Review of the New Sony FS100

[Guy Mcloughlin]

The FS-100 sensor size is very close to the size of the Super-35 Cine format which is approximately 1.25x larger than the AF-100 sensor. When shooting it’s not that big a difference in size.

Using the same lens on both cameras, the larger FS-100 sensor displays a wider angle of view ( good for wide-angle shots ), and the smaller AF-100 sensor displays a narrower angle of view. ( good for telephoto shots )

The Full Frame 35mm still photo format is huge, which can be a problem in low-light situations because you have to stop down 2 more F-Stops with a FF 35mm camera to achieve the SAME depth-of-field as a Micro 4/3 camera.

So if your M4/3 aperture is set to f/4.0, you have to use f/8.0 with a Full-frame 35mm camera to see the SAME depth-of-field.

I see a lot of people using the Canon 5D MK2 for low-light shooting, but their depth-of-field is often paper thin because they are shooting at almost wide open. This can create a kind of “claustrophobic” feel to the images because very very little is in focus. This is how the TV show “House MD” used the Canon 5D MK2 for the final episode for last year’s season.

Here’s the full breakdown of the different sizes when shooting with a 16:9 ratio…

Panasonic GH-2 / AF-100 16:9 Sensor Size = 18.8mm x 10.6mm

Sony FS-100 16:9 Sensor Size = 23.6mm x 13.3mm ( 1.25x larger than AF-100 sensor )

Super-35 Cine Format = 24.9mm x 14mm ( 1.32x larger than AF-100 sensor )

FF 35mm Still Photo Sensor Size = 36mm x 24mm ( 1.90x larger than AF-100 sensor )

[Nic Leggat]

[Guy McLoughlin] “Here’s the full breakdown of the different sizes when shooting with a 16:9 ratio…

Panasonic GH-2 / AF-100 16:9 Sensor Size = 18.8mm x 10.6mm

Sony FS-100 16:9 Sensor Size = 23.6mm x 13.3mm ( 1.25x larger than AF-100 sensor )

Super-35 Cine Format = 24.9mm x 14mm ( 1.32x larger than AF-100 sensor )

FF 35mm Still Photo Sensor Size = 36mm x 24mm ( 1.90x larger than AF-100 sensor )”

Thanks guy, thats the best info I’ve seen on the sensor sizes. I’m definitely leaning towards the fs100, thats if I can scrape together enough funds for it 🙂

[Per Klason]

I just purchased the fs100 and have been working with it a bit. Actually I like the form factor. It is small, light, and you can hold it in that hand grip quite comfortably (remember the grip can be rotated to find a convenient position). I often use it stripped down to the minimum to carry with me — it is nice with that modular system. The LCD display with that hook-on viewer works well for me too. You can snap off and on that viewer or just fold it towards the front for using the LCD instead.

But I really bought it for the image quality. I tested it in low light and it is just very impressive. 12 dB gain is still quite ok. With 32 dB the camera can practically see anything my eyes can see in a dark room. Sure it looks like some highly pressured 16 mm film but for extreme documentary situations it is good to have to fall back on.

That 18-200 lens is…ok. But it gets real cool when I stick my Leica M glass on it. And it is neat to have a Nex-5 too, for stills and even as a second cam (when there is enough light it performs pretty well), using the same lenses.

Ok, no ND. No motor zoom. I has a film camera feel. I hope I learn to live with that.

I can’t understand the complaints about the build quality, though. Seems quite alright to me. And the XLR placement — what’s the big deal?

Lack of two SD slots, sure. Well, there is the SSD holder which will be real cool once SSDs will come down in price. For now it just feels too expensive, and I’d prefer to use a Ninja instead.

I like to stick my DV Multirig on it. It folds in neatly underneath, and there I got my shoulder mount with me all the time.

So no regret so far. I like it.