My soundman was a Lieutenant in the Rangers in Vietnam. His take on the origin of "run and gun" is totally different from film... Seriously though, the term implies threat, and that's why I don't like it... as a long time documentary filmmaker it's true I've been threatened many times, but when I am needing to work fast I don't think of it as run and gun... I think of it as competent.
AF100 or FS100?
- Thread starter spotts
- Start date
My soundman was a Lieutenant in the Rangers in Vietnam. His take on the origin of "run and gun" is totally different from film... Seriously though, the term implies threat, and that's why I don't like it... as a long time documentary filmmaker it's true I've been threatened many times, but when I am needing to work fast I don't think of it as run and gun... I think of it as competent.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
The term likely came from guerrilla warfare (or as Zacuto likes to call it, gorilla... ugh). There's also shoot-n-scoot, a term popular in artillery, the 'scoot' coming from the need to move before a counter-battery strike.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
The strange thing about this, is that I was probably one of the only 'motion picture people' (not sure what else to call it) on the face of the earth who totally stuck my head in the sand and 'skipped' the whole DSLR craze. I literally never shot a single frame of DSLR video, not even playing around. I come from shooting with pro video cameras (Beta SP and SX, DVCAM, DVCPro HD, XDcam HD, and HDcam) and that's what I am used to. But I decided on the FS-100. I think, that part of it, was that the AF 100 did NOT come with a lens (it does NOW, but not when I was buying) and trying to figure out a lens that would give you some of the functionality of a video camera, was kind of tough. Now, you could get the 14-140 lens, which was originally for the GH1 I think, but there were some issues it seemed to have, like iris 'steppyness'. The FS-100 came with this kit lens that gave you auto iris, auto focus, manual control of the iris with no 'steppyness' right with the camera. As a person who 'skipped' the DSLR craze, I did NOT have a bunch (didn't have a single one in fact) of DSLR lenses sitting around that I could use on either one of these cameras. And I needed to be up and shooting right away for clients who wanted HD like the day after I got the camera. With the kit lens, the FS 100 behaves much like a traditional video camera.....so what I am saying, is that at least in some ways, the FS100 will appeal to traditional video shooters, as it can be purchased 'ready to shoot' with a lens that behaves like a video lens in a lot of ways. I actually think Panasonic should consider bundling the AF 100 with the closest thing they have to a video lens as a full time thing.....I know they have the 14-140 with it now, but I am under the impression that is a temporary thing. For video guys, who don't know DSLR's trying to figure out all the lens options can be time consuming and they may just need something to be up and shooting with right away, and figure out the lens options as they go along. It sucks to have a camera sitting there that you spent a bunch of money on that you can't use, so, without a lens included, I personally would tend not to buy.
Unless you shoot at night, magic hour, or are willing to have a large DOF b/c you've wonked the shutter speed.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
As someone who made the jump towards digital shooting from good old negative film just three years ago (with a short stop in the world of the GH13), this statement befuddles me without end. The AG-AF is a camera. The lenses are the lenses. Why would a lens be the decisive point in buying a camera?
I do not see any connections here other than that you may come from a background of shooting with cameras that have not the ability to interchange lenses - so you probably expect much too much from one lens as it has to be usable under a lot of conditions. Which, subsequently, means that it does a lot of jobs rather well but none really good. The concept of the AG-AF is completely different from that. It's more a classical film camera concept in the sense of: You have a camera and get yourself a family of lenses (and probably invest much more money in the glass than in the camera and/or you own that glass already) shoot with them and when the camera gets old you get rid it, keep your lenses and buy a new camera.
So in a sense the camera is a throw away sensor in a box. Nothing more. The glasses are the gems you want to keep and which will last much longer with you. But maybe that's just me.....
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Well, you came from film, so you have a different perspective than me. As I said, I did NOT already own HDSLR glass to use on the AF-100. And most cameras in the 2/3 inch ENG world....
come with a lens. So you can start shooting right 'out of the box'. Now, if you want, you can buy another 2/3 inch lens later (I actually did come from an inter changeble lens background, however, I usually only had 2 lenses.....a 'all around' 17x or so and a 'wide angle' 6x. I didn't change lenses nearly as often as you film or HDSLR guys do. So along comes a camera. It works with all sorts of still glass (which I don't have) with appropriate adaptors (again which I don't have). It does not come with a lens. If you know enough about still lenses, you can figure out if it has the right kind of mount to work with the camera, and if it won't, which adaptor you need to make it work with the camera. However, the funny thing is, some adaptors, won't let you control things like...iris on the camera. Kind of something I'd like to control manually. So if you don't know your way around stills glass as you were primarily a 2/3 inch video shooter, you might be a little confused. Then along comes another camera. It too is a 'big sensor' video camera. However, it DOES have a lens included. It allows you to control iris (and focus and so on) right on the camera without worrying about having the right adaptor, or mount, or worrying if the mount will actually allow the lens to 'talk' to the camera. The second camera and lens just work together....kind of like what this poor video shooter is used to with his 2/3 inch video cameras. Now if you were interested in learning more about this brave new world of big sensor video cameras, but wanted a safety net to fall back on while you learned.....might you buy the second camera instead of the first one? Remember, my whole post there, was explaining why as a video shooter, I was more comfortable with the FS100 than the AF100. People like you who shoot film, or others who shoot with HDSLRs, or still photographers would certainly have no problems with figuring all these lens options out. That was my whole point, I was explaining to Barry why I actually felt the FS100 was MORE tuned to a video shooter than the AF100 was. So when you say that the 'concept of the AF100 is different than that, it is more of a classic film camera concept' that is EXACTLY the same point I was making. So I think we are actually agreeing here
Last edited:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Fair enough. If that's your take then maybe you should take the FS 100 if it makes you feel more "at home". I am not a camera taliban. I have worked in my life probably with 15 or 20 different ones in 16 & 35 mm and now with five big sensor cams. I was under the impression that somehow you thought that the FS 100 concept is "better" than the AG-AF concept, which it is not - it's only slightly different. If this difference makes the difference to you..... buy the other thing.
The Sony definitely has some things I would love my AG-AF to have. On the other hand in terms of pure practicability (to me, that is) in the process of actual shooting, there are some things to be said in favour of the AG-AF. And as I am a sucker for "strange glass" I love to pluck in, I feel more "at home" with the Pana.... in the end it's the content that's important.
So: Good shooting and only the best from the old continent...
The Sony definitely has some things I would love my AG-AF to have. On the other hand in terms of pure practicability (to me, that is) in the process of actual shooting, there are some things to be said in favour of the AG-AF. And as I am a sucker for "strange glass" I love to pluck in, I feel more "at home" with the Pana.... in the end it's the content that's important.
So: Good shooting and only the best from the old continent...
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
One thing I'd like to know just out of curiosity is how well the lens work with the camera. I did not buy either the AF100 with any Panasonic lens or the Sony with any sony lens. I've read many reviews from others who felt the Sony lens on the FS100 outperforms the Panasonic lenses on the AF100. But, having not tested myself, and only reading two comments about this, I am not about to use that as advice to people who ask. Not enough people seem to have experience with both to answer. The biggest difference seemed to be in the focusing performance (as stated by others). I think that is an important consideration for those who do use the automatic features. I don't. I shoot full manual and enjoy it. But, as always, different people have different needs.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
The more manual and the less "zoomy" the better a shot is for me - usually. Even with monsters like the Cookes or the Angenieuxs I've never understood why people would use a zoom while the camera was running other than do a "working zoom" for fast change of focal length. Okay, maybe for some action stuff.
In Germany zooms where called at their introduction "Gummilinse" (rubber lens) by the pros - with a bit of a kinky connotation intended. And rubber lenses they've stayed for me. So if such a combination of camera/lens is important to somebody - okay. I hardly ever put my 14 - 140 onto the AG-AF anymore and the automatic functions have more than once destroyed a shot.
For me the main aspect to make the decision towards the AG-AF was to use and own an interesting mix of lenses I may use for certain shots. And here the MFT systems shines. I love my Voigtlaender 25 and I very probably will get me the Olympus 12 mm if not Voigtlaender comes around with something in that range soon. And owning a Hot-Rod adaptor my system is also open for PL lenses. So, apart from the practicability in shooting situations that the AG-AF provides, my personal decision was one for the MFT system. Hope it stays alive.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Totally understand. For me, I also own a camera that I use for stills (7D & a D90). I've avoided m4/3 and a/emount lenses because I want a lens that is portable with almost any camera I might use in the future. Given I see no Nikon video camera any time soon (but who knows, stranger things have happened), EOS has been my lens of choice. I'm sure Canon's answer to this price point will be EOS. I've started buying fully manual EOS mount lenses as well. I've used them both on the AF100 and FS100 and the Birger mount can't come soon enough for either camera I am sure a lot of people feel. Heck, even if that other mount that is manual electronic control (no camera interface) comes out, I'd probably pick that up to hold me over.
There are a lot of people who are interested in the AF100/FS100 for a traditional video camera replacement. Although when people ask me, and I find out what they do, if its documentary type or sport type footage, I recommend anything BUT these cameras. As a B camera, absolutely. But for A, I'd be looking at smaller sensor, powered zoom, zero rolling shutter, and of course, decent light response. But that's me.
There are a lot of people who are interested in the AF100/FS100 for a traditional video camera replacement. Although when people ask me, and I find out what they do, if its documentary type or sport type footage, I recommend anything BUT these cameras. As a B camera, absolutely. But for A, I'd be looking at smaller sensor, powered zoom, zero rolling shutter, and of course, decent light response. But that's me.
That is interesting. I went with Nikkor glass, because I inherited a bit of it. I also like their glass.
I have always felt that DSLR was on the way out on the pro end for the immediate future. There is no need to deal with a photo camera, if one is making a living on it and can afford better. With adapters, there is no need to be stuck with one brand of glass. As far as not using the AF100 or FS100 for doc work goes, I think it is an experience thing. I wish I had my AF100 when I was first starting out. I have always loved the 1970s documentaries that were shot on film, and a lot of them were in intense and difficult situations. Doing a documentary with a smaller sensor might be easier, but I think something is to be said for pushing technique.
I have always felt that DSLR was on the way out on the pro end for the immediate future. There is no need to deal with a photo camera, if one is making a living on it and can afford better. With adapters, there is no need to be stuck with one brand of glass. As far as not using the AF100 or FS100 for doc work goes, I think it is an experience thing. I wish I had my AF100 when I was first starting out. I have always loved the 1970s documentaries that were shot on film, and a lot of them were in intense and difficult situations. Doing a documentary with a smaller sensor might be easier, but I think something is to be said for pushing technique.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
In case I haven't been clear enough about this in the past (or if you haven't seen my posts on this in the past) I do NOT somehow think the FS100 concept is 'better' than the AF100. As you said,
it is just a little different. They both have some advantages and disadvantages. It is of course an individual choice, and what works for one person and his or her experience doesn't work
for someone else. The AF100 is amazing and I've seen some absolutely fabulous stuff from it. Having two big sensor video cameras at this price point is just awesome, a win win for everyone
if you ask me.