Cams retaining their value against the AF

[Brian_Rice]

There've been numerous discussions about the DSLR cams vs the AF and of course the newer (usually more expensive cams) vs the AF. I was wondering what cameras in a similar price range people here think are maintaining their value despite the presence of the AF (and, to a lesser extent, the DSLRs).

The only prosumer cam I've seen that appears to have not been affected much by the DSLR and AF is the EX line.

Videographers aside, I'd think most filmmakers would rather use the AF than an EX with 35mm adapter. But I can't really see a dramatic difference between the two -- and, if I'm not mistaken, the specs on the EX line are still actually better than the AF's?

Just wanted some input on what camcorders (if any) will hold up against the post DSLR/Camcorder blends like the AF series, and if any of them are actually better cams with a 35mm adapter slapped on.

 

[Brian@202020]

Well the look of a HPX170 with a Letus Ultimate attached to the front is quite amazing, and I used that set up a lot in the past. The problem with all the smaller sensor camera's that you have to put a lens adapter on to achieve a shallow DoF is the massive light loss. Some adapter companies say 1/4 stop light loss, some say 1/2 a stop, but in reality it is quite a bit more because that 1/4 or 1/2 stop is before you put a lens on the front. I love the look, but to do it right you either have to be outside or use a ton of lights. As for the DSLR's, I think the only viable option in my work is the 5D. That is because of it's DoF characteristics due to being the largest sensor around. Being able to be really wide with a shallow DoF is pretty cool some times, but needing this is rare for me. In my opinion the AF100 is an amazing camera, and in the grand scheme of things it has far fewer corks, flaws, and work arounds than anything else under $10,000.

 

[Barry_Green]

Videographers aside, I'd think most filmmakers would rather use the AF than an EX with 35mm adapter. But I can't really see a dramatic difference between the two

No, but there's about a $3500 difference between those two.

and, if I'm not mistaken, the specs on the EX line are still actually better than the AF's?

Depends on what spec you're talking about. If you're talking about sharpness, yes. If you're talking about frame rates, no. Each product has some advantages against the other. Certainly for ENG usage and event coverage I would aim for the EX1, and for narrative and filmlike usage I'd go with the AF100 every time.

Just wanted some input on what camcorders (if any) will hold up against the post DSLR/Camcorder blends like the AF series

The adapter is basically dead, the DSLR went a long long way towards killing that off, and I think the AF100 finished the job. People were willing to put up with all the workarounds and shortcomings of a DSLR, for the lower cost and the fact that you just didn't need the adapter anymore. Now the AF100 came along and eliminated the workarounds and shortcomings entirely, so ... now there's nothing missing.

, and if any of them are actually better cams with a 35mm adapter slapped on

No DSLR compares to an EX1 as a video camera, in terms of fidelity of the image and features and operation. The only thing a DSLR has over an EX1 is the shallow DOF, in terms of image creation (there are other things too involving substantially smaller size and dramatically lower price, of course).

 

[Brian_Rice]

Thanks!

 

[NoahK]

Personally I rarely buy any camera body with a serious eye toward resale value because they become obsolete so quickly. Instead I buy when I know I can cover the cost and then some with jobs I'll use the camera for. That's not to say that a lot of accessories, tripods, lenses, matte boxes hold their value better because they can often be reused on whatever the latest camera body is.

Noah