Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom

[Galen Rath]

Another opinion: I think Juan said at NAB that the F3 and the FS-100 were assigned to two different project groups. They each had their own budget, and they probably never talked to one another, and what the FS-100 group came up with was what they would have come up with if the F3 didn't even exist.

[Brian Drysdale]

I came across a review of the Letus on In Review: Letus Extreme 35mm Lens AdapterMatthew Jeppsen, Matthew Jeppsen, Matthew Jeppsen which quotes "50mm lens at f/4 I noted about 700x650 lines of resolution^.

I think in the end it comes down to if you like the look of a clean FS100 or F3 against the adapter look, which tends towards a slight promist feel. There are other aspects like sensitivity which will influence selecting a camera for a production. These decisions are personal, unless you're meeting HD broadcast specifications. The FS100 & F3 cameras have different markets

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Needing a critical alignment is a potential issue when shooting on a tight schedule.

Once the letus is set up there is no need to take it off all you do is change lenses.

Mark

Dear Mark, you're defending a lost case here. Been there, seen that. Have had enough.

Optimally, I'd like to sell my Letus - but should it prove to be impossible, well... See the link in my sig.

It'd be a pity, cause I love my EX1 - but not the Letus. The FS100 would make such a nice B-cam for the EX1...

[Alister Chapman]

The FS100 was designed by and is built by the Sony Shinegawa factory which is responsible for Sony's PV products (pro video) and consumer products. The F3 was designed and is built at the Atsugi factory which is where all the broadcast gear is produced. The two teams are completely separate.

I'll run the charts through Imatest in the morning and see what we get.

[Mark David Williams]

Piotr
I'm not crazy about the Letus/EX1 combo.. I SHOULD only care about pic quality and usability But I don't I want in on the big chip show. But in the end my down to earth practical side errs on comon sense and what ACTUALLY gives the best picture and most usability is an add on and not the one stop solution that takes one step forward and three back.

I'm seduced by the new big chip cameras that offer the lenseless holy grail we've been waiting for for years. Unfortuneatly this isn't the pivotal moment it promised to be. Only the F3 offers the real deal the other two seem to be crippled to the point of non starters for my position,

I'm definatly going to look in on your posts when you get your FS100 and sell your EX1!

What grates with me is I have four Zeiss mark one primes 16mm film lenses that I'm sure would work well with the AF101 and all four at T1.4 Would make the AF101 a GREAT choice. But the reality is 680 lines 8 bit and many are seemingly reporting problems with highlights. Doh..

Mark

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Not so sure David. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I think the MTF50 numbers are too high for a camera effectively using only 1280x720 samples. MTF50 of 772 LW/PH Horizontal and 756 LW/PH Vertical are too high, MTF30 is out at around 850/840 LW/PH which should not be possible from just 1280x720 samples.

Sorry Alister - I'd missed this post of yours.

But can I remind you of a point I think you have referred to yourself? That Imatest is only effective if the MTF50 point is below the Nyquist limit? From the Imatest site ( Imatest - Sharpness ) , near the bottom:

Some observations on sharpness
........
*Sensor response above the Nyquist frequency is garbage. It can cause aliasing, visible as Moire patterns of low spatial frequency. In Bayer sensors (all sensors except Foveon) Moire patterns appear as color fringes. Moire in Foveon sensors is far less bothersome because it's monochrome and because the effective Nyquist frequency of the Red and Blue channels is lower than for Bayer sensors.

*Since MTF is the product of the lens and sensor response, demosaicing algorithm, and sharpening, and since sharpening typically boosts MTF at the Nyquist frequency, the MTF at and above the Nyquist frequency is not an unambiguous indicator of aliasing problems. It may, however, be interpreted as a warning that there could be problems

In other words, the Imatest software can't distinguish between real resolution and "sensor response above the Nyquist frequency" (aliases). It relies on a user separately knowing what the Nyquist frequency is, and if Imatest gives a figure for MTF50 of greater than that, the implication is that there are aliases present of greater than 50% mtf. The software is intended for systems where MTF50 is significantly lower than Nyquist.

If my hypothesis is correct, and the FS100 reads the sensor differently to the F3 such that it is effectively 1280x720 R,G,B samples (or thereabouts), then the reason for your Imatest figures of 772 and 756 (850/840 for 30% mtf) are quite simply that those figures are so high due to aliases. "Garbage resolution" as Imatest put it.

I think it would be very interesting to point an FS3 and an FS100 at the same zone plate, especially one with an out of band response. I'm pretty sure I know what I'd expect to see...... :-)

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

What grates with me is I have four Zeiss mark one primes 16mm film lenses that I'm sure would work well with the AF101 and all four at T1.4 Would make the AF101 a GREAT choice. But the reality is 680 lines 8 bit and many are seemingly reporting problems with highlights. Doh..Mark

But listen to Phillip -- a shooter with a reasonable level of skill can deal with the AF100 issues. If you really look at all the samples, the AF100 looks great. In fact, it always looks better with great color and nice contrast. The others offer only a tiny increment in resolution -- and when the re-spin of the VG10 arrives it will have the same resolution for only $2000. So, you are paying a lot for resolution in May that will be equalled in Sept.

As Philip rightly says, the point of a game involving imperfect cameras is to buy the camera wit the "most bang for the buck." In your heart you know which one that is given the lenses you own.

[Steve Mullen]

[QUOTE=Alister Chapman;1648541]The FS100 was designed by and is built by the Sony Shinegawa factory which is responsible for Sony's PV products (pro video) and consumer products. The F3 was designed and is built at the Atsugi factory which is where all the broadcast gear is produced. The two teams are completely separate.

Exactly!

The FS100 is part of the NEX (with E-mount) series consumer/prosumer series. Specifically it is the prosumer version of the consumer VG10.

The FS100 looks more advanced TODAY ONLY because the VG10 is almost 9-months old. Wait for the 16MP re-spin of the VG10 -- then the FS100 will look like an expensive version of a consumer camera.

What the two teams share is the ability to buy the same sensor from yet another Sony division. And the Sony consumer/prosumer group are using this choice of chip to build a "uses the same chip" marketing program. And, it does deliver 2-stops greater sensitivity so the marketing ABOUT THE CHIP is not a lie.

[David C. Williams]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

What grates with me is I have four Zeiss mark one primes 16mm film lenses that I'm sure would work well with the AF101 and all four at T1.4 Would make the AF101 a GREAT choice. But the reality is 680 lines 8 bit and many are seemingly reporting problems with highlights. Doh..

Mark

S16 is roughly 7mm smaller in diameter than the AF100 image circle. The chances of your lenses covering an AF100 are not very good. Test away, but doubtful.

[Brian Drysdale]

Especially the 9.5mm Super Speed Distagon, which only just managed to cover Super 16..

[Mark David Williams]

Brian,

I measured the lense diameters a while back, can't remember the exact figures now and your right the 9.5mm would have vignetting and would have to reframe on that lens However the 25mm and 16mm, will be okay the 12mm may need a little reframing. Not good when the starting resolution is only 680 lines.

Steve
Are you sure they won't just discontinue the VG10? The VG10 seems to have a pretty awful picture when you could buy a 5D for about the same price?

Mark

[Mark David Williams]

Here is a link to a trailer I made using the EX1 and Letus
Vampire Gang Origins (2011) - IMDb

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by David Heath

If my hypothesis is correct, and the FS100 reads the sensor differently to the F3 such that ..........

Alister, it does strike me that rather than the matter being debated on forums, are you in a position to put a question directly to Sony? To directly ask, "given the same physical sensor in the FS100 and the F3, are the photosites read out in the same way"?

AFAIK, the FS100 doing a full de-Bayer (as the F3) is not something they have ever claimed - it's just what people have assumed given the same physical chip.

[Alister Chapman]

Originally Posted by David Heath

In other words, the Imatest software can't distinguish between real resolution and "sensor response above the Nyquist frequency" (aliases). It relies on a user separately knowing what the Nyquist frequency is, and if Imatest gives a figure for MTF50 of greater than that, the implication is that there are aliases present of greater than 50% mtf. The software is intended for systems where MTF50 is significantly lower than Nyquist. ......

I think it would be very interesting to point an FS3 and an FS100 at the same zone plate, especially one with an out of band response. I'm pretty sure I know what I'd expect to see...... :-)

I agree with what you say, with the caveat that the plotted MTF curve normally gives very clear indications of aliasing and resolution above Nyquist as this tends to reveal itself as bumps or flat areas on the plot. The FS100 plots show a quite steep and uniform curve going down to MTF15 at system Nyquist, then there is a bump at about 1650 LW/PH on both the F3 and FS100 plots which corresponds to the out of band aliasing/moire see on the zone plates.

[Alister Chapman]

David. I have asked and fished for that very answer, but Sony will not say anything beyond "It's a bayer sensor and we cannot say more".

Zone plates show both the F3 and FS100 to have the same vertical resolution, but the FS100 having more horizontal aliasing. Out of band moire is very similar for both.