The F3 so far....

J

JCummings

Well-known member
A little over a year ago, after getting a series of requests for Canon 5D jobs, (which I had no interest in doing/not a "real camera") I decided something was happening and pre-ordered the Panasonic AF100 as an "accessory" camera, mainly for interviews and those looking for 5D looks. The idea was the camera would almost be like a lipstick camera...something to compliment my "big" cameras. Not being able to wrap my head around the "crop factor" of the AF, I changed my pre-order to the F3, never imagining that decision would actually begin to pull my business in another direction. It sure has been an interesting year.


It's taken me a little while to get to this point, but after a year living with the F3, I can finally say it is, bar none, the most freaking amazing camera I have ever shot. And that's saying a lot, considering I've been using top-notch ENG cameras since the late 70's. Not only is the camera amazing, but it has fundamentally changed almost every aspect of how I do my work. When I first got the camera, I was concerned about finding "the one" lens that would be as versatile as the excellent wide zooms I've come to rely on for my 2/3" cameras. By now, I realize I had it wrong. Having a case of different lenses forces me to think more and see differently. For the first time in a long time, I feel I'm adding new skills on top of those I already have. For someone that's been doing this work for 33 years, that's a pretty big deal. I haven't felt as satisfied with my work for a long time. And my work has certainly never looked better. Long-time clients have noticed and the F3 is now my busiest camera, by far.


As my run and gun reality/broadcast business has dried up over the last couple of years, (along with my interest with that type of work) I'm starting to wonder why I bother keeping my 2/3" cameras. The work I'm getting these days because of the F3 is of higher quality, and frankly, more fun and challenging from a creative point of view. I love how clients who aren't familiar the F3 are blown away when they first see the image on a monitor. I got a call last week from a first-time client, whose editor was spot-checking the footage after the transfer. The editor had raced out of the edit room to tell my new client how amazing the footage looks. Who doesn't love calls like that.


I also love how I can grab two light panels, and perhaps a small silk and reflector, and make an interview look like something that would have taken hours to achieve not that long ago. I love that I can actually make pretty good looking broll inside without lights, if I'm careful with subject and camera placement. I love having a dozen options for gamma curves that can give me a look instantly or help get me out of a jamb, if needed. I love that I can gain the camera up if needed and shoot cleanly in some of the darkest locations. I love working with clients to create a handcrafted look rather than trying to do the same old thing over and over. Not needing hours to set up and strike a lighting "jungle gym" for an interview in a tired "broadcast look" allows me extra time to give clients more footage along with a great-looking interview. That makes them happy.


Since most of my work now is internal corporate or destined for the web, I have little need for anything other than the internal recorder. I've pitched S-log and external recorders but have yet to have have a single client come back to me after an edit and say they need it. It'll happen, I'm sure. I know there is a lot of gnashing of teeth on here about S-log, 4K, codecs and data rates. But I gotta tell ya, it is a real testament to Sony on just how good this camera looks, natively.
As an ex-ENG guy, it was important to me to configure the F3 as an ENG-style camera as closely as possible. After a year of trial and error (and some serious dough) I finally got the camera setup perfectly for me. I'm not saying mine is the best way...but it was important for me and it works quite well.


So enough about me. I'd love to hear from others about your F3 experience so far. (Especially those here with my same background...)
Cheers-John
 
Very interesting post.

Can I ask about your lenses.

I come from 5d/EX1 and have been wondering the other way - ie to shoot fast stuff I love the EX1 but dislike the look

I have wondered if a 2/3 camera with a really top notch lens is that much worse looking than an S35 with various compromised (yet affordable) zoom lenses.

I think my Ex1 is 1/3 and I wonder if the jump to 2/3+ good lense really opens up a new look or is not worth considering when my FS100 already has the look of an F3, mildly compromised.

Id been wondering about picking up some great old 2/3 camera and lens, I assume at a 'bargain' considering they are not too fashionable.

Put another way - is the f3+(unknown zoom) that much better than a 2/3cam with a great zoom?

Thanks

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Put another way - is the f3+(unknown zoom) that much better than a 2/3cam with a great zoom?
Click to expand...
Yes... but you already know that from the FS100!

If all you want to do is shoot fast, in plenty of light, run'n'gun ENG style then 2/3rd's are great and have served the industry well for many years. But in that case, the PMW-200 with 3x 1/2" Exmor chips might be worth considering as well. It'll be easier to grab a picture with 2/3rd's but it won't be anywhere near the quality of the F3.

I'm totally with JCummings as my experience with the F3 is very similar... after 30 years of camerawork, it's changed the way I shoot and think about shots. It'll cope with almost anything you can imagine and usually produce pictures in excess of that. Truly a great camera.

(If it would only do 50Mb/s I wouldn't have to use a separate recorder!)
 
PaulReam said:
Yes... but you already know that from the FS100!
Click to expand...

I dont know because ive never actually shot 2/3 and a nice lens. I shot 1/3 (1/2?) with a pretty awful fixed on zoom (which appears to be the same as the PMW-200) and bailed out fast to various larger chip cams. 5d/7d/Fs100

If I remember it was you who did the interesing comparison of the 5d vs your ENGcam/Posh Zoom on BMUser ?

With the looks being aquired by the BMC, and various S16 cams (with very posh glass) my interest in smaller formats has been re-awakened.

Now cameras liek the BMC are not really lens friendly in the way that established formats are which has made me think ikonostop, Si-2k or just some old ENG cam that cost F65 money in its day.

Particularly I find a single zoom lens allows concentration/bonding with the subject rather than dinking with a bag of bottle tops

I have not found any S35 zooms that are carryable/affordable

S
 
Last edited:
Well, look no farther than a show like "Top Gear." Shot mostly with 2/3" cameras, it's got a great look, and I would imagine that look is almost entirely created in post. It's not really about the lenses. The F3 could yield a better look but at the cost of not working as fast in the field.
You could easily shoot an entire Top Gear feature with a single wide angle (with a 2X extender) zoom lens . The other real advantage and attraction of 2/3" cameras are the ergonomics: the built-in shoulder pads, broadcast-quality recorders and of course ND filters. It all adds up to unrivaled efficiency in the field.

To me, a great "old" 2/3" camera and lens is only a bargain if you can make money with it. If you mean a used P2 Varicam and wide zoom, it's still gonna cost you at least $30K. For a tape camera, a lot less...
 
So you have lost your unrivalled efficiency in the field and think that is worth it?*

(that is not supposed to be a glib question its a point of genuine interest to me - after mincing with S35 for three years I have thought - "fxck it - why dont I just buy a 'proper' camera?" - so im very interested in the opinions of those moving away from 'proper' cameras)

I think it is those zooms that bring that efficiency BTW, not to mention the shoulder pad et al..

What lenses do you use?

S

*or maybe you now have a wider toolkit - I was very happy shooting 5d with my ex1 close by but could not rely on it alone.
 
Last edited:
I still enjoy a 2/3'' camera having come from those (owned a varicam F and an HPX500) loved those cameras and their skintones were great. There is nothing that beats the quickness of a 2/3" camera and lens. Closest thing I could think would be an Alexa setup with compact agunex zoom, but thats about it.

I do like cine style shooting, but I find it hard to use any kind of camera that uses PL lenses on an ENG type shoot. Events = pain for those kind of cameras. It's possible, but not as easy as with a 2/3" camera.

With all that said, I wouldn't go back to 2/3" lol
 
Morgan, I believe your questions are taking this thread in a different direction than intended by the original poster.

What you're asking about delves into both objective and subjective assessment of the differences between how broadcast 2/3" cameras work, and how large sensor cameras work.

At the root, the larger the sensor, the larger the lens needs to be. With additional size comes additional cost and weight. Also, the larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field.

2/3" has become a broadcast standard because it's a happy medium that allows for relatively lightweight long range zooms with fast apertures. The sensors were large enough for good low light performance (particularly important in the old days, when smaller chips were very noisy), but not so big that keeping focus in uncontrolled shooting environments would be difficult.

That set of qualities lets an operator shoot coverage quickly - and be very efficient.

The Sony EX1, EX3, and PMW-200 all have three 1/2" CMOS chips.

The beauty of S35 cameras like the Sony PMW-F3 isn't efficiency... it's the look. We do everything we can to be as efficient as possible, the tradeoff is in favor of the aesthetic. That aesthetic can mean a different set of clientelle who may pay better, demand less, and love what you do more. The dream - at least from my personal perspective - is to separate yourself from the crowd, to provide a service and product that's unparallelled.

As for zoom lenses on S35 sensors - they tend to be heavy, particularly if they're fast. I have the Sony servo zoom for my F3. It's effective, particularly outdoors, and allows me to move quickly, but it suffers significantly in low light. The shifting aperture can be frustrating. On 2/3" cameras the ENG lenses tend to be fairly fast, and have a constant aperture.
 
Viddovation said:
Morgan, I believe your questions are taking this thread in a different direction than intended by the original poster.

As for zoom lenses on S35 sensors - they tend to be heavy, particularly if they're fast. I have the Sony servo zoom for my F3. It's effective, particularly outdoors, and allows me to move quickly, but it suffers significantly in low light. The shifting aperture can be frustrating. On 2/3" cameras the ENG lenses tend to be fairly fast, and have a constant aperture.
Click to expand...

I hope not. Im just asking questions from the perspective of the S35 shooter, who is considering 2/3 against the trend

The O/P is a 2/3 shooter who has moved to S35, he also has deep production experience so I value his opinions highly

I have the same sony zoom (but for the FS - same glass however) and find it to be an extreme compromise, part of the very process that got me interested in cameras that have smaller sensors and fast zooms and maybe global shutter too.

Considering that I own S35 it is very encouraging to hear an experienced 2/3 shooter bigging up S35 I would just like to hear him expand a little more on that

"It is a good solution", or "it is a good solution as part of my package of cameras" ?

While he maybe able to afford to be in both systems I cannot - which would he choose restricted to one system?

S
 
Last edited:
Hey Sam-I have come to the point where I feel I can use the F3 for 90% of the work I do. I wouldn't want to do a run and gun reality show with it (which used to be my bread and butter) but I don't do those shoots anymore.
So I have two 2/3" cams lying around waiting for that occasional job the F3 just won't handle. Probably not enough reason to keep them. I'd rather take those moldering assets and use the proceeds to beef up my lens package.
My lenses now are all PL's: 3 CP2's (35-50-85) a Duclos 11-16 and a Red 18-50. Hopefully that'll answer most of your questions. Perhaps you could start a new thread of your own about going 2/3" against the trend.
 
morgan_moore said:
I have the same sony zoom (but for the FS - same glass however) and find it to be an extreme compromise, part of the very process that got me interested in cameras that have smaller sensors and fast zooms and maybe global shutter too.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge there isn't an optical equivalent to the Sony SCL-Z18X140 Servo Zoom lens being marketed for the FS100. The SCL-Z18X140 is an 18mm to 252mm lens - the FS100 kit lens is only 18mm to 200mm.

morgan_moore said:
While he maybe able to afford to be in both systems I cannot - which would he choose restricted to one system?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for John, but speaking for myself - it's a business, and I choose to own tools that make me money and brand my business positively. If you can't afford both an S35 and a 2/3" system, then I'd look at who your clients are, and which one stands to make you more money - and which style you'd rather have on your reel. But, there's always rentals. Just build it in the budget you charge the client.''
 
Viddovation said:
To my knowledge there isn't an optical equivalent to the Sony SCL-Z18X140 Servo Zoom lens being marketed for the FS100. The SCL-Z18X140 is an 18mm to 252mm lens - the FS100 kit lens is only 18mm to 200mm.


I can't speak for John, but speaking for myself - it's a business, and I choose to own tools that make me money and brand my business positively. If you can't afford both an S35 and a 2/3" system, then I'd look at who your clients are, and which one stands to make you more money - and which style you'd rather have on your reel. But, there's always rentals. Just build it in the budget you charge the client.''
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the lens, but my point stands - the lens (neither) are pretty ropey spec wise - and they have to be to cover a huge chip while keeping size/mass/cost down.

I wonder if the limiting factor (aesthetically) for ENG work is not the chip size, as widely believed, but actually the glass size that is practical, (I consider RRP 18-85 'not practical' for example) hence my interest in smaller formats and better lenses.

Business model. Good point. Rental - not that practical in my location - I am the informal rental house!

S
 
morgan_moore said:
I wonder if the limiting factor (aesthetically) for ENG work is not the chip size, as widely believed, but actually the glass size that is practical, (I consider RRP 18-85 'not practical' for example) hence my interest in smaller formats and better lenses.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to suggest. Depth of field is determined by focal length, image plane size (chip size), and aperture. It's essentially a mathematical equation. Making heavier, faster 2/3" lenses isn't going to compensate for the difference in image plane size between 2/3" and S35.
 
No. 1/2 is often available around T2, is it not, at a managable size

With S35 you are presented with a monster lens or F6.3 or suchlike if using a zoom that is managable like our Sony lenses

So while S35 has less dof, more sensitivity one is hampered (if using a zoom) with 6.3 or the like losing some of that 'gain'

This makes the trade off smaller .. ie less in favour of S35

How much smaller in reality is what I am asking from those who, unlike me, have 2/3-fast zoom combinations.

S
 
Well, it's more complicated than that.

Weight, cost, speed.

The Angenieux Optimo 24-290mm Zoom Lens for instance, is a constant T2.8 for S35, but it weighs 25 pounds and costs - heck, I can't even find a price for it. $550 a day to rent though.

But that's for a monster zoom range. If you don't need as much zoom range, the Optimo Rogues are good at about T2.8

And Fuji has a $38k 19-90mm T2.9 servo control S35 zoom.

Use the right tool for the job.

What tool you use really ought to depend on what the client needs.
 
Exactly. And maybe our OP has one of these lenses and the muscle to move it (a compromise in itself no doubt), or maybe not, and if not he has 'compromised' in other ways, but how? and to what extent to those compromises out weigh the advantages?

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top