Craig, my memory is that the HVX200 and the Z1 were the big rivals of the time, seen as more or less head to head, and came out about the same time. (I seem to remember a lot said at the time about the HVX200vZ1vJVC HD100 shoot-out?)

Yes, the EX1 came out quite a while later, but I'd say was then a big step up on any of the three original HD cams in that price bracket.

Yeah, Sony is going to be making a successor to the SRW-1 HDCAM SR recorder that records the codec to a new line of SxS cards.

The price on that will make the PMW's price look like nothing, I suspect. The real customers for a box like that will be F35 owners, along with Panavision to mate with Genesis.

I think the real hope is that there will be a new Ki Mini that will do ProRes 444 come NAB.

When HVX200 is was card based recording with 24p native and overcrank with a codec that was much better than HDV. The next camera to rival that was EX1 which added 1/2" sensors. It's all about competitive feature set.

Currently Sony does not have a competitive feature set to AF100 . . . and may not for a year or so as happened with HVX200 and EX1.

Sony seem to have a more indie friendly camera due to be announced.

My comment on the F3 is that the handicam layout is pushing it for handheld work using modern PL cine prime lenses which can weigh 4 to 5 lbs, never mind the accessories.

That other red cloth is way too small to be anything serious, maybe it is the zoom lens. The F3 is barely bigger than an EX1 going by the pics. What's under than other cloth looks to be about as big as the NEX-VG10 camcorder. I can't imagine they would put that new chip in a body THAT small.

The judging by the body size under the red cloth, it looks rather similar to the F3 body without all the lens accessories.

I don't think Sony will be introducing a more affordable version of the F3 at all in the near future.

they already have the NEX-VG10 to appeal to the micro-budget indie market. it has an APSC sensor, and interchangable lenses. it doesn;t shoot at 24p yet, but thats a simple upgrade that can be done via firmware or just in the next VG11 (or whatever they name it).

That pretty much gives Sony their answer to the AF-100 - An HD handicam with interchangable lenses, a large sensor, and AVC codec.

Rick, the VG10 doesn't even come close to the AF100 for way too many reasons to list here. You really need to compare the features and understand even the very basic needs of a professional who needs to assure quality for client or professional market delivery.

I certainly do. The simple reality of the wide market today is that the low-cost, non-pro featured DSLR cameras have taken a significant slice of the market, even various mainstream television productions have used them. The NEX is essentially a DSLR camera with the form factor of a handicam.

Does it compete in sheer quality to the Af-100? No.

BUT, does it appeal to a large portion of the same market? Definetly.

If you are a Pro, sony already has half a dozen cameras for you, which will soon include the F3. But I wasn't talking about that market at all. I was talking about the micro/no budget independent production market, to which the NEX would appeal to greatly, because it's in the price range and quality bracket of the currently hot HDSLR cameras, but with the form factor of a video camera.

Basically, between the NEX and f3 Sony already has the low/middle and high/middle end markets covered, so I doubt theyre going to introduce a $6k-$10 middle-end camera any time soon. I could be totally wrong about that.

I'm inclined to agree with this assumption. We are still waiting for the real street price for the F3, but I don't think Sony have left enough room in the spec differential to fill what appears likely to be a huge price gap from the AF100. I think the price is really the only variable in terms of market positioning.

There's been a lot of info (but still not enough) to digest this week and perhaps my head is spinning but I'm now starting to come to the conclusion that the spec for the F3 may indicate that Sony have purposefully left 'room for improvement' and might even be considering a step-up model (F5 anyone?) - as they have done with many previous product generations in the past, think...

VX2000->PD150

FX1->Z1

EX1->EX3

... etc.

It fits the Sony product release pattern and in each case the 'lower' model came first by around 6 months.

There are a few important options they still have in reserve, perhaps a full or semi-shoulder mount design with a native SxS 50mb(4:2:2) codec, 1080p60 overcrank and proper 'Pro' or at least 'EX3-style' viewfinder. That alone would be enough to differentiate from the F3. A higher price wouldn't necessarily be as critical/damaging for the current target F3 market but then perhaps they might consider lowering the F3 price to reach a much larger market and allow for the economies of scale to kick-in on the sensor production costs.

I think it all depends how widely (and at what volume) the big TV companies and Production/Rental houses bite into the F3, there is probably a large R&D cost for Sony to claw back against that new sensor, so the initial margin is necessarily high.

I suspect the highest costing single element in the whole camera is that sensor, the useable yield for such a large chunk of silicon must be a tiny fraction compared to even 2/3" sensors (let alone 1/2" or 1/3").

Whether this is the strategy Sony will adopt remains to be seen (as does the lump under that red cloth). As it sits at present, my money would be on an AF100/101 (if I was in the buying mood).
The rest of the market will soon be able to decide for itself.

Rick, pros on a budget will likely stick with HDSLR IMHO. VG10 doesn't do 24p and even the 30p is actually in 60i. I don't see form factor being an issue because the small handicam form factor of the VG10 doesn't give it much advantage in the Pro market given the Pro support gear available for HDSLR. Having spent a bit of time with the VG10 it has just enough wrong with it to make me still want to get an HDSLR such as a Canon 60D.

I think the VG10 is yet another example, that if Sony made just a few minor changes it would be a GREAT alternative to HDSLR. As it is it brings over the same problems and adds a few more unfortunately.

Dave is correct in that AFIK going back many years, Sony always releases the bottom model first.

One can hope for an F1 but that would be against past history. One might say it's odd that they used F3 as the starting number in a model series though.

If there is an F1 in the works, coming in at $6~8K ballpark, I think it is more likely to resemble an 'upgraded VG10' than a 'downgraded F3' - at least as far as the sensor technology is concerned... ie, using APS-C not S35.

As such it might be a bit of an oddball in the lineup but I think it would probably suit many just fine, and would probably get some AF100 pre-order folk twitching.

The fundamental sensor quality differential would also allow Sony to justify that extra ($8-10K) premium for the F3 - for those pros that really need (and can afford) true S35 (+PL mount lenses) with all the extra sensitivity, enhanced DR and low noise floor that is promised.

APS-C without the line skipping/pixel binning or otherwise adding really good low pass filtering would work. The VG10 does not solve the HDSLR issue. I suspect the AF100 does even if it's just good low pass filtering but I understand that they may be doing better than that. Jan C. said they are NOT using the G1, G2 sensor even though it's 4/3.

I concur. People have to put the effort and focus into driving their business into clients that are higher up in the ecosystem. I see a lot of responses to the camera that are indicative of people who are not thinking this way and that is their prerogative. I will say this with the market getting more saturated with entrants into the production end of things that are producing things on a shoestring and feeding off of the lower echelon of the business are going to find it increasingly hard to make a buck. We have seen repeatedly as each creative industry has gone through a process of going digital. We saw it begin in the print industry, we saw it in the photography biz and we have seen it in the video biz. Each one is just on a different trajectory. Video is the last due to the massive processing requirements necessary at the lower end of the computing spectrum...

You have to differentiate yourself into unique markets with a value proposition that puts you into a good market that allows you to get good clients, where turnaround is quick due to either handing off material to a some poor editor or a workflow that is nice and quick and the ability to deliver a superior product and makes the client money. A camera is part of the equation. A small part but if you can fit it into your plan where it get's you up a few levels then go for it.

I plan to but I still think Sony is mishandling their marketing of this camera but playing both sides of the fence and not being clear on how this fits into the various workflows their customer base has, hence the hullabaloo over the camera and price point.

Doug, I saw in another thread where there was an inference to trading up from an EX3. Do you plan to use the F3 in place of an EX3 or in place of your ENG cams? I haven't had enough experience with shallow depth of field cameras to know if I would be able to throw out the DOF enough to do ENG style shooting with the F3. My thought was to have at least one EX cam on a shoot and the F3 for either A or B cam depending on the nature of gig.

EDIT:

When I said "ENG style", I should have called it run & gun shooting, be it with EX cams or the shoulder mount ENG variety.

A few extra bits of info that I have about the F3.

The sensor (23.6mm x 13.5mm) uses a square bayer pattern, it is:

Gb B
R Gr

So nothing revolutionary there. The 63db noise figure is for standard gammas and hypergammas. If you use S-Log the noise figure drops to a still quite respectable 57db. The sensitivity is very impressive and the on screen noise is extremely hard to see. The footage that I have seen from the F3 looks beautiful and really looks like material from an F35.
It has many of the F35's advanced features including the ability to shoot S-Log and then apply a LUT to the 4:2:2 output for location preview. In addition you will be able to output S-Log over dual link 4:4:4 while recording 35Mb/s mpeg with the LUT applied internally, thus acting as a kind of proxy file.
As well as the 4:4:4 dual link option there will be a 3D link option allowing you to link two F3's together with, as I understand it, one F3 controlling the other so that gain settings etc are matched. In addition the F3 can be controlled by a RMB type remote control panel.
It's fairly power hungry at 24w so a BPU-60 will only last around an hour compared to the 4 hours that EX1 users are used to. The camera will not come with any batteries or charger when you buy it.
The rear viewfinder appears to be the one from the EX1R.
With the PL mount removed the camera has a proprietary mount with a 14 pin hot shoe called the "F" mount. This has a vey short flange back, so it should be possible for 3rd parties to make adapters for DSLR lenses that fit this new mount.

Those thinking or hoping that we may see a 4:4:4 Ki-Pro Mini had should consider just how much data is required to record 4:4:4. Compact flash cards are not going to be up to the job, which is why Sony developed the new "SR Pak" recording media and SR Memory Field recorder which I believe can be used in a kind of clip-on configuration.

I should be getting my hands on an F3 at Interbee next week, if not I'll certainly have some time on one the week after in Oslo at the Sony Creatology event. I'll try to shoot some footage for all to see.

I'm probably going to get a pair for my 3D productions, provided I can get a lens adapter made for Nikon lenses.

Andrew, maybe my response is more appropriate to a business forum but . . .

Sure one always wants to up sell clients but the F3 seems geared to episodic TV. People in that budget range doing ENG work are going to look for a shoulder mount, fast setup, good codec camera. The PMW-500 which can use 50mbps 4:2;2 to SxS is an example.

The camera F3 is a non starter for corporate work unless your client is Fortunate 100 client with money to burn on a project.

It's a down economy and I don't see business spending more for that when the can get "good enough" with AF100 if they need shallow DOF.

Low budget HDSLR, with all its problems has already creeped in to some higher end productions. They might jump to an AF100 if it solves the problems but one you fully kit out the F3 so it takes advantage of its features, it's in a very different price class.

Otherwise you're looking at comparing features from PMW-350 2/3" chips, PMW-500 2/3" chips with 50mbps 4:2:2, F3 large sensor and 35mbps 4:2:0, AF100 for a lower budget large sensor solution.
You really have to have a specific selling point for the F3 to lead. F3 is for broadcast work were Shallow DOF is more important than ENG. If that's where you're headed with your client base than go for it. Purchases should be built around sensible business models. I can think of very few situations where the up sell to an F3 works outside of broadcast works financially.

Alister, do you have any information about the number of pixels on the chip, as well as the pattern?

I have no information on the pixel count. The pattern though is alternate lines of
Gb B Gb B Gb B Gb B and
R Gr R Gr R Gr R Gr according to the information I have.

The relevance really comes when you start to talk about 4:4:4. That implies equal R,G,B resolutions, and all equal or more than the system resolution. In which case you need at least 1920x1080 pixels of each colour, so for Bayer an 8 megapixel sensor (4 meg of green, 2meg each of red and blue). A lower res sensor would still give good 1920x1080 luminance resolution - but it wouldn't be true 4:4:4.

Craig, I don't fundamentally disagree with your thoughts on the matter. I am putting forward an approach that involves more risk but the possible outcome is better clients, higher day rates & ultimately a better lifestyle at least the way I view it.

Most cameramen I talk to feel the best kind of work is the one where you get hired to do a shoot, hand over the goods at the end and get a cheque. A lot of that kind of work has disappeared as a result of the one man band approach to production but if you can get yourself up to the level with your gear that you get hired as a camera op rather than a jack of all trades with a camera that is truly capable of delivering digital cinema quality footage, you can go after market niches that few can. This obviously means having an outboard recording but many of here have a nanoFlash and will probably get a Ki Pro Mini as well. 2 to 3 years from now, you can bet there will be recorders out that will take full advantage of the what this camera can offer for a couple of grand. I see this camera as one you would want to keep for more than a few years.

That was me. I said PRORES 444, which is about half the data rate as HDCAM SR, or for those of us coming from Red (like me). 220mbit/sec. ~100gigs an hour. About 16 minutes on a 32gb card.

Considering dang near anybody who would care to do record in such a way are probably Red refugees, I don't think this is a big deal. A LOT of people out there are pretty familiar with how you handle data like that, we've been shooting Red for 2.5 years. I'm one of them.

A little much for a Ki Mini+cards at the moment, but not a big deal for KiPro which can take an SSD.

I sold my EX3 more than a year ago and sold my EX1R lin July because I didn't need them anymore. The main camera I use on a daily basis is my PDW-F800 because it beats the EX cameras in every way you want to measure it expect for price. And then I still have my trusty EX1 in a back pack when I need to be mobile. Although I think the EX3 is the best all-around camera ever invented -- if you can only have one camera -- I didn't have a need for it in my camera line up anymore.

The F3 certainly won't replace the F800 and possibly not even the EX1. The F3 is going to be used to go in a totally different direction and work on some new projects that the F800 and EX1 aren't suited for. It may end up replacing the EX1, but not right away.

I disagree 100% with that statement. THIS IS the affordable and reliable cinema-style camera that the corporate guys I work with have all been waiting for. About $20K for a Super-35 camera and lenses, plus the very efficient and proven XDCAM workflow will be a perfect combination.

If you don't think that is going to appeal to in-house corporate producers and independent production companies that produce corporate video, then you're moving in different circles than I am. This camera is well within the budget of even small businesses and producers who will see the value of how it can change the whole look and feel of their work. This camera is a major game changer at the middle-level of production.

I didn't say it was impossible, but is it practical or even necessary for many of the productions that will be shot with a small camera such as the F3? 4:2:2 ProRes HQ is around 220Mb/s, 4:4:4 ProRes is around 330Mb/s (HDCAM SR 4:4:4 video only is 440Mb/s or 880Mb/s depending on quality selection), so that equates to around 11 minutes on a 32Gb card. It is feasible, but you will need the absolute fastest CF cards (x600 or x666) you can lay your hands on to get any hope of reliable recordings. Then you need to consider the extra power requirements for encoding 4:4:4 and driving the dual link interface. Sure anything is possible, but for the many prospective F3 users that are not used to dealing with 4:4:4 and that simply don't need 4:4:4 it isn't just a case of slapping on an extra BNC cable and off you go. Backups and data wrangling will take longer. There is a much greater risk of corruption (the larger the file, the more chance there is of it spanning a corrupt disc sector).

For the many people that are looking at the F3 for corporate work the internal 35Mb/s 4:2:0 may well suffice just nicely, especially as the super clean camera output will minimise the stress on the codec. For broadcast 50Mb/s 4:2:2 should be enough, but being realistic 100Mb/s Mpeg 2 or regular ProRes 4:2:2 would be more than adequate.

There is an obsession with "bigger is better". While I fully agree that 4:4:4 is better than 4:2:2 in terms of image quality (assuming the source is good enough). You have to consider the whole workflow and convenience taking into account media costs, storage requirements, render times etc. For many a barrier to XDCAM EX and P2 based cameras has been the cost of media. With an decent 32Gb x633 CF card costing a minimum of $500 USD, for 4:4:4 your looking at over $41 per min for recording media which is ten times the cost per minute of SxS-1 media at 35Mb/s (approx $5 per min). Even180Mb/s 4:2:2 using CF in a NanoFlash or KiPro with a $95, 400x CF card is still only around $5 per minute.

4:4:4 is for visual effects work, for other material 4:2;2 can do the job. Most productions have never been shot using 4:4:4.

It's not the 444 that's such a big deal (personally, anyway) Its the access to unbaked log images that people will want, I think. Personally, ProRes HQ in LOG is what I'd want.

Just saying there's a whole market of people who have been using the Red that will be interested in working this way. The things you rightfully note as being overkill for some users are absolutely no big deal to others, and I'm not talking about huge TV shows on F35s.

In my neck of the woods, Red has been ruling for quite a while, but not without a lot of groaning about post. F3 will solve a good portion of that, not having to debayer later.

You are right though, 75% of users of this camera will just not go there. Its really a question of if the job is getting graded on good gear after, nobody will want to feed a DaVinci XDCAM when they could have had LOG for a $150 extra rental.

It will be interesting to see what the ramifications of the F3's, 63db noise figure using standard gammas and hypergammas, vs the 57db nf using S-Log.

S-Log on the F3 will give you almost an extra stop of dynamic range but doubles the amount of noise. In most grading situations noise is the defining factor as to how far you can push the image in post. At 57db the noise level is at the point where 10 bit recording brings little advantage as the noise is still around the minimum sample size. At 63db there will be a definite advantage to recording 10bit.

Time will tell, but I'm thinking that with this particular camera the best results will be obtained by using hypergammas and not S-Log.

The noise behaviour suggests that the true zero point noise level for the F3 is 57db, but that for "normal" use, due to the sensors very large dynamic range I suspect that Sony have chosen to reduced the gain by 6db, thus reducing both the noise and dynamic range. In effect the camera is operating with -6db gain switched in as default. However the sensor is sensitive enough to still give excellent low light performance despite the reduced gain and has more than enough dynamic range to still give the 11 stops that can be recorded with Hypergammas. This points to excellent low light performance as with +6db of gain switched in (with standard or hypergammas) your still going to have a 57db noise figure and at +9db gain it should have about the same amount of noise as an EX1 at 0db! Ah.. the delight of big pixels.

Pretending I could afford one. A couple things I don't like. I have been spoiled rotten by the EX3s form factor. Having a viewfinder at the back of the camera seems so yesterday to me and makes it seem handycam-ish, but then it has no built in microphone which gives it a cinema camera vibe...LOL Sounds like a board room full of suggestions all crammed into one camera.


Remember when Homer Simpson was allowed to design the car of tomorrow?

http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalali...s/TheHomer.jpg

I would really like the option of removing rear mounted viewfinders.

Doug, do you still have the Canon XF305?

I agree with this entirely, I'm looking forward to seeing pictures from it soon.

Yes, but I haven't used it since I completed my training DVD on that camera.
Mastering the Canon XF305/300 Camcorders training DVD

It's a very nice camera in many ways, but I just don't have a need for it in my line up.
I suppose I'll end up selling it sometime this winter once I'm certain I really don't need it anymore.

Here's a more detailed review at FD Times

Film and Digital Times: Arri ALEXA Factory Tour

Ignore the Alexa reference it takes you to the F3

Brian, thanks for posting up Jon Fauer's follow up article on the F3. I am sure most here will read it but there are a few takeaways that either have been only touched on over the past week or are new things that some may be interrested in.

Here are a few things of note:

He and Sony are correcting the way they are referring to or rather comparing it to a 35mm film neg. In past references, it has been said it was similar to a "super 35" imager size. Now they are saying is is closer to the 35mm 3-perf motion picture format;

The PL mount is actually an adapter having electrical pass-through connections for some Cooke and ARRI lenses. Benefit of the PL mount being an adapter is there is an F3 mount closer to the sensor plane allowing one to use a myriad of lenses once you have the appropriate adapter. It will also allow Sony to manufacture inexpensive lenses with the sensor plane being so close to the start of the lens removing a lot of lens design obstacles. Most know this but worth mentioning as not much noise has been made of this;

Equivalent ISO around 800 has been reported but it may actually be higher;

Mention of a Sony branded dual-link HD-SDI recorders, the SRW-1 and the SRPC-1. Guessing the pricing will have that Hollywood taste to it. Hopefully I will be proven wrong when the new units are released in a year;

Color tables or paint box paradigm is selectable to either Hyper Gamma or S-Log as has been reported;

Records in the usual pixel ratio and frame rate HD flavors but also records in DVCAM PAL or NTSC in etiher film or broadcast framerates;

The slomo specs are still confusing on first glance but what you need to know is it will do up to 60 FPS in 720p;

The big point made here at the end of the article is "3D link" as a future option for stereo syncing of cameras with genlock & timecode as well as Metadata. You will be able to do 3D recording of both cameras to one card, if you wish.

Sony claim the native ISO to be 800 asa using Hypergammas and standard gammas and 1600 asa when using S-Log, which adds further weight to my -6db gain theory.

The sensor is much closer to 3 perf. It can't be Super 35 as this is anamorphic with a near 4:3 frame size.

Super 35 isn't traditionally used as a shooting anamorphic system. the squeeze is given by the lab or in post for use in projection prints. This is different to the anamorphic systems like Panavision which uses the full 4 perf standard 35mm motion picture frame.

The 3 perf mentioned could refer to height being used on the sensor, since in motion pictures film you can have the Super 35 width i.e using the soundtrack area for imaging, but shooting using a 3 perf pull down. This pull down has become more common in recent years, the 35mm Aaton Penelope being an example of a camera that does this.

Super 35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Brian says, both Super 35 and 3 perf are spherical formats (non-anamorphic). Both have the same negative width which is fractionally higher that that of the F3's sensor. When cropped to 16:9 Super 35's negative area is identical to 3 perf.

Both formats take advantage of the area occupied by the optical audio track on release prints in order to gain area over the traditional Academy frame. As the name suggests, 3 perf only pulls the negative down by 3 sprocket holes (perfs) per frame whereas Super 35 pulls it down by 4. Super 35 uses that extra negative to expose a 4:3 frame which is then cropped if/as required.

If Super 35 is cropped to 16:9 the additional information above and below the 16:9 crop is discarded and the only real difference is that 3 perf uses stock more efficiently. Super 35 does however allow for a certain amount of reframing in post if required.

So the F3 sensor would best be described as "Super 35 (1.78 crop)" or "35 mm 3-perf" sized. (Although it is a tiny bit smaller.)

Lenses designed to cover the Academy frame could vignette on the F3, so it's important to know that the sensor is larger than that format and is closer to 3-perf and Super 35

That observation could save someone from making VERY costly mistake!

This is already a consideration with the RED One, but surprising numbers of older lenses can be used with that camera. Some people prefer the softer look of say the older Cookes to modern glass on the digital cameras. However, it's something to be checked.

It would have been a couple of years ago, but the economics have changed and so has technology. Sony are too late to the party with the F3, it looks out-dated and will certainly look outmoded compared to offerings from RED and Canon due to be released in the months ahead. Shame really, I could have used this camera all year if it had been available.