Any remorse? (pot. FS100 buyer reconsidering)

O

olindacat

Well-known member
I have always thought Sony was flimsy in their build quality but their stuff gets the job done. The FS100 footage and file supposedly is good enough for a big screen (shot w/F3), whereas I hear (but haven't seen) that many who watched the AF100's performance (on screen) in the big comparison study done in the Zacuto documentary was not good. Then I read Barry Green's remarks in another thread about these two cams where he says footage comparisons are not even an issue (sorry to paraphrase him). So, how do you all feel about your purchase? Is the grass greener? Do you have any doubts? Regrets? I am already seeing a thread about cheap plasticy build concerns on the FS100. Thoughts about your AF100 appreciated, good and bad. One last point: I was planning to buy the FS100 and bought the VG10 as a B camera. I have modern Nikon glass (14-24 2.8, 17-55 2.8DX, 60 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8). The crop on this is 2x right? That means I'm not going to have much insofar as wide is concerned, at 28mm with the 14 correct? I also read that NDs aren't necessary for DOF and shutter speed control but I am new to this level of video work and could use an explanation/clarification if poss.
 
I've owned both and used both, and based on what I've seen from the FS-100, I'd say if we're talking straight-up image quality, the FS-100 wins. Not by a wide margin, but I think the images are slightly crisper than the AF-100, and the low-light performance is much better. (Not saying the AF is bad in low-light, but the FS is simply more sensitive.) But more than anything else, the larger sensor and wider field of view give the FS-100 the edge for me. As far as build quality goes, they feel about the same to me. I wouldn't say one inspires any greater confidence than the other.

The AF-100 is a great camera, and the scads of great footage out there proves it. And if the things the AF offers over the FS are things you need (dual card slots, ND filters, waveform, SDI, etc.), then you should use the AF with complete confidence in the images you're going to get out of it.
 
I agree with the above. I haven't used the FS100, but it does look like it wins in some areas. Whether those areas are things most important to you and whether or not you can live without some of what the AF100 has is up to you.

The bigger setbacks on the AF that would push me towards the FS is the banding which is annoying but manageable most of the time. All the accessories for my AF would work just fine on the FS as well so it's really a win win for me no matter which I stick with. I'm not totally sold on the FS100 being worth it to give up the AF100, but we'll see in time.

EDIT: Just saw a FS100 video with just as much banding in it that I would typically find on my AF100. So, never-mind. Maybe it's better with banding, but it's still there. Even my old HDV Canon XHA1 doesn't do that like these cameras do. Pros/Cons to everything.
 
Last edited:
I have no regrets about my AF101 purchase. The FS100 seems to have a few too many missing things and, like most Sony low-end products, feels more like "what can we get away with crippling on this low-end cam" rather than "what facilities can we best provide to the customer at this price point" (which is what my Panasonic DVX100, HVX200 and AF100 have felt like in my opinion. Sony cams that I can afford always seem to have something left off that I'd really miss- like ND filters or slowmo).

The image quality is OK- it's no RED or Alexa, to be sure. But get the scene file right, the exposure right (very critical) and decent glass on the front and it is capable of lovely images with most of the desirable dSLR look but none of the major issues. Banding is my major image issue, but until a 10-bit camera appears at my price point, that's just something I'm learning to shoot to avoid. I think it only shows up more than it did on the HVX200 because the AF100 is cleaner and less noisy to start with.

Ergonomics are great in the sense that it is a real video camera! I do think the EVF is in the wrong place: I use mine on a shoulder mount if not on sticks and the EVF is in a totally useless place. Shrug, I just use the LCD (must make a shade from blackwrap next time I go out in bright sunshine though). FS100 is no better here as far as I can see though.

Bottom line: on a week's location shoot, we took along a 5D2, 7D, GF1, AF100 and two HVX200's. We shot every single shot for every single scene with the AF100 in the end, which wasn't really what I'd assumed at the start. There was never a reason to choose one of the others- not even "docu-style" run and gun, where we just used a 14 mm lens on auto-focus and auto-iris. (Not quite true- we tried a shot with the GF1 on suction mount on a car windscreen, but it turned out we got better footage from the AF100 with a cameraman using it on the shoulder mount from the back seat. I believe that was the only time we even TRIED using one of the other cameras for a take).

Not a hint of buyer's remorse here for the AF100. Nor for the battery-powered LED lights either- didn't fire up a single tungsten light all week either.

Cheers, Hywel.
 
KyleProhaska said:
The bigger setbacks on the AF that would push me towards the FS is the banding which is annoying but manageable most of the time.
Click to expand...

Why would the AF100 be more prone to 'banding' issues than the FS100? Banding is an 8-bit color space issue if I'm not mistaken and since both are 8-bit cameras then both will be equally susceptible to it. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
 
Spotts, did you bother to keep reading my post or just see that and decide you needed to comment lol?

I saw some FS100 footage today that had plenty of banding as I said at the end of my post. Also banding on the AF100 is perfectly manageable with proper scene settings in circumstances where it's more of a problem, with tradeoffs of course (mostly noise in the footage) but there always is isn't there?

Also it's not strictly an 8-bit issue alone. My old HDV XHA1 is 8-bit and would never choke on half of the stuff my AF100 does when it comes to banding. It's image is nice and smooth. 8-bit isn't the only issue here.
 
to comment on the big screen with the AF100. in april i had some interviews on the big screen for school. we transcoded to proresHQ, graded in magicbullets, then recorded our timeline to HDCAM tape. The theatre projected via a HDCAM SR deck. footage looked great guys. i had a great experience with HD projecton from the af100.
 
Here's the thing about "looking good on the big screen."

This is meant to be read by filmmakers, not videographers or those that make money with their cameras shooting video for hire....

I've seen movies shot on DV cameras that have made it to the "big screen." Many shot with the DVX100.

Even older 60's films, like those by Cassavetes, although shot on film, are grainy, dirty and "bad looking." (Personally I like the look of those films)

People get WAY too obsessed with the quality of the camera they are using, then, when they finally get a nice camera, they go outside and shoot leaves and trees, rack focusing on benches and sandboxes when they should instead be learning the craft of filmmaking.

If you handed Jean Pierre Melville a Super 8 camera he'd make a better film than all of us with our AF100s, REDs, Alexas and any other camera you can think of.

It's great to worry about the quality of your film, the look of it. But when it comes down to it it's the angles, the lighting, the acting and the editing. Not how much noise is in the blacks.
 
SplitFieldDiopter said:
If you handed Jean Pierre Melville a Super 8 camera he'd make a better film than all of us with our AF100s, REDs, Alexas and any other camera you can think of.

It's great to worry about the quality of your film, the look of it. But when it comes down to it it's the angles, the lighting, the acting and the editing. Not how much noise is in the blacks.
Click to expand...

I will light a candle for that remark.

Else: I like what the AG-AF gives me in terms of handling in real-world situations. Build in ND filters, SDI output and - especially - the build in wave-form monitor which is the functions that really gives me control over exposure. And does the Sony do 50p (60p) over crank?

And - there is always another flower on another meadow in another country in the neighbouring galaxy ...... different cameras have different advantages? Good. Great. They better have. Let's chose which are the ones important to us. And then lets go out and shoot. Like Melville (that someone here mentions old Melville made my day, really).
 
SplitFieldDiopter said:
when it comes down to it it's the angles, the lighting, the acting and the editing. Not how much noise is in the blacks.
Click to expand...

The purpose of my question wasn't for the purposes of pixel-peeping or getting a lecture about filmmaking. It is to help me make an important and relevant decision. I am not a legendary filmmaker and you are completely right, most here would do a better job at it than I with an 8mm. But that doesn't negate the fact that $5K (or any sum) is hard-earned money for many here, and that some of us don't care if we were buying an 8mm or a light bulb: if it impacts our efforts to push our filmmaking life-forces in a more positive way, we'll still seek the good advice and counsel of others and ask any and all questions we can think of (even into the wee hours) before we committed our hearts, energies, and mights toward that cause. Now, if the fact that I might be stuck between two (or ten) cameras, have done a lot of reading, have cited some things that cause you to infer that I am in anyway lacking in an earnest desire to emulate the greats or do anything but my very best, is making a mockery of not only me, but anyone else who dares to express any self-doubt or worries about a decision relevant to the totality of what we are all attempting to do here. The big picture is indeed art, but the devil is in the details.
 
olindacat said:
but the devil is in the details.
Click to expand...

True. But at one point you need to make the decision and then live with it and get the best possible result out of your camera - whichever brand. In the end my advice would be: try to get camera A and B and C into your hands, rent them if possible, test & play & shoot because given a certain quality standard is reached - the handling of a camera is what is important ... try to define what situations you probably will come to while shooting ... and then jump into the water.

I understand the urge to make the "right" decision. But - maybe it's my age - I do believe that there are no "right" decisions in cases like that. Only good compromises. And whatever decision you make - some regrets will be included.
 
The AF 100 is a very capable camera, as I am sure the FS 100 is as well. The advantages of the AF are real connectivity- SDI ND filter wheel, full raster overcrank to name just a few. I'm sure I could make some really sweet images with the FS but I don't because I have 2 AF's and I'm really satisfied with their performance as are my clients.

I do not aspire to shoot films in the dark though I have shot a large dinner scene with AF's solely by candle light.

I think you might be stuck in thoughts having read the specs for the cameras and many other people's opinions. If you are worried about spending your money on the wrong camera ( for you) spend a little money to rent an AF and a FS and spend the day shooting . That should help you find what is right for you. Sometimes your hands can tell you something that spec sheets and 100 other opinions can't.
 
olindacat said:
I also read that NDs aren't necessary for DOF and shutter speed control but I am new to this level of video work and could use an explanation/clarification if poss.
Click to expand...

Well if you are shooting in bright sun, and that is too bright for a good exposure at a wide open of f3.5-3.8, which where you would find an optimal shallow depth of field, you will need some way to cut the amount of light coming into the camera, that is where the ND filter comes into play. If you don't have it you will have to stop down your lens, and lose the shallow depth of field. So you could use a faster shutter speed, which will reduce the light as well, but too fast and it starts to look like Saving Private Ryan on the beach scene, very static look. So to sum, yes ND filters are necessary and shutter speeds are nice but not always the best solution for light control.

Best,

Jan
 
If you are shooting narrative, doc or anything for that matter, choices like shutter speed that you bake into the image are going to really affect the quality of the image in some subtle and not so subtle ways.

If you are shooting a talking head you *might* get away with some narrow shutter angle to manage exposure without tipping your hand too much, but if you are shooting doc out in the sun with lots of camera movement and motion, using the shutter to control exposure range will really stink, especially when you get to the edit and some of you footage looks "normal" with a 1/48 or 1/60 shutter and other footage stroby because of a narrow shutter angle, then you start intercutting between footage shot over a range of shutter speeds and suddenly you're not feeling so good about the cut....

I was shooting recently at a Nascar Race with my 370, so it was outside on a sunny day. I had to use all the ND in the camera and 1/100 shutter to keep me in the F stop/ exposure range i needed because other wise I would have been shooting at 5.6 or higher numerically stop which is really a no no with that camera.

For almost all of what I shot the 1/100 shutter speed was bad or looking like a bad effect or mistake. The next higher speed available was 1/250 and that would have been cartoonish given the content.
 
my AF100 has been the best "gift to myself" I've made in a long time. no remorse at all, just a lot of exhaustion from how much we've used it. and mine has some pretty punk rock battle scars to prove it. I dont know which of these cams I'd pick now, and I'm actually glad I didn't have to make that decision back in january. :)
 
The easy of use can't be beat. It's the simplest camera I've operated these last years. I think the AF hits the spot for me and works just as a camera should. Bang for buck - great camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top