Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Three three-letter cameras: EX1, F23, RED

REDAndF23.jpg

RED vs. Sony F23 or apples vs. oranges...

After reading the comparison test between

RED, F23 and EX1 by Adam Wilt

I concluded that I am really happy RED owner.

Why?

The RED price and performance is still unbeatable.

F23 is a huge, heavy and extremely expensive camera with an image

over-sharpened, over-edged and over-brithened and even noisy.

A quality of the picture depends much on

Carl Zeiss DigiPrimes.

Sony EX1 is just a nice B camera for F23 or RED.

Overall conclusion about this (un-scientific) test is that

LENS is extremely important to get a right quality out of cam.

So if RED would like to catch and keep a lead in digital cinema acquisition

it should think about to develop (with a third party) set of

HIGH END CINE LENSES.

To repeat again in this case my suggestion is always

LEICA.
 
The Third Man said:
A quality of the picture depends much on Carl Zeiss DigiPrimes.
Click to expand...

That DigiZoom 17-112mm T1.9 sure looks interesting!

http://www.digiprimes.com/2005/zoom/17-112.shtml

The Third Man said:
To repeat again in this case my suggestion was LEICA.
Click to expand...

Nearly every post I have read of yours you mention these Leica lenses! I think you're trying to tell me something!! :biggrin:

By the way, can you point me in the direction of an English version of this site, as my German is not to good? Danke.
 
Quick look at pictures: page 5, RED and F23 comparison - why is face at picture from RED so soft? It's out of focus.

Edit: Second look at text and there is answer: I focused these cameras on the CDM chart. Tim is within the depth of field limits on the F23, but on the RED, his eyes are starting to go out of focus, and his ears are quite soft. ... 50mm SuperSpeed looks a bit soft at T2.8, not coming into its own until T4, so it’s likely that shooting this scene at T4 instead of T2.8 would have resulted in a noticeably crisper picture. Something to try another time…
 
Dukeswharf said:
That DigiZoom 17-112mm T1.9 sure looks interesting!

http://www.digiprimes.com/2005/zoom/17-112.shtml



Nearly every post I have read of yours you mention these Leica lenses! I think you're trying to tell me something!! :biggrin:

By the way, can you point me in the direction of an English version of this site, as my German is not to good? Danke.
Click to expand...

OK, sorry because of German, but there is an interesting site about

LEICA here also in English>>>



jaadgy akanni said:
Really, Leica? Wow, who would've thunk it, coming from you:sarcasm:
Click to expand...

your (sarcasm) :sarcasm: or maybe lack of knowledge and experience with different lenses,

but LEICA has a lot of lenses that are wide open pretty sharp.
 
For anyone interested in putting Leica lenses on their RED camera, Abel has a set of rehoused Leicas in PL mount that are excellent glass.
 
The Third Man said:
REDAndF23.jpg

RED vs. Sony F23 or apples vs. oranges...

After reading this well done, written and honest comparison test between

RED, F23 and EX1 by Adam Wilt

I concluded that I am really happy RED owner.

Why?

The RED price and performance is still unbeatable.

F23 is a huge, heavy and extremely expensive camera with an image

over-sharpened, over-edged and over-brithened and even noisy.

A quality of the picture depends much on

Carl Zeiss DigiPrimes.

Sony EX1 is just a nice B camera for F23 or RED.

Overall conclusion about this (un-scientific) test is that

LENS is extremely important to get a right quality out of cam.

So if RED would like to catch and keep a lead in digital cinema acquisition

it should think about to develop (with a third party) set of

HIGH END CINE LENSES.

To repeat again in this case my suggestion is always

LEICA.
Click to expand...


I agree with your comments about the test. Comparing an F23 with Zeiss Digiprimes is not a fair comparison to the Red with 20+ year old SuperSpeeds. Zeiss has done a lot with their new line of lenses (Ultra Primes or Master Primes with end-to-end sharpness, coatings, etc..) A more fair comparison would be with contemporary Zeiss glass like (MP or UP) that have a lot of the same characteristics as the DigiPrimes.
 
Adam is as level headed as they get*. Would have been interesting had the test been done with Cooke S4's, for instance. Critical focus is still tough, even with the LCD and zoom in feature (which I noticed didn't seem to zoom in as much for 2K as it did for 4K...hmmm).

I've posted some other Red footage on provideocoalition.com as well.

-mike

* - disclaimer - I write for that site too
 
I think I remember in the early days that the softness is intentional to achieve the more filmic qualities, and that you could enhance the sharpness in redcine.
 
Yeah the red has no sharpening in camera....

i have been following Adam's reviews for years but this is not a very detailed one. I think this was more of a personal write-up for Him. He ordered some RED's and has a EX1 and wanted to see how they compare to the F23.

I think that the glass and lack of sharpening in the red makes it hard to be fair. The fact that RED has a RAW workflo means that you have to mess with the footage in post to get desirable results.

I would be very interested in a review that compares the way the camera's handle color in more detail. This is one area (besides dynamic range) where I see film as a big winner. Kinda getting tired of the whole resolution subject, until there is a viewing medium that merits it. Lets face it, not many of us are shooting for IMAX at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top