how do you think AF100 is going to score aginst , DSLR such as Canon T2I and 7D ?
to the avrage joe that want to get into film making but will probably not make profit from hes films .
Thread: AF100 vs DSLR
Results 1 to 10 of 156
09-10-2010 12:27 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
09-10-2010 12:34 PM
If you just want something to practice and learn on, a DSLR is gonna be cheaper, plus you get a nice still camera out of it to boot. The AF100 or other higher end cameras will still be around in a year from now if you decide to upgrade.
I'm kinda going through a similar dilemma now too. I'm not sure if I want to save the money and just stick with a DSLR for another year or two, and then upgrade to something like the AF100 or Scarlet then. I'll probably stay with a DSLR for some short films I want to make in the next year, and then after that if I decide to do a no-budget feature, maybe I'll upgrade to something like an AF100.
09-10-2010 01:18 PM
This is a very exciting camcorder and if Panasonic has eliminated the artifact issues it will be a more exciting cam than the dvx100 was.
If all comes to fruition I'm not sure why people would want to shoot serious projects on dSLRs anymore. Shooting web videos is one thing but an indie film or even an indie short is quite another.
09-10-2010 01:22 PM
Hopefully we'll get to see footage from an AF100 and maybe the 2/3 Scarlet this winter so we can stop wondering how much better these will look compared to DSLR video.
09-10-2010 01:34 PM
09-10-2010 02:18 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
Disclaimer: The information below is an opinion about a product I have not personally handled, used, or otherwise experienced. I have not seen any footage in any state from the camera. I have read announcements and opinions by those I trust.
The AF-100 should easily be far better than a DSLR for most video production needs.
Footage won't be aliased (or at least, no more than is acceptable from usual video cameras).
Skew will be less.
It can record for more than a dozen minutes at a time.
Its industrial design lends it to hand-holding in comfortable positions without the absolute need for additional support (Z-finders, rods and rails, etc.).
It has an HD positionable LCD, as well as a EVF, both optimized for video production use.
It has a wider range of supported frame rates.
It has frame guides.
It has all the usual video assist features (zebras, etc).
It has HDMI + HD-SDI out.
It has powered XLR mics on board.
The list goes on and on, but basically - this is a video camera. It's made to record video and to do that well.
A DSLR is and - for the foreseeable future - will remain a still photography camera first and a video camera second. That isn't to say that DSLRs won't continue to have a place - they are tiny and their dual-purpose ability could make them invaluable in certain situations.
But for me, for strictly video production needs in a controlled or semi-controlled environment, DSLRs are out of A-cam position and will be relegated to special unit. The Scarlet, the AF-100, or something else will be taking their place shortly.
09-10-2010 02:24 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
yeah but dont kill DSLR too quickly .
i belive Canon can still go with T3I or 9D that will win over the crowd .
09-10-2010 04:17 PM
I'm a little relieved that the AF100 has no chance of coming out in October. I would immediately buy one to shoot my feature on, use my 5D and a few others as b cams. However, it'll be my first feature and there are no large brick buildings anywhere (now the next one I want to make is another story...). I look forward to the AF100, but will take into consideration whether or not to hold on to my HPX170. I think that is the better comparison, dslr's still do well and excel their primary job.http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2532081/
Sony A7Sii, Zoom H6, and more.
09-10-2010 04:25 PM
The question shouldn't be 'will it be better?' - as others have already pointed it, it not only will be but it HAS to be given the price point.
The question to ask is, will it be 6 times 'better' than a 60D? (for example). And the answer to that is going to depend on what you need from a camera.
So that answer is going to change from person to person.
Personally, if I weren't expecting to make any money off my equipment I would have a very difficult time justifying the purchase of a $6,000 camera
(which will require at least a couple of thousand dollars worth of accessories on top of that).
But - it all depends on what you want from a camera, and what you ultimately want to do.
09-10-2010 04:28 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
But in order to keep the form factor of a DSLR, much must be given up. Even the 1Ds and other studio series cameras would be too small to pack it all in and they are considerably larger and heavier than a T2i or the like.
Every additional physical convenience found on video cameras (handles, EVF, LCD, XLR, physical level switches, ND filters, ad nauseum...)would add to the bulk and then - all of the sudden - you pretty much have a DSLR with 5+ pounds of additional equipment (audio recorders, monitors, Zfinders, cages and handles, etc.) screwed or clamped to it in order to make it work like a video camera would. And, looking at major retailers for such equipment - the money could just as easily have been spent on something with a proper form factor in the first place.
For me, DSLRs will be the cinematic equivalent of a GoProHD - it's something small I can easily stick somewhere to capture footage from an amazing angle or of an amazing event that is interesting and worthwhile in and of itself - image fidelity and physical constraints are an acceptable trade-off because nothing else could have gotten that shot.
As an aside, take a look at the Scarlet/Epic system. It's really amazingly tiny for what it does. But adding the accessories one requires simply makes it big - bigger than a DSLR and often times bigger than a MF camera.
Last edited by Michael Olsen; 09-10-2010 at 04:32 PM.