af vs f3 vs 5d

Ok, great. But this is a forum for those who use the AF-100, not those who want to prove that there's a better camera out there.
 
yup completely valid test. Though it's all about how you frame the result. It can be, "the f3 blows away the af100, though it is a more expensive camera". Or the "af100 holds up pretty damn well to cameras costing 3 times as much" . Or, "the 5d is still the best bang for the buck video camera to date"
 
You know tests like this really don't tell me a hell of a lot.
How do we know if the guy doing the tests know how to really use the camera right to get the most out of it.
IE....... Did he Black balance the AF-100? Did he miss something with one of the other cameras that would make it preform better?
I have been working with the AF-100 for several weeks now and am far from knowing this camera in and out like the back of my hand. So how long did the guy doing the testing work with each of the cameras being tested before testing? I can bet it was not long enough...
 
Last edited:
I don't know about you guys, but i'm quite pleased with the results of that test. Blew the 5D out of the water.
 
I don't know if the "test" really proved anything.

I was fairly sure I'd never shoot at 3200ISO and expect "clean" anyway and despite all I've heard of how clean the F3 is I wouldn't want shoot that at +18dB either.
 
Yo guys, I should have posted up a bit of an explanation for the post. I saw this test at work and wanted to know your thoughts on it so I posted it up before I left. I also think this test didn't really prove much. I was hoping that the test would accompany some sort of article on his general findings. I figured some of you boys would like to take a look...I know I didnt mind pixel peeping a bit. I did not conduct this test. Boom.
 
Hotwood said:
You know tests like this really don't tell me a hell of a lot.
How do we know if the guy doing the tests know how to really use the camera right to get the most out of it.
IE....... Did he Black balance the AF-100? Did he miss something with one of the other cameras that would make it preform better?
I have been working with the AF-100 for several weeks now and am far from knowing this camera in and out like the back of my hand. So how long did the guy doing the testing work with each of the cameras being tested before testing? I can bet it was not long enough...
Click to expand...

exactly!
 
If you guys want the best then just get a Red Cam and don't get your shorts in a bunch.
If your looking for a reasonably priced compromise then the AF 100 fills that spot.
I don't expect a VW Bug to preform like a lamborghini, the same goes for the AF 100 compared to a camera
priced at 3 times the money.
 
Steve Kahn said:
I don't know if the "test" really proved anything.

I was fairly sure I'd never shoot at 3200ISO and expect "clean" anyway and despite all I've heard of how clean the F3 is I wouldn't want shoot that at +18dB either.
Click to expand...

In actual fact you can, but its how you use it.

3200ISO shouldnt be used in NO light. Well at least I wouldnt. But if I have scene with enough light to get a solid exposure - I mean 50-100 ire on the waveform, I could use it.
 
Noel Evans said:
In actual fact you can, but its how you use it.

3200ISO shouldnt be used in NO light. Well at least I wouldnt. But if I have scene with enough light to get a solid exposure - I mean 50-100 ire on the waveform, I could use it.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Thanks Noel.

I noticed that in the test the extremely low IRE area rectangle looked pretty poor but the better lit color squares looked maybe acceptable.

When you say 50-100ire on the waveform what exactly do you mean? That a 3200iso shot that cranks to 50-100ire on the waveform is acceptable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top