FS100 or F3?

[Shawn Lam]

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.

[John Vincent]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Matt Davis]

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>

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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

[Garrett Low]

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

-Garrett

[Alister Chapman]

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.

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[John Vincent]

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.

[Doug Jensen]

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

[Alister Chapman]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

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.

[David Knaggs]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

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.

[Peter Moretti]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

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?

[Doug Jensen]

Absolutely not.
Not even in the same ballpark.