Why isn't the F3 more popular?

Richard Allen Crook

Richard Allen Crook

Well-known member
My choice to purchase the F3 was made for many reasons, mainly because of the 10bit and dynamic range. It's truly a cinema camera....and as a colorist as well, the dynamic range is a dream to grade, even more so than RED cam IMO. Of course this is all very subjective. But these two digital cameras aren't vastly different in quality in the end when you look at the big picture.

But every time I turn around, everyone is about Red. "looking for DP with Red package...etc" is what I read in ads. More mainstream films being shot on it. A local DP was hired over me (whose work is, sorry to say, much less advanced) because his mom bought him an Epic.

I like the Red, but my preference is dynamic range over resolution. Both of those cameras are pretty damn close as far as what you can get from them. Feature films can be shot on either.

Im not being hung up on Red...just using that as an example. There's a lot of Alexa out there recently too among other digital cameras.

My question is why aren't we seeing any F3 stuff popping up on the big screen? Why don't we see people looking for F3 owner/operators? Why do I have to explain to directors why the F3 is even in the same league as a red camera? Is it simply due to marketing?

And PLEASE I'm not wanting to stir up ANOTHER this camera vs. that camera debate here. I'm not saying the F3 is the best cam out there, I'm just wondering why it isn't as popular as many others out there since its a more-than-capable camera.
 
Jim J. is very good at marketing hype and the Red camera line does have the advantage of resolution. Red, Alexa and F3 all of RAW of sorts and better than 10 bit color.

My standard response when someone says they want a Red camera for the shoot, but they are looking for bang for the buck, is:

1) Stories are not told with resolution.

2) Better low light abilities mean less lost shots and therefore lower production costs. (The F3 does MUCH better in low light.)

3) Better dynamic range means less lost shots and therefore lower production costs.

4) All the top award winning movies shot on digital cameras were shot in 1080p. (Avatar, Star Wars, Benjamin Button, Slum Dog Millionaire, etc.)

5) For rich vibrant images the Red, Alexa and F3 can be intercut in most instances. Why not put your money in front of the camera for a better production
value?

6) The scarlet isn't really a 4K camera. You end up with ~2.2k resolution and 1920 isn't that different.

My short answer is, the F3 stuff is in the indie theaters. Mine is anyway.
 
I think you hit the nail most closely on the head with the marketing aspect, Richard--and that, in this day and age, includes the type of publicity that money can't buy, which is the viral-style promotion by owners and users and fans of RED cameras. The REDOne was, in retrospect, revolutionary in its effect on the camera industry in that it forced all camera manufacturers to rethink their product lines, feature set and price points in order to compete. It's quite unlikely that "affordable" 35mm sensor cameras from mainstream manufacturers (including the F3) would not have emerged without the success of RED. Independent and low budget producers (of whom there are many more than used to be) caught on quickly that it was a lot cheaper to hire a guy with a RED than to go through a rental house, so it became the go-to camera for many productions. Few of these producers are even aware of the F3 and what it can do. Sony has done very little to promote the F3 in this regard, partially because they believe they need to protect their high-end product line. At this point, I'd rather shoot with an F3 than an F35, because for the price difference I can add more things to my camera package and the F35 adds very little (if anything) to the final image quality. Certainly the need for outboard recording when using S-log is an irritant, but the pictures are solid and as you said, it's more than capable.

There are two factors that moved me away from RED products, after several jobs with them with similar results. Reliability of the camera itself (too many time-consuming issues on set) and reported problems with the post workflow. To be fair, I haven't yet done a job with the Epic and I hear both good and bad things from my colleagues--but unless I need the specific feature set or resolution of that camera for a given job, I'll pass for now since there are other options out there that I prefer. [EDIT: Looks like I have a pilot next month that will be a good fit for Epic, so there you go!]

When I started the Comedy Central series I currently shoot (search this site for "Key & Peele" for clips and pics) one of the first conversations I had with the producers was on my camera of choice; they were relieved to hear that I wasn't a RED fan. I had exactly the same conversation regarding my last feature--this sentiment is indeed out there, meaning there are plenty of producers who have been burned. For the first season, I went with the F3 and it performed extremely well. Of note: Sony was going to do promo on the show and to date I have seen nothing, although I heard there was a blurb in a brochure somewhere. I don't happen to have a blog or twitter account where I post camera porn so the internet wasn't lit up with the, uh, ground-breaking news that the F3 was being used to shoot a scripted network series (basic-cable network, but still). Is it possible that F3 owners and users are just a little less noisy about it than RED owners and users??!! In my case, I'm not a brand-loyalist and use whatever camera is right for the job that is available at the time and fits the budget. For season two of the show I was able to move us up to Alexa's which is my current favorite. Next year, maybe I'll want to use the F65, or the C500...who knows.

Would I use the F3 on a feature? Possibly, although I still haven't seen a comprehensive configuration of that camera that includes a robust viewfinder solution and I wish the internal recording could get the job done more effectively. Would I choose it over a RED? Certainly over a R1 or a Scarlet, maybe not an Epic--then again, maybe I would.
 
Last edited:
As an owner of both, I like them both for different reasons. Sony is better in low-light and less noise, but shooting is RAW is the Holy Grail as far as I'm concerned, AS LONG AS YOU ARE EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THE POST ISSUES!

The Red addresses issues as Charles mentioned that could be deal-killers for some shooting F3: good internal recording system/files (no external add-ons), adequate viewfinder and monitoring, very useful exposure tools, higher frame rates, the PL mount is better (and passes-on and records lens data), very usable mount for Canon EF lenses and soon Nikon, 4K *is* viable and very useful for reframing and or image stabilization, a very good grading/post tool, and most importantly as far as I'm concerned a very attuned r&d team that actually seems to respond AND reward those who invest with them. Sony--are you listening to a dude who paid FULL PRICE FOR SLOG, WHICH IS NOW FREE--not cool.

I love my F3 and am finding the Scarlet to be a very different tool, but it's really growing on me too. Both of them are capable of shooting images that amaze and astound pixel-peepers.
A note: if your normal recording needs are 1080 and you're hooking an external recorder to a Red, it's just PLAIN SILLY--might was well shoot F3.
 
Charles Im so glad you posted in this thread. Your Key & Peele images are probably the best from the F3 I've seen so far. Excellent points, and it's interesting to hear that some producers actually understand that the Red isn't the best choice for every production. It seems the maketing is simply not there enough to compete with the constant bombardment from the other companies. Perhaps the F3 will see it's day, but I'm betting it will come in the form of the F5 or whatever comes next. The same thing happened toe fs100. That cam didn't eat the buzz but the fs700 did. I also agree that the off board recorder is a pain, and if they can get 10bit s-log to the internal media that would be huge.

Duke your points are awesome and I'll remember that next time I need to negotiate with a producer. Sucks when a producer/director decides on a camera before hiring a DP. Those bass-ackward situations SHOULD be a red flag to us when we are deciding to take the job or not. But when money talks we keep taking them...lol!
 
LeavingTheCandy said:
RAW is the Holy Grail as far as I'm concerned, AS LONG AS YOU ARE EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THE POST ISSUES!
Click to expand...

You really think so? As a colorist as well as DP, i was surprised when I started working with 10bit s-log. I feel that due to the higher DR I can push and pull the F3 stuff a lot further, there's more information and less noise, and also less chance of blown highlights and crushed shadows. On the flip side, raw is really nice when the camera wasn't set to the right ISO or Color Temp or other settings, but it doesn't add more info (hdr) to the image nor can you correct aperture errors. I'm not disagreeing that raw is pretty damn nice, but I don't think it give one more room than dynamic range does. I think the 12 bit is more useful than the raw is in the Red camera. But this is just my opinion from coloring a lot of Red and s-log. Thanks for your input. You bring up great points like the free slog debacle which I agree is pretty crappy!
 
Richard Allen Crook said:
You really think so? As a colorist as well as DP, i was surprised when I started working with 10bit s-log. I feel that due to the higher DR I can push and pull the F3 stuff a lot further, there's more information and less noise, and also less chance of blown highlights and crushed shadows. On the flip side, raw is really nice when the camera wasn't set to the right ISO or Color Temp or other settings, but it doesn't add more info (hdr) to the image nor can you correct aperture errors. I'm not disagreeing that raw is pretty damn nice, but I don't think it give one more room than dynamic range does. I think the 12 bit is more useful than the raw is in the Red camera. But this is just my opinion from coloring a lot of Red and s-log. Thanks for your input. You bring up great points like the free slog debacle which I agree is pretty crappy!
Click to expand...

As a DP/Colorist myself, and having used both cameras, I think that the Red Raw holds range much better than the F3, even with the log.

To each their own.
 
RED has been in the lower priced end of the market for a lot longer than Sony or anyone else. They basically created it. As far as pricing goes the F35 was in a whole different universe, compared to the relatively affordable Red ONE. So, RED built a large following of enthusiastic owner / operators, particularly in the indie market. The camera may have been quirky, but it worked and for a long time it was the only game in town, unless you shot film or rented a D-21 or Viper. Consequently for producers, if you weren't shooting film the alternative was a Red ONE. You also have to give RED credit for being very aggressive, if not always very professional or mature in their marketing efforts. They sold the living daylights out of that camera.

I ended up buying an F3 instead of a Scarlet, for several reasons.

The F3 has greater dynamic range. That is by far more important to me than resolution. HDRx is a mixed bag of goods and not without restrictions.
The F3 has better lowlight performance.
I like the F3 skin tones.
The F3 is not in perpetual BETA and Sony isn't in the habit of announcing products long before they are ready (although RED is much better about that now).
The F3 workflow with slog seems a lot more straightforward.
Using a P+S Technik adapter I could use both PL and BNCR lenses with little hassle.

On a personal note RED turns me off with their juvenile attitude. I wanted to buy a camera, not join a fraternity or a cult. I have no use for the skulls, tattoo art and extreme everything. Reduser.net reminds me a little of a visit to the island in 'Lord of the Flies'. Certainly not all, but far too many RED enthusiasts seem to confuse their camera (or Jim) with their girlfriend or boyfriend. Both the Epic and Scarlet are very good and very capable cameras, but I just can't deal with the circus that goes along with them. Also having something of a background in industrial design, I'm really not too crazy about the pseudo military styling of everything, that makes their gear look like it was designed by a 16 year old boy with a hormone disorder.
 
Great post Harry--made me laugh a few times!

As far as I'm concerned, owning a particular camera is neither a badge of honor nor a membership into a club. It's just a piece of gear that gets the job done. I don't begrudge RED owners or users their satisfaction in the product. I would however like to see a professionally-oriented support system for their gear other than reduser, which is far too exhausting (and frankly irritating) to weed through.

I feel like I can wrestle decent images out of most cameras on the market--there's a lot of solid choices these days. Some are just easier to deal with than others.
 
Richard, I think when it comes to marketing yourself (and your camera, if you only use the one), the best thing to do is to let your demo reel do the talking. When that doesn't work, and when you bump up against things like the Red 4K marketing hyperbole, your best bet is to simply quote out in full the additional post-production costs of handling, processing and storing RAW footage.

It's the reason I'm yet to actually shoot a project in RedcodeRAW, on each of the 4 projects I've shot with Red cameras (Red One and Epic) we've ended up recording to ProRes on external recorders because the client hasn't wanted to pay for the additional costs in post (after I've explained them in detail).

As for the F3's popularity, I gather it's actually very popular (with external recorders) for TV production (if not feature films). It's just been Sony's loss that they crippled the camera (in most broadcast people's eyes) by putting a 35Mbs codec in it, rather than the broadcast approved 50Mbs codec found in their shoulder-mounted XDCAM range. It's for that reason the C300 is going like the clackers for broadcast production at the moment.
 
For me one large reason to prefer the F3 is that here we can talk about the pros and cons of each camera and not have it become a flame war.

On Reduser if you dare to say any camera is better than any Red camera its as though you insulted their girlfriend when it's simple physics. If you put more photo sites on the same size sensor the photo sites have to be smaller = less low light sensitivity.

When Philip Bloom sent his new Red cameras back to Red Camera company (because all the footage around a campfire was useless while the F3 footage was perfect) you'd have thought he was an assassin aiming at the queen.

I'm small and indie. This tool means I can spend less time and money on lighting. Sure I still use lights, but its less fussy=less crew and a smaller package. If you have a 10 million dollar budget, great. Different tools for different jobs is all.
 
It would be good to hear from Timur Civan on this.

He liked the F3 and then also got a Scarlet. He's recently added an Epic into his camera kit.

So his views would be interesting :)
 
Good points! Again I don't want to make this about bashing Red or this camera vs that camera. All these cameras are fantastic. I'm just bringing up the fact that the F3 just doesn't have the buzz like these cameras, nor do I see it being used on more mainstream films and tv...and wondering why.

So far in the discussion it seems the marketing and the limitation of the onboard codec are the primary culprits.
 
one camera is not the best for every job. Each job should dictate the camera. I own 2 f3s, but will try to shoot on Red when I want the resolution for image stabilization or the Alexa when there is a decent crew for it. The F3 is by far, the best run and gun cinema camera I have ever used. So I use it a lot. Do I like the imagery I get out of it. Yes. Sometimes I wish it had more native resolution but for me, I can't think of a more energy efficient, light-weight camera that gets a damn beautiful look. Plus it has built in ND filters! Yes for that. But Red is wonderful too. I love a lot of the things I've seen shot on red. Why can't we all get along?

I think people get turned off that you want to ideally use an external recorder with it. And the C300 is well, Canon has so much hype right now because everyone and their mother shoots with the 5d.

I don't like the C300 - sorry C300 lovers. I don't like the image out of it. To me, it feels too much like the image out of the 5d. Am I giving it a chance? No, not really.

But I own 3 F3s and I don't really see the need to grab a C300 so I'm not that curious at seeing stuff out of it that looks amazing - and I am quite sure there is a lot of stuff done really damn well on it.

For now, the F3 works for me. And what I am more interested in is learning how to light better, move the camera better, get better performances, and play with different lenses and getting good color and exposure out of it.
 
eddavid said:
one camera is not the best for every job. Each job should dictate the camera. I own 2 f3s, but will try to shoot on Red when I want the resolution for image stabilization or the Alexa when there is a decent crew for it. The F3 is by far, the best run and gun cinema camera I have ever used. So I use it a lot. Do I like the imagery I get out of it. Yes. Sometimes I wish it had more native resolution but for me, I can't think of a more energy efficient, light-weight camera that gets a damn beautiful look. But Red is wonderful too. I love a lot of the things I've seen shot on red. Why can't we all get along?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would disagree with you...there isn't one camera for every job. The point of this thread (at least what I'm trying to keep it as) is to ascertain why the f3, which I agree with you is a very capable camera, isn't as popular and full of industry buzz like many other cameras. So far it seems to be marketing and the onboard codec mainly. What do you think?

<EDIT> haha looks like you edited your post...and that you and I are on the same page. But why do you supposed out F3s aren't as sought after by producers and directors?
 
Last edited:
it's actually used pretty often in episodic work right now...I've seen TONS of f3 rigs on episodic production. Saw two pairs of stereoscopic f3 setups shooting at the indy 500 last year.

They're out there and being used...however there is no "group of enthusiastic followers" (that's politically correct, right?) to make 5 blog posts and marketing campaign out of every shoot they are used on, so the internet generally doesn't hear about it. No offense but yeah...they're out there
 
Fohdeesha said:
it's actually used pretty often in episodic work right now...I've seen TONS of f3 rigs on episodic production. Saw two pairs of stereoscopic f3 setups shooting at the indy 500 last year.

They're out there and being used...however there is no "group of enthusiastic followers" (that's politically correct, right?) to make 5 blog posts and marketing campaign out of every shoot they are used on, so the internet generally doesn't hear about it. No offense but yeah...they're out there
Click to expand...

Hey Jon! Which episodic tv shows is the F3 used on? I can't find any, would love to check them out. I'm episodic tv stupid as I rarely watch any of it, lol. And no I'm not offended, why would I be? Good point though that F3 users are a little more above all the hype and pretentiousness, therefore it's not more well known in general. :) good luck tomorrow by the way my friend.
 
I honestly haven't heard of any episodic shows using the F3 other than mine--I know it was used for "No Reservations". They may well be out there, but I would be surprised if was anywhere near a "ton"...!

Actually--I'm even stretching it to call Key & Peele "episodic"--it's more officially comedy/variety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top