Re: FS100 or F3?
 

I don't know how did I get 72% for F3, I thought it'll be 150%, but to be honest how can you even compare two, using your analogy F3 is like D1H and FS100 is like any P&S, I guess 'brain' and codec make big difference

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

The FS100 is a lot better than a P&S. That analogy does not work for me.

I would say the F3 is a like a Nikon D3, and the FS100 is like a Nikon D300s.
Both nice cameras, but built to suit different types of needs.

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

Of course the F3 is a better camera, But the ? I asked was solely about image quality when both cameras are recording to their native formats.

And the answer is hardly a no brainer b/c both cameras use the exact same CMOS sensor. And with CMOS, A/D conversion is performed on the sensor.

Furthermore, I suspect most people have tested the FS100 with the kit lens since it doesn't come w/ a PL mount. While F3 owners are putting PL glass on their cameras. This alone makes the majority of examples you see on the web not very useful for comparisions.

And there's codecs. It's not clear that XDCAM-EX is better than NXCAM (quite a few tests seem conclude that NXCAM is at least as good or better).

So ?ing if there is a significant image quality difference between the two cameras is not as silly a ? as it might seem.

As for overall, of course the F3 is a much better camera.

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

Just for the record, I have a Hot Rod Camera Tuner PL adapter (GREAT PRODUCT!) and so I have used the FS100 and the F3 with the exact same Zeiss, Sony, and Cine-Xenar PL lenses. I also have the 18-200 kit lens, 16mm Sony E-mount w/ fisheye adapter, a half dozen f/2.8 Nikon lenses and one Canon lens. I have no shortage of lenses to choose from and compare on both cameras.

Whether NXCAM is a better codec or not than XDCAM is impossible for me to determine without doing more testing than I care to do; however, as an FCP 7 editor, I can tell you that I find the NXCAM workflow intolerable.

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

I just want to say for the record, that if I were Sony I'd be sure that the F3 had a better image than the FS100. Even if that meant putting a big ol' thumb print on each sensor heading for the FS100 bin.

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

I see what you mean, but the processing of 10-bit creates a sharper picture than 8-bit, also better in the highlights and shadows, even when compressed to the card. Are non-professionals going to notice, probably not. The real question isn't what's the better camera. The question is how much are you willing to spend?

But if you are only planning on shooting to the card, then the FS100 is great!

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

Both cameras have the same sensor and it's true that the A to.D converters are on the sensor chip. But beyond that these are two very different cameras. The F3 DSP is probably a 12 or 14 bit DSP. You need at least 12 bits to get the 12+ stops of dynamic range that S-log gives you. On the other hand the DSP in the FS100 is probably only 10 bit and this is why the images look different. The more bits your DSP has e easier it is to apply sophisticated filtering and gamma directions etc. The difference in DSP also explains the lower dynamic range of the FS100 as some of the data coming of the sensor will be truncated to fit the DSPs limited bit depth.

I love my F3's. They are a real pleasure to use. the ergonomics may not be perfect but they are still a pleasure to use. I'd rather shoot with an F3 than an FS100.

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

I would, too, but my bank account says I'll like the FS100 better.

Re: FS100 or F3?
 

"I would, too, but my bank account says I'll like the FS100 better."

Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth....