FS100 or F3?

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

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...

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Shaun Roemich]

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...

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Dave Nystul]

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

[David J. Buchanan]

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.

[Mikko Topponen]

Originally Posted by David J. Buchanan

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.

[Alister Chapman]

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 Jensen]

Originally Posted by Dave Nystul

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.

[David J. Buchanan]

Originally Posted by Mikko Topponen

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.

[Buba Kastorski]

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

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Peter Moretti]

Originally Posted by David J. Buchanan

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.

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Peter Moretti]

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.