No regrets. In the last month, I've been on three location shoots with it. One was in the woods of the US Marine Profile shot on location in the Delaware Water Gap, One was the Indy500 and one, currently shooting, is a promotion for a yogurt company. There have been no complaints from the post houses, no complaints from the clients, and no complaints from the operator (myself) on the performance of the camera. Location shoots are well understood to be more difficult than the alternative of studio shooting, and any small problems your gear might have are exponentially magnified by the logistics of the shoot. No issues, no problems, no nothing. The only thing I'd ask for, other than a lens turret, has to do with those long lasting batteries (which I absolutely love)... they have is that they take a while to charge, which I suppose owns to how much I am shooting... ultimately, it's a backhanded compliment.
Any remorse? (pot. FS100 buyer reconsidering)
- Thread starter olindacat
- Start date
The short end of it to me, not owning either but having used both, is that if you want functionaliy and you're on a tight budget then AF100 all the way. The Fs100 is missing some essentials in that department.
But, if you want image quality and you can pay for some NDs and a better way to monitor, possibly record as well, FS100. When it came to comparing image, no matter lowlight or bright, the FS100 killed.
That's as simple as I can put it m'self!
But, if you want image quality and you can pay for some NDs and a better way to monitor, possibly record as well, FS100. When it came to comparing image, no matter lowlight or bright, the FS100 killed.
That's as simple as I can put it m'self!
Barry_Green
Moderator
It *is* strictly an 8-bit issue. The difference is that your old HDV XHA1 was a much noisier camcorder. The solution to banding is to add a little bit of noise. The AF100 and FS100 are much much much much cleaner and therefore the processor is more prone to create bands. A little noise dithers up the bands.
SplitFieldDiopter
Active member
Wasn't trying to be a jerk here, but I agree with TIPOTA. My point is you know the differences in the camera already. The hardware differences. Now, you have to make a choice. You can go back and forth a million times. Trust me, I did. I used to sit at the computer with 20 tabs open with different lens combos, camera combos, tripods, lights... It got to a point of ridiculousness.
One day, MY BIRTHDAY, I woke up and said, to Hell with it and just took the plunge. I've already completed a short, shot three paying jobs, and am loving the camera! If it wasn't for that day where I just made the decision, I'd still be sitting there, looking at my computer monitor.
I guess my point is, don't wait forever to pull the trigger.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I have both cameras. I have used both cameras. If you go read the other thread AF100-or-FS100 that was posted earlier and see my response there, I think I give a good summary between the cameras. Asking people here though is NEVER going to get you the answer you want. If you are even questioning using an FS100, rent one. Obviously you are curious. While there are big difference, there are little differences as well, and all/none of those may matter to you.
I know I'll be keeping the FS100 only, but not because the AF100 has done anything particularly wrong for me, it's just the size/weight of the body doesn't work in my setup, and that has ALWAYS been a concern from day one for me with the AF100. Image wise they both look great, but you can see all my comments over in the other thread which I think are fair and balanced.
(And once you have had ND, it really does suck to not have them. Not enough for that being my deciding factor, but YES I miss them. FS100 NEEDS ND outside, period).
I know I'll be keeping the FS100 only, but not because the AF100 has done anything particularly wrong for me, it's just the size/weight of the body doesn't work in my setup, and that has ALWAYS been a concern from day one for me with the AF100. Image wise they both look great, but you can see all my comments over in the other thread which I think are fair and balanced.
(And once you have had ND, it really does suck to not have them. Not enough for that being my deciding factor, but YES I miss them. FS100 NEEDS ND outside, period).
Barry_Green
Moderator
Awesome, SplitFieldDiopter.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
You're right, sorry. I forgot how the internal noise helped in that department. Sounds goofy but it would be interesting for a camera to have a custom control internally that let you add low amounts of noise to your liking into the image without resorting to something like ISO lol. Sounds weird I know, but could be useful. The XHA1 and the newer XF300 cameras have very very fine internal noise. I wouldn't even call it noise really, it looks like grain because of the pattern. It's not very video looking which is a good thing and something I miss on the AF. Tradeoffs, there's always a few.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I'm surprised this isn't something built in more cameras myself. In the audio world, we use dithering when taking 24-bit to 16-bit because of the added detail it gives. I know dithering has been used in photographic manipulation as well. The real science is in the noise patterns used in dithering. That is where getting it right would be important.
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....
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, then please consider whether you need shallow DOF or not. Because if you don't, there are many choices that might be better for you in conventional camcorders. Get an HMC150 and get shooting, spend half as much, and don't spend the next nine months agonizing over lenses!
:thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Well I did tests today to try and get something similar to the noise levels my old XHA1 gave me and honestly CineD with a slight master ped drop gives me an image that makes me happy. It's moderate noise but nothing that's outside of normal film levels, and it definitely helps with the skies I shot. The other option if I want knee and can't live without is to go with the 2nd noisiest gamma HIGH and use master ped again to dial in a black level that's not as flat. It's my only way to bring in some internal noise while still keeping an image that's similar to what I want.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Yep, with the AF100 noise, which is luma and not chroma based, it really works well for breaking up any banding (posterization). I do the same thing and when I compared it to other footage on other cameras I shot on, it STILL was less noise. Many other cameras have chroma noise and that just doesn't help with this sort of issue.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Well if you introduce Cine-Like as your color setting you do get more chroma noise BUT it's sorta the kind of noise you don't really want until you push things in post. Actually, you never want it, but it just ends up showing up later anyways if you're pushing saturation. I think though that the extra bit of noise it brings can be helped with a negative chroma level set up to help with how far it's pushing things internally. When I have time I'll perhaps try and test all the possible ways to introduce the internal noise like I wish and see where I end up. I have a shot on hand that's BPress but with Master Ped turned up and it did a similar effect as my CineD but it's clearly different somehow. Different how in specifics? I don't now, it's hard to tell.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
So many variables! I shoot with chroma -2 or -3 most of the time. I find that out of the box, the AF100 has a bit too much color for me! Haha.
I shoot with chroma -2 or -3 most of the time. I find that out of the box, the AF100 has a bit too much color for me! Haha.I never had to worry about DOF before because I was using a cheap camcorder. I am stepping up so I can GET DOF. I own lots of lenses, all very fast 35mm Nikon glass and large format Schneider and Nikkors., but am new to cine and am asking Qs about lenses elsewhere but not here in the AF100 section. I may not spend nine months looking for lenses Barry, probably the rest of my life. But my OP was because I am trying to buy a camera and am doing the associated research. BTW: I shoot everyday. Just not video.
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Wilbur Eddings
Well-known member
Af100 is awesome. Absolutely zippo buyers remorse. I bought it to shoot my own little low budget features and music vids with my Nephew between the bigger projects and my DP has just about stolen the thing from me to replace the RED on steadicam, smaller Jibs etc.
Add an AJA and the Af is a MONSTER!
Banding schmanding, just light your scenes properly and fiddle with your settings!
I was getting more noise on the Arri D21 in low light than I am on the Af!
DP rocked up at my place yesterday with his new F3 and his big assed lenses.
When we did a test shoot, my 16 year old nephew wanted to know why he (the DP) bought such a big 'old' camera. LMAO
(The big lenses look like old cell phones to him now).
Even the m4/3 panny lenses on the Af are awesome! The difference between my little 20 and the big assed prime on the F3 is minute! (Stirs a hornet's nest).
Grips are happy as pigs in mud that they can use much smaller rigs.
The more we get to know this cam, the happier we are with it!
My greatest joy with the Af is that my profit margin on most jobs has increased by (at least) 50% because everything is so much smaller and lighter thus needing less crew.
Once you plug the Af into an AJA, any TV station or DVD distributor in the world will be happy with the bit rate. (I don't care for pixel peepers, I care for my bank manager).
For me, the massive deciding factor between the Sony, Arri and Pannies going forward will be the size and weight of the final rig. (Can't wait for a 4k m4/3 offering).
M4/3 wins hands down.
But thats just me, I make crappy B movies and sell em as quick as I can.
Add an AJA and the Af is a MONSTER!
Banding schmanding, just light your scenes properly and fiddle with your settings!
I was getting more noise on the Arri D21 in low light than I am on the Af!
DP rocked up at my place yesterday with his new F3 and his big assed lenses.
When we did a test shoot, my 16 year old nephew wanted to know why he (the DP) bought such a big 'old' camera. LMAO
(The big lenses look like old cell phones to him now).
Even the m4/3 panny lenses on the Af are awesome! The difference between my little 20 and the big assed prime on the F3 is minute! (Stirs a hornet's nest).
Grips are happy as pigs in mud that they can use much smaller rigs.
The more we get to know this cam, the happier we are with it!
My greatest joy with the Af is that my profit margin on most jobs has increased by (at least) 50% because everything is so much smaller and lighter thus needing less crew.
Once you plug the Af into an AJA, any TV station or DVD distributor in the world will be happy with the bit rate. (I don't care for pixel peepers, I care for my bank manager).
For me, the massive deciding factor between the Sony, Arri and Pannies going forward will be the size and weight of the final rig. (Can't wait for a 4k m4/3 offering).
M4/3 wins hands down.
But thats just me, I make crappy B movies and sell em as quick as I can.
Af100 is awesome. Absolutely zippo buyers remorse. I bought it to shoot my own little low budget features and music vids with my Nephew between the bigger projects and my DP has just about stolen the thing from me to replace the RED on steadicam, smaller Jibs etc.
Add an AJA and the Af is a MONSTER!
Banding schmanding, just light your scenes properly and fiddle with your settings!
I was getting more noise on the Arri D21 in low light than I am on the Af!
DP rocked up at my place yesterday with his new F3 and his big assed lenses.
When we did a test shoot, my 16 year old nephew wanted to know why he (the DP) bought such a big 'old' camera. LMAO
(The big lenses look like old cell phones to him now).
Even the m4/3 panny lenses on the Af are awesome! The difference between my little 20 and the big assed prime on the F3 is minute! (Stirs a hornet's nest).
Grips are happy as pigs in mud that they can use much smaller rigs.
The more we get to know this cam, the happier we are with it!
My greatest joy with the Af is that my profit margin on most jobs has increased by (at least) 50% because everything is so much smaller and lighter thus needing less crew.
Once you plug the Af into an AJA, any TV station or DVD distributor in the world will be happy with the bit rate. (I don't care for pixel peepers, I care for my bank manager).
For me, the massive deciding factor between the Sony, Arri and Pannies going forward will be the size and weight of the final rig. (Can't wait for a 4k m4/3 offering).
M4/3 wins hands down.
But thats just me, I make crappy B movies and sell em as quick as I can.
Most helpful. Thanks!
hscully
Veteran
I am in the middle of shooting a short with my AF-100 and I'm extremely pleased with the results. No remorse at all. The ND filters are a must for me. I'd need a matte box and NDs to manage the aperture. I also like the SDI output and the waveform monitor is also a must for me. Good luck with your choice.
