AF100 and MKIII

M

maltess2

Well-known member
Hello

I am choosing between a 5D Mk III and the AF100,

just a few questions from an unexperienced user. What I like about the AF100 is the pro features hand grip, xlr, wiewfinder etc. but comparing image the 5D still look more appeling to me. I been checking AF 100 videos at vimeo etc. and I dont like the colors of the AF100 too much, I think the colors are too viedeoish and a bit saturated but I think this could be because post production or lenses . I found this AF100 video that looks nicer to me, a bit more filmish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BffPQyQaVPQ&feature=related

this is what I mean by videoish a bit saturated colors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLcEEA5SBkE

I am unexperienced with cameras, so I apologize if all this sounds too stupid. But what are the setting and lenses changes to go for that more of a film looking?

another thind, Does the AF100 have video autofocus?

best regards
 
Last edited:
the AF100 has a wide array of color, sharpness, contrast, and other settings to get near or close to the look you want. Generally to match a Canon DSLR, you hike up contrast, dial down chroma, and reduce the sharpness all the way. Sometimes a chroma phase shift towards magenta helps as well.

Autofocus on the AF100 is completely dependent upon the lens. Speed and accuracy of the autofocus also varies greatly by the lens. AF is (thus far) restricted to certain m43 and 4/3 native lenses.

There's a mess of other differences and options in each that I'm certain you'll read in your research, but simple message is that you should get whatever you believe will deliver the images you want in the way you want and deal with whatever flaws necessary.
 
There is a different look between AF100 and Canon DSLR cameras but as a long time user of both I can't say one or the other is better or if one or the other look more like video or not, they are just different. What I can say it's you pretty much pop the mirror on a Canon DSLR with a good lens and it looks good right away. With the AF100 you have to work a little bit more to achieve the same but in the end as I say very similar.
 
Colorwise in camera you can make an AF100 look like a 5D, but in camera you can't make a 5D look like an AF100. Ablecine has a scene file for the AF100 that looks like a 5D.
 
Odd, I found the exact opposite to be true. I could never make the AF100 color like the 5D but I could always do it the other way around. The AF100's in-camera color controls aren't very many. The 5D on the other hand has the color grid that let me push things into AF100 territory which is a bit cooler. The 5D has more red/magenta.
 
Can you clarify your link examples for me one more time. You think the first video clip (the girl & guy having fun) has a more filmic look to it than the second video? And the reason the second video (asian gentleman) looks more video-ish is because of the more saturated color?

thanks.
g.
 
I just looked at those two links you posted and I think you have it backwards actually. I think the second is more appealing visually both color wise and framing wise, as well as editing.
 
mcbob said:
the AF100 has a wide array of color, sharpness, contrast, and other settings to get near or close to the look you want. Generally to match a Canon DSLR, you hike up contrast, dial down chroma, and reduce the sharpness all the way. Sometimes a chroma phase shift towards magenta helps as well.

Autofocus on the AF100 is completely dependent upon the lens. Speed and accuracy of the autofocus also varies greatly by the lens. AF is (thus far) restricted to certain m43 and 4/3 native lenses.

There's a mess of other differences and options in each that I'm certain you'll read in your research, but simple message is that you should get whatever you believe will deliver the images you want in the way you want and deal with whatever flaws necessary.
Click to expand...


Could you pplease recoomend some zoon lenses for autofocus in the AF 100?
 
masnart said:
Can you clarify your link examples for me one more time. You think the first video clip (the girl & guy having fun) has a more filmic look to it than the second video? And the reason the second video (asian gentleman) looks more video-ish is because of the more saturated color?

thanks.
g.
Click to expand...


Yes, and for me in the second one, colors are more like imitating or triying to imitate film,
 
well imo its all in the DR & highlight rolloff.
the first link may 'look' good but its actually a bit over exposed. and canon dslrs handles overexposure pretty well.
the af100 takes a lot of practice and learning but can provide a much better resolution and details but may have some troubles in overexposed shots.
 
The AG-AF has this: Versatility. This is both good and bad. Because it means you have to take more time learning what it can do and what not - but then it can do a lot of things (for the price) that a lot of other cameras won't do (for the price), like having build in ND's, a really shot-saving waveform monitor, good audio inputs, focus in red and - not to forget: 50/60 fps. It lacks some things too. But every camera does that.

Why is versatility important? Becasue, depending on what you want to do, you need an instrument that really fits the situation and really let's you shoot what you want to shoot, even when it may lack the last 3.5% in quality. The shot not taken or not usable usually lacks 100% of quality.

So all rather depends on: What will you be shooting with it?
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
The AG-AF has this: Versatility. This is both good and bad. Because it means you have to take more time learning what it can do and what not - but then it can do a lot of things (for the price) that a lot of other cameras won't do (for the price), like having build in ND's, a really shot-saving waveform monitor, good audio inputs, focus in red and - not to forget: 50/60 fps. It lacks some things too. But every camera does that.

Why is versatility important? Becasue, depending on what you want to do, you need an instrument that really fits the situation and really let's you shoot what you want to shoot, even when it may lack the last 3.5% in quality. The shot not taken or not usable usually lacks 100% of quality.

So all rather depends on: What will you be shooting with it?
Click to expand...

This is the most brilliant thing I've heard said in a comparision thread.
 
"Large sensor camcorders have come along, first the nice but flawed AF100 (an update must be due soon!)."
This is what Philip Bloom is saying on his website????
 
I prefer the second video as well. I think a lot of the time people who are going after the film look tend to over expose their digital image quite a bit. Just for fun, take a look at this grab that was shot on 35mm film from a short film I did in January. It's a Tif and un graded but converted to jpg so i can post it. Stock was Vision 3.

rncrefpicb.jpg


If you check this out on scopes you'll see where it's been exposed and how smooth the gradients are from dark to black. Things aren't quite as contrasty and there is a beautiful range.
 
PaPa said:
I prefer the second video as well. I think a lot of the time people who are going after the film look tend to over expose their digital image quite a bit...

If you check this out on scopes you'll see where it's been exposed and how smooth the gradients are from dark to black. Things aren't quite as contrasty and there is a beautiful range.
Click to expand...

This is so true that I think it might be pathological. I was shooting artist performances with the AF100 @ SXSW and kept unconsciously ignoring what the WFM was saying because "it just didn't look right" and needed to be more highly exposed. It took me conscioulsy thinking, "use the WFM and leave the damn iris alone" to get me to stop. My wife was shooting the GH13 and while untrained, she paid attention to the histogram (i know). Her shots were more organic than mine when I pushed exposure... I actively made them look like video before I got my head back.

I know better, and I teach better, but I unconsciously did it any way. What is that?
 
GanEdenVideo said:
The AF100 doesnt have a stupid 12 minute recording restriction.
Click to expand...

For clarification, the Mk3 doesn't have a stupid 12 minute limit, it has a slightly less stupid 29 minute limit.


I'm not really concerned what Philip Bloom or similar folks say re: the AF... sure, if you have enough cash rolling in to buy an F3 and an Epic AND a C300, the AF you loved when you first bought it is going to look like small potatoes (which it should for 1/3 to 1/20 the price). I would absolutely sport a C300 and 5D3 combo with a full set of PL's or cinevised Leicas if my budget allowed. If your budget and gearophilia are at more reasonable levels, then Tipota's sage and simple advice ring truer.

...and as a complete aside for what it's worth, I'm sick of seeing everybody shoot everything flat and lifeless... it's a new fad like razor-thin focus.
 
"...and as a complete aside for what it's worth, I'm sick of seeing everybody shoot everything flat and lifeless... it's a new fad like razor-thin focus."

So true, don't understand why people go for this
 
mcbob said:
For clarification, the Mk3 doesn't have a stupid 12 minute limit, it has a slightly less stupid 29 minute limit.


I'm not really concerned what Philip Bloom or similar folks say re: the AF... sure, if you have enough cash rolling in to buy an F3 and an Epic AND a C300, the AF you loved when you first bought it is going to look like small potatoes (which it should for 1/3 to 1/20 the price). I would absolutely sport a C300 and 5D3 combo with a full set of PL's or cinevised Leicas if my budget allowed. If your budget and gearophilia are at more reasonable levels, then Tipota's sage and simple advice ring truer.

...and as a complete aside for what it's worth, I'm sick of seeing everybody shoot everything flat and lifeless... it's a new fad like razor-thin focus.
Click to expand...

Well, the main use for this camera would be documentary point and shoot small shots, that some of them I will be using in a documentary project with a alot of interviews, mainly shoot with a red one.

which camera is going to cut better with red one is another doubt I have, what do you think? from the first videos I have seen with the 5D, it looks good, the bad thing is that is probably going to be an even more popular camera , the Af probably will have a more distinctive look at the end.
 
tipota said:
The shot not taken or not usable usually lacks 100% of quality.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Wayne Gretzky quote my mother used in her book on parenting "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take". He was talking about hockey, but as your observation points out, it could easily have been about film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top