DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony XDCAM PMW-F3 CineAlta (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-pmw-f3-cinealta/)
-   -   I'm sticking with my F3 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-pmw-f3-cinealta/513841-im-sticking-my-f3.html)

Douglas Villalba January 28th, 2013 03:08 PM

I'm sticking with my F3
 
I don't know about you, but for anything to be display 2K down I'm sticking with my F3.
I filmed & edited this promo in a couple of hours. I used S-Log recorded to the KiPro Mini ProRes HQ. Graded with Color, sweetened sound in Soundtrack Pro and edited in FCP7. Blowed out are artistic choices in post.

Dennis Hingsberg January 28th, 2013 06:09 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Looks great Doug, as always.

I might agree with you about keeping the F3 - especially after hearing about the firmware delivery schedule and the F5 maybe not being "fully" usable until 2014.

:S

Rudy Wilms January 28th, 2013 09:01 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Very nice done Douglas

I also agree with you about keeping the F3

Douglas Villalba January 29th, 2013 10:00 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudy Wilms (Post 1775841)
Very nice done Douglas

I also agree with you about keeping the F3

Thanks Rudy.

I believe that when the actual F5/55 comes out without all the advertise features that the used F3's price will go back up again.
I think that they will provably will be fully functional by NAB 2014 or even later. Look at the F3 how long it has been out and there is still a promised 1.5 update to come. ;-)

And, Dennis remember mid gray is 38% and never use a light meter. It is to hard to use. Hehehe

Dennis Hingsberg January 29th, 2013 11:38 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
More and more what I am gathering from the firmware release is the F5/F5 will not be up and fully functional with all said features until towards the end of 2013. There are at least 3 firmware updates planned after the F5/F55 ships, and upon shipping for example the F5 will only let you shoot 4k raw (24/25/30/50/60p), HD XAVC 10-bit 1-60p, MPEG 422 30p/60i... and that's it.

Future updates will then unlock: HFR, 2k raw & 2k XAVC, and eventually up to 240p 2k RAW and S&Q HFR's.

Pay now, depreciate now, and you get 5% of the functionality you have paid for. Sorry but this has made me lose all excitement for the new F and I feel it is a big miss by Sony that will cause many to chose another camera if they really wanted those features.

A lot is going to change by NAB 2013, who knows what thunder might be stolen. Panasonic is stepping up to the plate and RED always has some cool & new tricks up its sleeve.

I've taken my F3 off the market and no one could possibly pry it out of my hands at this point. Anyone who bought an F3 for under $8000 should be laughing... and sit tight.

--==--

Yes : ) I love my light meter and once properly setup with your camera and you know what you are doing it is valuable tool. I never shoot without it and get consistent skin tones by using it. But yes a grey and white card is just as good but I find more cumbersome and time consuming to use camera as lighting tool or if camera is not moved to new setup/location. With light meter I can adjust all on my own.

Note however that Sony and Canon have different middle grey values in LOG mode and even the white values are different so it's important to know when you shoot with different cameras you know where the values have been remapped to.

Canon EOS Daily published my latest article on exposing C-LOG with the Canon series C100/C300/C500. It's white is only 2 stops over grey, whereas Sony's S-LOG is 2.5 stops. Canon's middle grey is 33% while Sony's is 38%. Canon 90% white is 63% while Sony's 90% white is 65%. I never believed in these values when I first heard of them so I trust that many others will also not believe. The article is meant to be a good eye-opener and I'm glad Canon published it.

Alister Chapman January 29th, 2013 05:55 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Er, that's not right.

If your talking about reflectance values for middle grey (18%) and white (90%) then the ratio of light reflected never ever changes, it's always the same ratio, so the number of stops between middle grey and white is exactly the same no matter what camera, no matter what gamma because changing the camera or changing the gamma curve does not change how much light is being reflected by the targets or scene. A card reflecting 90% of the light (white) is always 500% brighter than a card reflecting 18% of the light (middle grey), that ratio never ever changes and to suggest that the use of differnt cameras or gammas somehow alters that ratio is incorrect.

What can and does change is the chosen optimum recording levels, 38, 68, 34, 63 etc, but those are arbitrary values determined by the gamma curve and certainly don't change the number of stops between mid grey and white which is not determined by the camera but determined by the reflectance of the objects you are shooting.

So if in your scene there are 2 stops between two objects, there will always be two stops between those objects, whatever camera you shoot with, the camera does not change the contrast ratios in the scene.

Dennis Hingsberg January 29th, 2013 06:24 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Ah yes thanks for pointing that out, looking at the log charts for both camera log characteristics they read around 2.25 stops for 90% over middle grey but the mapping values I indicated were at least correct.

:)

Richard Crook January 29th, 2013 07:57 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
I'm sticking with mine, possible grabbing another one if the price keeps dropping!

Alister Chapman January 30th, 2013 02:30 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Log and gamma curves can make ones head hurt ;-0

F3 is still a great camera. The F5/F55 didn't suddenly make an F3 a worse or less capable camera. I'll probably keep one of mine as a B camera to the F5. The F5 is bigger and bulkier and needs a more expensive support kit. One of the great things about the F3 for me is that I can get the camera, a couple of lenses, batts and charger in a standard airline carry on bag. I can't do that with the F5 (mainly due to the larger batts and charger).

Dennis Dillon January 31st, 2013 10:21 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Having great success with two F3's in a 709 world via 2 Nano Flashes, causes pause when considering adding a F5/55. Yes the new cameras record 50 422 LGOP, my main client request, but my base requires that the files be delivered on an archival medium XD DISK. So I would be doing the same drag and drop as I do now.
But I really like the native ISO of the new issues, especially the 5. 10 bit is very tempting as well. For that I use the Gemini/f3 combo. HFR is very attractive.
Until I have a collection of files that I shot, graded and matched to my existing camera collection, I'll reserve my purchase decision.

Dennis Hingsberg January 31st, 2013 10:27 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Dillon (Post 1776357)
But I really like the native ISO of the new issues, especially the 5. 10 bit is very tempting as well. For that I use the Gemini/f3 combo. HFR is very attractive.

The native ISO of the F5 is actually 800, and the F55 is 500.

The initial values announced by Sony were as I suspected at the time, SLOG modes.

Alister Chapman January 31st, 2013 11:53 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
But what does native ISO mean?

Once upon a time it simply meant the sensitivity of the camera with no added gain applied or no unusual processing push of the film stock. This is also almost always the point where the best dynamic range is achieved as adding or subtracting gain reduces the dynamic range.

These days it's all much less clear as very often the sensitivity setting of 0db may not actually mean that no gain is being added as much is made of sensitivity when it comes to marketing. So if a camera manufacturer can add a bit of gain and then sell the camera as a seemingly more sensitive camera, this is what they may do.

With the F3 the best dynamic range is achieved in S-log at 1600 ISO. It would not be unreasonable to assume that this is close to no gain applied. When in normal gammas, when you look at how the recommended mid grey point shifts up from the 38% of S-log to the 46% of 709 it is obvious to see that there is quite a big gain difference between these two settings. My bet would be that the standard gammas are actually getting negative gain applied, which would e xplain why they are so noise free and why you cannot get quite as much dynamic range and that in S-log mode the cameras is at or very close to unity gain.

But what about the F5 and F55? Theroretically they should be less sensitive than the f3, they have much smaller pixels. Even if you allow perhaps for some improvement in the sensor technology, I really wouldn't expect them to be more sensitive than the F3. They do have more sophisticated noise reduction circuits and that might be allowing a little more to be pulled from the darkest parts of the image, which might be why you can use 2000 ISO as the optimum setting for best dynamic range on the F5. Given that S-log2 has a recommended mid grey point of 34% all of this does point to the true sensitivity of the F3 and F5 being very similar and then the F55 being a little less sensitive.

Of course the F5/F55 with their better (and adjustable) noise reduction do have an edge over the F3 at higher gain/ISO settings, but in real terms at the nominal 0db settings the difference is small. I also think that the native ISO is the S-log ISO as this is where you have the best dynamic range rather than the non s-log ISO.

Dennis Hingsberg January 31st, 2013 12:15 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
For me in this case I simply mean the camera in its default or standard gamma mode. Ie. Rec709 at zero db gain.

People can not say the F3 is ISO800 but the F5 is 2000. This is apples and oranges comparrison. I'm simply trying to clarify what Sonys initial marketing announcement had (and still have) many confused over.

Surely no one working ENG for TV/broadcast is going to shoot SLOG2 are they?

I do see the other way of looking at "native ISO" - the one that isn't the marketting ISO and looks more at the acceptable quality of an image at a specific ISO. This is more apparent with RED where most DP's don't like shooting over 400ISO with it but others push 800 and sometimes 1600 if needed, but admit to needing noise cleaners at the higher range.

Alister Chapman January 31st, 2013 02:44 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
What I am suggesting is that the native ISO of the f5 is around 2000 ISO, after all this is the zero point for the raw recordings, which should represent the pure sensor output with no gain applied.

But I am also suggesting that the F3's native ISO is about the same. So in terms of real sensitivity there is little between them and true native ISO would be at the maximum dynamic range point. Sony did also market the F3 as being 1600 ISO, which in S-log it is.

Now what gain levels Sony choose for other gammas, well those are decisions made by the engineers for good sensitivity and noise performance, and may not actually reflect the true native ISO of either camera. As I said the nominal ISO used for the standard gammas is I believe quite likely actually -6db gain in both cases. There are no reasons that I can think of to have a different ISO for log other than to maximise dynamic range and dynamic range is normally best when you have no added gain. For standard gammas where dynamic range is not critical a little bit of negative gain giving 800 ISO offers good sensitivity with very low noise and a one stop loss of dynamic range is irrelevant.

The noise reduction processes in the F5 are very good and this means that in most cases it will have a better signal to noise ratio than the F3, so higher gain settings produce a cleaner result from the F5 than F3.

Alister Chapman January 31st, 2013 02:57 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
There's a beautiful example of the way skin tones improve when exposed lower at 0.54 in the video. As the exposure level drops the skin tones become so much better. Plasticky, texture free and video like turning to natural and rounded. That's log compression doing its thing, nice to see it happening within the same shot. Good example of why you don't want to push your exposure too high in log and why it's vital to keep skin tones on the low side of the curve.

Dennis Hingsberg January 31st, 2013 03:00 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
If the F3 and F5 do indeed share similar "true native" ISO's what's quite impressive is the fact that one is four times more dense in pixels! (or approximately 4 times). That's quite astonishing.

Alister do you have any opinion that side by side the F65 produces anymore "cinematic" images than the F55? For me cinematic images means proper use of a lens, good lighting and art direction, etc.. but lately I hear some criticism that the Sony's have a particular video look as opposed to some other cameras.

I can only suggest this is a little true until of course you cross over into a world of 16-bit bit-depth and raw RGB sensor data.

Alister Chapman January 31st, 2013 03:30 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Yes, im surprised that given the pixel counts the base sensitivity is so close. Same goes for the FS100 and FS700 which to the best of my knowledge share the same sensors as the F3 and F5, yet only appear to have about a half stop difference for similar noise levels.i suspect there is some very heavy noise reducing occurring on the new sensors.

I think the problem the F65 has is that there is so much resolution and so little noise that the images have a look that is quite different to film. It's not like video either, more like the still frames from a top end DSLR which also doesnt really look like film. The F55 isn't quite so in your face sharp as the F65 but again it's very noise free. I think part of the issue is the lack of grain and noise which can make the images a little lifeless.

Both cameras (and the F5) produce a clean blank canvas to play with. You can make what you wish with that canvas. I have to say that 4k on a large 4k monitor is just a little bit too real for me. I can see things on the monitor that I would not see in real life. But that does give you the freedom to selectively filter the image in post. The extended colour gamut of the F55 and F65 does give a very rich and deep colour palette that is deeper than most film stocks, so there is less of a "look" to the images than you would have with a film camera or camera with a narrower gamut.

Chuck Fishbein January 31st, 2013 04:41 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
I'm going to take a chance on the F5, I played with it at a demo in Boston last week and it looked and felt really good.

I have no immediate need for 4K, but I want to be experimenting with it long before client's needs arrive, so I'm not terribly concerned about the firmware schedule. It took me a long time to get comfortable with the F3, but once I was, the camera really did right by us. So, I'm assuming the learning curve will be similar.

Like Dennis, I like the idea of 50 422 onboard and 120 fps. The Nano and Samurai have served well, but it's still another thing to schelp along. It will be nice to be able to adjust speeds and not have to adjust the external recorder. Also looking forward to the new OLED EVF. Like the Nano, schlepping goes for the Zacuto or Alphatron EVFs.


The F3 is a decent camera and I'll hold on to it. Beside, I'll never get back all the money I spent on accessories. Seems like the only F3 accessory that will work with the F5 is the MTF.

David Heath January 31st, 2013 06:39 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman (Post 1776372)
These days it's all much less clear as very often the sensitivity setting of 0db may not actually mean that no gain is being added as much is made of sensitivity when it comes to marketing. So if a camera manufacturer can add a bit of gain and then sell the camera as a seemingly more sensitive camera, this is what they may do.

I agree with the sentiment, but not with a wording of "no gain is being added". I think "optimal amount of gain for best picture quality" may be a better description. :-) And yes, I agree that is what native ISO or "0dB" SHOULD correspond to - and I suspect that for cameras like the F5/55, it is indeed the case.

But the point is that native ISO *DOES NOT* necessarily tell you anything about real camera sensitivity for exactly the reasons Alister says - it needs to be taken together with S/N ratio at the 0dB setting.

And sorry, but in camera noise reduction does not really make a camera more sensitive - fundamentally, it trades off one set of undesirable characteristics for another. There's no denying it may give a better overall result under some circumstances, but take the camera somewhere dark, really ramp up the gain for exposure, and you'll see a ropey picture - but ropey for reasons like smear, unnatural softening etc rather than conventional noise.

Electronic noise reduction is best thought of like compression, a bit like mp3 in the audio world. Superficially, little apparent drop in quality on normal listening (but much reduced bitrate!) - but try further processing mp3 audio....... :-)

David Heath January 31st, 2013 07:16 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg (Post 1776406)
If the F3 and F5 do indeed share similar "true native" ISO's what's quite impressive is the fact that one is four times more dense in pixels! (or approximately 4 times). That's quite astonishing.

That's looking at it the wrong way. Yes, in general bigger photosites means better sensitivity, but there is (or should be!) a huge unwritten "all else equal" caveat there.

And doing a F3/F5 comparison, all else is far from equal. If they were to be debayered with exactly the same algorithm, then the resultant F3 raster would be far coarser than that from the F5, hardly surprisingly. So whilst each resulting pixel in the F3 image may have less random variation due to noise than in the F5 case, it's going to be bigger! Hence it's reasonable to expect that will make the lower actual noise level more visible than in the F5 case?

Looking at it a different way, if we are considering a resultant 1920x1080 output, then the F3 will have to do it via a conventional deBayer. The F5 will most likely do it via direct read - as Canon have described for the C300. So although each photosite in the F3 may have an advantage due to size, each output pixel will be formed from more than one photosite - each contributing noise. That's not the case with direct read for the F5 - the red of a pixel corresponds to the output of a single red photosite.

The implication is that for all else equal, such as sensitivity is far more a function of absolute sensor size than photosite size. If you fix the sensor size, and fix the output (say 1920x1080) then varying the photosite size must mean varying the number of photosites and consequently how they are processed to give final output - it's a bit like 12 is still the answer if you multiply 3x4 or 2x6.

The "bigger photosites means better sensitivity" comes from like to like comparisons. Compare a 1/3" camera with a 2/3", both with 3 1920x1080 chips and the 2/3" will substantially outperform the 1/3", and yes, it's down to bigger photosites. But here they both must use comparable processing - that's not the case in an F3/F5 comparison, all else is not equal!

As far as the wider argument goes, then I've much sympathy with saying "what's the point of selling an F3 to get an F5"? But what about potential buyers who don't have an F3 already? Using an existing F3 is one thing, but I couldn't make a case for buying one now - not new, anyway!

Alister Chapman February 1st, 2013 12:20 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath (Post 1776456)
So although each photosite in the F3 may have an advantage due to size, each output pixel will be formed from more than one photosite - each contributing noise. That's not the case with direct read for the F5 - the red of a pixel corresponds to the output of a single red photo site.

Not necessarily as any averaging that occurs may actually reduce the noise level. As the noise from any given single pixel varies from moment to moment, taking an average from several pixels may result in less noise. It's a commonly used noise reduction method.

If sensitivity is the measure of how far into the dark a sensor can see for a given noise level then noise reduction does impact the cameras useable sensitivity. On chip NR uses various methods including redundant pixels to subtract noise from the image and does this with no noticeable artefacts. I agree that many types of NR do degrade the image, but seeing as all the manufacturers do it, won't tell us how much they do it then it should be considered as part of the sensitivity equation.

David Heath February 1st, 2013 04:19 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman (Post 1776618)
Not necessarily as any averaging that occurs may actually reduce the noise level. As the noise from any given single pixel varies from moment to moment, taking an average from several pixels may result in less noise. It's a commonly used noise reduction method.

But deBayering isn't averaging, it's a far more complicated form of processing and I'd expect more likely a noise summation rather than reduction. In "quartet processing" (as the C300 uses) then you do indeed get averaging going on in the green channel - two green photosites are combined to form the green value for a single output pixel. But here it's a simple case of adding the two together and halving the value. If both photosites have the same signal level, then it's obvious the "real" signal output will be the same as each individual value.

The value of the approach is regarding noise (and I'm not going into the maths) and yes, that should be reduced by such a process - that's the reason for doing it.

But that's completely different from a conventional deBayer.
Quote:

If sensitivity is the measure of how far into the dark a sensor can see for a given noise level then noise reduction does impact the cameras useable sensitivity. On chip NR uses various methods including redundant pixels to subtract noise from the image and does this with no noticeable artefacts.
Fair point, and certain on chip methods do give a "genuine" improvement. Maybe it would be better to word my original statement more like ".......in camera software noise reduction does not really make a camera more sensitive"?

Such methods may make a picture look better at low gain settings, but take such a camera into the dark and up the gain and it may be a different story. In extreme the image will become effectively unusable. The difference is that if NR isn't used it's the noise itself that will cause the degradation - use NR, and it's the softening, smearing etc that will be the quality limiting factor.

The best practical illustration was the "noise ghosts" of the original HPX371, caused by aggressive software noise reduction to compensate for 1/3" chips. At first sight it seemed as noise free as a comparable 1/2" camera - but the "noise ghosts" played havoc when the resulting image was processed in certain ways. I was shown footage that showed the HPX371 to be effectively unusable for green screen work.

(It's subsequently been addressed by an option of turning most of the NR off - which I'd recommend any user to do - but then it's back to the noise levels associated with 1/3". You never get anything for nothing.)

Jeff Regan March 4th, 2013 03:44 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, as we currently have a C300 PL and AF100 for large sensor camera rental and don't have immediate plans to add an F5 or F55, but after getting my hands on an F5 in my shop yesterday, I'm impressed. While it's not close to fully functional, it has great DR, super clean(not that the F3 was a slouch in that area), XAVC addresses my number one F3 complaint, the codec limitations of XDCAM EX. 10-bit and 1080/60P, along with 4:2:2 are useful and I'm not a fan of external recorders. Whether the F5 in its current state is worth the extra money over a new F3 RGB is up to each person.

My biggest problem with the F5 and other Sony cameras is the lack of a scope, and the camera not being able to output zebras. The camera I've got in my shop for evaluation right now came with an Alphatron VF, so I really don't know how one would expose the F5 reliably. The other issue I have is after getting used to the form factor of the C300, the F5 and 55 seem large and heavy, especially with battery and 4K recorder. I really like the status display--just doing simple things like changing frame rates in a C300 is a pain.

I think Sony has a couple of winners in the new F's, but am looking forward to the point where they're more complete. Having said that, I can't imagine buying a new F3 now and am surprised Sony is keeping it in production, but used, it's a strong value, potentially. I knew when we invested in a C300 it would not have a long time horizon in the rental world, but the same is true of the F3. Let's hope the F5 and 55 can provide a longer shelf life and that Sony keeps developing them above and beyond what's already scheduled.

Alister Chapman March 4th, 2013 04:27 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
The F5/F55 will get some decent metering tools. At the moment Sony are canvassing owners and potential owners on what they want. Currently most are asking for a waveform monitor, spot meter is also popular. For the moment I'm using a light meter and/or my TV Logic 5.6" LCD with waveform display. If your shooting in Cine EI Log you can use the P1 LUT and zebras.

Jeff Regan March 4th, 2013 05:00 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Alister,

So Zebras are available via HDMI or one of the HD-SDI outputs? I also can't get focus to expand on an HD-SDI output. I think using a non-Sony EVF is a non-starter on the F5/55.

Why doesn't Sony get that waveforms are useful built into cameras? Most everybody else does.

Alister Chapman March 5th, 2013 02:08 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
I'm pretty sure waveforms will come to the F5/F55 this year. It's essential that we get either waveform or spot meter.

Zebras are not available on the camera outputs, this is true of most Sony cameras. Most 3rd party viewfinders have internally generated zebras (including the Alphatron) and you can use those. The expand focus function is done by the viewfinder itself and the scaling depends on the resolution of the finder, which is why it's not on the output.

Jeff Regan March 5th, 2013 10:31 AM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Thank you Alister. I didn't go into the Error/Zone Check menu, thinking it was false color and not having enough time with the camera rig. Zebras will certainly help until there's a waveform and I knew the Alphatron did focus expansion. The TV Logic display is pretty high quality, so hopefully this should work well in lieu of the Sony VF options.

Regarding AWB, I'm surprised how cumbersome that is compared to any camera I've used, but hear that it will be put on a user button at some point.

Another issue for me is not having external audio pots. No big deal if setting a level via tone from a mixer, but what about those times when there's no sound person or mixer? Seems like an odd thing to omit and not addressable by firmware.

David Heath March 6th, 2013 07:00 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan (Post 1782422)
I don't have a dog in this fight, as we currently have a C300 PL and AF100 for large sensor camera rental and don't have immediate plans to add an F5 or F55, but after getting my hands on an F5 in my shop yesterday, I'm impressed.

Jeff - don't know if you've seen this, and it is referring to the situation in the UK, but if you're in the camera rental business you may find it interesting. Televisual | NEWS & COMMENTS

Most of it refers to what happened during the last year, but maybe the most interesting bit is at the end - the table of "planned camera investments for 2013" for many of the big hire companies.

As the article says (just before the actual top ten):
Quote:

What’s very clear is that Sony’s two new modular cameras – the F5 and F55 – are going to be well placed in next year’s top 10 rental list. As was the case with the Canon C300 last year, it’s almost a full house for the Sony F5 and F55 when you look at the investment plans of hire firms this year. Hardly any other cameras get a look in, aside from a sprinkling of Canon C500s and Sony PMW-200s and a few more C300s and Arri Alexas.

Jeff Regan March 6th, 2013 07:53 PM

Re: I'm sticking with my F3
 
David,

Yes, I own a small rental house in the SF Bay Area. We have 1/3", 1/2", 2/3", micro 4/3" and S35 cameras and various recording codecs that go with them. I do believe different markets have different tastes. The C300 seems to be universally popular around the globe, but, for instance, Panasonic is absent from the UK list, yet had been quite popular in my market(this is changing due to their lack of S35 offerings). You would be hard pressed to find any Canon small format camcorder here. Sony 500's, 700's and 800's are also thin on the ground, although popular in other US cities, primarily for broadcast/cable.

A larger, high-end rental house in my market sold three of their Alexa's and have purchased two F5's and two F55's. I'm told by them that the F55 has superior DR, lower noise and more resolution than Alexa. The other high end rental house in town has also taken delivery of an F5 and F55.

In some markets, like New York, an F3 is a harder sell to higher-end clients than an Alexa or RED. The F55 will take a bit of time to win these clients over and I'm skeptical about the day rate being high enough for a fast ROI. The F5 seems like a safer investment.

Most of my clientele are corporate, and after spending some time with the F5 a few days ago, I feel the C300 is still the better camera for my clients from a cost, size, ease of use, and workflow standpoint. I am troubled by the lack of exposure tools like waveform/vector, no audio trim pots and buried auto white balance. However, I am very impressed by the image and XAVC codec, menu handles like flare, shading, real multi-matrix and paint box capability.

Obviously, I have to give serious consideration to adding one of the new F's, but am hoping to wait for some of the firmware updates and for the cameras to build positive reputations. Time will tell, but the shelf life with any of these large sensor cameras keeps getting shorter for rental houses. Our remaining AF100 is not working much these days. It's here for the clients who want a C300, but can't afford it.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network