F5: Zoom Lens: Parfocal, at least constant 2.8, no (bulky) adapter, image stabilisation

[CharlesPapert]

If one was to shoot the same scene on the F3 and a current Sony 2/3" camera like the F800 with picture profiles and settings matching as much as possible, and apertures dialed in to deliver equivalent DOF, I suspect that the images would be quite similar. I don't think it's apples to apples to relate it to a comparison of 35mm and 16mm, where the grain structure and resolution are linearly affected by the size of the frame.

I was being a little facetious in that the F3 obviously offers much more flexibility and sensitivity than the EX3 and for me, S-log is what makes the F3 great. And unlike many, I'm not a depth of field "whore"...I rarely shoot under a 2.8 unless for specific effect. But I don't like being forced into a 5.6/8 and that was a large part of why that Sony lens was a buzzkill for me, along with the funky telescoping.

 

[Barons]

I guess my real point is that the Sony zoom is currently a good option - quite remarkable in what it does - for any camera like the F3. The lens dilemma is very frustrating and choices very limited unless the camera always stays on sticks and you're ok with renting. Even the new Fuji has a focal length range that offers far less on the long end than I would like. Yes, the Sony zoom has a number of shortcomings, but it's a far better solution, in my view, than struggling with still zooms, which is where this thread started. And quite amazing for $10K. My 2/3" cameras could also make great pictures, but s log with a Gemini sets the F3 apart, especially with highlight detail and dynamic range. Interesting to watch Scott Pelley's pieces on 60 Minutes since he switched to F3 - a cleaner more dramatic feel, even though they rarely work wide open.