OT: NAB show NEX-FS100E

Tom Pauncz wrote on 3/23/2011, 10:21 AM

WOW!

LoTN wrote on 3/23/2011, 10:29 AM

First impressions on vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/21372344

Sony prez:

Yoyodyne wrote on 3/23/2011, 11:23 AM

YES!

musicvid10 wrote on 3/23/2011, 11:39 AM

Looking at that sheet, it says it is 50p/25p.
Is this a European camera model only?

Tom Pauncz wrote on 3/23/2011, 11:43 AM

The E usually designates European. FS100 would be the NA equivalent.
Tom

LoTN wrote on 3/23/2011, 11:52 AM

The link to the specs is for FS100E. The US model FS100U is 60p.

Unfortunately, it seems that the body design has no room for integrated ND filters. Shooters wanting to play with the DoF will have to use a mattebox.

Anyway this is a nice beast which, in my opinion, is more interesting than the Panny AF100.

Wait and see...

Serena wrote on 3/23/2011, 8:02 PM

>>>Shooters wanting to play with the DoF will have to use a mattebox.<<<

Well, that is really a non-sequitur. You need NDs as part of your kit for controlling exposure, and with 800 ISO (approximately) there are many reasons, even before you start thinking of DoF, for not wanting to shoot f/16 at 1/1000 sec in sunlight. So, you will need externally mounted NDs, but not necessarily in a matte-box. The main influence this camera will have on DoF is the size of the sensor.

farss wrote on 3/23/2011, 8:15 PM

And some rather serious ND filters at that. Good quality high attenuation ND filters are not cheap.

Bob.

Rory Cooper wrote on 3/24/2011, 12:19 AM

Ooo yes……

A. Grandt wrote on 3/24/2011, 3:34 AM

At around $5000 for this camera, it's not exactly "affordable" for most people :)

ushere wrote on 3/24/2011, 4:19 AM

$5k seems pretty cheap to me - but that's without lens - THAT'S where it's really going to hurt. as for me, no tape, no use ;-)

LoTN wrote on 3/24/2011, 5:29 AM

No so expensive for what it provides. For sure this is not the point and shoot cam for grand'ma birthday :)

@serena, thank you for the Latin lesson. I didn't know this locution until now.

My point was that, Mattebox, holder or circular on the lense, fact is that when having to get a defined dof for some scene you have to setup the correct aperture and compensate exposure with a ND filter. I am sure you know that better than me. It is surprising to see that the FS100 has no ND filters while Panasonic provides them with the AF100, which for the lenses, shares the same concept.

Can someone share a good explanation on that integrated ND filter absence ?

A. Grandt wrote on 3/24/2011, 6:01 AM

LoTN:

I'd say a mix between cost cutting, and added flexibility. You can (theoretically) always add more filters, where is it somewhat harder to remove the integrated ones should they get in the way.

Pcamp wrote on 3/24/2011, 8:42 AM

built in ND's are very nice to have - perhaps another reason it was left out was to make the F3 more tempting.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 3/24/2011, 1:26 PM

Is there a reason that a circular ND filter isn't going to work? Seems to me that you could just have that on your lens, lenses and have far better and more finite control.

Dave

ushere wrote on 3/24/2011, 4:20 PM

didn't bob (farss) mentioned some time ago a neat adjustable nd gadget?

richard-amirault wrote on 3/24/2011, 6:21 PM

Don't know about what Bob said ... but astronomers often use an adjustable ND filter when viewing bright objects (think the moon)

These are two "regular" ND filters stacked .. where you can adjust the outer/topmost filter. This gives you variable cross polarization and a very large adjustment in the amount of light transmitted. When fully 90 degree cross polarized almost all the light is stopped ... only a few percent makes it thru.

However .. these are not circular polarized .. but linear polarized. I 've never tried this with two circularly polarized filters. I don't know if it would work.

Serena wrote on 3/24/2011, 8:46 PM

A pleasure LoTN. A very common term. However if you prefer me to say "it does not follow" or that a statement is a logical fallacy, I guess I can come at that. Just seems more polite to use the latin. Rather as a lawyer says "with due respect" before telling an opponent they are talking rubbish.

So far as the lack of built-in ND filters, I might suggest two possible reasons, but obviously I'm not privy to Sony's thinking.
The most obvious reason (one suggested by Den Lennie) is that there wasn't room for the ND filters and mechanism. Another possibility is that because the camera is intended to use a wide variety of lenses then not having a filter behind the lens means that optical path length between flange and sensor is fixed. If the filters were internal, then there would always have to be at least a clear filter in the optical path. A camera with a built in lens has algorithms for compensating the shift in focus. You might remember that this algorithm wasn't quite accurate in the first production of the PMW-EX1.

NickHope wrote on 3/25/2011, 1:20 AM

I'm very interested in a "neat adjustable ND gadget" if such a thing exists. I want to ask the underwater housing manufacturers to incorporate such a thing into their NEX-FS100E designs if possible. Mixing and matching ND filters mattbox-style is obviously near to impossible in such a scenario.

Grazie wrote on 3/25/2011, 1:40 AM

Is this the response to the Pannie AGAF100?

Add glass to this and that $5k looks expensive to my end of the market.

And yes, great camera.

Grazie

farss wrote on 3/25/2011, 1:42 AM

I have a variable ND filter, bought of eBay from Lightcraft Workshop although I cannot find them listed at the moment.
There's also ones from Singh Ray, that link is to their latest variant.

These kinds of filters are not without their issues. Firstly they are still polarisers and a polariser can produce unwanted effects. Secondly you are adding two extra pieces of glass in front of the lens, There's the potential for internal reflections and loss of resolution. If you rotate the two polarisers too far you do get a dark band across the frame. There's also the potential for vignettting, always go for the "slim" versions.

I'd say the reason this camera does not have ND filters built in and the F3 does is this camera has a shorter flange distance so that SLR lenses can be accomodated. Watch the video when the PL mount adaptor is fitted and you'll notice it is quite long.

Bob.

Grazie wrote on 3/25/2011, 2:09 AM

Nice to see a SONY product being edited on VEGAS! See the use of ProTypeTitler?

Grazie

LoTN wrote on 3/25/2011, 3:46 AM

For A1 owners: the successor is the NX70. A bit too expensive imho. Let's hope that some of the A1silly things got fixed. A nice thing for adventurers: IP54 protection.

@Serena: I am fine with Latin. Thank you.

megabit wrote on 3/25/2011, 3:48 AM

Can someone share a good explanation on that integrated ND filter absence ?

Well, to me it's obvious - the sales strategy. Want no limitations like this, plus more goodies? Go buy F3...

Frankly, if I could afford any new camera now, I'd probably go for the Panny AF100 at the moment!

Piotr

PS You know - the more I think of it, the more angry at Sony's strategy I am! To me, the F3 is waaay too expensive, and the only feature that justifies the price - 1080/50p at 4:4:4 over 3G - I couldn't take advantage of anyway (having spent on the nanoFlash, it'd just hurt me too much to upgrade for the Gemini). So, I was hoping for the NEX-FS100E as offering the same main advantage of the super 35mm sensor, while enabling me to continue using my nanoFlash. But, stripping it off such a basic functionality as ND filtering is, denies all the "modular design" advantages!

If I have to use a mattebox anyway to have some command over exposure other than closing the iris (thus negating the DOF capabilities, and probably introducing diffraction softness), I don't care it's possible to unscrew the handle, mic, or grip belt ... If - for such a silly reason - it needs to be used in a full-blow rig a good mattebox requires (rails, etc) - I may as well stick with my EX1 and the Letus (even though I hate its build quality and overall handling problems)...

This camera is intentionally crippled, that's what I think. The lack of HD-SDI is another intentional omission.

Of course, this is just my opinion - sorry for ranting :)

Piotr