Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72
  1. Collapse Details
    Any remorse? (pot. FS100 buyer reconsidering)
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kula, Maui
    Posts
    375
    Default
    I have always thought Sony was flimsy in their build quality but their stuff gets the job done. The FS100 footage and file supposedly is good enough for a big screen (shot w/F3), whereas I hear (but haven't seen) that many who watched the AF100's performance (on screen) in the big comparison study done in the Zacuto documentary was not good. Then I read Barry Green's remarks in another thread about these two cams where he says footage comparisons are not even an issue (sorry to paraphrase him). So, how do you all feel about your purchase? Is the grass greener? Do you have any doubts? Regrets? I am already seeing a thread about cheap plasticy build concerns on the FS100. Thoughts about your AF100 appreciated, good and bad. One last point: I was planning to buy the FS100 and bought the VG10 as a B camera. I have modern Nikon glass (14-24 2.8, 17-55 2.8DX, 60 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8). The crop on this is 2x right? That means I'm not going to have much insofar as wide is concerned, at 28mm with the 14 correct? I also read that NDs aren't necessary for DOF and shutter speed control but I am new to this level of video work and could use an explanation/clarification if poss.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Totally Usable Mod Stephen Mick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,135
    Default
    I've owned both and used both, and based on what I've seen from the FS-100, I'd say if we're talking straight-up image quality, the FS-100 wins. Not by a wide margin, but I think the images are slightly crisper than the AF-100, and the low-light performance is much better. (Not saying the AF is bad in low-light, but the FS is simply more sensitive.) But more than anything else, the larger sensor and wider field of view give the FS-100 the edge for me. As far as build quality goes, they feel about the same to me. I wouldn't say one inspires any greater confidence than the other.

    The AF-100 is a great camera, and the scads of great footage out there proves it. And if the things the AF offers over the FS are things you need (dual card slots, ND filters, waveform, SDI, etc.), then you should use the AF with complete confidence in the images you're going to get out of it.
    Stephen Mick
    Creative Director
    UPG Video

    Check out the DVXUser Facebook page atůhttps://www.facebook.com/dvxuser
    And the DVXUser Vimeo Channel atůhttps://vimeo.com/channels/558731


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member KyleProhaska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,349
    Default
    I agree with the above. I haven't used the FS100, but it does look like it wins in some areas. Whether those areas are things most important to you and whether or not you can live without some of what the AF100 has is up to you.

    The bigger setbacks on the AF that would push me towards the FS is the banding which is annoying but manageable most of the time. All the accessories for my AF would work just fine on the FS as well so it's really a win win for me no matter which I stick with. I'm not totally sold on the FS100 being worth it to give up the AF100, but we'll see in time.

    EDIT: Just saw a FS100 video with just as much banding in it that I would typically find on my AF100. So, never-mind. Maybe it's better with banding, but it's still there. Even my old HDV Canon XHA1 doesn't do that like these cameras do. Pros/Cons to everything.
    Last edited by KyleProhaska; 06-08-2011 at 11:46 AM.
    Love Covers All, coming to DVD October 7.
    http://www.lovecoversallmovie.com

    Standing Firm is now on DVD
    http://www.standingfirmmovie.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Lots of toys... that I barely know how to turn on


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kula, Maui
    Posts
    375
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mkfotos.com View Post
    Thanks. I've been following that thread as well. I just wanted to get some Qs out of the way without hijacking....


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Default
    I have no regrets about my AF101 purchase. The FS100 seems to have a few too many missing things and, like most Sony low-end products, feels more like "what can we get away with crippling on this low-end cam" rather than "what facilities can we best provide to the customer at this price point" (which is what my Panasonic DVX100, HVX200 and AF100 have felt like in my opinion. Sony cams that I can afford always seem to have something left off that I'd really miss- like ND filters or slowmo).

    The image quality is OK- it's no RED or Alexa, to be sure. But get the scene file right, the exposure right (very critical) and decent glass on the front and it is capable of lovely images with most of the desirable dSLR look but none of the major issues. Banding is my major image issue, but until a 10-bit camera appears at my price point, that's just something I'm learning to shoot to avoid. I think it only shows up more than it did on the HVX200 because the AF100 is cleaner and less noisy to start with.

    Ergonomics are great in the sense that it is a real video camera! I do think the EVF is in the wrong place: I use mine on a shoulder mount if not on sticks and the EVF is in a totally useless place. Shrug, I just use the LCD (must make a shade from blackwrap next time I go out in bright sunshine though). FS100 is no better here as far as I can see though.

    Bottom line: on a week's location shoot, we took along a 5D2, 7D, GF1, AF100 and two HVX200's. We shot every single shot for every single scene with the AF100 in the end, which wasn't really what I'd assumed at the start. There was never a reason to choose one of the others- not even "docu-style" run and gun, where we just used a 14 mm lens on auto-focus and auto-iris. (Not quite true- we tried a shot with the GF1 on suction mount on a car windscreen, but it turned out we got better footage from the AF100 with a cameraman using it on the shoulder mount from the back seat. I believe that was the only time we even TRIED using one of the other cameras for a take).

    Not a hint of buyer's remorse here for the AF100. Nor for the battery-powered LED lights either- didn't fire up a single tungsten light all week either.

    Cheers, Hywel.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleProhaska View Post
    The bigger setbacks on the AF that would push me towards the FS is the banding which is annoying but manageable most of the time.
    Why would the AF100 be more prone to 'banding' issues than the FS100? Banding is an 8-bit color space issue if I'm not mistaken and since both are 8-bit cameras then both will be equally susceptible to it. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member KyleProhaska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,349
    Default
    Spotts, did you bother to keep reading my post or just see that and decide you needed to comment lol?

    I saw some FS100 footage today that had plenty of banding as I said at the end of my post. Also banding on the AF100 is perfectly manageable with proper scene settings in circumstances where it's more of a problem, with tradeoffs of course (mostly noise in the footage) but there always is isn't there?

    Also it's not strictly an 8-bit issue alone. My old HDV XHA1 is 8-bit and would never choke on half of the stuff my AF100 does when it comes to banding. It's image is nice and smooth. 8-bit isn't the only issue here.
    Love Covers All, coming to DVD October 7.
    http://www.lovecoversallmovie.com

    Standing Firm is now on DVD
    http://www.standingfirmmovie.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Default
    to comment on the big screen with the AF100. in april i had some interviews on the big screen for school. we transcoded to proresHQ, graded in magicbullets, then recorded our timeline to HDCAM tape. The theatre projected via a HDCAM SR deck. footage looked great guys. i had a great experience with HD projecton from the af100.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Default
    Here's the thing about "looking good on the big screen."

    This is meant to be read by filmmakers, not videographers or those that make money with their cameras shooting video for hire....

    I've seen movies shot on DV cameras that have made it to the "big screen." Many shot with the DVX100.

    Even older 60's films, like those by Cassavetes, although shot on film, are grainy, dirty and "bad looking." (Personally I like the look of those films)

    People get WAY too obsessed with the quality of the camera they are using, then, when they finally get a nice camera, they go outside and shoot leaves and trees, rack focusing on benches and sandboxes when they should instead be learning the craft of filmmaking.

    If you handed Jean Pierre Melville a Super 8 camera he'd make a better film than all of us with our AF100s, REDs, Alexas and any other camera you can think of.

    It's great to worry about the quality of your film, the look of it. But when it comes down to it it's the angles, the lighting, the acting and the editing. Not how much noise is in the blacks.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •