Hi Alister

I turn the sharpness/detail off always. How much resolution do you lose through the Letus? I don't know. Just what I see on the siemens chart which looks damn good. Some lenses are better than others and often have there best optimised stop. I can tell you I use the GG for the EX1 and take care in calibrating everything. I don't shoot everything with the letus I also configure for just the camera alone. I have never heard of anyone talking about the letus adapter losing that much resolution until now. I have seen my film on a 40' screen and couldn't see any difference in resolution to 35mm. Monsters was released in many countries and I never heard anyone complain about the film being soft. I'm sure if it was Vertigo would never have released it. That said I dont discount the possibility of a resolution drop of a higher magnitude than I may have thought. If that is the case it makes the Panny AF101 a better proposition as a second camera to the EX1

One of the reasons for an out of focus background is to highlight something in frame If that something is a person then a little bit of softening can be a good thing and with the letus you get a nice film look including a full frame. Of course you get the full rastor and I use multicoated lenses as well as a proper Mattebox. I like to think I get good contrast when I set up shots. HD can make people look older especially with the sharpening/detail and the awful black line around everything Also compression can make people look terribel and a lot worse than they actually are so attention to lighting is important. I have seen many examples of footage from other cameras and even your uncompressed pics from the FS100 and in my opinion I was not impressed with what I saw compared to what I already get.

The tests I do to set up my lenses are I feel adequate. One thing I can tell you with certainty and that is when I don't want an out of focus background which is maybe half the time then the EX1 delivers 1000 lines of resolution and a lot more crucial when doing wide shots. I also use the 10 bit HDSDI out to a Ki Pro.

Areas I'd like to improve is the ability to shoot in lower light and the convenience of just putting on the lens I want onto the front end of the camera Purely because I love the idea of having a camera do this.

My conclusions are the FS100 or the AF101 would actually be a step backwards to my current set up

Mark

Sorry Mark, we are going to have to agree to disagree. One minute you tell me that nothing compares to 35mm film, then you tell me that you can't see any resolution difference between your letus setup and 35mm film. My Letus experiences have been very different to yours.

Clearly we have different standards and different opinions, but then the world would be a dull place if we all just agreed with everybody and everything. :-)

One minute you tell me that nothing compares to 35mm film, then you tell me that you can't see any resolution difference between your letus setup and 35mm film

There is a huge difference to the look of film. Resolution is only a part of the equation.

Agreed, resolution is only part of the equation, but it' is a major part of the equation non the less.

One advantage that film has is dynamic range and the F3 and FS100 are an improvement over the EX1 in that regard,

Alister
resolution is not a major part of the film look If it was then your saying digital would have more of a film look than 8mm. Film is a chemical process that ultimately creates an image with dyes. This leads to the film look. I watched my film on a 40' screen and felt the resolution looked as good as film but that doesn't mean it was if we want to look at the screen and do resolution tests I'm sure film would easily win. I also do not want to buy expensive charts and learn how to do tests. All I offer is my own personal opinion.


Brian
As for dynamic range I don't believe you're right.

The EX1 has been measured as 10 stops, the F3 has been measured as 11 to 12 stops allowing for a couple of tests I've seen.

I have had an EX3 (recently sold) and have an F3. The F3 kills the EX3 everywhere except measured resolution. More than twice as sensitive, far FAR less noise, and at least two stops wider range.

Even the lower measured res is not apparent visually. The F3 looks sharp as a tack on a 52" plasma from a metre away. I've watch a DCI on a 50' cinema screen, and it still looked sharp as a tack.

I've used my EX with a Letus Ultimate regularly in the past. The F3 image and usability leaves it in a ditch. Seriously.

Thanks, David, for the comparison ( What's a DCI?)

DCI is shorthand for digital cinema projection, like Xerox is to photocopying. It's actually a group of companies that have formed some agreed standards.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives

David

Would you have swapped your EX1 letus combo for an FS100 or AF101?

Brian

Although with the F3 all I see is a beautiful picture Some are saying it has issues in the highlights. Alan Roberts measured the noise level at -48.5db giving it an effective 8 stops. Sony rated it as -63db in their specs. He also rates the EX1 as -46db which would be close to the F3. Undoubtably Alan is right. As for the FS100 I disagree it delivers 12 stops and would love to see Alan Roberts test that.

Just to be clear the F3 has a beautiful picture and I would definately want it over an EX1

Mark

Here's the latitude test for 11 stops on the F3.

Camera Log by Adam Wilt (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/nab_2011_-_scce_charts/)

Mitch Gross of Abel Cine found 12 stops. I expect Geoff Boyle will have a test up on CML at some stage.

Alan Roberts test results seem to run counter to everyone else is finding regarding to the noise on the F3, that's unusual, because he normally does match with what you find in practise. I don't think you'd use 30 db gain and have low visibility noise on a 48 db camera.

I think you should test the camera yourself if you're considering buying one of these cameras. The FS100 seems to be a love it or hate it camera

QUOTE
Alan Roberts test results seem to run counter to everyone else is finding regarding to the noise on the F3, that's unusual, because he normally does match with what you find in practise.

Sorry Brian

Have to disagree Alan Roberts has access to the best equipment and is the best there is for this sort of stuff. If he says the F3 has -48.5db and the EX1 has -46db then that is right. I'm happy to accept my EX1 only has 8stops even though others claim it has much more. In this world of differing measurements that suit the facts there has to be a benchmark somewhere and for me Alan Roberts is as good as it gets. If others are getting different measurements its time to look at why.. Not they're right and Alan is wrong.

QUOTE
I don't think you'd use 30 db gain and have low visibility noise on a 48 db camera.

As Alan says the camera uses SIGNIFICANT noise reduction. At the expense of what? Resolution?

As I said, you should test the camera yourself and see if it produces the results you want. You can test the resolution at 30 db gain, if this is the important factor for you. Everyone has differing priorities, so you should push the camera into those dark corners, discover if it does what you want and where it falls apart.

Resolution figures aren't everything, which is why the Alexa is doing well against the RED One MX.

I don't know about Alan's noise figures, but even the best equipment can give false readings for various reasons, however, I expect Alan does calibrate it religiously. It could also be a sub standard camera.

Was his test of the EX1 also wrong?

One off questions about a particular camera doesn't mean everything is suspect. Alan Roberts is hugely respected, however, usually other people's tests and experiences confirm his findings. With this noise question, they don't seem to, so it's more wondering why there should be this perceived difference, rather than questioning every camera test.

As I said, test the camera yourself, you're limited watching hugely compressed on line videos shot with other people's set ups.

Adam Wilt said

“Wow, numbers!”, I hear some folks thinking, “now we can find out which camera is best!” And it’s true that some folks will use these charts the way a drunk uses a lamppost—for support, rather than illumination. But I caution you to avoid reading more into these charts than they convey: while they provide a useful means of comparing and contrasting the relative performance of specific aspects of various cameras, they do not—and cannot—state the One True Number for any of these performance metrics. The methods used for coming up with these numbers haven’t been published, and actual numbers are very dependent on methodology.

Alan Roberts doesn't give a caution. However the provideo coalition test was done I think it may be an idea to a) Heed the above warnings and b) Seek to find WHY the F3 when properly tested only gives a little over 8 stops or be happy with 8 stops and all the jiggery pokery the camera performs to get such a great picture. However I doubt much of the jiggery pokery is applied to the FS100 at least not from what I have seen so far.

As I said, test the camera yourself and compare it to your EX1 with the adapter and see which suits your visual and working style.

Numbers can vary depending on how the camera is set up and which lenses you're using. I suspect Robert Primes ASC was using pretty standard industry methods that would allow you to compare both film and video images. It works if you're using the same test on each camera or film stock.

It's not the same as Alan Roberts method, but here is Geoff Boyle's and it could be similar to that used by Robert Primes. It's a pretty standard method that working DPs use.

Alexa-Canon 7D-RED MX latitude comparison (http://www.cinematography.net/Gothenburg/Goth-Alexa-RED.html)

. . . Alan Roberts is as good as it gets. If others are getting different measurements its time to look at why.. Not they're right and Alan is wrong.

There are enough obvious factual mistakes in his F3 report that it calls into question the accuracy of everything in it -- especially those comments that are markedly different than what other people have observed.

You may be interested in this thread if you have not seen it before.
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-f3-cinealta/493829-f3-bbc-report.html

Hi Doug

I just watched Phil Blooms second part and think he gave a very good description and well presented argument and agreed with him. I liked his footage from the FS100 more so than what I've seen so far. The FS100 is 8bit processing a single 8bit HDMI out One card slot No ND filters Not able to shoulder mount without an additional screen or tripod mount and shoot head height etc etc. It does have a nice sensor but the whole camera involves much working around and the workaround is no different to DSLR's but as Phil said lets not concentrate on the negatives as it has a nice sensor etc although Phil still prefers the image from the Canon 5dII. If I had to buy either the FS100 or the Panny It would be the Panny simply for easier faster setups if I didnt have to buy them then neither and wait for the canon 5d III Or who knows the scarlet..

Maybe Panny could update the sensor?.

Mark,

It is great that we have so many choices and options today so everyone can choose the camera(s) that works best for them.

There is no doubt in my mind which cameras are better for ME, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince others to see it my way. It doesn't matter to me what someone else decides to invest in.

Doug

I'm only talking about my own opinions and needs and if answering questions asked of me is seen as me trying to convince others to buy this or that then I apologise. I seem to have been drawn into defending my point of view and its reasoning. I guess thats what forums are all about eh. One last point if people want to see a good comparison between the three cameras I recommend watching Phil Blooms second part and his comparison.

Large chip camcorder comparison: AF100 vs F3 vs FS100. Includes FS100 in Part 2 | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/05/05/bloomshootout/#comments)

Mark

Dear Mark,

Nobody is attacking you, or forcing to change your mind. Please forgive me, but it's yourself (and Steve) who are showing some inflexibility of your opinions and beliefs.

Yes, I did watch Phil's report Part 2 (just as pretty much everything that has been posted about the new large sensor cameras recently). And yes, I do agree with his opinions on everything the FS100 is lacking (in fact, I was the first person to post a petition to Sony on the ND filters missing, and how they're going to lose sales to Panasonic's AF 100 because of that)...

But nevertheless, with all the low light sensitivity and low noise that the FS100 shares (well, almost) with the $13,000 F3 marvel - may I ask you again: looking at my EX1/Letus setup below (yours certainly looking similar), do you still believe in any (and I do mean it - just ANY) advantages of handling a monster like this, as opposed to the compact. light-weight, full S35 sensor camera capable of using any lens in the universe?

You say: "once you set up your Letus, it's done". Do you really mean it? Mark, just moving such a monster around is going to ruin your setup - even if you tape your zoom and focus rings in place, it will be OFF after just bumping the camera! The Letus GG needs absolutely perfect alignment, and the camera must have it in THE very perfect focus - or your image will be unusable...

And the picture all this machinery can produce... Well, see for yourself (myself in mid-bright sunshine, and my wife lighting a cigarette. OK, I'll post another one of my wife with some more light, as the one with the lighter is rather pathetic). These are raw material grabs; now go and compare with the last one from the FS100 (courtesy: Phil Bloom); just for fun.

Mark,
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying anything negative about your comments or posts! It is always good to hear what you have to say. I just think that there is a lot of wasted man-power here (myself included) reading and writing a bunch of posts about camera choices that basically come down to personal choice. In some ways we've fallen below the level of the age old Mac vs. PC debates. Who cares? Peope just need to pick a camera, learn how to use it, and get out there in start making money with it!! Sometimes we lose sight of the real purpose these TOOLS provide. I strongly disagree with much of what has been posted on this thread, but I've got better things to do that nit pick the opinions of everyone else.

I skimmed through Phil's review and it is good for people who don't know much about those cameras yet, but I already own an F3 and have spent quality time shooting with an FS100, so I understand what they are all about. I will say he is right on the mark most of the time, but I disagree with some of the things he says and the way he uses the cameras in his demonstrations, but it's none of my business to comment on his review.

I seem to have been drawn into defending my point of view and its reasoning. I guess thats what forums are all about eh.Not this one. That's the difference here.

I rather like Adam Wilt's conclusion when putting all these cameras in a beauty parade:

The winner? Different horses for different courses: we’ve got lots of choices, so we win.

Otherwise it's either 'football teams' or 'statistics as lamp posts'.

Has anyone who's fiddled about with one checked out the picture profile settings? IIRC, the F3 is very well endowed, but from what I've heard the FS100 offers Z1 style 'CineStyles' 1 & 2.

Mark,

One more thing, at the risk of doing exactly what I said I wasn't going to do, if you're going to take Alan Roberts opion of the F3 as gospel and not question it, then make sure you also listen to what he says about the AF100:

QUOTE:

"This camera does not perform particularly well at HD. Clean resolution is limited to about 1210x680 by thepresence of high-amplitude spatial aliasing. This is a little disappointing from a camera with a large-format sensor, and indicates that optical low-pass filtering is either absent or inadequate, and that the scaling fromthe resolution of the sensor down to 1920x1080 has not been done in the best way.
Noise levels are rather high, even though the pixel size is that of a conventional 3 sensor ½” camera.
Sensitivity is also similar to that of a ½” camera. If this camera is to be used for HDTV shooting, then it should be clearly understood that it’s only advantage over smaller-format cameras is the smaller depth of field. However, to achieve a smaller depth of field in this camera, relative to, say, a ½” camera, then the lens must be opened by at least 1.5 stops; using an F/2.8 lens on this camera, wide open, will give the same depth of field as on a ½” camera with a lens opened to Figure 8 small part of interlaced pan, high speed 13 F/1.6. This camera will not necessarily always deliver short depth of field, large aperture lenses must be used to achieve that."

Personally, I don't put much stock in what Alan Roberts thinks about any of the camera he reviews and the recommended settings he suggests for them. Yeah, there, I said it out loud. I disagree with the guru. I suspect he's an engineer and not a shooter. But if YOU don't want to question what he says about one camera, then you ought to believe what he says about another. In that case, the AF100 gets a D grade for HD.

Has anyone who's fiddled about with one checked out the picture profile settings? IIRC, the F3 is very well endowed, but from what I've heard the FS100 offers Z1 style 'CineStyles' 1 & 2.

That is true. the paint menu options are completely different and the FS100 has more in common with Sony's HDV and other NXCAM camcorders than it does with the F3.

In my opinion, having used both cameras, the FS100 is not even in the same league as the F3 for many, many reasons. The FS100 was designed as an SLR KILLER and it does a great job of achieving that goal. On the other hand, the F3 is really a baby F35 or 9000PL.

The only thing the two camera have in common is the sensor. Other than that, they are very different animals. If someone is considering one, I can't imagine why they would be considering the other. It's like going to a car dealership and not being able to make up your mind between a Chevy and Jaguar. They are so different, how is it hard to decide?? The choice should be obvious. For some people the perfect choice will be the FS100 and for other people the perfect choice will be the F3. As Adam says, different courses for different horses. But the decision as to which horse to saddle up should be obvious to anyone who spends an hour comparing the features . . . let alone looking at the performance.

Doug

Maybe who knows. Sony may listen and make some improvements on the FS100 before its released unless it's to late.

Piotr

Your camera APPEARS to be fully loaded with about everything you may want to use on an FS100 minus the Letus adapter! However you can use the EX1/Letus without an external monitor for head shots etc.

Chris

Cheers appreciate that!

I think one thing we can all agree on and that is the Sony F3 is a cracking camera!

Mark

Piotr

Your camera APPEARS to be fully loaded with about everything you may want to use on an FS100 minus the Letus adapter! However you can use the EX1/Letus without an external monitor for head shots etc.

Mark,

Yes - but my point has been to show what kind of image you can possibly get from this rig. Just compare it with the images (particularly those low-light ones) that can be produced by the FS100 - and suddenly, all the latter's shortcomings (the form factor, missing ND filters or SDI out) become a non-issue.

As I said - everybody tends to rationalize the investment they've made with their hard-earned money, but the facts are cruel and harsh for you and me, Mark.

That said, I'm going to use my monster for some time longer - but only because I simply cannot afford another investment at the moment...

Realize that Philip Bloom just invested in the F3 so it's fairly hard to review the FS-100 without being a little bias. From his review I feel that if the FS-100 had ND's and SDI no one would be considering the F3.

So are these two shortcomings worth $8,000?

For me there are two big pros that could tip the balance - the FS-100's small form and 1080p 60fps, which for my work is a big big plus.

However, both the Sony's have a far better image than the AF101 in my view. And is'nt that what we all really should be considering....even if one camera gets there more easily than the other.

If someone is considering one, I can't imagine why they would be considering the other.

I'd better nail my own colours to a mast PDQ before any more fur flies. I'm an EX1-R shooter with a DSLR as a 'wide' or 'b-roll'. I'm going to keep my EX1Rs and I am going to keep my DSLR for slow-shutter timelapse, stolen shots and stills. I'm thinking about having a backpack kit that's FS100/Birger and 550D bodies and a selection of lenses.

So the picture profiles I'm most interested in aren't the F3, it's the EX's - but quite frankly, I'd probably play with both cameras, find a look I like in the least flexible environment and try and pull the two systems together (I do a lot of fast turnaround stuff so can't spend too long in post).

OTOH, we all need flattish profiles with delicately rolled off highlights to avoid the 'tip-ex on the forehead' look, which is what the EX line bought to the table with their Cine3 and Cine4. My clients aren't going to pay me any more for an F3 over an FS100, so hoping to see some highlight compression in there somewhere.

if the FS-100 had ND's and SDI no one would be considering the F3. So are these two shortcomings worth $8,000?

Well, considering that many EX3s will never have their lens removed, the price differential between EX1 & EX3 for a big blue S&Q button and a borescope viewfinder seemed pretty huge. To misquote Douglas Adams: if it's a choice between hanging on for an FS300 with SDI and ND or taking the FS100 and running, I could do with the exercise.

I feel that if the FS-100 had ND's and SDI no one would be considering the F3.

I don't know why people continue to focus only on those two things? Yes, they are important, but that is just the tip of the iceberg of the differences between the two cameras. They are nothing alike. Chevy vs. Jaguar. You give up tons of features and workflow advantages if you go with an FS100. That doesn't mean the FS100 is not the right choice for someone, but people need to be aware of the differences before making a choice. The lack of SDI and ND filters would not stop me from choosing an FS100 over and F3, but there are other things that would.

Realize that Philip Bloom just invested in the F3 so it's fairly hard to review the FS-100 without being a little bias. From his review I feel that if the FS-100 had ND's and SDI no one would be considering the F3.

So are these two shortcomings worth $8,000?

For me there are two big pros that could tip the balance - the FS-100's small form and 1080p 60fps, which for my work is a big big plus.

However, both the Sony's have a far better image than the AF101 in my view. And is'nt that what we all really should be considering....even if one camera gets there more easily than the other.

I would like to think there was zero bias in it! I made it very fair. Don't forget I am an AF101 owner and that faired the worst.

Also the FS100 has a lot more than those two shortcomings but it is a great camera. If that doesn't come across in the review I am confused as I was pretty strong on that.

You don't need to be confused Phil - I for one saw no bias in your review. Thanks for that, and please keep the information coming!

For somebody like myself, in this marketplace where you cannot put your hands on any camera you fancy, your work is invaluable...

Piotr

The real star of the show though was Percy the sealpoint!

Phil, I didn't find your review biased either, but on the other hand, it didn't touch on tons of differences between the cameras that I think are even more important for people to know about than the obvious physcial characteristics and format settings.

Doug,

I think that for anyone familiar with things like the CineAlta badge, 10-bit 4:4:4,/ S-log out, etc. - Phil really didn't have to use any more excuses for the F3 vs. FS100 price tag difference. Plus, if I remember correctly, at least 3 times he stressed that he was not the person to tell anybody whether or not it's worth it to them!

Selection will depend on what you plan to use the cameras for, but this comparison does make an extremely useful starting point for making a decision.

Like with the RED and DSLRs, the third party manufacturers will find new business.

Perhaps it would be good if the designers tried operating their cameras on a cold day, wearing gloves.

he stressed that he was not the person to tell anybody whether or not it's worth it to them!

I hope you're not implying that is something that I have done. I go out of my way to point out the differences between cameras, but will very rarely ever recommend a particular camera to someone else even if they contact me directly and explain their needs. There are too many factors to consider.

But I'm not talking about 4:4:4 and S-LOG differences either. I'm talking about things like the ability to control clip naming, having the XDCAM workflow at your fingertips, the ability to move PP files from one camera to another, last clip delete, Hypergamma choices, and other functions that are vitally important to some people -- and even that list is still just the tip of the iceberg.

I did a two hour presentation at NAB on the FS100 and F3 for Sony. Eventually they will post it online so I won't bother repeating it here. I'm just giving people a heads up to compare ALL the features of these cameras before they make a choice. They are certaily not just the same camera at two different price points. You give up some things and gain some things no matter which one you choose. That's all I'm saying.

I hope you're not implying that is something that I have done. .

ABSOLUTELY not. Doug!

You were the first on this forum to give us all this exciting information, and your video made with the FS100 has been the most beautiful one on the web so far - no kidding :)

Piotr

What I liked about Phil's review was the real world look at each of the cameras. It gave me insight into what could be done to shoot around the short comings on the cameras. As with the 5D, which I have been shooting, you need to know your camera and know how you can fix the shortcomings.

The recent addition of the Technicolor picture style, and post treatment, is adding some legs to the 5D, and while I have been lusting daily the FS-100 / AF-100 form factor (more than once I have almost pushed the preorder button) , I am thinking my 5D and T2i coupled with Cineform, Dual Eyes and my Marshall monitor will have to remain my rigs for the near future, while things settle out, given my shooting is limited to local no and low budget productions. I am beginning to think that Canon is going to compete in this market with an improved 5D late in the year, or early next year, rather than go the way Sony and Panny have gone.

Hi Doug

I didn't point out all of them things which are so much better in the F3 simply because there are too many to list. I do say if you want all the features of the F3 in the FS100 then you would have an F3 so don't expect them.

It is a stripped down version of it with one additional feature.

I am currently uploading a tweaked version of part 1 as there is def a touch more moire on the fs100 than the other two camcorders, hard to spot but it's there...nothing like DSLRs but it's certainly there.

You get what you pay for and the features of the F3 and superb, just wish it could overcrank in full HD and it had a better quality onboard recorder.

Actually Phil I should have worded this better "so it's fairly hard to review the FS-100 without being a little bias", meaning that as a new F3 owner it's hard not to be biased, because I know for myself I would be inclined to be!
I thought it was a great review ... I was leaning toward the FS-100 and now you nudged me closer to the F3 camp - and rightly so!

However, both the Sony's have a far better image than the AF101 in my view. And is'nt that what we all really should be considering....even if one camera gets there more easily than the other.

The view that image is all is indeed behind the adulation for the F3 and FS100. That's why Doug wanted folks to come see his demo footage. But image isn't all! I had no need to see video in the Sony booth because as soon as I went to the RED booth I'd see even better video.

Image is not even that high on the list of what makes a great camera. Having used the VG10 I would simply never buy a camera for more than $1000 that did not have ND filters. I'm not going to buy gizmos to provide what a camera must provide -- and indeed what the F3 provides. And, the higher sensitivity makes the lack of ND an even more serious issue.

Price performance is another critical metric. It is THE most important metric. Alister's own posted video shows the VG10 looks as good as the F3. And, I know the VH10 looks no better than the $800 NEX-5. And, the NEX-5 has focus assist the VG10 does not.

Now before the screaming starts, of course the F3 must look slightly better than a NEX-5. But, the question is does it look over 15X better? The answer is, NO IT DOES NOT. So what to do?

Obviously, if one wants to spend the money buy the F3 and rig it to the hilt. (But, I'm convinced anyone who is really such a great shooter they actually earn money from their camera, should certainly able to afford a RED. Why stop at an F3.)

But, for the vast majority of folks money is an issue. So where to compromise? The simple fact is that NEX-5, VG10, and FS100 lack ND filters and are not ergonomic well designed. (And, I would put ergonomics way above absolute image quality.) And let me shock Piotr by saying the EX1 is a nightmare to handhold and I wouldn't take one if Sony gave it to me. But, the image is wonderful!)

The solution so simple -- just don't buy any of the Sony's. This year Panasonic makes the best OVERALL camcorder, the AF100. It's got wonderful color, very nice contrast, more than enough resolution, and a huge selection of lenses. And, it's price falls nicely between the NEX-5 and the F3.

Now before the screaming starts, of course the F3 must look slightly better than a NEX-5. But, the question is does it look over 15X better? The answer is, NO IT DOES NOT. So what to do?.

Dear Steve,

Sorry, but this is a wrong logic; does a car that can go 300 kmh cost just twice more than a one only capable of 150? The price always goes up exponentially, not proportionally, with increased performance!


And let me shock Piotr by saying the EX1 is a nightmare to handhold and I wouldn't take one if Sony gave it to me. But, the image is wonderful!).

You haven't shocked me at all, Steve - the EX1 is a nightmare to hand-hold, even more so than most non-shoulder mount cameras are! But, there are work-arounds, believe me :)


The solution so simple -- just don't buy any of the Sony's. This year Panasonic makes the best OVERALL camcorder, the AF100. It's got wonderful color, very nice contrast, more than enough resolution, and a huge selection of lenses. And, it's price falls nicely between the NEX-5 and the F3.

Steve, with all due respect - you seem to be the only one here to give this kind of "absolutely best" kind of recommendations, etc. This makes me wonder what your true agenda is - you are writing books on Sony products, aren't you?

My F3 is doing exactly what Sony designed it to do. It's shooting a TV series for Movie Network Channels. Oddly enough, I doubt they'd pay such a nice rental I only had an NEX-5, and I certainly wouldn't be earning enough as I am :)

The thing with cameras, is that they are only there to create an image. That is their sole function. Everything else is just talk. Some people just talk, some shoot nice images.

Steve, with all due respect - you seem to be the only one here to give this kind of "absolutely best" kind of recommendations, etc. This makes me wonder what your true agenda is - you are writing books on Sony products, aren't you?

WAIT! I've been recommending the best COMPROMISE. I seem to be the only one NOT trying to push the absolute best. As Philp said, I want the "best bang for the buck."

As far as agenda -- I don't review products any longer. I write books on cameras that are going to be big sellers OR are cameras that represent the future of video. I thought the VG10 would be exactly such a camera, but it was not. It turns-out that that NEX-5 was the REALLY BIG sales hit in 2010. So, mid-stream I changed my book.

I expect the FS100 will be a big seller too, but I will not waste my time writing a book on a camera I would not buy. That would be dishonest. I would write a book on the AF100, but Barry Green has a tight relation with Panasonic so that makes that a futile effort.

But, I'm convinced that none of these cameras are going to be important 6 months from now -- and that is how long it takes to write a book. The re-spin of NEX-5 may well deliver FS100 quality at a fraction of the price. The next VG10 is likely to be better. But, these are not ground breaking products. An edition 2 of my NEX FAMILY book nicely handles these.

What really interests me is the step past HD. Frankly, I doubt I'll write any book on a camera that can't deliver 4K2K. And, this decision -- and I'm speaking frankly -- comes from decades of marketing and sales experience. Japan has two options to grow their business: 3D and 4K2K. Sony seems to be betting big on 3D. My bet is their bet is wrong.

The real money maker for Japan is shooting much higher resolution images because it requires a complete replacement of one's equipment. And, I'm convinced that higher resolution on significantly larger screens is what the promise of HD is all about. All of these cameras look great on the internet -- although I'm amazed that only Phillip's videos look good!

So there is my agenda out in the open The bleeding edge. And, as good as the F3 is -- it is not on this edge. Oddly, DSLRs because they are so cheap and deliver so much image quality actually remain on this edge. Plus, of course, the first cheap 4K2K camcorder which will arrive by IBC from JVC.

I wouldn't panic too much about 4K2K in the short term, any broadcasters I know are trying to get up to speed and put the infrastructures in place for 1080 HD, anything else is way off into the future. Also, many people just watch SD on their HD capable televisions.

If you honestly believe that the VG10 looks as good as the F3 in my side by side clips, why on earth are you bothering with 4k when you can't see a very clear difference between two HD cameras. Please look at the original files and frame grabs and not the smoothed out vimeo clip. The difference is plain to see. Moire on the bricks, aliasing on the roof tops, blue and pink splotches on the concrete outside the garages (moire), jagged horizontal and vertical lines, lower resolution.

My customers pay for image quality, they want the best images they can get. Yes budget is important, but it's not about most bang for the buck, but most bang for the budget. If it was all about most bang for the buck then I'd probably be using a go-pro.