Sony showed off a 35mm sensor camera and a 3D unit

[Craig Seeman]

OK here's word from what appears to be a reliable news source. If we all call up Sony at the same time and SCREAM into the phone maybe they'll get the message. Looks like I can justify buying a Canon D60 now unless the Panny camera grabs me.

"The F3 is scheduled to ship in February 2011 at $16,000 for the body only or at $23,000 for a kit that includes three Sony-branded T2.0 PL-mount prime lenses at 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Sony is formally introducing it with film-school-oriented launch events this month at USC in Los Angeles and next month at NYU in New York City."

So that would probably mean around $14K "street" for the body. We'll know when it pops up at B&H.

[John Vincent]

Studio daily says it's $16K body only, 23K with lens:
Sony's PMW-F3 Targets Indie Filmmakers | Studio Daily

Still too much though... but perhaps after the promised firm-ware (in a year), but by then who knows what will be out?

[Ned Soltz]

I was just at a small press briefing with Sony on the F3 and got to fondle the prototype (StudioDaily was present and that's the source of Craig's info).

I think we have to keep in mind that Sony is looking for a higher end solution than the AF-100 encroaching on Red territory.

One of the things that we discussed today with Sony, in fact, is the positioning of the device.

Sony sees this as an ideal second unit camera for F-35 shoots, for example. And once the optional S-Log software upgrade is released, it will be possible to apply identical LUTs to footage from both cameras to enable scene matching.

Another factor here is the Super35 sensor. While Sony declined to provide us specifics about the sensor, it is a new sensor and they claim among other things that it siginificantly reduces "jello-cam."

Another position for this camera is indie filmmakers. Note that while it is recording XDCAM EX 4:2:0 to cards, it outputs 10-bit 4:2:2 via SDI. Makes the nanoFlash or KiPro an ideal companion.

Much more portable than a Red.

Those who might purchase an AF-100 for indie feature might considering forgoing the purchase but rent the F3.

But I think we have to await actual footage from the camera before we make any final judgments.

Ned Soltz

[Craig Seeman]

The only advantage I see is your "much more portable" than RED. I'm not sure what portion of the RED market, given its feature set, really is going to go for "much more portable." It looks like it's stuck right in the middle of two market niches, not really satisfying either. Sony might see a void to fill between the two markets but they may just find . . . a void.

Sorry to be critical but if it were a "killer" $20K camera it could be a challenge to RED for less money and faster setup. If it included the Dual Link feature NOW, that might be a claim for example. If it included 50mbps 4:2:2: for those who don't want to start attaching things to it, that would be convenience with a usable 4:2:2 codec. It looks like it's not quite enough to compete against RED and way too much more without too many advantages to cause someone to consider renting over buying an AF100 . . . or renting a RED. It just seems like too many compromises from all sides. What do I know though, maybe the reality TV shows will buy it like hotcakes.

[Tim Polster]

Thanks for your input Ned. (hope all is well)

I just don't get it. The Panasonic AF-100 has everything the F3 is offering outside of dual-link SDI and S-log for work with the high end F-35. And will retail for $4990 (with 1080p60 to boot).

If the F3 is going to be along side the RED offerings or F-35 the 35mbps EX codec stands out like a sore thumb. So this camera really costs a decent amount over $20,000 to get up to the "B-cam" for the upper end cameras with the needed add-ons. Essentially leaving a lot of people in the dust.

It seems they should offer a lower end model at an EX-1/3 pricepoint with the 35mbps codec and SDI output just like the EX series and also offer the higher end camera to interface with their F-35 gear.

As Craig put it, it is in the middle serving no market completely. I want to think there is another model but I do not see what they could take off to lower the price sigificantly.

I will wait and watch but am a little surprised at the price.

[Ned Soltz]

I see everyone's point.

Sensor size differentiates the AF-100 and F3. Micro 43 vs Super35 is a big difference.

The true test, though, will be real world tests of both AF-100 and F3.

We live in interesting times.

[Andrew Stone]

I am only surprised in the price, now that I am clear on how they are positioning it, in that the dual-link HD-SDI is an add on cost. This is what puts it within shooting distance of Red. Apparently you can't even do overcrank without the software upgrade (depending on which bit of Sony marketing material you read). At 16 grand USD for the box with dual-link and S-log it would be a RED contender otherwise it is neither appealing to the people who want to go upscale from an AF100 or to the indie cinema crowd that now largely use RED.

Sony should be giving them a no-fuss box with the goodies in for one price (save the lens option), then it is a clear sale to all the markets, otherwise it pisses off all except the SRW-9000 shooters who Sony say should own this camera. That market is teenie-tiny to all the others.

Sony have two clear wins on this camera if they follow what I have said above. A 16 grand camera that has a much more cost efficient workflow than RED. Anything else and the value proposition isn't clearly there and the ease of decision becomes much more difficult to swallow.

[Mike Marriage]

My biggest gripe? The ridiculous screw mount that Sony say is the same as on the EX1R. A camera with a PL mount HAS to have 3/8" threads! ...and the price is a little high.

I meant to post this earlier but my server has been playing up:

Sony PMW-F3 Announced

[Guy McLoughlin]

Here's a graphic comparing the AF-100 sensor size to the Sony PMW-F3 sensor ( made with the AbelCine FOV Calculator )

AbelCineTech - Field of View Calculator

[Craig Seeman]

If I were RED I'd thank Sony for making the Scarlet worth producing again without worrying that it'll cost a bit more than they originally thought.

Ned and Guy, what you describe is exactly why Sony could have had an $8K camera that people might buy instead of a $5K Panny AF100.

The should have made a better camera or a lower price point for this.

[Glen Vandermolen]

All this talk about Sony missing their target market...

I'm guessing with the lens kit it's going to be somewhere in the low $20,000s. Let's say you add a Nanoflash or Aja-mini - another $2,000-2,500. That puts it firmly in the professional broadcast/filmmaker market, and now you have a 10-bit 4:2:2 codec. For that same price, you can maybe assemble an HPX500 kit, or a low-end Sony XDCAM HD or a PMW-350 with SxS cards. That price still won't get you the latest Varicams or medium to higher-end XDCAM HD cameras.

I dunno, the F3 sound like a pretty good deal. If the S35 sensor gives us the images we think it can, then it's a great choice for a professional. Add a power zoom (as the zoom rocker indicates) then it definitely opens its options as a professional tool. Plus, it can be upgraded to a true digital cinema camera that can be matched with an F35 and give you 4:4:4 color. Wow.

So: in its basic form, it's a large sensor EX camera with great low light performance and shallow DoF. Add an aftermarket media drive and it's a broadcast-quality video/cinema camera. Use the dual HD/SDI to an as-yet revealed media drive, and it's a big-time PL-mount digital cinema camera, working side by side with the really expensive cameras, ready for the big screen. All this from one camera. Think of the rental possibilities!

For indie filmmakers and lower budget professionals, the AF100 looks like a better deal - or at least a more affordable one. What will it take to make the AF100 give you 10-bit 4:4:4 color? Answer - you can't, but most of us will never need that feature. Yet, someone will. So, pick the camera that best fits your needs.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Guy McLoughlin

Here's a graphic comparing the AF-100 sensor size to the Sony PMW-F3 sensor ( made with the AbelCine FOV Calculator )

Ahh - but there's a lot more to it than simply physical sensor size.

The AF100 appears to be using an available 12 megapixel sensor - as in all the other Panny 4/3 cameras. Quite sensible as a way of keeping costs down, and using an OLPF does mean it won't have the worst of the aliasing problems of DSLRs. BUT, it is almost certain to still have to use pixel skipping readouts, and that's likely to impact on sensitivity. Sony do say that the F3 has a sensor specifically designed for digital cinematography - I read that as indicating one with less than 12 megapixels, and hence able to not need pixel skipping - whilst being fully adequate for HD video. It's likely to mean some considerable advantages over the AF101, not least sensitivity.

Secondly, you have to think about the way it seems to have been designed around a lens system - the AF101 seems to be thought of as a body to make use of various lenses that are available. The trouble is that such lenses (at least zooms) are likely to be about f4. Compare that to a 2/3" camera with an f2 lens and you can expect exactly the same depths of field! What the 4x bigger sensor gets you, the two stops smaller lens takes away.

As video DSLR replacements without aliasing problems, remember that 4/3, even super 35mm, sizes are much smaller than full frame 35mm. Combined with aperture issues, some people may find the AF100 dof disappointing compared to the DSLrs they are used to.

There are many other differences as well, s-log obviously being a big plus for the F3. But I'm also surprised that the native codec is 35Mbs - I'd have expected 50Mbs, I agree. All I can say is that at least 35Mbs XDCAM is much better than AVC-HD. And since it's a more expensive camera, then maybe the use of an external recorder (to ProRes, HDCAM SR, or whatever) may be less of an issue.

The big question now will be whether the AF100 is seen as a sweet price point - or falling between stools. I suspect it may be seen as not good enough to satisfy more discerning users - but too expensive for those on limited budgets, bearing in mind that lens issues don't make it very good as a "general purpose" video camera.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

What will it take to make the AF100 give you 10-bit 4:4:4 color? Answer - you can't, but most of us will never need that feature. Yet, someone will. So, pick the camera that best fits your needs.

A 10 bit 4:4:4 output is only any use if the sensor is able to deliver a quality of output that 10bit 4:4:4 recording will enable you to see any difference.

The AF101 is supposed to be using adapted still camera 12 megapixel chips, so is extremely unlikely to give a raw sensor performance equivalent to the F3. Record it to 8bit AVC-HD and that's totally irrelevant. If you have the ability to get at a 10 bit signal, it becomes highly significant.

[Chris Barcellos]

Its kind of amazing to me that from the strictly amateur point of view, that various DSLR starting at $900, with some work arounds and software enhancements, will be able to still cover about 98% of what the Sony line is going to do at a fraction of the price. Again, this is a strictly amateur point of view, and I recognize a lot of pro shooters will pay for that extra 2%. But it seems like the Sony, at that price point, should offer a bit more.

I am still hoping Sony also flys a pro version of the NEX-VG10 and that might be the right step for them in this market to compete with the new Panny...

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

I have heard that the PMW-F3 sensor produces extremely high quality images.

I would not discount this camera at all until I saw the actual images from this camera.