AF100 or FS100?

Well I have both and I'm not impressed with either body design. They both have issues. The handle on the top IS superior on the AF100, but the hand grips I cannot stand on either of them. The FS100 hand grip is just as uncomfortable.

As for the EVF, I don't like it AT ALL on the AF100. When my eye blinks I get rainbow artifacts from it. Also, the location is horrible for me. At least with the FS100 it's not hanging up there doing nothing. but getting in the way! :)

And, as silly as this sounds, the EVF on the AF100 was freaking me out on a very bright shoot. I was TERRIFIED of the sun hitting it and doing damage inside the camera. Wish they'd have included a cap for it.

Both my AF100 and FS100 sit in a larger rig, so I'm not worried about being off the beaten track. I'd be more worried about losing a lens to damage myself. Either camera could take quite a bit they feel like.
 
Sparky874 said:
The build quality of the AF101 is certainly superior - and this is a major benefit for those when you have to go off the beaten track.
Click to expand...

I cant talk about the FS100 for this as it wasnt out there too. But Ive been using the AF100 in Tsunami hit areas of Japan. Dusty, humid (must have been around 100% at times as hot mists rolled down the mountains) and hot. I tried to get some body armour for it before I left but nothing out. Camera was fine. I kept it dry whenever I could, used my Giotoss rocket to blow dust away from camera and lenses whenever I could. No issues.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Well I have both and I'm not impressed with either body design. They both have issues. The handle on the top IS superior on the AF100, but the hand grips I cannot stand on either of them. The FS100 hand grip is just as uncomfortable.


And, as silly as this sounds, the EVF on the AF100 was freaking me out on a very bright shoot. I was TERRIFIED of the sun hitting it and doing damage inside the camera. Wish they'd have included a cap for it.
Click to expand...

After all the discussion in this thread I opted to go with the AF100. I've found it to exceed my expectations insofar as image quality and overall function. Solved the grip problem by fabricating a plate on which to attach an ARRI SR3 pistol grip which works great. Working on a switch to replace the Arri variety to enable SS function. Also will be machining an aluminum cap to cover the viewfinder when not in use. Want to keep light and dust out.
 
spotts said:
After all the discussion in this thread I opted to go with the AF100. I've found it to exceed my expectations insofar as image quality and overall function. Solved the grip problem by fabricating a plate on which to attach an ARRI SR3 pistol grip which works great. Working on a switch to replace the Arri variety to enable SS function. Also will be machining an aluminum cap to cover the viewfinder when not in use. Want to keep light and dust out.
Click to expand...

Great choice! Congratulations. Looking forward to seeing some of your work. ..:thumbsup:
 
alarch said:
I got both and if you want movie style picture quality one should go for the fs100
Click to expand...

Actually you can get movie style picture quality with the AF100 as well, I too have both and have been comparing the two cameras extensively. The Af100 has a lot more features to aid in that movie quality capture, like shutter angles and more variable frame rates over and under 24 and 30. Add to that the Neutral Density filters that are built into the AF100 and you are just starting the list of advantages that the AF100 has over the FS100.

For a confirmation of the movie quality possible with the AF100, check out the videos on my AF100 Group at Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/groups/72874/videos/sort:newest

Best regards,

Jan
 
alarch said:
I got both and if you want movie style picture quality one should go for the fs100
Click to expand...

The debate rumbles on.

Movie style is a combination of so many factors from compostion, lighting etc through to grade/picture style & shutter speed settings etc. Lots of experienced DP's are getting good results from both cameras. The fact is the FS100 is designed to be more DSLR like... so it's (IMO) more 'Canon-esque' & the AF100 is more of a videocamera (by default) that you can then easily adjust/tweek into a film-style camera.

The ultimate test on which camera is 'better' is very subjective. I've seen some really lousy looking AF100 footage and some really lousy FS100 footage. Interestingly, a lot of FS100 stuff is looking like early AF100 stuff now, so it'll be fun to see how the cookie crumbles over time.

Really, I do think that a lot of the debate is about 'look' and that's defined (primarilly with lenses & lens choice). The real 'de-facto' test for both would be the same lenses on both cameras - shooting the same content, by the same Director/DP & crew. A lot of stuff out there is comparing/contrasting quality based on finished results (without any knowledge of teh production chain involved). The problems arise when you compare kit lens vs kit lens or Oly to Zeiss etc. Stick the same PL on both cameras, in the same setup, and then compare results :)
 
AF100 does have more features, but a bigger sensor goes a long way and can't be upgraded. Something like ND seems easily fixable on the FS100. $400 bucks and your done. Perfect variable ND that some say works better than AF100's built in option. So its a bit more expensive, but you'll have the bigger and better sensor to make it worth it. Thats the root I'm going. More or less covers everything that I want.
 
Built in ND is very convenient for shooting - and having this option on top of a mattebox and some high quality glass filters is good to have.

The problem with Vari-ND's is the fact that they 'can' add colour shift to the image - and are really a stills photographers tool that's been taken up by the DSLR fraternity. ND's in 4x5.65 (for example) by Tiffen, Formatt, Schneider & Lee (etc) are upwards of $300 per filter and have IR coatings. My feeling is, if I'm putting an ND in front of the lens (in a MB) I want to put the best quality ND or filter (Promist of Coral etc) that I can, as I know what this is going to do to my recorded image. A Vari-ND is a very different animal - whilst it's convenient, I'd say it can lead to potential problems with shifts (and you can't get a Vari-ND for larger Cine size lenses... so that tells you something).

Again, it's all down to many factors - including lenses and experience. Stills guys who've moved into DSLR & then upwards use Vari's a lot... Video guys tend to prefer having ND's inside the camera (for convenience in varying lighting situations) and fllm based DP's are used to working with MB's and stacked filters/ND's (as you'd normally rate your film stock & use ND's for exposure latitude, rather than changng ASA - and changing stock). Built in ND (that sits over the sensor), means the exposed image (and the light that creates it) travels a different route to a front of lens Vari-ND or even MB/ND's - often it's the safest method, as there won't be unwanted reflections/refractions/bounce of light from stacking etc.

It's not all about the sensor - but it is all about what you want to create, the skills you have and the budget you've access to. Both cameras do the same job, but do it differently. Choosing one above the other isn't going to make an Op's work suddenly become filmic - knowledge of the camera itself (limitations & strengths) and experience will be the prime factor in that.
 
MadMonkFish said:
Built in ND is very convenient for shooting - and having this option on top of a mattebox and some high quality glass filters is good to have.

The problem with Vari-ND's is the fact that they 'can' add colour shift to the image - and are really a stills photographers tool that's been taken up by the DSLR fraternity. ND's in 4x5.65 (for example) by Tiffen, Formatt, Schneider & Lee (etc) are upwards of $300 per filter and have IR coatings. My feeling is, if I'm putting an ND in front of the lens (in a MB) I want to put the best quality ND or filter (Promist of Coral etc) that I can, as I know what this is going to do to my recorded image. A Vari-ND is a very different animal - whilst it's convenient, I'd say it can lead to potential problems with shifts (and you can't get a Vari-ND for larger Cine size lenses... so that tells you something).

Again, it's all down to many factors - including lenses and experience. Stills guys who've moved into DSLR & then upwards use Vari's a lot... Video guys tend to prefer having ND's inside the camera (for convenience in varying lighting situations) and fllm based DP's are used to working with MB's and stacked filters/ND's (as you'd normally rate your film stock & use ND's for exposure latitude, rather than changng ASA - and changing stock). Built in ND (that sits over the sensor), means the exposed image (and the light that creates it) travels a different route to a front of lens Vari-ND or even MB/ND's - often it's the safest method, as there won't be unwanted reflections/refractions/bounce of light from stacking etc.

It's not all about the sensor - but it is all about what you want to create, the skills you have and the budget you've access to. Both cameras do the same job, but do it differently. Choosing one above the other isn't going to make an Op's work suddenly become filmic - knowledge of the camera itself (limitations & strengths) and experience will be the prime factor in that.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
If sensor size were the end all, the 5DmkII would be the clear choice. But in my opinion there are more important things to consider than which camera has the largest sensor.
As far as variable-ND filters go, I have one, but it gets little use anymore as it is much quicker using the built-in ND filters on the AF100, as you don't have to stop and unscrew the Variable ND filter when you want no ND applied.
I have to work quickly when shooting TV commercials with shrinking budgets and clients wanting more for less, and the AF100 allows me to do that while staying competitive in a very volatile market. As a matter of fact things have gotten so bad, a local high-end production house just announced yesterday it was closing it's doors because it could not compete with smaller all-in-one Boutiques like my own in this economy. I know I'm likely in a different area than many of the folks shopping cameras here, as I do professional TV work as opposed to low/no budget internet films, but in my opinion the overall feature set on the AF100 makes it a better choice than the FS100, even with it's slightly larger sensor. If I absolutely needed a S35 size sensor camera on a budget, it would be the F3.

Good Luck!

Dave
 
David W. Jones said:
If I absolutely needed a S35 size sensor camera on a budget, it would be the F3.
Dave
Click to expand...

Wish I could afford it. Fortunately FS100 with ND is alot cheaper and suits what I need just great. I've shot DVX for years and loved the built in ND feature. Losing it is a minor convience to me however. Lots and lots of solutions.
 
Danespina said:
AF100 does have more features, but a bigger sensor goes a long way and can't be upgraded.
Click to expand...
If there was a big difference between the two, I'd probably agree with you. But the difference ain't no big thing. Yes, the FS100 sensor is slightly bigger, but it's not like one is a shallow-dof camera and one is a deep-dof camera. The crop factor between the two is about 1.25. Isn't that big of a deal.

Something like ND seems easily fixable on the FS100. $400 bucks and your done. Perfect variable ND that some say works better than AF100's built in option.
Click to expand...
Who would say that? If someone said that, it would be a bit of silliness on their part. First of all, attaching a variable ND means that you are perpetually giving up two stops of sensitivity. Forever. As long as it's attached, that's gone. Second, you have to move that filter to every lens you ever swap on or off. Third, the camera's already a grand more, now you're adding $400 more to it, and you're still stuck with limited frame rates, HDMI, no pre-record, and the various other things the FS100 doesn't do.

So its a bit more expensive, but you'll have the bigger and better sensor to make it worth it.
Click to expand...
If that makes it worth it to you, then hey, glad you've found what you need. But for what many of us need, the sensor in the AF100 delivers way more than necessary, so spending even more to get "bigger and better" starts to look like getting a V10 in your car instead of a V8. Sure, it's bigger, and may even be a little faster, but it costs more, and if the V8 does what you need, why give up that money and those features?
 
MadMonkFish said:
It's not all about the sensor - but it is all about what you want to create, the skills you have and the budget you've access to. Both cameras do the same job, but do it differently. Choosing one above the other isn't going to make an Op's work suddenly become filmic - knowledge of the camera itself (limitations & strengths) and experience will be the prime factor in that.
Click to expand...
This is exactly correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top