AF100 or FS100?

[NeedCreative]

I've shot with the 5D2 for a while, now I own an FS100, and I have edited a decent amount of (well it) AF100 footage. I also just watched Zacuto's SCCE.

Barry, I don't understand how you can compare the chroma noise/moire artifacts on the FS100 to the 5D2; the 5D2 (and AF100, at least for noise) are significantly worse. The Canons are probably the worst of the lot, with all kinds of colored mess in there, especially at high ISOs. And the Canons have horrible moire, where I have been so far literally unable to recreate the same on my FS100 even shooting demanding subjects like far-off skyscrapers and vinyl siding and rooftops with shingles.

I just shot my own comparison (yet to be posted) and the 5D2 is a pixelated mess in low light compared to the FS100 which has at worst a pleasing monochromatic grain at all but the highest gain. And none of these tests shot on an external recorder at 4:4:4 as the Sony is capable of doing, never mind the fact the 5D2 can't shoot on an external recorder at all.

The SCCE showed the AF100 to be truly horrible with highlights too - creating a flat, yellow digital looking level of muck when shooting a scene with an overexposed window, though I can't say the F3 (and FS100) are that much better (they fall off nicer perhaps, but that's about it). They both don't do a great job, but it's important to note that with proper exposure against the highlights this can likely be worked around on both cameras.

I have no doubt as I have seen it with my own two eyes that the AF100 can make great images, even at night. Heck, ANY camera can look great at night if you throw enough light at it. However as far as overall sensitivity combined with detail maintenance in low light scenarios, the FS100 and F3 both are leagues above the 5D2 and AF100. The Zacuto SCCE, Philip Bloom's tests, and even my own experience show the AF100 and to a lesser extent the 5D breaking down into a pixelated, low-detail, noisy mess compared with a far more pleasing image in the same scenario captured by the FS100 or F3. Same lens, same light, same ISO/gain. The AF100 simply can't keep up, as would be expected with a sensor with 1/2 the exposed area when shot in 16:9. Less surface area = less light sensitivity.

I think the AF100 is a better built camera, physically, and I do miss the dual card slots, HDSDI, and ND filters on the FS100. But there is no doubt that in questionable light situations the FS100 is better. It's far better in low light, and rolls off better in highlights. It has a reasonable S35 1.5X crop, whereas you lose even more shallow DOF and/or have to acquire even wider lenses to deal with the AF100's 2X crop. Image is king and those two situations alone led me towards the FS100. In my short time with it, I am amazed by what it can put out.

Now in decent light I think both the AF100 and FS100 are still far nicer than a 5D/7D, etc. These proper video cameras exhibit little to no aliasing and moire and for that alone are to me worth the price of admission. Combine that with real sound, real video camcorder features etc. and the prospect is even more convincing. However in the rush to market I think both Sony and Panasonic missed some key points. The Panasonic tossed in a GH2 sensor instead of developing a more proper S35 sized one and it shows. It's nice, but it's limited. And Sony built a camera around a fantastic sensor and then used cheapy-feeling plastic ("for the weight! it's just as light as your DSLR!") and slimmed off key features like an HDSDI port and ND filters. There's improvements to be made on both cameras, for sure.

Ultimately however the decision comes down to image quality and features. HDSDI, waveform monitor, ND filter and dual slots aside, both the FS100 and AF100 are remarkably similar feature-wise, and are arguably worlds ahead of DSLRS with their features like real pro sound inputs and adjustments, peaking, zebras, lack of overheating, long record times, etc. And they both are ahead of DSLRs (to various degrees) in image quality. But the FS100, to me and as backed up by a lot of tests also has the best picture with the most usable range in the sub $10K category. In the end what ends up the screen is what counts, and for that, the FS100 is the best choice currently.

 

[Barry_Green]

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

The codec is directly comparable. I tested both AVCCAM and NXCAM quite a bit and came away satisfied that they are on par with each other. If you're happy with the AF100's codec, you'll be happy with the NXCAM codec.

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry, I don't understand how you can compare the chroma noise/moire artifacts on the FS100 to the 5D2; the 5D2 (and AF100, at least for noise) are significantly worse.

The Canons are much more problematical, yes. But the Canons add a colored rainbow moire pattern, besides luma aliasing. The FS100 also does that -- not as much as the Canons, obviously, but on fine detail you'll get the purple/orange color moire. The AF100 doesn't do that at all.

The Canons are probably the worst of the lot, with all kinds of colored mess in there, especially at high ISOs. And the Canons have horrible moire, where I have been so far literally unable to recreate the same on my FS100 even shooting demanding subjects like far-off skyscrapers and vinyl siding and rooftops with shingles.

I'm saying the kind of moire that they exhibit is the same, but obviously nowhere near the same degree. Look at the provideocoalition chart comparison and you'll see that the FS100 (and the F3) both do the purple/orange thing. But I'm not saying that they're anywhere near as bad as the Canons in terms of overall level of moire! Heavens no.

What I was saying is -- well, okay, if you look at a GH1 vs. a 5D, they both have a ton of aliasing, but the GH1 is strictly in the black/white luma range. The 5D does that, but also adds all sorts of purple/orange color contamination on its image. Now if you compare the AF100 against the FS100, they both can exhibit a little black & white luma aliasing, but on top of that the FS100 will add purple/orange to it, like the Canon does.

But there is no doubt that in questionable light situations the FS100 is better.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. I just guess the question is -- how low do you need? What is a reasonable limit? I've shot well-exposed good-looking interview setups with a single candle off the AF100. The FS100 might be better, sure, but ... I guess the question is, at what point is enough "enough"?

Ultimately however the decision comes down to image quality and features.

I agree with this. It is about what the product does, and how you work with it.

HDSDI, waveform monitor, ND filter and dual slots aside, both the FS100 and AF100 are remarkably similar feature-wise

Wait -- how can you set those things aside? Those are key workflow issues. I mean, that's like saying "4wd, size, and cargo capacity aside, the Suburban and the Prius are remarkably similar feature-wise." I think those operational tools are the fundamental difference between these two, and are largely what someone should be basing their decisions off of. If you simply don't need those capabilities, and what you really need is the very tiniest camera that can shoot in the very dimmest of scenarios, then the FS100 is the one for you. But if you're shooting in reasonable lighting conditions (i.e., there's at least a 60-watt lightbulb somewhere) then to me the operational superiority of the AF100 makes it the no-brainer choice, specifically because it offers so much more in the way of operationality, usability, etc.

In the end what ends up the screen is what counts, and for that, the FS100 is the best choice currently.

For you. Not necessarily for everyone. Because to many of us, the process of getting that footage to the screen is equally important. As long as what's on the screen looks excellent, then the question of it looking 5% better here or there, vs. taking 30% longer to make it, becomes a massive differentiator. If I have to spend $400 extra to get a Singh-Ray or Heliopan ND filter, and put up with whatever potential IR shifts or color balance shifts may come into play, that's an issue. If I can't rely on an external recorder because the H-dummy (HDMI) cable is fiddly, that's an issue. If I'm trying to get an overhead-angle shot and I can't, because the LCD is stuck on the top of the FS100 instead of on the side and so there's no physical way to actually see the shot of I'm holding the camera high, well... that's an issue. If I have to shoot for a PAL client and that means I have to go rent a second camera and spend $300/day on another body, that's an issue. If I can't plug into a monitor because that monitor has SDI but not HDMI input, that's an issue. Sure it can be solved by buying a $500 HDMI->HD-SDI box, and sure the ND thing can be worked around by either buying glass filters or a mattebox or a Vari-ND, but you start adding up the thousands of dollars of equipment that it takes to bring it functionally comparable, that's all something to consider.

I really don't buy the argument of "the only thing that counts is what's on the screen" because, if that was the case, nobody would ever have shot on a DSLR at all, period. I think the decision should be based on your own individual weighting of these factors:
A) System cost
B) Image quality
C) Functionality

Some combination of those three factors will lead you to your ideal choice. For some, system cost is the paramount concern -- and they'll end up with a GH2 or a 60D or something like that, because the price advantage is compelling. For some, image quality will be the paramount concern -- and they'll end up with an Alexa. And for some, functionality is a massive concern, and they will immediately rule out any consideration of a DSLR, and, for me, have a distaste for a unit like the FS100 which is lacking in some of the most basic functionality things that I consider a bare minimum. And others will prioritize it differently and come to their own conclusions.

But we should always remember that your priorities, and my priorities, and their priorities, are not the same. There are people shooting wedding receptions who may be willing to give up a lot in order to eke out a few more pixels of light sensitivity, and there are people who shoot in the daylight who couldn't possibly comprehend why someone would care about 25,600 ISO when in exchange they now have to carry around a half dozen screw-in filters just to be able to expose at something other than a 1/2000 shutter.

As I say all the time, there is no empirical "better", there is only "better for a specific purpose."

 

[reygun]

+++ Barry

 

[marlontorres]

Barry should direct the next "You Got Served" movie.

 

[NeedCreative]

AVCCAM and NXCAM are not codecs, they are brand names. Both cameras use the same thing - AVCHD which itself is a variant of H.264. The quality of the encoder is key - anyone can decode H.264 (or AVCHD) but if the encoder isn't good, the output won't be good.

As an aside I know Sony uses an adaptive as well as operations-based encoder... it takes into account not only the picture but also what gain is set on the camera, and encodes appropriately for that picture. So in low light the Sony can look better than another camera because its encoder is better - even if both cameras use the same CODEC.

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry should direct the next "You Got Served" movie.

No no no, I don't want it to sound like that, I'm not trying to serve anyone. I agree with many of NeedCreative's points, I just wanted to balance it out that these products are definitely aimed at two different customers, and were designed with two different philosophies in mind. And that should make the differences something to celebrate, because it helps you to choose which one is more appropriate for you.

I've been looking at both of them extensively to try to gather a comprehensive opinion on which does what best. So far I've got a list of over 50 things the AF100 does, that the FS100 doesn't, and about 29 things the FS100 does, that the AF100 doesn't. There is no open-and-shut case here. There's only a "which do you prefer" choice, and I think the primary differences between them are operational, and I think that people should really determine how important each of the three criteria are for their particular needs, and then evaluate the offerings based on how they truly perform (devoid of market influence and hype and buzz and all that nonsense). I have no doubt that once someone does that, their preferred product will be obvious.

 

[Barry_Green]

AVCCAM and NXCAM are not codecs, they are brand names.

True, but ... there's meaning in those brands. AVCCAM means that the format does things that other AVCHD formats don't. And NXCAM has features in it, that other AVCHD formats don't.

Both cameras use the same thing - AVCHD which itself is a variant of H.264. The quality of the encoder is key - anyone can decode H.264 (or AVCHD) but if the encoder isn't good, the output won't be good.

This is entirely true. There are massive differences between AVCHD encoders; the quality of AVCCAM or NXCAM at 17mbps is orders of magnitude better than the quality of a GH1's 17mbps AVCHD, even though all three are technically AVCHD.

As an aside I know Sony uses an adaptive as well as operations-based encoder... it takes into account not only the picture but also what gain is set on the camera, and encodes appropriately for that picture. So in low light the Sony can look better than another camera because its encoder is better - even if both cameras use the same CODEC.

But that presupposes that the other camera doesn't also have comparable adaptive behaviors. The concept that the camera speaks to the encoder and tells it what gain level it's at, basically means that the codec does a noise reduction pre-pass before encoding the footage, and that's really clever. But I wouldn't be surprised if the other manufacturers have similar tech. By and large, these companies usually have comparable levels of technology between them.

It would be quite interesting if someone out there has an FS100 and a Nano or Ninja, and could compare some 0dB footage (internal & external) and then some 30dB footage (internal and external) to see how much of a difference that gain-codec-communication technology makes, and then to run a comparable test on a JVC or Canon or Panasonic and see if there's a substantial difference.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Exactly, as I keep saying, people constantly ask me about both cameras, and I tell them what I like about each, what I don't like about each, and why. Quantifying importance of ANY characteristic or feature of a camera is definitely not standard across people. There are some who are almost furious that the FS100 lacks ND. I can't argue with them. For them it is extremely important. I can see that. I worked with the 7D for a long time, so I am used to not having ND. Will I miss it? Hell yes! No question. But I can get around it. I used mini-HDMI on the 7D, did I hate it? Hell Yes! I am thankful that at least sony put a normal HDMI port on there. Do I miss the internal mic for reference audio on the FS100? Hell yes! Building a solution to fix that with a mini-microphone. Extra cost.

I don't expect ANYONE to have the same criteria as me. All I can do is offer insight into my decisions, needs, work-flow, etc. We run with a SUPER SMALL crew, so connectivity like to a video village is not needed. I need light, small, and at least able to attach to what I own.

Pertaining to Moire, I've not had problems with EITHER camera, and I've looked. I *KNOW* how horrible the 7D is with Moire, which is why I couldn't wait to stop shooting on it. The FS100 has exhibited no moire in anything I have shot yet that I can detect. I've looked at hair and woodgrain mostly on the last shoot. It was medieval so no cars, brick buildings or AC units in that one Also, with the AF100, I did shoot everything I could think of and not ONCE did it show any moire for me. (Whereas the GH2 in the same tests at the same time DID show moire on AC condensor fins).

If someone asked me about moire/aliasing, both cameras don't appear to have an issue in real use. Neither to me is better because I've not had it in either!

Edit: Oh, and on the CODEC performance, I've not seen anything between each of them that I thought was a problem. They seem to both work great. Once you get your camera dialed in to the setting you like, and not just rely on default settings, you can really control a lot on BOTH cameras. For instance, I worked on my knee settings on the FS100 and I think it rolls off a lot better now and closer to what I like I get on the 7D for roll off.

 

[NeedCreative]

What I was saying is -- well, okay, if you look at a GH1 vs. a 5D, they both have a ton of aliasing, but the GH1 is strictly in the black/white luma range. The 5D does that, but also adds all sorts of purple/orange color contamination on its image. Now if you compare the AF100 against the FS100, they both can exhibit a little black & white luma aliasing, but on top of that the FS100 will add purple/orange to it, like the Canon does.

I haven't seen any appreciable aliasing in the FS100 image, much less chroma aliasing.... with one specific example (maybe) - sunlight glints off of water on a sunny day were showing up pink. But I'm not sure if that was the same cause? As far as classic chroma aliasing I know it can happen (I saw it in philp's footage too against the bridge next to the water) but I haven't seen it yet. I have seen a ton on the Canon however obviously.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. I just guess the question is -- how low do you need? What is a reasonable limit? I've shot well-exposed good-looking interview setups with a single candle off the AF100. The FS100 might be better, sure, but ... I guess the question is, at what point is enough "enough"?

I'd be inclined to agree with you but when I saw the SCCE the FS100 shadow detail was just not there. I'm not talking about filming in pitch black, just a low light scene. It was very noisy. Now of course if they just focused on one bright subject in the image and exposed for that, making the rest just black, the AF100 and many other cameras like even the T2i would look great. But if you want some semblance of dynamic range in your low-light shooting, I'm sorry but the Canons and the Panasonic's just don't do well.

That said, if you don't need that... then you don't need it. For example if most work is shooting interviews, or well-lit pieces or what not. So it matters what you do with it ultimately as you say.

Wait -- how can you set those things aside? Those are key workflow issues. I mean, that's like saying "4wd, size, and cargo capacity aside, the Suburban and the Prius are remarkably similar feature-wise." I think those operational tools are the fundamental difference between these two, and are largely what someone should be basing their decisions off of.

No, I'm saying they should be basing any camera ultimately on the image quality it produces. To use the car analogy, I want the best ride.

Nd filters are nice but I can put them on the lens. Waveform is nice but i can see that with an external monitor. Dual slots are nice, but I can also record onto a flash unit with the Sony... or simultaneously to it as backup (something the AF100 can't do). The EVF won't aim down if the camera is above me but in most of those cases you'd want an external EVF anyway just to be able to see better instead of looking at an angled screen off axis. And the uncompressed output from the Sony is a higher color resolution than the Panny (4:4:4), albeit from a horrible HDMI connector that I agree sucks.

To say the AF100 is so far ahead of the Sony however based on these items I just have to disagree with you; It comes down to the the Sony missing a filter that you can add (and better control in the case of a fader) and a less robust connector with a higher quality image coming out of it. (not that the difference between 422 and 444 is that noticable.) Add in an EVF that you can't use if the camera is above you. All those items considered is not a huge delta for most people.

I agree the AF100 has some operational superiorities. But they're minor in relation to the plusses of the Sony's picture and crop factor... again, to me. Not everyone. I will agree to disagree on the statement that the AF100 offers "so much more" in usabiity. It's better, sure, but not vastly superior in any respect.

For you. Not necessarily for everyone. Because to many of us, the process of getting that footage to the screen is equally important.

Please explain to me how the Af100 makes it 30% shorter than any camera never mind the FS100 in time necessary to get footage off the camera and to the screen. If anything I'd had to work longer on the AF100 footage to make it look better as compared to the Sony. Having an HDMI connector costs me 30% more time? Having to rig an EVF is a pain, I'll admit, but offers much more practical use and isn't necessarily a requiement. I paid $120 for my LCW filter and to correct for the color shift takes me 30 seconds in post. We all have to render. I don't quite understand your logic here.

If the picture is worse but the camera is a bit easier to rig and use... it's still a worse picture with compromises in DOF, FOV and low light performance, period - again that's my view (though the tests seem to back it up in some respects.)

If I have to shoot for a PAL client and that means I have to go rent a second camera and spend $300/day on another body, that's an issue. If I can't plug into a monitor because that monitor has SDI but not HDMI input, that's an issue. Sure it can be solved by buying a $500 HDMI->HD-SDI box, and sure the ND thing can be worked around by either buying glass filters or a mattebox or a Vari-ND, but you start adding up the thousands of dollars of equipment that it takes to bring it functionally comparable, that's all something to consider.

And as you say those items may be of more importance to one person over another, and that's fine. It's all fine, but my choice is simply not to sacrifice picture quality (within my budget of course). I don't shoot PAL. I don't mind a converter box (I use HDMI monitors or I rent a Blackmagic box when I need it). Everyone could use a matte box; that's not a Sony requirement one way or the other. A variable ND offers finer control over your image (even over a Matte box and traditional filters) by twisting it vs switching filters and re-exposing. Etc. Everything is a trade off one way or the other. Again, I choose picture quality, given these two cameras in particular.

I really don't buy the argument of "the only thing that counts is what's on the screen" because, if that was the case, nobody would ever have shot on a DSLR at all, period. I think the decision should be based on your own individual weighting of these factors:
A) System cost
B) Image quality
C) Functionality

Talking about these $5,000 cinema cameras I choose picture quality. To me, the positives of the AF100 are minor as compared to the sacrifices in image quality, DOF, FOV. To some the AF100 may be better for them and their workflow, sure. I have friends that use it and it's a great camera. To others like me, I prefer the FS100 or F3 for the image it throws up and the S35 image size and FOV. Both cameras make nicer pictures with less compromise in many respects than DSLRs for an amazing price as compared to what we were using before.

Now looking at HDSLRs for a moment - people put up with their significant liabilities because on the whole they were the only option under, say, $30,000 to get any shallow depth of field and anything approaching a cinematic look. You could put together a usable kit that addressed many of the DSLRs shortcomings for around $4,000 (or less) when you added your rigging and your sound kit and EVFs, and so on. Now we can get better pictures with that cinematic look for the same price in a camera that doesn't need to be added to as much to get to where it needs to be as it is a proper video camera. So the balance shifts forward - and it's still about picture otherwise we'd all be sticking to 2/3" sensor cameras with everything in focus.

For those who can't afford the higher end of the low end of cinema cameras... they'll still use DSLRs and that's fine. They want a certain look and even with compromises DSLRs can still provide that look to an extent. It's still far more cost than a cheapie HD $400 camcorder though. Those people are still choosing image quality over ease of use. It's all relative, just the cost shifts.

Some combination of those three factors will lead you to your ideal choice. For some, system cost is the paramount concern -- and they'll end up with a GH2 or a 60D or something like that, because the price advantage is compelling. For some, image quality will be the paramount concern -- and they'll end up with an Alexa. And for some, functionality is a massive concern, and they will immediately rule out any consideration of a DSLR, and, for me, have a distaste for a unit like the FS100 which is lacking in some of the most basic functionality things that I consider a bare minimum. And others will prioritize it differently and come to their own conclusions.

Yes of course. You prioritize functionaity over picture quality and FOV and to some extent, DOF which is what works for you. I prioritize image quality. I also value functionality of course, I just don't see the delta between the cameras as nearly as great as you make it out to be. Truly, the cameras are quite close in that regard - and both make sacrifices to keep costs down. The only place I think Sony really messed up on is the build quality of the plastic - it is lower than it should be, HDMI as a connector (it's fiddly) and that EVF on top of the unit (which forces an EVF in some cases).

To which you might say "of course and to me that's unacceptable!" And that's ok

But we should always remember that your priorities, and my priorities, and their priorities, are not the same. There are people shooting wedding receptions who may be willing to give up a lot in order to eke out a few more pixels of light sensitivity, and there are people who shoot in the daylight who couldn't possibly comprehend why someone would care about 25,600 ISO when in exchange they now have to carry around a half dozen screw-in filters just to be able to expose at something other than a 1/2000 shutter.

Well it's one filter and half a dozen step up rings. But I get your point and basically agree.

As I say all the time, there is no empirical "better", there is only "better for a specific purpose."

In the end we agree. I still maintain that picture quality should be key, but as you say it all depends on what one is shooting. Both cameras can put out amazing images that can hold up on a big screen. We both think that the respective cameras make too many compromises to get there - for me it's the AF100's picture quality in low light and lensing sacrificies. For you it's the Sony's form factor, EVF limitations, and HDMI connector. That's the beauty of choice... and I'm greatful that we have cameras in the $5k range at all that even let us get shallow depth of field and lens choices without looking like a computerized aliased mess.

IWhat's more exciting is that in 10 years these cameras will be $2000 or less and the $5k cameras will be Alexa or Red quality. And we'll be laughing at all this.

 

[Ed Kishel]

chose the AF

chose the AF

I just ordered an AF100- finally decided after two weeks of going back and forth between it and the FS100. I currently have a D60 and have been trying to get back the functionality I get from my HMC150. But all the accessories needed to make that happen would turn it into one of these "frankencams" that winds up costing just as much.

I chose the AF100 over the FS100 because I didn't want to loose:

• sdi out
• vector-scope
• on-board mic
• ND filters
• Pal/NTSC switchable
• 2 SD slots (for relay recording and backups)
• separate LCD and viewfinder
• form factor / build quality
• 3 year warranty (vs. Sony's 1 yr)

The Sony may have the larger sensor so it's probably sharper and more sensitive, but it wasn't worth loosing the above to gain that slight edge in resolution. To me the FS100 is still too DSLR-like. For me I would rather have a pro video camera with DSLR features, than a DSLR with pro video features.

I'm sure someone will chew me out for oversimplifying the differences, and that there are more FS100 pros and AF100 cons. Perhaps- but these differences are what my purchase decision came down to. I'm sure the FS will be a hit- when used right its images are gorgeous.

 

[NeedCreative]

No no no, I don't want it to sound like that, I'm not trying to serve anyone. I agree with many of NeedCreative's points, I just wanted to balance it out that these products are definitely aimed at two different customers, and were designed with two different philosophies in mind. And that should make the differences something to celebrate, because it helps you to choose which one is more appropriate for you.

I've been looking at both of them extensively to try to gather a comprehensive opinion on which does what best. So far I've got a list of over 50 things the AF100 does, that the FS100 doesn't, and about 29 things the FS100 does, that the AF100 doesn't. There is no open-and-shut case here. There's only a "which do you prefer" choice, and I think the primary differences between them are operational, and I think that people should really determine how important each of the three criteria are for their particular needs, and then evaluate the offerings based on how they truly perform (devoid of market influence and hype and buzz and all that nonsense). I have no doubt that once someone does that, their preferred product will be obvious.

I agree. This isn't a battle, it's a vibrant and fun discussion about plusses and minuses and choice that we all are happy to have. I could care less about fighting over a camera! lol

 

[NeedCreative]

It would be quite interesting if someone out there has an FS100 and a Nano or Ninja, and could compare some 0dB footage (internal & external) and then some 30dB footage (internal and external) to see how much of a difference that gain-codec-communication technology makes, and then to run a comparable test on a JVC or Canon or Panasonic and see if there's a substantial difference.

Yeah that would be neat to see. I've seen some sample footage but nothing concrete (so far, the uncompressed and compressed look remarkably similar, at least on the FS100). I'm getting a Cinedeck soon to try out and make a comparison.

 

[NeedCreative]

In an ideal world, I'd love to see Sony's sensor with the AF100's build and extra features. I'm not saying I don't miss them... just that I'll deal with their loss for the picture. Some people can't do that or won't do that and I understand.

3 year warranty? That's nice!

 

[Rick Burnett]

Well someone needs to tell everyone using an Arri Alexa that they need to return them because they are missing professional features. It only has a viewfinder (electrical or optical) and NO LCD screen for viewing on it. Clearly it's not worth purchasing now!

 

[NeedCreative]

Well someone needs to tell everyone using an Arri Alexa that they need to return them because they are missing professional features. It only has a viewfinder (electrical or optical) and NO LCD screen for viewing on it. Clearly it's not worth purchasing now!

hahaha how dare they!

 

[Ed Kishel]

the Alexa is like $60k and intended for a totally diff market

 

[Rolf Silber]

Well someone needs to tell everyone using an Arri Alexa that they need to return them because they are missing professional features. It only has a viewfinder (electrical or optical) and NO LCD screen for viewing on it. Clearly it's not worth purchasing now!

And it has definitely not enough knobs & buttons & plugs to pull, push, press or else.....

 

[Ed Kishel]

3 year warranty? That's nice!

yes that's one of the big ones. Tells me the manufacturer is confident about what they are building, most other companies only offer 1 year in this price range.

 

[Chris Lawes]

I've been looking at both of them extensively to try to gather a comprehensive opinion on which does what best. So far I've got a list of over 50 things the AF100 does, that the FS100 doesn't, and about 29 things the FS100 does, that the AF100 doesn't. There is no open-and-shut case here. There's only a "which do you prefer" choice...

Can we see this list? Did I miss it? Sounds extremely helpful.