Sony F35 - The cheap $250,000 Cinema Camera

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Anybody read this 265 page thread? It's a page-turner!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?288192-Just-got-a-new-camera-Sony-F35

The Sony F35 is a full fledged cinema camera that used to sell for 250 thousand dollar when sold new a couple of years back. Now it sells on ebay for 4 and 5 thousand dollars!

People who own and shoot with it claim it has the most filmic image of all digital cameras, including Red and Alexa, and to be honest their footage seems to reassure that claim, the image is just incredibly similar to 35mm film, the highlights look like nothing I've ever seen out of digital, and there's something to the noise/texture and colour reproduction that look filmic.

It has a 5K sensor that samples down to 1080p, so it's not a 4K camera, only 1080p. It also doesn't have raw, just 12bit 4:4:4 S-log to external recorders. The current popular option is the 500$ hyperdeck shuttle (yet only 10 bit). It requiera external power, it's not good at high ISOs (800ISO sensor),

It is a big boy, a heavy camera. Very big, somewhere around an alexa studio or so. So it's not a consumer camera it was designed to shoot hollywood features as a replacement for 35mm film cameras. It was also produced with a few external mods as a rental Panavision Genesis (practically a rebadged f35)

This camera shot Tron Legacy, Resident Evil, Alice in wonderland, super Man returns, Red tails, The good Wife, Hawai 5-O, and tens of big blockbusters.

The question is do you guys think it's worth a look or are these people on DVXuser going through a phychological phase? Do you think the image it produces really has something that special and that Sony puts a secret in such expensive sensors that's missing in consumer cameras? Is it worth dealing with the size, weight, power? Owners really seem passionate about the camera and they all do produce very filmic images with it somehow.

Or has technology moved on that an A7s produces practically the same image?

[andy lee]

its a superb camera - but the F65 came along with its machanical shutter and now the F35 is cheap , Ive watched these drop and drop in price over the last 2 years , the Alexa has trumped them all now and is firmly established as THE digital camera to use on features

 

If you have the spare cash.....get one! ++++++ plus all the rigging you need for it and a serious tripod too!

 

 

ps I was watching Zodiac the Fincher film shot on a Thompson Viper and was thinking these new Panny cameras are now producing an image better than they shot this feature on in 2007 - sensors are just getting better and better every 6 months now!

[Andrew Reid]

http://www.eoshd.com/2013/01/sony-f35-reaches-12000-on-ebay-from-250000-in-2008/

[andy lee]

we should buy one an EOSHD work horse !!

[sudopera]

Just watched a bunch of videos made by F35 owners and I am simply amazed with this camera(some great ones from our fellow member Ed David).

I wonder what is the reason that Sony can't have F35 colors in new cameras, could it be the CCD sensor. I understand that this was a 250K camera but one would think that they could use that 10 years old knowhow for new cameras.

[Inazuma]

I think some people have "the grass is always greener" syndrome. I mean it does sound nice but it is a little impractical for indies/people without a crew.

[sudopera]

I think some people have "the grass is always greener" syndrome.

 

Was that really necessary? Should we do an arguing session now like so many people do it here for no reason at all? ...sorry but not interested.

 

I never saw anything shot with this camera before except some movies when I wasn't paying attention what camera was used and to me the videos that I saw are amazing and "the grass is green enough" for me in this case.

[Ed_David]

I have 2 of them- damn I love them.  those colors are unmatched by any other digital camera.

[Andrew Reid]

The Sony F3 is another bargain. 444 output, great color, good in low light too... it's now $5k! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-PMW-F3L-Super-35mm-Full-HD-Compact-Camcorder-885-Hours-w-S-Log-Gamma-/331376366422?pt=Camcorders_Professional_Video_Cameras&hash=item4d27921356

[jax_rox]

If you're buying a camera in the $5k+ range, you're looking for a camerat that's going to help you book work.

 

Camera purchases are usually bad investments unless you can pay it off within about 18 months worth of work. What sort of work would you normally doing where you'd provide your own camera? Maybe docos and corporates? Is an F35 practical for those, and are you going to make enough from those to cover the cost of the camera (say $10k+), recorder, lenses and also still be able to cover your own living costs and bills?

That's the question you sohuld be asking yourself if you're thinking about investing in any camera.

 

If you're doing narrative type stuff, do your clients normally have a budget to hire cameras? If so, why would you not simply hire a camera? If not, do they have a budget to pay you? If they don't, then is it worth buying a $10k+ camera to shoot it on..?

 

The only other way to make money off a camera purchase is via rentals - if you have a RED or Alexa, then sure you're in a decent position to make money off rentals if you price your packages right. If not though, what's the rental demand for F35s? Is there any? It will usually depend on your market, but you should definitely look into it before you commit to buy.

 

It certainly has nice images, that's for sure. But in the grand scheme of things I would say it's a nice option that you can rent quite cheaply when you have a low budget. I don't think I'd be investing in purchasing one.

 

You can grade A7s images to get pretty close.

 

The F3 on the other hand - if you don't care about resolution higher than 1080p; I know of friends/colleagues who are selling their old ones with the Sony primes it came with for <the price of an FS7. Which is pretty decent value if you ask me. An external recorder and you'd be good to go with three PL mount primes @T2.

[richg101]

yes both the f3 and f35 become more and more exciting as the price comes down.  I think it's the size/shape of the f35 that dictates it's look more than anything else since it has to be rigged up properly with real cinema grade gear to make it operable.  also being PL mount means it's usually good glass rather than over contrasty canon EF lenses designed for still photography that get fitted to it.  If RED didnt offer the EF mount option I think we'd see a lot more mind blowing RED footage since it would all be shot using real lenses.  We'd see a lot less corporate stuff (which doesnt need to look like cinema, and when shot in a cinematic way it only serves to devalue the cinematic look-hence why hollywood are looking towards bigger formats to unlevel the playing field and give them the edge) shot on RED's if the users had to fork out for proper glass as you tend to when shooting in the F35.

 

Also..

It seems as if people 'in the know' tend to be shooting on these beautiful relics and as a result they know how to use the gear to its best rather than chasing new technology to make them more bookable.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I have 2 of them- damn I love them. those colors are unmatched by any other digital camera.

I was just watching your FS7 dog video, it looks lovely. Since you're someone who actually shot and graded both images, does the F35 have something special or better image quality than an FS7? It's the question I am trying to get to. Yes I know the f35 produces great images, but does the new FS7/FS700/F5 produce the same great images? In that case the f35 would be quite obselete... The only factor making it an interesting proposition despite all the downsides, is that it has a unique special image that's not on any other digital camera, if it's not the case then it's just an expensive, heavy, enormous, power hungry machine vs an FS7 that shoots 4K 10bit 4:2:2 and 180p. Do the FS7/F5 produce images that are as good and as filmic as an f35?

[Bob Wall]

It's old news - F35's have been going at that price point for several years. 

 

I used one (A Genesis, actually) on a film, and indeed, it was a great image.  Many of the films and television shows that I love the most from a pure image aspect are shot on F35.  F35 color has always impressed me more than any other camera, for whatever reasons. 

 

That said, I have almost zero interest in owning one, even if it was free.  My own work involves travel and moving around shooting B roll and interviews, with little or no help.  Have you ever carried a kitted F35?  It's not light, and it's not small.  I'm not willing to get a superior image by sacrificing my back to the degree that an F35 would require.  My clients wouldn't care either.  I suppose if you had a studio and did a lot of work in one place, it might be attractive, or if you had a crew.  Accessories for the F35 aren't super cheap or common either, so unless you're buying a kitted package, beware the actual price.  

[richg101]

A few of the guys I've built lenses for are using the F35 to great effect, in pretty compact setups too:- 

 

 

 

Jo Kami is really using the F35 to great effect on music videos:- 

 

 

 

[jax_rox]

being PL mount means it's usually good glass rather than over contrasty canon EF lenses designed for still photography that get fitted to it [...] It seems as if people 'in the know' tend to be shooting on these beautiful relics and as a result they know how to use the gear to its best rather than chasing new technology to make them more bookable.

That's exactly right - I've seen absolutely awful images out of Epics, because someone who thought they could be a DP decided they were going to shoot this particular film.. It was worse than stuff I've seen out of SLRs. But then there's films like The Hobbit and Fincher's work which proves you can get good looking stuff out of RED.

 

When the F35 was around, it was a different landscape - if you owned own, you were likely a rental house or an operator with a lot of experience. It was a quarter of a million dollar camera - you didn't shoot on it unless you knew what you were doing. You wouldn't have been offered the job unless you knew what you were doing.

It's an easy camera to screw up if you don't know what you're doing. Plus, by default you're going to be putting decent glass on it.

 

The only factor making it an interesting proposition despite all the downsides, is that it has a unique special image that's not on any other digital camera, if it's not the case then it's just an expensive, heavy, enormous, power hungry machine vs an FS7 that shoots 4K 10bit 4:2:2 and 180p. Do the FS7/F5 produce images that are as good and as filmic as an f35?

 

The FS7 or FS5 won't give you an identical picture, but it won't give you a bad picture either. With an accomplished DP behind the camera, and an accomplished colourist (both things you'd need for the F35 anyway), you'll get images just as good as or better than the F35.

[Ed_David]

actually f35 has a ccd and reacts natively to 3200k sources better - most cmos cameras react better to 5600k and daylight.  

also the color out of the f35 can really be truly lovely.  and its a global shutter so motion looks good.

 

but it has its problems - it's a heavy weird looking rig - boxy - and it has a noisy image and its native iso is around 400.  So you have to get use to that. you'll have to use an external recorder and it can only go up to 30 FPS without using the crazy recorder that weighs a lot.

 

its not that hard to use really - the menu system is older - more like the varicam or the f900 from 2005 era.  But it's not that tough to figure out.

 

if you are around in NYC you can come by my place and try it out.

[jax_rox]

its a global shutter so motion looks good.

It's not a global shutter, it's a CCD so doesn't suffer from rolling shutter. The big issue of CCDs at the time was smear, though I've not seen smear in much F35 footage.

It was not a bad studio-style camera (I know a guy who broke one back in the day), but it's not a great handheld camera. IMO, it's a camera that could still get you great images if you did happen to invest in one back in the day, and can still get you great images as a super cheap rental, but I wouldn't be rushing out to purchase one.

[Ed_David]

I own two of them. I'm happy with them - and I've used them on a diverse amount of projects.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

actually f35 has a ccd and reacts natively to 3200k sources better - most cmos cameras react better to 5600k and daylight.
also the color out of the f35 can really be truly lovely. and its a global shutter so motion looks good.

but it has its problems - it's a heavy weird looking rig - boxy - and it has a noisy image and its native iso is around 400. So you have to get use to that. you'll have to use an external recorder and it can only go up to 30 FPS without using the crazy recorder that weighs a lot.

its not that hard to use really - the menu system is older - more like the varicam or the f900 from 2005 era. But it's not that tough to figure out.

if you are around in NYC you can come by my place and try it out.

Highly appreciate the thoughts from an actual user and really appreciate the offer.

About the sensor being natively balanced for 3200K or 5200K, I don' really get what it means. Do sensors have a specific white balance? What's the difference between a natively balanced 3200K sensor set in the menus to 5200K and a native 5200K sensor? I hear many speak of that advantage for the F35 but never really got it. I thought white balance was a post-processing colour tempreture (blue and yellow boost) set after debayering and compression.

[jax_rox]

About the sensor being natively balanced for 3200K or 5200K, I don' really get what it means. Do sensors have a specific white balance? What's the difference between a natively balanced 3200K sensor set in the menus to 5200K and a native 5200K sensor? I hear many speak of that advantage for the F35 but never really got it. I thought white balance was a post-processing colour tempreture (blue and yellow boost) set after debayering and compression.

It's actually not quite correct. All silicon sensors are less sensitive to blue, so the more blue you give it, the better your SNR in the blue channel. Tungsten lights, for example, have very little blue in them, and so your blue channel will be starved much more so than the red channel.
It's not really practicable to only shoot with daylight balanced lights all the time, and most modern sensors have reduced the issue a lot (at least compared to initial 3-chip cameras!).

Nearly all digital sensors use a bayer pattern, which gives twice as many green photosites as red or blue. That's why digital cameras are most sensitive to green (it's meant to mimic the eye, which is also more sensitive to green), and why the green screen came about.

So you've got a digital sensor with half as many blue photosites as green, and it's also least sensitive to blue. So, shooting with daylight lights, or in daylight will give you the greatest SNR.

The Sony F35/Genesis used a striped pattern on the sensor, which gives equal sensitivity to all three colours. The different masking pattern means each colour channel is recorded with equal amount of photosites. This mimicks film more as modern film stocks (i.e. post ~1920) are more or less equally sensitive to all three colours of light.

The big difference between film and a digital sensor, colour-wise, is that your colour information is split up on a digital sensor (on a bayer pattern, you get 1/4 Red, 1/4 Blue, 1/2 Green; Stripe pattern would more or less be 1/3 Green 1/3 Blue 1/3 Red). With film, each colour is theoretically exposed at full resolution.
The only way to get similar colour and resolution information out of a sensor would be to design a three sensor camera (one sensor per colour), with each sensor being S35 sized (for S35 film) and giving you an output resolution of 6-8k.