Sony PMW F3 Camera

[Michael Palmer]

Neither of these cameras have really hit the streets yet and to explode over the price without knowing the capabilities is jumping the gun. The only thing I know about the F3 is that it is a true 12-14 bit camera that has future abilities for dual link (4:4:4) recordings, this is far and away beyond this Panasonic (8-bit) AVCHD unit.

I will say the Panasonic is a much better idea than any DSLR that needs all those extra gizmos to make video.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[Craig Seeman]

My sense of the F3 is that it’s a baby F35. It’s a B camera for episodic TV or lower budget (not what I’d call “indy” but some might) features. The built in EX codec is really only a proxy in those cases. I guess some higher end doc work as well.

For corporate work, very local cable spots, lower budget docs and what I’d consider “indy” films the AF-100 or probably the upcoming NXCAM super35 camera would be better. Frustrating that they’re both AVCHD though.

I see a market opportunity that Sony is missing to make an EX camera for under $10k or, better still, one that can handle 50mbps 4:2:2 (as Canon is using in their XF series).

[Philip Coccioletti]

I agree but am upset that Sony calls it an INDY camera with a price tag of over 18K!!! We work lots of INDY productions and are lucky to have any camera in the 10K range.
This new PMW F3 is a 10K range camera and no more. Look at the few videos on youtube or vimeo using the F3… they are ok. But look at the Bali shoot with the DSLR 5D Canon and that footage blows away the F3. Again… it always comes down to who is flying the plane. Sony missed the ball on this one and is over charging big time. Every review we read complains about the price point.
here is an example below

https://www.eoshd.com/content/446-Sample-Sony-F3-footage-and-first-impressions

[Jason Davenport]

Please…a review from a DSLR site. Their info is completely wrong. Noise…that camera has snr of 63
At 18db noise can hardly be seen
It’s a 3.5 sensor
Camera is 13,300k, glass is irrelevant
That noise still is BS.
Shoots Slog 444 same as raw.
Can shoot 420,422,444
It is modular, you can add separate recorder.

Now we have another option to RED or Alexa than putting a $50,000 dollar lens on a $2000.00 camera that:
Shuts down when hot
Gives corrupted files
Freaks out at detail
Has bad case of gello cam
Needs $2000 dollars of stuff to put on shoulder
Bad VF output
No ND filtering
Moire
Audio..
Compression artifacts and messy gradient.

Do I need to go on…

They are great for photogs but their life in the video world has ended.

[Philip Coccioletti]

I am not saying I agree with the DSLR guys. I have seen great images with the Canon 5D and had a chance to use it. I was impressed with the visuals. Yes… its a pain with all the accessories and handling the unit, etc,etc.
My beef is with Sony and their decision to put such a heavy asking price on this new PMW F3 going for a small fortune at $18,900… and then they insist they are catering to the INDY crowd? The Indy crowd ain’t gonna shell out 20K for this little F3, especially when Panasonic’s AF 100 is under 1/3rd the price.
Why is Sony doing this with such a ridiculous price point?

[Craig Seeman]

It may depend on what one considers an Indy. If it’s $50k budget they may not consider this camera. If it’s $500k maybe. But if you’re in that budget range the real issue is why would one use the F3 over RED? I just don’t see the F3 having a big market share compared to the competition in the Indy film market.

[Jay Gladwell]

Philip, in this business, you get what you pay for. You’re attempting to compare apples and oranges.

Buy the AF-100, if that’s what you want, and stop beefing. Life’s too short.

[Craig Seeman]

[Jay Gladwell] “in this business, you get what you pay for.”
But that’s not the basis for a business to make a purchasing decision.

The Canon XF100 is about $3300 and uses 50mbps MPEG2 4:2:2
The Sony F3 is about $18,000 sans lens and uses 35mbps MPEG2 4:2;0
That’s certainly not a complete picture but one wonders why Sony uses a codec which, given the F3 camera’s intent (which is certainly apples to oranges compared to the XF100) is only a proxy codec.
On the other hand, the RED Epic-S will probably be about $12,000 for the body.

Many people are questioning the price of the F3 vs the features and price of other shallow depth of field cameras.

Personally I see the F3 as a baby F35 for those locked into that workflow. Indy filmmakers have a lot of choices from much lower to comparable to higher price range and one can certainly wonder what the F3 is offering compared to other shallow depth of field capable cameras. There’s been lots of questions about the ergonomics of the F3. If the intent was to make a mid priced “ease of use” large sensor camera it may fail in that regard. The problem is in many categories of large sensor cameras there’s seems to be a comparable or better choice.

We’ll only know for sure when all the production models of these large sensor cameras hit the streets and undergo heavy use but, on paper, the F3 does not stand out in price/feature set IMHO.

[Jay Gladwell]

Craig, you too are attempting to compare two cameras that aren’t anywhere near the same class; they’re worlds apart–apples to oranges.

The XF100 has a 1/3″ sensor. The F3 has a Super 35mm sensor, not to mention the capabilities to record with much higher quality codecs.

I dare say if the truth were known, most folks complaining really love the camera, they simply can’t afford it. Hence, their complaining, but that’s just my opinion.

[Craig Seeman]

[Jay Gladwell] “you too are attempting to compare two cameras that aren’t anywhere near the same class;”

I’m comparing things piecemeal and doing it deliberately. That’s why I mention the Epic-S. For the price which do you think will have the better codec? The choice of 35mbps 4:2:0 over 50mbps 4:2:2 can’t be cost of implementation because Canon has it in a $3000 camera. 4:2:2 codec should be baseline in an $18,000 camera body IMHO.

My point is that Sony should have, as a baseline, used 50mbps 4:2:2 so an “indy” filmmaker could have an easy to use solution if they did not want to nail on recording devices. Basically one thing the F3 does not seem to be is a more portable solution since it is not shoulder mount, it needs an external recording device. Personally I think anyone who is in the price range of an F3 will also be considering RED’s offerings. The F3 has to have an ADVANTAGE to win over Indy filmmakers. Such advantages could have been ease of portability or price and it seems to fail on both.

The ONE advantage the F3 has is if you’re shooting episodic TV or other programing with an F35 you’d have a very affordable B camera that will fit in with the workflow once Sony comes out with Dual Link.

The F3 would have been killer if it had a better codec, was shoulder mount so an Indy filmmaker/doc maker had a portable mid priced large sensor camera. As it is I don’t see why an indy filmmaker would chose it over RED on features relative to price, ease of use, portability, workflow.

Please do convince me (and others of course) otherwise. philip brought up the “indy” market specifically.