Choosing between 5D, Af 101 and Fs100

M

maltess2

Well-known member
Hello to all

I ant to get a semi pro camera and came down to these 3 choices. I m looking for a film like look and 35 sensor. I know all the specs and diffrent characteristics of the cameras, %d is cheaper but I need to buy accesories etc. different sensors etc.

But in terms of image quality, which one do you think is a better buy?
which one has a more videoish image?
which one is a better buy in general?
Is the full frame factor some kind of advatage over the the 4/2 and the super 35? I been looking at the pana Gh2 as well, but i thnk the 5d image looks a little nicer


Thanks a lot guys for your help!
best regards
 
You can make equally filmish footage on all of them. You have more control over the image with the FS100 > AF100 > 5D. The AF100 and FS100 can be set to deliver identical imagery.

The main argument for the AF100 is that it is a professional video camera with loads of features and capabilities that the others don't have. The main argument for the FS100 is that it has a larger sensor and higher ISOs than the AF100. The main argument for the 5D is that it has the largest sensor, and therefore can deliver a unique super-hyper-shallow DOF look than pretty much anything else out there.

As to which is a better buy -- that all depends on how you shoot and what features you value. For me and my work, which is primarily pro video and film work, hands down no question the AF100 is the best of the bunch, especially if the free lens offer is still going on. I don't like shooting on a DSLR, I just can't stand the compromises that it requires of you, so I rule the 5D out. And the FS100 is too much like a DSLR for me to like it; I find that I can get identical imagery out of the AF100 without dealing with the shortcomings of the FS100. But there are folks who need what the FS100 can do; if I was a wedding shooter having to shoot in dark reception halls, heck, the FS100's advantage there would be pretty big.

GH2 is very interesting as well, I have one of those and love it for what it is, but it isn't a pro video camera. If money is an object and an AF100 or FS100 is too expensive, the GH2 is a great budget alternative.
 
I wrote a whole thing up that would of been 2000 words, I deleted it and replaced it with this.

I just want to say some positives about the fs100, rather than try and bash the other camera companies.

When I first got this camera, I turned it on and it was very user friendly, enough buttons to confuse a monkey but very easily adaptable. I didn't really have to play around with it for too long until I understood the simple know how, the picture profiles were easy to get to use and from the helpful people here on dvx, I was able to find a really nice profile, and I got shooting, the first thing I noticed was the picture, it was just so clean and detailed, the highlights were perfect, the lack of ND filters did kill me to start with, but that is just a work around I knew I had coming. I really like how you can add what ever lens you want to the camera instead of being limited, the slo-quick feature was new to me and I liked it, easy to use and does a great job, the modular design did put me off to start with, especially with handheld, it's not a small camera and is most definitely more preferable on the shoulder, but it is do-able. Once I had finished filming, was time to get the footage on the old faithful mbp, simply put the SD card in and Log and Transfer in FCP, could not be any easier, the fact that the camera didn't shoot uncompressed and did infact compress to avchd (coming from a gh2) had me a little concerned that is was going to diminish the quality a little bit... I could not have been anymore WRONG. this Sony avchd codec, is one of a kind, it is amazing, it holds so much detail, highlights, blacks, quality throughout the compression process, I could not believe it, very outstanding. I waited for a couple of hours for the sun to set, didn't do a timelapse unfortunately, but night time came and I wanted to see first hand what the camera was capable of, after I had heard so much stuff on the net, in one word, superb. It really was quite amazing, I pushed it right to the limits and it dealt with it so well it was unbelievable, I would rather show you video, than rave on, and I don't want to bash the gh2, but you do have to watch both to get a really good comparison.

I set up my laptop to face the opposite way of my dog, so there was minimal to no light at all on the dog.

Sony FS100:

Panasonic GH2:

It really is a great testament to sony, they have done very well with this camera and I could not be happier.
 
How does the HVX200A stock without the redrock gear hold up against these cameras for shooting a short film/movie INT/EXT?
 
Wow, LiamR, that comparison really tore my face off - incredible low light capability from the FS100... this compared to the GH2, which itself is not half bad in low light - just wow! I'm having a serious case of camera envy, as the project I'm planning has a ton of very low light requirements but for financial reasons all I can swing is the GH2; I knew it could never come close to the FS100 or AF100, but this is stark - I better not look at any more such footage or I'll get seriously depressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top