Sony politic & F3 S-log... 3200$ for a firmware upgrade, what to think about?

V

vincent thomas

Well-known member
While Sony finally managed to get back my intention with the F3 , F100 and recent S-log upgrade, im not sure i share the same enthusiast to read they are asking more than 3000 $ for just a firmware upgrade while RED and Canon have both shown extensive free support and upgrade in the last 2 years... Red is indeed the champion for this with even possible hardware upgrade options

So Am i the only one not to agree about Sony's politic?

__________________________________________________________
Vincent Thomas
Artist for Film / Photograph & Creative Director
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/
__________________________________________________________
 
Chances are, you're not the only one. But honestly, talking about it here isn't likely to do anything to help. I'd suggest contacting Sony directly (and encouraging others to do so) if you want this policy to be addressed.
 
vincent thomas said:
While Sony finally managed to get back my intention with the F3 , F100 and recent S-log upgrade, im not sure i share the same enthusiast to read they are asking more than 3000 $ for just a firmware upgrade while RED and Canon have both shown extensive free support and upgrade in the last 2 years... Red is indeed the champion for this with even possible hardware upgrade options

So Am i the only one not to agree about Sony's politic?
Click to expand...

This is like complaining that some apples are sold with free cake, but oranges aren't.

Of course I'm not enthusiastic to spend an "extra" $3,300 on firmware... but I am sure as hell am enthusiastic that there's a $16,600 camera on the market that supports an S-Log workflow.
 
I have a feeling that if you've spent 16,000 on a camera, another 3000 isn't going to break your bank. And I have another feeling that those clamoring the loudest about the 3000 probably don't own the camera.
 
By common sence, I just can't stop asking myself why a company like Sony with much more financial ressources than Red for example, can not follow the same example... Maybe for you and your wallet it's not, but 3300$ for a firmware upgrade sounds a little abusing to me and is a considerable money for indie filmmakers.

Sony listen to these forum, so for the all community it's great to talk freely and honestly
 
I don't see why you have to own the camera to talk about this question. Then if i follow this king of logic, owning equipement doesn't proove anything. Neither your talent, previous experience or achievements

Isaac_Brody said:
I have a feeling that if you've spent 16,000 on a camera, another 3000 isn't going to break your bank. And I have another feeling that those clamoring the loudest about the 3000 probably don't own the camera.
Click to expand...
 
vincent thomas said:
By common sence, I just can't stop asking myself why a company like Sony with much more financial ressources than Red for example, can not follow the same example... Maybe for you and your wallet it's not, but 3300$ for a firmware upgrade sounds a little abusing to me and is a considerable money for indie filmmakers.

Sony listen to these forum, so for the all community it's great to talk freely and honestly
Click to expand...

This is such a glass half empty way of looking at it. What if I told you Sony had an amazing $16,600 camera with 4:4:4 and S-Log, but if you're the sort of indie filmmaker who doesn't need those features, they'll cut you a break and give you a $3,300 discount, and they'll let you upgrade when you're ready?

Seriously, S-Log and 4:4:4 has never been available at this pricepoint. Even a RED One body was priced at $17,500 before accessories - and that's a completely different workflow. S-Log and 4:4:4 has been relegated to 100k+ cameras, now the price is under 20k, and you're going to complain that Sony is abusing you?

The fact is, you can still shoot amazing pictures using the cinegammas and picture profiles provided in the base price of $13,300.

For non owners this point is really not a big deal - as soon as the firmware is out, you can expect that the rental houses will apply it to their cameras, and competition means you won't pay significantly more to rent an S-Log enabled camera than one that isn't.

For owners, pay for what you need.

I've shot 3 features on the internal XDCAM-EX using the cinegammas and tweaked picture profiles. Preferable? No. But servicable. And content is what will determine the fate of your indie feature, not the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:4:4.
 
We have to first understand that the cost of camera is largely in the R&D and development of the camera, not in the actual cost of the hardware.

In fact, the actual physical cost of the camera (bill of materials) is very low, we are talking hundreds, if not low-thousands of dollars. This is the same with Red's Epic, Arri's Alexa, or any other electronic device of its relative size. There is nothing to substantiate why the Epic or Alexa would cost more than an F3 or even AF100 from a mere materials costs perspective.

This is true for all low-volume professional equipment, but we need to consider the overall cost of development divided by what they expect to sell. Engineers, and the large array of people that it takes to bring a product to market, don't work for free. This is the reason why professionals get dedicated equipment designed specifically for professional needs even when volume is low.

From a marketing perspective, I understand why charging $3.5k for software sounds preposterous, if they put it on a $8 flash memory is $20 fancy metal or wooden case they shipped to users it would probably placate a lot of consumers. As consumers want a physical manifestation of their purchase. But the fact is you're paying for the actual feature, and the money it took to develop it, not some chunk of metal or plastic.

I think Sony decided on making the F3 a ~$13k camera, and adding a $3.5k upgrade for people who want it, rather than making it a $16~20k camera for everyone.
 
If you are contemplating slog and your clients are demanding it, $3,000 is peanuts.

No one "deserves" to get added features for free.
 
upgrade is jus software? i thought there was also hardware?
anyway, at 16000, its still cheaper than red and it performs really well at 1080
 
Furthermore, if it is solely a firmware update, and the physical hardware is already in the camera, then it ought to be legal to write your own firmware from scratch (ala Magic Lantern) to make use of the existing hardware capabilities of the camera. So, if you really want to avoid paying $3,300 for software coded and tested by Sony, you could always try writing you own.

(Please note: this is entirely different from "cracking" or illegally duplicating the official Sony update, which would be outright piracy)
 
I think that the only problem here was the marketing. The camera is sold currently stating slog is a feature of the camera, but it doesn't say it needs 3500 dollars for slog. It probably does in a "fine print" kind of manner, but it does feel like it's integral to the camera for the buyer. However - unless canon in the upcoming 2 months comes up with a 10bit hdsdi with technicolor cine style log apsc (or h) video camera with interchangeable lenses and internal 4:2:2 recording for 10k, which is very possible- the f3 is in a class o its own, and 17k- because 13300+3500= 16800, is still the least expensive camera to get 4:4:4 in the market. Canon, however, has the ball on their court. Now, a question to all of you- what if Panasonic introduced a p2 version of the af100 with internal 10bit avcintra, keeping the 1080p60 slowmotion, adding 100fps 720p, the cinegamma curves of the 3700, and 10bit 4:2:2 out for 10k? Now that I would buy, no questions asked. Jan, are you listening? :)
 
Marketing: I thought it was abundantly clear that the camera would not shoot S-Log or 4:4:4 out of the box, and that the upgrade would be paid.

Red: Red so under delivered on the first Red One that they really had to give upgrades for free. I don't think the $5K MX sensor upgrade equals the cost of sensor plus labor. Don't get me wrong, the Red One is now a very nice camera and Red has certainly changed the way things are done.


I'm happy Sony is charging. I think that people need to get paid. Which means people need to be charged.
 
I think lots of people will want S-Log for 10bit 4:2:2 and fewer will use 4:4:4. I wish they would make S-Log part of the free upgrade and as it is apparently only a gamma curve don't see why they couldn't (though marrying it with a LUT may be more complicated.)
 
Viddovation said:
Furthermore, if it is solely a firmware update, and the physical hardware is already in the camera, then it ought to be legal to write your own firmware from scratch (ala Magic Lantern) to make use of the existing hardware capabilities of the camera. So, if you really want to avoid paying $3,300 for software coded and tested by Sony, you could always try writing you own.

(Please note: this is entirely different from "cracking" or illegally duplicating the official Sony update, which would be outright piracy)
Click to expand...

The economics of professional equipment is very different from consumer cameras.

The F3 is equipment designed for professionals, probably with the sales calculated in the high four digits, possibly low-five digits. I would think that professionals would have a lot better use of their time than to re-write firmware that is easily available for $3.5K. Time is money (and this isn't changing bit-rates like the GH13, implementing an S-Log gamma profile from scratch is a significant undertaking).

And again, for professional equipment, you really aren't paying for hardware, you're paying for technology.

The F3 costs as much as a subcompact car, the Epic and Arri cost as much as luxury automobile or an entry-level Porsche. Do people really believe that it costs Sony, Red, or Arri anywhere near what they charge in terms of hardware costs? Keep in mind, even automobile makers make money off the cars they sell.

I'm guessing the Red Epic likely costs a few thousand to make, if that, and they sell it for $60k at this early stage. Its not highway robbery, the cost of developing equipment is where the cost is at. Its priced that way for a reason. Its an expensive undertaking developing a camera. You're paying for the technology.

I remember talking to a Hasselblad representative a few years back, and I was told that their digital backs (which cost $30k+) barely hits four digits in terms of overall sales volume.

From a marketing perspective, Sony should have just sold another camera, called the "F4" or "F3s" or something, for $20k and essentially be an F3 with the S-Log firmware and have some cosmetic differences, and not offer the S-log upgrade to F3 owners. Its a common tactic used among camera makers. It would have at least stopped people complaining about an optional upgrade to the F3.
 
LeavingTheCandy said:
I wonder how many people REALLY need S-Log /4:4:4 and have clients willing to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I would need it at least 4 times a month.


You cant just give everything away for free. I should shoot for free cause the guy in the next town is a fool and does so? The restaurant should give away free french fries with its burger? ( i mean the potatoes are already in the kitchen..... ) This sentiment gives no respect to the people who sat there and built ROCKSOLID software with almost no bugs, that will perform time and time again.
 
Steve Castle said:
The economics of professional equipment is very different from consumer cameras.

The F3 is equipment designed for professionals, probably with the sales calculated in the high four digits, possibly low-five digits. I would think that professionals would have a lot better use of their time than to re-write firmware that is easily available for $3.5K. Time is money (and this isn't changing bit-rates like the GH13, implementing an S-Log gamma profile from scratch is a significant undertaking).

And again, for professional equipment, you really aren't paying for hardware, you're paying for technology.

The F3 costs as much as a subcompact car, the Epic and Arri cost as much as luxury automobile or an entry-level Porsche. Do people really believe that it costs Sony, Red, or Arri anywhere near what they charge in terms of hardware costs? Keep in mind, even automobile makers make money off the cars they sell.

I'm guessing the Red Epic likely costs a few thousand to make, if that, and they sell it for $60k at this early stage. Its not highway robbery, the cost of developing equipment is where the cost is at. Its priced that way for a reason. Its an expensive undertaking developing a camera. You're paying for the technology.

I remember talking to a Hasselblad representative a few years back, and I was told that their digital backs (which cost $30k+) barely hits four digits in terms of overall sales volume.

From a marketing perspective, Sony should have just sold another camera, called the "F4" or "F3s" or something, for $20k and essentially be an F3 with the S-Log firmware and have some cosmetic differences, and not offer the S-log upgrade to F3 owners. Its a common tactic used among camera makers. It would have at least stopped people complaining about an optional upgrade to the F3.
Click to expand...

Steve, I agree with you entirely. I was being facetious, with the original poster in mind. I beleive my point is legally valid, but I for one would much rather pay for the work Sony has done than try to save money on a very reasonably priced upgrade.
 
While I wish the firmware upgrade was a little cheaper ($2,000 would be nicer), I'm very happy we are getting access to the camera 6 months earlier than the 4.4.4 update is available, and I'm very happy to buy the camera for $13,300 and upgrade later when I need it.

At very least people can earn money with it now to pay for the upgrade.

I don't view the upgrade as a bad thing, its a good option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top