AF100 now really discontinued at B&H in New York

The issue is not whether you can get good images out of the camera, it's whether you can get an image you like. People seem to confuse the two, and assume that because they can't get an image they personally like, the camera isn't capable of putting out good images at all.
 
kaushalsingh said:
I heard that its users had so many problems with it so for that reason it is good if they are discontinuing it!
Click to expand...

Frankly I read your post here and was so truly offended. Not only are you wrong you put this out there as a fact and you couldn't be further from the truth. It is not a problematic camera, it is still the best camera for the money in its price range with all of the wealth of features and the quality of the build. I really hate posts like this. And so if it is so problematic, why are you here? I mean really, do you hang out in forums that talk about cameras that you are not interested in?

Thanks for getting my blood going this am.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
I mean really, do you hang out in forums that talk about cameras that you are not interested in?

Thanks for getting my blood going this am.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

I sincerly hope that your new position does not interfere with your presence here on these forums Jan.
All the best,
Craig
 
Well, I bought my AF-101 just a few days before the updated model was announced, but I don't care a jot. I can't believe I waited so long. Without wanting to appear too gushy, coming from a long line of XL1, XL2, XH-A1S where I got to know almost instinctively how to get decent looking images out of the camera, this has been like a breath of fresh air. I don't expect to get the best pictures on earth at this price point, but I do want to enjoy the experience of trying to capture the best pictures I possibly can. It's put back a lot of the fun and excitement into being behind the camera at a time when I was more and more paying other people to do that 'chore' for me. If I had another £10k to throw around I might have chosen something else, and maybe when this camera has paid for itself a few times over I will. For now, though, superceded, discontinued, whatever, I am really enjoying camera-work again.
 
Ian Stark;1986250086 whatever said:
It's odd, but that's exactly how I feel about this camera... There's something that draws me back to it even though I have several other choices - it's not all about pixels or highlights.
Click to expand...
 
Mac said:
It's odd, but that's exactly how I feel about this camera... There's something that draws me back to it even though I have several other choices - it's not all about pixels or highlights.
Click to expand...

That's because, apart maybe from the lack of focus expand, the camera is a true joy to use. It's really a pleasure to work with and to get a similar experience you need to step up to something like a F3. And even then, the F3's viewfinder is just not as nice as the AF100's. I think people who have used full sized cameras or film cameras and didn't come from the world of DSLRs are probably the ones most drawn to the AF100 qualities. IMO it's the perfect size for a cinema camera.
 
Mac said:
It's odd, but that's exactly how I feel about this camera... There's something that draws me back to it even though I have several other choices - it's not all about pixels or highlights.
Click to expand...

Had not as much joy with an affordable camera since when I had my sync 16mm bolex....... long tima ago .. :-)
 
How much latitude and sharpness did/does 16mm have over the AF100? I ask this as I know it's crop factor is higher and wondered how else it faired, maybe the AF is the 16mm of the digital world?
 
Well the 16mm Bolex is a good analogy, which has been used several times before in this forum... I had five of them between 1962 and 1974.

As far as latitude between the AF and 16mm, it depends on the film. In the Bolex days it was all reversal. Reversal didn't have the latitude of negative, so it was not as good as the AF (and I always laugh at the comments about low light performance of the AF - 16mm ECO, Commercilal Ektachrome, was ASA 25, 16 outdoors with an 85 - so-called High Speed Ektachrome was ASA 100-125, and could be pushed in processing to ASA 400 with lots of grain, which we all liked back then). Negative, which started being used in the mid-70s was much better, but still not as good as 35.

So, all-in-all, 16mm in it's glory days was pretty close to what we're seeing now with this camera. 16 didn't exhibit the chroma clipping though, and that's what most critics have jumped on - but good cinematographers have gotten great images out of both cameras despite the "limitations".
 
So, all-in-all, 16mm in it's glory days was pretty close to what we're seeing now with this camera.
Click to expand...

Sorry...I can not agree with that!

The images I can get from an AF100 are superior to anything 16mm.. I ever shot , I ever saw shot or I processed and telecined in my lab.

Wish I could show a direct comparison (same shot, frame grabs) but of course ..impossible now. Will look for some examples though ( which I can do).
 
I would be inclined to say that if 16mm, and by that I mean S16, has anything on the AF100 and the current crop of HD cameras, it would be a dynamic range advantage, but this is a big if. I think it's more a matter of film handling light transitions better than digital than a real measurable dynamic range issue. But then I remember Black Swan and I'm not sure anymore digital is any better than S16 if at all. :)
I watched Black Swan in the same screen I watched Revenge of the Sith years ago and Black Swan only looked better but also sharper. ROTS looked really soft and plasticy. I know that was shot on an older camera (F950 which cost about $100K at the time though) but Black Swan looked beautiful. But this is another debate I guess.
 
XSVpro said:
How much latitude and sharpness did/does 16mm have over the AF100? I ask this as I know it's crop factor is higher and wondered how else it faired, maybe the AF is the 16mm of the digital world?
Click to expand...
I'm hard pressed to give any numbers - but then we'd say that reversal may give us about 6 stops at best, negative possibly 8 - 9. But all of this where theoretical numbers as quality was very different with the labs one used. My last movie on film was shot with Kodak stock in 2009. As I wasn't the DoP but the director I can give you only an estimation here quality wise: While I still am very much in love with the way film handles colours, high lights and skin tones I'd say that the AG-AF is on par with 16 mm in a pure technical sense.

Why the AG-AF maybe is "the 16 mm" is more the price / versatlity / quality triangle where it covers about the same ground as in my Bolex/Arri 16 days. Without never forgetting that the costs for film-stock alone then would have been near ore even more what the AG-AF itself costs. And: My used but still very new motor-Bolex with 120 meter cassettes and the fabolous Kern-Switar zoom and some othe equipment did cost me about 12.000 Deutschmark then. That would be - at least - the same amount in Euro today, possibly rather 15 to 17. This, all in all, is where the "16 mm" equation strikes more than in any purely technical term. And why digital, as much as my heart goes out for film still, was and is so revolutionary.
 
I don't do charts or those kind of tests, but recently there was a local "retrospective" (pretentious word) of some of my work, including documentaries and commercials shot on super16 and std 16 and I was amazed at how good it looked. Not sharp, because much of this had been posted in 1" or BetaSP, but it sure reminded me of why I fought for so many years to stay with film...

The AF100 (and the other new cameras) produce very nice - different - images, but better? I don't think so. It's all a matter of personal taste and perception.
 
Shooter said:
Sorry...I can not agree with that!

The images I can get from an AF100 are superior to anything 16mm.. I ever shot , I ever saw shot or I processed and telecined in my lab.

Wish I could show a direct comparison (same shot, frame grabs) but of course ..impossible now. Will look for some examples though ( which I can do).
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. And this is coming from someone who owned a half-dozen Bolex's, a pair of Eclair NPR 16mm, a pair of Eclair NPR Super 16mm, an Arri 16SR High Speed, along with numerous 35mm cameras. Sorry we can reminisce all we want, but the reality of the matter is that modern cameras offer a much better toolset, with a faster turnaround time, and a higher overall quality level out of the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top