AF100 or FS100?

NeedCreative said:
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.
Click to expand...

*** I think you should check out the Heliopan variable ND filter. The test shots with and without it amazed me. I will DEFINITELY be getting one. This doesn't negate anything you've said, the ND in the AF100 is just awesome, but, at least you could get away with not having to use a Matte Box in certain situations.
 
MadMonkFish said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a very instructive piece of footage. It shows, conclusively, that what comes across as cinematic, is really not about the camera. I mean, the GH1 here is superb. If it were only about that - this clip would come across as cinematic. What's far more important, of course, is the acting, the staging, the editing, the sound - this is what defines that clip. Watch it with the sound off - already it looks 10x more cinematic, even though it's exactly the same footage. "Cinematic" is a perception, in which the camera, IMHO, plays the least role - almost any camera can be made to look cinematic... and that is the least part of what "cinematic" is all about. The human brain distorts perception - you see and hear things differently from objective reality, guided by subtle cues. We make up our experience. It's not all in the bits and technical specs of the equipment - those specs are just the starting point. Beyond a very basic level of technical threshold, it's the artist, not the tool.
 
Rick Burnett said:
*** I think you should check out the Heliopan variable ND filter. The test shots with and without it amazed me. I will DEFINITELY be getting one. This doesn't negate anything you've said, the ND in the AF100 is just awesome, but, at least you could get away with not having to use a Matte Box in certain situations.
Click to expand...

+10000. Not 100% sure here, but if Rick is talking about the test shots I did with and without the Heliopan variable ND, you can find them here:

http://exposureroom.com/members/alaskacameradude/14d879d0c3924609974edd0388478689/

I can safely say, I was HUGELY bummed when the FS100 did not have ND built in. I think that is the biggest plus that the AF100 has over the FS100. But I am here to tell you, that the Heliopan is just AWESOME! I actually like it BETTER than built in ND, as you can dial in exactly what you want. It's smooth as can be, no 'steppyness' and I can't see any color cast or loss of detail, just one awesome piece of kit. Of course, if you have a ton of lenses, switching a screw in filter on and off isn't fun, and it's not as convenient as having the ND built in for sure. But, it gets around 80-90% of the drawbacks of having no built in ND and is even better in some ways than the built in ND. Of course, the price isn't cheap, $300-$400 depending on where you find it. Just know, if you have a FS100, and want to do some run and gun stuff without a mattebox, you NEED this filter! Buy it 10 minutes ago, trust me, you won't be sorry!
 
I know this is a drastic turn of opinion (haha) but Rick I'm very nearly ready to sell my FS100 and go to an AF100. Yes the AF100 isn't nearly as good in low light, and I am concerned with highlight rendering. But I'm also not seeing that horrific pink fringing I see in highlights on the FS100. And carrying around a matte box and filters for the FS100 is a pain in the rear. The FS100 was in no way made for run and gun.

Grrr. Decisions.
 
alaskacameradude said:
+10000. Not 100% sure here, but if Rick is talking about the test shots I did with and without the Heliopan variable ND, you can find them here:

http://exposureroom.com/members/alaskacameradude/14d879d0c3924609974edd0388478689/

I can safely say, I was HUGELY bummed when the FS100 did not have ND built in. I think that is the biggest plus that the AF100 has over the FS100. But I am here to tell you, that the Heliopan is just AWESOME! I actually like it BETTER than built in ND, as you can dial in exactly what you want. It's smooth as can be, no 'steppyness' and I can't see any color cast or loss of detail, just one awesome piece of kit. Of course, if you have a ton of lenses, switching a screw in filter on and off isn't fun, and it's not as convenient as having the ND built in for sure. But, it gets around 80-90% of the drawbacks of having no built in ND and is even better in some ways than the built in ND. Of course, the price isn't cheap, $300-$400 depending on where you find it. Just know, if you have a FS100, and want to do some run and gun stuff without a mattebox, you NEED this filter! Buy it 10 minutes ago, trust me, you won't be sorry!
Click to expand...

That is indeed impressive performance.
 
Hey actually plenty of people are doing great cinematic stuff with the iPhone:
http://vimeo.com/12819723

I've been looking at both the AF100 and FS100, they both look nice, but my problem is how can neither camera deal with highlights as well as the 5D can. That's why I've stayed away from these cameras until now. I'm tired of dealing with sound in weird ways with the 5D, but I'm not ready to make the move to a new camera until it uses a sensor that doesn't have ugly highlights.

I'm a documentary filmmaker, and I've shot my latest paid pieces (http://madnomadfilms.com) with the 5D, and gotten great results, but I deal with a lot of unexpected changing situations, and the overexposure is not something I'm always able to avoid so I need a sensor that can work with that overexposure. These 2 cameras can't deal with them well, especially the AF100. So I'm waiting to get that canon sensor into a FS100 body. And I'm not the only one.
 
NeedCreative said:
That is indeed impressive performance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is absolutely GREAT! I found it by accident on Philip Bloom's blog, where he called it the 'best variable ND' that he has ever seen. Of course, it costs $400 or so, so it's not cheap. But then most good gear isn't cheap..... Throw it on your FS-100 and I bet you will be much happier with what you can do run & gun. I was the ultimate run & gun shooter, and I was a bit worried about going to a 'cinematic' camera as my clients don't give me the time that you get with planned narrative stuff. But with the FS-100 and the Heliopan variable ND, I am totally happy doing run and gun stuff. The thing to remember is...all variable ND's are NOT equal! I have had a lot of people tell me that 'variable ND's suck' or that they don't like variable ND's. Even Barry Green told me that on this board.
But, this is usually based off an experience with a specific variable ND that does indeed 'suck'. That doesn't mean they are all the same. I mean, how could they be, some of them cost $40....mid range
ones might cost $100-$200, and others like this Heliopan cost upwards of $400! Obviously the Heliopan is probably better than the ones that cost $125. I really can't tell the difference between having
the Heliopan on my camera or off it as far as sharpness and color cast goes. Now, that is not to say there are not drawbacks. There are. You have to screw it on whatever lens you are using,
and if you change lenses, you have to put the Heliopan on the new lens, so screw it off one lens and onto another one. And if your lenses are different sizes, you need to have 'step rings' for the
Heliopan so that it will fit on the lens. Also, you cannot dial it down to '0' it goes from 1-6.6 stops, so if you have it on your lens during a sunny day, and then go to shoot later on that night, when it is dark out, you might need to unscrew the filter and take it off the lens. But that being said, with the FS-100, you can usually just leave it on, as you almost always need ND with the FS-100
unless you are shooting in the dark. It really takes the FS-100 to another level, and gives it the flexability to do a whole new style of shooting.
 
Last edited:
obonin;2396220 I'm tired of dealing with sound in weird ways with the 5D said:
http://madnomadfilms.com[/URL]) with the 5D, and gotten great results, but I deal with a lot of unexpected changing situations, and the overexposure is not something I'm always able to avoid so I need a sensor that can work with that overexposure. These 2 cameras can't deal with them well, especially the AF100. So I'm waiting to get that canon sensor into a FS100 body. And I'm not the only one.
Click to expand...

You are correct and it's not only the 5D that's better with highlight handling, it's all the Canon HDSLRs. But they suck in worse ways - moire, aliasing that can kill a shot. Bottom line, (and this is unfortunate) nothing is quite there yet in the affordable category until you get to Alexa/Red range.
 
highlight handling really isn't that bad. It retains a good level of detail and you can smooth it out just fine.

beforeafter01.jpg


beforeafter02.jpg


I imagine both the AF and the FS are similar in this fashion. They just don't do it as nicely straight out of the camera.
 
You do realize that the term run and gun originated with film and film cameras had no ND. The Fs-100 is so configurable that I'm having a blast with it. Like Rick said no mattebox needed.
 
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I was curious about peoples impressions of one camera vs. the other, but I've seen so many threads like this degrade to nothing but flame wars (who hasn't?). I just finishing reading the whole thread and the information in it is helpful from beginning to end. My takeaway is that both offer a price/work flow/image performance level that we could only wish for just a couple of years ago. I love when the choice is between great and great. To paraphrase Barry, it's a matter of matching which one fits your needs the best to see which is the "greater" for you.
 
NeedCreative said:
I know this is a drastic turn of opinion (haha) but Rick I'm very nearly ready to sell my FS100 and go to an AF100. Yes the AF100 isn't nearly as good in low light, and I am concerned with highlight rendering. But I'm also not seeing that horrific pink fringing I see in highlights on the FS100. And carrying around a matte box and filters for the FS100 is a pain in the rear. The FS100 was in no way made for run and gun.

Grrr. Decisions.
Click to expand...

Only you can decide what makes the most sense for you! :) I just put my AF100 up for sale and after all my testing with both, the FS100 works more how I work than the AF100. Both of them are awesome cameras. With the settings I have now, I find the highlight handling a bit more forgiving on my FS100 than my AF100 settings I tried, but as PaPa said, in post you can really clean up highlighting. I will be investing in the heliopan for sure. I come from a DSLR background, and so, my shooting style has derived from that. Those that come from a traditional video camera background I think are going to be happier with the AF100, and what it offers. They both have a lot of room to grow in future versions, that is for sure! :)

On both cameras I think they saturate too much out of the box, so I've dialed down the colors on both.
 
mico said:
You do realize that the term run and gun originated with film and film cameras had no ND. The Fs-100 is so configurable that I'm having a blast with it. Like Rick said no mattebox needed.
Click to expand...
But film cameras could use 25 or 50 ISO film. So no ND filters were needed. With the 800 minimum ISO of the FS100, that's a difference of four to five stops. The FS100 is completely useless outdoors without some form of ND filtration on it.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I come from a DSLR background, and so, my shooting style has derived from that. Those that come from a traditional video camera background I think are going to be happier with the AF100, and what it offers.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I've been saying since the FS100 hit the market. Those who are DSLR shooters and who like that, will probably gravitate towards the FS100. Those who are used to shooting with pro video cameras are more likely to prefer the AF100.
 
Barry_Green said:
But film cameras could use 25 or 50 ISO film. So no ND filters were needed. With the 800 minimum ISO of the FS100, that's a difference of four to five stops. The FS100 is completely useless outdoors without some form of ND filtration on it.
Click to expand...

I was stressing that the term run and gun in film where the term probably originated, involved a whole lot more than just ND filtration and would make most people only accustomed to video extremely frustrated. NDing today is so much easier with the myriad of options available. And no ones denying that the camera needs ND's outdoors in daylight.

We can also flip it the other way too, how about run and gunning at night or indoors low light. That Fs-100 800 asa is going to make run and gunning easier and your nd filters aren't going to do anything for you. Its alot easier to add ND in daylight than it is to add lights when run and gunning in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top