F65: Why the F65 is better than the F35

M

MeesePiece

Carbonite Member
So I've been shooting a feature with it. Here's what I think:

PROs for F65
- more inherient resolution - I'm using a tiffen digital diffusion 1/4 and 1/2 filter with it and softening slightly in resolve. But still the extra resolution means that faces pop out more - no artifacts at all in borders and inherient resolution that is there.
- more dynamic range - more information in shadows, and holds the skies nicely. the info in the shadows helps if you underexpose.
- built in NDs.
- 120 FPS
- raw recording - get away from slog, sgamut, etc - 16-bit color space and more of a paint bucket to play with. More subtlety to skintone.
- 800 asa
- noise on it I think is more filmic
- mechanical shutter gives motion an organic feeling
- Doesn't require the Odyssey workflow - it's all built-in, so more reliable and less variables for random issues to occur.
- Has been around since 2012, not since 2008 - so ideally on the units there is less wear and tear on them.

PROs for f35
- cheaper
- lighter
- less battery consumption
-very organic looking color out the bat.


In the end, the f35 you can get for about 5-6k right now and 10k to get working, the f65 with all media card reader, etc is more like 35k-45k. So of course, value wise, the F35 wins.

Do I prefer the camera over the alexa - yes - I feel that the image has more meat on it. But I haven't done f65 vs alexa tests. It feels like the red's resolution which I love with very natural skintones like the alexa.
Why did this camera fail? The alexa had that easy workflow while it took I think 3 years for the f65 to get its act together. Also I don't know if raw light was available at first.

Should more people give this camera a chance? Yes.

Still, most people will prefer the alexa mini or the red dragon, etc - cause this guy is 20 lb, and eats up a ton of batteries. So for small, fast moving productions, it is more annoying.
 
Last edited:
They were actually going to produce a version without the mechanical shutter originally, but it never happened
 
MeesePiece said:
But maybe Sony is done with the high end camera business. The FS7 is probably killing it in sales.
Click to expand...

I think that overall the F55 must have killed it first. It's form factor was superior, and it didn't cause the same shocking storage problems the F65 did while still shooting 4K and had a global shutter. The FS7 is more of a C300 killer, fixing all the FS700's problems while outclassing the C300 Mk2. I don't think they saw the F65 worthy of continued investment, it was like the exact opposite of what happened with Arri and the Alexa and it's runaway success (same sensor still, how many iterations?). I think they'll probably come out with another cinema camera when true 8K comes about, or maybe they're secretly working on the Panavision again on the 70mm Digital.

JMtheDP said:
They were actually going to produce a version without the mechanical shutter originally, but it never happened
Click to expand...

It would have been a good move, it's still a good sensor that's ahead of it's time.
 
zoo10458.jpgDream camera Sony never produced, years before the Alexa Mini.

The title of this thread is a little silly.
 
JMtheDP said:
They were actually going to produce a version without the mechanical shutter originally, but it never happened
Click to expand...
I was among those who advised against it. Better to include the mechanical shutter at the same price of what the no shutter version was going to cost and eliminate the lesser model. Funny thing is that the multichannel sensor scan is so fast that it's incredibly difficult to create skew or other rolling shutter artifacts on the F65 sensor with the mechanical shutter disengaged.
 
Hmmmm....the F65 is better than the F35 you say?

Yup...pretty sure that STUPENDOUS is indeed better than OUTSTANDING.

That's my take on these two cameras.
 
The odds of Sony coming out with another "best in class" type camera are above 1/1. The question is indeed "when", not "if".
 
S.Blanchardon said:
I agree. NAB or IBC this year ?

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr2-possible-8k-cine-alta-sony-camera-specs/
Click to expand...
I don't think it'll be based on A7RII, though, making that a low probability rumor. Maybe an FS7II will come out at some point using the A6300 tech (with a pro codec, naturally)

As to the "best in class", it will obviously be 8K - they have a 6K sensor camera available for a grand! - but also either a Full Frame/VistaVision a la Red Weapon or Medium Format a la Arri Alexa65 or maybe even both. I doubt the just want to cede the throne to ARRI with the 65mm format. Besides, Sony actually makes a 50 MPX MF piece already for Pentax 645Z (which is priced at $7,000 now, already $3,000 off its original MAP) and a 100 MPX FF one for ... Phase One. With the last one, it won't even have to make a 4:2:0 8K type with "only" 33 MPX camera, as they can go straight up to 66 MPX for 4:2:2. F65, just to bring this back sort of on topic, has a 17.6 MPX 4K sensor (a different pattern from "pure" Bayer), which is 4Kx2.
 
I would think that whenever Sony brings out its next top-of-the-line camera it will have its own unique sensor design. Historically that is what they have always done. The F35 sensor is unique, as is the F65. Such a level of camera is a showpiece. Sony develops the technology for the top level camera and charges a huge amount for the select group who want it. Then that tech trickles down into the rest of their line.

BTW, NO I'm NOT giving away any inside knowledge about NAB or beyond here. I'm talking from observation and experience. Other stuff that I do know, well I'll just keep quiet about that. ;-)
 
I much prefer the F35's CCD look and softer feel.

Here is a short that Vilmos Zsigmond shot on the F65: https://vimeo.com/50643185

He was later quoted (in fairness, talking about digital in general):
““Too sharp, too much detail in the faces and all that. The faces sometimes look terrible. We need to diffuse them.”
 
MikalZ said:
... He was later quoted (in fairness, talking about digital in general):
““Too sharp, too much detail in the faces and all that. The faces sometimes look terrible. We need to diffuse them.”
Click to expand...

For the longest time, the argument against digital from many established DP's was that it lacked the resolution of a 35mm film, which the early generations of cameras, with their 1080p sensors, certainly did. Now, the oft repeated refrain is that they're too sharp! Regardless, the battle is basically over. With the exception of a few remaining high budget features, everything is done on digital, which beats film on everything except the dynamic range. And that will be the next technological step anyway .... which may or may not begin with the F65 replacement in the Sony cinema lineup.
 
DLD said:
For the longest time, the argument against digital from many established DP's was that it lacked the resolution of a 35mm film, which the early generations of cameras, with their 1080p sensors, certainly did. Now, the oft repeated refrain is that they're too sharp! Regardless, the battle is basically over. With the exception of a few remaining high budget features, everything is done on digital, which beats film on everything except the dynamic range. And that will be the next technological step anyway .... which may or may not begin with the F65 replacement in the Sony cinema lineup.
Click to expand...

This. I'd often hear DoPs in the same breath saying digital wasn't as high res as film, but then saying "oh it's too sharp". Probably because they once used a 2/3" camera with the detail cranked up.

I personally think digital cameras beat film for DR as it is - certainly Kodak never claimed more than 14 stops for Vision3 as far as I know. And my experience has generally been film is probably equal to digital in the highlights, but far worse in the shadows.
 
JMtheDP said:
... I personally think digital cameras beat film for DR as it is - certainly Kodak never claimed more than 14 stops for Vision3 as far as I know. And my experience has generally been film is probably equal to digital in the highlights, but far worse in the shadows.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, ARRI is there with Alexa but Lubezki said, "Not yet". I figure he has some cred in that department. On the other hand, with the processing power, memory and sensors moving up in class since the current generation of cameras have been around - which is around four years for Sony F5/55/65 line, five-six years for Alexa, with only Red updating more often - anything that may come out in 2016 would have a higher DR than film. I believe Red Weapon's early test shots that Phil Holland did were getting as high as 18.
 
DLD said:
For the longest time, the argument against digital from many established DP's was that it lacked the resolution of a 35mm film, which the early generations of cameras, with their 1080p sensors, certainly did. Now, the oft repeated refrain is that they're too sharp! Regardless, the battle is basically over. With the exception of a few remaining high budget features, everything is done on digital, which beats film on everything except the dynamic range. And that will be the next technological step anyway .... which may or may not begin with the F65 replacement in the Sony cinema lineup.
Click to expand...

I think the refrain has changed because MiniDV and modern 4k are two very different things. One is too mushy and the other is so sharp you have to soften the hell out of it to make faces flattering. The established DPs are right.

In terms of DR, I agree with JMtheDP that film has been surpassed here. They attempted to shoot Revenant with film in natural light but characters went silhouette in the backlit forests, which is what led to the Alexa approach.

I'm certainly not anti digital! My point was that it can represent more than one aesthetic, and of the two cameras mentioned in this thread I prefer one to the other.
 
MikalZ said:
I think the refrain has changed because MiniDV and modern 4k are two very different things. One is too mushy and the other is so sharp you have to soften the hell out of it to make faces flattering. The established DPs are right..
Click to expand...
The "soften the look for faces" canard has been around for years. When the broadcasts were still in analog, many directors were smearing Vaseline over the lenses that showed the closeups of the stars of the show and that was when a regular TV was still in SD. In other words, it's not a function of a camera to make a star feel more secure. And it's not a job of a camera operator either, unless his name is Freud.
 
There is a difference between high resolving power and sharpness. Film has high resolving power without overt sharpness, which is not the case in digital. This is why increased filtration is often desired in digital. Much of this is due to the random changing nature of film imaging structure compared to the rigid grid of an imaging sensor, and some is due to the physical layered depth of a piece of film emulsion compared to the singular surface of silicate on an electronic sensor. They are inherently different.
 
Mitch Gross said:
There is a difference between high resolving power and sharpness. Film has high resolving power without overt sharpness, which is not the case in digital. This is why increased filtration is often desired in digital. Much of this is due to the random changing nature of film imaging structure compared to the rigid grid of an imaging sensor, and some is due to the physical layered depth of a piece of film emulsion compared to the singular surface of silicate on an electronic sensor. They are inherently different.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Mitch. Taking all that into account, what are your feelings on 4k (and beyond)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top