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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Homunculus said:
Nick just keep in mind if you really want to use pro stuff like cinema glass that you're talking about, i.e. zeiss ultra primse, arri master primes, cooke s4's etc...at least you CAN use them on af100. slap a PL mount and you're set. but on your beloved full frame sensor 5dmkii? nope. you'll have to modify the entire camera for thousands of dollars , remove the mirror, and do all sorts of crap
Click to expand...

Sure I hear ya. I don't like DSLR's though not used them much. Just a peer has created some really neat work with them and I want to better it. :-)
 
Homunculus said:
Nick just keep in mind if you really want to use pro stuff like cinema glass that you're talking about, i.e. zeiss ultra primse, arri master primes, cooke s4's etc...at least you CAN use them on af100. slap a PL mount and you're set. but on your beloved full frame sensor 5dmkii? nope. you'll have to modify the entire camera for thousands of dollars , remove the mirror, and do all sorts of crap
Click to expand...
Well, not only that, but none of those lenses will work on a 5D anyway, because none of them cover that large sensor. Cinema lenses cover the 35mm or S35mm frame, that's it. And that's about half the size of the 5D's sensor, so you couldn't use cinema glass on a 5D even if you could fit the lenses on there.

The only exception I know of is the Compact Primes; most of those will cover the 5D (except for the 18mm, it vignettes).
 
Doctor Wu said:
I agree with most of what's been said about the superiority of the AF100 to a Canon DSLR, except for one exception: DR. Claims to the contrary, I'd like to put up a Canon DSLR and an AF100 (when it's in production) and really run it through the paces in terms of Dynamic range in video mode.
Click to expand...
Art Adams tested a 5D Mark II using a backlit Ambi dynamic range chart and found it produces 10 stops. I used almost the exact same chart (an earlier version, not the 17-stop but the 13-stop) and tested the AF100 at 10.5 stops. And that was the early pre-production model. These are both highly precise dynamic range testing charts, not front-lit cheapos.

The AF100 is going to have at least as much dynamic range as the best DSLRs.
 
Last edited:
Nick Navaro said:
Sure I hear ya. I don't like DSLR's though not used them much. Just a peer has created some really neat work with them and I want to better it. :-)
Click to expand...

I know I'm just saying you were talking all this stuff about 2x crop when the ONLY 2x crop that exists is compared to a 5dmkii (Bloom's cam of choice so that's why he's talking about crop so much) but in reality 5dmkii ain't even a proper film cam as it can't even use cinema lenses. About the best you can use is canon L glass which can't even compare to top Zeiss stills primes (recently posted article from professional national geographic photographer shows Zeiss blowing canon L away in comparison). So the point is 5dmkii is NOT some sort of top of the food chain thing to be compared to, real crop factor for af100 is negligibly small at 1.1 or 1.2x and the canon 5d will never have the ability to use true cinema glass like aF100 does NATIVELY
 
Nick Navaro said:
Regarding that 14-140 lens. How does it zoom?
Click to expand...
Manually.
Is it intelligently connected to the camera?
Click to expand...
Yes, in that it will report its zoom position back to the camera. And it holds focus throughout the zoom.

Is there a rocker?
Click to expand...
No, because there's no motor in the lens.

The auto-focus lens is not made yet right? Especially with the face recognition thingy? Not that it's that important but nice to know.
Click to expand...
That works now.
 
Nick Navaro said:
Sure I hear ya. I don't like DSLR's though not used them much. Just a peer has created some really neat work with them and I want to better it. :-)
Click to expand...
Many people have created simply amazing work with the DSLRs. When they're in their sweet spot, they can do some brilliant stuff.

But it'll be easier, faster, more consistent, better, with fewer hassles, and less drawbacks, to do it on an AF100.
 
Homunculus said:
I know I'm just saying you were talking all this stuff about 2x crop when the ONLY 2x crop that exists is compared to a 5dmkii (Bloom's cam of choice so that's why he's talking about crop so much) but in reality 5dmkii ain't even a proper film cam as it can't even use cinema lenses. About the best you can use is canon L glass which can't even compare to top Zeiss stills primes (recently posted article from professional national geographic photographer shows Zeiss blowing canon L away in comparison). So the point is 5dmkii is NOT some sort of top of the food chain thing to be compared to, real crop factor for af100 is negligibly small at 1.1 or 1.2x and the canon 5d will never have the ability to use true cinema glass like aF100 does NATIVELY
Click to expand...

Ohh, the way I understood it from another source was, if you had a 35mm film camera with 35mm lens, and put that lens on a AF100, then it would become 70mm and you'd get the x2 crop as compared with a 35mm film camera. This was coming from a guy that makes movies too. Or did I read it so wrong!??
 
Barry_Green said:
Many people have created simply amazing work with the DSLRs. When they're in their sweet spot, they can do some brilliant stuff.

But it'll be easier, faster, more consistent, better, with fewer hassles, and less drawbacks, to do it on an AF100.
Click to expand...

SOLD! haha :-)

Damn, wish I could just use one now to test and get a feel for it. Where do you live Barry? hahaha... :-)
 
Nick Navaro said:
Ohh, the way I understood it from another source was, if you had a 35mm film camera with 35mm lens, and put that lens on a AF100, then it would become 70mm and you'd get the x2 crop as compared with a 35mm film camera. This was coming from a guy that makes movies too. Or did I read it so wrong!??
Click to expand...
35mm still cameras have nothing to do with 35mm movie cameras. The sensor in a "full frame" DSLR or 35mm still camera is HUGE compared to the film size of a 35mm movie camera.

The crop factor between a 35mm movie camera, and the AF100, is 1.18. So if you put a 35mm lens on the AF100, the "effective" focal length becomes 41mm. Ain't no big deal.

The only place the "2x" thing comes into play is if you want to compare it against a stills camera. And that's pretty much irrelevant, because first of all the relative crop isn't 2x, it's 1.89, and second of all the stills camera has nothing to do with cinema cameras.
 
Nick Navaro said:
A drawback. Does it have a knob on the ring to function the zoom??
Click to expand...

What drawback? Does what have a knob? The lens is the lens and has nothing to do with the camera. The lens zooms however it zooms. On the 14-140, it's a ring. Most lenses use a zoom ring; a few use a stupid push/pull motion to zoom, but that's just unusable in cinema work.
 
Nick Navaro said:
Ohh, the way I understood it from another source was, if you had a 35mm film camera with 35mm lens, and put that lens on a AF100, then it would become 70mm and you'd get the x2 crop as compared with a 35mm film camera. This was coming from a guy that makes movies too. Or did I read it so wrong!??
Click to expand...

yes this is wrong. if you have a 35mm FILM (as in cinema, i.e. arri 535, Red One, etc) camera and put its lenses on AF100 (Red Pro Primes, Arri Master Primes, Cooke S4's, Zeiss Ultra Primes, ETC, ETC) the crop factor will be an almost nonexistent 1.2. so the field of view will be almost the same as in the original 35mm camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
35mm still cameras have nothing to do with 35mm movie cameras. The sensor in a "full frame" DSLR or 35mm still camera is HUGE compared to the film size of a 35mm movie camera.

The crop factor between a 35mm movie camera, and the AF100, is 1.18. So if you put a 35mm lens on the AF100, the "effective" focal length becomes 41mm. Ain't no big deal.

The only place the "2x" thing comes into play is if you want to compare it against a stills camera. And that's pretty much irrelevant, because first of all the relative crop isn't 2x, it's 1.89, and second of all the stills camera has nothing to do with cinema cameras.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. I didn't mention still cams at all. But that's what he said. Hmmmm... WTF is he talking about then? :-/
 
Nick Navaro said:
Yeah I know. I didn't mention still cams at all. But that's what he said. Hmmmm... WTF is he talking about then? :-/
Click to expand...

Well, he was either referring strictly to a stills camera, or he was wrong. No other possible interpretations. The crop as compared to a cinema camera is a very minimal 1.18.
 
Barry_Green said:
What drawback? Does what have a knob? The lens is the lens and has nothing to do with the camera. The lens zooms however it zooms. On the 14-140, it's a ring. Most lenses use a zoom ring; a few use a stupid push/pull motion to zoom, but that's just unusable in cinema work.
Click to expand...

Haha.. On the old Sony Z1's there was a little knob on the ring zoom, it was fantastic. I like the new Canon XF305's, but they don't have that little knob on the zoom ring. It was funny, as I was at the hire place and another guy mentioned the exact same thing. You could operate the ring zoom just using your thumb with the knob on the ring.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Well, he was either referring strictly to a stills camera, or he was wrong. No other possible interpretations. The crop as compared to a cinema camera is a very minimal 1.18.
Click to expand...

This is what he is saying - cut and paste. Can you clarify?

Then, if you use a 35mm SLR, DSLR, or cine-lens on the AF100, you will have a whopping 200% crop factor to content with, which means that basically you can only achieve normal and telephoto perspectives when using this almost US$5,000 "video" camera. Never really any wides and ultra-wides, due to the 2.0x crop factor. You may try to use the Lumix photo lenses on it, but really, that would probably be the worst match of them all.
 
Nick Navaro said:
This is what he is saying - cut and paste. Can you clarify?

Then, if you use a 35mm SLR, DSLR, or cine-lens on the AF100, you will have a whopping 200% crop factor to content with, which means that basically you can only achieve normal and telephoto perspectives when using this almost US$5,000 "video" camera. Never really any wides and ultra-wides, due to the 2.0x crop factor. You may try to use the Lumix photo lenses on it, but really, that would probably be the worst match of them all.
Click to expand...
wow that sounds like someone trying DESPERATELY to discredit the camera. definitely not a source i would trust
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top