I'm about to enter the AF100 world for editorial multimedia shooting. I anticipate controlled settings, not chaotic demonstrations, but need to be prepared. I'm looking for the best lens configuration, starting from scratch--and am definitely not rich. I'd love to work only with primes, but that seems impractical given the nature of my work, so will need fast zooms and autofocus. My only concern is whether you can hear autofocus (like image stabilization) on any lenses that are mounted. Am I being paranoid? Suggestions?
AF100 lenses for journalists
- Thread starter brcalvert
- Start date
LoganMackay
Well-known member
You probably want a different camera if you need fast zooms and autofocus.
The 14-140 is the only real video type lens that will give you silent and continuous focus. But there is no zoom servo, its manual so not easily smooth. All other lenses, be they prime or zoom, are limited. Some have iris that can be controlled by camera, and/or push autofocus. But any non-4/3's lenses used will be completely manual in operation. Though Birger is coming out with a canon electronic mount that should give most functionality, but its vaporware until NAB and there may be futher delays. Then later Birger is supposed to come out with a Nikon compatible adapter...but that may be a 6 months to a year away if ever.
There currently are no fast zooms with continuous autofocus. The only lenses close are the Olympus Zuiko 14-35 f/2.0 and 35-100 f/2.0, with push autofocus and electronic aperture control. People have reported excellent sharpness across the board, but with annoying clicking with aperture changes and zooms.
There currently are no fast zooms with continuous autofocus. The only lenses close are the Olympus Zuiko 14-35 f/2.0 and 35-100 f/2.0, with push autofocus and electronic aperture control. People have reported excellent sharpness across the board, but with annoying clicking with aperture changes and zooms.
Based on what you're saying the hmc150 is the best bang for the buck, or higher budget Canon XF30x cameras. AF100 is more for cinematic type use and really is not ideal for ENG or unpredictable situations, especially if its your only camera. I have the HMC150 for when I need auto speed...
I've looked into those, but I feel like the creative freedom the AF100 allows brings it more in line with where things are going for editorial video. Figure now's a good time to start bringing these worlds together. If it's either/or, I'd prefer to maintain more control of a situation, as in visual creative non-fiction, rather than ENG. Would be nice not to have to choose, right?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, yes, you do have a point, and I can understand the appeal -- but just be aware as the others are saying, the lenses aren't ideal for that purpose. The 14-140 is about as close as you're going to get, with today's available lens choices, and it's far from perfect.
Right. I'm totally down for the 14-140, and my thinking is that this AF100, sitting where it is between DSLRs and the big boys, might be something multimedia journalists would jump on. There's nothing that says a short editorial feature can't have an aesthetic feel, which might actually be more marketable. No doubt on I'm on a learning curve, and I totally appreciate the feedback. It just seems to me for someone who has moved from print to radio and now into video that the AF100 is a good place to start. Plus it seems more versatile down the line for longer projects. I guess I couldn't find the lens I really want because it doesn't exist yet.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I've seen people trying to shoot interviews and press conferences on DSLRs. You'll find the AF100, while not being purpose-built for that process, is infinitely more suited to it than a DSLR is, by virtue of it having uninterrupted recording times, no overheating, a lens that can autofocus during video, and real audio inputs and headphone jacks. I don't think it's an ideal choice for the purpose you're proposing, but it is probably the best choice among the large-sensor cameras, and if you want a large-sensor shallow-DOF camera and you understand the tradeoffs that are associated, you can probably do well with it. There's an article I posted in the "reviews" thread about someone shooting a doc on the AF100 in Libya -- that's a pretty challenging environment and I'd probably reach for my HMC150 instead of the AF100 to cover that, but hey, he's doing it and his report was quite positive.
In short -- you can do it, it will work, there might be other choices that are more suitable but if you need the aesthetic of the large sensor then the AF100 is far and away the most suitable large-sensor camera. You're going to want to bring along a shallow-DOF lens though, because the 14-140 doesn't open up fast enough to give you the lush shallow-DOF shots. Something like the Leica 25mm f/1.4 or the Voigtlander or maybe even the Lumix 20mm, although for portraiture something on the order of 35mm to 50mm would be likely more aesthetically pleasing.
In short -- you can do it, it will work, there might be other choices that are more suitable but if you need the aesthetic of the large sensor then the AF100 is far and away the most suitable large-sensor camera. You're going to want to bring along a shallow-DOF lens though, because the 14-140 doesn't open up fast enough to give you the lush shallow-DOF shots. Something like the Leica 25mm f/1.4 or the Voigtlander or maybe even the Lumix 20mm, although for portraiture something on the order of 35mm to 50mm would be likely more aesthetically pleasing.
I'll see if I can add some useful advice here. I myself shoot primarily short and long news doc's, some of it in controlled environments and some in complete anarchy. With that, i've been using my EX1 for a few years now and love it. For the past year I've utilized the 5D whenever the situation allowed. I "replaced" the 5D with the AF100 a couple of months ago and haven't regretted it for a second. I try to use only my prime's when I can but sometimes I need some range so I opt for my Oly 14-35 or my Nikkor 80-200. Any situation I would of used my 5D in, Im using the AF and even more often because of the audio, ND, VFR, etc.
The reason I never considered the 14-140 is because shooting it wide open does not give a significantly shallower DOF then my EX1 at f1.9. Since I own both cameras I can pick and choose the right tool for the right job.
If your going to own only one camera my suggestion is, if your primarily shooting in the conditions you describe, the AF will be fine. If you feel you need a zoom maybe try the Oly 12-60, it's not a super fast lens but has a great range. Add to it a couple of fast primes and your set. BTW, I never use autofocus on any of my camera's, it's a liability.
If you'll be filming in more chaotic, uncontrolled news breaking situations where you have to get the shot, a camera like the EX1 will be a much better tool and give you shallower DOF then the HMC150. If shallow DOF is not important then the 150, 170, Canon XF30x cameras are all good.
A lot of people get confused these days that news only means what they see on the nightly news. There are tons of short doc news piece's out there on a lot of different platforms that you do not need a ENG camera to capture correctly and efficiently. They also tend to be much more esthetically shot. Examples include; The NY Times, TIME.com, The Guardian, Al Jazeera "Frames" & "Witness", etc. etc.
A side story; Last summer I met the NBC cameraman on Richard Engel's team in Afghanistan. After he heard what type of material I was shooting, he says "Im so jealous of you guys that are being allowed to shoot journalism in creative new ways, be it with a 5D, grading in post, taking weeks to do a story instead of just a day or two like us." "The work you guys are creating is bringing a visual quality to news footage that has never been seen before."
Food for thought..
The reason I never considered the 14-140 is because shooting it wide open does not give a significantly shallower DOF then my EX1 at f1.9. Since I own both cameras I can pick and choose the right tool for the right job.
If your going to own only one camera my suggestion is, if your primarily shooting in the conditions you describe, the AF will be fine. If you feel you need a zoom maybe try the Oly 12-60, it's not a super fast lens but has a great range. Add to it a couple of fast primes and your set. BTW, I never use autofocus on any of my camera's, it's a liability.
If you'll be filming in more chaotic, uncontrolled news breaking situations where you have to get the shot, a camera like the EX1 will be a much better tool and give you shallower DOF then the HMC150. If shallow DOF is not important then the 150, 170, Canon XF30x cameras are all good.
A lot of people get confused these days that news only means what they see on the nightly news. There are tons of short doc news piece's out there on a lot of different platforms that you do not need a ENG camera to capture correctly and efficiently. They also tend to be much more esthetically shot. Examples include; The NY Times, TIME.com, The Guardian, Al Jazeera "Frames" & "Witness", etc. etc.
A side story; Last summer I met the NBC cameraman on Richard Engel's team in Afghanistan. After he heard what type of material I was shooting, he says "Im so jealous of you guys that are being allowed to shoot journalism in creative new ways, be it with a 5D, grading in post, taking weeks to do a story instead of just a day or two like us." "The work you guys are creating is bringing a visual quality to news footage that has never been seen before."
Food for thought..
gaffney film
Active member
those are my go to zooms and they are perfect for this camera. i find i use the 17-35 the most. I had it modded at duclos and will send the 28-70 for the same mod (declick and focus gear) after this next job.
got me jealous too! I have 2-3 days of shooting for each story maximum and 1-2 days of editing. Wish I had weeks and budgets too
I used a 17-35 and it was great, but it was borrowed from a photographer friend of mine. I found for a two person interview setup, I was spending most of my time at almost 35mm, so I'm about to buy the nikon 24-70...then down the road, probaby the 14-24...I have an old minolta 80-200 G, that I may sell and get the newer nikon 70-200 VR II...but that's not as big a priority since the minolta lens is top notch. I just figure that if I go all nikon, then later get a nice dslr for stills, not so much video. Unless I get a gh2, then I could still use the nikon lenses for video.
If you do get the nikon 24-70, be sure its new from the last 6 or so months...seems they had a lot of problems with sticky zoom issues that seem to have finally been fixed in more recently constructed models.
If you do get the nikon 24-70, be sure its new from the last 6 or so months...seems they had a lot of problems with sticky zoom issues that seem to have finally been fixed in more recently constructed models.
got me jealous too! I have 2-3 days of shooting for each story maximum and 1-2 days of editing. Wish I had weeks and budgets too
I never said we had good budgets. Haha..
One other point to this thread is the state of journalism today. If there was ever a time to get inventive and creative in storytelling, it's now. When I think of what I could do on a shoot with an AF100 compared to the other ENG cameras I've used, I get excited. Surely that's worth something. What about a lens combination of the 14-140 plus something like the Voigtlander 25 or 50? From there, I could build with primes, but always have two bases covered: flexibility and low light/DOF.
janreichle
Member
How about the 18-200mm DX Nikkor? Ken Rockwell rates it highly for stills. Would need a Novoflex or MTF adapter that can control the iris though.
I hear ya. I started to hang up my still gear around 2007/08 and transitioned to video. Not that anyone is getting rich filming journalism but the still market completely collapsed around then. Best of luck with your move into video.
A option to consider that no one has brought up here I think is, maybe get a HPX170, EX1, HMC150 like Noah mentioned and then pick up a GH1 or some other less expensive DSLR with a couple prime lenses. Once you finish outfitting a AF100 with lenses and stuff you'd be at about the same cost. Use the fixed lens camera when your under the gun and the DSLR when conditions allow. Thats what I was basically doing the past 2 years with my EX and 5D, worked great.
May be a good, inexpensive still lens - but not a constant-aperture lens and not very fast. Don't know it's breathing characteristics either (if you want to pull focus).
The more expensive aforementioned Nikons (17-35mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f/28 if you want aperture rings, 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-60mm f/2.8 if you don't care, and are OK using a Novoflex etc.) ...are much better if you can afford them.
Something in between might be the 17-55mm f/2.8 (no ring).