AF100 vs DSLR

BitMaestro said:
But since the AF100 is primarily a video camera (to the point that it apparently won't capture stills at the full resolution of the sensor) I think it would be more appropriate to use Barry's Cinema Crop Factor of 1.18 instead of the still (photo) crop factor of 2. So the 28mm lens in your example would be ~33mm.

Yes, there's currently still the drawback of manual operation only with a mechanical adapter. But if/when the electronic lens adapter comes out...

Mark
Click to expand...

it actually still has the same crop factor of 2
the gh1 uses a larger than normal sensor, but all the 4/3rds lenses still produce the same size image circle so it crops around to the image circle a 16:9 or 4:3 or or 3:2 or 1:1 image. The af100 will only be 16:9 of course.

To put it this way, if it didn't use this method then producing a 16:9 image from a 4/3rds sensor would have yet another crop factor.
does that make any sense?

i actually really like the 2x crop factor, it just makes everything really simple if you're used to full frame focal lengths, but 1.6 is troublesome to think about, not that it really matters, i guess people are complaining cause they it can't go as wide and not the maths,
 
Last edited:
i actually really like the 2x crop factor, it just makes everything really simple if you're used to full frame focal lengths, but 1.6 is troublesome to think about, not that it really matters, i guess people are complaining cause they it can't go as wide and not the maths,
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 2x is a simple conversion, but there does seem to be a lot of confusion as, for example, those shooting on a 5dII aren't actually shooting FF35. The sensor is being cropped to 16:9 ( and subsequently reducing FOV ) as I understand it. Whereas the GH1 for example, is not cropping the sensor but using the oversize area to expand into, which is what I presume the AF 100 will do to.

So simply put, m4/3 for motion, has a crop factor of 1.18 from S35 and somewhere around 1.9 ish from say the 5DmkII, I think.

On every camera system i've used, i've had to learn what the FOV will give for the various focal lengths. But with m4/3, one of it's biggest selling points has also become a bit of a thorn in it's side. The fact that you can mount any lens more or less, is the recipe for the huge FOV confusion and has also given rise to the myth that you can't shoot fast and wide.
If you start with 4/3 lenses, there are plenty of very sharp, wide and fast lenses for the format. I see it more as a bonus that other system lenses can then also be mounted.
 
ugh. its the crop factor again.
its simple. just treat it like shooting in film.

the advantage of the FF has are the ultra DOF (which is practically subjective) & fast wide lenses. thats it.

the only problems i see in this are slow wide lenses. thats it.
 
while Barry is sleeping thought I might get in a word.

About DSLR vs the AF100 it's always your application. If you make a living as a DP anywere on the planet, the AF100 is no brainer (to own and rent out as a package) for lower budget small crew commercials, corporates, music video's and low budget independent features and docs.

Two factors dictate shooting the above as a pro cam:
1. The producer and money he has to spend.
2. The DP that will not accept or imagine new possibilities and challenges and directors/producers swayed by these cretins of cinema.

If you see yourself as the Werner Herzog, NY times journalist/documentary/artist/ filmmaker/DP/1st time feature filmmaker with aspirations to travel, report, shoot and swap out a camera body as a journalist photographer does, stick with DSLR's as the future for now.


One thing is for sure, the Hot Rod PL from Ilya Friedman will be a must have for the AF100.
 
I think he meant replacing them in the area of film making with a not so super low budget (with a tad bit more to spend).

I think it sounds like a great camera but I would like to see some footage to decide. I would definitely go for it. It eliminates the problems that DSLR's have. And this is coming from someone who loves to shoot on DSLR. I just hate having to deal with avoiding certain shots because of limitations. I know there are always work arounds and you use your tools to the best of their abilities but it is nice to have some more freedom because the tool you are using allows you to.
 
I think the camera is probably a step up from what we have now, but there are too many question marks consider whether it is worth the money. We'll know more fairly soon. There are a couple of things to consider. First, are some of the features simply not worth anything? For example, XLR audio with phantom power is simply a feature that is a convenience. You'll always get better audio with an outboard rig, or even a Zoom. Then there is the question mark which is that this technolgy is being compared to older technology. Will it be a big step up from the newer generation DSLRs? Even if it is, it probably won't be for long. And lastly, are you better off with two Canon Mark IIs, and some key lenses, or any of a long list of gear possibilities for the same price. Even for the rich indie, world traveler, the DSLRs have the advantage that even if you lose your camera, you can just pick up a replacement, with a full selection of lenses, at the nearest shopping center.
What we need, is a cheap AF100.
 
Agree 100% on your point about how much easier it is to replace things out when needed. Like I said though I need to see some footage and hard evidence that this is worth it.

Agree 100% too that we need a cheap AF100. We'll see how it will hold up now that people can get great looking video on something less than 1k (7d, T2i)

Also, I agree totally about capturing sound on an external source to get better quality to monitor it but there are times when you just are not able to have a second person to do sound such as picking up shots when shooting something solo for say an interview or run an gun documentary work.

This is kind of a pain and we are in a technological view taking steps back from when people shot with film cameras and had to have a sound person. Then along came video and sound was able to be laid simultaneously to tape. Now we have taken a step back to a dual system which can limit or lengthen the amount of setup time not to forget sync work in post production.
 
Last edited:
The "cheap" AF100 without the XLRs etc already exists -- it's called the GH1.

The AF100 is designed to be something that the DSLRs aren't.
 
The camera that I want to replace with the AF-100 is not my HD-DSLR, but an Arri SR-II (III) Super 16mm camera. Now I don't own an SR-II (III), but that is the camera that I would be most happy to shoot some of the fictional narrative projects that I am developing (Well, I would be VERY happy to shoot on a Panavision 3mm camera, but....). I know that some folks will say that a whole crop of current pro-sumer HD cameras would fit that bill, but I don't. This Panasonic, at this price point just may be the go to camera for low budget fictional narrative filmmaking for a good while to come. Well, I am hoping. Come on Panasonic.
 
The "cheap" AF100 without the XLRs etc already exists -- it's called the GH1.

The AF100 is designed to be something that the DSLRs aren't.
Click to expand...

Then with that said I don't want a cheap AF-100 (GH1). Having an XLR input was one of the best things when I bought a DVX years ago. Loved every minute of being able to plug right into the camera with a nice XLR connection.
 
Very sorry about the long time between posts - things have been busy.

bluesgeek said:
That's a great disclaimer. Do you mind if I ask why you do?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I bought a 7D because it was 1) affordable, 2) offered a lot of artistic capability in terms of DOF and lens choice. Additionally, since RED announced Scarlet, I felt that the state of the market would shift towards larger sensor cameras with interchangeable lenses. I wanted to learn how to operate such a camera as soon as possible so that "trading up" would be a simpler matter.


bluesgeek said:
But directors, DOPs, and clients want that shallow DOF now. Regardless how it holds up, it's almost like the new test for many is whether the look competes on vimeo. I'm about to shoot a project on an EX-3 and the director is already more excited about bringing in a 5D.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. I'd be a bit daft to argue that a non-existent camera is better than an existent one in any way, shape, or form. After all, you can shoot something with any camera that is out now. But trying to shoot something on a RED Epic or an Arri Alexa in ARRIRAW or the AF-100 is going to be tough.


bluesgeek said:
You're talking about a very high-level environment here. What do you think about my original questions if applied to the freelancer struggling with budget and trying compete for corporate gigs paying $10,000-20,000?
Click to expand...

I really do feel that, all in all, the costs between DSLR and the AF-100 will turn out to be close. Close enough that I would rather spend the extra 5-15% and buy a single-unit camera which will work, more or less, out of the box. That and, unless Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/Sony release something really surprising in the DSLR market in the next 6 months, the AF-100 will have a sincere advantage in terms of image fidelity. That, alone, quantifies any extra expense for me. (That being said, the same may hold true for me with Scarlet over the AF-100...I have to wait and see what comes of all of this).

I feel like once I factor in the need to buy the necessary support equipment for the DSLR to turn it into a production-worthy camera, it will approach if not meet the cost of the AF-100, except the image will suffer in comparison.

And again, that's not to say that someone who is just learning or may want to experiment shouldn't go out and buy something like a T2i with a 50/1.8. For less than $1000, there is a very neat little camera to shoot some small artistic shorts or home movies on. Of course, with more kit and more gear, it becomes more capable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top