If you can't decide whether an FS100 or an F3 would be the better choice for YOU, take my quiz.
It's guaranteed to give you the right answer or your money back.

Which Super-35mm camera is right for you? (http://www.vortexmedia.com/VortexMediaCameraSelector.html)

Doug I just heard that Sony raised the price of the F3 body to $14,000 - a price hike of $1,000.

That could be a deciding factor as well...

That's a fun test !!

I got 59% for the FS-100.

63% FS-100! Whoo Hoooo!
Now I just have to show my wife the results and tell her how much money I'm saving! Ha ha!
The biggest factor for me right now is the lenses. Ive got a good supply of Canon glass and theyre really not ideal for either Sony. (no manual iris) Am I going to be waiting forever for Canon to jump into this game? That is the real question for me. I am tired of dealing with the limitations and quirks of the DSLRs. Though I get really beautiful footage from them!

Doug,

Cool little quiz. I know I'd rather have the F3, I just can't come
up with the money for it. However, I'm pretty happy with the FS 100
it's a nice cam. Be sure and let us all know when your training
products come out!

25.4% FS100.... If only the FS100 and XF300 could have a baby

Optional sensor cropping to 2/3" and an additional Motor Zoom lens. *dream*

Optional sensor cropping to 2/3" and an additional Motor Zoom lens. *dream*

Ping! Your dream is granted: HDx35 B4/PL Optical Adapter :: Optical Adapters :: Lens Adapters :: Lenses & Lens Accessories :: Equipment Sales :: AbelCine (http://www.abelcine.com/store/HDx35-B4/PL-Optical-Adapter/)

Okay, so you're back to 2/3" style DoF (nothing wrong with that), you can attach that $12k HD Fujinon or Canon 18x with doubler you may have knocking around, and you'll have that super smooth zoom control...

5800 $ ^^
I´d rather buy an EX1-R for that.

46% on the FS100 btw. Getting mine next week.

I just need to look at the prices to make my decision: FS100 all the way.

edit - but I took the quiz anyway, and it said ... F3 by 5.5% . huh.

The test doesn't lie. Start saving your nickels and dimes.
5.5% is within the margin of error, so you might be okay with the FS100, but then again, you might not. :-)

It's weird...even when you think you're going for the F3, you still get a result in favor of the FS100. I wonder why.

Doug,

My idea was to buy the FS-100 and make enough money shooting with it to
buy the F3 :-) Of course by the time I did that, the F7 will be out
and I'll need to get that one instead. In all seriousness, with as
absolutely amazing as the FS-100 is, the F3 must be just out of this
world. I don't think I've ever had this much fun with a cam. I know
I have been going way overboard with the rack focuses, but they are just
SOOO fun! But the wide shots are just sharp as can be as well. Sony really
has some good things going here with these super 35 cameras!

It's weird...even when you think you're going for the F3, you still get a result in favor of the FS100. I wonder why.

That is because your answers reveal the truth that the FS100 would be best for YOU, even if you think you should be going for the F3.

By the way, I can monitor the statistics, and the F3 is the one that is recommended slightly more often so the scoring does not favor the FS100 as you might think. When I had a dozen friends (who I know very well) beta test it, all of them got the results I would have predicted except for one. I think he did not take the questions seriously enough, and therefore got an answer I think would be wrong for him.

i got 40% on the fs100, and still waiting for it from B&H, they dont have any in stock with lens

I got 1.1% on the FS100. Not much of a margin considering the margin of error but I think I'll still go with the FS100.

One factor is that other camera companies have yet to get into the big sensor game, or in the case of Canon, who started it, their 2nd gen.

POST magazine reported in this month's issue that JVC will release a 4K camera for "Around $6,000" sometime soon. No mention of chip size, but if it's at least 4/3's big, it obviously will be worth looking at.

It's possible that the Mark III will be 3 or 4 K as well, and there's already been rumors of an AF100 2.

So unless you have the money for the S-log and the money for a 4:4:4 recorder for the F3 - and will be content with the 1080 resolution even when higher resolution cameras come out - I'd say the FS100 is the safer bet, at least in terms of bang for the buck.

It really depends if the 5D Mk III is going to a be a stills camera that shots video or a video camera that shoots stills. If it's the latter, I'd expect they'd use another model number and keep the "5D" primarily as a stills model.

I'm not sure Canon started large sensor rush, more likely RED, although Canon made the cheaper camera.

S'funny - I did the test pre-ownership, way up in the 40s. Now I own it, shot with it, understand it better, I've redone the test for fun, and now I'm down to about 1%.

No regrets at all.

But I was shooting with a 5D yesterday. Sigh. I think if I'd gone Canon 5D rather than 550D/T2i, I would have held off another year and... well, I'd probably sell one of my EX1s to ease the pain of paying for an F3. A friend is fighting the temptation to leap into FS100 (he's watching my reactions like a hawk), and he'll probably go F3.

LIke I say, no regrets. <twitch>

It really depends if the 5D Mk III is going to a be a stills camera that shots video or a video camera that shoots stills. If it's the latter, I'd expect they'd use another model number and keep the "5D" primarily as a stills model.

I'm not sure Canon started large sensor rush, more likely RED, although Canon made the cheaper camera.

It was Canon. RED, huge name that it is, simply hasn't sold enough cameras. All of the various rail systems, evfs, shoulder mounts, et all are in reaction to the thousands of people who've bought Canons and Panasonic DSLRs - not to anyone who bought a RED (although yes, those items could still be used for RED).

After all, the FS100 and AF100 aren't reactions to RED or Alexa - they're aimed squarely at the DSLR market - and in point of fact were marketed as "DSLR killers."

Regardless as to who started it the single sensor craze, 3 and 4 K camera w/ sub $10,000 price tags aren't far away. From the POST article:

"JVC’s prototype records 4K (3840x2160 24p/60p) to four SDHC cards, capturing 140Mbps of data (35Mbps/per card) in H.264. The camera is based on the company’s LSI chip and would support realtime output. Since data is recorded on four files, NLE manufacturers would need to be aware of this, and as such, JVC is talking to folks at Apple, Avid and Adobe about support. A 16GB card could provide an hour of recording, but Shane reiterates that you would need four of them."

And the price? "JVC hopes to deliver for a list price well below $10K. In fact, that price could be even closer to $6K when it finally comes to market."

And you can bet the rest of the companies won't sit on their 1080 laurels.

So for me, the safer bet is the FS100 - esp considering the F3 is $14K w/o S-log. Add $3200 is you want it. $17 thousand for a 1080 camera when you know 4K cameras are just around the bend?

If you're fine with committing to the F3 - & its 1080 quality - for 2 or 3 years, then great - but that's a tough sell for me. $5 grand for something that delivers an image very close to the F3, that's a better pill.

Link to the POST article:
Post Magazine - Post Script: JVC previews affordable 4K camcorder (http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2011/July-1-2011/Post-Script-JVC-previews-affordable-4K-camcorder.aspx)

37% for the F3. I though it would have been a lot closer for me with the slight edge going to the FS100.

-Garrett

Just consider that the JVC is a 4k bayer sensor, well 3.8k to be exact, which is not the same as a 4k camera. It's also a tiny sensor so the pixels will be tiny, probably with limited dynamic range, low sensitivity and higher noise than you would get from a larger sized sensor.

If you used JVC's terms then the F3 and FS100 would be 3.5k camcorders (well 3.35k to be exact).

In terms of resolution the JVC will likely only be about 15% higher than the FS100 or F3 yet most likely sacrifice the very things that make s35 cameras so attractive, i.e. shallow DoF, high sensitivity, low noise and high dynamic range.

The JVC looks to be the video equivalent of a point and shoot camera with too many pixels crammed into too small of a space. Have you ever compared a 4 megapixel SLR photo to the same scene shot with a 12 megapixel point and shoot? There's no question which is better. My first digital SLR, a Nikon D1H was only two megapixels, yet I would gladly put it's picture quality up against any P&S. More pixels doesn't mean anything all on its own.

Also, the JVC is going to require simultaneous recording to 4 SDHC cards. Yes, that's FOUR cards. That ought to make for a real fun post-production experience when it comes time to merge those four files into a single image. There's people on this forum that can't even get the camera they already own to record on just one SDHC card without problems.

Unless I am missing something, the JVC looks like a camera that sacrifices too much for the sake of getting the 4K branding.

Well, let's not a judge a camera before it's prototype is even finished.

Regardless, my main point is that 4K is coming to sub $10,000 cameras and it's coming sooner then later. Just one thing to consider is all.

Heck, buy 10 F3's if that suits your needs best.

One F3 seems to suit my needs just fine. The more I use it, the more I am amazed by it.

my main point is that 4K is coming to sub $10,000 cameras and it's coming sooner then later. Just one thing to consider is all.

But it's NOT a 4k camera, heck it doesn't even have 4k's worth of horizontal pixels. For it to be a true 4k camera it would need around 5.7k pixels horizontally.

And where are the 4k monitors your going to need coming from? What about the lens? We already see all kinds of diffraction issues with small sensors and only 2k's worth of pixels, how's this going to work, your going to be heavily reliant on gain and shutter to control exposure.

Then at the end of the day will you be able to see the resolution difference in normal viewing environments? We have this discussion on these board many times with many claiming they can't see a difference between 720P and 1080P, so how are these people ever going to appreciate 4k.

Sure, 4k will come and it has a useful place in applications where heavy post work needs to be done, but this isn't it.

74.6% for the F3. Spot-on test, Doug. The images from the F3 are the most impressive I've ever seen from a sub-$25K camera.

It was Canon. RED, huge name that it is, simply hasn't sold enough cameras. All of the various rail systems, evfs, shoulder mounts, et all are in reaction to the thousands of people who've bought Canons and Panasonic DSLRs - not to anyone who bought a RED (although yes, those items could still be used for RED).
]

If anything it was the 35mm adapters at got many people into the shallow DOF, rather than a positive plan by Canon, but RED was too expensive for the people who wanted a cheaper camera. RED is a higher end professional camera and those numbers are always smaller and the DSLRs are basically a compromise.

Yes, you needed these rail systems to get the DSLRs to work in a sensible manner as a video camera.

I wouldn't get too obsessed by numbers, you can have more & more pixels, but on a smaller chip there can be disadvantages.

One F3 seems to suit my needs just fine. The more I use it, the more I am amazed by it.

Doug, is it fair to say that when both cameras are recording to their built-in codecs, their images are essentially identical?

Absolutely not.
Not even in the same ballpark.

Absolutely not.
Not even in the same ballpark.

Allister's Vimeo comparison would contradict the "not in the same ballpark" statement, even though he acknowledges where the two cameras differ. ASSUMING internal codec recording, of course...

No offense to Alister, we have met many times and I consider him a friend, but I was not impressed with the results he achieved with either camera. I don't think he had much time with them -- and it shows.

I actually own both cameras. I have produced over 7 hours of training videos for the two of them combined. I do not think the cameras are in the same ballpark. That's just my opinion. Take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me.

Doug: I certainly didn't mean to be argumentative. I was just wondering, given the significant difference in opinion between two professionals I admire greatly, where the differences may lie.

I would NEVER assume a $6k camera would be indistinguishable from a camera at twice the price (or more...) but I was left with the IMPRESSION that they would intercut easily, if not seamlessly.

And your own comparison applet led me to believe it was more of an operational and switchgear difference between the two (given comparable glass in front of them) that would lead one to choose one over the other... UNLESS using HD-SDI output on the F3 of course...

Shaun, no problem, I didn't think you were being argumentative.

Under the right situation you could intercut almost any two cameras, but I was asked if they are essentially identical, and they are not even close -- in my opinion. I am constanly blown away by the F3 footage, and never get that "wow" factor from the FS100. Can you get great results with an FS100, yes. Same as you can get great results with an EX1R, EX3, and many other cameras -- but that doesn't put them on the same level as the F3.

I've heard many people say that the F3 is like a baby F35 or 9000PL. And I agree with that. So if they say the F3 and FS100 are on the same level, then that is like saying the FS100 is like an F35. That is crazy.

As for my camera selector quiz, don't jump to conclusions about why I am asking certain questions and what the responses indicate. Only I know how the matrix works, and most of the feedback I've gotten says that I am pretty accurate. It's not too hard to recommend one camera over another once you know something about the person who is looking at them. To give you an analogy, it is like walking into an automotive dealership and not being able to decide whether you want a Chevy or Jaguar. How can anybody be seriously considering two such different products? The Chevy is perfect for some people, but other people prefer the preformance and features (do not underestimate the importance of features and workflow!!) of the Jaguar. Two very different cameras for different needs.

Doug,

I have proposed to our management the acquisition of an F3 for the coming year, where is the steepest part of the learning curve for this camera. I, like you, have a varied background and have shot with many different cameras. Please forgive the thread derailing.

Best,

Dave

Man if you can afford the F3, go for the F3, but if not then the FS100 is a fine camera. It comes down to price. The F3 is a better camera, period. Comparable clips/video between the two cameras will tell you that right away.

Comparable clips/video between the two cameras will tell you that right away.

Where are these "comparable" clips? The only real (not vimeo compressed) clips I've seen show that the F3 is slightly sharper. That's it.

Doug is quite correct that the side by side shoot I did with the F3 and FS100 was rushed. While I did not necessarily get the best out of either camera, for me it showed up a couple of things.

The F3 is the better camera, no doubt. But I would not call the difference between images from the F3 and FS100 night and day. The F3 has a small edge in most areas, highlight handling and dynamic range is better, noise is marginally less visible, micro-contrast is better, shadow detail stronger. The electronic processing is better in the F3 and this results in a less electronic looking picture. These are all small, subtle differences that contribute to giving the F3 a more satisfying image. The F3 has better verisimilitude, it just looks a little more real.

In many cases I believe that you could intercut an F3 and FS100 and in a blind test the viewer would not realise that two different cameras were being used. But then from time to time you just get some shots or some scenes where the F3 has a clear edge and just looks better.

One of the things that came out of my test shoot was that I ended up overexposing the FS100 on quite a few shots. No excuses really, but when I look back and analyse the footage it becomes apparent that the FS100 overexposes much more easily than the F3 due to it's reduced dynamic range. So this makes the FS100 harder to shoot with, or at least makes accurate exposure more critical. This was borne out in my rushed test shoot, when your rushing things get compromised. The F3 dealt with this much better than the FS100.

The other thing the happened on the shoot was the realisation of how much easier it is to control exposure when you have built in ND filters. Trying to use the Sony 18-200mm lens with no ND on a bright sunny day was a nightmare. Using my Nikon lenses with a Genus ND Fader was easier, but still not as simple as just selecting which behind the lens ND you want as on the F3.

So rushing, no ND and greater sensitivity to overexposure led to less than optimum results. Now you can blame me and call me un-professional, that's fine, I was rushing. I should have stepped back and taken more time and done it properly. But we all know that quite often things do end up getting rushed because maybe there is a deadline to meet or the sun is going down etc. So having a camera that gives you the best result under less than optimum circumstances is, for me at least a big part of the deal and that's why I chose a second F3 as my "B" camera as opposed to saving a bit of money and getting a FS100.

They are both great cameras. But the F3 has a definite edge over the FS100 that I think is worth every penny. I am fortunate enough right now to have the funds to buy a pair of F3's. If that had not been the case then I would have gone with FS100's and I'm quite sure I would still be pleased by the images.

Doug,
I have proposed to our management the acquisition of an F3 for the coming year, where is the steepest part of the learning curve for this camera. I, like you, have a varied background and have shot with many different cameras. Please forgive the thread derailing.
Best,
Dave

Dave,

That's a hard question to answer because I think the steepest part of the learning curve will vary from person to person. For example, a new F3 owner might already have a very good understanding of all the features and functions of the EX1R or EX3, so there would be a relatively small learning curve with choosing a video format, clip naming, picture profiles, camera data files, assign buttons, etc. But, if they had no experience with super-35 sensors, PL lenses, more sophisticated pain menu choices, steps for maximizing the dynamic range and preventing exposure problems, etc., then the learning curve might be steeper. There are many reasons why my F3 training DVD is 4 hours long. And, as anyone who has watched any of my DVDs will know, that is a fast-moving 4 hours with tons of material coming at you non-stop.

However, since this is really supposed to be the FS100 forum, I'll get back on topic and say this: Having a good working knowledge of the F3, EX1R or any of the other XDCAM camcorders won't help you very much with the FS100. For a minute, let's forget about comparing picture quality on the F3 and FS100. Just from an operational standpoint, the two cameras are totally different in their features, menu choices, paint settings, exposure controls, and workflow. I have counted more than three dozen major differences between the two models. Really, the only thing they have in common is the super-35mm sensor. That's it.

Where are these "comparable" clips? The only real (not vimeo compressed) clips I've seen show that the F3 is slightly sharper. That's it.

Vimeo, YouTube, and other streaming sites are more than enough to tell that the F3 is a better camera then the FS100. It's not rocket science, 10-bit processing, compared to 8-bit. S-Log for 4:4:4, compared to 4:2:2 out of an HDMI. I'm not saying the FS100 is crap (I own one). The F3 is just better, there's no discussion there.

I don't know how did I get 72% for F3, I thought it'll be 150%, but to be honest how can you even compare two, using your analogy F3 is like D1H and FS100 is like any P&S, I guess 'brain' and codec make big difference

The FS100 is a lot better than a P&S. That analogy does not work for me.

I would say the F3 is a like a Nikon D3, and the FS100 is like a Nikon D300s.
Both nice cameras, but built to suit different types of needs.

Vimeo, YouTube, and other streaming sites are more than enough to tell that the F3 is a better camera then the FS100. It's not rocket science, 10-bit processing, compared to 8-bit. S-Log for 4:4:4, compared to 4:2:2 out of an HDMI. I'm not saying the FS100 is crap (I own one). The F3 is just better, there's no discussion there.

Of course the F3 is a better camera, But the ? I asked was solely about image quality when both cameras are recording to their native formats.

And the answer is hardly a no brainer b/c both cameras use the exact same CMOS sensor. And with CMOS, A/D conversion is performed on the sensor.

Furthermore, I suspect most people have tested the FS100 with the kit lens since it doesn't come w/ a PL mount. While F3 owners are putting PL glass on their cameras. This alone makes the majority of examples you see on the web not very useful for comparisions.

And there's codecs. It's not clear that XDCAM-EX is better than NXCAM (quite a few tests seem conclude that NXCAM is at least as good or better).

So ?ing if there is a significant image quality difference between the two cameras is not as silly a ? as it might seem.

As for overall, of course the F3 is a much better camera.

Just for the record, I have a Hot Rod Camera Tuner PL adapter (GREAT PRODUCT!) and so I have used the FS100 and the F3 with the exact same Zeiss, Sony, and Cine-Xenar PL lenses. I also have the 18-200 kit lens, 16mm Sony E-mount w/ fisheye adapter, a half dozen f/2.8 Nikon lenses and one Canon lens. I have no shortage of lenses to choose from and compare on both cameras.

Whether NXCAM is a better codec or not than XDCAM is impossible for me to determine without doing more testing than I care to do; however, as an FCP 7 editor, I can tell you that I find the NXCAM workflow intolerable.

I just want to say for the record, that if I were Sony I'd be sure that the F3 had a better image than the FS100. Even if that meant putting a big ol' thumb print on each sensor heading for the FS100 bin.

Of course the F3 is a better camera, But the ? I asked was solely about image quality when both cameras are recording to their native formats.

And the answer is hardly a no brainer b/c both cameras use the exact same CMOS sensor. And with CMOS, A/D conversion is performed on the sensor.

Furthermore, I suspect most people have tested the FS100 with the kit lens since it doesn't come w/ a PL mount. While F3 owners are putting PL glass on their cameras. This alone makes the majority of examples you see on the web not very useful for comparisions.

And there's codecs. It's not clear that XDCAM-EX is better than NXCAM (quite a few tests seem conclude that NXCAM is at least as good or better).

So ?ing if there is a significant image quality difference between the two cameras is not as silly a ? as it might seem.

As for overall, of course the F3 is a much better camera.

I see what you mean, but the processing of 10-bit creates a sharper picture than 8-bit, also better in the highlights and shadows, even when compressed to the card. Are non-professionals going to notice, probably not. The real question isn't what's the better camera. The question is how much are you willing to spend?

But if you are only planning on shooting to the card, then the FS100 is great!

Both cameras have the same sensor and it's true that the A to.D converters are on the sensor chip. But beyond that these are two very different cameras. The F3 DSP is probably a 12 or 14 bit DSP. You need at least 12 bits to get the 12+ stops of dynamic range that S-log gives you. On the other hand the DSP in the FS100 is probably only 10 bit and this is why the images look different. The more bits your DSP has e easier it is to apply sophisticated filtering and gamma directions etc. The difference in DSP also explains the lower dynamic range of the FS100 as some of the data coming of the sensor will be truncated to fit the DSPs limited bit depth.

I love my F3's. They are a real pleasure to use. the ergonomics may not be perfect but they are still a pleasure to use. I'd rather shoot with an F3 than an FS100.

I love my F3's. They are a real pleasure to use. the ergonomics may not be perfect but they are still a pleasure to use. I'd rather shoot with an F3 than an FS100.

I would, too, but my bank account says I'll like the FS100 better.

"I would, too, but my bank account says I'll like the FS100 better."

Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth....