PDA

View Full Version : FS100 vs Ex3



bgodoy
10-20-2011, 10:52 AM
Considering the fact I've done a bit of looking into with both (and Panasonic's AF100), I'm still not fully convinced I've reached a decision (these are all potential candidates for my next purchase). I wanted to get a well rounded view/opinion from anyone who may know what they're talking about. I know many of you might say "it depends on what you are using the camera for" or "it's depends on the application" but I wanted to get more of a general conversation started for anyone else who may be in the middle of making the same decision, rather than making it so specific to myself.

Thanks to everyone in advanced.

-B

Kyle McConaghy
10-20-2011, 11:02 AM
I switched from the EX1 to a FS100 and I don't miss the EX1 at all. I guess with the EX3 you get a shoulder mount... but I would buy the FS100 with the kit and a good shoulder rig for less money than an EX3.

I'm trying real hard to think of a time I wish I had my EX1. Maybe if I had to shoot live action sports? For commercials, documentaries, architectural footage and more, I would take the FS100 hands down.

morgan_moore
10-20-2011, 12:37 PM
If you want big telephoto, EX3, or need a solid feed out of the camera for some broadcast or live application

EXcam goes straight to edit in FCP too

Bascially its speed to delivery with the EX

Camera wise the AF has decent O/Put and ND (unlike the FS) which makes it a little more friendly than the FS, Im far from convinced of the image on the AF

if you are doing those live jobs, or ones that demand 50mbs, you should be charging F3+recorder money maybe - you get FS100 look and XD cam SDI out ease in one cam ?

Image quality per $ .. Id say FS100

Or maybe an EX3 and DSLR !

S

bgodoy
10-20-2011, 09:23 PM
If you want big telephoto, EX3, or need a solid feed out of the camera for some broadcast or live application

EXcam goes straight to edit in FCP too

Bascially its speed to delivery with the EX

Camera wise the AF has decent O/Put and ND (unlike the FS) which makes it a little more friendly than the FS, Im far from convinced of the image on the AF

if you are doing those live jobs, or ones that demand 50mbs, you should be charging F3+recorder money maybe - you get FS100 look and XD cam SDI out ease in one cam ?

Image quality per $ .. Id say FS100

Or maybe an EX3 and DSLR !

S

True the AF100 has more features as far as the FS100 is concerned but I'd say in terms of image quality, I've been leaning towards the FS100. With a simple mattebox and some ND filters/variable ND I'd be willing to handle the inconvenience of not having ND built-in, as long as budget is not an issue. In my opinion sometimes I shoot with a cleaner mindset when I'm forced to be more disciplined anyway. The FS100 has a better sensor (Super 35mm, same as the F3) and to my eye the image is noticeably sharper. Personally, I think it handles skin tones noticeably better than the AF100. The AF seems to soften skin detail and make it look a bit "plastic" at times.

Besides moire and aliasing drawbacks compared to the AF100 I'd say I rather shoot with the FS100 regardless of the lack of features. On the other hand, I have heard that the FS100 takes a bit longer to get used to compared to the AF100 given it's modular design.

I'd like to hear more about the Ex3, however, since everyone seems to be comparing the AF100 to the FS100 everywhere else.

As far as having access to a wide variety of lenses am I under the correct assumption that the Ex3 only uses 1/2" lenses? I know you could probably add a lens adapter (ie P+S Technik Pro35, Letus, Brevis, etc) for a wider selection but since I've never used the Ex3 I wouldn't know...

morgan_moore
10-20-2011, 10:01 PM
No one is talking about the EX3 because it has been talked about in the past

Its a 2/3 cam and is not considered to have the 'cine look'

Its a different class of cam to the FS (not a lower class a different class)

You can use DSLR lenses on the EX3 but mainly that is a solution for telephoto.. remember a 7mm lens is not that wide on 2/3 and 80 is quite a tele

personally I would avoid adapters (like the plague) and match the EX3 with a DSLR B cam it narrow DOF is your thing but you want your main cash in the very sensible EX3

S

alaskacameradude
10-20-2011, 10:38 PM
No one is talking about the EX3 because it has been talked about in the past

Its a 2/3 cam and is not considered to have the 'cine look'

Its a different class of cam to the FS (not a lower class a different class)

You can use DSLR lenses on the EX3 but mainly that is a solution for telephoto.. remember a 7mm lens is not that wide on 2/3 and 80 is quite a tele

personally I would avoid adapters (like the plague) and match the EX3 with a DSLR B cam it narrow DOF is your thing but you want your main cash in the very sensible EX3

S

Actually, slight correction here. The EX3 (and EX-1/EX-1R) are 1/2 inch chip cameras, not 2/3. I've used them in the past and they are certainly very
nice. They are not narrow depth of field cameras, so if you want that, you are going to have to go EX-3/DSLR or get another camera (like the FS-100 or
AF 100). On another note, I only had the money to get one camera, and I chose the FS100. The other camera I was looking strongly at was the EX-1R.
The FS100 is kind of a 'swiss army knife' as you can build it up into which kind of rig you want. Use it with the kit lens for a kind of 'pseudo EX-3'
look with shallower depth of field. If you really want the shallow depth of field, get some fast primes and zooms. Don't forget to get some ND solution,
because even with the slow kit lens, you will need it. As for operation, it is kind of like a cross between an EX 3 and a DSLR. If you've used the EX series,
you will be right at home with the FS100. I am happy I went with the FS 100, the only time I ever miss having the Ex-1 style camera is when I am shooting
sports, as having the powered zoom helped there. But really, even there, I am able to get by with the range of the kit lens and manually zooming and
it works pretty good.

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 12:50 AM
While it is a swiss army knife it has certain drawbacks

ND - in reality this can be a significant pain in the field (lens changes MB realignment) and addition costwise

Lack of Solid output of signal (SDI) - I would not trust HDMI for a live hookup or using a recorder

(Extreme) Telephoto - the chip size means you could end up wanting a 400 or even 600mm lens - costly and hard to handle - compared to an 80-200 on an EX3

Time code - im far from sold on FS100 timecode

All of these things generally come into play when working for broadcast clients, and in that case the client should have fees in line with F3 ownership or rental

Dont get me wrong - I own an FS100 (and Ex1) - and consider it to be the best camera to buy right now

S

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 12:59 AM
"the best camera to buy right now"

Of course I would wait til Nov3 b4 buying anything

I would also do some maths.. if you look at the 'life cost' of an F3, include scoring a couple of extra jobs, a higher end sale value, the joy of ND, and smoother post workflow (if applicable) one can see that the F3 is not that costly .. especially if you nail a few extra $$ to your dayrate

S

LiamR
10-21-2011, 01:48 AM
The sort of people that complain about S-Log costing an extra $3k shouldn't be buying the camera in the first place, it's the exact same with the FS100 and ND Filters, if you are spending that much on the camera, your income should be that in 1 job.

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 02:07 AM
I disagree

Lets say you are using the FS100 for Eng/Doco/Corporate style work, the sort of work people do with an Ex1/3

At minimum you are going to want the kit lens and probably two other lenses

Now you could be like me and elect not to use a matte box, I do this to enable fast lens changes required in eng style situations

Now three lenses, three fader style NDs could cost $1k - I dont want to be fiddlng with filter thread in a hurry, in the cold, in front of clients, I I have every lens filtered up

Or maybe the solid filters, at three densities, thats nine filters

Lets say in in the rough and tumble of three years of (eng) use they need replacing once, 18 filters or 6 faders

Or you go down the MB route, a decent, and it has to be decent to operate ENG fast, MatteBox and filter set could cost $1.5K

Either option is a significant percentage of the cost of owership of the camera

That should be considered when choosing betwen F3. AF100, FS100 and EX1/3

..IMO

To be fair I'm painting a slightly extreme scenario.. but its not that far from reality.. given the extreme sensitivty of the FS chip, and lack of negative gain

S

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 02:28 AM
To expand a little more, I am now considering a matte box as I have found ND and no MB to be suceptible to 'non cool' flare patterns in a way that a bare lens and no MB is not

Mixing a MB with telescoping lenses (like the kit lens) and even still lenses that telescope just a few mm is an issue as unless you use nuns Knickers there is risk of light hitting the filter from the rear operator side of the camera

and nuns knickers are not the friend of fast lens changes

Of course with 'drama' style shooting and cine lenses MB is a non issue becuase they all sit nicely together

S

cuervo
10-21-2011, 05:30 AM
It's interesting that several people have implied, but, not actually pointed out the fundamental difference.....DOF. It's a beautiful sight to behold to look at wonderful bokeh. But, this also comes with the price of requiring that focus be spot on, no room for error. In a run and gun situation, especially with manual focusing, and even with auto-focus, much more time and care must be given to the FS100. The half inch sensor size on the EX gives a pleasing bokeh, not as much as the FS100, but, considerably more forgiving of focus errors than the FS100.

My EX1 has a somewhat 'softer' look to it than my FS100. And skin tones, right out of the box with no CC, seem more pleasing with the EX. At least, to my eye.

moldcad
10-21-2011, 05:38 AM
May I just express my personal opinion: the 2 cameras discussed in this thread compliment each other beautifully. The answer to an "FS100 or EX?" type of question is definitely : BOTH.

bgodoy
10-21-2011, 05:55 AM
So let's say I went with a mattebox and some ND's, how does it handle highlights? I know that in low light situations the FS100 fares better than the AF100 for example but how does the FS handle highlights compared with the Ex1/3, F3, and especially the AF100 (now I'm really interested)?

I've heard the FS100 has less of a crop factor compared to the AF100 and even a shallower DOF (slightly) is this true?

If so, I think for my line of work the FS100 would be a more practical fit, even if I had to compensate here and there (due to the fact I shoot in studio settings rather than sports imagery).

Dermot
10-21-2011, 06:20 AM
any of them are harsh if the highlights are clipped, expose to protect highlights is the order of the day, the FS's ablity to pull images out of the shadow areas is a huge plus

Between my partners and myself we own EX1, EX3, 7D, and FS100... we all see the EX's as the tool set more suited to doco, the FS more suited to production. I use a MB to hold my ND filters, my main lenses are the Zeiss 16-35 & 24-70, they internal focus so no issues with the lens and MB.

d

Kyle McConaghy
10-21-2011, 06:23 AM
When I've thought about buying a broadcast cam to compliment my FS100 I've kind of wondered if I would get a Canon XF 300 or 305 because of the 4:2:2 color sampling and 50 mbps processing. Is that a cam the OP should look into instead of a EX3? I guess the EX3 has 1/2" sensors and the Canon 1/3".

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 07:05 AM
Zeiss 16-35 & 24-70,

What are those lenses?

Dermot
10-21-2011, 07:22 AM
Hey Morgan;

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/582764-REG/Sony_SAL1635Z_SAL_1635Z_16_35mm_f_2_8_ZA.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545868-REG/Sony_SAL2470Z_SAL_2470Z_24_70mm_f_2_8_Carl.html


and i lied a bit, the 24-70 does extend a bit at 70, but not enough to cause issues with the MB, maybe an inch or two... the short zoom stays put completly

d

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 07:25 AM
They dont grow at all?

What its the feel of the focus like.. is it .. ehem .. like the kit lens?

Very interesting

SMM

alaskacameradude
10-21-2011, 10:05 AM
May I just express my personal opinion: the 2 cameras discussed in this thread compliment each other beautifully. The answer to an "FS100 or EX?" type of question is definitely : BOTH.

Certainly I agree if you have the money to do this, it is a great idea! I can't swing this at the current time, although I wish I could. So I had to go for one or the other.

LiamR
10-21-2011, 01:08 PM
It's interesting that several people have implied, but, not actually pointed out the fundamental difference.....DOF. It's a beautiful sight to behold to look at wonderful bokeh. But, this also comes with the price of requiring that focus be spot on, no room for error. In a run and gun situation, especially with manual focusing, and even with auto-focus, much more time and care must be given to the FS100. The half inch sensor size on the EX gives a pleasing bokeh, not as much as the FS100, but, considerably more forgiving of focus errors than the FS100.

That's why there is peaking.


I've heard the FS100 has less of a crop factor compared to the AF100 and even a shallower DOF (slightly) is this true?

The crop factor is 2x on an AF100 on the FS100 it is 1.5x, so yes, shallower depth of field.

bgodoy
10-21-2011, 05:52 PM
[[ @Liam R

Yeah that's what I've heard, just needed to double check. ]]

In regards to price point, something I find quite interesting is the fact that the Ex3 maintains a heftier price tag than the FS100... Not sure what the original price of the Ex3 was when it first surfaced but considering it's a older model I would assume it would drop accordingly. Do Sony's usually maintain their integrity (as far as cost is concerned)? Comparatively speaking, they don't seem to drop as much as Panasonic's do...

Am I right or is it just me?

morgan_moore
10-21-2011, 10:27 PM
The EX3 is very well known - maybe among producers who commission and pay for stuff - but dont really follow camera fashion - so it is still used a lot

Also it shoots nice 1080, so if you are doing a project that requires 1080 (and the 1/2 look) why upgrade

My EX1 - does what is expected of it - I have no desire to upgrade it

Hence retention of value

In terms of 'cost of life' which is cost - minus resale

My feeling is that the FS100 is this years trendy tool that could be overrun by a new trendy model

You may have seen the Af100 value drop with the launch of the Fs100

If something is released on nov3 like a $5-$6k 50mbs canon glass fit camera the FS could take a battering

Look at DSLRs - the 7d - its not worth much because the T2i has basically the same spec for half the money - my 7d was 1/2 value in one year

I get the feeling that the F3 will hold value - which is why earlier on I said it (if it is doable for you) is worth careful consideration - while the FS100 may not

with the F3 for 1080 S35look projects what is not to love - why upgrade

Dont forget - I still like the FS100 best

..IMO

SamMM

danstone
10-21-2011, 11:57 PM
I own both the EX3 and the FS100. You can't really compare the two. Asking which one to get is like asking. "should I buy a Miata or an F150?" The EX3 is a run-and-gun broadcast workhorse while the FS100 is an improved DSLR designed for The prosumerish market. The EX3 provides a solid image for corporates, documentaries and reality shows. Lots of pro features and designed for ENG-style shooting. The image is usually pretty noisy (even when pulling out through HD-SDI) and the image is nowhere close to "filmic".The FS100 is designed to replace DSLRs like the 5D for hobbyist film makers and low budget projects. The camera is set up to be operated manually and is not designed for run-and-gun situations. Though there's an autofocus lens, many times you have to wrestle with what it autofocuses on. The image is nice and clean though not particularly filmic. The large sensor makes the camera ideal for those whose idea of a "filmic image" consists of one thing: shallow depth of field.The AF100 is the same thing as the FS100 with a slightly smaller sensor. This really only translates into a slightly cropped frame. One thing panasonic has on other brands is their in-camera filmic light handling created by FilmLook Studios. Most panasonic 24p cameras have it - all the way down to the DVX100. That's why even with a 1/4" sensor, it's almost impossible to make its picture look videoish.Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.

Postmaster
10-22-2011, 01:18 AM
Can you tell me a bit more about FilmLook Studios and what they have done Dan, I hear that for the first time.

thanks, Frank

danstone
10-24-2011, 07:21 AM
Can you tell me a bit more about FilmLook Studios and what they have done Dan, I hear that for the first time.thanks, Frank Hi Frank! FilmLook is the company that revolutionized the process of making video look like film in the 80s and made it big by transforming televised sitcoms. They licensed their technology to panasonic in the early 90s. That FilmLook technology is what always has -- and still does -- separate Panasonic from other 24p cameras. www.FilmLook.com

Chris Lawes
10-24-2011, 09:48 AM
I'm wondering if the sensor technology and colorimetry is much improved on the fs100 sensor vs the older ex3 sensor?

robfilms
10-24-2011, 01:05 PM
Hi Frank! FilmLook is the company that revolutionized the process of making video look like film in the 80s and made it big by transforming televised sitcoms. They licensed their technology to panasonic in the early 90s. That FilmLook technology is what always has -- and still does -- separate Panasonic from other 24p cameras. www.FilmLook.com

dan-

thanks for adding to the conversation.

i remember filmlook.

i posted a job thru them that i shot on beta sp.

their "filmlook" took the video-ish look and lowered some detail w/o washing out the colors.

my client loved the final product.

i had no idea that filmlook helped panasonic develop the "panasonic look".

be well

rob
smalltalk productins

plasticam
10-26-2011, 09:26 PM
b-

I was testing EX3 with FS100 briefly but we didnt get enough shot to judge much. I can send you links - but like I say- it's light.
I've shot a lot with both cams- in doc or run and gun I'll get you a better show on EX3. For narrative, scripted drama or talking heads- you'll be far ahead with FS. Yes it can be that simple. Simplify the analysis is my thought. both these cams have clear strengths and weaknesses. Remember one is a lens based system (slow, bulky by nature), the other is a video camera.

good luck