$3,700 AF100 or $5,000 FS100?

K

Kyle McConaghy

Well-known member
I am so sorry to add another FS100 V AF100 question to the thread, but I'm losing too many hours of my day researching these 2 cameras!

I have the opportunity to buy a $3,700 AF100 but the highlight clipping and wide angle lens limitations worry me a bit. For someone who is working on a tight budget, is the $1,300 extra worth it? I do a lot of architectural videos and documentary-type productions.

For those of you who have had the opportunity to use both, what do you recommend?

Thanks so much for your help!
 
Sorry to chime in as I don't use them but you would need to factor in the cost of high quality ND filters for the NX if you are shooting outdoors. Also, is this paid work? A $1,300 difference is not that much over the working life of a camera. I would make your decision on image and ergonomics. Just my 2 cents.
 
Kyle McConaghy said:
but the highlight clipping and wide angle lens limitations worry me a bit
Click to expand...

The FS100 / F3 also clip highlights ( just not as much as the AF-100 ), all this means is don't over-expose or you have to be prepared to fix the highlights in post.

As for wide angle lenses, there are tons available, but not many native Micro 4/3 lenses.

i.e. Lumix 14mm f/2.5, Lumix 7-14mm f/4.0, Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, PL Mount Cine lenses starting at 8mm and up...

For me it's a choice between having a more rugged AF-100 camera with proper SDI output and built-in ND filters, and a somewhat better image from the FS-100 that needs to be mounted in a metal cage if I want the camera body to last. ( the Berkey System plates are a good start )
 
I will be using this to make money... and, so far, I definitely like the look of the Sony FS100 a little better. So i guess that answers my question. It's just a shame the Sony is kind of flimsy and doesn't have NDs. Still a small price to pay for great images.
 
TheDingo said:
For me it's a choice between having a more rugged AF-100 camera with proper SDI output and built-in ND filters, and a somewhat better image from the FS-100 that needs to be mounted in a metal cage if I want the camera body to last. ( the Berkey System plates are a good start )
Click to expand...

The FS100 feels exactly like my HVX. Both are plastic.

I dont think anyone could possibly abuse an HVX more than I have and it lasted me 4 years (and still works perfectly). Its been fallen with off 80 foot jumps, its fallen out of a car, its been landed on by a skier, its been dropped onto ice, its been in my backpack while I have fallen hard off a snowmobile many times. I obviously wont treat this camera like that, but it goes to show that plastic doesnt mean anything. Even my T2i has been through hell and it looks/works perfectly fine.

Its plastic just like the FS100, and nothing on it has broken. From my understanding, both these cameras have metal casings on the inside.
 
I would read the other threads that go into detail about the AF100 and FS100. I own both and I went to a great length to explain my feelings on the pluses and minuses of each camera. They both have a lot of pluses and minuses that really need to be considered in YOUR workflow.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I would read the other threads that go into detail about the AF100 and FS100. I own both and I went to a great length to explain my feelings on the pluses and minuses of each camera. They both have a lot of pluses and minuses that really need to be considered in YOUR workflow.
Click to expand...

Boy has Rick ever.... Kyle I've been in the same boat and it boils down to you having to make your own mind up based on the qualities of each. There's two great recent threads in the AF section specific to what you want to know. I haven't heard anyone other than Rick commenting who owns both cameras. There isn't a question that hasn't been addressed at some point by him and all the other posters. One, Frank, sums it up well for himself (and me): AF100=head; FS100=heart.

I decided to go with the iPhone. :-)
 
Kyle McConaghy said:
I am so sorry to add another FS100 V AF100 question to the thread, but I'm losing too many hours of my day researching these 2 cameras!

I have the opportunity to buy a $3,700 AF100 but the highlight clipping and wide angle lens limitations worry me a bit. For someone who is working on a tight budget, is the $1,300 extra worth it? I do a lot of architectural videos and documentary-type productions.

For those of you who have had the opportunity to use both, what do you recommend?

Thanks so much for your help!
Click to expand...
If you can get an AF100 for $1300 less than an FS100, grab it and laugh all the way to the bank. Get the 7-14 lens and you'll have the widest wide-angle you'll ever need, plus it'll be rectilinear for awesome architectural videos. Seriously, this is a no-brainer.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you can get an AF100 for $1300 less than an FS100, grab it and laugh all the way to the bank. Get the 7-14 lens and you'll have the widest wide-angle you'll ever need, plus it'll be rectilinear for awesome architectural videos. Seriously, this is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

I agree, both cameras are obviously priced the way they are for a reason, so if you can get one for 25% less...that is certainly the better decision.

edit: barring there's no damage to the camera, obviously
 
I have an AF100 and in my opinion it will be perfect for architectural work. The 7-14mm lens is fantastic, search vimeo and see for yourself.

As for doco stuff, I don't have my hands on an FS100 yet for direct comparison, but from what I'm seeing the highlight issues are only marginally better on the FS100. You'll have to watch your highlights with both cameras. It seems the FS100 oddly, (except for the ND issue) is better suited for ENG style work, as the auto functions on the AF100 are terrible, and quick, manual focusing without an external EVF is extremely difficult, especially at shallow depth of field. But if you have time to set up the shot, unless you're doing a lot of low light work I don't think the cameras are all that different.
 
Although I love the FS100, I have to agree and recommend the AF100 for the price and built in ND filters for lighter travel while shooting architectural work
 
I went with the FS-100 over the AF-100, based on my preferences.... but for pete sake, if you can get an AF-100 for $3700.00, go for it. That is a great price. Besides, both the AF-100 and the FS-100 are going to be superseded by more capable cameras (From Panasonic, Sony and others) in a relatively short time period (18 to 24 months, give or take) so get a good one now (Like the AF-100), make money with it and enjoy shooting with it. When the something betters comes along... there will be lots of space on the inter-webs to debate the pros and cons of those cameras!
 
Buy the AF100, sell for a profit, and buy the FS100 :) Having shot a lot with the AF100, I probably wouldn't shoot with it by choice now that the FS100 is out there. The relatively poor highlight handling is something that bothers me just about every time I shoot with it. Keep in mind that without expanded focus or a higher resolution onboard lcd, an external monitor is absolutely neccessary, so that will likely drive the final price of the AF100 up anyway.
 
Not sure why, I always find the AF100 looks great for corporate and documantaries, but FS100 looks better for cinema, espessially once the sun goes down and you aren't shooting neon lights or city scapes.

So in my opinion, I think AF100 would be perfect for shooting your projects.
However I personally wouldn't be happy shooting cinema with the AF100. It all comes down to what you think.

If you really like the imagery that the FS100 produces, then note that you can always buy ND for it and solve that problem right away, but you can't buy a better sensor for the AF100.
 
Last edited:
Danespina said:
However I personally wouldn't be happy shooting cinema with the AF100.
Click to expand...
Personal opinions, obviously -- but for the record, I am delighted shooting cinema with it. It performs extremely well and is a joy to use, it holds up very well on the big screen, and is a very, very good cinema camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top