RED ONE MX vs Sony F35

[Mike Krumlauf]

I'm hoping given I am posting on a RED form that I dont get biased answers to this question, but here goes nothing...

I've been a very happy RED ONE MX owner since March of this year. It took me until around July to finally have the camera fully mobile with a decent lens on it. I have absolutely no complaints with my camera and my experiences thus far (minus some back focus issues which ive posted about earlier), but recently i came across another semi forgotten camera that (i think) still really holds up, the sony F35. I am seeing on ebay they are going for the same as a RED ONE MX package and suddenly this train of thought has started in my head and i can not get it to shut up. I've watched videos online that the F35 shot and I have to say, just my personal opinion, i enjoy the look of that camera better than the RED, but I am coming here asking, besides the fact that the RED can spit out higher resolution files (which in my case right now i do not need 4K, i master everything in 1080p or 2K), what would the benifit be with the RED ONE MX over a Sony F35? If i am still working in a delivery space of 1080p, do I really need to be choking my macbook pro on 4k files? I've been told the F35 has 2 more stops of DR then the MX? The thoughts are driving me mad, i waited 8 years and owned over 52 cameras from 2007 - present time and i finally have a R1, but i cant help but notice just how well the F35's image is.. there is just something about its latitude and skin tone color that really has me considering selling my RED (which does have a listing here in the marketplace for this exact reason) and getting a second hand F35. Sony & RED have always been my two favorite camera companies (aaton for film cameras).

Let me know your thoughts, thanks.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

It really wasn't a match back in the day when you needed a very expensive recording solution to even get an image out of the F35, while you could buy a couple of Lexars and start shooting on the RED.

I think the F35 is probably enormously good value for money, if you can get it in the RED MX price range, but make sure you get all you eed to shoot. The extras used to be silly-expensive.

 

[paul ross jones]

I have been interested in them too. but they are massive- not just in weight, but and awkward shape.
the "brains" are cheap on by, but what else do you need to run these sony wise? They have a controller panel, but do you need this? they are quite expensive.

paul

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I think you could run them with f. ex. a pix hooked up, and if you don't need the viewfinder (or it's not part of the package), you're much better off.

 

[Dunkan Wolf]

If you don't need 4K resolution, go for the F35. It has a striped 5K sensor that downsamples to 2K.
Unlike the Red One it's a true RAW uncompressed camera.

 

[Mike Krumlauf]

^ Dunkan, could you elaborate on your statement as the F35 being a "true" Raw camera?

 

[Todd T]

I think Duncan is referring to the RGB sensor to could directly produce RGB 4:4:4 1920 x 1080 images without de-bayering. The F35 can not output Raw image data.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Many people laud the F35 for its color. First Captain America was shot on it I believe. Not sure if its "better", maybe just different.

 

[Mike Kopstain]

The F35 is an amazing camera for the money it now commands. It's a bit less of a walled garden than the RED ONE so it's a bit easier (cheaper) to kit out. Controls are onboard and most of what you're dealing with cable-wise is industry standard stuff.

My one suggestion would be to make sure you're getting a camera with the snap-on interface box. The box gives you dual-link HD SDI 4:4:4 out. It also gives you a couple of XLR audio inputs. This will add a bit of cost to the camera you're looking at but it's a more current and cheaper alternative to Sony's SR-R1 onboard recorder. Plus you won't have to pay a bundle for SR memory.

With that setup you just get yourself a nice monitor/ recorder and you're good to go. It's larger than the RED One, oddly shaped and somewhat loud but if you're willing to work with it and you're in 1080 workflow anyhow, you'll like it a lot. Just keep in mind that even with 1080, when you consider the change over to a completely different camera, you're dealing with more of a lateral move here than anything else.

Personally I'd invest money into the computer before I'd completely change camera setups and deal with everything that comes along with that.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Absolutely no contest: if you don't need to deliver 4K, F35 wins by a mile over Mysterium-X (in Red One or Epic).
- great color
- great latitude
- very sharp
- pleasant, filmic grain structure
- zero rolling shutter
- easy ProRes workflow (when plugged into one of the many monitors that use ProRes - I personally use an Odyssey 7q+ but you could use a $500 Blackmagic 1080p monitor/recorder, etc)

I just directed a web series and the DP chose to use it. We tested against Amira and the difference wasn't enough to pay extra for the Amira.

Dragon sensor starts to make things more competitive, though.

But I'd put the F35 on a short list of cameras, incl. Alexa, Dragon and film where a skilled person with the right conditions can achieve world-class results, not limited by equipment.

Of course it's heavy and also not a fantastic low-light camera. But again, neither is Dragon.

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen

 

[Patrick Tresch]

If you don't need 4K resolution, go for the F35. It has a striped 5K sensor that downsamples to 2K.
Unlike the Red One it's a true RAW uncompressed camera.

So you have a 5k uncompressed RAW files?

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Of course it's heavy and also not a fantastic low-light camera. But again, neither is Dragon.

You'r right Epic is heavy camera and Dragon is not good in low light. Feed it at 2000 iso with LLO.

 

[Mike Krumlauf]

At this point, the only thing that would make it hard to transition from my red one to an F35 is the fact that the F35 ONLY takes PL glass and PL glass in not cheap! I used Nikon glass with my red one. Other then that, if someone came on here and said there was a way to put nikon glass on the F35, i'd really start working on making the transition.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Mike, I think you are looking at a $10,000+ investment there to get the camera, recorder, some accessories, and some glass. If there is something specific about Red One that prevents you from getting the look you want, then by all means the F35 is a nice camera and kind of an interesting one considering the uncompressed 4:4:4 that you can now feed into an affordable recorder. However, obviously it has some limitations, resolution being one of them. Then again, 1080P uncompressed blown up to 2K looks good.

I would make sure you do some side by side tests and make sure the F35 checks off all of the boxes.

 

[Mike Krumlauf]

its not that im unhappy with my red, i actually love it, im just interested in the sony

 

[Steve Sherrick]

do you have access to an F35? Rental house?

 

[Bruce Allen]

At this point, the only thing that would make it hard to transition from my red one to an F35 is the fact that the F35 ONLY takes PL glass and PL glass in not cheap! I used Nikon glass with my red one. Other then that, if someone came on here and said there was a way to put nikon glass on the F35, i'd really start working on making the transition.

Macgregor converted his F35 to take Nikon lenses.

However, for our shoot, he used a PL mount F35 with his Sony 6-lens set. Amazing deal for $12,900 and if you are doing any serious shooting, it'll save you money over a Nikon set because the better ergonomics mean fewer missed focus pulls.

If you're paying a crew, having at least that level of lenses tends to pay for itself quickly, in my experience. Of course everyone's experience is different and I say this while simultaneously owning a lot of Nikon lenses, Rokinons, etc.

You'r right Epic is heavy camera and Dragon is not good in low light. Feed it at 2000 iso with LLO.

LLO transforms Dragon into an expensive, mediocre low light camera with mediocre color. If I want low light, there are plenty of other 4K cameras that are cheaper, lighter and perform better in low light.

And the LLO colors are... not great. Dragon with STH has good color and is the only option I'd shoot on. Otherwise, LLO Dragon is an expensive, heavy, poor choice unless you have very specific needs (you actually need 6K over 4K, or need high-speed options, or need to do some sort of HDR special purpose thing).

But then that's what's great about renting. Pick your tool for the job!

Also: try the Sony a7rII and a7s (into a 4K recorder like Odyssey 7q+ / PIX-E5 / Shogun). Not as good color-wise, plus the latitude isn't as good and the rolling shutter sucks, but a hell of a lot more portable!

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen

 

[Patrick Tresch]

A7s is also really heavy. Shoot on the Hero 4+. That's a hell of a camera. very portable.

 

[Nick Morrison]

LLO transforms Dragon into an expensive, mediocre low light camera with mediocre color.

I would have to strongly disagree with this. And flies in face of practice of a number of major RED users/advocates (Probst, Cioni, Libatique).

Yes - Skintone has great color, but weve found LLO is not so far behind, and also CLEAN at 800 @ 2.8 - which is huge for everyday shooting. LLO color for us has been FAR BETTER than MX and still excellent. Dragon LLO has literally saved us an enormous mount of time in grade because of its improved color.

I think it bares repeating Probst shot majority of Bad Blood on LLO, Cioni shot his 8K Panavision test on LLO, and Matty Libatique shot "Straight Outa Compton" on LLO. So cleary, LLO capable of amazing work with incredible color. Calling it mediocre I believe is not giving it its due, IMHO.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I would have to strongly disagree with this. And flies in face of practice of a number of major RED users/advocates (Probst, Cioni, Libatique).

Yes - Skintone has great color, but weve found LLO is not so far behind, and also CLEAN at 800 @ 2.8 - which is huge for everyday shooting. LLO color for us has been FAR BETTER than MX and still excellent. Dragon LLO has literally saved us an enormous mount of time in grade because of its improved color.

I think it bares repeating Probst shot majority of Bad Blood on LLO, Cioni shot his 8K Panavision test on LLO, and Matty Libatique shot "Straight Outa Compton" on LLO. So cleary, LLO capable of amazing work with incredible color. Calling it mediocre I believe is not giving it its due, IMHO.

I don't think that only being clean at ISO 800 really makes Dragon anything other than a mediocre digital camera in low light these days!

I saw Cioni's Panavision test in 8K at Cinegear and color was OK but the content was landscapes, not CUs of people. Landscapes are 100x more forgiving of imperfect color IMHO than portraits.

It'd also note that it was pretty darn noisy on a pixel level!

As for Bad Blood or Straight Outta Compton, those would have also looked great if they were shot on, well, probably a dozen other camera models. Great production design, DP, makeup, grading, vfx, etc.

Talent (your case included, Nick, since you're a talented guy) and grading can make up for mediocre color. Just my 2c.

BTW, I don't really rate much in the digital world as having excellent color. I was at a screening of Fuji 35mm film vs Alexa vs RED at Cinegear a few years ago and digital (including Alexa) just SUCKED compared to film. Of course with grading you can fix it... but you gotta call things the way they are.

Alexa, F35 and Dragon STH at their best are maybe "very good". Canon 5D Mk2 and the Fuji and Olympus cams would rate as "very inaccurate but suprisingly un-terrible in certain circumstances, just horribly low-res"... most of the rest are mostly mediocre. OK, F65 is great at saturated colors and sometimes suprisingly beautiful with skin. The Fairchild sensor Blackmagic uses in some of their cams is promising (though you have to IR filter it right). If you want spectacular out of the box, well, that's film. For now!

Not saying you or I or any of the other talented folks on this forum couldn't make everything look good of course

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen