Is F55 that special?

[Steve Phillipps]

Is it just me - the more I look into the F55 the more I see things lacking?
Compared to Epic once you start looking at it it starts looking a bit low-grade. There's a few people talking in hushed and not very optimistic tones about the future possibility of 120fps in 4k - they sound not hopeful (it's not on the roadmap at all - is the camera even capable of it?), and it's as if it's just one of those dreams that's not gonna happen but in an ideal world it'd be a dream spec. Epic of course already does it. Actually 150fps. In camera!
No interval recording (supposedly on the way). No pre record cache. Several comments about slightly plasticky build. New filter option to prevent aliasing when someone does something crazy like shoot more than 120fps in 2k.
Off the top of my head, 3 stand out features remain; global shutter, built in NDs and low power consumption. All good stuff, but, from my experience and all that I've heard, the rolling shutter on the Epic is absolutely nothing to be worried about unless you're on the red carpet or shooting lightning, and the low power consumption seems like it might be simply because the camera can't do as much!
Oh...and the Epic is actually cheaper too!
Not saying it's a bad camera - I was excited when it was revealed and still think it looks great - but the whole "game changer" thing etc.? I'm not so sure any more.
I don't have any affiliation with either manufacurer - Just a topic for discussion.
Steve

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It didn't feel very plasticky when I used one, the lcd/viewfinder thing felt a little cheesy but the OLED viewfinder I remember being much better build quality. Admittedly the one time I got remotely close to an Epic I didn't actually use it but it wasn't a superior camera it was just a very different approach.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Off the top of my head, 3 stand out features remain; global shutter, built in NDs and low power consumption.

Don't forget the ability to shoot simultaneous 4K raw and HD proxy recording with the AXSR5 module. And no rolling shutter problems during flashes and similar lighting issues. Plus very simple and easy timecode and audio hookups without special non-standard cables.

I bet the F55 will be a viable production camera, but it's hard to pry the Alexa out of DPs' hands, especially for American TV. Jon Fauer's magazine has a pretty detailed write-up on the F55 at this link:

http://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/articles/sony/FDTimes-Sony-F5-F55-v5.5-MediumRez.pdf

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

The F55 is a wonderful camera that produces very nice pictures. It's easy to use, has a compact body and a good overall set of features. However, it is NOT built like an Alexa (or an Epic for that matter). The housing is a lot more fragile - some is plastic - you really should treat it like any ordinary pro-sumer camera in that way. The body has NO weather-sealing of any kind. The fans blow air direct from the outside onto the PCB boards inside the camera so humid and otherwise dodgy weather conditions and so on is a big no-no with this camera unless you're taking precautions. The electronics are a bit dodgy as well. I've heard reports of cameras starting to fail - sometimes miserably - in the field already. This might be an issue with the first batch of cameras that came out of Sony - they were in a bit of a hurry to release the camera ;-)

 

[Steve Phillipps]

It's a bit of an interesting role reversal actually - the RED camera being the tried and tested option! The Sony is almost a Beta version with not yet fully implemented functions - weird!
Steve

 

[Erich Roland]

The F55 is a wonderful camera that produces very nice pictures. It's easy to use, has a compact body and a good overall set of features. However, it is NOT built like an Alexa (or an Epic for that matter). The housing is a lot more fragile - some is plastic - you really should treat it like any ordinary pro-sumer camera in that way. The body has NO weather-sealing of any kind. The electronics are a bit dodgy as well. I've heard reports of cameras starting to fail - sometimes miserably - in the field already. This might be an issue with the first batch of cameras that came out of Sony - they were in a bit of a hurry to release the camera ;-)

yes, all true in my evaluation. Sony brought this camera system to market too fast before it was fully baked. To this day I'm waiting for parts from 2-3 months back and I have a camera sitting that cannot work.... not enough parts in service to repair cameras.

I am a working 30 year cameraman and also run a small rental facility. I shoot long-form documentaries, small to medium/large commercials, corporate, politicals, music films, just about everything short of movies or TV shows. Often I'm in the position to choose what camera to use on a project based on the needs of the project. I take it to heart when offered this responsibility to bring the right tool to the job, and my clients appreciate my candor, experience, and integrity in this regard. Its never about which camera brings the best rental value back to the company, its always about the jobs specifics, requirements, and budget. The (3) go-to cameras for most jobs are Alexa, Red Epic or Sony f55. These are the top contenders for doing serious work. The (2) cameras I tend to work with the most are either the Red Epic or the F55. Because of the size, weight, and power needs of the Alexa its often the least used on shoots I work on (even though it rents for the highest amount) ie the integrity aspect. Clients will sometimes ask "what about Alexa".... and I often talk them into a less expensive camera, because the (2) other cameras bring more features (I'm interested in) to the table then the Alexa does. I don't care that its built like a tank and will probably last 100 years. Ac's care about "how well its built".... I do not, other issues are more important. The Sony does feel less substantial in build but unless your on a shoot where "rugged" is the most important aspect, I'm not sure it matters. For the price of buying one new (original) Alexa I can buy about three F-55's and have 2 back-up bodies. When you consider how long the technology inside these cameras might be relevant you start to understand maybe "why" (not to build like a tank) because tech today will likely be old in 4-5 years so these cameras don't have to last 30-40-50 years as film cameras needed to. Red is the only company designing sensor upgrade-ability into a body, so a Red camera body may need to last ..... who knows how many upgrade cycles (before the design is out dated) so these red bodies need to be built for a longer life span that other companies frankly don't need to.

Red vs F55 is often what it comes down to on my jobs. There are flaws in the F55 that are head scratchers for sure. The viewfinders suck in a few ways (both versions). The cable used and the connection (and location) is just a bad design, period. Where the cables all connect at the rear is a cluster F. The 4 pin power input an after-thought somehow. The internal filter wheel and its location, it gets knocked all the time and I sometimes find a partial filter blocking part of the shot. The location of the headphone jack is amusing to say the least. The audio cables stick straight out the side (90 degree's out). The handle that (in theory) your meant to pick up this camera that can potentially have an Optimo on the front of it.... is held on my 4 little screws that you need a jewelers screwdriver to take off (seems way small). Its pretty amazing how some of these design aspects actually made it into a production camera from Sony, much less a camera that costs 30-some-k's.

On the positive side, the F55 is stunning in its abilities and the images it produces can be compared with any. From low light ability, 4k, internal filters, very low power consumption, small and compact, high frame rates (coming), global shutter, PL style lens mount changes, very-very light weight, Raw capability, very reasonable cost, media friendly with very fast cards, and multiple format choices. This camera is an easy choice for many of my productions. Particularly when more "doc" style it needed, or just portable small and powerful kit. I believe the F55 is the best "transformer camera" available today, and can transform itself into whatever your needs. The F55's internal filters cannot be understated. This feature alone accounts for choosing F55 many times. I can work so much faster, and with less kit, less anxiety, less assistance..... more productivity. For doc style following real events that wont wait for a filter change.... the F55 a no-brainer camera choice. I love shooting with our Sony F55, its just easier in general, and much more comfortable if your shooting a lot of hand-held by a long shot. Red handheld..... yuck just thinking about pulling out piles of parts and never being really happy specially if your on and off tripod a lot. C300 handheld.... ugh, forget about it.... Alexa handheld, it fits well but the size and weight is only for tree-trunk, youthful human beings and you need an AC nearby always to dump it, plus a few cases full of smaller batteries at the ready. For a shoot that is a lot of hand-held... I go right past "ugh, shoot me now" (with these other cameras) and straight to "happy/comfortable" with F55 and a lightweight zoom or prime, its near perfection. transition on-off tripod, easy-peezy.

Now with Motion mount that will help the Red equation with filter change issue. Red wins when the last rung of the quality ladder (or resolution) is required which is not every job. I am a big fan of the Red Epic camera and its many forward thinking features. Ive been using Epic's Time-Lapse lately and it works like a champ. When I need frame grabs or HDRx ability, or high res high FPS.... Epic is the choice, when these features are needed NO other camera will do. With Dragon coming this system will be even better and definitely the TOP rung of the digital quality ladder. But.... many-many jobs I work on don't need any of these special features.

Its really awesome that we have these 3 amazing cameras these days to choose from and I cant wait to see whats next and what kind of features these companies bring to the table. Its a great time in our business, the consumer has many choices and they are all fantastic cameras capable of creating beautiful images. These are just one guys opinions from one guys vantage point. All 3 of these cameras are very different and YOU will have different criteria (then I will) and different "must-have" issues. Viva-la-differance'

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Great writeup Erich, thanks sir.

 

[shashbugu]

The f55 is not in league with the Epic. I've tried the F55's latitude, it seems 14 stops is only on test charts and on paper. Maybe it's just the XAVC codec I was using, but codecs don't affect DR just resolution. This is my first hand experience. The Epic keeps getting better and better

 

[Taylor Morrison]

Erich,

A nice summary of the three cameras indeed. I would add some thoughts on a couple of point you make. I recently wrapped a 45 day doc that involved a bunch of cameras. I was the only Epic on the job and there were 2 F55's Both shooters of the 55's used HDx35 adaptors and traditional ENG video lenses. I know that this is a popular option for many shooters who are migrating from 2/3 camera platforms to larger sensor cameras. As the 55's have great low light capabilities the 2.5 stop light loss is not much of an issue and wow what zoom range you get on your super35mm sized chip! Right? Well maybe , but to me the footage (1080p xavc) looked like average 2/3 inch video. Why go through the trouble? Basically that adaptor is negating any of the benefit from the 55. My gripe is not with the camera, its really about how I see it being used. And because its the latest from Sony I'm sure there is top dollar being billed to production. Oh well.

Now on the positive side, I might add that if you have had some difficulty shooting on your Epic for a more aggressive run and gun mode that I might have some ideas for you. In fact my rig was smaller, lighter, better quality (5K), than either of the f55's. I found the use of a Canon mount with L glass, a high quality Variable ND, and removing unnecessary kit from the camera, I was able to put in a Cinebag backpack 6 lenses, enough batteries for 10 hours shooting, mags, all accessories including rain gear and monopod. Sound was recorded separately and a Lockit on camera provided sync for post sync. The real benefit to me was the absolute quality difference visible even in the dailies. More cinematic depth of field gives one the option to tell the story with focus selection, much more pleasing color ( i never have liked the Sony pink flesh tones) , not to mention the other positives you mentioned already.
Check out this thread for more info. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?106316-Americas-Cup-Doc
I was very pleased how easy and reliable this set up was. It did take some time to set it up however as there is no end to options for handheld rigs etc. I found that less is more worked best for me.
This is a shot of the set up in my office and a very heroic looking shot of me taken by one of the F55 shooters (if only I had taken off the cheaters!).

Hope this helps!

 

[M Most]

The f55 is not in league with the Epic. I've tried the F55's latitude, it seems 14 stops is only on test charts and on paper. Maybe it's just the XAVC codec I was using, but codecs don't affect DR just resolution.

That is not the case. Codecs that are different bit depths most definitely do affect dynamic range because the lower the bit depth, the fewer levels are available to describe the image. The F55 in RAW is working at 14 bits linear. XAVC, as I recall, is an 8 bit codec (it might be 10 bit, however). Even with typical log or gamma encoding, that is not enough to maintain all of the information in the original 14 bit description, particularly in the extremes (obviously, it all depends on where you expose middle grey). Codecs also don't affect resolution, because many of today's codecs are simply numerical encoders that are not resolution dependent. H.264, ProRes, XAVC, and numerous others are in this category. You can record XAVC on the F55 as HD, 2K, or 4K, depending on what your need is. In fact, for television, I feel that the presence of XAVC 4K recording is potentially one of the F55's best features. It is the only camera around that can record a relatively credible 4K image in camera, in real time, and at only 240Mb per second. That is quite a feat.

 

[L. Langer]

That is not the case. Codecs that are different bit depths most definitely do affect dynamic range because the lower the bit depth, the fewer levels are available to describe the image. The F55 in RAW is working at 14 bits linear. XAVC, as I recall, is an 8 bit codec (it might be 10 bit, however). Even with typical log or gamma encoding, that is not enough to maintain all of the information in the original 14 bit description, particularly in the extremes (obviously, it all depends on where you expose middle grey). Codecs also don't affect resolution, because many of today's codecs are simply numerical encoders that are not resolution dependent. H.264, ProRes, XAVC, and numerous others are in this category. You can record XAVC on the F55 as HD, 2K, or 4K, depending on what your need is. In fact, for television, I feel that the presence of XAVC 4K recording is potentially one of the F55's best features. It is the only camera around that can record a relatively credible 4K image in camera, in real time, and at only 240Mb per second. That is quite a feat.

The F55's built-in XAVC works at 10-bit - XAVC is currently 8-10-12 bit - while the RAW recording with external recorder is 16-bit linear.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Really appreciate Erich taking the time to breakdown his camera selection process. I am someone obsessed with getting the best possible imagery - that's Epic. I have lots of doodads and am very familiar with clever ways to rig an Epic quickly for virtually any shooting environment. Not everyone has the same priorities or rigging acumen.

As an operator, shooting with the F55 form factor is a familiar and comfortable experience. I LOVE the live UHD HDMI monitor output! The ability to select from a dozen different formats for recording makes it easy to integrate into multi-cam shows. The ability to record editorial friendly 50mb/s 1080 files to SXS simultaneously with 16bit RAW UHD/4K to the RX5 dockable recorder is a great option for fast turnaround gigs.

I have to agree that the F55 feels half baked in terms of firmware, color matrices and ACES support so far. I am puzzled that Sony's broadcast division would allow some of the weak links Erich mentioned out the door. Rumor has it that the F55 was co-developed with their pro-sumer group...

IAC, to paraphrase the old commercial, I'd really rather shoot an Epic - even for run and gun. I use a Heliopan screw on variable ND filter for when filter swapping in a matte box is impractical. I'm looking forward to the motion mount for other reasons but the ND control will eliminate the need for the variND.

Oh yeah, then there's the Dragon sensor :-D

Cheers - #19

 

[M Most]

The F55's built-in XAVC works at 10-bit - XAVC is currently 8-10-12 bit - while the RAW recording with external recorder is 16-bit linear.

After checking a bit further, you are correct, XAVC in the F55 is recorded as 10 bits, 4:2:2 chroma subsampling, and the RAW is 16 bits. But the point I was trying to make is still the same. Codecs don't affect resolution, but they do affect the dynamic range that can be effectively described and manipulated. The original poster might have been thinking of other manipulations that are sometimes done in specific codecs, such as spatial subsampling that, for instance, is used in some formats like HDCam and XDCam (and, to be fair, one of the available XAVC HD formats on the F55, although there is also a 1920x1080 version), where 1920x1080 is subsampled to 1440x1080 and expanded when decoded. In that case, resolution is being affected, but in a strict sense not because of the compression itself, but because of the subsampling going on prior to that compression.

 

[Erich Roland]

Erich,

A nice summary of the three cameras indeed. I would add some thoughts on a couple of point you make. I recently wrapped a 45 day doc that involved a bunch of cameras. I was the only Epic on the job and there were 2 F55's Both shooters of the 55's used HDx35 adaptors and traditional ENG video lenses. I know that this is a popular option for many shooters who are migrating from 2/3 camera platforms to larger sensor cameras. As the 55's have great low light capabilities the 2.5 stop light loss is not much of an issue and wow what zoom range you get on your super35mm sized chip! Right? Well maybe , but to me the footage (1080p xavc) looked like average 2/3 inch video. Why go through the trouble? Basically that adaptor is negating any of the benefit from the 55. My gripe is not with the camera, its really about how I see it being used. And because its the latest from Sony I'm sure there is top dollar being billed to production. Oh well.

Now on the positive side, I might add that if you have had some difficulty shooting on your Epic for a more aggressive run and gun mode that I might have some ideas for you. In fact my rig was smaller, lighter, better quality (5K), than either of the f55's. I found the use of a Canon mount with L glass, a high quality Variable ND, and removing unnecessary kit from the camera, I was able to put in a Cinebag backpack 6 lenses, enough batteries for 10 hours shooting, mags, all accessories including rain gear and monopod. Sound was recorded separately and a Lockit on camera provided sync for post sync. The real benefit to me was the absolute quality difference visible even in the dailies. More cinematic depth of field gives one the option to tell the story with focus selection, much more pleasing color ( i never have liked the Sony pink flesh tones) , not to mention the other positives you mentioned already.
Check out this thread for more info. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?106316-Americas-Cup-Doc
I was very pleased how easy and reliable this set up was. It did take some time to set it up however as there is no end to options for handheld rigs etc. I found that less is more worked best for me.
This is a shot of the set up in my office and a very heroic looking shot of me taken by one of the F55 shooters (if only I had taken off the cheaters!).

Hope this helps!

Hey Taylor, thanks for the tips. Ive tried running and gunning with canon lenses and I just cant get the hang of focus, and zoom and changing iris. Of coarse the Sony F55 can change mounts and the Nikons are very good quality but same problem with short throw focus, and most still zooms being non-parafocal is a real problem for me every time you change the focal length a bit you need to re-check focus. I really want a cine lens if I'm moving fast. There are excellent compact lenses, the Optimo DP's are nearly the perfect lens and small, the (2) reds are very good as well. I haven't used the 2/3" converter for that style lens but I hear there is some optical loss, which makes sense as to why the footage looks less solid. regards, erich

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Fujinon Cabrio 19-90 PL zoom with servo grip, on either the F55 or Epic, is the run 'n' gun/docco go to lens IMO. While it doesn't have the zoom ratio of the B4 lens/converter set up it's enough for most situations - there's also an 85-300mm Cabrio for Imag, sports, nature docs, etc if reach is your key issue.

FWIW let's not forget that in "live" shooting situations its usually more about the operator's relationship to the lens than the camera.

Cheers - #19

 

[Paul Kalbach]

The F55 is plasticky in that it weighs almost nothing. As a Steadicam operator I usually welcome a lighter load. But I had to mount some unnecessary things on my client's F55 to make it heavy enough to balance my rig. The body does seem a bit fragile...not like my bullet-proof Reds.. Although I shot with it for only a few hours, the biggest problem I ran into was that the ND filter wheel is way too easy to turn by accident. I had docked my rig after a series of shots so the director could hook up to a monitor to review playback. When it was time to resume shooting, I had no picture on my Steadicam's green-screen monitor. I thought that I must have accidentally turned the brightness and or contrast control of my monitor, so I adjusted it until the image looked normal (I was monitoring only through the Steadicam's CRT which is green for maximum visibility in sunlight; camera's EVF wasn't mounted). The first shots were with the filter wheel set to CLEAR, but somehow was accidentally turned to an ND setting during the break for reviewing shots. Consequently, the following long take was so underexposed as to be unusable and had to be re-shot Cranking up the gain on my green monitor only made an extremely dark image look normal. The ND wheel should be in a different location and not turn with a mere brush of a finger.

 

[Travis MacRitchie]

F55 Internal XAVC is 10-bit, the R5 Raw Recorder is 16-bit linear log, and is a truly awesome capturing medium. On-par with .r3d. Redcine-X is leagues ahead of sony's raw viewer however, but you can use DaVinci with the sony files natively and it works as a great alternative. F55 is a great and capable camera that will only improve as they roll out new firmware versions. Whether or not it's better than worse than red etc. is up for debate, I haven't yet done a side by side test but hope to at some point in the future. But my experience with it so far is that it is definitely a legitimate alternative to Epic.

 

[shashbugu]

I am always excited to use new cameras and technology, unfortunately the f55 is nothing to write home about, I'll take a c500 over an f55 any day. That's just my personal observation. The images just feel too thin and over sampled

 

[ericyoung]

The brief play I had with it assisting a great DOP who has bought one as his personal broadcast documentary camera, I gained a pretty positive impression of it overall. The physical form factor is certainly preferable to C300/500 for handheld work.

It's not a substitute for an Epic, but I'd like one for certain kinds of work.

 

[Harry Clark]

I own one, and have used it on a couple of projects. I mostly bought it as a rental item, with mixed results. A couple of the bigger rental houses on the east coast have put it on shows here and there.
The RAW files are really nice, low compression, and a dream to work with in Resolve. The onboard SxS recording formats suffer from what I would call the "Sony look"; too oversaturated, bright, "newsy". I found that to be true of my F3 as well... I had to spend a lot of time tinkering to get a baked in 709 file that looked filmic enough (prior to getting Red One #344 back in 2008 I was a film guy, and also a Panasonic SDX and HDX owner, and I always felt like Panny had the edge on a more filmic electronic system)
It's definitely a nice, light, tightly integrated system with low power consumption that... just works. Yes. No crashes, support tickets, etc. Not sexy. But nice.
One beef is the cheap plastic mounting tabs on the R5 recorder. They will surely be eventually broken in the rough and tumble environment of film making.
Cheers,
Harry