Barry_Green
Moderator
Yep. +1.
AF100 or FS100?
- Thread starter spotts
- Start date
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
+1
An HMC150/HVX200/XF305/EX3 would be my choice for run and gun, though the AF100 does a pretty good job considering
An HMC150/HVX200/XF305/EX3 would be my choice for run and gun, though the AF100 does a pretty good job considering
EidolonFilms
Well-known member
Coming from an XHA1 I would never want to go back shooting a doc on a small sensor camera. 4 years ago I directed a feature length documentary (airing on PBS stations in the fall) on the XHA1, and don't get me wrong I loved it. But looking back at the film now, I wince when I see scenes in it I just know would have been so much better with the AF100. The AF100 is much more challenging to shoot a doc with, but with time, practice and skill the rewards can be great. But it's certainly not for everyone or the faint of heart.
cowpunk52
Veteran
Devoting time, practice and skill to any camera can yield great results. I've seen amazing footage shot on (what would be considered by today's standards) limited and cumbersome gear. There are some shooting scenarios where a large-sensor camcorder will produce the results you want with the least amount of hassle. There are other scenarios where a smaller sensor camera will produce the results you want with the least amount of hassle.
If I were shooting documentary material in unpredictable circumstances where I had one chance to get it in camera just right, I would use and smaller sensor ENG rig. Balance & ergonomics, servo zoom, large depth of field, possibly auto focus or iris for rapidly changing conditions - these are things not to be dismissed when you're considering the gear for your shoot. But if you have the time to pace yourself, choose your lens, set composition, possibly mount on a support & light accordingly - a large sensor camera could yield beautiful results with very nice selective focus if that's what you want for the shot.
Match the tool to the job. I could hammer a nail into a board with a ratchet if I had to, but I'd rather just use a hammer.
If I were shooting documentary material in unpredictable circumstances where I had one chance to get it in camera just right, I would use and smaller sensor ENG rig. Balance & ergonomics, servo zoom, large depth of field, possibly auto focus or iris for rapidly changing conditions - these are things not to be dismissed when you're considering the gear for your shoot. But if you have the time to pace yourself, choose your lens, set composition, possibly mount on a support & light accordingly - a large sensor camera could yield beautiful results with very nice selective focus if that's what you want for the shot.
Match the tool to the job. I could hammer a nail into a board with a ratchet if I had to, but I'd rather just use a hammer.
stevedocmaker
Well-known member
I am going to take a close look at the FS100. I am presently making a documentary film that most would be shooting with an eng camera. I don't find the shallow depth of field to be a problem, as I can usually stop down and get what I want in focus. Most of the time I've been able to take advantage of the large sensor, but I have missed a few shots with the AF100 that otherwise could have been had on a camera with more reliable auto functions, and early users report that auto functions on the FS100 are superb. I would rate them as poor on the AF100. And I think 1:1 mapping on the lcd is critical for run-and-gun focusing with a shallow depth of field, which of course is lacking on the AF100. It seems like to three big raps on the FS100 are poor ergonomics, poor build quality and the lack of an ND wheel. The last may be the biggest problem in doing any eng-style work, but the new Tiffen variable ND may be a workaround. People are saying that the DR of the two cameras is about the same, but some of the footage I've seen from the FS100 wouldn't be possible from the AF100 to my eye, so perhaps the FS100 gets the nod in this department. It's too bad there aren't more people using the FS100 right now, but that will change quickly.
The bottom line is that you can probably get what you want with either camera for ENG work, but some sacrifices will have to be made for the beauty of a large sensor image.
I see where you are coming from, and I think that makes sense in a lot of cases. I just wanted to jump in and say that we shoot high end wedding videos. I shoot on the AF100, and the other guy shoots on a 7D. It works out well for us. The company is getting a lot business over the style.
I was talking to someone whose shot footage on both, he was saying it was difficult to get cinematic night time shots as good as FS100 or 5D, on the AF100. He recommended both, but said the FS100 is the camera to go for if you have a film with any substantial amount of night time shoots, and want a professional cinematic look.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
dustylense
Veteran
Or this one
And this one
And this one
ANd maybe this one
Point being, is that if you can't make a nice "night" shot with the Af100, chances are you're going to struggle with any camera. All I hear about the FS100 is it's ability to shoot low light. Well, I for one think that "lighting" a scene makes a shot cinematic, or Hollywood would be able to save TONS of money if that were any different.
I've shot images at night or low light were I have actually applied ND. The FS100 is cool, but I wouldn't knock the AF100 over just night shots. Let's take both cameras outside at noon without any add ons like mattebox. That f32 won;t give you the DOF you're looking for on the FS100. Let's connect the cameras to a monitor for client, who is paying for the job.
Boy that Hd/SDI looking good now.
I know, I know, the next large chip camera that has a native ISO of 1,250,000 will be better than the FS100 and the RED Epic. THem cinematic shots lit by starlight will be awesome!
And this one
And this one
ANd maybe this one
Point being, is that if you can't make a nice "night" shot with the Af100, chances are you're going to struggle with any camera. All I hear about the FS100 is it's ability to shoot low light. Well, I for one think that "lighting" a scene makes a shot cinematic, or Hollywood would be able to save TONS of money if that were any different.
I've shot images at night or low light were I have actually applied ND. The FS100 is cool, but I wouldn't knock the AF100 over just night shots. Let's take both cameras outside at noon without any add ons like mattebox. That f32 won;t give you the DOF you're looking for on the FS100. Let's connect the cameras to a monitor for client, who is paying for the job.
Boy that Hd/SDI looking good now.
I know, I know, the next large chip camera that has a native ISO of 1,250,000 will be better than the FS100 and the RED Epic. THem cinematic shots lit by starlight will be awesome!
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
You can shoot at night with the AF100, but to even me it doesn't give you as much freedom as the FS100. I have both and I've shot both and for me, the FS100 clearly does a better job in low light in more situations. With the FS100 I can use slower lenses in darker situations as well and I've been very impressed. Yes, everyone knows that lighting a scene is important, but the FS100 is cleaner at higher gain and in situations that are darker, even in post, I can push around the footage a lot more. Those shots are indeed great examples of the AF100 working terrific at night. It's all about what is important to you. No one has EVER complained about any footage I've shot on my AF100, ever. No one has complained about footage from my FS100 either. Sometimes I like using found light say under a single street lamp, or a dull bulb in an alley. If I can get the shot without setting up a bunch of lights, I do it, because it just makes it quicker to get done, and definitely in some situations, means I don't have to bring out the generator. We've got night shots we did with the HVX200, but I think it's pretty clear, the HVX200 is NOT a camera that does well in low light. But it can be done with adding lights at night, which we did.
And absolutely, during the day in bright light, the AF100 is much easier to shoot with having the ND filters. I've NEVER had issues shooting during the day with the AF100, at all.
Pertaining to the HDMI port, I'd suspect that person has a bad cable. I shot all day yesterday with the FS100 with a nice cable and the port was very tight and secure. I was impressed actually at how nice the connection was, and that's saying a lot for HDMI. I could shoot a video of my AF100 with an SDI cable locked on that if I bump the cable, the image shuts off on the monitor. Just like this video of HDMI. I know it's the cable and not the port, but the point being, even SDI cables are susceptible to problems. In fact, a few others users have had bad SDI cables be part of their problems when trying to get LCD or external recorders attached to the AF100. I'm just glad the FS100 does not have one of those microHDMI ports which is the WORST.
And absolutely, during the day in bright light, the AF100 is much easier to shoot with having the ND filters. I've NEVER had issues shooting during the day with the AF100, at all.
Pertaining to the HDMI port, I'd suspect that person has a bad cable. I shot all day yesterday with the FS100 with a nice cable and the port was very tight and secure. I was impressed actually at how nice the connection was, and that's saying a lot for HDMI. I could shoot a video of my AF100 with an SDI cable locked on that if I bump the cable, the image shuts off on the monitor. Just like this video of HDMI. I know it's the cable and not the port, but the point being, even SDI cables are susceptible to problems. In fact, a few others users have had bad SDI cables be part of their problems when trying to get LCD or external recorders attached to the AF100. I'm just glad the FS100 does not have one of those microHDMI ports which is the WORST.
Just sharing the opinion on what one user told me. He never said AF100 couldn't do night, just that from his experiance FS100 and 5D did it better.
A lot of that footage you showed me does indeed look nice, and that makes me happy. But in something like your first example there is snow blowing around the foreground, neon lights out in the background and then everything is tinted blue. Its stylistic and gorgeous, but right now I am personally interested to see how the camera looks in more tradional night setups, like in a school hall way at night or in situations where there is less lens flare and things of that nature.
Still thanks for all the footage, I have the Af100 to test for a couple days next month and can't watch enough of the footage coming out for it.
A lot of that footage you showed me does indeed look nice, and that makes me happy. But in something like your first example there is snow blowing around the foreground, neon lights out in the background and then everything is tinted blue. Its stylistic and gorgeous, but right now I am personally interested to see how the camera looks in more tradional night setups, like in a school hall way at night or in situations where there is less lens flare and things of that nature.
Still thanks for all the footage, I have the Af100 to test for a couple days next month and can't watch enough of the footage coming out for it.
dustylense
Veteran
I don't know Rick, that is a brand new FS100 and who knows what the condition of the cable is. But give that connection 6 months daily use and I see problems or repair. Also, the length of cables between HDMI and BNC are something to consider. A 25 ft. HDMI cable of "decent" quality will run about $100 or more (NOTE I SAY DECENT quality). BNC cables at 100 ft costs half that and we all know is a much more secure connection.
Both cameras are great. It's a great time to be shooting HD.
Both cameras are great. It's a great time to be shooting HD.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Well I've used the HDMI port on my DP1x since I bought it more than a year ago I believe and I've NEVER had any problems with the port. I've pulled cables in any out constantly as I was using the DP1x with a 7D. Port works perfectly. And believe me, I am not saying HDMI is a great port, it is not, and it's intention was consumer based. I would gladly have an SDI port instead. However, not all ports are created equal. My FS100 is new as well and my cable came from monoprice.com, and it worked perfect. In fact, I buy most of my cables from monoprice and have been VERY happy with most of them. I think the quality of construction is great, and they are definitely NOT $100 for 25ft. That said, I don't EVER need a 25 foot cable. Even my crane is only 12ft so at max 15 foot when on the crane, and about 3 foot to 4 foot else wise. I'm just saying I could shoot the same video about my AF100 and the SDI cable I was using with it and if I wiggled the cable, the LCD shut off. A video like this really doesn't tell us there is a problem, however, if a ton of videos started showing up, well, I'd be concerned then!
What I want to do is try purchasing one of those locking HDMI cables and see how well they work.
What I want to do is try purchasing one of those locking HDMI cables and see how well they work.
I thought the Sensitivity section of the NAB 2011 - SCCE Charts was interesting, as it places the AF-100 as being equally as sensitive as the ARRI Alexa.
NAB 2011 - SCCE Charts
Ed Kishel
Veteran
Barry, have you shot with the FS100U yourself? Just curious how the experience is closer to using a DSLR as opposed to the AF100. Do you mean in terms of form-factor or features, or both.
Thanks,
Barry_Green
Moderator
I saw one at nab, haven't used it much, it just doesn't appeal to me. I say it is more DSLR-like because it lacks fundamental pro video capabilities like sdi and Nd filters and instead seems to have been designed primarily to be as tiny as possible. And because those who have identified themselves in having been in the design consultation meetings are avowed slr fans.
Whereas the af100 features pro video functionality (which apparently has been a little frustrating for some who have migrated from slr's, so it cuts both ways). And I was in on a roundtable discussion with many pro video shooters and I can verify that the design goals were always oriented around the pro video shooter.
Whereas the af100 features pro video functionality (which apparently has been a little frustrating for some who have migrated from slr's, so it cuts both ways). And I was in on a roundtable discussion with many pro video shooters and I can verify that the design goals were always oriented around the pro video shooter.
Personally, I don't think either the AF100 or the FS-100 meet my criteria yet. I still see lot's of highlight issues with the AF100 (poor roll-off regardless of how pro the DP is - so I find it ironic that this is now the "day-time camera") and a sensor that isn't quite there for me (by a smidgen) in terms of size and focal length multiplication. On the flip side the FS100 doesn't have the ease and functionality as duly noted of the Panny. Further, both are only 8 bit.
What I want very simply is an APS-C sensor in a Panny style body with the built in ND, etc. Why is that so much to ask? The reluctance of Panasonic to do that is astounding to me. So clearly what the market seems to be asking for. Throw in 10 bit, I'll take two and we would probably be inseperable for the next 5 years. At this point in the game however (considering where the market is inevitably going), having to pay 3x more for an F3 doesn't make much sense to me either, though that is my go to choice for rental.
In terms of camera ownership, very definitely we are on the cusp of what I am looking for, but still not quite there yet.
What I want very simply is an APS-C sensor in a Panny style body with the built in ND, etc. Why is that so much to ask? The reluctance of Panasonic to do that is astounding to me. So clearly what the market seems to be asking for. Throw in 10 bit, I'll take two and we would probably be inseperable for the next 5 years. At this point in the game however (considering where the market is inevitably going), having to pay 3x more for an F3 doesn't make much sense to me either, though that is my go to choice for rental.
In terms of camera ownership, very definitely we are on the cusp of what I am looking for, but still not quite there yet.
Last edited:
Justyn
Veteran
I've personally learned to take opinions that others say with a grain of salt... I hear it all the time about the GH2 and the AF100 that my buddy bought and I get to use all the time. People say it can't hold a candle to such and such... ohh well, to paraphrase the dude, that's just like your opinion man....
But here on DVXuser I love that its an open forum that you get a guy like Rick who owns both and who's opinion I would take simply cause he has one, and understands that it's just a tool... Just as Barry echoes all the time. This is also why I kept my 150 even though it doesn't get used very much, but next week I'm using it a ton and it'll shine in what it does...
I'm also kind of interested in the FS100 for it's low-light options. I have a project coming up that will really benefit from this and that's something unique for me as I've not really been interested in Sony cameras for a long long time.. Say all the way back to the PD100 or whatever that thing was...
Cheers all and a great thread. Like Peter Jackson said, basically any 1080P camera will produce a great image.. an image you can use to tell a story and make a feature.
But here on DVXuser I love that its an open forum that you get a guy like Rick who owns both and who's opinion I would take simply cause he has one, and understands that it's just a tool... Just as Barry echoes all the time. This is also why I kept my 150 even though it doesn't get used very much, but next week I'm using it a ton and it'll shine in what it does...
I'm also kind of interested in the FS100 for it's low-light options. I have a project coming up that will really benefit from this and that's something unique for me as I've not really been interested in Sony cameras for a long long time.. Say all the way back to the PD100 or whatever that thing was...
Cheers all and a great thread. Like Peter Jackson said, basically any 1080P camera will produce a great image.. an image you can use to tell a story and make a feature.
anatusa
Veteran
ok guys , but could some of you plz explain how does the codec do in fs100? I use af100 and i must say no bad words about its codec, its really good, i use sd card and very happy with quality of that codec, even its so much compressed its ok for what i do. So what i`d like to know how good is codec in sony? i mean if u ll use just sd card, not some other fancy and expansive recorder device