Any remorse? (pot. FS100 buyer reconsidering)

These discussions are getting a little tiresome - the AF101 is an awesome camera, in the right hands the images are amazing - everyones happy - end of story. Just go out and use the thing.

You do realize you are not forced to read them! :) I think it's fair to ask for opinions and/or why someone has twitched cameras. I am sure there are LOTS of people on the fence with both cameras. Being you are dropping $5k, one likes to try and make sure they are getting what they need. The problem, which this and many posts show, is there is no clear *winner*. It's circumstantial.
 
These discussions are getting a little tiresome - the AF101 is an awesome camera, in the right hands the images are amazing - everyones happy - end of story. Just go out and use the thing.

It's scary spending your hard earned cash on new equipment, obviously people would want to ask until they feel a bit more secure in their choice.
 
No disrespect intended but sometimes when I read these kinds of comments (which is very often) I want to point out that this forum isn't really a storytelling/composition/art of filmmaking focused forum. It appears to be much more a technical details focused forum. People post and read here to find out the technical details and to weigh pro's and con's regarding technical details. The GH1 is an awesome camera you can make an awesome movie with if you are an awesome filmmaker, so is the T2i, and for that matter "in the right hands" an iPhone is good enough to make something great.

However I'm reading this thread to find out stuff like how the FS100 can record 60p WITH SOUND, and the AF100 can do negative ISO gain while the FS100 can't. These are important factors for consideration that will play into different projects differently, and it's worth my time to scrutinize and discuss them.

Obviously if I spend $5k on a camera I'm gonna use it :)
 
Maybe we all get something different here. I see, in almost every thread, highly technical talk about everything from optics to grading to gears and rods and exposure, etc. Isn't the point of a forum to be a compendium of insights, a wiki of sorts, covering as wide a spectrum as possible, Chris? I wanted to find out if anyone regretted their purchases and if it was emotional or based on fact, because that was something I wanted to know. Simple. I figured maybe some might shed light on the topic, that's all. My thread title was as concise as I could be so tech-oriented people such as yourself wouldn't have to be bothered with my folly. But to say this forum "isn't really a storytelling/composition/art of filmmaking focused forum" is, IMHO, untrue. Juz my 2 cents :-). I found this whole exercise to be very informative. I wanted to hear all the good and bad things I could about the AF100, while voicing some of my own concerns about the FS, as I believe (as Rick points out), "there are LOTS of people on the fence with both cameras." Perhaps others will find this thread helpful.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a "great camera" - as someone once mentioned, it's the Bolex of this age. Like the Af, the Bolex was not great - it was clunky looking, an ergonomic nightmare and considered inferior to the Arri 16S - but many very good films were made with them, some blown up to 35 (including much of Disney's LIVING DESERT & VANISHING PRAIRIE, Bruce Brown's ENDLESS SUMMER and my own ACAPULCO GOLD).

I have issues with the AF, but they'd be the same issues I'd have with the Sony. The one huge advantage of this camera (besides the NDs) is the endless inventory of lenses that can be stuck on with inexpensive adapters. That, like the Bolex's "C" mount (or RX for wides and zooms) adds to their similarities.

I will point out that Bolex (Kern Paillard) had the foresight, through SOM Berthiot, to produce several nice zoom lenses, including a tiny 17-56. But Bolex didn't make lenses, did they Panasonic? Sorry, it's a sore spot with me.
 
Interesting how out of all the cameras I have owned over the years, I chose to keep an old Bolex and get rid of all the rest.
 

Attachments

  • Bolex.jpg
    Bolex.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 0
Well, you are indeed right about the tabs being open SplitFieldDiopter. Good grief you've got me pegged there.

Barry: Not having a rental option here, I am largely at the mercy of my own research and intuition—which frankly sucks. I have lots of guys I know out here using Nikon and Canon pro gear out here shooting stills, but an AF or FS100? Forget about it. So, I admit I am a serial researcher.

In spite of all that, I screw up. For example: I just bought a SD 702T because I read (and had drummed into me) that cheaping out on audio was a BIG no no. I thought the quality recorder would be a smart, core piece of equipment, and I had a line on one that was $$$ off retail. So I "just made the decision". Then I watched Barry's DVD (over and again) and read some more, asked some more. It was only then I realized how important other aspects were, such as proximity of mic, etc., and that this was too much machine for me. I am now stuck trying to sell it before it even gets here!!! As I am not a sound engineer, but have to (by virtue of limited means) wear that hats, I wanted to do right in terms of gear and blundered.

There is no way for me to tell someone my own impressions when comparing a Linhoff and a Sinar, or a Rodenstock or a Schneider, but if someone asked, I would try. I cold shoot what I want with each. I am confident it their 'build quality' and their 'specs'. Once I commit, I'll make the camera work for me.

Rick: I read your comments—all of them from ll threads—and they were super-helpful as they always have been this past month. Many thanks.

I am the opposite of many of you here. I tell stories in print. Visuals are still. I have been making magazines for 31 years. Now my industry is slowly dying. I need to learn a new craft. I am in my infancy stage and have used cheaper cameras (camcorders) the past two years trying to learn what I can and this is my next step. (If anyone here has ever been a one-person publishing company and cranked out 200-page issues of annual-report-quality work, they'd know it is as brutal and (in its own way) as challenging as a short film might be.) I'm only spending this month doing this. Next month I'll be in another section of this site haunting others about techniques :-)

I know how to get it done, and once I start, don't have time to go back and worry about my purchasing decisons. But at this stage, never having had my still lenses on a video camera, never having to 'pull focus' or worry about DOF, or trying to hold focus while zooming, or dealing with the jerkiness of moving a zoom while shooting, I just want to get it as right as I can.

Thanks all for your help and input. I will try to do the same for others and perhaps my ignorance here is a good thing in that others like me will benefit from what I've been exposed to here....

You didn't error buying the quality of a Sound Devices product, especially if you got a good price. Cameras come and go, and sometimes pretty quickly. Good audio gear is a long term deal, even a two track recorder.

Grant
 
Olindacat, yes I'm quite in agreement with you. I was actually trying to point out the validity+usefulness of the thread, which I am personally benefiting from very much. Like I said knowing about the FS100 not being able to do negative gain is very pertinent for me. My comment above was really aimed at all the comments saying: "Stop niggling over all these technical details and pixel peeping and just go out there and shoot something, they're all great tools!" My point being that when I want to go out and shoot something I will, and when I want to hear from highly qualified people about the differences between camera technologies and ponder how they apply to my shooting I will read thru dvxuser threads..

Sure there is much to learn about storytelling etc. here as well, just hearing from good storytellers talk about camera technology some of that rubs off. But the main focus seems to be more technical in my experience.

Anyway thanks for starting the thread it's been an interesting read so far hope I haven't pointlessly sidetracked it ;)
 
David Jones... Nice seeing your old Bolex, a (now) rare pre-reflex in good condition, with two Switar lenses... very cool - and in 1955 state-of-the-art for on the go filmmaking...

Good audio gear is a long term deal,

At the risk of again sounding like the old guy, I have in years past invested in a Nagra III, a Nagra IV and then, in the 90's, a Portadat... all are, alas, consigned to the same nostalgia category as Mr. Jone's Bolex.

But, back to the point of this thread. The AF100 is most certainly transitional, which means that many will "regret" having purchased one when something better comes along. But really, it's 5 grand! That's not chump change, but it's not the 60+ people were having to put out for SD "pro" equipment 15 years ago.

It's been said many times, since the pioneer days of the Bolex. Don't worry about the camera, worry about what's moving around in front of it.
 
Last edited:
I owned one of each.. in fact, the Bell & Howell was the camera that we had to use in starting film classes at UCLA... no reflex (how many people know how to compensate for paralax?), spring wind, noisy as hell - The Scoopic never caught on, sort of the late 60's handycam, actually not unlike the DVX.

But the Bolex turret locked (simple screw in plug) so you could use a zoom with a built-in beam-splitting finder, plus several companies (and eventually Paillard) offered 400' modifications (they did make one briefly for the Scoopic) - and then the introduction of the Bolex Rex model changed low budget filmmaking - worst viewfinder ever, though... I have to laugh when people complain about the finder on the AF.

And now on to the Beaulieu....
 
I would argue that the af-100 is more akin to a cp-16. The Gh2 is the bolex as it is not a sound camera, and with ETC can even use 16mm lenses. But this doesn't solve the OP's question. I don't have either of the 100's and lust for both. If money was no object i think the Pany for day and Sony for night with zeiss lenses to share would be the thing. The low light performance of the Sony is scary, but at the extreme it is unnatural looking. Bring a couple of small LED lights to light your talent and you can work within the range of the Pany and will probably look better than blowing out street lights. The performance of either is so much beyond anything that has been within reach of indie's ever. Pick one and make a worthy film.
 
I haven't had any problems in low light with the AF - shooting at ISO 2500 everything looks very good to my eye. The Sony may be better, I don't know, I haven't used one. But, realistically, really low light (ie gloomy bars, freeway underpasses and back alleys at night) are a very small part of most people's shooting territory... and even so, they should look a little grainy and dark for effect anyway.

No, the issue that will bite us all is the codec. It will die a short but painful death (at least in the pro world). And coupled with that is the shortsighted lack of 10 bit out. I'm not a tech guy, so I don't totally understand all this stuff. But I DO know that the AF was being criticized for lack of 10 bit before it was even in release.

Those of us that produce for broadcast worry about these things, because during the time it takes to make a feature length documentary the technology changes and the broadcasters' knees start jerking. It bothers me that the technology I'm currently using is already being dissed, and I haven't even shot a fraction of the show yet.

However - the pictures look pretty good (with some reservations that I will elaborate on in another thread in the future) - but then I'm still happy with the picture from my "antique" HPX500 and it's "long-in-the-tooth" DVCPRO HD codec (which, incidentally, Panasonic just made a big deal of announcing has been adopted by NFL Films). Anyway, the picture is what counts.

BTW... I had a super16 modified CP16R that I bought new in 1974. It was a nice camera, designed for handholding, with light Mitchell mount 400' mags - but, again, short-lived. To put it in perspective with the AF100, that camera with a Canon lens and two magazines cost $6,800 in 1974. You could buy a new Corvette for that then... Only the news versions recorded sound, though.

I've obviously owned a lot of cameras, and I've been asked why I don't buy a higher end Pansonic or Sony now - or rent. I don't rent because of the time it takes to shoot a documentary. And 20 years ago I was fine with spending over $50,000 on my Aaton because I knew I could use it for a long time. With this era of constant "upgrading" of technology it just doesn't make sense for an independent to spend that kind of money anymore. Thus, I'm trying out the AF100, and I'm okay with it. I attached a picture below, but I don't use the Zuiko lens much anymore, I primarliy use a Canon 20mm f2.8 now.
 

Attachments

  • Starboard.jpg
    Starboard.jpg
    115.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I owned one of each.. in fact, the Bell & Howell was the camera that we had to use in starting film classes at UCLA... no reflex (how many people know how to compensate for paralax?), spring wind, noisy as hell - The Scoopic never caught on, sort of the late 60's handycam, actually not unlike the DVX.

But the Bolex turret locked (simple screw in plug) so you could use a zoom with a built-in beam-splitting finder, plus several companies (and eventually Paillard) offered 400' modifications (they did make one briefly for the Scoopic) - and then the introduction of the Bolex Rex model changed low budget filmmaking - worst viewfinder ever, though... I have to laugh when people complain about the finder on the AF.

And now on to the Beaulieu....

The Bell and Howell was my first 16 as well. Remember it had a tiny reflex hole in the side of the camera where you could actually focus by looking thru a tiny part of the lens.
 
remember, it all depends on how your end product is broadcast. i've been making high-end commercials for 20 years and you're always chasing technology on the creative side of things, but most don't realize that unless you're airing on network TV (the big 3 or large cable: hgtv,espn, discovery, etc) your finished product will be compromised in some fashion.

thousands of national spots and programming is aired all over the country on stations that still use BetaSP dubs. very often you're still taking HD content and making SD versions to be broadcast. it is less every year, but even most larger markets like LA, NY, Chicago and others don't air most content in HD.
 
hands down, AF100 was a great purchase. Shot 2 features this year, hopefully will have 1 or 2 more.

I think this camera will soon start to be used on more and more TV productions in a big way, just like the DVX and HVX.
 
remember, it all depends on how your end product is broadcast.

Mine are often national or regional, used to be mainly PBS primetime or APT, but those days may be over forever. BBC and Nipon are occasionally options, depending on the subject (ie BEYOND BARBED WIRE, about Japanese-Americans who volunteered from the internment camps in WWII was picked up by both)... They're all pretty picky, overly so actually. They've rejected good programming for technical flaws that were intended by the filmmaker as an effect (I know this for a fact because I was the filmmaker in one case). Sometimes the peepers just don't see.
 
Thus, I'm trying out the AF100, and I'm okay with it. I attached a picture below/QUOTE]

Mac,

I totally love your setup!!! Except for the add-on EVF, I have the same rig. I know how your setup feels, to me, itʻs what a video Aaton must feel like. Which EVF are you using there?

All the best,

Jeff
 
Back
Top