AF100 and MKIII

maltess2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Feature-wise, you get more with the AF100 and if you don't want to worry a lot about following focus (which may well be the case if you don't have much setup time for your documentary or on-location for a lot of the shots) then the large sensor of the 5DMkIII becomes more a liability than an asset. You'll also need shorter lenses for the same telephoto effect on the AF100 than would be required on the 5DMkIII.

However, if you will be doing a lot of night shooting, the fact that 5DMkIII has shown itself (on the stills side) to be a much better lowlight performer than the GH2 (which in turn is a better lowlight performer than the AF100) may still be of interest.

In all honesty, there simply isn't enough empirical data on the 5DMkIII at this point to gauge it accurately. If you can hold off on purchasing a new camera until later in the year, the choice should be a lot easier (and Panasonic may even have released an update to AF100 by then).

A big transition is happening right now. Both Canon and Nikon are shipping (or about to ship) the biggest refreshes to their DSLR line-ups in 3 years, Canon just entered the cinema camera market (with talk of a 4K camera of some sort likely to be announced in the next 2 months), Panasonic hasn't let slip anything about what a follow-up to the GH2 or AF100 would involve yet and even the GH2 itself has hugely advanced the Panasonic image quality (especially in regards to resolution) far past the AF100.

So if you want to get the most out of your money and buy with a bit more confidence, wait a few months for things to go back to the (relative) normal that we've seen for the last few years and make your decision a lot easier. At this point, everything can change in a month or two.
 
maltess2 said:
Yes, and for me in the second one, colors are more like imitating or triying to imitate film,
Click to expand...

thanks for the clarification. if you're visual reference comparing these two videos is viewed through the eye of low-budget documentaries, then perhaps you're comments have merit. I've worked in the world of high-end television commercials and big budget features for more than 20 years, and IMO the first video is an excellent example of a youtube video.

within the world of digital cinematography, i'm not sure it gets much better than phillip bloom.
 
With cameras available like the Panansonic AF100, Sony FS100 & F3, Canon C300 and the Red Scarlet-X, I just don't see any reason to be shooting video with a dslr unless you are training in school or an enthusiast. The dslr's are simply not professional video tools, from IQ to ergonomics, they just aren't. Shoot with an AF100 for a few days, you will never want to shoot video on a dslr again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top