All this talk about Sony missing their target market...

I'm guessing with the lens kit it's going to be somewhere in the low $20,000s. Let's say you add a Nanoflash or Aja-mini - another $2,000-2,500. That puts it firmly in the professional broadcast/filmmaker market, and now you have a 10-bit 4:2:2 codec. For that same price, you can maybe assemble an HPX500 kit, or a low-end Sony XDCAM HD or a PMW-350 with SxS cards. That price still won't get you the latest Varicams or medium to higher-end XDCAM HD cameras.

I dunno, the F3 sound like a pretty good deal. If the S35 sensor gives us the images we think it can, then it's a great choice for a professional. Add a power zoom (as the zoom rocker indicates) then it definitely opens its options as a professional tool. Plus, it can be upgraded to a true digital cinema camera that can be matched with an F35 and give you 4:4:4 color. Wow.

So: in its basic form, it's a large sensor EX camera with great low light performance and shallow DoF. Add an aftermarket media drive and it's a broadcast-quality video/cinema camera. Use the dual HD/SDI to an as-yet revealed media drive, and it's a big-time PL-mount digital cinema camera, working side by side with the really expensive cameras, ready for the big screen. All this from one camera. Think of the rental possibilities!

For indie filmmakers and lower budget professionals, the AF100 looks like a better deal - or at least a more affordable one. What will it take to make the AF100 give you 10-bit 4:4:4 color? Answer - you can't, but most of us will never need that feature. Yet, someone will. So, pick the camera that best fits your needs.

Here's a graphic comparing the AF-100 sensor size to the Sony PMW-F3 sensor ( made with the AbelCine FOV Calculator )
Ahh - but there's a lot more to it than simply physical sensor size.

The AF100 appears to be using an available 12 megapixel sensor - as in all the other Panny 4/3 cameras. Quite sensible as a way of keeping costs down, and using an OLPF does mean it won't have the worst of the aliasing problems of DSLRs. BUT, it is almost certain to still have to use pixel skipping readouts, and that's likely to impact on sensitivity. Sony do say that the F3 has a sensor specifically designed for digital cinematography - I read that as indicating one with less than 12 megapixels, and hence able to not need pixel skipping - whilst being fully adequate for HD video. It's likely to mean some considerable advantages over the AF101, not least sensitivity.

Secondly, you have to think about the way it seems to have been designed around a lens system - the AF101 seems to be thought of as a body to make use of various lenses that are available. The trouble is that such lenses (at least zooms) are likely to be about f4. Compare that to a 2/3" camera with an f2 lens and you can expect exactly the same depths of field! What the 4x bigger sensor gets you, the two stops smaller lens takes away.

As video DSLR replacements without aliasing problems, remember that 4/3, even super 35mm, sizes are much smaller than full frame 35mm. Combined with aperture issues, some people may find the AF100 dof disappointing compared to the DSLrs they are used to.

There are many other differences as well, s-log obviously being a big plus for the F3. But I'm also surprised that the native codec is 35Mbs - I'd have expected 50Mbs, I agree. All I can say is that at least 35Mbs XDCAM is much better than AVC-HD. And since it's a more expensive camera, then maybe the use of an external recorder (to ProRes, HDCAM SR, or whatever) may be less of an issue.

The big question now will be whether the AF100 is seen as a sweet price point - or falling between stools. I suspect it may be seen as not good enough to satisfy more discerning users - but too expensive for those on limited budgets, bearing in mind that lens issues don't make it very good as a "general purpose" video camera.

What will it take to make the AF100 give you 10-bit 4:4:4 color? Answer - you can't, but most of us will never need that feature. Yet, someone will. So, pick the camera that best fits your needs.
A 10 bit 4:4:4 output is only any use if the sensor is able to deliver a quality of output that 10bit 4:4:4 recording will enable you to see any difference.

The AF101 is supposed to be using adapted still camera 12 megapixel chips, so is extremely unlikely to give a raw sensor performance equivalent to the F3. Record it to 8bit AVC-HD and that's totally irrelevant. If you have the ability to get at a 10 bit signal, it becomes highly significant.

Its kind of amazing to me that from the strictly amateur point of view, that various DSLR starting at $900, with some work arounds and software enhancements, will be able to still cover about 98% of what the Sony line is going to do at a fraction of the price. Again, this is a strictly amateur point of view, and I recognize a lot of pro shooters will pay for that extra 2%. But it seems like the Sony, at that price point, should offer a bit more.

I am still hoping Sony also flys a pro version of the NEX-VG10 and that might be the right step for them in this market to compete with the new Panny...

Dear Friends,

I have heard that the PMW-F3 sensor produces extremely high quality images.

I would not discount this camera at all until I saw the actual images from this camera.

Ned, did Sony USA actually say $16K? I assumed Studio Daily interpolated that info from Sony UK's blurb.

I have a feeling this camera is going to come in quite a bit under $16K. Closer to $10K, is my bet. Making guesses on US pricing using "tentative" Euro pricing I think is a bad idea.

I don't think many folks will bite at over 12 or 13 USD.

Guys, this camera has a PL mount, its not AF101 competitor at all. Probably it will cost around 25K with the 444 out and the SR recording option, so is a budget cinema camera and more a RED competitor.

BUT I AM AMAZED THAT NOBODY HAS NOTICED, THERE 2 CAMERAS UNDER THE RED CLOTH!!!

Sony 35mm Mystery Camera Film and Digital Times: Blog (http://www.fdtimes.com/news/?p=2914)

I guess the second one will be a more formidable AF101 competitor, price/spec wise.

If you also consider the rumor for a CANON APS-C camera with a June release, we definitely living in very interesting times. I just feel sorry about RED. Epic looks more and more like the V2 rocket*.


* For those unfamiliar, Hitler put extraordinary amount of money and resources in order to produce a groundbreaking weapon like the V2 rocket. By the time it was finished, he had essentially lost the war.

BUT I AM AMAZED THAT NOBODY HAS NOTICED, THERE 2 CAMERAS UNDER THE RED CLOTH!!!
Maybe - but I'd sort of assumed it was the prime lenses they talk about for the "K" package?

The size and the shape (too many angles) does not correspond to a lens form factor. More likely a pro NEX 10. Anyway its only 10 days...

Ned, did Sony USA actually say $16K? I assumed Studio Daily interpolated that info from Sony UK's blurb.

I have a feeling this camera is going to come in quite a bit under $16K. Closer to $10K, is my bet. Making guesses on US pricing using "tentative" Euro pricing I think is a bad idea.

I don't think many folks will bite at over 12 or 13 USD.

This is the same thing I keep saying! Trying to know for sure what USA pricing is based on
tentative Euro pricing is not a good idea. Now I'm not saying it WON'T be 16 grand, but it
sure would not surprise me if it wasn't either.

I also think that Sony didn't go the 50Mbit route mainly due to power consumption reasons, along with size and weight benefits as well. If you read the FDT article, this camera doesn't employ a fan at all. Anyway the difference between 35Mbit and 50Mbit is solely in the colorspace. Sony assumed - IMO correctly - that those who need the extra color info, they will use a separate recorder. We all know that for mainstream work, this extra information is rarely appreciated.

Ahh - but there's a lot more to it than simply physical sensor size.

Absolutely, which is why we really won't know how these cameras compare until somebody is able to test them side by side.

The AF100 appears to be using an available 12 megapixel sensor - as in all the other Panny 4/3 cameras. Quite sensible as a way of keeping costs down, and using an OLPF does mean it won't have the worst of the aliasing problems of DSLRs. BUT, it is almost certain to still have to use pixel skipping readouts, and that's likely to impact on sensitivity.

For the GH-1 ( and for the new GH-2 ) Panasonic used pixel-binning techniques to reduce the true res of the sensor, which is the main reason why the GH-1 does not suffer the same degree of moire and aliasing artifacts as the Canon DSLRs do. I've heard that the native ISO of the AF-100 sensor is in the 400-640 range, which means that it should compare fairly well against the F3. ( I expect the F3 to have better image latitude at high ISO, but the proof will be in the pudding )

Sony do say that the F3 has a sensor specifically designed for digital cinematography - I read that as indicating one with less than 12 megapixels, and hence able to not need pixel skipping - whilst being fully adequate for HD video. It's likely to mean some considerable advantages over the AF101, not least sensitivity.

I am curious how the AF-100 will compare with the F3's image sharpness, as having a dedicated cine sensor might give the Sony some advantage here.

Secondly, you have to think about the way it seems to have been designed around a lens system - the AF101 seems to be thought of as a body to make use of various lenses that are available.

Actually it appears to have been designed ideally for Panasonic 4/3 lenses, but is completely adaptable to almost any lens on the market. I am curious to see how the Birger adapter for Canon EF mount lenses performs, because having a wireless focus puller that can control both focus and aperture with Canon L glass looks very interesting. ( I am a big fan of Canon still cameras, so being able to use my lenses for both stills and video work would be a big bonus for me )

The trouble is that such lenses (at least zooms) are likely to be about f4. Compare that to a 2/3" camera with an f2 lens and you can expect exactly the same depths of field! What the 4x bigger sensor gets you, the two stops smaller lens takes away.

Starting with the 4/3 format, we have top-notch Olympus f 2.0 zooms at: 14-35mm and 35-100mm, along with a 150mm f 2.0 prime and a 90-250mm f 2.8 zoom. Panasonic plans some new faster lenses, though for now you have to settle with 14mm f 2.5, 20mm f 1.7, 25mm f 1.4. With the Birger adapter, we can then add all of the Canon DSLR L glass, with a wide range of focal lengths between f 1.2 - f 2.0. ( 24mm - 200mm ). And being DSLR glass it will likely cost a fraction of the equivalent cine lenses would cost.

I think the big deal with cameras like the AF-100 is going to be electronic lens control for both f-stop and focus. ( the Birger demo video for their RED adapter looks very impressive, so I hope the AF-100 adapter is just as good )

As video DSLR replacements without aliasing problems, remember that 4/3, even super 35mm, sizes are much smaller than full frame 35mm.

I personally think that FF sensors are too big, in that the DOF is so shallow it becomes a bit of a gimmick. ( you also have to close down 2 f-stops to get the same DOF as the 4/3 or S35 formats )

Combined with aperture issues, some people may find the AF100 dof disappointing compared to the DSLrs they are used to.

I actually think it's going to be quite the opposite, in that a fully rigged camera with fast f 1.4 - f 2.0 glass with remote wireless focus and f-stop control, 1080P variable slow-motion overcrank ,simultaneous uncompressed 4:2:2 output both HDMI and HD-SDI ports, and uncompressed audio is going to totally rock in the $10K and under price range. ( Yes, you could easily push $15-20K with lots of lenses and toys, but I think that you could definitely put together a great package for $10K )

But I'm also surprised that the native codec is 35Mbs - I'd have expected 50Mbs, I agree. All I can say is that at least 35Mbs XDCAM is much better than AVC-HD.

From my perspective it looks like Sony is trying to protect it's digital cine line, so they had to hamper the F3 in some way.

...And if you want to slag the Panasonic implementation of the AVCHD CODEC please show us the proof David, because I've seen nothing from you to back up this silly claim. I've posted both the Crews.TV and Barry Green's tests that prove the opposite of what you are saying, that the Panasonic AVCHD CODEC at 21 MBits is superior to the Sony XDCAM-EX CODEC at 35 Mbits, and that the AVCHD CODEC compares favorably to the AVC-Intra CODEC for general video shoots. ( I've also got a quote from Adam Wilt, where he states that he considers these two CODECs at these rates to be essentially equivalent, and there's also Mr. Philip Bloom who posted that he found essentially no difference between the AVC-Intra 100 MBit and AVCHD 24 Mbit CODECs when he was shooting with the AF-100 pre-production camera.

I suspect it may be seen as not good enough to satisfy more discerning users - but too expensive for those on limited budgets, bearing in mind that lens issues don't make it very good as a "general purpose" video camera.

David I think we both need to wait until a professional comparison of the finished products can be done. You seem to be bent on slagging the AF-100 camera, but I don't see you backing this up with any statements from the people who have used the current pre-production camera. So I think you need to wait for technical reviews of the finished production camera which should be very soon. ( Philip Bloom and Barry Green are in Japan right now, and it sounds like they will get to play with a finished production camera this Wednesday. )

Adam Wilt, who's been involved DVInfo ShootOuts I believe, has a first look (from afar?) at the AF100. I don't like pointing to offset articles but I'm assuming Adam Wilt is a "friend" of this site.

ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_look_panasonic_ag-af100_mft_cine-style_camcorder/)

Well, the more I see of it, the more the AF100 looks to be an amazing camera for the price. Seems to be the dream wedding cam, and a pretty good indie cam to boot. Don't love the 4/3's dealio, but I don't hate it either.

Either the Sony is just that much better, or we have the makings - potentially - of some real tough marketing times ahead for them. 'Cause this AF100 is looking like Godzillia right now.

Reading the specs for this camera, I would have thought that it would be the least suitable camera for shooting live events like weddings - until I read about the face tracking feature, for exposure as well as focus....

Ned, did Sony USA actually say $16K? I assumed Studio Daily interpolated that info from Sony UK's blurb.

I have a feeling this camera is going to come in quite a bit under $16K. Closer to $10K, is my bet. Making guesses on US pricing using "tentative" Euro pricing I think is a bad idea.

I don't think many folks will bite at over 12 or 13 USD.

Yes. Sony US actually quoted $16K camera alone; $23K with lens package.

Studio Daily report was absolutely accurate and the same thing I heard.

That would be sound reasoning in an $8K camera but not for a $16K camera IMHO.

People looking to push things in color correction would want at least 4:2:2 color space. In fact the need to add an external recorder drives up the prices and notches down the "ease of use" advantage the camera might have vs RED for example (although it certainly has other "ease of use" advantages).

I also think that Sony didn't go the 50Mbit route mainly due to power consumption reasons, along with size and weight benefits as well. If you read the FDT article, this camera doesn't employ a fan at all. Anyway the difference between 35Mbit and 50Mbit is solely in the colorspace. Sony assumed - IMO correctly - that those who need the extra color info, they will use a separate recorder. We all know that for mainstream work, this extra information is rarely appreciated.

Sorry for posting so much but I have to articulate why I and others are disappointed.

EX1 and the EX series is a leader for us because:
Sony brought larger sensors in at a lower price. 1/2" for just over $6K (EX1)
We got interchangeable lenses for just over $8K (EX3)
We got full shoulder camera for about $12K (PMW-320)
We got 2/3" for $19K (PMW-350)
We got 2/3" CCD with 50mbps 4:2:2 to card rather than disc for $25K (PMW-500)
We got 35mbps VBR to card when others were 25mbps CBR tape or difficult to use 24mbps AVCHD or large file size AVC Intra.

Sony has been leading price performance throughout the EX series.

Canon offers large sensor HDSLR (albeit compromised) used by video pros in about $1K-$3K
Panasonic offers large sensor camera with video body for $5K
Sony, the price performance leader offers NOTHING in the range. Not even an announced future product.

Instead Sony offers an EX1 style camera with basically the same codec and related features in large sensor format with the addition of PL Mount, LUT, not yet implemented Dual Link (sure to increase the cost), otherwise the need to add on an external recorder to improve the codec (increasing the cost) to compete against the RED when it does not match the feature set of RED and once using the add on needed, it's ease of use factor begins to decline . . . for $16K.

It's market seems basically for those who prefer ease of use vs RED's additional features. It's beaten in price performance on the low end and it's beaten in features (IMHO) in the market it's trying to compete it. That gives is a very narrow niche (IMHO). Maybe it'll be the F35 for reality TV shows where ease of use is critical but in a world of declining budgets I have a hunch the AF100 (even with its compromises), at 1/3 the cost, will win there too.

Totally agree Craig....

Feeling the same as Craig. I'm currently in line for an Epic at $19.5k, but for various reasons really don't want to invest that much when Red rentals in LA are ridiculously low, and there's an insane amount of Canon shoots.

If Sony could fix all the problems Canon brings to a job, then that's awesome, but if it costs almost the same as a Red, then why bother? I'm calculating a $13K street price for the F3 based on EX1R pricing, but even 13K isn't really enough. Needs to be 11K at most, and that's pushing it, considering I'd need to spend another 2500 for an external recorder to get the good stuff. At the end of the day its still a plastic box that wears worse than a pro camera, but it's definitely got pro pricing. $16K for a body with that useless, fragile rear finder? You're kidding me.

One thing that COULD save it is if it truly is as quiet as a church mouse, and gets that 13 stops they're saying. Nobody is getting anything like that without spending a $25K for a Red with MX at the moment.

I hope Sony revisits this pricing. I suspect this camera will truly be great for what they desigined it to be (built in ND filters with PL glass?! Purpose built zoom for run & gun? You crazy!), but it will be for naught if AF100s and Epics are on the other ends of the spectrum.

I want one, and can afford, but very much doubting it's smart money.

...David's comment about the Sony F3 sensor being specifically designed for digital cine might be one of the reasons for the big price difference between the AF-100 and the F3.

I still want to see a proper competitive test between these two cameras, to find out how much performance I might be missing at a $11,000 lower price. ( no way in h*ll I could afford a $16,000 camera body for my type of work )

Personally I think Sony has a tough hill to climb if they don't introduce a more affordable large sensor camera for the prosumer crowd.

I still want to see a proper competitive test between these two cameras, to find out how much performance I might be missing at a $11,000 lower price. ( no way in h*ll I could afford a $16,000 camera body for my type of work )

If your work is as such it doesn't make fiscal sense at 16K, and you've been using EX1s and such happily, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 11K is not going to be worth it, even if the F3 bests the AF100 with noise levels and latitude, which I suspect it will. Sony is betting on this sensor, more or less, from what I can tell. Panasonic has a history of tuning cameras for higher noise/lower cost, which has actually worked very well in the market they've pursued.

One other note for those considering this for event work with that upcoming zoom Sony's talking about: That zoom is going to be at best an F4 lens to make weight and price work. That essentially puts it back in EX1 territory for how it's going to behave where light is scarce, at best. There's no free rides. You want to shoot F2 with a big 'ole sensor, you have to pay with either weight or money (probably both), or give up zoom. Not to mention how difficult focus is going to be. Think twice about that, Canons might be a better option that way, believe it or not. Or mitigate with an AF100s sensor size.

For the GH-1 ( and for the new GH-2 ) Panasonic used pixel-binning techniques to reduce the true res of the sensor, which is the main reason why the GH-1 does not suffer the same degree of moire and aliasing artifacts as the Canon DSLRs do.
Yes, and it's pretty certain the AF101 will also have to pixel bin. Because of the optical low-pass filter, this won't give the aliasing here that the sensor gives in video mode in a still camera - the implication of an OLPF is it means the camera then becomes unsuitable for stills use. Not a problem in the AF101, but obviously would be in a GH-1 !

But there's no getting away from the fact that pixel-binning means a high percentage of the photosites go unused - hence the sensitivity won't be what you initially expect from such a large sensor. As the link you post says, the Sony sensor seems to have fewer, larger photosites - though more than adequate for HD video.
I've heard that the native ISO of the AF-100 sensor is in the 400-640 range, which means that it should compare fairly well against the F3. ( I expect the F3 to have better image latitude at high ISO, but the proof will be in the pudding )
ISO ratings don't really tell you a lot by themselves, as there is no standard for the noise level they get referred to. Hence a given ISO rating for a camera can be quite arbitrary - it all depends what you define as the nominal noise level of the camera.

Early reports seem to indicate an extremely low nominal noise level for the F3. This is important if the high potential advantages of 10 bit recording and S-log are to make any sense. It will be interesting to see if this can be achieved whilst still maintaining a decent ISO figure.

As you say, the penalty will obviously be price. But compare it with decent 2/3" cameras such as Panasonics HPX3700, or Sonys PDW700, and it may be seen as a steal for a lot of work such as budget TV drama, otherwise made on 2/3" cameras.

I thought the Epic was around $28K, although perhaps a RED One part exchange could be part of the $19.5K equation.

Certainly the Sony price does seem uncompetitive in the current market, which seems to have embraced the flawed DSLRs rather than even the RED One. Although, as has been pointed out there are market sectors in which the F3 has potential and not everyone wants to shoot RAW.

Interesting that the sensor can actually do 1080 60p... I'm surprised that they don'y all that for external recording. As always I suppose proof is in the images and fingers crossed Sony listen to all the moans and have the cam out for around 11K.

I thought the Epic was around $28K, although perhaps a RED One part exchange could be part of the $19.5K equation.

The vast majority of people first getting the Epics will be Stage 2 people, who will be getting at $19.5k. That's with a lot of AKS to make the body usable at that price.

IMHO.... too close to the specs of the AF100... too close to the price of RED. Its an unfair generalization, but I think that's what a lot of people will see when they either buy the AF100 or a RED instead of this. Too bad though, I would have bitten at the $10k mark.... maybe. The no-overcrank would make me hesitate.

Specs of the F3 sound so awesome... too bad none of the people who waited patiently for the news will ever own one.

We will have to wait and see what Final street price is and how well this Camera performs but I am very disapointed in the fact that you will need to buy a software upgrade for dual link HD-SDI to do 1080p 60 overcrank (who knows what crazy sum of $$ they may charge for that feature as it opens up S-LOG as well) It really needs to be able to shoot 120fps and HDRx for this price...as if they really are trying to compete with RED and it is not even 3K at least... I was thinking my next step is going to be a RED but than heard the rumors of this beast then announcment fizzled on features and specs for the price... Now ease of use compared to RED RAW maybe a year or two ago could have been an argument but now RED RAW has very good workflows in place so tough call... I will continue to use EX and patiently await footage and reviews of this and hoepfully Sony proves us all wrong somehow or they announce another CAM with the features/specs and price we all were hoping for. If I am going to drop 16- 23k though it better be in direct competition with the competition otherwise I drop the additional 10k and get the real deal or jump on the lower end till something better comes along as by 2012 I should be able to shoot the end of the world on a New Mega Epic sensor at 480fps in 5k :)

The vast majority of people first getting the Epics will be Stage 2 people, who will be getting at $19.5k. That's with a lot of AKS to make the body usable at that price.

I suspected that could be a factor in how you came up with the figure.

I don't think Sony have given detailed specs for the sensor, so you can't really tell if it's 4k, 3k or 2k. In the past, Sony have gone with their RGB stripe design on their professional single sensor video cameras, rather than a Bayer design.

Great points Jason. At that price I would expect at least 120fps if not higher. Even the Scarlet will be 120fps and burst to 150fps. And this should be out similar time.

Here's some comment on the F3.

Film and Digital Times: Blog (http://www.fdtimes.com/news/)

Some light has been shed on the intended use and market of the F3 by Sony's workflow diagram. It is very clear indeed that this is aimed at serious filmmakers who are using big gear like the F35 alongside it. In the diagram the 35Mb/s SxS footage is designed to be used as proxy files with a burned in LUT for offline editing, and isn't intended at all as the main recording method.

This makes much more sense now. The camera was designed to be used alongside cameras like the F35, companies that already use HDCAM SR, and rental houses. This is made clearer by one of the marketing managers at Sony who said "We want every SRW-9000 renter to own this camera," and "If you have a first-unit F35 or SRW-9000, this would be a perfect second camera." They are also developing cards for the system that will record SR directly.

I think in this case the people who are complaining about the price are trying to fit what they think the intended market for this camera should be to themselves, while in reality Sony is intending this for a totally different market altogether. A market that thinks £15k is pocket change for a cheap second camera. With 63db S/N ratio that makes it far less noisy than even a PDW-500. With S-log capture outputted at 10-bit 4:2:2 the grading capabilities of it will be absolutely immense.

Remember, we're talking about a second camera here for HDCAM SR shoots, that perhaps could be repurposed for indie use by some who have money, and *not* an indie camera in the first instance. You *could* record to the SxS media as your main recording, but that isn't how the camera was intended to be used.

I can further understand it too because I know companies like the BBC who have been shooting on the SRW-9000 have been using cameras like the EX1 and EX3 as a camera for specialist instances, but don't like using them due to the limitations of matching cameras and the compression. So the F3 is probably a camera that they could use very well (and may even have asked Sony for) as it will integrate seamlessly into the HDCAM SR workflow and camera capabilities. Something that the AF101 cannot do due to the lack of dual link SDI, and lack of LUT output abilities etc.

I also still think that Sony will announce a low cost camera very soon to properly compete with the AF100. Sony will be well aware that sales of the EX line will drop as a result of it and will have to compete with their own product. I'm even more convinced due to the mysterious thing under the cloth in the F3 teaser photo.

Mark my words, there'll be a Sony version of Apple's "One more thing" moment quite soon. It's too predictable (in a good way).

Spot on Simon.

I don't get the comparison between the F3 and the AF100. The F3 is better compared to the F35 or Alexa. For the money you get a camera that will work with 35mm cine glass, the AF100's 4/3" sensor kills off that option. The F3 supports Cooke/i and Arri LDS, no other camera at anything like this pricepoint does that.
The F3 will be huge for rental houses. The one affordable body will work with a large range of choices in lenses at various pricepoints. Out of the box it records to an acceptable codec that's easily handled on average computers. You want something better, a considerable range of recording options will be available.
It is too early to tell what the PQ of the F3 will be, I doubt it'll be a dog though. The bigger issue through is the flexibility of the camera and how easy it will be to quickly get a ROI.
This camera should also do very well with film schools, it has everything any of the more expensive cameras has. Students get to learn about all of it with a camera that doesn't have to have a zillion bits hung off it and a camera that can be repaired in any Sony authorised repair centre. That's a big feature for a rental house as well if they're outside the USA.
I can't say for certain just yet but I'd expect the F3 to rent for much the same money as the AF100. The lack of flexibility with the AF100 means less rentals, more time to recover the capital investment and hence a higher daily rate to try to recoup investment.
Sony have done their homework and built a camera to service a market and priced it aggressively. Perhaps not as aggressively as some would like but they have not made the mistake Panasonic have of reducing functionality and price to the point where roles for the camera are limited. To the best of my knowledge a set of 4/3" matched prime lenses does not exist anywhere. A set of 35mm primes can be rented in most cities, they are a staple, they are tough, they are repairable, they simply work and there's quite a range of quality at matching prices.

This makes much more sense now. The camera was designed to be used alongside cameras like the F35, companies that already use HDCAM SR, and rental houses. This is made clearer by one of the marketing managers at Sony who said "We want every SRW-9000 renter to own this camera," and "If you have a first-unit F35 or SRW-9000, this would be a perfect second camera." They are also developing cards for the system that will record SR directly.


A sort of digital Arri 35IIc, except you can shoot sound (without needing a blimp).

If Sony could fix all the problems Canon brings to a job, then that's awesome, but if it costs almost the same as a Red, then why bother?One thing that COULD save it is if it truly is as quiet as a church mouse, and gets that 13 stops they're saying. Nobody is getting anything like that without spending a $25K for a Red with MX at the moment.

Don't forget that Jim Jannard said that Epic is now ready, that Scarlet S35 will ship before April - I know they aren't good with release dates, but considering that Epic is officially ready and Scarlet has a lot of the same tech, I think it's fair to assume that it will be shipping not too long from now - and that an S35 will cost approximately 8000 dollars (body only) and will have HDR with 18 stops of DR...

The Sony Cam may be a good cam on its own, but the competition has become fierce.
The EX1 was a great cam at a great price at the time, that had all reasons to sell as well as it did. But it's 2011 now. You have RED on the forefront, Canon, Panasonic, all contesting for the same audience. (RED with the Scarlet of course, for their higher end audience there is the Epic)
I'm even wondering how strong the 2/3" RED Scarlet will be in this market.

It seems that this camera is aimed at productions that don't wish to use the RAW workflow found on the RED. The Arri Alexa gives the option of recording ProRes or RAW (some even want to use HDCAM SR with it). If you don't want to use RAW, the Scarlet doesn't really enter the equation.

In the end, it really depends on which market Sony is aiming this camera.

The 2/3" Scarlet camera will have it's own market, ideal for docs and a lot of other productions. It's easy to get excited by big sensors, but the 2/3" market is very large. At the price being quoted the 2/3" Scarlet could replace quite a few 1/3" cameras, although the problem could be the RAW workflow and fast turnarounds.

Hasn't RED also announced a Proxy Module? That would record to Prores (or was it H.264)?

I've given up commenting on Red. But although some are calling the F3 a Red competitor I'm not sure that it is.

Broadcasters and firms that have an investment in HDCAM SR will like this camera, because as intended it plugs right into their workflow like the missing piece of a jigsaw. I don't think that competition from Scarlett even comes into the equation because this camera is not aimed at that market.

While I can't read their minds, I would say that Sony are probably thinking that this will do very well in it's intended market (to work with high end cameras and work seamlessly with existing HDCAM SR workflows and investments) but that if it does eat into Red, and maybe at a large stretch AF100 sales than that's simply an added bonus. But not one to fret over if it doesn't turn out that way.

Sony will be well aware that the F3 will probably find a market outside of it's primary intended use. Personally I'd much rather invest in an F3 and a NanoFlash than I would a PMW-500. It's ideal for the type of filming I do these days.

I believe they announced one being an option, I don't know what stage it's at or if you can do more than record proxy files.

Syman is dead on in his observations.
If anyone wants a 10K version of this, they would have to have an F3 mount only, single SDI out, no support for Cook or Arri data links, remove support for 3D linking....
And I bet it would fly off the shelves at that price.

BTW according to Sony Press release effective resolution of the sensor is 1920x1080, so the actual pixel count should be somewhere over 2K to achieve this. So no down sampling, line skipping or pixel binning.

If anyone wants a 10K version of this, they would have to have an F3 mount only, single SDI out, no support for Cook or Arri data links, remove support for 3D linking.

November 17th, Sony is set to take the stage again with things pointing towards another camera being announced. We'll have to wait and see. You may be onto something.

November 17th, Sony is set to take the stage again with things pointing towards another camera being announced. We'll have to wait and see. You may be onto something.

F3 is an odd number to start with. Perhaps an F1?
But why the rush on the F3 and not just have one event?
Or did they not want one to overshadow the other since they're for different markets?
I guess we'll know on Wednesday.

Hi Craig,

How about this thought expression on the naming of the camera.... EX3 < F3 > F35

The rush?! We will never know for sure but things have been going viral on the lead up to the launch of Panny's AF100, as you know, and it appeared that Sony felt it had to jump in and stave off some of the momentum.

Sony's staggered launch on the F3 appears to have been done on an ad hoc basis. Two weeks ago Sony was saying "we'll tell you all on the 17th" and then they started to leak out stuff at several different times RIGHT after they announced the 17th as the launch date. Furthermore, the F3 was to be launched on the 17th, not this other purported camera that some are pointing to that is under the shroud in their promo shot of the F3 for this unveiling on the 17th.

I do have a funny feeling about whatever it is under that is under the cloth in the promo shot. It sure looks like a crummy old DSLR. I sure hope Sony isn't bringing out their own version of the Canon 5DmkII. Cameramen all over the world will be busting a gut if they do.

Sony could be learning some internet marketing given how much on line discussion there's been on the subject of a lower priced camera in advance of a possible announcement.

I bet Sony had a line of 35mm cameras. We will see on Wed.

Well Sony have the new 35mm NXCAM here at Interbee in prototype form, but that's a discussion for another thread. What has also been shown here is the 3 prime lenses. Very good looking lenses, that look much like a Cooke or Ziess prime. Big and chunky with large focus rings etc. But the big surprise is the weight. The Sony primes are remarkably light. There is a lot of plastic in their construction. I have mixed feelings on this. If your going to use an F3 hand held you want light lenses. BUT they just don't ooze quality like a Ziess. Have to say though that the picture from them look beautiful.

Also the F3 to PL adapter is about 25mm thick so plenty of room to make an F3 to DSLR adapter.

Alister: Do you have a picture link to the Sony Prime Lenses?

Thanks!

-terje

More here on Alister's blog (in case he's a bit busy to reply right now with looking at all the new goodies!)

XDCAM-USER.com Interbee 2010. Sony F3, Sony 35mm NXCAM and Hurricane Rig. (http://www.xdcam-user.com/?p=1123)