Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test

Doug Jensen · April 13th, 2011, 12:20 AM

Steve,

I'm not talking about a regular polarizer. I'm using a variable ND polarizer. I'm surprised you're not familiar with it, especially since someone else already mentioned it on this very thread and I've been using mine on DSLRs for a couple of years.

It is a screw-in filter with two polarizers sandwiched together and they rotate independently. Depending on the relative angle of the two polarizers, you can vary the light transmission from about 90% to 0%. Yes, you can completely block out all light. And since it is totally variable, you can get the perfect amount of ND you need. In some ways it is better than normal built-in NDs that only give you two options (1/64 or 1/8). I don't care how bright the lighting is, I can get the exposure I need with the lens wide open and the shutter speed at 1/60th. The variable polarizer will knock it down.

And as I said, I only need one large filter, and then I can use step-down rings to fit the various lenses I own. A cheap, easy, and effective solution.
I've done it with the FS100, and have plenty of footage that I'm showing at NAB.

Steve Mullen · April 13th, 2011, 01:18 AM

Not sure which Steve you are talking to, but a Vario ND only enables a 2- to 5-stop reduction.

You need much more and less. In snow the much more is a lot more.

The idea that simply buying a Vario-ND is a solution is, frankly speaking, not supported by those that use these cameras.

Brian Drysdale · April 13th, 2011, 01:45 AM

Singh-Ray claim up to 8 stops.
Singh-Ray Filters: Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter

However, you'll need more than that to get f1.4 using an ISO 800 sensor on a sunny day.

Are these cameras IR sensitive with all this ND stacked up?

Steve Mullen · April 13th, 2011, 01:53 AM

Claims is the operative word. Yes, you can UNEVENLY cut light by 8-stops. Past 5-stops you get color shift and uneven density.

And, yes you can stack ND filters. But should you, NO.

An ASA800 camera and a fast lens at 1/48th -- I'll check my lightmeter but you are going to need welders glass.

Brian Drysdale · April 13th, 2011, 02:33 AM

I suspect you'd be using a hot mirror to get that level of ND ( I don't think it's available yet at that factor). No square/rectangular standard ND filters currently goes that far and ND 3.0 (ten stops) is about the limit for screw in, plus the IR could become an issue.

Serena Steuart · April 13th, 2011, 06:58 AM

Doug is speaking about his experience with the camera, and his observations must carry a great deal more weight than speculation. If the camera were to have internal NDs they would be much the same as in other cameras (1/8 & 1/64), and since it doesn't have them the user will have to mount an equivalence externally. Inconvenience? Yes, for some. Problem? No. Matte-boxes, like tripods, serve many different cameras.
And not having internal NDs means that the camera accepts a wide range of lenses without having to make focus allowances for internal glass.

Brian Drysdale · April 13th, 2011, 07:09 AM

The internal NDs would be (or should be) factored into the camera's own flange distance set up, so you would unaware of it unless there was a mismatch of the filter thickness.

This camera's ND arrangement is no worse than that found on the RED Epic, it seems to have a pretty similar ISO, so will need the same levels of ND filtration.

Doug Jensen · April 13th, 2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena Steuart

Doug is speaking about his experience with the camera . . . .

Thank you Serena. You have summed it up perfectly. I've actually used the camera and I know what I am talking about from direct hands-on experiece. I'll let the footage I'm showing at NAB speak for itself.

Les Wilson · April 13th, 2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

1) I've been shooting quite happily with several of my f/2.8 Nikon lenses on a prototype FS100 outdoors in bight sun. A "monster ND filter" has not been necesarry. I've just been using a $150 variable polarizer to quite easily control the light. No big deal.

Doug....sorry I didn't run into you at Sony...I did run into Alistair yesterday at lunchtime and had a nice chat. Do you expect to be there Thursday lunchtime?

I saw that there was an adpater to put A-mount glass on the native e-mount but somehow I missed that there is an e-mount adapter to put Nikon glass on the FS-100. That changes everything for me. What adapter are you using. Also, what, variable polarizer are you using.

Doug Jensen · April 13th, 2011, 09:23 AM

Hi Les,

I'm in the Sony booth in the afternoon today, but teaching an FS100 / F3 workshop in room N102 from 10:00 - 12:00. Please come id you can make it. By the time I wrap up the Q&A and grab something to eat, it's 2:00 before I get to the booth.
On Thursday I should be in the booth all day, with a few quick excursions to other areas of the show. Would love to meet up.

Not only is there a Nikon adapter for the FS100, there are about a dozen adapters already available or just about to come to market from 3rd party manufacturers . . . Nikon, Canon, PL, Alpha, Olympus, etc.
I can confidently say that if there is a lens that covers the Super-35 image circle, somebody is going to make an adapter so you can put it on the FS100. Count on it.

It's exactly this massive lens compatility feature that led to the camera not having ND filters. The flange depth is so short that there simply isn't room for ND filters. Sony traded ND filters for lens compatiblity. Did they make the right choice? That's open for debate, but that's the way it is. You either deal with it, or move to another camera that suits your needs better.

I try to explain the relative differences between cameras to customers at NAB, and then let them determine which camera fits their needs. For some people the FS100 is perfect. For other people, I suggest that they consider stepping up to an F3, or even sideways to an EX1R or EX3. Different cameras for different folks.

The biggest surprise to me has been the number of customers who say they are keeping their EX1 / EX1R/ EX3 and adding an FS100 instead of replacing there other camera. In my opinion, that is a very smart move.

The lack of ND filters has already become a non-issue for me. Its easy to work around.

Steve Kalle · April 13th, 2011, 04:40 PM

A couple thoughts and observations:

Doug, what are good vari-Pol's and where can I find them?

On the subject of polarizers: they alter the color being recorded; so, I would greatly appreciate some unedited stills from your FS100 with vari-Pol.

Steve Mullen: Doug was responding to me about the polarizer.

Can someone answer how thick the standard built-in 1/8 and 1/64 NDs are? I ask because the AF100 has them and its flange is ONLY 2mm deeper than the FS100/E-mount - 20mm vs 18mm. So, I don't accept the reasoning anymore that there isn't enough room. I honestly believe this is Sony protecting their higher-priced cameras, which is unfortunate. Sony also did not include SDI - a must for me.

FYI, the E-mount has the shortest flange depth. Here are the numbers for all other mainstream mounts.
Mount Flange-to-sensor distance
Sony NEX 18mm (aka E-mount)
Micro 4/3 20mm
Standard 4/3 38.7mm
Canon 44mm
Sony Alpha 44.5mm
Nikon 46.5mm
Arri, PL 52mm

For an adapter, the adapted lens mount must have a deeper flange depth in order to work on whatever camera it is mounting to. This explains why a Canon lens cannot be adapted to a Nikon camera and why you won't see E-mount lenses on any other system except Sony.

So, the excuse that the E-mount allows a wider range of lenses versus the Micro 4/3 does not hold true. Furthermore, no 4/3 lens will work without serious problems because they are made for a smaller sensor.

I could be dreaming forever, but I would love a F3 without the extra HD-SDI ports and without the ability to do 444 S-Log for under $10k.

Back to the FS100 vs AF100: the Sony produces a noticeably better image with much lower noise, more dynamic range and better highlight control.

And the F3 is definitely worth its cost, especially to current XDCAM EX owners like me. I just need a couple months to recover from the IRS #&%$# me and I will own a F3.

Serena Steuart · April 13th, 2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

The internal NDs would be (or should be) factored into the camera's own flange distance set up, so you would unaware of it unless there was a mismatch of the filter thickness.

This does require glass behind the lens even with no ND in use, and anyway I prefer to do without this extra glass with wide angle primes. But since the camera will not have internal NDs, it's all a bit academic.

Brian Drysdale · April 14th, 2011, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena Steuart

This does require glass behind the lens even with no ND in use, and anyway I prefer to do without this extra glass with wide angle primes. But since the camera will not have internal NDs, it's all a bit academic.

Yes, video cameras have internal optical flats when no internal NDs are in use otherwise the back focus goes out. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.

As I mentioned in another thread, I suspect this is going to be one of those love it or hate cameras. In Nigel Cooper's review the images had the edge over the AF100, whereas the build quality of the latter was better. Perhaps Sony could've been trying to keep the weight down in order to make the camera more manageable with this different layout,

In the end, it really depends on how you're going to use it the features that are important to you. People will buy those 3rd party accessories for the AF100, FS100 and the F3 to allow these cameras to work for them because they've all got flaws.

Steve Mullen · April 14th, 2011, 12:34 AM

I did spend time with Panasonic's video guru and learned the AF100 does not use the GH2 chip. But, I also found the camera was way too heavy for me to even consider using.

But, I spend quality time with a Japanese engineer from another company. A 4K2K camcorder will be available sooner than I expected.

So I bought a book on the RED ONE, not because I'm going to buy one, but because it's time to learn more about our 5K/4K/3K future.

Serena Steuart · April 14th, 2011, 01:38 AM

[QUOTE=Steve Kalle;
Can someone answer how thick the standard built-in 1/8 and 1/64 NDs are? I ask because the AF100 has them and its flange is ONLY 2mm deeper than the FS100/E-mount - 20mm vs 18mm. So, I don't accept the reasoning anymore that there isn't enough room.[/QUOTE]

You have to accommodate more than the filter glass; it must be held and moved. You could have a filter slot, but that is less convenient than a matte-box. The body is pretty packed as it is. Seems a pointless discussion topic.

April 13th, 2011, 12:20 AM	#31
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,440	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test Steve, I'm not talking about a regular polarizer. I'm using a variable ND polarizer. I'm surprised you're not familiar with it, especially since someone else already mentioned it on this very thread and I've been using mine on DSLRs for a couple of years. It is a screw-in filter with two polarizers sandwiched together and they rotate independently. Depending on the relative angle of the two polarizers, you can vary the light transmission from about 90% to 0%. Yes, you can completely block out all light. And since it is totally variable, you can get the perfect amount of ND you need. In some ways it is better than normal built-in NDs that only give you two options (1/64 or 1/8). I don't care how bright the lighting is, I can get the exposure I need with the lens wide open and the shutter speed at 1/60th. The variable polarizer will knock it down. And as I said, I only need one large filter, and then I can use step-down rings to fit the various lenses I own. A cheap, easy, and effective solution. I've done it with the FS100, and have plenty of footage that I'm showing at NAB. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

April 13th, 2011, 01:18 AM	#32
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test Not sure which Steve you are talking to, but a Vario ND only enables a 2- to 5-stop reduction. You need much more and less. In snow the much more is a lot more. The idea that simply buying a Vario-ND is a solution is, frankly speaking, not supported by those that use these cameras. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

April 13th, 2011, 01:45 AM	#33
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test Singh-Ray claim up to 8 stops. Singh-Ray Filters: Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter However, you'll need more than that to get f1.4 using an ISO 800 sensor on a sunny day. Are these cameras IR sensitive with all this ND stacked up?

April 13th, 2011, 01:53 AM	#34
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test Claims is the operative word. Yes, you can UNEVENLY cut light by 8-stops. Past 5-stops you get color shift and uneven density. And, yes you can stack ND filters. But should you, NO. An ASA800 camera and a fast lens at 1/48th -- I'll check my lightmeter but you are going to need welders glass. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

April 13th, 2011, 02:33 AM	#35
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test I suspect you'd be using a hot mirror to get that level of ND ( I don't think it's available yet at that factor). No square/rectangular standard ND filters currently goes that far and ND 3.0 (ten stops) is about the limit for screw in, plus the IR could become an issue.

April 13th, 2011, 06:58 AM	#36
Serena Steuart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Studio Alnitak, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 640 Images: 3	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test Doug is speaking about his experience with the camera, and his observations must carry a great deal more weight than speculation. If the camera were to have internal NDs they would be much the same as in other cameras (1/8 & 1/64), and since it doesn't have them the user will have to mount an equivalence externally. Inconvenience? Yes, for some. Problem? No. Matte-boxes, like tripods, serve many different cameras. And not having internal NDs means that the camera accepts a wide range of lenses without having to make focus allowances for internal glass.

April 13th, 2011, 07:09 AM	#37
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test The internal NDs would be (or should be) factored into the camera's own flange distance set up, so you would unaware of it unless there was a mismatch of the filter thickness. This camera's ND arrangement is no worse than that found on the RED Epic, it seems to have a pretty similar ISO, so will need the same levels of ND filtration.

April 13th, 2011, 09:23 AM	#40
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,440	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test Hi Les, I'm in the Sony booth in the afternoon today, but teaching an FS100 / F3 workshop in room N102 from 10:00 - 12:00. Please come id you can make it. By the time I wrap up the Q&A and grab something to eat, it's 2:00 before I get to the booth. On Thursday I should be in the booth all day, with a few quick excursions to other areas of the show. Would love to meet up. Not only is there a Nikon adapter for the FS100, there are about a dozen adapters already available or just about to come to market from 3rd party manufacturers . . . Nikon, Canon, PL, Alpha, Olympus, etc. I can confidently say that if there is a lens that covers the Super-35 image circle, somebody is going to make an adapter so you can put it on the FS100. Count on it. It's exactly this massive lens compatility feature that led to the camera not having ND filters. The flange depth is so short that there simply isn't room for ND filters. Sony traded ND filters for lens compatiblity. Did they make the right choice? That's open for debate, but that's the way it is. You either deal with it, or move to another camera that suits your needs better. I try to explain the relative differences between cameras to customers at NAB, and then let them determine which camera fits their needs. For some people the FS100 is perfect. For other people, I suggest that they consider stepping up to an F3, or even sideways to an EX1R or EX3. Different cameras for different folks. The biggest surprise to me has been the number of customers who say they are keeping their EX1 / EX1R/ EX3 and adding an FS100 instead of replacing there other camera. In my opinion, that is a very smart move. The lack of ND filters has already become a non-issue for me. Its easy to work around. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

April 13th, 2011, 04:40 PM	#41
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test A couple thoughts and observations: Doug, what are good vari-Pol's and where can I find them? On the subject of polarizers: they alter the color being recorded; so, I would greatly appreciate some unedited stills from your FS100 with vari-Pol. Steve Mullen: Doug was responding to me about the polarizer. Can someone answer how thick the standard built-in 1/8 and 1/64 NDs are? I ask because the AF100 has them and its flange is ONLY 2mm deeper than the FS100/E-mount - 20mm vs 18mm. So, I don't accept the reasoning anymore that there isn't enough room. I honestly believe this is Sony protecting their higher-priced cameras, which is unfortunate. Sony also did not include SDI - a must for me. FYI, the E-mount has the shortest flange depth. Here are the numbers for all other mainstream mounts. Mount Flange-to-sensor distance Sony NEX 18mm (aka E-mount) Micro 4/3 20mm Standard 4/3 38.7mm Canon 44mm Sony Alpha 44.5mm Nikon 46.5mm Arri, PL 52mm For an adapter, the adapted lens mount must have a deeper flange depth in order to work on whatever camera it is mounting to. This explains why a Canon lens cannot be adapted to a Nikon camera and why you won't see E-mount lenses on any other system except Sony. So, the excuse that the E-mount allows a wider range of lenses versus the Micro 4/3 does not hold true. Furthermore, no 4/3 lens will work without serious problems because they are made for a smaller sensor. I could be dreaming forever, but I would love a F3 without the extra HD-SDI ports and without the ability to do 444 S-Log for under $10k. Back to the FS100 vs AF100: the Sony produces a noticeably better image with much lower noise, more dynamic range and better highlight control. And the F3 is definitely worth its cost, especially to current XDCAM EX owners like me. I just need a couple months to recover from the IRS #&%$# me and I will own a F3.

April 14th, 2011, 12:34 AM	#44
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test I did spend time with Panasonic's video guru and learned the AF100 does not use the GH2 chip. But, I also found the camera was way too heavy for me to even consider using. But, I spend quality time with a Japanese engineer from another company. A 4K2K camcorder will be available sooner than I expected. So I bought a book on the RED ONE, not because I'm going to buy one, but because it's time to learn more about our 5K/4K/3K future. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

April 14th, 2011, 01:38 AM	#45
Serena Steuart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Studio Alnitak, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 640 Images: 3	Re: Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test [QUOTE=Steve Kalle; Can someone answer how thick the standard built-in 1/8 and 1/64 NDs are? I ask because the AF100 has them and its flange is ONLY 2mm deeper than the FS100/E-mount - 20mm vs 18mm. So, I don't accept the reasoning anymore that there isn't enough room.[/QUOTE] You have to accommodate more than the filter glass; it must be held and moved. You could have a filter slot, but that is less convenient than a matte-box. The body is pretty packed as it is. Seems a pointless discussion topic.