AF100 lived up to the HYPE?

Ticheli said:
G

, the ergonomic nightmares,
Leo
Click to expand...
Leo, how do you find AF100 as far as ergonomics. I am really used to shoulder mount ENG style or to light hand held. This is my biggest gripe with EX1 that is neither, kills my wrist after a short time, can't place it on the shoulder without some support (of course it means extra cost, bulk and weight). Buy on the other hand AF100 looks lie a shoe box to me and I just wanted to see first hand opinions on hand held ergonomics of this camera.
 
Lots of posts deleted in this thread. Look at the original poster's request: it was to "Ladies and gentlemen of the first wave of AF100 owners".

People posting things when they haven't even seen or used one of these cameras, are not what's being asked for. People attacking those people, is not what DVXUser is about.

If you're an existing AF100 owner and want to offer your opinions, this thread is for you.
 
mcgeedigital said:
AVCCAM holds up just fine in FCP7 for both keying and color correction when imported as ProRes.
Click to expand...
Matt, please read carefully: "And unfortunately AVCCAM (or AVCHD) edited native doesn't hold up in post production at all, particularly 3rd generation on. While DVCPRO HD or XDCAM EX (in FCP- rendered as ProRes) will have minimal deterioration, can't say the same about AVCHD in CS or other NLE's editing native."
What I am talking about is native edit. FCP doesn't even allow for AVCHD native edit, so it has to be transcoded into ProRes- right? I can edit XDCAM EX native, then color correct, send it for sound work, add Motion effects and upon final export it will not differ in quality much from the master.
 
The AF100 is not a VariCam style camera. If you intend to do on the shoulder shooting, you either need third-party support gear or a different camera.

No camera is all things to all men. If you shoot things like sports or news-style, I don't think the AF100 is a good first choice. The DOF is too shallow and the design not right for on the shoulder operation without a third party rig of some sort. This is not really a big deal, but quite obviously the AF100 is not designed to be held on the shoulder right out of the box.

If you shoot cinema style, the AF100 is a real joy to shoot. It's small, light-weight, and has the advantage of the built-in filter wheel, which can save a great deal of time on shoots with many changes in overall light level.

To slip into the intangibles, when I shoot with my Red, I'm very confident and secure, in a serious sort of way; when I'm shooting with the AF100, it's more like playing - I'm shooting with a smile on my face. Yes, it's just fun to shoot.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I find shooting with the AF handheld and a prime lens mounted a breeze. Mount a zoom on the camera and it gets more complicated. Adapt a B4 mount lens and unless you're shooting mounted on a tripod it doesn't make a lick of sense. I've come to name the present style of cameras Red, AF, F3 when it arrives, the Brownie era, the reference being Kodak brownie cameras. Basically the Brownie was a box with a lens and a viewing system and a shutter release that held film and was kind of light on the ergonomics.
Clearly present day cameras named here are far more advanced than the Brownie, but the form factors are kind of similar: box with lens port, or box with computer inside, image sensor and lens port.

I agree with Leo that shooting with the AF is fun in part because it can be small, and in part because it is what you make of it. And plenty can be made of it. The way I see it the hurt factor comes in when you try to make one camera do too many things. If you consider the past, there really has been no one camera system that does a lot of things well. Imax cameras make great large format films, but are unusable for documentaries, Tv Cameras might be great for capturing live events, but terrible for narrative films, etc. Same thing here: the AF is fun, makes some great images and unlike some of its predecessors is a framework to build on mainly because it offers so many lensing options that can contribute to creative story telling. THe AF fills a niche in the camera ecosystem in a great way, but its not going to sweep away all other cameras. I consider my HPX 370 the killer documentary camera for many situations and if I tried to get the AF to match that same capability the 370 has, the result would be absurd and unworkable.

So yeah the AF is great but it or its successor would Never be the only camera I would own.
 
Last edited:
I agree that a naked handheld af100 with a light-weight, wide to 35mm-ish, prime is pretty usable. moreso than a naked hvx/ex or a dslr. With the Cineroid and other evfs, we can finally properly shoulder mount these cameras.

I can understand those generally unimpressed with footage so far*. Keep in mind, a camera doesn't shoot amazing stuff by itself. With time and the camera in more hands, you'll see some seriously amazing looking projects that embrace the cameras strong points.

On a tech level, shooting 5d/7d for the past year or so, aliasing by itself hasn't really been a problem for me personally or clients, but the general low resolution nature has. The AF100 is much, much better, though I think only slightly reflected in footage so far.

You already know about all the functional advantages the camera has over dslrs in a shooting environment, and I don't really want to take the time to type those out... But the cam is amazing to work with. I have gotten used to work-arounds with dslrs, so the af100 is like a breath of fresh air.

Having been using the camera for the past couple weeks, I'll just say that I really love this thing.

*not that there isn't some killer stuff shot already... there has been some actual filmmaking done worth checking out...
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, no camera really lives up to its own press.

So far I've found that the AF-100 benefits from the use of a warm balance (ie: warm cards) or by adding minus green gel to your fixtures for skin tones rather than using the standard color schemes or the variable knob. The colorimetry of it just seems to be a bit cooler in tone when compared to the other cameras in the class (HVX, HPX170, old DVXb.) So far I've tested this with tons of lenses warm and cool (PL, Canon FD, Nikons). And using my Mark Vb viewfinder now with the 2x crop factor and different sized sensor is a complex math equation. But just like any other camera or film stock, once you learn the little differences, it's just a tool... A pretty damn good one for only 5 grand.

Kevin



Kevin Bradley
Cinematographer

Washington, D.C.
kwbradley@yahoo.com
571.277.2379
 
robertrogoz said:
Matt, please read carefully: "And unfortunately AVCCAM (or AVCHD) edited native doesn't hold up in post production at all, particularly 3rd generation on. While DVCPRO HD or XDCAM EX (in FCP- rendered as ProRes) will have minimal deterioration, can't say the same about AVCHD in CS or other NLE's editing native."
What I am talking about is native edit. FCP doesn't even allow for AVCHD native edit, so it has to be transcoded into ProRes- right? I can edit XDCAM EX native, then color correct, send it for sound work, add Motion effects and upon final export it will not differ in quality much from the master.
Click to expand...

So what.

I don't edit native and transcode its ProRes for it's 10 bit workflow.
 
I do wish the camera had a log/Rec709 switch when out-boarding the signal to a deck or nanoflash. The AVCCAM stuff in-camera is fine for light-grading, broadcast in pro res or web delivery as is. You really have to shoot it the way you want it in-camera, just like the DSLR's.

But like I said before, we are talking about a 5000 dollar, bang-around, pay-it-off in 4 gigs camera body here, not an ARRI.

Kevin



Kevin Bradley
Cinematographer

Washington, D.C.
kwbradley@yahoo.com
571.277.2379
 
I shot 5-6 documentary scenes with my characters in the past six weeks, almost all of them handheld with the lumix 14-140, manual focus, auto or manual-iris. It works perfectly for my needs. The footage isn't Red, or maybe not BBC qualified but in my kind of work the story and the nuances of feeling coming from the people count much more. So I put the camera in my backpack and meet the people one on one, without the intimidation of a large crew or lots of equipment and I get what I need.

Yes, the squarish built of the camera isn't perfect for me. It's a bit too wide and took a little time getting used to.
 
Everyone has gotten spoiled these last few years because of the DSLR craze. High quality imaging for dirt cheap prices. For what it is, the AF-100 is easily 5 out of 5 stars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top