AF100 or FS100?

Jan_Crittenden said:
Unless of course you are shooting outside on sunny days.
Click to expand...

Jan, I mend with the FS100 you almost always need an ND - so you are seldom run into the situation, that you want to remove it.

After shooting with the FS100 for a while now, I have to say it needs a much differnt shooting style.
I remember my trusty ole HVX200 - get it out of the box, hit CineD, watch your zebras, and I was set for 99% of all situations.

The FS100 needs careful dialing in for every scene and light situation. You have to be super picky with light, framing and camera movement.
Though it can produce wonderful pictures that camera is not a tad forgiving. Actually she can be a real bi...ch sometimes.

And yeah, that Sony flavour of AVCHD is not the nicest thing to play with - so one should count in a external recorder.

Frank
 
Last edited:
Danespina said:
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.
Click to expand...

And it is more than just the NDs that you are giving up. the larger sensor doesn't give that much more of a depth of field look. You are giving up VFRs 13 additional frame rates that the AF100 has. You are also giving up Waveform Monitor, an additional zebra, HDSDI output with a solid twist and lock connection, a VF and an LCD. The two cameras are very similar in size and in fact the FS100 is about 4 ounces heavier. But to each their own, I still feel that that AF100 gives the best cost-performance ratio.

And yes to MadMonkFish, just saw the Hooray for Earth this morning. Very nice indeed.

Best,

Jan
 
alarch said:
I got both and if you want movie style picture quality one should go for the fs100
Click to expand...
See, I think that's just nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense. "movie style picture quality" comes from the cinematographer, not from the camera. There's been plenty of movie-style stuff shot on much lesser cameras. At risk of being repetitive:
This was shot on a GH1. Not a GH2, a GH1. Without the hack. This is the original, unhacked, GH1.

So was this. Unhacked GH1. Would a "bigger and better" sensor help? Frankly, if you don't see "movie style picture quality" in this, I think only an optometrist could help.

This was shot on a 1/3" camera. Movie style picture quality? I dare say yes.

Again I say -- the argument about "bigger sensor" or "better sensor" or whatever, is a red herring. It's like arguing about 80x digital zoom instead of 60x digital zoom. They both do the job. Choose the one you want based on the features and price tag, not on some penis-size-measuring contest, because it isn't going to make one pixel's difference in your final product. And if it does make that difference, that's down to a deficiency in the cinematographer, not the camera.

The only place where it would make a significant difference is in a shooting scenario where you absolutely need more than 3200 ISO. If you NEED more than 3200 ISO, then by all means, the FS100 is the way to go. If you don't NEED more than 3200 ISO, then just evaluate them based on the features and the design concepts and see which one is more appropriate to your style of shooting.

But please, let's hear no more nonsense about how the FS100 is "more cinematic" than the AF100, because that's just hogwash.
 
The AF100 is heavier than the FS100.

AF100 = 2.64lb
FS100 = 2.29lb

(without batteries or lens)

The ND filters in the AF100 are perfect, I don't agree that there is ANY quality issue with them. I've never heard anyone who has used them EVER complain about the quality.

And to be fair, with the AF100 you are giving up histogram with zebra indicator, 1080p60 WITH sound, 1:1 zoom for focus assist, the ability to change color of the focus edge feature, better battery life per weight of battery, reported better autofocus performance with Sony lenses and smaller vertical form factor.

I can't give a clear winner to either camera. They both have so many pluses and minuses that it really is difficult to quantify the differences. Even with regards to what Postmaster said about setting up the Picture Profiles, I feel you have the same issue with the AF100. You really need to dial in what you need for the different shooting scenarios to REALLY get the most out of both cameras. I don't see ANY quality difference in the AVCHD codec in either camera, and I am happy shooting with the internal codec on both. How important each feature is really is NOT a quantifiably global number. For instance, I've never used a VFR below 24 on the AF100 and really don't have a need. Regardless if it is there. Same as with PAL. Yet, I don't for one second believe that they aren't important to others, and in some cases, for those that shoot both 25p and 24p, is probably a deal breaker.

This whole cinematic thing is the silliest thing I have ever heard. To claim one is and the other is not is an absolute lack of 'cinematic' knowledge. I bet 90% who own a DSLR only that shot on a 2/3 sensor would probably claim it isn't cinematic because the DoF is so much deeper. Yet, MANY movies have been shot with this size.

Cinematic is a style, not a technology.



 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

Barry, correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have seen when you measure the area actually USED for video (as the AF100 sensor is a 4x3 shape) the difference
is the Sony sensor is 1.8 times bigger. Yes the AF 100 has some things the FS 100 doesn't (in my opinion, the included ND filters is a VERY big thing.)
Sure, you can work around it with the FS 100 and I have, but it would be MUCH more convenient to have built in ND!!!! But to be utterly fair, I DO think
(and again correct me if I'm wrong) that when you compare the area used for 16x9 video, that the Sony sensor IS what I would call 'significantly' bigger.
As you pointed out, that isn't the be all and end all, and the AF100 has other advantages.
 
After using an variable ND for some shoots, I love the fine control it gives you over a build in 3 or 4 steps ND.

Frank
 
Rick Burnett said:
Same as with PAL. Yet, I don't for one second believe that they aren't important to others, and in some cases, for those that shoot both 25p and 24p, is probably a deal breaker.

This whole cinematic thing is the silliest thing I have ever heard. To claim one is and the other is not is an absolute lack of 'cinematic' knowledge. I bet 90% who own a DSLR only that shot on a 2/3 sensor would probably claim it isn't cinematic because the DoF is so much deeper. Yet, MANY movies have been shot with this size.

Cinematic is a style, not a technology.
Click to expand...

On PAL - yes, here in PAL-land :) - the lack of NTSC flavours & 24P is a bad move (ie 24P/30P/60P).

Regarding cinematic quality, I agree - and as I posted earlier, it's all about skills, knowledge and experience...

This AF100 vs FS100 'cinematic' debate just rolls on... and on...
 
Barry_Green said:
See, I think that's just nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense. "movie style picture quality" comes from the cinematographer, not from the camera. There's been plenty of movie-style stuff shot on much lesser cameras.

But please, let's hear no more nonsense about how the FS100 is "more cinematic" than the AF100, because that's just hogwash.
Click to expand...

Barry - not wanting to throw fuel on the fire - but to highlight another cinematic project, here's a link to a GH1 (unhacked) short from last year. I haven't seen it around much (but I may have missed it)... good team, experienced Director, DP and crew (etc) and shot on cine lenses with Hot Rod PL.

http://vimeo.com/15059034

I think it's a great piece of work... especially considering the trials & tribulations of the GH1 (external monitoring being a key one - plus codec breakup etc), it's really outstanding. If more of this was around, I'm sure there'd be more GH1 shooters.

So, even given the simplest of tools, cinematic work can be produced.
 
Last edited:
wow these are some great examples of how well the GH1 holds up- I just picked one up a week ago as a B cam for the AF100 (since it's being discontinued and only cost $399). Glad I did. The specs of this camera don't even come close to the FS100- yet look what it can do with the right glass and skill. It really is "the artist that makes a painting- not the brush". If I was a producer, I wouldn't care which camera JDS and his DP chose- I'm sure with would result in a "movie style picture quality".
 
If I had to choose today between the AF101 or FS100 it would be a difficult decision. But having getting used how simple it can be with my AF101 when working I have no regrets. I do consider it a good tool to get me through jobs and I'm sure that when it's time to move on to something better I will still consider it to be a very good camera.
 
The F23 and F900 are 2/3's cameras. Given this whole sensor size peeing match going on, thought I would just throw that out there.
 
Yeah, all this talk is silly. Give me an iPhone 4 and I can make it cinematic. It'll be a pain the ass but I can do it!
 
marlontorres said:
Yeah, all this talk is silly. Give me an iPhone 4 and I can make it cinematic. It'll be a pain the ass but I can do it!
Click to expand...
You certainly could. Especially with the "filmic pro" app. And at that point, the PITA factor is exactly what it's all about. The end result can look surprisingly good, it's all about how much hassle you're willing to put up with to get those results. Which is why I repeat: make the choice based on price and features.
 
Now that I have had some time now with the FS100 and AF100 I have to agree the AF100 is a better physically built and more feature-equipped camera overall. (And I own the FS100 and like it!). Some of those added features are big too - such as a (lousy but present) EVF, a LCD that's easier to use (albeit with chunky graphics), ND filters that are both convenient and largely negate the need for a mattebox (but not a sunshade), VFR and so on. [I just spent $2000 on a matte box and filters for my FS100 just to get necessary ND that I don't have to worry about messing with my image. Let me tell you while it's nice and helps with light control and flaring I'm not happy about having to do it.] I'd say the AF100 is a very good camera for grabbing out of the box (or case) and just shooting.

And in the hands of someone skilled and with the right lenses, the AF100 too can easily have the same cinematic look as the FS100.

That said, I do think it's lacking in some key image areas: very low light; the detail just isn't there if you want to shoot in VERY low light and there's a good amount of noise. I also don't like how the AF100 handles highlights - they can look very flat. (The FS100 honestly isn't vastly better here but it's enough for me to notice; I've seen it plainly even on Panasonic's own demo footage.) That and keeping my lensing around the S35 size is what sold me ultimately. There are a few nicer things on the FS100, better LCD (when you can see it!), more options for focus assist colors, 1080 60p with sound. But these aren't a big deal to me as much as the image is.

-pause-

Ok, now with all of that said, the AF100 is a fine camera for the price, and one that deliver that shallow DoF when it's needed for creativity. If someone handed it to me instead of an FS100 and said "use this" I wouldn't complain. As a tool, with a skilled operator and some good lighting the images can be identical. It comes down to a choice: do you want more convenience and a better equipped camera out of the box, or a slightly better image in very low light and blown highlights with possibly more convenience with your lensing (and that's debatable)?

Bottom line - as a tool I love my FS100 overall but with some big caveats. If the AF100 had the Sony's S35 sensor I would waste no time buying it. I'd buy it tomorrow. Heck, I'd buy it 10 minutes ago. I am impressed with it on a lot of levels. I really dislike many of the choices Sony made on the form factor and some of the features of the FS100 including lack of ND and internal microphone, lack of cinema markers, scopes, and plastic that gets damaged when I place it in a case among other things. It's sturdy enough, it has enough features over a DSLR to call it a pro cinema camera for low budget filmmakers, and it has a very nice image which is what sold me ultimately. But it's got a ways to go, and in many of those ways the AF100 is already there.

** I know one can use a VariND instead of a Matte box. It's "good enough". But when I changed to proper glass ND filters from Tiffen as compared to my Light Craft Workshop Fader ND, I gained some detail and lost a color cast in the image. The Fader degrades the FS100's image, no question now that I have A/B'ed the footage. I don't want to settle for "good enough" in the image when using ND, especially considering the FS100 virtually requires it all the time. I don't notice much of a negative effect on DSLRs though.

Edit - the more time I spend with this camera, the more issues I'm having. Now it's pink fringing (see FS100 forum). And ND filter set up with a Matte Box is a royal pain for some shoots. So my opinion is changing the more I actually use the thing in the field.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top