and FS7mark1 almost every week. They are both great cameras, but different.
 
Between the two I'd go with the F55. Sounds like you appreciate image quality and would already have the lenses to use of the F55. And if you're using it mainly for sit-down interviews the larger/heavier form factor won't be an issue.
My personal feeling was that I preferred the image quality from the F3 over that from the FS7 (and when I brought the F3 as an extra camera on multicam HD shoots where the FS7 was also used, the producers agreed with that assessment.) Again just my personal feeling, but where the FS7 fell short in IQ, I think that the FX9 is back on track and looks great as well.
But between your two camera choices, I'd go with the F55.
 
OnSet said:
My personal feeling was that I preferred the image quality from the F3 over that from the FS7 (and when I brought the F3 as an extra camera on multicam HD shoots where the FS7 was also used, the producers agreed with that assessment.)
Click to expand...

I'd go even further to say that the F3 looks better than the F55 if you don't need 4K, HFR, RAW, etc. If you just want to compare the two cameras in 1080p, the F3 wins.
 
Hi Jonathan,

I picked up an F55 earlier this year, as an upgrade to my F5.

Putting aside all the practical stuff like new media and batteries and stronger sticks that you might need, the F55 is just a really well thought out camera. It's got a proper viewfinder (something the FS7 badly lacks), it's well balanced, well built, and the lens mount feels rock solid. I used to have an F3 and I loved the pictures, but shooting a doc for TV on that camera meant having external recorders and third party viewfinders, and it became a bit of a pain. The F55 gives me everything that I liked about that camera while fixing all of it's problems.

The pictures out of the camera look good. The difference from the FS7 isn’t that great if you're just shooting XAVC HD or the more compressed 4K codec, but the F55 is subtly better in some common situations. For example, the FS7 often shows a bit of a magenta cast straight out of the camera, whereas the F55 is more neutral when shooting the same scene. Skin also tends to look a little better on the F55. I recently shot an interview with a guy who had a very ruddy red face, and the F55 handled it well - he still looked like a human being. The FS7, which was shooting the 2nd angle, made him look like a pomegranate. You can get them pretty close with a few tweaks in post, but I was impressed with how well the F55 handled it. I’ve also noticed that the F55 handles mixed lighting better. If you’re shooting 3200K and have daylight coming in through a window, it looks nice - like white light with a blue tint. On the FS7 (and F5), the same daylight looks very blue. So I feel more confident mixing light on the F55.

I've only done a few tests using the better 4K codec and the R5 raw recorder, but I expect that's where the F55 moves away from the pack.

Hope that’s helpful

Henry
 
Last edited:
I will second all of that. After 8 years the F55 is still the best looking 4K camera that I own, especially when shooting RAW. 16-bit RAW just spoils you for anything else.
 
Thanks for all of the great input guys! Let me ask you guys another question F5 compared to F55 the F55 has the better color space and global shutter and that’s about it correct? So for a nice camera to shoot interviews most of are saying you would pick a F55 over the FS7II
 
Despite things that drive me crazy about it's design, I still love my F55 and its image and it's my most used camera. I was mulling over buying another used one that a friend was selling recently. Regarding the sensor, it is its own thing. It is not a version of anything else. So really, I don't consider the F5 and F55 as closely related as many others do. They can be a pain to match.

I like the variable electronic ND on the 7ii, but otherwise, I hate the camera. It's a pain in the @ss to shoot with, with a crap VF. I did an out of town shoot for a friend about a month ago and they were supposed to ship their F55 out for me to shoot with and sent one of their 7II's, instead. It took me about 45 minutes to get it set-up and turn off all of the stupid automatic crap that seems to be on by default, or that the last shooter that must not have known his @ss from a hole in the ground had turned on. And I was still pretty miserable shooting with it, after that. It's a toy...

The F55 and F5 share part of a model number and that's about it, as far as I'm concerned.

So, if you can get a clean, low-mileage 55 for a good price, I say go for it.
 
Run&Gun said:
Despite things that drive me crazy about it's design, I still love my F55 and its image and it's my most used camera.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what drives you crazy about the design? (I've never used one so I have no context here.)
 
When the FS7 came out everyone talked about how much better it was than the F3 . When the Fx9 came out then it was how much better it was than the Fs7 or the F55. Then you started reading that actually the F3 had the most filmic look and was better than any of the newer cameras and the old F35 looked better than all of them. It's always the camera at least 2 generations back that really looks better.
I think if you know what your're doing you can get a great look out of all of them and I'd pick the FX9 head and tails above the earlier cameras. For usability the F3 was a PITA especially because it didn't have a decent EVF. The FS7 IMHO was a huge improvement - faster in low light , cleaner and sharper and way more convenient for Log plus it was 4K. F5 and FS7 looked identical but the F5 and F55 had better ergonomics and mainly a lot better viewfinder. However because it had a global shutter the F55 is about 2/3 stop slower than the FS7 . When shooting log and in low light that's a seriously big deal. Plus the FS7 uses a E mount which means you could shoot EF lenses and especially shoot with a speed booster so you could get full frame and gain yet another stop of light. For my money that put the F55 and the F5 at a serious disadvantage.
Side by side would an F55 on the same shot look nicer? If it does it its so subtle that i would challenge anyone you work for to see it . The skill of the cameraman will trump that difference any day . But 1 2/3 stops and the ability to shoot full frame in a world where every director asks - "Can you make that background a little softer?" For my money its a no brainer - get an FS7 and an FS7II is even nicer. Of course if you're shooting PL glass you lose some of those advantages. But i imagine if you're looking for cheap then you're not using PL glass anyway. BTW If you find the FS7 hard to use its only because you don't know the camera or got one that wasn't set up well and you didn't know enough to to set it up for yourself.. Once you do its all the same.
 
Last edited:
the going price for an fs7 is $3500 not $6000

$6000 gets you a fx6 which will eat your runabout camera with nd .. and be great for interviews.

f55 cannot add a speedbooster which can be a downer.

in every other way the f55 is better than fs7 (do you have sony lenses? consider this)

oh the hf jack position sucks on the f55

f55 media may be obsolete

of course nether has autofocus .. which you would get with a c200

focus in one your priorities?

While I love the F55 .. sensible money may go to the fx6.. or point that out to the seller and get the f55 for $3000 - which might not be unrealistic
 
LennyLevy said:
BTW If you find the FS7 hard to use its only because you don't know the camera or got one that wasn't set up well and you didn't know enough to to set it up for yourself.. Once you do its all the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Someone's frustration should not be confused as a legitimate negative review of the camera.
 
The fx6 talks to af lenses , has excellent AF, has vnd, is known by producers booking crew, uses current media, uses the hotshoe MI for extra channels, is full frame, has affordable 28-135 all-in lens, uses minimal batteries, is 40% more portable.

It might even function with Zoom and Teams

Sensible stuff like that.

The lack of a RnG lens for less than $20g is a big deal to som on the 55

I get the gamut is 20% bigger, the codec 40% smoother, and the PL wont wobble on the f55, but many commissioners dont get that.

I dont think the 5/55 were ever really money makers (on the rental front) as the fs7* ate them however unjustified that might have been.

Im exactly the sort of mug who gets a flutter when I see a used f55 but then have to pull myself out of it.

*fs7 speedbooster 24-105 was quite justifiably better for doc.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
The fx6 talks to af lenses , has excellent AF, has vnd, is known by producers booking crew, uses current media, uses the hotshoe MI for extra channels, is full frame, has affordable 28-135 all-in lens, uses minimal batteries, is 40% more portable..
Click to expand...

Yes All good points, which just illustrates how different the two cameras are. If someone is seriously considering one of them I don't really see how the other is even in the running.
 
drboffa said:
Just out of curiosity, what drives you crazy about the design? (I've never used one so I have no context here.)
Click to expand...

Overall, just not being a true shoulder mount/ENG body, but I have a pretty decent build-up and it has a good native VF, so it’s not nearly as bad as a C300. My specific gripes are 1) the ND system: it only has two densities of ND, 3 stops and 6. Those are big jumps in exposure, each. And the location of the ND “wheel”, which is basically under the lens and when you have the camera slid back on a shoulder mount to balance it, it quite literally is almost between a rock and a hard place. But it’s in good company. I do not like the ND system on the Amira, either, for a lot of the same reason(densities are too course at the end and location of the control). 2) Soft Buttons instead of physical switches/dials for things like WB, ISO, audio…(I know they make/made the ENG body kit that does address that) 3) XLR’s at a right angle sticking out of the side of the camera. Now, I have custom RA cables for my stuff, but sometimes working with other people and equipment, I’m forced into having straight connectors sticking straight out of the side of the cam.

I also shoot a lot of sports/sports doc, which consists of a lot of fast action, fast camera movement and being around a lot of flash photography, so I’ll “sacrifice” 2/3 stop of sensitivity for global shutter six days a week and twice on Sunday.

The 7 wins on the speed booster front, but you can still put lots of lenses on a 55/5 with an adapter. I have two EF adapters for mine. An Optitek for my Canon Cine primes and a Metabones with iris ring mimicking wheel for the occasional still lens. I of course have the PL adapter, but also the IBE 2/3” B4 to s35 adapter, which was a God-send in the early days and can still come in handy now, especially for sports. A lot of the NFL Films guys are still shooting with 2/3” zooms for the handheld sideline stuff. Even though I have the Canon 25-250, now, I still used my 22x Fuji for a couple of college games.

Lenny, you’re absolutely right, I got the camera in a state that I had never seen one in before and I do not use one enough to know how to quickly change some of the things that needed to be changes and in typical Sony fashion, some of the settings and setting combinations are not always logical and some trial and error was required(I have All Files set up for my 55, so I can quickly make wholesale changes without having to memorize every items location and specific combinations of settings). But I stand by my comment that it’s still not as nice to operate, at least for my style of shooting, even after set-up, as a 55. And I definitely stand by my VF comment.

Morgan, I’m not sure how big of money makers the 55 was in the straight-up rental house market(my specific body actually came from a rental house that was providing it on a Netflix series), but they were(are) cash-cows for owner-ops. A lot of the guys I know with 55’s, either still have them as their A cams or moved to the Venice a few years ago for their A and kept the 55/5 for their B, etc. I also know a couple of guys with 5’s that have recently gotten FX9’s, but they still have their 5’s and still use them.
 
"and being around a lot of flash photography, so I’ll “sacrifice” 2/3 stop of sensitivity for global shutter six days a week and twice on Sunday."

That makes plenty of sense for sure. Everyone's needs are different . I don't think I've ever encountered a flash problem at all. Actually i would go with Morgan's idea of an FX6 these days if I was in the $6K budget world. Lotta bang for the buck. But it all depends on what you plan to do with it.
 
As so few know how to expose, light or grade it is really difficult to know if the 55 has some special mojo over the fx6 - i doublt there are any legit comparisons.

My hunch is raw 400 iso raw - absolutely - 3200 compressed - probably less so.

Of course an in focus shot alway whips the OOF one.

My main argument for the fx6 is that OP probably should be rid of the mirrorless asap - thats probably the weak spot.
 
Last edited:
Just rereading the OP I see that your main need is a camera for sit down interviews. I have never even seen an FX6 , however I do use an FX9 for interviews all the time and recently switched to all Sony and Sigma AF lenses. AF is an absolute godsend for interviews. Now I feel completely comfortable shooting wide open with f1.4 lenses giving my clients the "creamy backgrounds" they all seem to want and I simply set the camera on AF . Last week I shot a women who kept leaning forward and back in her chair and it would have been a constant problem before AF. Now I just set eye AF forget about it . These days my favorite interview lens is a Sigma 105 that is set usually between 1.4 and 2. The only problem with f1.4 is whether I like seeing part of their hair or their shirt go soft, but the eyes are rock solid all the time and the background looks like butter.
That's an argument for the FX6 I guess, though I admit I've never even seen one. Try it with your A7siii.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top