AF100 or FS100?

Chris Lawes said:
Can we see this list? Did I miss it? Sounds extremely helpful.
Click to expand...

It's not posted yet. It's part of a bigger process where I want to examine not only what the features are, but then, with hands-on experience, how useful (or not) are they? For example -- in general I think a histogram is a goofy thing to put on a pro video camera, useful perhaps for stills but totally the wrong choice for video, the waveform monitor is a far more useful tool. However, before I condemn it, I want to try it out -- because Sony has added what looks to be a vertical line at the zebra point, which might turn the histogram from being a doofy mistake and a concession to the DSLR origins, into being a "hey, that's not too shabby" type of thing.

So just because there are features here or features there, it's not necessarily something I want to release until I have a chance to actually test the validity of the various things. Hoping that an opportunity may come up next week or so.
 
Well, let me be the first to chime in on the histogram, as I have in fact used both, and they both have pluses and minuses.

* The waveform monitor is superior in terms of judging overexposure from it. It's higher resolution and really easy to see the content of your scene AND to make judgements to about how much safety margin you might need to protect overexposure.

* The waveform monitor has no labels, so for actual measurements, it's a pain to remember as you are probably counting lines.

* The waveform monitor is huge, you cannot leave it up and film UNLESS you use an external display so you aren't covering up the picture.

* The waveform monitor has no indication of your zebra points. This would have been nice.

* The histogram is small, so you can film with it on the screen and not have to turn it on and off.

* The histogram is low resolution. Sometimes it's hard to see overexposure in it when it is small, so I keep zebras on as well.

* The histogram has a line for zebra point, this is awesome and I'm very happy they have it.

When I shoot on the AF100, I find myself using the waveform to judge exposure and nothing else. When I use the FS100, I tend to use a combination of zebras set at 90% and the histogram. I've only done one full shoot with the FS100, so I am still tuning what works best.

Once again, it's hard to pick a winner because they both have different pluses and minuses.

Pertaining to the Alexa, I hope you realize that was a joke! :) But, I also can say I use my FS100 for narrative work, so it's not like the Alexa is being used for a different purpose. It's being used for the same purpose, and I use an external LCD with mine. However, let's take that a step further. Look at the majority of people who've posted pictures of their AF100 rigs. Look at how many of them have an external LCD or even a 3rd party EVF on them. People like to monitor with a better LCD and both the FS100 and the AF100 do not have the best LCD in the world in them. I dislike using them on both cameras. No winner there. The AF100 EVF location isn't ideal to me and I wish it was moveable. THAT is something I hope Panasonic addresses in the future.
 
One thing that I like about using specifically the AF100 with an external monitor is being able to have the waveform monitor on the AF100 screen and your framing/focus image on the top monitor (TV Logic, etc.)

I actually wish that I could make the waveform monitor take up the screen HORIZONTALLY, so there is no space on the left and right sides. That way you can easily see vertically what areas the exposure readings refer to instead of re-mapping them mentally from the squished WFM to the image on the screen. Pardon the off topic but has anybody seen a WFM like that on a field monitor/camera? Full-width?

Thanks for all the info Mr. Mods :)
 
NeedCreative said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't care what camera anyone uses, but must disagree about Variable NDs. I rarely use Polarizers, & hate what Variable NDs to the image. Not just the color cast, but the overall image.

Regards,
Bern
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
I don't care what camera anyone uses, but must disagree about Variable NDs. I rarely use Polarizers, & hate what Variable NDs to the image. Not just the color cast, but the overall image.

Regards,
Bern
Click to expand...

That really depends on the variable ND filter used. The new Tiffin which was
introduced at NAB 2011 and the Heliopan are two that have the reputation
of not adding a color cast at all, and being tack sharp from edge to edge.
If I remember right, Phillip Bloom may have posted about at least one
of them in his blog. If you search around, you can find videos and posts
about variable ND's which while they cost a bit more, are supposed to be
very good. I don't think you can just say 'variable ND's screw up the overall
image' as a blanket statement (not saying you were doing that, but people
might take it that way.) I think it really depends on the quality of the
filter in question.
 
Schneider's showing a Vari-ND too, though only a prototype.

But no matter the manufacturer, I don't always want a polarizer, worse two, on my lens. Polarizers are great for saturating an image, darkening the sky, or controlling reflections, conversely they can dimmish desirable highlights, & deaden skin.

Vari-NDs have their place, but I prefer NDs when possible, & a polarizer as needed.

Best,
Bern
 
Last edited:
Rick Burnett said:
Pertaining to the Alexa, I hope you realize that was a joke! :)
Click to expand...

And I hope you realize my answer was one too.... Irony doesn't travell that well over the net and betweeen different cultures I've learned at times.... ;-)

Actually I would hope that the industry would look very closely at the way the Alexa can be handled. I do like a minimalist approach. Am till today great fan of the Arri D20 "menu" - choose colour temperature, protect you highlights and switch on/off.

Moveable EVF - yes! This is practically the only real complaint I have about the AG-AF handling wise at this point. The positioning is a bit "freakish".
 
Haha, okay. :) Yes, the EVF being moveable is something I hope Panasonic choses to look at in the future. In fact, even being able to move the LCD would be nice as well. For instance, I like the LCD on top of the FS100 better than on the side. Using it on a steadicam rig is AWESOME with it on top. Especially for rotating it around. That said, there is certainly times I could use it elsewhere. So while I think the FS100 borrows design stylings from the Epic, the Epic doesn't lock you in to keeping the LCD on top. I think it is going to be REALLY interesting to see what Sony/Panasonic and in fact Canon do moving forward with the HUGE plethora of feedback they must see.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I think it is going to be REALLY interesting to see what Sony/Panasonic and in fact Canon do moving forward with the HUGE plethora of feedback they must see.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I think these are incredibly interesting times to work in the moving pictures world. The dynamics are breathtaking. So, yes, the FX%§4xx2 may be better than the OOPS=7Kprfst in protecting low- or highlights when it's rainy outside and where the sun doesn't shine.... but: I don't really care that much.

The AG-AF is - for it's price - just great. A nice workhorse. As is the FS100 for other reasons.

People, buy the one that fits your needs best and remember that in a rather short time it will be outdated anyhow. Man, was I proud when I bought my TI 99 in the early 80's. An then Commodore and ATARI came along..... ;-)
 
People want a simple A or B answer, but there isn't. EVERY camera is going to have something you may or may not like. I personally do not like the size of the Alexa. It's a camera that shoots BEAUTIFUL video, but I know in my methods I would be fighting the camera to use it how I want. Of course, I believe I heard James Cameron was working with Arri in getting them to design a smaller camera (Could have been someone else, but someone was working with them) as there is a market for smaller cameras for different work flows. There are people who will hate the Epic body style. There are people who love the AF100 body, and those that hate it. The same is ABSOLUTELY true of the FS100 and the F3. There will NEVER be a camera that satisfies all shooters. There are people who will refuse to like digital just like people who refuse to listen to CDs because they feel vinyl is better (and I am not saying one way or the other, just that it is impossible to please everyone).

With cameras in this price range, something is not going to be there. That relevance to YOUR shooting methods, needs, wants is not a quantifiable score that anyone other than you can make a judgement on. There are a MILLION variables to shooting, and at least from my perspective, we try to lock down as many variables as we can to make sure when we shoot, we are successful. This is why I encourage people to rent, or drive somewhere so that you can try these cameras out yourself. All the back and forth on here isn't going to give you the story. Just look at the number of comments for people who like the EVF on the AF100 and those that dislike it. Or about the handle on the side of the AF100. How could anyone say that these opinions are right or wrong. Nigel has a hard time pressing the buttons on the side of the FS100, and I have no problem at all. I find some of the buttons on the AF100 to be a pain to know if I've hit them, other people think they are fantastic. Only way you are going to know is pressing those buttons yourself, holding the camera yourself, sticking your eye to the eyecup yourself. I realize some people don't have the ability to get one before hand to test, based on geographical location. That said, I've seen cameras for rent that can be delivered to you, online. For $5k, I think it's worth the added cost. Even for a weekend.

Haha, and yes, when my parents bought me an Atari 130XE, that was a huge step up from the Timex Sinclair I was using before that. I remember back then it was; which is better, Commodore 128 or Atari 130XE? :) And even then, both had advantages and disadvantages to each other.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Only way you are going to know is pressing those buttons yourself, holding the camera yourself, sticking your eye to the eyecup yourself.
Click to expand...

When I was working as a CA - back in the times the dinosaurs roamed the earth - that was exactly the approach of my DoP: Shoot with what fits your needs and if it doesn't fit your needs you have to shoot it anyhow and make it look friggin good and don't complain....

R Technovision small.jpg

Once you've worked with that monster here (Technovision-Mitchell that just came back from the Philipine islands, slightly battered, from some shots for a certain helicopter scene... horritoho... ;-) you know you can shoot with anything.

When I see the Zacuto shoot-out and how good even the "cheapo" cameras are in their performance, the young man in the picture would ask: What are you complaining about? Go out and shoot!
 
Whatever you choose, it's going to be leagues and leagues ahead of what your options were, for the money five years ago - heck, even three years ago! I cannot believe what's available for $5K. As far as I am concerned, the FS100, is really there for low light - I would be 100% satisfied, and I'm one who always beat the drum for low light ability. Sure, you can always go lower, but that would be icing on the icing on the icing on the cake. Form factor - love how small the FS100 is. Could it be smaller? Sure, but again, that would be icing on the cake, it's small enough. The "perfect" camera may never come to exist, but let's face it, with the choices nowadays it's about as good as you can *realistically* expect without stepping outside of the bounds of physics. There are still a few pieces missing - shooting RAW, better highlight roll offs (no $5K camera does this well), better sound and picture monitoring, but really - it's 95% there. Seriously, that you can buy so much camera for under $5,000 - I still cannot believe it. It seems almost nuts to make a huge fuss in choosing the FS100 over the AF100 or the other way around - you get so much in either case, I can't believe you can make a movie if you choose one but not the other. Of course, this is a tech geek board, so even the smallest differences are going to get people passionate :)
 
Which reminds me of something, I REALLY wish there would be more advances in batteries. Most of the size used up on the FS100 is for the battery hole in the back. Even the AF100, it's a sizable chunk. It's been a long time since batteries made any technological advances.
 
I'm talking newer than that technology. A few years ago there was some really interesting research where they developed a bacteria I believe it was that they introduced into a certain type of rechargeable battery. The scary part was the particular bacteria, but the length of life was 12x the normal life! Of course, I have heard nothing more on it.
 
I've been playing with my new FS100 for a few hours comparing it to my "old" AF100. My first impression is that the cameras are pretty close, but here's a rundown on some of the differences.

FS100 pluses:
- Noise is better on the FS100 when the two are at comparable ISO (although it's hard to say for sure since the Sony uses DB values).
- Sensor seems much more sensitive (same as above perhaps).
- The FS100 handles highlight roll-off better, but not hugely.
- The picture styles on the Sony seem more customizable.
- (One thing I have not seen anyone talk about) the Sony has auto ISO, you can set the aperture and shutter and the camera automatically adjusts gain - very nice.
- The iris on the kit lens is MUCH smoother than that of the 14-140 (though I find the ergonomics of the Sony lens to be awkward).
- Auto functions seem more accurate (except perhaps auto WB), and the lens focuses a bit faster.
- 1:1 pixel mapping is great (but peaking is terrible).
- I like the stock hand grip better.
- Battery life seems better.
- LCD seems a tad sharper, and on-screen display is less cluttered.

AF100 pluses:
- Top handle is much better.
- In-camera mic.
- ND filter wheel (huge plus, of course).
- VFR far superior (very limited overcrank possibilities on the Sony).
- Overall build is far more robust.
- Lens mount seems more substantial (Sony E-mount seems really flimsy).
- Manual WB input is dead on (Sony appears to have a slight warm shift).

There's a mod discussed on the FS100 board that may make the stock loupe on the FS100 more functional, which could give it the edge in the EVF department, but out of the box the loupe is cumbersome, so I rate the cameras the same in this area.

I'll try and post some side-by-side samples next week.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the FS100 can do 1080p60 with sound.

That's interesting on the peaking, I thought it worked about the same as the AF100 to me, and I'm not happy with the peaking on either. I find the peaking function on my smallHD works better than both of them. I've not tried to change the sensitivity of it yet on the FS100, that's the next step.
 
stevedocmaker said:
I'd consider ergonomics too. The EVF of the AF100 is crap, the handle is crap. The EVF of the Sony is probably decent
Click to expand...

i think both is bull..., the handle of af100 is solid i think i could kill with it....., the problem maybe is that the camcorder is unbalanced and its almost impossible to hand hold, but how it can be balanced if u can put any lens on it with weight from like 200g up to several kilos, so i think they gave up on it right away, as there seems like no point doing it.....

the EVF - i have not hold the sony in my hands, but i dont believe it can be better than pana has, the evf of sony really looks like crap, looks like some cheap peace of plastic that probably will not survive the fall on a couch, and it holds with 2 rubbers - i already fill how many noises it produce.... and that stupid idea of a touch screen, i have my af101 for 6 months now and screen is still clean, anyway i dont see how that plastic thing can be better than internal evf of af100

when i look at my af101 it fills like if it will fall few times , it will survive and will get probably a few cosmetic issues, cant say same about sony
sony fs100 looks like a real consumer product to me, seems like they tried to save on everything, but sensor, not sure how its turned out to be more expansive. instead of asking bunch of fatties about what they want to see in camcorder(really hate that commercial), they could look a pany and take on consideration some good things pany has. i think if they could save on / get read of touch screen option and stupid evf - maybe would be enough for ND or sdi...or at least for pal/ntsc
 
The build quality of the AF101 is certainly superior - and this is a major benefit for those when you have to go off the beaton track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top