PDA

View Full Version : The FS100 - A different perspective.



pulpfiction007
03-24-2011, 04:55 PM
A different perspective for those who might be disappointed with what the camera offers (BTW...this analogy will not hold true from a cost/benefit point of view for those who use DLSRs for a lot of photography)

Let's imagine the 5DMK3 is released with the following:

1. A near perfect method of getting a 1080P signal with virtually no moire/aliasing and between 700 to 800 lines of resolution.
2. Improved S/N ratio and DR
3. Video style image paramater adjustments/customization
4. A more stable codec
5. Overcranking/undercranking and more frame rate options in both 720 and 1080

The cost of the camera is around $3000

Lets then imagine they add an option package that includes:

1. An audio "box" with XLR inputs, level dials, and headphone monitoring
2. A viewfinder kit for the LCD
3. A video style remote with record/playback (etc) buttons for easier navigation in certain situations.

The cost of this package is $1500 - $2000
So the total price would be around $5000.

Now can anyone say that this would not be an absolute homerun on Canon's part and cause even more shooters to flock to them. Even with no HD SDI and ND filters.

So the question is...why is it not a homerun when Sony does it? (and actually more with things I've left out)

I personally think it is at the very least a triple!

dcloud
03-24-2011, 05:15 PM
you're expecting all these from canon?
tough chance
id be happy if they do that. for now, ill earn money with my af100 to buy that imaginary cam. :)

Viddovation
03-24-2011, 05:39 PM
you're expecting all these from canon?
tough chance
id be happy if they do that. for now, ill earn money with my af100 to buy that imaginary cam. :)

I don't think pulpfiction007 means that at all.

The way I read what he wrote is that some reviewers are maligning the NEX-FS100 because they're comparing it directly to the PMW-F3. He raises what I consider to be a very fair point - if reviewed in comparison to the Canon 5DmkII, the NEX-FS100 looks like an impressive step forward.

I bought a PMW-F3, and I'm very happy with it, but I do think the FS100 potentially fills a gap in the market for those who want excellent image quality at a rock bottom price. With an S35 imager, assuming the low light and DR are similar to the PMW-F3, it should be very competitive with the AF-100.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Everyone is always going to want more features for less. Give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk...

pulpfiction007
03-24-2011, 05:42 PM
you're expecting all these from canon?
tough chance
id be happy if they do that. for now, ill earn money with my af100 to buy that imaginary cam. :)

No.....not at all. What I'm saying is that the Af100 and the FS100 ARE essentially the imaginary cam I listed above (the final line...why is the FS100 not a homerun when it does all this already ). People are constantly saying..."well if the Canon's come with no aliasing/moire, better audio, etc. I'm in"
Now we have two affordable large sensor cams that are ready for prime time. The Sony FS100 and the Pansonic AF100.

pulpfiction007
03-24-2011, 05:44 PM
I don't think pulpfiction007 means that at all.

The way I read what he wrote is that some reviewers are maligning the NEX-FS100 because they're comparing it directly to the PMW-F3. He raises what I consider to be a very fair point - if reviewed in comparison to the Canon 5DmkII, the NEX-FS100 looks like an impressive step forward.

I bought a PMW-F3, and I'm very happy with it, but I do think the FS100 potentially fills a gap in the market for those who want excellent image quality at a rock bottom price. With an S35 imager, assuming the low light and DR are similar to the PMW-F3, it should be very competitive with the AF-100.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Everyone is always going to want more features for less. Give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk...

Exactly! Thank you for clarifying that better than I could myself.

speedracerlo
03-24-2011, 05:46 PM
that is a good comparison and the FS100 is totally worth it, even comparing to any DSLR with custom rigs/modifications that may come out in the near future

TimurCivan
03-24-2011, 07:08 PM
The chip in the F3/FS100 eats the 5D's lowlight, DR (video mode), resolution (videomode) and alias performance for lunch.

The fs100 is awesome. I am thank full it exists.

vanvideo
03-24-2011, 07:12 PM
Isn't that the purpose of these large sensor video cameras? To take the best features of the DSLRs, minus the shortcomings, and put them into proper video camera bodies. All at a reasonable cost.
Works for me.

maranfilms
03-24-2011, 07:44 PM
The chip in the F3/FS100 eats the 5D's lowlight, DR (video mode), resolution (videomode) and alias performance for lunch.

The fs100 is awesome. I am thank full it exists.

Thank you, I been saying this over and over the last few days. Im getting a decent image with the t3i, But I have to jump through hoops at times. This cam will make my life so much easier. And to be honest, from what I have seen so far, I like the image way better than the af100 image. But then again, thats only my opinion.

I love the box, It's wicked versatile. This thing can morph from a cinema camera to an event cam in about two minutes. Im really shocked that more people didn't dig this thing.

How many people are using hd/sdi out on the Af100? Not many from what I have seen. Not many people are gonna do more than post to the web regardless. 4:2:2 hdmi, with time code is perfect for me. I can get a decent key with It imagine. Say what you want, at least their trying, thats more than I can say about some of the others and their vaporware.

TimurCivan
03-24-2011, 09:33 PM
If u record offboard, you will definitly get a good key.

Lee Saxon
03-24-2011, 10:00 PM
I think Viddovation's answer is correct. It's because people are comparing it to the wrong thing.

ccastro
03-25-2011, 05:35 AM
I own a 5D and I've become used to the hard work it takes to create a good picture but I welcome this or any other camera that can come close to producing an equal or better image with far less hassle to achieve it.

I for one can't wait to see this camera on the market, the price seems to me to be more than fair.
If you take into account al of the extra support equipment I purchase just to make shooting with a 5D feasible, the 6,000 or less price range is a bargin as long as the camera really is capable of a great image.

Can't wait !

Jay Birch
03-25-2011, 06:22 AM
I agree 100% with this thread and it popped into my mind the minute people started moaning.

How much would a 5D user pay for 4:2:2 HMDI out with timecode? How much for an extra 1-2 stops of DR? (priceless, in my opinion)...

The list is pretty huge:

4:2:2 HDMI
2 x XLR
Headphone socket
Audio controls
Adjustable LCD
EVF attachment
Pro in camera controls
60/1080P
Better resolution
Better low light
Better DR
Various lens adapters (inc PL)
AF Lenses

dop16mm
03-25-2011, 06:24 AM
This is of course bang on. The flip side is that the 5d has captured the imagination of a certain market, mostly commercials. Producers that don't get the technical limitations love the image and the price, for better or worse it is pre sold. If mark III ships with perfect video it will be a home run as it is pre-sold to those clients without the problems that shooter has to work so hard to hide. Also I think a lot of people invested early in canon solutions including expensive lenses with propriety electronic aperture control, and want to be able to keep that investment viable while just swapping bodies. To use a term that gets tossed around a lot on this board, canon owes these users a video system.

If you are just starting and will be buying lenses from scratch Sony has a lot to offer. The A mount (minolta AF) that sony adopted for slr's is fully supported by most of the third party manufacturers. So most of the popular dslr zooms are available if going that route. This requires the E - A adapter, but it is electronic and system native to the camera. There are also sony branded zeiss lenses that will provide the flare to producers that know what zeiss is. If you want a stills camera to go with your lenses they make pretty good cameras for that too. While they may not be as popular among photographers as canon and nikon, they do the job.

theArgiope
03-25-2011, 07:08 AM
I'm uber excited about the FS100.

But I'm not a pro video guy; I'd personally only take it out, maybe, 30 days in a calendar year for hobby shooting.

Still trying to justify the price from an enthusiast point of view. Maybe if I could rent it out to offset the expense...

Nonetheless; been waiting for a dSLR in a video cam body ever since Nikon's D90 splashed in.

Centro
03-25-2011, 10:01 AM
Well. I totally agree. I think the FS100, especially if it ends up at less then 5K, it's great. Even in N.Cooper less than "enthusiastic" review, he mentions the image is a no issue and aliasing is even less than af100. To me, image quality it's the most important thing. Two years ago this would have been a prosumer dream cam, now it's all about how it's not a 10-bit output or it lacks ND's (which I agree is kind of bleah, but...). I'm looking forward to see it up close on the 31st.

Andrew J. Allsbury
03-25-2011, 10:07 AM
Do we know that it doesn't have 10bit out? Thats something I've been pretty curious about.

Mike Harvey
03-25-2011, 10:17 AM
Do we know that it doesn't have 10bit out? Thats something I've been pretty curious about.

Nigel Cooper said that the Sony rep he talked to said it was 8bit, but in another thread someone said they talked to an actual engineer on the program who said it was 10bit.

kurth
03-25-2011, 11:55 AM
the camera is a work of art - of course Id wait , if I could, for all the manufacturing wrinkles to be worked out and Im only really disappointed that it has no NDs onboard so a variable singh-ray is a must.... but great job for sony ! .... now lets see how pany answers back - cool times

lexicon
03-25-2011, 01:25 PM
Do we know that it doesn't have 10bit out? Thats something I've been pretty curious about.


Nigel Cooper said that the Sony rep he talked to said it was 8bit, but in another thread someone said they talked to an actual engineer on the program who said it was 10bit.

Unfortunately it seems that is only 8 bit :embarasse. Den Lennie from F-Stop Academy took part in a web chat with Planet5D about the upcoming Sony NEX-FS100. Durig the chat Lennie commented:

"Its not 10 bit. The more coming out, the more processing, the more heat. Our experience was very positive. You can stream out the HDMI. The Panasonic AF101 (AG-AF100) is 8 bit [but the] color space for the Panasonic is 4.2.0 and the color space on the Sony is 4.2.2."

This information, coming from one of the guys who was advising in the design of the camera, is probably true. Though he is wrong when he says that Panasonic is limited to 420, since you can get 422 8-bit out of the HD-SDI on the Panasonic.

Barry_Green
03-25-2011, 01:49 PM
It is absolutely not true that the color coming out of the Panasonic is 4:2:0. Not true whatsoever -- the color in the AF100 out the HD-SDI and HDMI is full 4:2:2 and I have shot color res charts on the AF100 to verify it.

vanvideo
03-25-2011, 10:02 PM
Unfortunately it seems that is only 8 bit :embarasse. Den Lennie from F-Stop Academy took part in a web chat with Planet5D about the upcoming Sony NEX-FS100. Durig the chat Lennie commented:

"Its not 10 bit. The more coming out, the more processing, the more heat. Our experience was very positive. You can stream out the HDMI. The Panasonic AF101 (AG-AF100) is 8 bit [but the] color space for the Panasonic is 4.2.0 and the color space on the Sony is 4.2.2."

This information, coming from one of the guys who was advising in the design of the camera, is probably true. Though he is wrong when he says that Panasonic is limited to 420, since you can get 422 8-bit out of the HD-SDI on the Panasonic.

Unfortunately, the 8-bit and 10-bit question is still not fully answered. If the source here made a factual error regarding the Panasonic, it calls into question his whole statement.

Personally, I think it is only 8-bit. The biggest clue to me - Sony would have bragged about a 10-bit output if the camera had it. If not, the marketing dept. would prefer not to draw attention to an 8-bit only HDMI.

alaskacameradude
03-25-2011, 10:42 PM
Unfortunately, the 8-bit and 10-bit question is still not fully answered. If the source here made a factual error regarding the Panasonic, it calls into question his whole statement.

Personally, I think it is only 8-bit. The biggest clue to me - Sony would have bragged about a 10-bit output if the camera had it. If not, the marketing dept. would prefer not to draw attention to an 8-bit only HDMI.

Normally I would agree with this. But remember the EX-1 and how many people
thought it was outputting 8 bit or 'padded' 10 bit? Sony didn't brag about
the 10 bit output on it, and there was a ton of misinformation floating around
internet forums as people tried to predict that it would only be 8 bit as no camera
that cheap would have 10bit and so on. It took awhile to get to the bottom
of that one as I recall. But normally, yeah, you'd think they'd want to let
everyone know that it was 10 bit if it was. Of course, there are bigger
things in the world to be worrying about for Sony engineers I expect. We'll
know soon I am sure.

vanvideo
03-26-2011, 10:15 AM
Normally I would agree with this. But remember the EX-1 and how many people
thought it was outputting 8 bit or 'padded' 10 bit? Sony didn't brag about
the 10 bit output on it, and there was a ton of misinformation floating around
internet forums as people tried to predict that it would only be 8 bit as no camera
that cheap would have 10bit and so on. It took awhile to get to the bottom
of that one as I recall. But normally, yeah, you'd think they'd want to let
everyone know that it was 10 bit if it was. Of course, there are bigger
things in the world to be worrying about for Sony engineers I expect. We'll
know soon I am sure.

I should mention - the other NXCAM, the NX5U, has true 10-bit HD/SDI output. Sony does mention that in its literature.
Is anyone else scratching their heads wondering why Sony would put HD/SDI in their cheaper NXCAM model, and not include it in the FS100? I say lose the composite connectors and put HD/SDI there.
Speaking of composites, the AF100 can import/export time code through one of the composite connections. Does the FS100 do this as well? Is the FS100's HDMI timecode port an export only port?

avro
03-26-2011, 06:04 PM
The chip in the F3/FS100 eats the 5D's lowlight, DR (video mode), resolution (videomode) and alias performance for lunch.

The fs100 is awesome. I am thank full it exists.

True,
but 5d is better in hilites.....

TimurCivan
03-26-2011, 06:08 PM
True,
but 5d is better in hilites.....

Perhaps subjectively to you the 5d seems pleasing.

avro
03-26-2011, 06:14 PM
I still like 5D picture...it is a bit more organic.
I do sometimes use it with my other cameras...but one must be very careful how to use 5D.
I am sure S-log will improve F3 hilites....
Anyway what recorder are you getting Timur?

Osslund
03-27-2011, 01:38 PM
The succes of the 5DmkII has to do with the fact it mimics 35mm film so well and it takes alot from video camera to do the same. Forget about technical aspects because it's hard to beat a 5DmkII in this respect.

TimurCivan
03-27-2011, 05:43 PM
The succes of the 5DmkII has to do with the fact it mimics 35mm film so well and it takes alot from video camera to do the same. Forget about technical aspects because it's hard to beat a 5DmkII in this respect.

It hardly mimics 35mm film at all.

35mm film is a mess. its grainy and very easy to ruin. What separated pros from amateurs back in the day was just getting a sharp image period. The DSLR's made it so easy to be a competent photographer because you can check your work on the spot. Try turning off your LCD review time, turn off auto focus, and use a light meter to expose, and only carry a 128MB card with you. ( i have one i can mail to you to try this...) then go take some photos and see how it looks.

35mm film isnt ANYWHERE NEARLY as grainless as current DSLR images are. 5DmkII @ ISO1600 has a simialr "grain" as 400 speed film. Shooting ISO1600 Trimax, pushed to 3200 ISO in the lab, results in unintelligible images. We are shooting stills at ISO6400 nowadays with excellent image quality. The 5D looks nothing like film at all.

Film:
http://blog.maurizioagelli.com/2010/10/comparing-film-grain.html

TimurCivan
03-27-2011, 05:50 PM
I still like 5D picture...it is a bit more organic.
I do sometimes use it with my other cameras...but one must be very careful how to use 5D.
I am sure S-log will improve F3 hilites....
Anyway what recorder are you getting Timur?

Probably the Convergent designs Gemini, and the Samurai.

Lee Saxon
03-27-2011, 07:31 PM
Try turning off your LCD review time, turn off auto focus, and use a light meter to expose, and only carry a 128MB card with you. ( i have one i can mail to you to try this...) then go take some photos and see how it looks.

This is actually a really cool idea and I'm gonna start doing it. Is reading the in-camera light meter cheating? 'Cause I do have a real one somewhere around here...

To be fair there is one way in which this would be harder than really shooting on film: much less dynamic range / nailing exposure more critical. I started on DSLRs and was shocked at how much I could dodge/burn into view when I first shot film.

TimurCivan
03-28-2011, 12:58 AM
well thats why RAw is so cool, its like a film negative. it holds magical detail that wasn't there...

BobbyMurcerFan
03-28-2011, 01:42 AM
It hardly mimics 35mm film at all.

35mm film is a mess. its grainy and very easy to ruin. What separated pros from amateurs back in the day was just getting a sharp image period. The DSLR's made it so easy to be a competent photographer because you can check your work on the spot. Try turning off your LCD review time, turn off auto focus, and use a light meter to expose, and only carry a 128MB card with you. ( i have one i can mail to you to try this...) then go take some photos and see how it looks.

35mm film isnt ANYWHERE NEARLY as grainless as current DSLR images are. 5DmkII @ ISO1600 has a simialr "grain" as 400 speed film. Shooting ISO1600 Trimax, pushed to 3200 ISO in the lab, results in unintelligible images. We are shooting stills at ISO6400 nowadays with excellent image quality. The 5D looks nothing like film at all.

Film:
http://blog.maurizioagelli.com/2010/10/comparing-film-grain.html

Timur,

Did someone slip you acid or something, LOL? Seriously, I've shot film a lot and don't know what you're talking about. It's not a mess, it's not easy to ruin, and modern film is so grainLESS that it looks too much like digital stills sometimes. Exposing with a light meter is not difficult and neither is manually focusing or using an optical viewfinder. Most people prefer an OV to an EV or LCD. Film also handles blow-outs much more organically/gracefully/artistically/[fill in positive adverb] than most video cameras do.

Dude, put down the tea, J/K! ;)

Osslund
03-28-2011, 02:55 AM
It hardly mimics 35mm film at all.

35mm film is a mess. its grainy and very easy to ruin. What separated pros from amateurs back in the day was just getting a sharp image period. The DSLR's made it so easy to be a competent photographer because you can check your work on the spot. Try turning off your LCD review time, turn off auto focus, and use a light meter to expose, and only carry a 128MB card with you. ( i have one i can mail to you to try this...) then go take some photos and see how it looks.

35mm film isnt ANYWHERE NEARLY as grainless as current DSLR images are. 5DmkII @ ISO1600 has a simialr "grain" as 400 speed film. Shooting ISO1600 Trimax, pushed to 3200 ISO in the lab, results in unintelligible images. We are shooting stills at ISO6400 nowadays with excellent image quality. The 5D looks nothing like film at all.

Film:
http://blog.maurizioagelli.com/2010/10/comparing-film-grain.html


You have to get past all technical aspects and look on how the final image turns out and then the 5DmkII is just spot on.

manakiin
03-28-2011, 03:47 AM
I have to disagree.

Viddovation
03-28-2011, 09:46 AM
The succes of the 5DmkII has to do with the fact it mimics 35mm film so well and it takes alot from video camera to do the same. Forget about technical aspects because it's hard to beat a 5DmkII in this respect.


You have to get past all technical aspects and look on how the final image turns out and then the 5DmkII is just spot on.

For all effective purposes, you're talking about a perceived aesthetic.

The "succes" [sic] of the 5DmkII is primarily due to price-point. If cameras like the RED one, Arri Alexa, Sony F35, Sony F3, Red EPIC, and even AF100 were the same price to purchase and shoot on (batteries and media) as the Canon 5DmkII, well - I doubt many shooters or DPs would use the Canon 5DkII for anything others than still photos on set.

Under the right conditions I'll concede that the Canon 5DmkII is capable of producing very pleasing images.

Your perception that that Canon 5DmkII is "spot on" due to how it "mimics 35mm film" is just that - perception. If your client shares this perception, this may be justified.

But ignoring "technical aspects" sounds like a reckless and irresponsible thing for a shooter or DP to do. Not knowing the strengths *and* limitations of your equipment - be it the $2,500 Canon 5DmkII or the $200,000 Sony F35, leaves you dangerously prone to making production decisions that result in poor footage.

Like any camera, the Canon 5DmkII is composed of very specific components. It is made up of "technical aspects" if you will. The look and feel - aesthetic, if you will - can therefore be quantified. If you don't agree with this statement - it really says more about your ability to assess and deconstruct images than it does about either the camera, or the craft.

"it takes alot from video camera to do the same." Would you care to be more specific? The most unique feature of the Canon 5DmkII is the fact that it's a full frame 35mm sensor. Which makes it larger than S35 - a motion picture film standard. That means the nature of the depth of field response on the Canon 5DmkII is actually shallower than you would generally see in films at the cinema-plex. If you like this aesthetic, than the 5DmkII is pretty much the only game in town at the moment.

But outside of super shallow depth of field, the Canon 5DmkII isn't really so hard to beat in terms of image qualities and aesthetics. RED One & EPIC, Sony F35 and SRW9000PL, Arri Alexa, Sony F3, and even Panasonic AF100.... all of these cameras offer better, higher bitrate recordings (either internally or with an external recorder), and can be programmed or graded to look very similar in terms of color response to the Canon 5DmkII if desired. And they can do all of this with less aliasing, less jello, less skew, less moire, and so on.

The Canon 5DmkII isn't better. It's just cheaper.

vanvideo
03-28-2011, 10:20 AM
^ this

Well said, viddovation.

tom.wong
03-28-2011, 10:24 AM
it's funny, I've never seen film have hideous colored noise, colored burned in streaks in the image, aliasing/moire, and be limited to a long gop codec, in a camera body that can over heat fairly easily. when a dslr can give up 14 stops of latitude/dynamic range, hell give me a completely usable 11 stops, and we can start comparing it to film.

just because u can put a manual focus lens on it and get some shallow depth of field with a super 35 or more field of view doesn't it a true film alternative. there would be no reason to have anything else if that's all it took. You can watch black swan, and you can easily see what was shot on 7d, in the subway, it looked like garbage compared to the rest of the film, shot on super 16, blown up an extra 30% in certain points for a increase in grain for the look. It was gorgeous.

pulpfiction007
03-28-2011, 10:56 AM
Thanks to everybody for the posts....Excellent insights and comparisons.
Please though, I never intended to bash the 5DMK2 with this thread...because for what it is, people have achieved excellent results with it. My whole intent of this was to serve as a reminder....myself esp.- that these days, with so many choices - DLSRs, prosumer 3 chip progressive cameras with all the bells and whistles, and the new breed (AF100, FS100,F3) the cameras are truly no longer the limiting factor. Yes...there are more advances to be made - higher res, better latitude, better codecs, etc....but I feel like it's finally happened - The "holy grail" of cameras for the low budget film maker....it just so happens we've got 2 of them. The AF100 and the FS100.
They are everything that MOST used to say they wanted: Large sensor, progressive scan, interchangeable lenses, good form factor. So now they're here and we just go on...."Well it doesen't do xxxxxxxxxxx.... C'mon everybody.
I hereby proclaim 2011 the year of the shooter. On whatever camera.... Don't just talk about it, be about it. (I'm as guilty as the next guy BTW)

Osslund
03-28-2011, 11:28 AM
For all effective purposes, you're talking about a perceived aesthetic.

The "succes" [sic] of the 5DmkII is primarily due to price-point. If cameras like the RED one, Arri Alexa, Sony F35, Sony F3, Red EPIC, and even AF100 were the same price to purchase and shoot on (batteries and media) as the Canon 5DmkII, well - I doubt many shooters or DPs would use the Canon 5DkII for anything others than still photos on set.

Under the right conditions I'll concede that the Canon 5DmkII is capable of producing very pleasing images.

Your perception that that Canon 5DmkII is "spot on" due to how it "mimics 35mm film" is just that - perception. If your client shares this perception, this may be justified.

But ignoring "technical aspects" sounds like a reckless and irresponsible thing for a shooter or DP to do. Not knowing the strengths *and* limitations of your equipment - be it the $2,500 Canon 5DmkII or the $200,000 Sony F35, leaves you dangerously prone to making production decisions that result in poor footage.

Like any camera, the Canon 5DmkII is composed of very specific components. It is made up of "technical aspects" if you will. The look and feel - aesthetic, if you will - can therefore be quantified. If you don't agree with this statement - it really says more about your ability to assess and deconstruct images than it does about either the camera, or the craft.

"it takes alot from video camera to do the same." Would you care to be more specific? The most unique feature of the Canon 5DmkII is the fact that it's a full frame 35mm sensor. Which makes it larger than S35 - a motion picture film standard. That means the nature of the depth of field response on the Canon 5DmkII is actually shallower than you would generally see in films at the cinema-plex. If you like this aesthetic, than the 5DmkII is pretty much the only game in town at the moment.

But outside of super shallow depth of field, the Canon 5DmkII isn't really so hard to beat in terms of image qualities and aesthetics. RED One & EPIC, Sony F35 and SRW9000PL, Arri Alexa, Sony F3, and even Panasonic AF100.... all of these cameras offer better, higher bitrate recordings (either internally or with an external recorder), and can be programmed or graded to look very similar in terms of color response to the Canon 5DmkII if desired. And they can do all of this with less aliasing, less jello, less skew, less moire, and so on.

The Canon 5DmkII isn't better. It's just cheaper.

I never say a 5DmkII is better than even a GH1 in a pure technical evaluation. It's probably alot worse than most video cameras and still we, and many others, have turned to this camera when doing commercials and directors, producers and clients love the way it turns out in the end. I know how bad it is and still when doing final grading it just feels right - for us a spot on substitute to 35mm film.

So don't argue it's a worse camera than many others like AF100, F3 and FS100 included because I now that but the aesthetic mimics how we and many others perceive 35mm film translated to digital video.

Viddovation
03-28-2011, 11:38 AM
I never say a 5DmkII is better than even a GH1 in a pure technical evaluation. It's probably alot worse than most video cameras and still we, and many others, have turned to this camera when doing commercials and directors, producers and clients love the way it turns out in the end. I know how bad it is and still when doing final grading it just feels right - for us a spot on substitute to 35mm film.

So don't argue it's a worse camera than many others like AF100, F3 and FS100 included because I now that but the aesthetic mimics how we and many others perceive 35mm film translated to digital video.

Well, if the client loves it... then good.

But I think it's fair to say that many of us aren't working with your client. Many of us work with demanding clients who have expectations the Canon 5DmkII isn't optimal for meeting or exceeding.

For everyone turning to the 5DmkII because of how great it looks, I think there are many more turning to it because it's the most they can afford.

Right now, I own a PMW-F3. Give me a Ki Pro Mini, and I can fairly well match any look you can get out of the 5DmkII.

But hey - if your client like it... it sure costs less than most cameras.

Danielvilliers
03-28-2011, 12:44 PM
I am not here to defend the 5dmark 2 but I have seen a lot, I mean a lot of commercial, music videos and shows (Mainly french TV) which are shot with it, that could have been shot on anything to a $ 200 000 camera. I think it is about the look. Sometimes defects turns out to be a style, a character to the image. Example are like vignettes and flares that are technically defects from lens but to many (like me) they are a certain style. In two years it might be completely different, but what I can see today in is very much in vogue.

vanvideo
03-28-2011, 01:55 PM
Kholi, you lucky sob!
How do you guys get hold of cameras before they're released?? Please post pics and video!
And can you hit the white balance button without a pencil tip?

Kholi
03-28-2011, 02:13 PM
Had to take down my posts for now! But nothing but positive marks from me so far.

Will get footage, mini review, comparison pics etc when it's cleared.

Great cam!

vcfilms
03-28-2011, 02:27 PM
Is it good enough to sell my af-100 for? That's the question. Lack of HD-SDI and ND, means it needs to catch up in a lot of other areas for me to actually switch. 10-bit would have been nice. Even my ex1 did 10-bit SDI. Not saying I wont switch (dont know much now), but they may have not offered enough to draw people away, only when it's released will we really know. I do love Sony though, I have really enjoyed their cams for a while now.

Osslund
03-28-2011, 02:34 PM
Well, if the client loves it... then good.

But I think it's fair to say that many of us aren't working with your client. Many of us work with demanding clients who have expectations the Canon 5DmkII isn't optimal for meeting or exceeding.

For everyone turning to the 5DmkII because of how great it looks, I think there are many more turning to it because it's the most they can afford.

Right now, I own a PMW-F3. Give me a Ki Pro Mini, and I can fairly well match any look you can get out of the 5DmkII.

But hey - if your client like it... it sure costs less than most cameras.

I think everyone would like to shoot on something like an Alexa but as I heard from a producer (who always counts money) - "Why should I use a more expensive camera when a 5DmkII gets the job done?" I have my AF101 and believe me I'd rather shoot with it and I even done a 5DmkII setting for the AF camera to get as close as possible to how the 5DmkII looks. But still I have directors and producers turning to this camera instead of something technically better. I won't argue with them anymore and let them have the aesthetics of a Canon DSLR.

TimurCivan
03-28-2011, 03:00 PM
I like that. Year of the shooter. I challenge everyone to shoot stuff.

TimurCivan
03-28-2011, 03:02 PM
I think everyone would like to shoot on something like an Alexa but as I heard from a producer (who always counts money) - "Why should I use a more expensive camera when a 5DmkII gets the job done?" I have my AF101 and believe me I'd rather shoot with it and I even done a 5DmkII setting for the AF camera to get as close as possible to how the 5DmkII looks. But still I have directors and producers turning to this camera instead of something technically better. I won't argue with them anymore and let them have the aesthetics of a Canon DSLR.

Because real producers, know that their reputation is based on the quality of work they produce. The Good enough attitude, is starting to fade, because now there are options in the middle. They can have the cake ( lower cost) and eat it too (better images). AF100 and F3 ( and FS100) enable that.

tom.wong
03-28-2011, 03:10 PM
+1

and also the fact that the used to be "good enough" camera is actually epic failing the productions. I've seen clients not wanting to work with a company again because the producer wanted to save cost shooting 5d on white screen with just someone talking. the short (with no change in wardrobe available) had moire all over it, and the client noticed it right away when it hit post. because of the monitoring tools, you can't pick up the aliasing until you review the footage after you record. Clients felt they wasted their money on inferior footage.

there have been plenty of nightmare stories where the camera has failed the production, because a DSLR isn't meant to do the things people have been forcing it to do. overheating holding up production, aliasing (killing the image), noise, and very awful looking noise at that (colored and streaks)

and it's true that without the dslr a lot of things wouldn't have been possible. the size, and when you do get that really good shot on. but it's reliability ratio in itself is low. a production should never have to fight the camera to get it to do what they need it to do. i think af100 and beyond is the most absolute solution.

and fyi, even in the situations where you really try your best to overcome the cameras limitations, it can still come back to bite you in the ass. I have footage I cut, and now about to do the grading in a few weeks. they shot 7d, ultra flat, fastest lens they could close up, and no patterned shirts, with very simple backgrounds. there is moire in the skin and eyeybrows because the actor had such fine detail in both areas. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sam Scoggins
03-28-2011, 03:27 PM
I like that. Year of the shooter. I challenge everyone to shoot stuff.

+1

Osslund
03-28-2011, 04:15 PM
I could stop renting my 5DmkII and force them into the AF101 but then they might choose to use a RED instead. How strange it might sound. We've used 7D and 5D so many times but next job I guess is a RED camera based one and it'll be interesting to see what comes out.

I can understand people around me that looks at the final online master, due to be aired, and are satisfied with how it turned out. We did a commecial the other week and I have to say it looks excellent and I can't think of any other camera that would improve on the overall quality. I also think if you are used to work with a video camera then a DSLR is a nightmare and you would hate it. A DP I assists from time to time shoots using a 5D often with different production companys. He always run into problem when not using my set because there are so few people that have figured everything out when it comes to DSLR shooting.

But I concur with you guys that something ranging from a FS100 to a F3 or better is preferable from a shooters perspective. But it has nothing to do with how other perceives it. It's just futile to think any of these large sensor video cameras can kill of the hype of HD DSLR shooting.

Kholi
03-28-2011, 04:40 PM
Is it good enough to sell my af-100 for? That's the question. Lack of HD-SDI and ND, means it needs to catch up in a lot of other areas for me to actually switch. 10-bit would have been nice. Even my ex1 did 10-bit SDI. Not saying I wont switch (dont know much now), but they may have not offered enough to draw people away, only when it's released will we really know. I do love Sony though, I have really enjoyed their cams for a while now.

Not sure if you were asking me this directly, but I couldn't tell one person yes or no without knowing what they shoot. I'll stay mute until tomorrow, but so far I know which camera I'd go for if I had to choose between the three.

We'll see in a day.

TimurCivan
03-28-2011, 04:44 PM
I could stop renting my 5DmkII and force them into the AF101 but then they might choose to use a RED instead. How strange it might sound. We've used 7D and 5D so many times but next job I guess is a RED camera based one and it'll be interesting to see what comes out.

I can understand people around me that looks at the final online master, due to be aired, and are satisfied with how it turned out. We did a commecial the other week and I have to say it looks excellent and I can't think of any other camera that would improve on the overall quality. I also think if you are used to work with a video camera then a DSLR is a nightmare and you would hate it. A DP I assists from time to time shoots using a 5D often with different production companys. He always run into problem when not using my set because there are so few people that have figured everything out when it comes to DSLR shooting.

But I concur with you guys that something ranging from a FS100 to a F3 or better is preferable from a shooters perspective. But it has nothing to do with how other perceives it. It's just futile to think any of these large sensor video cameras can kill of the hype of HD DSLR shooting.

if they jump from using your 7D to a Red, they have budget hey aren't telling you about. Noone makes the jump from a $150 5D rental, to a $1250 REDone rental cause you offered them a $350 AF100 rental.

pulpfiction007
03-28-2011, 04:59 PM
I could stop renting my 5DmkII and force them into the AF101 but then they might choose to use a RED instead. How strange it might sound. We've used 7D and 5D so many times but next job I guess is a RED camera based one and it'll be interesting to see what comes out.

I can understand people around me that looks at the final online master, due to be aired, and are satisfied with how it turned out. We did a commecial the other week and I have to say it looks excellent and I can't think of any other camera that would improve on the overall quality. I also think if you are used to work with a video camera then a DSLR is a nightmare and you would hate it. A DP I assists from time to time shoots using a 5D often with different production companys. He always run into problem when not using my set because there are so few people that have figured everything out when it comes to DSLR shooting.

But I concur with you guys that something ranging from a FS100 to a F3 or better is preferable from a shooters perspective. But it has nothing to do with how other perceives it. It's just futile to think any of these large sensor video cameras can kill of the hype of HD DSLR shooting.

No one is saying DLSR killer here....in fact I still believe a T2i at $699 is probably the most bang for your buck ever achieved in the video world...or a GH1 for lord knows how cheap. In my mind there are 3 to 4 different markets for these large sensor cameras (I'm talking ownership here)

Ultra low budget: $3000/4000 and under for camera and basic accessories - This is the HUGE DLSR contingent....people who in the past would get a prosumer 3 chipper with or without 35mm adapter. Some even get everything for under $2000 These guys will keep on with DLSRs because it's still the only large sensor game in town.

Low budget: $5000/10,000 and under: These owners may have an EX1, XHA1, HVX200, HMC150, etc, but bought DLSRs to either compliment or completely change their work because of the aesthetic you're talking about.........THIS is the crowd who WILL move on......Because they can now get the aesthetic, without the pain. Yes, there are exceptions and some will use DLSRs for B cams but believe you me- You give me $7000 to $8000 to spend on a camera...I won't come back with a Canon DLSR and a frankenrig, I'll come back with an FS100 or an AF100!

Market 3: $10,000 and up: Productions or people that use out of convenience/ form factor/low cost per unit- great image for special situations, shows, etc. like the House season finale or Black Swan subway....Money is usually not the main factor here.

Lee Saxon
03-28-2011, 05:59 PM
because now there are options in the middle

This is especially exciting for guys like me who want to own not rent but have pretty high expectations.

We had no options not that long ago.

Kholi
03-28-2011, 06:16 PM
And can you hit the white balance button without a pencil tip?

Oh, and I think I CAN say that there isn't an issue with any of the buttons on the camera. hahaha. I could punch 'em all pretty a-okay.

vanvideo
03-28-2011, 08:31 PM
Oh, and I think I CAN say that there isn't an issue with any of the buttons on the camera. hahaha. I could punch 'em all pretty a-okay.


I suspected as much. A previous reviewer's comments on the buttons bordered on the incredulous to me. I've never had such an issue with any camera, ever. That includes my VG10, which has truly miniscule controls.

Osslund
03-29-2011, 12:32 AM
if they jump from using your 7D to a Red, they have budget hey aren't telling you about. Noone makes the jump from a $150 5D rental, to a $1250 REDone rental cause you offered them a $350 AF100 rental.

Forget about a 7D because it's nothing like a 5D to get the biggest sensor for video shooting. I don't think they would choose a RED purely based on budget but based on something else. Often it's to work with another DP who owns a RED or prefers it rather than getting a certain look. That's why I might take an AF101 if I'm DP. It's a tool I know and can work with comfortable. I guess you feel the same about your F3.

TimurCivan
03-29-2011, 12:45 AM
Forget about a 7D because it's nothing like a 5D to get the biggest sensor for video shooting. I don't think they would choose a RED purely based on budget but based on something else. Often it's to work with another DP who owns a RED or prefers it rather than getting a certain look. That's why I might take an AF101 if I'm DP. It's a tool I know and can work with comfortable. I guess you feel the same about your F3.

i bought the F3 to rent it out. i'm most comfortable on R1. TheF3 is a new kid on the block. i dont really know it yet.... learning though.

avro
03-29-2011, 05:06 PM
7d is better then 5d in at least 1 feature-SLOW MO-50p....thats why i like it more then 5d.

TimurCivan
03-29-2011, 05:24 PM
Yea 60 p is cool on the7d.

PappasArts
03-29-2011, 07:25 PM
Oh, and I think I CAN say that there isn't an issue with any of the buttons on the camera. hahaha. I could punch 'em all pretty a-okay.

Kholi- Did the handle/grip feel as if it would unscrew and fall off too? :-D


--
Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

Kholi
03-29-2011, 09:05 PM
Will post a ton of thoughts when I get the clear... Just took it out to shoot off the cuff stuff...

Form factor is OH-so-sick.

Matty_g
03-29-2011, 09:23 PM
One man's sick is another man's silly.

yoclay
03-29-2011, 10:02 PM
No one is saying DLSR killer here....in fact I still believe a T2i at $699 is probably the most bang for your buck ever achieved in the video world...or a GH1 for lord knows how cheap. In my mind there are 3 to 4 different markets for these large sensor cameras (I'm talking ownership here)

Ultra low budget: $3000/4000 and under for camera and basic accessories - This is the HUGE DLSR contingent....people who in the past would get a prosumer 3 chipper with or without 35mm adapter. Some even get everything for under $2000 These guys will keep on with DLSRs because it's still the only large sensor game in town.

Low budget: $5000/10,000 and under: These owners may have an EX1, XHA1, HVX200, HMC150, etc, but bought DLSRs to either compliment or completely change their work because of the aesthetic you're talking about.........THIS is the crowd who WILL move on......Because they can now get the aesthetic, without the pain. Yes, there are exceptions and some will use DLSRs for B cams but believe you me- You give me $7000 to $8000 to spend on a camera...I won't come back with a Canon DLSR and a frankenrig, I'll come back with an FS100 or an AF100!

Market 3: $10,000 and up: Productions or people that use out of convenience/ form factor/low cost per unit- great image for special situations, shows, etc. like the House season finale or Black Swan subway....Money is usually not the main factor here.

It has been my experience, that the people who get the most work with DSLR's know what they DON'T do well. I regularly win out clients now because I explain to them the situations in which their scenarios are not well accomodated by a DSLR. I then augment for those situations with an appropriate camera. The paradox is that this B-Cam is often better than the A-cam! However, in terms of rental there is a lot of cost savings and the client is happy that I have a handle on the situation.

The reality of DSLR's remains however that their popularity is do to 2 things:

1) Most bread and butter work is talking heads, and aside from a few marching ants in bushy eyebrowed politicians, they do this astonishing well with their capacity for narrow DOF.

2) Multicam is now an affordable reality and is not going away anytime soon. This allows for more dynamic edits and also the ancillary benefit of cheaper costing/greater availability of lenses in the DSLR world.

My billing has tripled as a result in a period of deep recession these last two years.
People can bash DSLR's all they want, but my vote goes to where the money speaks the loudest truth.

Matty_g
03-29-2011, 10:08 PM
Doing multicam is hardly ever about the cost of a camera for me, It's the crew to properly use it.

yoclay
03-29-2011, 10:29 PM
Doing multicam is hardly ever about the cost of a camera for me, It's the crew to properly use it.

No cost. Mostly fixed positions. I regularly shoot 3 cams with just a single assistant.
If it was shoulder mount stuff then yes, but even then every one of them out there owns at least one DSLR these days.
Though I defintitely agree with you that labor usually trumps material costs otherwise.

Really the days of a videographer showing up with a single camcorder are dwindling.
I have consistently noticed that clients don't so much prefer DSLR's, but rather multicam.
This is frankly more bang for the buck as far as they are concerned and I don't think they are at all ignorant of the trade-offs.
Most of them are visually educated and intelligent people. I don't like the client bashing I often see here for this reason.

In any case I am not arguing with the figures. This is what I see and the profit margins are bearing this out.

I don't shoot weddings, but I imagine this is equally true for that market.

Kholi
03-29-2011, 10:53 PM
One man's sick is another man's silly.

Hater

Viddovation
03-29-2011, 10:54 PM
2) Multicam is now an affordable reality and is not going away anytime soon. This allows for more dynamic edits and also the ancillary benefit of cheaper costing/greater availability of lenses in the DSLR world.


No cost. Mostly fixed positions. I regularly shoot 3 cams with just a single assistant.
If it was shoulder mount stuff then yes, but even then every one of them out there owns at least one DSLR these days.
Though I defintitely agree with you that labor usually trumps material costs otherwise.

Really the days of a videographer showing up with a single camcorder are dwindling.
I have consistently noticed that clients don't so much prefer DSLR's, but rather multicam.
This is frankly more bang for the buck as far as they are concerned and I don't think they are at all ignorant of the trade-offs.
Most of them are visually educated and intelligent people. I don't like the client bashing I often see here for this reason.

In any case I am not arguing with the figures. This is what I see and the profit margins are bearing this out.

I don't shoot weddings, but I imagine this is equally true for that market.


Honestly, this baffles me. We must have very different ideas of multi-cam.

You indicate that you're running all these cameras yourself. While in theory, more angles can be better, without separate operators, the value added of each additional camera diminishes.

Furthermore, without separate operators, shallow depth of field becomes a severe liability in most shooting situations. Which suggests to me that you're probably shooting with a deeper depth of field, thereby mitigating one of the key aesthetic advantages DSLRs potentially provide. It would follow you would also therefore encounter more aliasing and moire than if you were shooting shallow DOF. Also, given the 12 minute record limit, with less operators than cameras, you'll be doing a lot of floating to make sure you're still recording.

DSLRs also lack a number of features that immediately come to mind for multi-cam work, namely:
*Genlock
*Time code
*Clean feed SDI
*Lengthy record duration
*Servo-zoom. Of course, you can add this, but at considerable expense

Obviously, a happy client is key - and if DSLRs are keeping your clients happy, then you're doing something right.

But that doesn't feel like real mutlicam to me...

yoclay
03-29-2011, 11:25 PM
Honestly, this baffles me. We must have very different ideas of multi-cam.

You indicate that you're running all these cameras yourself. While in theory, more angles can be better, without separate operators, the value added of each additional camera diminishes.

Furthermore, without separate operators, shallow depth of field becomes a severe liability in most shooting situations. Which suggests to me that you're probably shooting with a deeper depth of field, thereby mitigating one of the key aesthetic advantages DSLRs potentially provide. It would follow you would also therefore encounter more aliasing and moire than if you were shooting shallow DOF. Also, given the 12 minute record limit, with less operators than cameras, you'll be doing a lot of floating to make sure you're still recording.

DSLRs also lack a number of features that immediately come to mind for multi-cam work, namely:
*Genlock
*Time code
*Clean feed SDI
*Lengthy record duration
*Servo-zoom. Of course, you can add this, but at considerable expense

Obviously, a happy client is key - and if DSLRs are keeping your clients happy, then you're doing something right.

But that doesn't feel like real mutlicam to me...

Not sure what "real" multicam is.

Here's an example of what I do. It is vastly different than a few years ago. Changing times require changing one's methodology.

Most interviews that I have worked on don't go 12 minutes before something comes up between the subjects and we can do a quick cut.
f4-f4.5 on a 5d is largely sufficient for achieving shallow enough DOF and still holding focus.
If I provide a tight shot on both the interviewer and the subject at 45 degrees, that's two cameras and then a 3rd wider camera on the both of them for instance that's already a situation where multicam trumps most traditional offerings.
Greater time savings keeps everyone happy in this case as well. When you have an important subject, you never have enough time. 15 min. with a CEO of a major corporation or a politician is practically unheard of. I definitely come back with more dynamic edits as a result of this simple configuration than the traditional vid guy who just shoots with one cam and a heck of a lot of DOF.

I usually work with a single assistant. Usually at least one of the three cameras is wide enough that focus isn't much of an issue, it is also a safety shot if we don't hit our marks with the other two. Otherwise, I will take a 2nd operator for more complex stuff where everyone (including the subjects) are moving. This only happens rarely though.

This is just one scenario for instance amongst many that I see the benefits.

Pluraleyes works just fine for Post-sync of multicam in most situations, except noisy exteriors where the general ambiance is fairly saturated and a camera position is a fair distance away. A quick clap usually does the job, so the software can kick in later. Pluraleyes is pretty adequate with my lavs or a boomed microphone, so no issues with that either.

Servo Zoom as a style seems a bit old fashioned to me, most clients don't seem to want it happening in shot anymore. They say, "too 70's!" Therefore a traditional stills zoom works just fine for quickly changing focal lengths. Something like a Zeiss 35-70 f3.5 is ungodly sharp and a third the price. Zooms are mostly only important to me though when I am doing slider or dolly shots from a position which isn't easily shiftable.

I own about 30 still lenses at about the cost of 5 good quality traditional video lenses. This means that I always have several "lens kits" available, based on my needs. I even have TS lenses if I really want to do funky focus or architectural stuff. From a creativity point of view, it's great to be able to own rather than rent.

With DSLR's multicam is easy and we can be light on our feet too, popping a small camera off of a fluid head is a breeze. I have achieved fairly well stabilized images using only a neckstrap! Show me a camcorder with a large sensor that can do that!

I think that kind of flexibility is what the FS100 market is probably intended for. Do I think it's a well designed camera for my needs, well, I have my doubts.

squig
03-30-2011, 12:13 AM
My 2 cents.

From what I've seen and heard so far the FS100 appears to be the sub 6k camera to beat. I've just finished the 2nd draft of my feature script and I'm raising the money now to shoot it (If anyone has $3 million lying around pm me). Unless Canon brings out something better by the time I start shooting I'll use an FS100 recording to a ninja and a few GH13s as crash/b/helmet cams. I've got a full set of vintage leica glass and 3 iscorama anamorphic lenses to use on whichever body I end up getting.

Hey Kholi is it 10 bit out over HDMI? I've been going through the other threads but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. What does the sucker weight without anything attached except the battery?

Kholi
03-30-2011, 01:20 AM
My 2 cents.

From what I've seen and heard so far the FS100 appears to be the sub 6k camera to beat. I've just finished the 2nd draft of my feature script and I'm raising the money now to shoot it (If anyone has $3 million lying around pm me). Unless Canon brings out something better by the time I start shooting I'll use an FS100 recording to a ninja and a few GH13s as crash/b/helmet cams. I've got a full set of vintage leica glass and 3 iscorama anamorphic lenses to use on whichever body I end up getting.

I did a WTF when I saw your name in this thread. Haha. Honestly, I think your assessment is pretty spot on. But, I have to bite my tongue until I can say more.

P.S. ... the Ninja is such a nice module to have, man. Firmware updates will make it even better. These things might go through a shortage, so pick one up while you can.


Hey Kholi is it 10 bit out over HDMI? I've been going through the other threads but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. What does the sucker weight without anything attached except the battery?I have no idea how to tell, actually. I am really confused as to why people want the 10-Bit, but I am sure there's a good reason. IMO, I'd be more interested in the 4:4:4 recorder I'm reading about, but to each their own. If someone tells me how to check I'll do so.

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 01:37 AM
I think the best statement I've heard is "those who've been the most successful with the 7D are those who work around where it doesn't excel" (horrible paraphrased I know). I fit in this category for sure. I have absolutely loved working with my 7D. I also know that I've tried to push it where it doesn't do well and have been very disappointed with the results. My WHOLE reason for the AF100 was opening up what I could offer in my cinematic skill set. Two weekends ago I was able to shoot handheld action shots with my AF100 with an 85mm lens. That WOULD NOT work well on the 7D, which would even be a slightly wider shot. I'd have had jello all over the place, because i've tried doing that before. NOTHING you can add to the 7D is going to help you get better skew. My choices with the 7D would have been locking down the shot and then adding the shake in post with sacrificing more image quality with having to blow up the image.

Even further, there were shots in a neighborhood, with bricks and shingles. I wanted deep focus on these shots. I can not do those sorts of shots easily on the 7D. With roofs, more often than not they alias/moire in rainbows. Once again, with the 7D I have to change what I want in the scene to overcome a limitation in the camera.

I was fine with this for a long time, but it was really a big pain having to add one more level of checking the subject matter when I was filming. It required me to have an external monitor attached so I could see the moire as you CANNOT detect it in camera.

How can we quantify a price on this? The AF100 sensor is TWICE as fast as the 5D (little less than twice for the 7D as the 7D is faster than the 5D). I think that is significant in itself.

And as for the 720p60 in the 7D, it is absolute crap. I feel like I've earned the right to say that. We shot SO MUCH stuff with the 720p60 and the aliasing/moire from the 7D is unbelievable. I think it's the worst 720p I have ever seen! :) When I shot 1080p60 on the AF100, I think a tear might have dropped from my eye! :) Haha.

But, all that said, I still tell people to get the GH2, t3i, 60d, t2i, 7d, 5d because I realize not everyone has reached the level of the AF100/FS100. Needs are not universal. And people are at all levels of 'video' requirements. I still use my 7D on some things when I don't want to lug out the AF100 when it isn't important. The 7D is small and unobtrusive. If you can't see the benefit in the price difference jumping up to the AF100/FS100, then DON'T do it. It's not the camera for you. I think nothing less of people that don't want to make that jump. However, I am SURE to point out to them when they ask for my input, all the skew, jello, moire, aliasing, and bad compression.

It's funny as I've been in a lot of discussion over the AF100 and FS100 because I am contemplating moving to the FS100. I've had people picking my brain thinking there is some magical feature of the FS100 that I want, or I am hiding something about my AF100, and it's just not true. The FS100 interests me because it's smaller and lighter. That's THE driving force. I can add ND filtering to the FS100, but I can't remove weight beyond the handle and side grip of the AF100.

Getting back to the original point, I agree. I think that is a good perspective to look at. :)

brunerww
03-30-2011, 05:27 AM
The FS100 interests me because it's smaller and lighter. That's THE driving force. I can add ND filtering to the FS100, but I can't remove weight beyond the handle and side grip of the AF100.

I agree with you, Rick. You can add an ND filter, but you can't shrink the camera. And moire and aliasing are like incurable diseases, the gifts that keep on giving.

My criteria for choosing a cam for either paid or casual shoots is 1) no moire (which means no Canons) 2) size and weight (I'm too old to lug around big, heavy cameras). I am presently a GH2 shooter, but am on this forum because I am seriously looking at the FS100.

Have you looked at trading in the 7D for a GH2 as a B-cam while you wait for the Sony? Compatible lenses, a lot less moire and aliasing than the Canons, smaller form factor than the AF100.

I'm not usually a pixel-peeper, but these slashcam.de chart results for the GH2, AF100/101 and 7D are interesting:

GH2
http://images4.slashcam.de/texte/911-ISO340-ISO340.jpg

AF100
http://images4.slashcam.de/texte/922-ISO340-14-42_ISO340.jpg


7D
http://images2.slashcam.de/texte/911-ISO340_7D-ISO340_7D.jpg


Source material (translated from German) here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashcam.de%2Fartikel%2FTest%2F Panasonic-AG-AF101--24P---Aus-dem-Messlabor.html%23Aus_d) and here (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashcam.de%2Fartikel%2FTest%2F Panasonic-GH2---der-kompakte-Ueberflieger--Aus-dem-Messlabor.html)

Cheers,

Bill

Viddovation
03-30-2011, 07:47 AM
Not sure what "real" multicam is.

Here's an example of what I do. It is vastly different than a few years ago. Changing times require changing one's methodology.

Most interviews that I have worked on don't go 12 minutes before something comes up between the subjects and we can do a quick cut.
f4-f4.5 on a 5d is largely sufficient for achieving shallow enough DOF and still holding focus.
If I provide a tight shot on both the interviewer and the subject at 45 degrees, that's two cameras and then a 3rd wider camera on the both of them for instance that's already a situation where multicam trumps most traditional offerings.
Greater time savings keeps everyone happy in this case as well. When you have an important subject, you never have enough time. 15 min. with a CEO of a major corporation or a politician is practically unheard of. I definitely come back with more dynamic edits as a result of this simple configuration than the traditional vid guy who just shoots with one cam and a heck of a lot of DOF.

I usually work with a single assistant. Usually at least one of the three cameras is wide enough that focus isn't much of an issue, it is also a safety shot if we don't hit our marks with the other two. Otherwise, I will take a 2nd operator for more complex stuff where everyone (including the subjects) are moving. This only happens rarely though.

This is just one scenario for instance amongst many that I see the benefits.

Pluraleyes works just fine for Post-sync of multicam in most situations, except noisy exteriors where the general ambiance is fairly saturated and a camera position is a fair distance away. A quick clap usually does the job, so the software can kick in later. Pluraleyes is pretty adequate with my lavs or a boomed microphone, so no issues with that either.

Servo Zoom as a style seems a bit old fashioned to me, most clients don't seem to want it happening in shot anymore. They say, "too 70's!" Therefore a traditional stills zoom works just fine for quickly changing focal lengths. Something like a Zeiss 35-70 f3.5 is ungodly sharp and a third the price. Zooms are mostly only important to me though when I am doing slider or dolly shots from a position which isn't easily shiftable.

I own about 30 still lenses at about the cost of 5 good quality traditional video lenses. This means that I always have several "lens kits" available, based on my needs. I even have TS lenses if I really want to do funky focus or architectural stuff. From a creativity point of view, it's great to be able to own rather than rent.

With DSLR's multicam is easy and we can be light on our feet too, popping a small camera off of a fluid head is a breeze. I have achieved fairly well stabilized images using only a neckstrap! Show me a camcorder with a large sensor that can do that!

I think that kind of flexibility is what the FS100 market is probably intended for. Do I think it's a well designed camera for my needs, well, I have my doubts.

Okay. So what you're talking about is using multiple cameras on a 1 person interview. That makes a sort of sense. I certainly do that when I can, althougth I tend to do so using cameras with Letus DOF adapters or now - my PMW-F3.

When you said multi-cam I got the impression you were trying to cover a stage or venue. The 1 person interview means all your cameras are probably within 6 feet of each other. But for larger venues... that's not a practical answer.

So yes, what you're doing makes sense... but not in other multi-cam scenarios.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 08:00 AM
The FS100 interests me because it's smaller and lighter. That's THE driving force. I can add ND filtering to the FS100, but I can't remove weight beyond the handle and side grip of the AF100.

Getting back to the original point, I agree. I think that is a good perspective to look at. :)

The FS is smaller, but I don't think the weight between the two cameras will be much different. The AF100 is one of the lightest pro cameras I've held. What the FS can do is reduce to a very small, unobtrusive, compact package. I can see the benefits of that.
Right now, I like the FS better than the AF for purely aesthetic reasons - I just like the design better. It's very much in the mold of Epic and Scarlet, gotta give Jannard his due there. Now that the FS is out, I wonder if the Scarlet will go back for yet another design change?

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 09:23 AM
The FS100 without battery I think is 1.9 pounds whereas the AF100 is 2.6. That's significant to me. :) But I agree with the size issue more. I really don't use the EVF so it just sits there taking up space.

As far as the charts go, I am very familiar with those charts. Yet, what baffles me is we went out and shot with the GH2 and AF100 in a neighborhood and the AF100 had NO aliasing and moire, yet the GH2 did, especially on the fins of an AC unit beside a house, and I believe on the brick structures.

I'm just glad no one puts test patterns on their roofs or walls :P

Danielvilliers
03-30-2011, 10:08 AM
I am really confused as to why people want the 10-Bit, but I am sure there's a good reason.

The reason is very simple, in a 8bit image you get only 256 steps/shades of red, green and blue in an rgb image. While 10bit brings it to 1024 and is another order of magnitude. For normal shooting where the person does not color correct the image much it should not cause too much problem (even then you might get steps in fine gradient like the sky for example). But if you intend to do some medium to heavy color correction then it will cause some heavy posterisation. Some will say that you have to shoot to edit but there are many modern look (some old also) that are impossible to do in camera. If you are into fantasy or the Hollywood in vogue yellow and teal look are impossible just shooting in camera. When you take the known quality of F3 sensor and put only a 8 bit output, many will feel that it is really crippling its performance.

Lee Saxon
03-30-2011, 10:14 AM
Now that the FS is out, I wonder if the Scarlet will go back for yet another design change?

God I hope not, I'm ready for the damn thing to be released. Plus, I don't think this thing really competes with the Scarlet.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 11:12 AM
The AF100 is a pro camera. The FS is not. not to say it cant be used for pro work, but the feature set is not a professional feature set. Its going ot be interesting, but its just an odd odd camera.....

Jarrett P. Morgan
03-30-2011, 11:28 AM
The AF100 is a pro camera. The FS is not. not to say it cant be used for pro work, but the feature set is not a professional feature set. Its going ot be interesting, but its just an odd odd camera.....

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that the FS100 isn't a pro cam?

dustylense
03-30-2011, 11:32 AM
Just out of curiosity, why do you say that the FS100 isn't a pro cam?
To me, a pro camera is a camera in the hands of a pro.

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 11:39 AM
To me, a pro camera is a camera in the hands of a pro.
Not to me; to me that's a professional using a camera. It doesn't elevate the tool itself to being a tool designed for professionals.

Jimi Hendrix could probably have played some wicked tunes on this...
http://www.amazon.com/Wow-Wee-Paper-Jamz-Guitar/dp/tags-on-product/B00342LJOW
But even if he did, would that elevate it to being a "professional guitar"? I wouldn't say so; I mean, in general, you don't see musicians using toys like that, they use Stratocasters and whatnot. Products that were designed to provide the capabilities that pros need.

A pro camera is designed to meet the workflow requirements, reliability requirements, connectivity requirements, and featureset requirements that professional are accustomed to having and using.

Sure, pros can choose to use amateur/consumer/prosumer gear but that doesn't make the camera itself a designed-for-professionals piece of equipment.

There are some products that are designed with the needs of the professional in mind. Simple case in point -- HDMI vs. HD-SDI. They both transport the same uncompressed digital video and audio signals, but there's an absolute gulf of difference between the professional acceptablility of, ruggedness of, security of, and reliability of, HD-SDI. It's a locking connector designed for long cable runs, it transports timecode and 24PsF, and every professional monitor has and uses HD-SDI. HDMI is a consumer standard that's made to plug a blu-ray player into a TV, not made for the changing and shifting requirements of a professional. Adam Wilt refers to HDMI as a "self-ejecting cable standard." And mini-HDMI is the worst.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 11:42 AM
The AF100 is a pro camera. The FS is not. not to say it cant be used for pro work, but the feature set is not a professional feature set. Its going ot be interesting, but its just an odd odd camera.....

Ummm...what?

Alvise Tedesco
03-30-2011, 12:17 PM
Will post a ton of thoughts when I get the clear... Just took it out to shoot off the cuff stuff...

Form factor is OH-so-sick.

Looking forward to your thoughts
I'm too Gallic a out the FS100

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 12:17 PM
I don't understand the confusion?

The camera is an amalgamation of consumer components.

Hdmi only, sony alpha mount, no ND's, no timecode in/out, no genlock, (I doubt it has the depth of the F3 image controls)... etc.

The camera is literally useless to me on set. ( productions I work on require client monitoring, offboard recording, PL, and often multi camera matching)

dustylense
03-30-2011, 12:54 PM
Barry,

I'm primarily a stills shooter. I sold my "professional" canon 1Ds MK3 for a 5d mk2. And after that, many of my pro friends did the same.

Is it not stated, BY SONY, that the FS100 is targeted for the Indie film maker, wedding and event guys, or more say the "prosumer"? And here we have a MAJORITY of posts saying, "well, it's not a pro camera. So it's not for me". Is the 5d mark 2 a pro camera? I've seen PLENTY of PRO work done on it.
I recall A LOT of discussion about using a nanoflash on the AF100, and most of the users (including you) said they could NOT tell the difference between the Nano and AVCHD capture. Was your western project filmed with Nano and HD-SDI?
So what, there's a FS100. There's a AF100. I say, pick the one that suits you and works best for you.
The main difference I find between the 2 will be how each auto focuses. Lots of people like having auto focus, that works. I'll bet the FS100 will eat the af100 in that arena. For the wedding guy, that may make the difference. For the run and gunner that wants large chip, same applies. Which camera will better suit the guy jumping from HDSLR? Aren't both cameras targeted as such the device, as stated by both Panny and Sony? How will each of these cameras hold up against lets say a 5D MK3 if Canon includes a new codec with 422 at 50 m/bit and uncompressed HDMI out?

Both cameras are cool. Both will have their advantage. Neither will be on the next Transformers set. More cameras will come.

As for your Hendrix analogy. I have a Fender Strat. A top of the line american made custom one. I will say this. Hendrix would kick my ass with the Amazon $14 guitar. So you could give me a RED Epic, and Spielberg a GH2, and guess what? I'm sure your guess is correct.

I think the fs100 will be a hit, and sell very well, for those it's targeted at. For those where they think it's not pro, DON'T BUY IT! It's that simple.

dustylense
03-30-2011, 01:01 PM
I don't understand the confusion?

The camera is an amalgamation of consumer components.

Hdmi only, sony alpha mount, no ND's, no timecode in/out, no genlock, (I doubt it has the depth of the F3 image controls)... etc.

The camera is literally useless to me on set. ( productions I work on require client monitoring, offboard recording, PL, and often multi camera matching)

Then DON't BUY or THINK of using it. Look at the 5d MK2 Timur. Has none of what you mention! Doesn't stop Shane Hurlbut.
Usless because the FS100 has no PL? I've seen gh1's with PL adapted.

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 01:25 PM
Is it not stated, BY SONY, that the FS100 is targeted for the Indie film maker, wedding and event guys, or more say the "prosumer"? And here we have a MAJORITY of posts saying, "well, it's not a pro camera. So it's not for me".
No argument there.


Is the 5d mark 2 a pro camera?
For stills, definitely yes. For video? Unquestionably not.


I've seen PLENTY of PRO work done on it.
Sure. But that doesn't make it a professional video camera, it just makes it a video camera that pros have used.


So what, there's a FS100. There's a AF100. I say, pick the one that suits you and works best for you.
Agreed, of course. I don't think anyone is arguing that. Evaluate each one for what it does, and recognize what it doesn't do, and acknowledge what the product doesn't do, and if you're willing or able to work around that.


Which camera will better suit the guy jumping from HDSLR? Aren't both cameras targeted as such the device, as stated by both Panny and Sony?
Maybe by Sony, but not by Panasonic. Jan of Panasonic USA says that the AF100 is for the HPX170/HVX200/EX1 type of shooter who's been using a Letus or Brevis lens adapter and wants to get rid of that hassle.

Frankly I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Sony is, to my eyes, exactly engineered for that target market of graduating DSLR users. I think it is aimed at DSLR shooters who want to move up to the next level. It is a NEX, which is Sony's line of DSLR/camcorder hybrids. It doesn't have an ND filter wheel or HD-SDI or timecode sync or things like that, but the DSLR shooter never had those things anyway so they're much less likely to miss them. The AF100 is instead aimed at the pro shooter who's always had ND filters and HD-SDI and timecode sync and all those other things, and doesn't want to give those up, but who wants to add shallow DOF to their shooting arsenal. Or that pro shooter who had those things, made the step down to a DSLR to gain the shallow DOF, and really wishes they had all the other capabilities back. Now they can have what they wanted.

Does that mean the FS-100 is targeted at a broader market and might outsell the AF100? Maybe. So? We're not here arguing about which one's penis is bigger or which one will be the bigger hit in the marketplace. Instead we were discussing that it appears that each is aimed at a different segment of the market. To me that's a good thing -- differentiation helps the end user to decide which one is more appropriate for their use.


How will each of these cameras hold up against lets say a 5D MK3 if Canon includes a new codec with 422 at 50 m/bit and uncompressed HDMI out?
Seeing as a) such a product is currently only speculation, and b) even if it does exist, it'll still be a stills camera... I think any prosumer or above would still rather have either an FS100 or AF100. Unless, of course, their primary interest is in shooting stills, in which case the 5D Mark III would have a significant advantage there.

And, of course, there are those to whom the DSLR represents the pinnacle of form factor and engineering and end results. There are people who cannot fathom why anybody would spend more for an AF100 over a GH2, or more for an FS100 than a 60D, and who in fact think that pros are being "ripped off" or that they're stupid for thinking they need these higher-level products. For those people, I'm sure they would prefer a 5D Mark III over either of the alternatives. Fortunately for those people, there are plenty of DSLRs on the market, so they can buy what they want today and go shoot and hopefully quit trying to educate the pros on why it is that these people who have been shooting professionally for decades "don't know what they're doing".


Both cameras are cool. Both will have their advantage. Neither will be on the next Transformers set. More cameras will come.
That's what we've all been saying. There is no one simple magic bullet. Every product will have compromises, every one of them will have its share of drawbacks, and the only way to overcome all those drawbacks is by spending more (which is why more-expensive products exist on the market). So figure out what it is that YOU want, what it is that YOU need. Forget what everyone else says, who cares if Shane Hurlbut uses a 5D, what does that have to do with YOU? What do YOU shoot? What features do you require? Timur has a 5D. He bought an F3, and doesn't use the 5D for video unless the client forces him to. He knows what he needs, and he doesn't believe the FS100 fits that bill. That's his personal requirements. The FS100 doesn't fit my requirements, but the AF100 does. Maybe a 5D fits yours. So what does it matter to me if Shane Hurlbut uses a 5D? What should it matter to you if Timur uses an F3? It doesn't matter at all, not one pixel, not one bit.

Evaluate what each product does and choose the one that most suits your particular usage requirements, period.


As for your Hendrix analogy. I have a Fender Strat. A top of the line american made custom one. I will say this. Hendrix would kick my ass with the Amazon $14 guitar.
Probably. But let me ask you this question -- did he use a $14 Amazon guitar (or that day's equivalent?) No? Why not?


So you could give me a RED Epic, and Spielberg a GH2, and guess what? I'm sure your guess is correct.
Sure, but let me ask you this -- does Spielberg shoot his films on a GH2? No? Why not?


I think the fs100 will be a hit, and sell very well, for those it's targeted at. For those where they think it's not pro, DON'T BUY IT! It's that simple.
I agree 100%.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 01:33 PM
I don't understand the confusion?

The camera is an amalgamation of consumer components.

Hdmi only, sony alpha mount, no ND's, no timecode in/out, no genlock, (I doubt it has the depth of the F3 image controls)... etc.

The camera is literally useless to me on set. ( productions I work on require client monitoring, offboard recording, PL, and often multi camera matching)

The confusion is, you think because it doesn't conform to your needs, it's not a professional device. I say, with the features it has on it, I can make an income off this camera. And I am a professional videographer.
And there will be a PL mount for the camera, as well as other mounts. Check out the Sony promo vid. It clearly has a PL adapter. The F3 and AF100 don't have native PL mounts. Does that make them non-professional? It can also be monitored through the HDMI port, as well as offboard recording.
And tell me, do Panavision cameras come with ND filter wheels? Does the RED? the Epic? The Alexa? the D21? Any Aaton?
The Canon XF300 doesn't have HD/SDI, timecode in/out or genlock. Do you consider it a non-professional grade camera? Tell that to the many professional videographers who are making their living with it.
Whether this camera can perform to the level professional videographers/ cinematographers need and expect remains to be seen. What say we hold off on judging it until it's in general circulation?

S. Matthews
03-30-2011, 01:40 PM
in terms of HD broadcast cam's it is definitly not professional feature level, but I don't think that is what it is meant to be. Not saying it is pro, just that buit in ND is a broadcast cam feature not many in cine style cam's (that I know of) and apparently it has timecode through hdmi but we are not sure on that yet so why the speculation of what it isn't before we know what it really is?

I could be wrong but we did fine with film camera's with no built in ND's for a while, as well as many of the other features that now define a "pro" camera whatever that is.

Maybe it's just me but I seem to think people are discussing two very different things here, and also defending their own decision making paths, but I can't read minds so who knows.

What market are we talking here one camera can be of professional level in one industry and not another(in terms of features and specialties), not quite what I am saying but for instance the 5d is a pro stills camera but not quite a pro video camera, for many more reasons than ND and timecode, but that does not mean you can work around it's shortcomings to produce professional level video.

have a good one! exciting times ahead... and now, have fun!

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 01:45 PM
Maybe it's just me but I seem to think people are discussing two very different things here, and also defending their own decision making paths, but I can't read minds so who knows.
Yep, I think that's exactly it.


What market are we talking here one camera can be of professional level in one industry and not another(in terms of features and specialties)
This is also very true. I wouldn't want to use an AF100 to shoot a live event with!

dustylense
03-30-2011, 01:48 PM
Barry,
You state "Maybe by Sony, but not by Panasonic. Jan of Panasonic USA says that the AF100 is for the HPX170/HVX200/EX1 type of shooter who's been using a Letus or Brevis lens adapter and wants to get rid of that hassle.".

May I suggest you watch this, and countless others like it: (about 35 seconds in. Or RIGHT OFF THE TOP!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiJZ36wIXmU

WInning!

dustylense
03-30-2011, 01:51 PM
LOL, THis is you Barry. this time you beat Jan by 20 secs and went in at 15 secs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZGtFZoSyhA&feature=related
Sorry Barry, but the power of the internet is too great.
So essentially, both sony AND PANNY have compared their cameras to people to jump FROM HDSLR's to these cameras. THAT IS THE TARGET MARKET, in Jan's and YOUR own words. Come on, count the times you say in this video, you say HDSLR or SLR.

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 01:53 PM
Right -- it's "a high-def camcorder with a large imager." Not a DSLR in a different body. Again, if you ask Jan, she'll tell you exactly how she positions it. It is for those who are used to or appreciate pro camcorder features, and who are not willing to make the compromises that a DSLR asks of you.

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 01:55 PM
LOL, THis is you Barry. this time you beat Jan by 20 secs and went in at 15 secs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZGtFZoSyhA&feature=related
I'm not Panasonic though. And that video was taken back in September before Panasonic had even stated what their official position on it was.

And this is getting a little silly, don't you think? With "Winning!" and playing "gotcha"? Why not just ask Jan what her official marketing position is on what the AF100 is and who it's aimed at?

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 01:55 PM
I think anyone trying to fully dictate whether any camera is professional enough is silly. There is A LOT of opinion involved in those statements.

For instance, my AF100 does not have Genlock, does that make it not pro?

Who gets to decide at how many features you are missing or have extra you are professional or not pertaining to equipment?

I think there is a BIG GREY area here. I *personally* think the FS100 is every bit as professional to me as the AF100. There are things they both lack that I think a professional camera should have, but, they are both BUDGET professional pieces of equipment.

Given that most videographers that shoot weddings I would consider professional, I think it is targeted for a segment of professional work, not just narrative work. People get so hyperfocused on THEIR use of PROFESSIONAL video acquisition, they fail to recognize that not every PROFESSIONAL application has all the same requirements.

Many people think that the onboard AVCHD is consumer level on the AF100. I don't, I think it's great, but I bet most people would agree that the P2 solution would be considered more robust and more professional (regardless of price).

The FS100 even has an SSD option?!? That's pretty professional to me.

See what I mean? It's all about opinion and needs. As a professional, only YOU can decide if it meets what YOU consider a professional piece of gear. Period. That's why no ones wrong :P

Doctor Wu
03-30-2011, 01:58 PM
Neither the FS100 or AF100 are clear cut winners in my opinion.
You have the panny which borrows a lot of parts from their consumer DSLR, and doesn't seem to resolve as well as one would expect, and then the FS100 which has a good imager but poor i/o features and lack of built in nd, etc.

There isn't a no-brainer in the under $7000 category, except for I think the Sony EX1R (10 bit, resolves ~1000 lines), which most people in this forum aren't even considering because of the shallow DOF kick we're on.

For paying clients though who sit by video village, you can't get around a good monitoring solution, and that's HD-SDI, and that's the Panny.

If you're the only one looking at the image, then FS100 should do you fine.

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 02:04 PM
Neither the FS100 or AF100 are clear cut winners in my opinion.
You have the panny which borrows a lot of parts from their consumer DSLR, and doesn't seem to resolve as well as one would expect, and then the FS100 which has a good imager but poor i/o features and lack of built in nd, etc.

There isn't a no-brainer in the under $7000 category, except for I think the Sony EX1R (10 bit, resolves ~1000 lines), which most people in this forum aren't even considering because of the shallow DOF kick we're on.

For paying clients though who sit by video village, you can't get around a good monitoring solution, and that's HD-SDI, and that's the Panny.

If you're the only one looking at the image, then FS100 should do you fine.

Or if you are working on that big a production, with that kind of Revenue, you move up to the F3. Or if you are using an onboard LCD anyways, you can use something like the TV Logic monitors that convert the HDMI to HD-SDI and there you go. Or you go with the solution coming out from CMR soon that takes HMDI and sends it wirelessly to the video village. We used this on our last shoot and it worked FANTASTIC.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 02:13 PM
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.

dustylense
03-30-2011, 02:15 PM
Barry,
My point is, that both companies say the word HDSLR when describing their product. EVERY SINGLE VIDEO by the marketing department compares these cameras to HDSLR's. So, who is really the target market when it comes to the marketing program as dictated by the marketing manager?
To quote you "Why not just ask Jan what her official marketing position is on what the AF100 is and who it's aimed at?"
I don't have to. It's on youtube, many times.

So going back to the point of what is a professional camera. I said the one in the professionals hands. The argument was that the AF100 has HD/SDI out, so therefore it's professional, and the FS100 is not. Would you consider a HVX200 professional? I have one, and have done many professional jobs with it. Sure, it has an awesome codec. Even if I had a Red Epic, I still will not sell my HVX! NEVER! It's trusty.
The FS100, too me, is just as professional as the AF100. Just as the GH2 is just as professional as the FS100. It's just how you use it and know the "limitations" and understanding them.

Love ya Barry! I really do. And you're right, it is silly. It's silly to sit and compare what camera is better when one of them is not even available yet. RED scarlet will blow all of them away. Wait! Scarlet has never produced more than 2.5 seconds of motion that we've seen? Shit! Red Scarlet vrs. Gh2? Crap!
This camera, that camera, it's endless. But a single feature (HD/SDI) to me cannot determine if a camera is pro or not....

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 02:16 PM
in terms of HD broadcast cam's it is definitly not professional feature level, but I don't think that is what it is meant to be. Not saying it is pro, just that buit in ND is a broadcast cam feature not many in cine style cam's (that I know of) and apparently it has timecode through hdmi but we are not sure on that yet so why the speculation of what it isn't before we know what it really is?

I could be wrong but we did fine with film camera's with no built in ND's for a while, as well as many of the other features that now define a "pro" camera whatever that is.


have a good one! exciting times ahead... and now, have fun!

Not that im complaining BUT.... The F3/FS100 only go down to ISO 580 @ -3dB. Thats WAAAAAAAY too sensitive for use in daylight. The F3 has the filters built in so knocking it down to an effective ISO50 is no sweat. The FS will need A LOT of ND in broad daylight. especially to shoot wide open. Think about it, on a sunny day, @ 180 degree shutter @ 24p:

IN broad daylight, you will need, using the Sunny F16 rule: @ f16 ISO 100 @ 1/50th a sec shutter. So to shoot @ a T2.8 you need six stops of ND. but wait... the FS is ISO 580 @ -3dB...... so make that 9 stops of ND. THATS ND 2.7!!!!!!!! thats INSANE!!!!!!!! Thats like $700-$1000 in good quality ND.......

the reason it wasnt a big deal in film days was you can get 50ASA daylight stock.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 02:26 PM
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.

Well, food for thought. Is the camera worth 6 grand?

But Timur, let me ask you a question -

If you were given an FS100 (with a PL adapter, of course) to shoot a successful film, music video or commercial - could you do it?
All conjecture, of course, until we get real production models out there.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 02:30 PM
Well, food for thought. Is the camera worth 6 grand?

But Timur, let me ask you a question -

If you were given an FS100 (with a PL adapter, of course) to shoot a successful film, music video or commercial - could you do it?
All conjecture, of course, until we get real production models out there.


Ok. Heres my point... i COULD do it.... but its would be more difficult. So with the plethora of choices.... why?

Why choose to work so much harder, and add to the complexity of the film set.

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 02:44 PM
Since Barry brought up the Hendrix analogy which I agree with....I'll say this to add another element to the metaphor. Kurt Cobain played on pawn shop guitars....that LATER....became "serious" guitars again in the eyes of players. Now Kurt was no Jimi....but he made his mark another way. Many of us will play/shoot on whatever we can afford at the time and make money doing it, so in that respect the tool is a professional tool....and as far as the FS100 being pro or not - that depends on the user and his/her needs. I do get that the FS100 has less of the pro standard feature set than the AF100.....but a Fender Mustang (one of Cobain's pawn shop specials) was not as "quality" as a Strat.
If you don't need the HD SDI and don't mind adding NDs....I'm sure the FS100 can play just fine.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 02:48 PM
Not that im complaining BUT.... The F3/FS100 only go down to ISO 580 @ -3dB. Thats WAAAAAAAY too sensitive for use in daylight. The F3 has the filters built in so knocking it down to an effective ISO50 is no sweat. The FS will need A LOT of ND in broad daylight. especially to shoot wide open. Think about it, on a sunny day, @ 180 degree shutter @ 24p:

IN broad daylight, you will need, using the Sunny F16 rule: @ f16 ISO 100 @ 1/50th a sec shutter. So to shoot @ a T2.8 you need six stops of ND. but wait... the FS is ISO 580 @ -3dB...... so make that 9 stops of ND. THATS ND 2.7!!!!!!!! thats INSANE!!!!!!!! Thats like $700-$1000 in good quality ND.......

the reason it wasnt a big deal in film days was you can get 50ASA daylight stock.

OK, so I found a good 2.8 Zeiss zoom lens that would fit to an a-mount adapter on the FS100. To fit a circular ND 2.7 filter, I found a Hoya 77mm, B&H cost - $136.35. Would this be adequate ?

I couldn't find 4x4 filters in 2.7, but I did find one in 3.0 for $83.50 and 2.4 for 164.95.

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 02:51 PM
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.

But put the shoe on the other foot. You are paying $12k for a PL mount, genlock, ND filter and an HDSDI port? Maybe I think you are getting ripped off! :P (Yes, I know there is more than that, I'm just pointing out how others feel as well). I do not need genlock, I do not need PL mount, but I'd miss the ND filter and HDSDI port. That said, I think the ND filter implentation on the F3 is poorly conceived compared to the AF100 ND filter selection which works perfect for me. Why doesn't the F3 have a larger professional selection of built in ND? (And yes, I put professional in there to be snarky) :)

We can go at this all day because it's all opinion based on personal need. Why do SO MANY people use Matte boxes with 4x4 ND filters? Are they not professional? Not every camera in history has had built in ND filters. I am sure we can find a HUGE selection of cameras in history considered professional without ND.

Like I said, at what point do you say "It's missing 5 professional features, it's not professional". It's the same way I feel about the F3 and you needing an external recorder to get higher quality output from the camera. That DOES NOT interest me one bit, period. Sure, that's the design intent, but how many people have complained about using a DSLR and having to hang additional hardware off your rig to "make it professional". So it's okay to hang off an external recorder since the camera cannot handle recording higher quality video internally, but not when the camera records say inferior sound? Everything has tradeoffs. A $12k camera like the F3 is less elegant to me than say the Red Epic implementation. But I don't think it makes the F3 not professional.

It just makes me laugh, because everyone's requirements are not the same. Everyone's value add of features is not the same, yet everyone feels like they can decide what is professional or not. I'll decide that thank you :)

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 03:02 PM
But put the shoe on the other foot. You are paying $12k for a PL mount, genlock, ND filter and an HDSDI port? Maybe I think you are getting ripped off! :P

Absolutely not! those features have never been available in a camera this price before that offered so much. 10bit 422 , Dualink 444 is WELL worth the extra $3500. ITs like... remember the Andromeda? It took a SD DVX100, and made it into one of the most beautiful 720p cameras ever made. It was like RED before RED was RED. "Raw" workflow, amazingly organic images, and a grain that read film. it was the most amazing thing ever. the 444RGB out a F3 is the same thing. but its factory supported and made convenient by things like the SR deck or the Gemini.

And you say missing 5 features makes it non pro... well like, if you cut 5 features from a race car.... will it help the driver win the race?

Yes the car will finish the race but not first. unless hes ricky bobby. then it ALWAYS finishes first.

JWVaricam
03-30-2011, 03:05 PM
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.

So a bunch of suits has agreed to pay you $5 mil for a smaller feature with the condition/requirement that you have to chose either the FS100 or the HPX170. You could outfit the camera any way you would like, other than running a line to an even better camera. You'd still go with the HPX170???

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 03:05 PM
But put the shoe on the other foot. You are paying $12k for a PL mount, genlock, ND filter and an HDSDI port? Maybe I think you are getting ripped off! :P (Yes, I know there is more than that, I'm just pointing out how others feel as well). I do not need genlock, I do not need PL mount, but I'd miss the ND filter and HDSDI port. That said, I think the ND filter implentation on the F3 is poorly conceived compared to the AF100 ND filter selection which works perfect for me. Why doesn't the F3 have a larger professional selection of built in ND? (And yes, I put professional in there to be snarky) :)

We can go at this all day because it's all opinion based on personal need. Why do SO MANY people use Matte boxes with 4x4 ND filters? Are they not professional? Not every camera in history has had built in ND filters. I am sure we can find a HUGE selection of cameras in history considered professional without ND.

Like I said, at what point do you say "It's missing 5 professional features, it's not professional". It's the same way I feel about the F3 and you needing an external recorder to get higher quality output from the camera. That DOES NOT interest me one bit, period. Sure, that's the design intent, but how many people have complained about using a DSLR and having to hang additional hardware off your rig to "make it professional". So it's okay to hang off an external recorder since the camera cannot handle recording higher quality video internally, but not when the camera records say inferior sound? Everything has tradeoffs. A $12k camera like the F3 is less elegant to me than say the Red Epic implementation. But I don't think it makes the F3 not professional.

It just makes me laugh, because everyone's requirements are not the same. Everyone's value add of features is not the same, yet everyone feels like they can decide what is professional or not. I'll decide that thank you :)

Excellent post! I'm sure to a lot of HIGH HIGH end shooters, NONE of the cameras we're discussing qualify as professional. It is an endless cycle......It reminds me of the lens debates. One man's gold is a vintage Nikon....to the next guy a vintage Nikon is "not suitable" for cinema style shooting.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 03:09 PM
So a bunch of suits has agreed to pay you $5 mil for a smaller feature with the condition/requirement that you have to chose either the FS100 or the HPX170. You could outfit the camera any way you would like, other than running a line to an even better camera. You'd still go with the HPX170???

That would never happen. :P

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 03:11 PM
Excellent post! I'm sure to a lot of HIGH HIGH end shooters, NONE of the cameras we're discussing qualify as professional. It is an endless cycle......It reminds me of the lens debates. One man's gold is a vintage Nikon....to the next guy a vintage Nikon is "not suitable" for cinema style shooting.

+1

I think i lost perspective on whats valuable to some folks. Deal breaker for me, is no sweat to someone else.

JWVaricam
03-30-2011, 03:11 PM
That would never happen. :P

Chicken.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 03:17 PM
Chicken.


Well the truth is man, i would need to run monitors, have exposure tools. There is no winning in that scenario, because the HPX170 is great to work with. but needs a 35 adapter. The FS seems like its great to light with, ( sensitive) but the lack of standard protocols; means thigns like Black magic boxes and converters, and all this other crap. So its like really no wining.

Its about seting up easier, or shooting easier. This is the point. You should not have to make this choice in a 6K camera, when a $4700 AF100 does it ALL.

honestly its a coin toss. The speed i gain in setting up w/ a HPX170, is offset by the 35 adpter. The Speed i gain in lighting w/ the FS is offset by a complicated monitoring, and workarounds for standardizing the ouput and recording.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 03:18 PM
Using the kit lens for the FS100, if it's the same 67mm as on my VG10, would this 67mm fader ND filter work for most outdoor needs?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754981-REG/Light_Craft_418_67mm_Fader_ND_Mark.html

If so, I'm going to order one and see how it works. A poor man's ND filter wheel, if you will.

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 03:20 PM
Faders suck. Period. I'll sell you mine, I think I have the 82mm version. Make offer. Just get it out of here. :)

dustylense
03-30-2011, 03:24 PM
Faders do blow! Use standard ND's instead. The second your fader see sky, your shot is crap. It's a polarizer. It's OK if you don't see sky or polarized material (like blades of grass). Better off with a set of ND's....

dustylense
03-30-2011, 03:25 PM
Timur,
the sony will sell at much less than 6K. Body only I will say about $4900.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 03:31 PM
Timur,
the sony will sell at much less than 6K. Body only I will say about $4900.

I hope you're right! It's MSRP is a bit more.

JWVaricam
03-30-2011, 03:35 PM
Its about seting up easier, or shooting easier. This is the point. You should not have to make this choice in a 6K camera, when a $4700 AF100 does it ALL.

In the end, FS100 will probably be close to that $4700 figure. But good points to consider.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 03:36 PM
ok then a camera that costs as much.....

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 03:41 PM
Timur,
the sony will sell at much less than 6K. Body only I will say about $4900.

Even at $4900 though, it's still valid....for the same money the AF100 gives you the NDs, the HD SDI, and both LCD + VF. It really comes down to what each of us is most interested in....the AF's complete package or the FS100's smaller form factor and promising sensor design. I know it's not ALL about the sensor, but if this thing had the NEX VG10's sensor, no one would be talking about it!

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 03:48 PM
Even at $4900 though, it's still valid....for the same money the AF100 gives you the NDs, the HD SDI, and both LCD + VF. It really comes down to what each of us is most interested in....the AF's complete package or the FS100's smaller form factor and promising sensor design. I know it's not ALL about the sensor, but if this thing had the NEX VG10's sensor, no one would be talking about it!

Why not? The VG10 has an APS size sensor, just a little smaller than Super 35, bigger than the micro 4/3. I'm sure if it were in the FS100, there would be no aliasing or moire. The VG10 and FS100 share the same 18-200 stock lens and lens mount.

JWVaricam
03-30-2011, 04:00 PM
Why not? The VG10 has an APS size sensor, just a little smaller than Super 35, bigger than the micro 4/3. I'm sure if it were in the FS100, there would be no aliasing or moire. The VG10 and FS100 share the same 18-200 stock lens and lens mount.

The F3 sensor in a cheap camera is what has everyone whipped into a frenzy...

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 04:10 PM
Why not? The VG10 has an APS size sensor, just a little smaller than Super 35, bigger than the micro 4/3. I'm sure if it were in the FS100, there would be no aliasing or moire. The VG10 and FS100 share the same 18-200 stock lens and lens mount.

The key worde here...."no alising and moire" or at least very minimal. The NEX VG10 has a 14MP sensor....it's a DLSR sensor that has not been optimized for video- it allows still shooting and video shooting. The FS100's (around 3MP sensor) has been made from the ground up for video purposes only....so not only is the aliasing and moire gone, the larger photosites allow for better low light response. That being said the NEX VG10 still produces some nice video....that's precisely why I think the FS100 has a lot of promise!
I agree with JWVaricam...the F3 sensor is the talking point of this camera.

I do agree...even if the NEX VG10's 14mp sensor were tweaked and had little to no moire/aliasing and shot 24p...had 720 modes, had a few more bells and whistles....not only would it be the best bargain ever.....the release of this camera would not be so interesting.

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 04:13 PM
FaderND works great on my 30mm lens, but not so great on the others. I am going to switch to using dedicated ND filters myself instead. safest way to go. And I disagree the AF100 is ready to go all by itself. I used my smallHD monitor on it because I CANNOT reliably focus with the edge detect. I have tried for the life of me and I've just not had great results. It's either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. They really need to make in have a setting in the menus.

The edge detect on the smallHD works great.

And the FS100 has actually 2:1 zoom! We can't even get 1:1 on the AF100. That's a pretty pro feature :P Hehe.

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 04:33 PM
I do agree...even if the NEX VG10's 14mp sensor were tweaked and had little to no moire/aliasing and shot 24p...had 720 modes, had a few more bells and whistles....not only would it be the best bargain ever.....the release of this camera would not be so interesting.

There's a guy on a VG10 site that swears up and down the VG10 is going to get 24P and audio control updates in April. He claims he's talked to Sony reps and all that.
I say, we'll see. Of course, the same thing happened to the 5D.

squig
03-30-2011, 05:07 PM
I did a WTF when I saw your name in this thread. Haha. Honestly, I think your assessment is pretty spot on. But, I have to bite my tongue until I can say more.

P.S. ... the Ninja is such a nice module to have, man. Firmware updates will make it even better. These things might go through a shortage, so pick one up while you can.
I have no idea how to tell, actually. I am really confused as to why people want the 10-Bit, but I am sure there's a good reason. IMO, I'd be more interested in the 4:4:4 recorder I'm reading about, but to each their own. If someone tells me how to check I'll do so.

Hehe, yeah I haven't been posting a lot for a while, I've been busy finishing up at film school and working on my script but I've been lurking. Now I'm in pitching and pre-production mode so I'm thinking more about what to shoot with. Still using a 5D. Probably won't start principal photography till Aug/Sep at the earliest so I expect something from Canon by then.

The main issue with 8bit vs 10bit is banding. As someone mention you're talking 256 colours vs 1024. I remember back in the day when I was using the 1st version of photoshop we were working with 256 colours and it was really limiting. My film is an apocalyptic sci-fi action thriller and it's gonna have a very stylised look so 10bit will be a big plus in the grade. I've been hoping that the 2nd generation DSLRs will have 10bit uncompressed output. The F3 is 10bit but it's a big clunky thing that doesn't really work for my style of shooting. Apparently the AF100 has 10bit output but I'm just not interested in a 2x crop and 2 stops less dynamic range than the Sonys. I expect the Sony to be better in low light too.

Yeah the Ninja looks like the perfect mate for these 2nd gen camera's coupled with 2 80Gb solid state drives. My data wrangler happens to also be a very good editor so I'm going to set him up with a quad core macbook pro and have him cut as we shoot. Being able to encode straight to prores out of the camera will really speed things up and the quality will be amazing.

And Tim "not pro" c'mon man "pro" is a very subjective term and we've had that debate far too many times here. What cause it doesn't have NDs it's not "pro"? Rubbish, put it in the right hands and nobody will know your film wasn't shot on 35mm. With an anamorphic stretch this thing can just about output 3-4k.

squig
03-30-2011, 05:19 PM
"Sure, but let me ask you this -- does Spielberg shoot his films on a GH2? No? Why not?"

It might be because he has $3 billion dollars. If I did I'd be shooting with a babe called Alexa. Seeing as I'm too poor for Alexa I'll use something not quite as sexy but I'll bust my arse to make it look very close for a lot less money.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 05:43 PM
And Tim "not pro" c'mon man "pro" is a very subjective term and we've had that debate far too many times here. What cause it doesn't have NDs it's not "pro"? Rubbish, put it in the right hands and nobody will know your film wasn't shot on 35mm. With an anamorphic stretch this thing can just about output 3-4k.

Its alot more than the ND's....

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 05:51 PM
"Sure, but let me ask you this -- does Spielberg shoot his films on a GH2? No? Why not?"

It might be because he has $3 billion dollars. If I did I'd be shooting with a babe called Alexa. Seeing as I'm too poor for Alexa I'll use something not quite as sexy but I'll bust my arse to make it look very close for a lot less money.

And that's the point, right there. You will have to "bust your arse" to make something that looks and acts anywhere near as good as what he could do with what he's got. I have found that, pretty much universally, the higher one rises in their profession, the less patience they have for workarounds and having to compensate for what the tool they're using, doesn't do. Pros gravitate towards the better stuff because it's ... better for what they do. And the manufacturers listen to the pros and design stuff that meets their requirements. And the pros buy them. and the world is a good place, we all get what we want.

Except for those who want to short-circuit the entire process and take cuts in line and proclaim that they're already pros because they have a $599 DSLR, of course. Those folks will always be frustrated as to why the rest of us don't believe them when they tell us "it's just as good!"

Look, here's the point -- yes, amazing work can be done on grossly inferior tools. Marlon Ladd's film "Badd to the Jones" looks like it's going to be pretty amazing, and it was shot on a $649 T2i. But here's the thing -- ask him if, with a budget of $1m, would he shoot on a T2i again? I think the answer would be pretty obvious. Now, you don't even have to go that far -- the workflow and workaround process between an FS100 and a DSLR is mostly night and day -- if you gave me that choice, hell yes I'd take the FS100. But I wouldn't want to make that choice, I'd rather go with an AF100 because of the additional things it offers, for the same or less money. I've got two AF100's and a GH2. Which do I use to shoot on? Duh. It's obvious. Why? Because the AF100 is much more suitable to the way I work. Timur has a 5D and an F3. Which does he shoot video work on? Do you even have to ask?

Now, could Timur out-cinematographize some newbie film student, if Timur had the 5D and the film student had the F3? Of course he could. But I guess here's the missing point -- why would he? Why wouldn't he just use the right product for the job? And really, here's the part I don't get -- what's so wrong with saying that?

Use the best you can, to do the best you can. If your budget is lower, get an AF100 or FS100. If that's still too rich for your blood, get a GH2 or 60D. Just don't start claiming that the GH2 is better than the AF100 or as professional or more professional, because the notion is silly. Just as silly as saying the FS100 is as professional as the F3. It's not. You can do more, with more features and interconnectivity and capabilities, with the F3. It goes higher up the ladder. What's wrong with just seeing things as they are?

Jarrett P. Morgan
03-30-2011, 06:02 PM
And that's the point, right there. You will have to "bust your arse" to make something that looks and acts anywhere near as good as what he could do with what he's got. I have found that, pretty much universally, the higher one rises in their profession, the less patience they have for workarounds and having to compensate for what the tool they're using, doesn't do. Pros gravitate towards the better stuff because it's ... better for what they do. And the manufacturers listen to the pros and design stuff that meets their requirements. And the pros buy them. and the world is a good place, we all get what we want.

Except for those who want to short-circuit the entire process and take cuts in line and proclaim that they're already pros because they have a $599 DSLR, of course. Those folks will always be frustrated as to why the rest of us don't believe them when they tell us "it's just as good!"

Look, here's the point -- yes, amazing work can be done on grossly inferior tools. Marlon Ladd's film "Badd to the Jones" looks like it's going to be pretty amazing, and it was shot on a $649 T2i. But here's the thing -- ask him if, with a budget of $1m, would he shoot on a T2i again? I think the answer would be pretty obvious. Now, you don't even have to go that far -- the workflow and workaround process between an FS100 and a DSLR is mostly night and day -- if you gave me that choice, hell yes I'd take the FS100. But I wouldn't want to make that choice, I'd rather go with an AF100 because of the additional things it offers, for the same or less money. I've got two AF100's and a GH2. Which do I use to shoot on? Duh. It's obvious. Why? Because the AF100 is much more suitable to the way I work. Timur has a 5D and an F3. Which does he shoot video work on? Do you even have to ask?

Now, could Timur out-cinematographize some newbie film student, if Timur had the 5D and the film student had the F3? Of course he could. But I guess here's the missing point -- why would he? Why wouldn't he just use the right product for the job? And really, here's the part I don't get -- what's so wrong with saying that?

Use the best you can, to do the best you can. If your budget is lower, get an AF100 or FS100. If that's still too rich for your blood, get a GH2 or 60D. Just don't start claiming that the GH2 is better than the AF100 or as professional or more professional, because the notion is silly. Just as silly as saying the FS100 is as professional as the F3. It's not. You can do more, with more features and interconnectivity and capabilities, with the F3. It goes higher up the ladder. What's wrong with just seeing things as they are?
Awesome post Barry.

now that this argument is over.....

alaskacameradude
03-30-2011, 06:15 PM
Faders suck. Period. I'll sell you mine, I think I have the 82mm version. Make offer. Just get it out of here. :)

Barry, just out of curiosity, indulge a 'video' guy and explain why faders suck.
I've never used one, only used video cameras with built in ND filters. I
am just curious, are they hard to turn? Don't really work well? I was thinking
that one of them with the F3 would give you some good control vs. having
to change out different ND filters with a matte box, but I am first to admit
that I don't have any experience with either one, so I was just wondering.

deadfish
03-30-2011, 06:24 PM
the answer is simple - chip sensor size.

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 06:25 PM
One thing that can be said for sure....there are now 2 great choices at $5,000 that just 2 years ago many would have jumped out of a moving bus for. That's great for everybody....one is already proven - The AF100, and the other has great potential - The FS100. Now if we could just get a definitive answer on the 10bit HDMI question. I've heard so many different answers from so many different sources, my head hurts! Both yay and nay from "trusted" Sony sources......

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 06:28 PM
Barry, just out of curiosity, indulge a 'video' guy and explain why faders suck.
I've never used one, only used video cameras with built in ND filters. I
am just curious, are they hard to turn? Don't really work well? I was thinking
that one of them with the F3 would give you some good control vs. having
to change out different ND filters with a matte box, but I am first to admit
that I don't have any experience with either one, so I was just wondering.

I think what Barry and many others hate is that the quality suffers as a result of convenience....kind of like a mega zoom lens can never equal a good prime in IQ.
Here's a few descriptions by some members- soft, murky, color shifts....the problem gets worse on long lenses. I was thinking about buying one myself, but never did thanks to everybody in the DLSR forum.

TimurCivan
03-30-2011, 06:58 PM
They are optically "queationable", and its essentially two polarizing filters. So yes you are cutting light, but you are also, double polarizing your image and that can cause unpredictable artifacts in the color and tone of your sky. Not just exposure, but how the color is rendered and what wavelengths reach your sensor.

squig
03-30-2011, 07:00 PM
The great thing for all of us is you can now shoot an amazing looking film with a T2i if you know what you're doing and you're prepared to bust your arse. There's even things you can do with a DSLR that you couldn't do with an Ari. I'm willing to trade some of the pro features on the AF100 for a bit more dynamic range, better low light performance, lower weight, and an S35 sensor. The only thing really bothering me about the FS100 is that it may not have a 10bit output but I can push the 5D's 8bit pretty far so I can live with it for now.

pulpfiction007
03-30-2011, 07:13 PM
The great thing for all of us is you can now shoot an amazing looking film with a T2i if you know what you're doing and you're prepared to bust your arse. There's even things you can do with a DSLR that you couldn't do with an Ari. I'm willing to trade some of the pro features on the AF100 for a bit more dynamic range, better low light performance, lower weight, and an S35 sensor. The only thing really bothering me about the FS100 is that it may not have a 10bit output but I can push the 5D's 8bit pretty far so I can live with it for now.

Here's the interesting thing though....and it's perplexing - The BBC/Alan Roberts report is showing the F3 at -48.5db, not the claimed -63db. He also says the sensor is 12.9 MP.(REALLY perplexed) So it looks as though the FS100 will not have more DR than the AF100....if the F3 doesen't. Maybe there are errors/typos on his report but I don't know. He says there is significant noise reduction being applied to the image.

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 07:42 PM
Barry, just out of curiosity, indulge a 'video' guy and explain why faders suck.
The Fader is one of the most genius ideas ever, and it's sooo promising -- except that it's just horrible. As others have said, yeah -- the image gets horribly soft at long telephoto, and on wide angle they're useless (like all polarizers) because you get massive banding in the sky -- polarizers work best at 90 degrees to the sun, and don't work at all at 180 degrees or 0 degrees. So if you've got a nice wide 100-degree field of view, and you're pointing the camera at maybe 45 degrees to the sun, you're going to have the right side of your sky really dark and the left side totally bright, and as you pan that dark band will pan through the sky.

It's possible that the Singh-Ray VariND performs better and would be the proper implementation of the variable-ND concept, I don't know, I haven't used one. But I went the same route everyone did, thinking "oh, hey, this'll be just as good and it's cheaper" and I got burned hard -- just like every time I try that. There's a reason good stuff costs more than crap...

In summary -- love the concept, hate actually using it. If someone thinks a Fader ND is a solution to not having real ND filters, well, they're welcome to it, because I got burned and don't want anything to do with it now.

Sam Scoggins
03-30-2011, 08:25 PM
"Carl Zeiss has announced the E-mount versions for its CP.2 compact prime cine lenses will be available from June 2011."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1103/11033005carlzeissemount.asp

Rick Burnett
03-30-2011, 08:44 PM
Hehe, well don't construe my argument as saying the FS100 is on the same league as the F3. All I am saying is that "PROFESSIONAL" is a gray area, and that I think the FS100 is a professional camera, just not the same professionals that the AF100 or F3 at different levels might target.

A person who films weddings or does professional music videos may have other requirements. I've NEVER seen a videographer at a wedding have an external LCD or anything else attached to the camera to record in anything other than what the camera records. Given you cannot repeat a wedding very easily, having the redundant capture IN camera is going to be a huge hit.

I myself put the FS100 and AF100 in the same category. They each have strengths and weaknesses. But really, almost none of us have used the FS100 so there are A LOT of questions we still don't have answers too. I think before jumping to conclusions, people should actually wait for facts. Didn't we go through this with the AF100 before all was known?

vanvideo
03-30-2011, 10:07 PM
"Carl Zeiss has announced the E-mount versions for its CP.2 compact prime cine lenses will be available from June 2011."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1103/11033005carlzeissemount.asp

Nice. And the hits just keep on comin'.

alaskacameradude
03-30-2011, 10:07 PM
The Fader is one of the most genius ideas ever, and it's sooo promising -- except that it's just horrible. As others have said, yeah -- the image gets horribly soft at long telephoto, and on wide angle they're useless (like all polarizers) because you get massive banding in the sky -- polarizers work best at 90 degrees to the sun, and don't work at all at 180 degrees or 0 degrees. So if you've got a nice wide 100-degree field of view, and you're pointing the camera at maybe 45 degrees to the sun, you're going to have the right side of your sky really dark and the left side totally bright, and as you pan that dark band will pan through the sky.

It's possible that the Singh-Ray VariND performs better and would be the proper implementation of the variable-ND concept, I don't know, I haven't used one. But I went the same route everyone did, thinking "oh, hey, this'll be just as good and it's cheaper" and I got burned hard -- just like every time I try that. There's a reason good stuff costs more than crap...

In summary -- love the concept, hate actually using it. If someone thinks a Fader ND is a solution to not having real ND filters, well, they're welcome to it, because I got burned and don't want anything to do with it now.

Barry (and everyone else).....thanks a ton for the explanation. I was thinking
of buying a fader ND and a DSLR to play around with. I think I'll pass now
that I hear this.

maarek
03-31-2011, 01:17 AM
Here's the interesting thing though....and it's perplexing - The BBC/Alan Roberts report is showing the F3 at -48.5db, not the claimed -63db. He also says the sensor is 12.9 MP.(REALLY perplexed) So it looks as though the FS100 will not have more DR than the AF100....if the F3 doesen't. Maybe there are errors/typos on his report but I don't know. He says there is significant noise reduction being applied to the image.

He also said a lot of bad things about AF100. But that F3 report by Alan was very sloppy though. The way he calculated the pixels was WAY out there and I stil have no idea how he came up with that sensitivity.

Moses Chisel
03-31-2011, 08:31 AM
Since Jimi's name was thrown into the hat earlier, I thought I might add that during the making of the track "Crosstown Traffic" see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCNsZXCd58

it was deemed appropriate to wrap a piece of paper around a plastic comb to get the sound which Eddie Kramer (his producer) mixed hot to 'drown' the sound of the Fender strat. Now he could have used a more professional instrument known as a Kazoo, but what the heck it sounded great so they ran with it.

The moral of the story is - you use whatever to get the job done.

If yo movie is great and has a smak script maybe you only have to bust yer ass once...

My only gripe about the FS100 is it's twice the price it needs to be.