F3 vs. AF100 vs. 5D

Postmaster

Postmaster

Dark Side of the Camera
F3 vs. AF100 vs. 5D (from the Zacuto shootout)

F3= "Nice pattern on that dress"

AF100= "What pattern?"

5D= "What dress?"

test01.jpg


...just saying :cheesy:

Frank
 
This picture is the answer for DSLR shooters who, when you show them a resolution chart and their favorite DSLR isn't resolving much more than standard definition says "I don't shoot resolution charts, I only shoot real people."

Point to this picture and say "That's why they invented resolution charts, so you'll know how real people will look."
 
Will the F-3 or AF100 make me a better storyteller... I guess not. The 5D has been out for over 2 years now and if you don't the limitations of the camera then you have probably been living under a rock. For me, the 5D is good enough at the price point I am willing to pay. If something else comes along that fits in the price/performance I am looking for then I'll upgrade but in my opinion, nothing has come out yet to warrent an upgrade. Well.. maybe an Epic :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
acoelho1 said:
Will the F-3 or AF100 make me a better storyteller... I guess not. The 5D has been out for over 2 years now and if you don't the limitations of the camera then you have probably been living under a rock. For me, the 5D is good enough at the price point I am willing to pay. If something else comes along that fits in the price/performance I am looking for then I'll upgrade but in my opinion, nothing has come out yet to warrent an upgrade. Well.. maybe an Epic :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

depends on your definition of story telling. a cinematographer/DOP has to tell the story through the moving picture. If they can't adequately tell the story they want to tell because of severe camera limitations, than it's making them a poorer story teller isn't it? and if you can tell the story you want to tell within the limitations good on you, but having better tools at your disposal won't limit you in anyway, and that's the point. your only limitation will be your own talent and hard work.
 
No camera makes you a better story teller. A good camera makes it easier to make beautiful images without as many gotchas.
 
acoelho1 said:
Will the F-3 or AF100 make me a better storyteller... I guess not. The 5D has been out for over 2 years now and if you don't the limitations of the camera then you have probably been living under a rock. For me, the 5D is good enough at the price point I am willing to pay. If something else comes along that fits in the price/performance I am looking for then I'll upgrade but in my opinion, nothing has come out yet to warrent an upgrade. Well.. maybe an Epic :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

In line with tom.wong... If you only want to tell your own stories, than use whatever you think works best within your means. But if you're a DoP, or even just a Camera Owner/Operator for hire, then you're not just working on your own stories, and you owe it to the client to assess *their* objectives and provide the best product possible. (And as a DP/Cam Op your product is images, not story)

As an Owner/Operator there's a direct financial incentive to using your own gear, but it's important to overcome that temptation if different equipment would better serve the production (and can be budgeted).
 
tom.wong said:
or there's no real resolution in it, dslrs are always incredibly soft on wides.
Click to expand...
True...true. But there is one exception however... and that's the Pana GH-Xs series of cameras.

Then again.... I'm not sure if they qualify as DSLRs.
 
huh.... what dress :)
F3 is wayyy sharper.
indeed now i realize again why i wanted to stick to getting the GH2.
it's sharp as AF100 and costs 1/5 the price.
canon should refresh their DSLR's res ASAP.
 
So remind me again, how well does the F3 do when shooting 21 MP 14 bit raw stills? Thought so.

Point is, the 5DII was never intended as a cinema camera so diss-ing it for not being what it was never intended to be is pointless at best.

Yes the sensor is due for improvement, it's what? three years old?, so we'll see.

If I could afford / justify an F3 I'd have one in a heart beat, but I can't so I won't.

I could say more, but the mods will probably kill this post anyway.

Dave
 
daveswan said:
So remind me again, how well does the F3 do when shooting 21 MP 14 bit raw stills? Thought so.

Point is, the 5DII was never intended as a cinema camera so diss-ing it for not being what it was never intended to be is pointless at best.
Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that no one is proposing that the Sony PMW-F3 is a suitable camera for professional still photography. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is not an appropriate tool for that work.

However... the same is not true of the Canon 5D Mark II when it comes to Cinematography. There are a number of people who do vocally state their endorsement of the Canon 5D Mark II, as well as other Canon & Panasonic & Nikon still photography cameras for use in Cinematography. Some will tell you they're useful in specific shooting situations, others will make subjective claims as to how the Canon 5D Mark II makes more expensive traditional video & motion picture cameras obsolete.

It is precisely because of this vocal community, and the way they have altered the landscape in terms of clients and how producers approach budgets, and the overall *craft* that this is indeed a valid and important comparison. I doubt anyone in this forum really thinks the 5DmkII really produces images as sharp as the PMW-F3, but looking at the evidence allows us to evaluate the difference. And - frankly, the SCCE gives us something tangible to show producers and clients when they're tempted to think there isn't a noticeable quality difference.
 
I think that now that a market for videocameras with large sensors and interchangeable mounts appear to be slowly starting, no one will argue that a dslr will perform better.
The thing is that dslrs have been a revolution, especially for the indy market, since they give people high end tools at a very reasonable cost. If you know the limitations and workarounds you are able to do great productions with dslrs be it canons or Panasonic (if it is called a dslr). Most of the times I find it pointless to go pixel peeping, unless the result you get is crap (and even the 5d is softer I cannot call the image crap in the real world and not a crop of a single frame). But definitely when a videocamera with a 35mm sensor (why not?) will come out, which will be a dedicated camera for video with all the relevant functions and inputs, it will for sure be much much better than the 5dmkII. But then it will also cost 5-10 times more.
The advantage of the 5dmkII is that you have a single small camera that can shoot professional quality stills and at the time, exceptional quality video, at a price accessible to a prosumer user.
 
I think this is a great post and shows why there are different price points and also the apples to watermellon comparisons. There is a huge difference. No it will not tell your story, and it is not a bash on the 5D but it is a reference to know what you are getting.

Add the S-log recording to the F3 and it is about the best value around for very high end image quality.
 
kostas said:
I think that now that a market for videocameras with large sensors and interchangeable mounts appear to be slowly starting, no one will argue that a dslr will perform better.
The thing is that dslrs have been a revolution, especially for the indy market, since they give people high end tools at a very reasonable cost. If you know the limitations and workarounds you are able to do great productions with dslrs be it canons or Panasonic (if it is called a dslr). Most of the times I find it pointless to go pixel peeping, unless the result you get is crap (and even the 5d is softer I cannot call the image crap in the real world and not a crop of a single frame). But definitely when a videocamera with a 35mm sensor (why not?) will come out, which will be a dedicated camera for video with all the relevant functions and inputs, it will for sure be much much better than the 5dmkII. But then it will also cost 5-10 times more.
The advantage of the 5dmkII is that you have a single small camera that can shoot professional quality stills and at the time, exceptional quality video, at a price accessible to a prosumer user.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Canon 5DmkII made shallow depth of field accessible at an entirely new price point. The exceptional light sensitivity convinced a lot of people that they could do shoots with smaller light packages or just available light. The combo of stills/video in one package is well suited to niche markets like weddings, and event work. The small form factor makes it handy for rigging in small spaces. The fact that it looks like a consumer camera makes it very handy for guerrilla work without permits.

But oh my. The limitations. As countless others have said before me - a good camera is one that has the least limitations and "gotchas" that will force you to slow down and do workarounds.

And we do have a 35mm videocamera in the PMW-F3... and it costs six times the Canon 5DmkII.

"Exceptional quality video"... that's a very subjective statement. Accessible to the prosumer? Yes.

What the 5DmkII really heralded was an age of an Owner/Operator mentality. More and more people are choosing to own their own equipment instead of renting.
 
J Michael said:
Looks like the focus is soft on the 5D shot.
Click to expand...
It was not. That's what was asked at the Q&A of the SCCE, people insisted that the DSLRs must not have been properly focused. And you have to consider -- they had 12 cameras there, and every single one of them used the exact same lens, and consistently they got focus exactly correct on nine of the cameras, but somehow managed to mess up focus every single time on the DSLRs? With dedicated camera ops for every camera? Nope. They were extremely meticulous. They didn't miss focus.
 
Dslr's are standard definition cameras. Seriously. Drop em down to 16x9 SD and it looks like film scanned to sd. But at 1920x1080 they are soft.

They gather about 550 lines of res. An XL2 had 550 lines of res.
 
I also grabbed screen shots, but the difference I saw between F3 and AF100 wasn't as big as your images display.

F3 and AF100
5857189631_326b13deb1_o.jpg

5857742328_6ffa79c62b_o.jpg


5D and D7000
5857742458_fceb530aeb_o.jpg

5857189885_b0080d55d2_o.jpg
 
funny enough the 5d showed off better highlight retention over f3, af100, and the nikon. but on the bottom end, i see really good shadow gradation, and subjectively better than the other cams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top