Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Why don't you use fine detail when shooting with a Super 35 sensor in a wide landscape? If the camera can't be used in a broad cinematic manner, it becomes a one trick pony or a specialist portrait camera.

You can also have fine detail on costumes, a traditional source of moire patterning.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Yeah, some people tend to make quick and false assumptions, like:

- the EX1 (or any 1/2" one without a 35mm adapter) is a non-no for shallow-DOF portrait-style shooting
- an S35 camera is only intended for shallow-DOF portrait-style shooting

If the above were true, all of us would have to own/rent several rigs for each project!

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

QUOTE
You don't need to zoom in to see the aliasing on the brickwork or roofs. Just look full size on any reasonable monitor. There are splotches of colour on the concrete caused by moire the same as the purple and pink colours around the trees, its moire, there certainly is no blue or pink on the F3 concrete. The T2i does do better than the VG10 in terms of highlight handling, but it lacks resolution.

Thats why I put the pictures up so people could look at what I did. If they can't see what I did how can people know?

Alister would like me to remove these pictures? Seriously not a problem.

Piotr
QUOTE
If the above were true, all of us would have to own/rent several rigs for each project!

You'd have to own two NOT several

Brian/ Piotr

You have a point many will buy these as a single camera and make great films with them I'm speaking for myself again and did these really for Alister who I thought would be pleased that I took an interest in what he was trying to show. I must make it clear I'm speaking for myself only.

So speaking for me ONLY then.. Personally I WOULD use two cameras. I'd feel very worried about using the AF101 or the FS100 or the VG10 cameras to shoot a narrative film with the background in focus. The only time I would is if it was specialist like a music video or short artistic style.

Personally I wouldn't risk using these cameras with a crew and actors. My time their time is worth more than that.

But then maybe that's me. Maybe though some of the DSLR's may work fine. From what I've seen of the 5D and now the T2i I think it's time to look a little closer at them.

Of course If I had the F3 THAT'S a different story.

Mark

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Alister I have deleted the pictures and apologise. I fully thought your intention was to use them as a test for forum use.

Mark

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Many people will use the AF100 and FS100 to shoot narrative films using a crew, even PD150s have been used that way. The DSLRs have even more issues than these cameras and they're being used and the EX3 used on "Monsters" only recorded to the internal 35Mb codec.

If you're shooting on a very small budget you can't be proscriptive, the AF100 and FS100 allow film makers to use a large sensor camera without the issues found on the DSLRs. You can't say "if only I had a F3", you have to get on with it and don't push the cameras into undesirable dark corners of their performance.

These new cameras are powerful tools for the money.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

^^ this.

If you can't afford an F3 and need a full-size sensor video camera (not DSLR), the FS100 and the AF100 are perfect. They both can make very pretty pictures. The rest is up to you.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I agree and I'm glad to hear that. There are *some* people posting here who apparently want to dictate what my choice of camera must be.

My local dealer has me on The List to receive an FS-100 from the first batch they receive, hopefully within the next few weeks. Unlike B&H I don't have to make a deposit or pay an potential restocking fee. I just have to go look at it, handle it, evaluate the image with my own eyes, and then decide if it works for me and my clients in a way that'll pay for itself and make money.

Truthfully, I won't know for sure until I actually hold the camera and get a sense of the ergonomics and if the couple of disadvantages (no ND, mostly) are something I'm comfortable working around.

In the meantime I'd appreciate practical recommendations on variable ND filters for the kit lens. Seems like a better option than messing with my matte box for some of the shooting I do. And I'll probably get the kit lens for starters because I don't have a lot of other lenses sitting around here, as I come from betacams and full-sized dvcams and Z1 and EX 1 & 3. So I'm willing to start with the kit lens and add others as things develop.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Reconsider the kit lens, at least do some investigating, I've not read much good about it on the forums. All you need is ANY lens (plenty of used Canon FD lenses on ebay for as little as $50, get a F 2.8 or better ) , and a cheap adapter if you just want to experiment with the camera. The kit lens is an $800 retail lens that you get for $600 on the package, but maybe you can find a way to spend $600 better.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Exactly. The chip can't be the "same" if one is S35 and the other is APSC. All the rest long rambling by Steve about "design" are pure speculations. VG10 and Nex-5 had an identical chip. Both were APSC.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

A 200ISO sensitivity camera in bright sunlight set to the correct video shutter speed of 1/60th second and set at f/2.8, for a shallow DOF, requires an 8-stop neutral density filter.

An 800IS sensitivity camera requires 10-stops of light reduction.

Unless you buy a full set of ND filters, you’ll need to buy a vario-ND filter. (Remember, no stacking of ND filters.) Unfortunately, the maximum useable filtration from a vario-ND filter is 5-stops.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

A variable ND is effectively two polarising filters stacked.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Who says you can't stack ND filters?

Sure I would not want to stack low quality filters of any type and perhaps it's not the best way to go, but with good quality filters, especially those that have IR cut it should not be that terrible, certainly no worse than a vari ND.

The F3 stacks ND filters internally.

There will be lots of ND options for the FS100. There will be Nikon adapters with built in ND's, you can get thin film ND's that can be placed behind the lens, so you could consider a .9 (ND8) behind the lens and then a vari ND in front.

The thousands of DSLR shooters out there have been dealing with this issue for a couple of years and it has not stopped them.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Open an Vario ND filter and look at the non-gap between the glass elements. You'll see immediately this is not the same construction as two filters in two mounts screwed together.

From Philip on the AF100: "Great to have a 4 setting ND filter wheel."

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Yes, but it's still 2 filters being stacked. Where's the difference?

In this case, with the densities involved here, I'd use IR ND filters. It's standard practise with cameras like the RED.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

No, not at all. Mainly observations of zone plates and circular resolution charts that have been put on line. The beauty of such is that the patterns they cause cameras to produce tend to be independent of a host of factors - lens sharpness, even focus, for example. (Defocussing a camera causes aliases to be less distinct - it doesn't change their pattern.) The pattern shapes and colour are a direct function of the sensor characteristics and the way the data is read out.

For the F3, I've used Alan Roberts report, and as said in the last post, figure 2, the b-w zone plate, top centre. You can clearly see the coloured aliases in the out of band, and I measure the circle centres to correspond to roughly 2490H and 1400V - I think it's more likely to be 2560 and 1440 if I could measure it accurately. That implies some fundamental resolution of 1280x720 (assuming the second figures), and it seems reasonable to assume that is the photosite resolution for red and blue - so a total sensor resolution of 2560x1440 if Bayer. A total of 3,686,400 - which I believe is close to what Sony have previously stated? I do note Alan concludes his report by surmising that for the F3 "....the sensor has approximately 12.9 Megapixels, typical of a digital stills camera." I can't see what in his results leads him to think that.

For the FS100, I've used the chart in Nigel Coopers test. It's possible to extrapolate the aliases visible in that to get an idea of the resolution at which real detail turns into aliasing, and that seems to also be around the 1250H and 700V mark. To be sure, you'd need to put the camera on an out of band zone plate, and use real circle centres to measure more accurately.

I don't believe that's a co-incidence, given what we know of the sensor - and the idea of much simpler readout on a 2x2 basis then would answer a lot of questions.
The FS100 is quoted by Sony at 5.6 watts, the F3 at 24 watts!! And with the EX1 at 12.5 watts (same codec, same media as the F3) I can only conclude it's the F3 chip and the way the F3 reads it that is responsible for the high power consumption. So why is the FS100 so low? If it uses a far simpler readout method, as suggested, that question is answered.
As David Williams says, I'd also say "hypothesis" is a better word than "guess"! But it's a hypothesis that explains all the observed facts - measured features on charts, power requirement differences, cost differences between the cameras, and others which I don't have the time to go into. I'll freely admit that I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but am more confident of the basic principle.

And if my hypothesis (or "guess" if you must...) isn't right, then how do you explain some of the fundamental differences between the F3 and the FS100 on charts? Why the nature of the aliasing is so different between them if (as I think we all agree) they share the same physical sensor? As said at the start - the nature of alias patterns isn't affected by optics, focus etc - only the intensity.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Photo 101: It's the air gap creating different densities for light to pass through.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Yes, but there'll be an air gap using two rotating polarising filters.

By the nature of things, there'll be an air gap putting together any filter pack and some DP's use quite a few filters in their packs. The usual problem that worries 1st assistant is the reflections between the filters and some matte boxes allow you to angle filters to reduce the problem.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

That is good advice. Optically the stock 18-200 looks good, but it's too slow for shallow DoF, plus the inevitable problems with ramping. What was Sony thinking with a f/3.5-6.3 lens? It defeats the whole purpose of having a Super35 camera for shallow DoF. They would have been better off bundling it with a nice fast f/1.5 50mm prime. And if you want to use the zoom "live", well, there's no servo plus the ramping issues.

Save your $$ and apply it to buying a 3rd party adapter and start building a selection of Nikon or Canon lenses if you don't own some of those already.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

...and the ramping is considerable, as I could witness first-hand while playing with the VG10 featuring the very same lens.

That said, I do not quite share Doug's opinion a 50mm prime should be bundled with the FS100. Those who are going to actually use prime lenses, probably already have some legacy stock or would like to carefully pick them themselves (along with appropriate adapter for the E mount). Those who are going to learn this camera from the basics would be better off to start with a zoom - but certainly a faster one, even if at the expense of a shorter range, and/or bigger size/weight/price...

Yeah, I know such a zoom doesn't exist yet for the E-mount, just wishful thinking here.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

From a size point of view a limited zoom range with a f2.8 stop makes sense, otherwise you'll need to go for a slower stop for the longer zoom ranges.

To a certain extent these lenses already exist, you could use RED zooms on these Super 35 sensor cameras for example. Or, use stills zoom as varifocal length lenses. Although, that's not the same as a stock zoom lenses and these tend to be made for a price, rather than quality.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I know there's a thread about good lenses for the FS100, but I think this would make a good starter zoom lens, with the a-mount adapter:

SAL-2875 | 28-75mm f/2.8 Wide-Angle Lens | Sony | Sony Style USA

I just might pick one up myself.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Thanks Glen. It beats me why Sony has chosen the E-mount for the FS100, while there are so many nice A-lenses around already...

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Well, Sony is supposed to expand the e-mount line-up. Plus, other lens manufacturers have the specs of the mount, so they'll be producing more lenses. Zeiss is coming out with some e-mount lenses, for instance. And the e-mount really is ideal to fit adapters for many other makes of lenses.

The pickings are slim now, but give it some time.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-USA/Nikon_1902_AF_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4D.html
This f/1.4 50mm Nikon would be a great starter lens for the FS100 and get people thinking about using this camera in a different way than ordinary video camcorders. If you want a zoom lens, auto-focus, auto-iris, steady-shot and all that stuff, then my advice is to buy an EX1R or Z7U and you'll be happier anyway. The whole idea of the F3 and FS100 is to start moving in a new direction, not to try to force them to work the same old way.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Hey Doug, you misunderstood me!

I myself do have a nice collection of Canon FD lenses - from 24 up to 85mm, all F1.4 (yes!!!) - and I could be using them on the FS-100 with an $ 20-50 adapter from eBay.

If I pushed the "all-auto zoom for starters" idea has been with all those consumers in mind, jumping on the all new camera from Sony that is drawing so much attention on the web:)

Piotr

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

..or this, if you've already invested in an a-mount adapter (like I did).

SAL-50F14 | SAL-50F14 - 50mm f/1.4 Lens | Sony | SonyStyle USA

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I have heard that the A Mount's electronics (in terms of how fast data is transferred and processed) is quite slow and therefore unsuitable for a more demanding system requirement such as tracking autofocus. Hence the newer E mount as a base on which to build.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Good info, Matt - thanks!

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I really appreciate the lens recommendations and sorry if I've inadvertently hijacked this thread. If I need to pick this up in the more appropriate "glass & mounts" thread I will.

The comments here, though, do partially address my issues. It seems to me that over the next few months there will be a number of lens adaptors and lenses coming out that work with the FS-100 mount. Surely some will work better than others, and it'll become evident rather quickly which those are. So that's the main reason it appears to be better to me to go with the kit lens (though the 2.8 zoom referenced above might be a better choice), and wait to start filling out any kind of lens selection until things shake out a bit. I'd like to end up with only one or two lenses to carry around for basic use, and preferably of the same brand and working with the same, if any, adaptor. I also do expect Sony to bring out a better E mount zoom for double or triple the kit lens price, although that's just a WAG as something I think is logical for them to do.

At this point the only lenses I own that are suitable for the FS-100 are 2 EOS style lenses. One of those is a nice 2.8 very wide Tokina and the other is the 7D kit lens, which is worse than the FS-100 kit lens. Everything else I already own is an expensive 2/3" or 1/2" betacam or dvcam zoom.

Although I expect to use the FS-100 eventually for a variety of projects I'm intent on buying it initially for use with a specific client. He really likes the DSLR look. He also would have little if any patience with lens changes, as much of the b-roll I shoot with him is very run and gun, so a zoom is essential. I have a 7D, but the kludges and workarounds of shooting for him with that are too painful to contemplate. So I think the FS-100 eliminates most of the workarounds, allows for cheap storage and long battery life, and provides more of the look we need.

And I really appreciate the lens comments particularly. They are making me reconsider the kit lens. I just wanted to clarify my thinking here.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

You're most welcome - IIRC, it came from a great webcast called Red Centre (Podcasts | fxguide).

I also picked up from an earlier show that the E-mount specs and protocol has been made 'open' for any manufacturers to exploit - which is a refreshing and somewhat unexpected angle from Sony.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I would really like to know what Mike or John at fxguide were talking about with the autofocus tracking on Alpha lenses. I am a former Alpha photographer and I shot sports and birds in flight quite a few times and I found the autofocus to work great. I had the 24mp A900, Sony G 70-200 2.8, Zeiss 24-70 2.8, Zeiss 135 1.8 and a few other lenses. With the SSM lenses, focusing worked nearly flawlessly. If fast moving subjects weren't hard enough to track, I also shot some runway models with perfect tracking. So, their comments really puzzle me.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Doug,

I think one of the neat things about this camera, is that 'video' shooters
(like me) could use something like the kit lens or similar and produce
similar results as an EX-1. It's not like I zoom DURING my shots that
often, just nice to reframe WITHOUT having to move the camera and tripod
when doing run and gun. Then, when you have a little extra time (you
know, when you get a client that actually gives you a little time to
do something) you could put a prime lens or short fast zoom on and
get the shallow depth of field shots. Seems like it could kind of do
both. From everything I've seen, even the video with the cheapo
kit lens looks very very good.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

From my time with the FS100 the 18-200mm Sony lens is really not a good lens.

IF you ONLY want to shoot auto focus, auto iris then it is possibly a good option. But trying to use the lens manually is a pain, the focus is sluggish and the lack of true iris ring annoying. On top of that at f5.6 if you are just going to use it as an autofocus lens, you would be better of using and EX1 as the DoF won't be all that different to the EX1 at f1.8 and the EX1 has a parfocal servo zoom.

For the $500 the lens adds to the kit I would rather get a Nikon adapter and buy a couple of decent, used Nikon fit lenses like the 50mm f1.8 AiS or the Tokina 28mm f2.8.

The kit lens kind of defeats the whole point of the FS100.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

It's not exactly cheapo! :-) It adds about £700 + VAT (£840) to the price in the UK. You can get a nice serviceable 17-55 2.8 with IS, and your Nikkor adaptor, for that - with enough left over to consider a 70-200 or 11-16. Or both... Such a long zoom range leads to so many compromises - and if there's one thing that the DSLR revolution taught me, it was 'invest in good glass'. The kit lens doesn't really fit into that category just because of the limited aperture.

Apologies to Alister for repeating what he said basically... But how come it's only $500 there and £700 here? UK tax?!

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Hi Matt,

Yeah, the EU prices are really ridiculous for that camera... I mean, they've always been higher than in the US - but usually, when you deducted the VAT (which I do), and consider the nice Prime Support we're getting with Sony Broadcast gear - the difference used to be quite easy to swallow.

Not so with the FS100 - on the most reputable UK vendor's pages, I can see the $6,735.64 price tag - and this is without VAT, and for body only! The kit including lens is $7,915.85 (still without VAT).

My little theory is that with this particular model not having all frame rates globally, the EU vendors are going to use this opportunity and try to apply unusually high margins...

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

When Alister and I agree 100% on something for the same set of reasons you can bet its true!

I very much liked the feel of the 1855 zoom, but it is an indoor lens only. Meaning it is just too short.

But, as an indoor lens it is really too slow. Although, if you buy the FS100 the 2-stops extra sensitivity really will help!

But if you listen to Alister and Doug who have shot with the FS100 and those of us who have shot with the VG10 -- the real fun begins when you buy an adaptor and go to your local camera shop and start buying $75 legacy lenses.

Remember, the difference is the VG10 has no Focus Assist while the FS100 does. And, the FS100 doesn't force you to buy an 18200 E-mount.

PS: My focus on price/performance comes from the fact in the USA today when one is at retirement age -- and, for example, where a good friend still not out of hospital owes $500,000 in medical bills (and she's younger than I am) -- it is hard to grasp there are so many folks who own multiple really expensive cameras. And, can afford do buy gadgets to make them work.

What's odd, is that in the Avid list, the mood is so different. Many are approaching retirement age and trying hard to not spend an extra dime because the market is driving post houses out of business. Editors are still using G4s to keep costs to a minimum. If they can get to retirement without buying anything, they are happy. In fact, given the political situation, we NEED to get to retirement without buying anything we don't need. :)

So Chris, there is a story here: the economic worlds of shooting and post.

Of course, there is another difference. Folks don't buy a Media Composer to show off a new toy. Cameras are status symbols -- and big boys love to dress them up the way little girls dress up their dolls. Media Composer owners are using them to make a living. That's not necessarily true of those buying new cameras -- and Sony understands this well.

Last, editors, have learned "good enough" really is all producers want. And, with over 80% -- in the USA -- getting video via highly compressed pipes, producers know quality will be compromised anyway. Public TV stations, for example, cram a 1080i channel and 3-4 SD "school" channels into 19.4Mbps. So this desire for the best image rather than a camcorder that one can work with VERY rapidly and is CHEAP, seems not to match the economic reality of TV production. And, this reality is where both Panasonic and JVC thrive. (And, the sellers of DSLRs.) They understand that shooter skill can overcome the lack of absolute maximum camera image quality and that many/most profit-driven shooters are far more interested in "bang for the buck."

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I'd rethink both of those if I were you.

The Nikon f/1.4 AIS is far superior to the f/1.8. Can't speak for the Tokina, but it is more than a little slow for my liking.

Also, you'll spot the difference cutting between the Nikon and Tokina as the lens coatings are very different.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

The best sites I have found for comparing lenses are photozone.de and slrgear.com.

In another thread, some are arguing about vignetting and the above sites will show how much more APS-C lenses (EF-S, DX, etc) vignette on an APS-C sensor compared to a full-frame lens on an APS-C sensor.

Another common theme I have found from the lens testing is that all Tokina lenses suffer from CA much more than competitors. Although, be wary of full-frame Nikon tests shot on the D3 because this camera has built-in CA removal.

Something else to consider is that older lenses also tend to have more CA due to the different coatings for film versus newer coatings for digital. This is very apparent in Minolta lenses and a few Sony Alpha lenses that were carried over after the acquisition.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I'm not sure how lens coatings affect CA, more likely they're newer designs which offer better CA correction than the older optics. Having said that, quite a few people like using older optics on digital cameras because of how they look.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Modern lens coatings are designed to prevent internal reflections, coming from the sensor, causing flares and ghosting.

Chromatic aberration is caused by a failure of the lens to focus all the wavelengths of colour - known as refraction. Modern lenses use low dispersion glass or ultra low dispersion glass to combat this:

Canon BCTV Lenses: What is Chromatic Aberration?