Originally Posted by David Heath
I don't fault your logic - but I'd apply it the other way. That the FS100 and F3 DON'T share the same sensor.
As said above, zone plates were already making me wonder about the FS100 (as with Steve), the FS700 reinforced that view (I think both it and the FS100 have 11 megapixel chips), and your point about integrated ADCs and bit depth also fits in. If the FS100/700 have more photosites, it follows they will each be smaller, hence likely less beneficial to have a higher bitdepth ADC, as with the F3.
You may be right, but everything I've seen (including this review
by Adam Wilt) says the F3 and FS100 use the same sensor. Also, Sony's FS100 product description
lists the effective pixel count as "3.43 M pixels (2464 x 1394)." I suppose this could be the postbinning effective "virtual" count, but I've never seen this before. For example, Sony lists the actual pixel count for the VG20 -- why would it try to obfuscate the FS100's? The only reason I can think of would be that Sony had already planned to release a 4K-upgradable camera with the FS700 specs but didn't want FS100 owners clamoring for a 4K upgrade. Sony could always point to the lack of a 3G-SDI port, but ironically, even though it has an inferior connector, HDMI 1.4 actually supports 4K (4,096 x 2,160) up to 25p (QuadHD up to 30p) and 12-bit 4:4:4, and has a far higher maximum data rate.