Its 4 pounds!!!!!! What stedicam can't handle that? A hand held merlin can handle 4 pounds!
Continuing Investing in Dslrs or go the Af100 , Fs100 or RED route?
- Thread starter vision_filmz
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My Pilot (which aproaches a 'production' steadicam)with Hofo, Vlock 5d and Daylight monitor is maxed out.
edit.. the size/weight issue is really a cultural thing.. could be important to a doco shooter or skier, but totally irrelevant to a cine crew
S
edit.. the size/weight issue is really a cultural thing.. could be important to a doco shooter or skier, but totally irrelevant to a cine crew
S
Last edited:
Didn't know the pilot was so light weight.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No it does not. It has a sensor that is almost the same size as 35mm cinema film. It's 4x bigger than a 2/3" sensor. That's not a "small sensor"!
Easy -- the Lumix 7-14. As wide or wider than you'll get with any SLR. And dramatically less expensive than the 14mm you'd need with a 5D, for the same field of view. The 5D's 14mm is $2400. The Lumix 7-14 is about 1/3 that price, every bit as wide, and it's also a zoom lens. If you want wide, the AF100 delivers in spades.
Well, "big and heavy" is in the eyes of the beholder. It's two and a half pounds! Yes that's twice the weight of a 5D, but once you start strapping all the stuff onto a 5D that you typically need to use in order to be able to shoot, well, anything -- the AF100 is probably lighter. As far as physically bigger, well, yes it is. But it's also smaller and half the weight of a typical handheld camera like the EX1, so ... I mean, kept in perspective it's a very small and very light camera, and if the difference in its weight is a deciding factor then I'd say you might have some pretty narrow requirements. Which may be the case, to each his own and all, but empirically speaking it's a small and lightweight camera. Especially with the 20mm or 14mm pancake lens on it.
Same as the FS100, the F3, and every other video camera out there. The DSLRs do offer a different type of rolloff.
Well, yes -- in the same way that a 4-bedroom house is more expensive than a 2-bedroom mobile home trailer. It does a lot more than the SLR, so yes it costs more. But not THAT much more, considering what it does. Street price on an AF100 is about $4500. Street price on a 5D is about $2500. So, yes, it's more, but considering what it does, many folks will find it quite affordable.
As compared to something like a T3i or GH2, yes the price gap is substantial. At that point it comes down to, again, what do you need the product to do for you? The question I was responding to wasn't "which is cheaper", it was "is the AF100 superior" and that answer is absolutely unquestionably "hell yes" -- and yes, you will pay more for that.
Well, "getting burned" -- first, if you're in the business of making money with the product, how do you get burned? And if you're not in the business of making money with the product, why would you be buying a $4500 camera anyway? Use it, make your money from it, and when it's not serving your needs anymore, sell it on ebay.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
all points that are fair and reasonable .. as are mine .. depending how you work .. have you ever carried a camera up Kilimanjaro .. I have
A for being 'burned' digital depreciation of kit is an issue
I wonder what the value of an F35 is now F3s are around, I certainly know that my 22mp stills Hassy kit is pretty burned by 22mp DSLRs
BTW I have an FS100 so fully see the value of a more expensive and more video like camera, while still appreciating my 5d for what it offers
S
A for being 'burned' digital depreciation of kit is an issue
I wonder what the value of an F35 is now F3s are around, I certainly know that my 22mp stills Hassy kit is pretty burned by 22mp DSLRs
BTW I have an FS100 so fully see the value of a more expensive and more video like camera, while still appreciating my 5d for what it offers
S
Barry_Green
Moderator
Kilimanjaro, no... but a 2.64 pound camera can't really be considered that much of a burden, can it? Nor can hand-carrying a camera up kilimanjaro be considered that frequent of a task to undertake, right? I mean, if the point is, what's the smallest camera -- a Go Pro does an amazing job in an amazingly tiny package. I was referencing cameras for general purpose, not specific-purpose. Hand-carrying up a mountain would be classified as specific-purpose, surely?
Being burned with digital depreciation on an F35, obviously. That's a, what, $350,000 body when it was first introduced? Yes, that market is pretty much dead. But getting "burned" on a $4500 body? I mean, if you can't make back $4500 within a couple of months, you're in the wrong business, right? I just don't see it as that much of an issue. Back when cameras cost $100k+, you had to have a several-year business plan to recoup that cost and hope to turn a profit. Nowadays our time frames are measured in months, not years. I think an F3 is too expensive for most folks to consider buying -- you'd have to have a very specific business plan to support a $20k purchase. (assuming S-log and a recorder, of course, because it's kind of wasted without those). But a $4500 purchase? Pocket change to most folks in this business. Disposable. You're gonna get 50% of that back when you sell it, so you're looking at a total ownership expense of maybe $150 per month if you own it for a year. $150 per month. You can't rent a decent lens for a day for that, but that's the total ownership expense of the camera body, so ... yeah, I don't see anyone in this price sector getting burned. Unless they're not in the business, unless they're just personal hobbyists, in which case I ask again -- why buy a $4500 camera?
Being burned with digital depreciation on an F35, obviously. That's a, what, $350,000 body when it was first introduced? Yes, that market is pretty much dead. But getting "burned" on a $4500 body? I mean, if you can't make back $4500 within a couple of months, you're in the wrong business, right? I just don't see it as that much of an issue. Back when cameras cost $100k+, you had to have a several-year business plan to recoup that cost and hope to turn a profit. Nowadays our time frames are measured in months, not years. I think an F3 is too expensive for most folks to consider buying -- you'd have to have a very specific business plan to support a $20k purchase. (assuming S-log and a recorder, of course, because it's kind of wasted without those). But a $4500 purchase? Pocket change to most folks in this business. Disposable. You're gonna get 50% of that back when you sell it, so you're looking at a total ownership expense of maybe $150 per month if you own it for a year. $150 per month. You can't rent a decent lens for a day for that, but that's the total ownership expense of the camera body, so ... yeah, I don't see anyone in this price sector getting burned. Unless they're not in the business, unless they're just personal hobbyists, in which case I ask again -- why buy a $4500 camera?
jambredz
Veteran
i'd get some duclous modded zeiss zf 
and make magic with my skills using the dslr. when i make some more $ from that i'd consider another camera. but those lenses will last me...well..for my whole life. if ur dsrl's are working out for you now and its mostly for net...those other cameras arent gonna make a VAST improvement if you hone your skills.
check out this dudes work
http://vimeo.com/25108697
so i'd get the lenses. they can go on any camera and are the same glass used in zeiss CP2
and make magic with my skills using the dslr. when i make some more $ from that i'd consider another camera. but those lenses will last me...well..for my whole life. if ur dsrl's are working out for you now and its mostly for net...those other cameras arent gonna make a VAST improvement if you hone your skills.check out this dudes work
http://vimeo.com/25108697
so i'd get the lenses. they can go on any camera and are the same glass used in zeiss CP2
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Just got back a complete set of the Duclos cine-mod ZF's. They are pretty fantastic. But a whole set will cost, remember... I think Duclos charges something on the order of $11k for a complete set of seven.
And to go with what jambredz is saying -- hey, if what you've got now is working, then keep working it! Don't buy anything or replace anything until it's no longer doing what you need.
And to go with what jambredz is saying -- hey, if what you've got now is working, then keep working it! Don't buy anything or replace anything until it's no longer doing what you need.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There are a lot of lenses in the wide-ish range, the 18/21/25/28, and I don't think someone needs them all. Minimal set would probably be 28/35/50/85, all at f/2 or better... but I also have the 18, 25, and 100... The 100 is exquisite. Wish there was a wider than 18, but I think the 18, even though it's slow, is a must-have; 28 isn't wide enough for a full set. The 21 & 25 are slow, so ... five lenses, 18/28/35/50/85, that might get the job done.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Barry we can take this round all day, possibly with no advantage to the OP
I come to making films from a background of hard news and some adventure photography, even daily jobs I might have to walk from the car park to the location and nearly get my arm ripped off by kit, small light and lo profile are my goals
Those goals are not met by a DLSR+ proper sound +rig or really by my FS100 - which is actually closer with than the DSLR with the onboard sound
I would suggest that even to the conventional Doco shooter who may need to follow someone around all day those pounds add up once you add enough batteries and the like
On a practical note Im trying to dump my Vlock and run my monitor from a small batt at the mo
S
Last edited: