AF-100 Another DSLR $9,000 4:2:0 is a solution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, nonsense. My 5DII will still shoot video, even though I'll have the AF-100. One camera does not make another suddenly obsolete. Different tools for different purposes.
 
Stephen Mick said:
Again, nonsense. My 5DII will still shoot video, even though I'll have the AF-100. One camera does not make another suddenly obsolete. Different tools for different purposes.
Click to expand...

that's you. most people who have 5d's that will be purchasing AF100 will be using the AF100 far more i can guarantee that. why would you want moire, aliasing, jello etc.
 
Homunculus said:
maybe only because all 5d users will be swarming over to the AF100 side when they see that it blows the 5d out of the water, so why let good glass go to waste
Click to expand...

One of the main selling points of the AF100 is its ability to use SLR glass on it. Iwould be willing to bet you'll see far more SLR glass on the AF100 than CP2 Ziess cinema glass on it. I plan on getting the AF100, but I don't feel a need to tear down other cameras. The 5DII will be able to do things that the AF100 can't. As Barry said, don't look for a huge difference between the AF100 and 5DII when the 5DII is in its butter zone (shallow DOF head shots). The 5DII has a very unlike video quality about it. And who knows what the 5DIII with Digic V will bring to its future codec. It's a great cam. I can't think of another cam that has done more for indie cinema other than the DVX100. I'm sure more software solutions like Cinnafilm that is capable of scrubbing aliasing from 5D/7D footage will be cropping up making the shooting experience with DSLRS considerably less nerve racking.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you feel informed enough to be able to speak for "most people." But as a working professional whose 5DII has paid for itself twenty times over, all without a single client complaint about aliasing, moire, etc., why would I toss aside a camera that can still create beautiful images just because something newer comes along?

And this is coming from a guy who's first in line with an AF-100 preorder. As I said, different tools for different uses.
 
Homunculus said:
that's you. most people who have 5d's that will be purchasing AF100 will be using the AF100 far more i can guarantee that. why would you want moire, aliasing, jello etc.
Click to expand...

If I'm shooting music videos where picking up audio isn't a concern and the shot isn't going to present challenges to the DSLR codec, I'll be just as happy shooting the 5DII especially in locations where you might want to keep a low profile or just to pickup shots quickly here and there. Really, I can't see anybody getting rid of their 5DII and replacing it with an AF100. Adding the AF100 to their 5DII to increase capability, yes, but not getting rid of it. We're talking about a camera that is using the 1DsIII sensor for video and shoots in Vista Vision format. The only way I'm giving up my 5DII is for a 5DIII. It's a remarkable camera and is destined to become a legend. That being said. I'm very anxious to get my AF100.
 
f64manray said:
One of the main selling points of the AF100 is its ability to use SLR glass on it. Iwould be willing to bet you'll see far more SLR glass on the AF100 than CP2 Ziess cinema glass on it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. People can buy SLR glass easily, but cinema glass (even lower-end glass like the CPs') is out of the price range of most folks.

The 5DII will be able to do things that the AF100 can't.
Click to expand...
Such as the super-hyper-shallow DOF look that you can't even get on 35mm film, which was one of the reasons Gale Tattersall wanted to use it on the House season finale. The 5D is pretty much unique in that it offers a VistaVision-sized sensor for those who want that look.

I think we all know that the 5D isn't my cup of tea, but you have to give it props where it earns them. 21mp stills, and super-wide hyper-shallow DOF that it's just not practical to get on any other camera, at nearly any price.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Because moire aliasing and jello are only present in certain instances, not every shot.
Click to expand...
Well, jello and moire are only present in certain shots. Aliasing is always present on *anything* that's in sharp focus on a DSLR. The question is whether it's noticeable or objectionable.
 
Hi professionals

Need your professional opinion. How do you think footage from 2 cam's will match-up in one feature...

The AF100 and The Canon XF305

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/view_item_cat.php?catalogue_number=canon_xf305

AF100 is 24mb AVC 4:2:0 (that's what I will use anyway) and the XF305 is 50mb Mpeg2 4:2:2

I'm thinking of using the AF100 for docu style stuff and music videos, and the XF305 for the live event stuff. All will be part of the same TV show...

Thanks

PS I know most will depend on lighting etc, but for the sake of the question, the basic image of both cam's... If that makes sense!? And glass wise, the L glass already supplied on the Canon and the recommended wide. AF100 would be a choice of these

http://www.43rumors.com/voigtlander-nokton-25mm-f0-95-preorders-on-ebay-and-in-australia/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030314panasonic14-140mmhd.asp

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-...L-X025.S_11002_7000000000000005702#tabsection
 
Last edited:
No way to know without trying them. Both are brand-new modern units of comparable technological development, the codecs are probably comparable, the AF100 will make shallower-DOF footage and the Canon has the ENG-appropriate servo zoom lens... might be a good match. But until we can put them side by side there's no way to know how similar or inherently different they may look.
 
Barry_Green said:
No way to know without trying them. Both are brand-new modern units of comparable technological development, the codecs are probably comparable, the AF100 will make shallower-DOF footage and the Canon has the ENG-appropriate servo zoom lens... might be a good match. But until we can put them side by side there's no way to know how similar or inherently different they may look.
Click to expand...

Thanks Barry! You're like me! Never sleep!! LOL... I'm UK tho. You may be somewhere else....

Yeah, I'm thinking it would be a good match. However, from all the test shots I've seen so far of the AF100, the colour is really poor compared with the XF305.

I did this video for web with FOUR different cameras - to test them out. Watch it if you can stick the (I'm assuming) terrible music for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2TaLeTRLg

The daylight shots were XF305. You can see the gorgeous colour in the second half of the video. (me controlling)

The front-on shot of Kelis was with a HPX2700 with HJ22 zoom. You can see the quality of the 2/3" chips (me controlling)

The one wide shot of Kelis was a GH1 hacked on a mini-tripod

The closer angle to Kelis' right was a second cameraman with another GH1 hacked. Although the hacked GH1's were 80mb, I had trouble importing them into FCP, and has to use 3rd party software and the highest it would convert was 15mb!! :-( you can see the poor quality, as compared with the 2700.

The in the DJ booth shots were with a Sony V1 (me controlling) , as a back-up cam, as the 5DmkII I took I couldn't get to grips with and took a 50mm sigma lens and had the vignette of course.

This was a bold and crazy move by me, but I learnt a lot. I took the 2700, HJ22, 5D and everything else with me from London to Ibiza, alone. LOL

The day shoot was just a XF305, which was a tad easier. LOL!!
 
Barry_Green said:
Oh, and Nick -- for your friend with the disparaging opinions, you might want to have him check out Nigel Cooper's AF100 review. Nigel spent four days with the camera and has formed some pretty strong opinions about it.
http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=246
Click to expand...

Phew, long read that! He said 'there' instead of 'their' a lot! :-)

Wish he'd posted his footage too.

Sounds promising. The long lost brother part was a bit much, but overall I like the way he was comparing the new technology to days gone by.
 
Nick Navaro said:
Phew, long read that! He said 'there' instead of 'their' a lot! :-)

Wish he'd posted his footage too.

Sounds promising. The long lost brother part was a bit much, but overall I like the way he was comparing the new technology to days gone by.
Click to expand...

hey they're camera men not english teachers. Bloom's review and writeups are generally abysmal grammatically, far worse than that guy and no one really cares i guess as long as their info is accurate. shoot i'm actually a writer and probably have a bigger vocabulary than anyone here but look how i type. it's all a deliberate ruse!
 
Hey Barry thanks for the list. Just starting to read all the reviews on the AF 100 and knew I'd find some great stuff at DVXuser. It's been a while since I visited this site, but today I'm reminded of all the stuff I've learned here over the years from your books and posts. ( And from the many others who've shared their experiences.) The AF 100 looks like a great next step for those of us who took the DVX/HVX200/HPX170 journey (and like some of the aspects of the video images coming from the DSLR cameras).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top