Finally Bloom's review!

robertrogoz said:
I think you'll have a bit of difficulty to "take a few steps back" while hanging on a rope or after being dropped off by a heli on a 55 degree snow slope. Also shooting tight interiors is the same ( a lot of indy films are done in less then ideal location), where the only way to frame the shot is to have a wide enough lens. And this is what I was saying all along- you'll have to spend a lot more then just 5K on body alone, count at least on doubling that for a decent glass.
Click to expand...

Or use a 5d on just that specific shot.

To oldcorpse
Use a 5d.

These cams are tools. Dont get stuck with one option.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
It's a micro-zero-budget. I'll be shooting deep in a national forest - i.e. no access to ac power - and I'll be shooting the exterior and interior of a small tent at night. Small space - need a small camera form factor, need a wide lens and need a fast lens. I cannot compensate with light. What am I supposed to do? This is where I need the very best low-light performance I can possibly get, on a very wide lens, small camera form factor. To me this says I must consider the 5D seriously, because - pending tests - it may still work technically better - than the af-100.
Click to expand...

If you can't find the budget to rent an LED light that supports up to 12V DC and a car battery, then you are likely going to be stuck shooting on a 5D ISO3200 with a 14mm f/2.8L. There isn't anything wider or faster for less. Which to me begs the question - you can afford a $2500 camera and a $2100 lens, presumably additional money to pay the talent to provide for transportation...but not a couple hundred to have at least a little controlled light in the scene? Is it not possible to postpone for a little while and raise at least a little additional money to shoot it properly? I think, even with the best DP and crew, having the ability to light an otherwise completely dark night scene would be a benefit to the end result - if not in the lack of nasty chroma noise alone.

In my opinion, there are times when it just isn't worth doing something unless it can be done right - or at least right-ish. Even with a 5D, I'm not sure that scene could be done close to right without some light.
 
@michael olsen... I wonder how they shoot before dslrs arrived. Seems like theyre crippled without sensitive cams.
 
OldCorpse said:
So please don't underestimate the range of realistic conditions a small production may face where the af-100 is outright inferior.
Click to expand...


So buy something different! Good grief -- I've been working in film and video for thirty years. I've spent ten of thousands fo dollars on equipment that delivered a fraction of what AF-100 will. I shot a feature on a Beaulieu camera thirty years ago that would still be a great camera today -- but it would require shooting Super8 film, and that has it's own drawbacks. I shot television programs for network national broadcast on $60,000 BetaSP cameras that wouldn't match the AF-100. There are terrific tools at amazing prices available today -- if this isn't the one for you, move along. Don't feel compelled to complain, explain how the perfect lens would free you from lighting, moving, focussing ...

I mean for goodness sake -- for the first twenty years I worked there was NO autofocus. For the last decade, I've used pro gear that offered that ... and once or twice I used it. I've had power zooms for most of that time ... and I have once or twice zoomed them while the camera was rolling. Mostly, I wished they could do snap zooms (for the occasional time I wanted to) or remarkably slow creeps (which I do by hand, using a zoom lever). And the scores of pros I've worked with across North America and the UK have pretty much been the same.

So rant almost over -- the AF-100 addresses desires most of the working pros I know have had for years. It is not perfect, and will not replace every camera built or in planning. But it does seem to offer a terrific value, and I will buy one. Some day, I will buy something to repace it ...

And please, if you don't understand crop factors, or depth of field realities, or how to light, or frame rates -- read more and post less.

Rant done.

(Thanks Phil for your efforts)

Cheers,
GB
 
RGBaker said:
So buy something different! Good grief -- I've been working in film and video for thirty years. I've spent ten of thousands fo dollars on equipment that delivered a fraction of what AF-100 will. I shot a feature on a Beaulieu camera thirty years ago that would still be a great camera today -- but it would require shooting Super8 film, and that has it's own drawbacks. I shot television programs for network national broadcast on $60,000 BetaSP cameras that wouldn't match the AF-100. There are terrific tools at amazing prices available today -- if this isn't the one for you, move along. Don't feel compelled to complain, explain how the perfect lens would free you from lighting, moving, focussing ...

I mean for goodness sake -- for the first twenty years I worked there was NO autofocus. For the last decade, I've used pro gear that offered that ... and once or twice I used it. I've had power zooms for most of that time ... and I have once or twice zoomed them while the camera was rolling. Mostly, I wished they could do snap zooms (for the occasional time I wanted to) or remarkably slow creeps (which I do by hand, using a zoom lever). And the scores of pros I've worked with across North America and the UK have pretty much been the same.

So rant almost over -- the AF-100 addresses desires most of the working pros I know have had for years. It is not perfect, and will not replace every camera built or in planning. But it does seem to offer a terrific value, and I will buy one. Some day, I will buy something to repace it ...

And please, if you don't understand crop factors, or depth of field realities, or how to light, or frame rates -- read more and post less.

Rant done.

(Thanks Phil for your efforts)

Cheers,
GB
Click to expand...

Very well said.

It seems there will always be people who find something to complain about. But at the end of the day 'a poor workman blames his tools'.
 
@oldcorpse:

Couldn't you shoot the tent interiors in your own backyard, or even inside your garage during daytime?

That's what the studio system has over some independent filmmakers. They occasionally Do things the smart way instead of bashing their heads against the wall and working 22 hour days with no food, or other amenities.
 
@oldcorpse:

Couldn't you shoot the tent interiors in your own backyard, or even inside your garage during daytime?

That's what the studio system has over some independent filmmakers. They occasionally Do things the smart way instead of bashing their heads against the wall and working 22 hour days with no food, or other amenities.
 
Phil:

The opening shot of "South" and the shot of the water at 2:26, what lenses were used? Im curious to know why the opening shot has so much more lens distortion than the one at 2:26 when they look to be about the same focal length??
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
I will talk about your last example as it is not to much extreme. For the lack of space argument that crops out on this forum time and time again by certain poster you have the tokina 11-16 at 2.8. It is not enough... you have the 7-14 f4 Panasonic lens. Ha ha I hear you say it is not fast enough. If you have a camera that seems to be able to do good 1600 iso (3200 iso) and, and, and.... you can light. Ha, ha I hear you say I am not going to lurk some big light rig... You just need to replace the original light by screw in high cri electronic ballast fluorescent light bulb in the 55 watt to 110 watt (equivalent to 200 to 400 watt incandescent bulb) that you can find below $ 50 on ebay. You even have adapters for two to four bulbs and you can even put them in china bowl.

Excuse me, but it's not so simple. There are plenty of situations where a small production simply must have a camera that performs, and you cannot easily compensate with light etc. I'll give you a concrete example, because this is exactly what I'm facing next year on a production. It's a micro-zero-budget. I'll be shooting deep in a national forest - i.e. no access to ac power - and I'll be shooting the exterior and interior of a small tent at night. Small space - need a small camera form factor, need a wide lens and need a fast lens. I cannot compensate with light. What am I supposed to do? This is where I need the very best low-light performance I can possibly get, on a very wide lens, small camera form factor. To me this says I must consider the 5D seriously, because - pending tests - it may still work technically better - than the af-100.

So please don't underestimate the range of realistic conditions a small production may face where the af-100 is outright inferior.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if have no ac power. Just use Cool Lights LED panel lights powered by batteries. They will last many, many hours. I don't care how low light sensitive your camera is, your not shooting interior/exterior tent night scenes without light. I'm not sure why people think that because a camera sensor is very light sensitive, they now don't have to bother with lighting. Buy some Cool Light LED panels.
 
Use a Aaton A-Minima, rent some S16 super speeds. get a few Cool lights or Flo Light LED's that run on batteries and off you go.
I shot a very low budget feature that way. For sound get a Zoom H2N, they're great.
If LED's cannot work, go to your local sporting goods store and buy a few Thermos lanterns (Gas, Flourescent or LED), they are cheap and can be seen in the shot without looking odd.
Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Three things. First, I'm not complaining about the af-100. I'm just objecting to the idea that it is necessarily a dslr killer in all situations. Some people seem to say that it's only some rare extreme situations where the dslr still has a place. My point is that it may be that there will be a lot of common realistic situations where the 5D f.ex. will be a better tool. Now, all this is theoretical to a degree. Until we have a production af-100 in hand, it's all speculation. I'm hoping for the best. Second, re: shooting the tent interiors in a studio etc. - yes of course we explored that, it's the first thing we did, but the problem is that there are a lot of interior/exterior transitions so the shooting style and for other practical reasons we'll end up having to do all this on location. Third re: budget... I guess you haven't worked on a micro/zero production for awhile :)... it's always a peculiar situation... and so it is here - the DP is buying the af-100, so he wants to do it all on the af-100, so it's not a choice "do I get the 5D or the af-100", merely, "actually, sadly, the af-100 may not be optimal for some situations and a 5D would be superior" - and budgetwise we we have nothing provisioned for the camera (like a 5D), because we were hoping to do it all on the af-100 that comes "free" with the DP. Anyhow, that's all boring "too much info" - bottom line, rest assured that this is not because we're some morons who can't figure out how to budget or provision for equipment. Anyhow, I'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch over this - instead, we'll wait for the af-100 and run some tests... if it gives us what we need, then fabulous... if not, well, we'll see if we can somehow wangle a 5D and see if that helps... if not the 5D, we'll keep improvising until we solve our issues - "there are no problems, only solutions".

Bottom line - not complaining about the af-100, but am somewhat complaining (or "cautioning" would be a better word) about those who claim that the af-100 is for sure a dslr killer and only extreme bizarre situations would call for the 5D instead - my point is, that you can be entirely rational and still pick the 5D for some jobs. Though again, this is all theoretical until we have a production unit in hand to test it all out.

PS. re: LED lights etc. - this is still possible, but the problem is that this depends on very careful blocking, because the scenes call for long handheld takes following people coming in going out of the tent, circling around it etc... tricky to make it look realistic with moonlight simulation and light placement so it doesn't come into frame anywhere. Anyhow, this is not set in stone, just anticipating difficulties, and the possibility that the 5D may work better here.
 
The problem is, you are trying to hypothetical the argument and with that, it's really hard to EVER have a right answer. What's important to you in the ability you have may not be important to someone else.

I've used a 5D and the two areas that it does in fact outperform most other cameras is low light and wide angle, but, money not being a problem, I still chose the 7D and would still chose that in a heart beat between those two cameras. I like the options that I get from that.

I mean, WITHOUT question you are going to have to have light in the tent. When you watch major television or some movies without light in tents, what do they use? They use night mode on camcorders typically, like my Sony TRV used to have.

The BIGGEST problem I have with the 5D is moire and aliasing, and I'd be afraid of picking that up off of the tent fabric, or clothing, or backpacks, as the materials typically used I have seen these sensors rainbow like crazy on.

Second, you are going to be shooting in the woods right? Lots of detail moving across the sensor. The understanding I have is that the AF100 codec HANDS DOWN will handle this better than any DSLR out right now. Take it further, get a battery operated external recorder and you are going to have even higher quality.

I work on zero budget ALL THE TIME. I know the pain. There are a lot of unknowns right now, but if I were in your shoes from what you have told me, when the AF100 is available, I'd be setting up a tent in my backyard and testing it along with a 5D that I rented and just see what works best. In either case, for you, you are making a compromise and really only testing both situations will tell you what you can live or not live with.

I cannot live with moire anymoire :) At least, not at the level Canon sensors and their reductions algorithm and circuitry work. No thank you. Because of that, at least with these preliminary tests, FOR ME, the AF-100 is superior period.
 
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.
 
This much we are agreed on: this whole thing needs testing in specific situations. So we'll test both the af-100 and the 5d, unquestionably. And until there's a production af-100, this whole discussion is more about hopes and fears than about reality. So, until then, I'm keeping all my options open.
 
mountainradio said:
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.
Click to expand...

so true. i have personally not even heard a single person say it's a dslr killer. well maybe one, i forget his name. why so many complaints about that? no one is saying anything is killing anything
 
mountainradio said:
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.
Click to expand...


Probably because DSLR's are marketed and priced for people on lower budgets. People who bought into these cameras don't have lots of money, and thus it can be unsettling when something 'new' and possibly better comes out and threatens your bread and butter. It's like buying a computer and having a newer version of it released a few months later. People like their DSLR's and the backlash you describe is probably simply them defending their 'lady'. :P
 
That would be true if the AF100 were in the same price range. :) My 7D isn't going anywhere, it's a nice camera camera that I've grown fond of. Just like my D90 which now I use for astrophotography with my fiancee's telescope as it makes better images than the 7D through the telescope adapter. The AF100 is just joining the group.
 
mountainradio said:
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because it's not. There's a lot of content these days that is intended solely for the net. dSLRs are perfect cams for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top