If the Epic Light really has 150fps burst and 120fps an 2/3" chip it is worth the price right there, if it is in the same ball park price as the F3. I guess we will have to wait and see on all of these cameras.

It's fine for basic cuts, and you transcode overnight or whatever.

Thanks everyone for your help to my questains. I hope Sony does make a good zoom for the F3, maybe even Canon will make a good manual one that will handle fast moving subjects like wildlife, as a deep depth of field and lots of zoom is a must. Yes, the 2/3" Scarlet might make a good wildlife camera and who knows what Canon is up to. Exciting times.

A good example of a deep depth of field footage shot with my Canon XLH1 was when I was charged by 2 grizzly bears this past summer at 25 yards. It was a close and sudden encounter and as I had seen lots of fresh bear sign I was carrying the camera already mounted on the tripod. The footage remained focused decently until the last 12 feet which by this time I had went to wide angle. Now if only the F3 will do as well. To see and read the whole story, Google BC filmmaker attacked by grizzlies.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos

Zoom info from sony:

PL Mount: 11-16, F2.8 Due APR 2011 Price TBD

F3 Mount 18-270, F3.5-6.3 Due Fall 2011 Manual Focus and zoom only Price TBD

F3 Mount 18-270, F3.5-6.3 Due 2012 Automatic Control Price TBD

F3 Mount 17-50, F2.8 Due 2012 Automatic Control Price TBD


That is all the information for their zooms. Most likely you're going to be looking at 3rd party zooms if you need one right now, but remember they will have to be manual only.

Regarding the workflow of RED vs F3, if you just want event / corporate fast stuff record via the HDSDI out onto a nano at lower bitrates. If you want it for high end stuff record RAW.
Epic light or whatever it will be called will have much better specs, be smaller however it
a) Is still nowhere near production which the Sony is
b) Will not have anywhere near the support that the Sony has
c) Will probably have a few gliches and will need updating of builds etc etc

I still like the fact that I can keep investing in decent glass and know that it will not get superseded.

zooms ...
 

These zooms sound interesting most certainly. 18-270 F3.5 automatic controls sounds like something for fast action on the playing field. The zoom range would cover just about anything one needed. 18-270 ... that must be a big sucker! Definitely interested but like others will see what happens when the dust settles!

I honestly hate to admit it, as much as I'm sure people who use to shoot on real 35mm film hated admitting that digital was taking over, but the fact is that today people are shooting professional productions on DSLR's for crying out loud (that's the part I hate admitting) - so now, unless you have a REALLY REALLY good reason to shoot RAW (film blow-out is the only reason I see) with the advent of DLSR's, compact lenses such as PL or 4/3rds and new cameras with sensors optimized for them, RED is DEAD.

I wouldn't agree with the "RED id dead" sentiment, but certainly there are horses for courses.

I own a 7D and find it unpleasant to work with, and the limitations to be substantial.

On the opposite end, I feel that RED pushes 4k as a standard because it suits them to, and they certainly have a bias.

Even if in 5 or 10 years 4k is the standard, I think there's plenty of time to make good money out of the F3. As others have said, the F3 suits productions that want high quality digital, but don't want the time and hassle of a RAW post workflow.

For productions that will only ever be seen in 1080p or lower quality, I think shooting in RED becomes overkill. RED talks about future-proofing, but not everyone can afford to think like that.

I certainly think RED will continue to see success for theatrical work, but they will have stiffer competition for broadcast, web, and direct to disc productions.

I sold my PS Technik mini35 setup while I could still get a pretty polished penny for it. Today I own a HVX200 I can use with 35mm adapaters if I need to. Ironically I own a 7D which I bought for still 35mm photography and to this day the switch has never seen the HD video recording mode but I ought to try it one day to prove myself wrong about DSLR.

I'm now thinking the AF100... but who knows, it's a never ending cycle.

I owned a Letus Ultimate that I used with my EX1 and HVX200. Sold it a month ago. I'm on the preorder list for one of the very first PMW-F3 cameras.

I'm also planning to sell the HVX200 - but I'll be keeping my 7D and EX1. I'm using Nikon Zeiss glass, so I can mount them on the 7D as needed, but they'll be primarily for the F3.

Can I ask how you mount your glass to the 7D? Is it only EF / EF-S that works on a 7D, or does FD mount for example work too?

What I'm using are Carl Zeiss ZF and ZF/2 lenses that have a Nikon mount. I have an adapter ring that conforms the Nikon mount to the Canon EF mount.

Not sure about an FD to EF mount, I've never looked for one.

Interesting question. Just finished a bunch of reading on the topic, in light of the EPIC being used on the set of the new Spiderman movie. A few high level things to seriously chew on. First, and not the most important, a usable EPIC will cost you well in excess of 30 grand, more like 40 and that does not include lenses. Secondly, and most important, as this will be the most time consuming to set up and that is modifying and adding to your hardware to deal with the increased data that the new RED cams will have and that is 3 times the amount of the old (if you can call it that) workflow/datarate. You will need bigger, faster desktops and several of them in order to keep on top of deadlines even for lowly freelance types and you will need RED's accelerator cards. Not saying it is impossible but you wlll REALLY want to go there with RED to do it. The proposition now is even more daunting in some ways that with the original RED one setup.

Not bashing RED either. The EPIC will be very appealing to many but the hardware requirements at the desktop level have to be factored in and it is not a trivial exercise.

From the people I have spoken with, the F3's advantage is its lower quality to the RED. 80% of RED work is in 2K, in bread and butter stuff - simply for workflow and the F3 holds its own in that area and takes all the RED workflow headaches out of the mix.

makes sense ...
 

The Red Epic is for high end feature film and anyone who has experienced working on 35 &16mm film projects appreciates the faster turn around on digital work flow. That said, on smaller productions, that require around 2k and less ... the F3 makes sense. It's obviously a camera for TV commercials, episodics and documentaries and can go film out with 4.4.4 if need be! That's a pretty big range ... to do film out with the F3 will require added components that will cost in excess of 10 k even if you don't get the camera with the pro-offered 3 lens. That still leaves you in and around 30 - 35k in expenses when you factor in good lens. A good investment if you have the work to cover the costs.