This phrase is the cause of confusion. NO, it is not harder when compared to film. The mistake is that each person compares differently than someone else. Those coming from a photography background, a ENG/event background, and a film background all look at the "crop comparison" differently. Film people will be happy with the AF100. It's better than 16mm, and almost the size of 35mm film but benefits with digital acquisition and increased low light abilities. ENG/event camera owners will be happy to add the AF100 to there aresenal for the ability to shoot with a shallow depth of field. Photography(DSLR video) background will notice a smaller field of view, but will gain the advantages of proper audio recording, drastically reduced aliasing/moire, proper codec recording, professional monitoring, manual and accessable controls... And more.
It's all perspective and when people understand where they are coming from first and then look to see what the AF100 offers, they will see the many benefits.
Results 11 to 20 of 54
10-31-2010 07:59 AM
10-31-2010 08:21 AM
Yes, the reference in film should be 35mm film of course.
I think it is an irony that 35mm stills are derived from 35mm film but used a horizontal orientation (so the material is the same but the recording orientation is different). So 35mm film names the same material but stills and movie use it differently.
Thanks for the chart. Right now it comes down to getting the right fast lenses for wide angle in m4/3 without breaking the bank. I think I cn live with the 7-14mm f/4 from Panasonic just fine.Uwe Steinmueller
10-31-2010 08:23 AM
go out and shoot and start cropping to 1:2.39
(1920 x 803)
when the top of your actors head disappears you'll soon see you need w-i-d-e
and yes it ain't cheap
m43 is not the same as s35, its smaller so you do need wider. Or shell out for anamorphics and forget cropping
Last edited by J Davis; 10-31-2010 at 08:28 AM.J.Davis
10-31-2010 08:53 AM
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
The people who are going to be "disappointed" or "frustrated" the most with the AF100 are people who are used to, and or are invested in 35mm adapter glass and 35mm still glass.
I feel people who say 20mm is plenty wide for the AF100 are misleading people coming from the indie 35mm adapter market or those who use 35mm still as reference.
20mm on the AF100 is a 40mm "still" field-of-view equivalent which is only 10mm wider than a 50mm still camera lens... people would argue 50mm is the standard medium focal length (or medium field of view)... in the still world: aka a short "telephoto compression and look," NOT a standard "wide angle" by any means. In still, 28mm is the standard wide angle lens.
A.) People who have a standard 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm STILL lens setup, which was a pretty good CHEAP 35mm adapter or still glass line up, covering your basic focal lengths. With the af100, they will now be stuck with a 56mm, 100mm, and 270mm focal length lens set. This of course means more depth of field, but narrower field of view.
B.) It has ALWAYS in the still world been cheaper to manufacture long fast telephotos than it has to manufacture fast wide angle lenses... anything 24mm and below in the still world you're talking expensive (at least for still photographers).
C.) It's great the AF100 covers the equivalent of s35 albeit a 16x9 ONLY version, but NO one is going to argue that s35 glass is cheaper than still glass, nor should it be, and fast cinema wides are respectively even MORE expensive than their still counterparts. This isn't shocking at all, just something to keep in mind.
D.) It's important to note that a 28mm f2.8 lens is NOT a specialty lens in the STILL world. It's a standard wide angle lens where you can find a plethora of options for around 50 bucks on ebay used. On the AF100, you'll need a 14mm f2.8 to get the same field of view and for still/35mm adapter users, the 14mm f2.8 IS NOT a cheap lens, we are talking the $400 to $1500 dollar range.
E.) Lastly, cameras like the DVX100 and other camcorders usually have something like a 37-300mm zoom range... (35mm still equivalent) A 28mm starting point on a camcorder is RARE with exception to a few cameras like the sony z5u. Wide angle adapters are available for most camcorders and they range anywhere for $150-900 dollars and usually expand your FOV to 22-24mm still equivalence (definitely a wide angle focal length suitable for things like steadycam work).
So to sum it up, what you could once buy for $50 in the still world (28mm f2.8) you now have to buy for $400 or more (14mm f2.8). You can even get a 28 f1.4,f1.8 still lens, but they don't even make an utlra-fast 14mm still lens (not yet anyway). Really REALLY cheap 28mm still lenses exist used. Really cheap 14mm lenses do not. But in the video/film world, you'll be paying more to get a wide view anyway. Always have, always will*
*Until a 35mm full frame (ff still) camcorder is released... but who knows, that might drive up the price of cheap 28mm lenses, and by then surely the $2000 scarlet will be out anyway. ;)
10-31-2010 11:14 AM
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
28mm 2.8? get a tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (nikon) + adapter. that pretty much covers that range at 2.8!
well thats the super high grade oly zuiko 14-35 2.0
if a 35mm FF cam comes out, itll cost far more than the af100. im guessing 9,000 or more
10-31-2010 12:57 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
In the cinema world, a the FF35 film frame size is considered specialist equipment, as is 65mm. To the best of my knowledge, it was last used as principle photography for a major motion picture in 1961 ("One Eyed Jacks" Dir. Marlon Brando). Since then it has been used for a few Japanese films and some Japanese animated films up into 1989. It remains in use today as a tool for shooting some VFX work on films like "The Dark Knight" "Blindness" and "Inception".
If you have become accustomed to shooting on a FF35 film frame - be it an adapter or a 5DMKII- you are a specialist, using a piece of equipment that is far from common on the average film production, even at an extremely high budget and professional level.
This means that if you intend on working on the average film production - at any level - you'd best become acquainted with how that equipment works. And, in terms of crop factor, that equipment works very similarly to the AF-100.
10-31-2010 01:24 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
TheReverend, the first post is great, but still doesn't manage to paint the picture totally accurately. Your graphic is using the published 4/3 specification of 17.3mm wide, but that is NOT what the AF100 uses. The AF100 uses an oversized sensor that is 18.9mm wide. Could you please update your graphic with the larger size and proper description of it, so that folks will forget about the 17.3, which matters only for "Four Thirds" stills cameras, but has nothing to do with the AF100 (or, for that matter, the GH1 or GH2, as they also use an 18.9mm oversized sensor).
10-31-2010 01:27 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
It used to be in audio recording to get flying faders would cost $100K+ . Now they can be had for $3K and under. Large diaphram condensor mics used to easily run $3K (still do), but now there is a wide selection of high quality large diaphram condensors very comparable in quality in $700 and under category. The name of the game is sales. They aren't going to sell the numbers pricing it at $9K. They want to slaughter the AF100. Panasonic revised their $6K price for the AF100 down to 4,995 list. This is the magic price point where the flood gate of customers will open. $9K ? forget about it. We have flying faders for under $3K because the audio industry realized that there were tens of thousands of recording musicians that would buy it and not just high end studios. It's just like when IBM said Home computers?? Who would want a computer in their home?? Bill Gates thought otherwise. The price performance barrier is shifting. Pros need to get their heads out of that $10K mindset. The sooner they do, the quicker the price will come down. Panasonic already knows this. Good move on their part to drift the AF100 from $6K down to $4,995.
10-31-2010 01:38 PM
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
do you really know what your talking about? do you really believe canon will release a FF35 at a low price? maybe 2-3 years from now its plausible (but unlikely),
right now, everything is far from what you're thinking. basing on canon or sony's current line up of broadcast cameras, it will be more expensive than an af100 count on that.
check the specs on the xf300 and look at the price. thats XF300 a 1/3" with professional build features for $6500 or XF3-5 for 7500 with HD-SDI.
you really think canon would release a FF cam priced at the same or lower than that? not if panasonic price their cameras lower than $5000. they will definitely ask for a much premium price for a FF cinema camera with all the bells and whistles.
heres a wild hypothetical scenario they could probably release a 8k+ aps-c version and a FF version at 10k+
Last edited by dcloud; 10-31-2010 at 01:50 PM.
10-31-2010 01:42 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2003