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

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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

Mark

[Piotr Wozniacki]

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.

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

[Matt Davis]

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.

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Matt Daviss

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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 Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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...

[Jon Braeley]

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.

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

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.

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

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.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

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.

[Phil Bloom]

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

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.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

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