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

Status
Not open for further replies.
That will be a killer cam, but whit a overhall of 15 000$ bufget for my total cam package, i need tripod, shoulder mount, lens, monitor ....
I just cant afford this.

But yes it will be 2x better than the panasonic, im still a sony lover even if i will buy the af100.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Well only if you wanted to buy 3 AF100s and would settle for one camera. ;-)
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned about the price right now. I just want the best camera "in this range (technically)" come January.

At least Sony have had the sense to include a lens package, and are developing a dedicated zoom lens. Although no auto-focus which the AF100 is supposed to have.

For TV/news stuff a zoom lens is essential. And it has a ROCKER! lmao... the rocker is winking at me... ;-)
 
Nick Navaro said:
I'm not concerned about the price right now. I just want the best camera "in this range (technically)" come January.

At least Sony have had the sense to include a lens package, and are developing a dedicated zoom lens.

For TV/news stuff a zoom lens is essential. And it has a ROCKER! lmao... the rocker is winking at me... ;-)
Click to expand...

And Nick, that lens package is $23,000, and so you can spend that, and have a nice life. it isn't the same market that a $5,000 camera is. And BTW, I don't think that zoom is in the lens package.

Best,

Jan
 
Hi Jan,

Any idea when you folks will be ready to post a S/N ratio, ISO and dynamic range spec?

Thanks!
Steve
 
Nick Navaro said:
is this an AF100 killer!??
Click to expand...

If you need more than the 8-bit 4:2:2 HD-SDI out...
and you have the extra money...

Then yes.

Otherwise, it's in a totally different price bracket. Just because a camera has a ~35mm sensor and offers interchangeable lenses doesn't make it a direct competitor. And I really doubt any Product A will be killed by a Product B that costs thrice as much.
 
Yak said:
Only if you like paying 3 times as much so that you can record on a the same codex as HDV.
Click to expand...

I think the onboard codec only exists to provide auxiliary support for the Dual-Link or 3G HD-SDI. Which can support up to 880Mbs visually lossless 4:4:4 or record uncompressed to a Codex or the like. And then add in the use of S-Log and LUTs...this has many underpinnings of a much more expensive digital cinema camera.

Yes, there are extra costs associated with recording using those methods, but the fact that the option is available should explain some of the price tag.
 
Michael Olsen said:
I think the onboard codec only exists to provide auxiliary support for the Dual-Link or 3G HD-SDI. Which can support up to 880Mbs visually lossless 4:4:4 or record uncompressed to a Codex or the like. And then add in the use of S-Log and LUTs...this has many underpinnings of a much more expensive digital cinema camera.

Yes, there are extra costs associated with recording using those methods, but the fact that the option is available should explain some of the price tag.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I like that.
 
It is great that folks who have thousands upon thousands of dollars to spend can now have the Sony choice. That way they will have nothing to do and say about the AF100 'cause they will be playing with it instead. What a relief that we won't have to hear their nonsense any more. Thank you Sony.
 
Hands on filming next week on the new Sony F3

Hands on filming next week on the new Sony F3

Hey chaps hold yir horses the good old Panasonic AF101 as it's called in the UK is a great camcorder for the price and think of all your Canon/Nikon glass you will be able to use and not bother with OTT priced prime lenses !

Please remember times have changed and glass has got sooooo much better today, so much so that I bet there will be a NATS whisker in the quality of an ARRI prime and some of the Canon/Nikon prime lenses.

Back 20 years ago "prime" was guaranteed quality as photographic lenses were no way near as good but qualities have changed dramatically...for the better. While I am on this topic please remember 24 & 25 fps was chosen almost 100 years ago, we now call it 24 & 25p do any of you know why this frame rate was chosen so long ago...to save on film stock, I used a super 8mm cine camera at 18fps once again you got an extra 30 secs out of your 50 foot reel running it at 18fps.
 
Last edited:
HDWarrior said:
Hey chaps hold yir horses ........ we now call it 24 & 25p do any of you know why this frame rate was chosen so long ago...to save on film stock, I used a super 8mm cine camera at 18fps once again you got an extra 30 secs out of your 50 foot reel running it at 18fps.
Click to expand...

not really...
a guy named Eadweard J. Muybridge in the late 1800's was commissioned to see if at any point all of the horse's feet were off the ground. He set up 24 cameras, thus making the first recorded film. We've been using 24f/s ever since then, and it could have been any random number. But now our eyes are trained to establish this as motion.
 
If $9,000 4:2:0 is not a solution, perhaps $20,000 4:2:0 is:happy:

EDIT: in the last few years, we have been pushing the limits in the following:

1) How expensive can a 1/3" get? Panasonic and Canon are trying!
2) How expensive can a 4:2:0 8bit camera get? Sony is definitely trying!
3) How expensive can a GOP format camera get? Sony have no competition on this.
 
Sorry Tim, but this is inncorrect. Most silent films were shot at 18fps which worked just fine before the sound era. It was quickly discovered, however, that 18fps would not work if an optical soundtrack was added to the mix. Simply too slow to get the necessary fidelity out of the soundtrack. Engineers discovered that 24fps was about as slow as you could go and still get decent sound. Proof is in the fact that old silent films appear speeded up - not just the slapstick comendies, but serious dramas as well - because they were shot at 18fps and are now projected at 24fps. The digital world has enabled film restorers to show these old classics at the correct speed through digital processing and now they look great.
 
According to Cinema Before Cinema, The Origins of Scientific Cinematography (by Virgilio Tosi), the horse was shot at 1/25 sec interval and 1/2000 sec. By the standards of the era that was slow motion good enough for scientific applications:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top