FS100 vs Ex3

bgodoy

bgodoy

Active member
Considering the fact I've done a bit of looking into with both (and Panasonic's AF100), I'm still not fully convinced I've reached a decision (these are all potential candidates for my next purchase). I wanted to get a well rounded view/opinion from anyone who may know what they're talking about. I know many of you might say "it depends on what you are using the camera for" or "it's depends on the application" but I wanted to get more of a general conversation started for anyone else who may be in the middle of making the same decision, rather than making it so specific to myself.

Thanks to everyone in advanced.

-B
 
I switched from the EX1 to a FS100 and I don't miss the EX1 at all. I guess with the EX3 you get a shoulder mount... but I would buy the FS100 with the kit and a good shoulder rig for less money than an EX3.

I'm trying real hard to think of a time I wish I had my EX1. Maybe if I had to shoot live action sports? For commercials, documentaries, architectural footage and more, I would take the FS100 hands down.
 
If you want big telephoto, EX3, or need a solid feed out of the camera for some broadcast or live application

EXcam goes straight to edit in FCP too

Bascially its speed to delivery with the EX

Camera wise the AF has decent O/Put and ND (unlike the FS) which makes it a little more friendly than the FS, Im far from convinced of the image on the AF

if you are doing those live jobs, or ones that demand 50mbs, you should be charging F3+recorder money maybe - you get FS100 look and XD cam SDI out ease in one cam ?

Image quality per $ .. Id say FS100

Or maybe an EX3 and DSLR !

S
 
morgan_moore said:
If you want big telephoto, EX3, or need a solid feed out of the camera for some broadcast or live application

EXcam goes straight to edit in FCP too

Bascially its speed to delivery with the EX

Camera wise the AF has decent O/Put and ND (unlike the FS) which makes it a little more friendly than the FS, Im far from convinced of the image on the AF

if you are doing those live jobs, or ones that demand 50mbs, you should be charging F3+recorder money maybe - you get FS100 look and XD cam SDI out ease in one cam ?

Image quality per $ .. Id say FS100

Or maybe an EX3 and DSLR !

S
Click to expand...

True the AF100 has more features as far as the FS100 is concerned but I'd say in terms of image quality, I've been leaning towards the FS100. With a simple mattebox and some ND filters/variable ND I'd be willing to handle the inconvenience of not having ND built-in, as long as budget is not an issue. In my opinion sometimes I shoot with a cleaner mindset when I'm forced to be more disciplined anyway. The FS100 has a better sensor (Super 35mm, same as the F3) and to my eye the image is noticeably sharper. Personally, I think it handles skin tones noticeably better than the AF100. The AF seems to soften skin detail and make it look a bit "plastic" at times.

Besides moire and aliasing drawbacks compared to the AF100 I'd say I rather shoot with the FS100 regardless of the lack of features. On the other hand, I have heard that the FS100 takes a bit longer to get used to compared to the AF100 given it's modular design.

I'd like to hear more about the Ex3, however, since everyone seems to be comparing the AF100 to the FS100 everywhere else.

As far as having access to a wide variety of lenses am I under the correct assumption that the Ex3 only uses 1/2" lenses? I know you could probably add a lens adapter (ie P+S Technik Pro35, Letus, Brevis, etc) for a wider selection but since I've never used the Ex3 I wouldn't know...
 
No one is talking about the EX3 because it has been talked about in the past

Its a 2/3 cam and is not considered to have the 'cine look'

Its a different class of cam to the FS (not a lower class a different class)

You can use DSLR lenses on the EX3 but mainly that is a solution for telephoto.. remember a 7mm lens is not that wide on 2/3 and 80 is quite a tele

personally I would avoid adapters (like the plague) and match the EX3 with a DSLR B cam it narrow DOF is your thing but you want your main cash in the very sensible EX3

S
 
morgan_moore said:
No one is talking about the EX3 because it has been talked about in the past

Its a 2/3 cam and is not considered to have the 'cine look'

Its a different class of cam to the FS (not a lower class a different class)

You can use DSLR lenses on the EX3 but mainly that is a solution for telephoto.. remember a 7mm lens is not that wide on 2/3 and 80 is quite a tele

personally I would avoid adapters (like the plague) and match the EX3 with a DSLR B cam it narrow DOF is your thing but you want your main cash in the very sensible EX3

S
Click to expand...

Actually, slight correction here. The EX3 (and EX-1/EX-1R) are 1/2 inch chip cameras, not 2/3. I've used them in the past and they are certainly very
nice. They are not narrow depth of field cameras, so if you want that, you are going to have to go EX-3/DSLR or get another camera (like the FS-100 or
AF 100). On another note, I only had the money to get one camera, and I chose the FS100. The other camera I was looking strongly at was the EX-1R.
The FS100 is kind of a 'swiss army knife' as you can build it up into which kind of rig you want. Use it with the kit lens for a kind of 'pseudo EX-3'
look with shallower depth of field. If you really want the shallow depth of field, get some fast primes and zooms. Don't forget to get some ND solution,
because even with the slow kit lens, you will need it. As for operation, it is kind of like a cross between an EX 3 and a DSLR. If you've used the EX series,
you will be right at home with the FS100. I am happy I went with the FS 100, the only time I ever miss having the Ex-1 style camera is when I am shooting
sports, as having the powered zoom helped there. But really, even there, I am able to get by with the range of the kit lens and manually zooming and
it works pretty good.
 
While it is a swiss army knife it has certain drawbacks

ND - in reality this can be a significant pain in the field (lens changes MB realignment) and addition costwise

Lack of Solid output of signal (SDI) - I would not trust HDMI for a live hookup or using a recorder

(Extreme) Telephoto - the chip size means you could end up wanting a 400 or even 600mm lens - costly and hard to handle - compared to an 80-200 on an EX3

Time code - im far from sold on FS100 timecode

All of these things generally come into play when working for broadcast clients, and in that case the client should have fees in line with F3 ownership or rental

Dont get me wrong - I own an FS100 (and Ex1) - and consider it to be the best camera to buy right now

S
 
"the best camera to buy right now"

Of course I would wait til Nov3 b4 buying anything

I would also do some maths.. if you look at the 'life cost' of an F3, include scoring a couple of extra jobs, a higher end sale value, the joy of ND, and smoother post workflow (if applicable) one can see that the F3 is not that costly .. especially if you nail a few extra $$ to your dayrate

S
 
Last edited:
The sort of people that complain about S-Log costing an extra $3k shouldn't be buying the camera in the first place, it's the exact same with the FS100 and ND Filters, if you are spending that much on the camera, your income should be that in 1 job.
 
I disagree

Lets say you are using the FS100 for Eng/Doco/Corporate style work, the sort of work people do with an Ex1/3

At minimum you are going to want the kit lens and probably two other lenses

Now you could be like me and elect not to use a matte box, I do this to enable fast lens changes required in eng style situations

Now three lenses, three fader style NDs could cost $1k - I dont want to be fiddlng with filter thread in a hurry, in the cold, in front of clients, I I have every lens filtered up

Or maybe the solid filters, at three densities, thats nine filters

Lets say in in the rough and tumble of three years of (eng) use they need replacing once, 18 filters or 6 faders

Or you go down the MB route, a decent, and it has to be decent to operate ENG fast, MatteBox and filter set could cost $1.5K

Either option is a significant percentage of the cost of owership of the camera

That should be considered when choosing betwen F3. AF100, FS100 and EX1/3

..IMO

To be fair I'm painting a slightly extreme scenario.. but its not that far from reality.. given the extreme sensitivty of the FS chip, and lack of negative gain

S
 
Last edited:
To expand a little more, I am now considering a matte box as I have found ND and no MB to be suceptible to 'non cool' flare patterns in a way that a bare lens and no MB is not

Mixing a MB with telescoping lenses (like the kit lens) and even still lenses that telescope just a few mm is an issue as unless you use nuns Knickers there is risk of light hitting the filter from the rear operator side of the camera

and nuns knickers are not the friend of fast lens changes

Of course with 'drama' style shooting and cine lenses MB is a non issue becuase they all sit nicely together

S
 
It's interesting that several people have implied, but, not actually pointed out the fundamental difference.....DOF. It's a beautiful sight to behold to look at wonderful bokeh. But, this also comes with the price of requiring that focus be spot on, no room for error. In a run and gun situation, especially with manual focusing, and even with auto-focus, much more time and care must be given to the FS100. The half inch sensor size on the EX gives a pleasing bokeh, not as much as the FS100, but, considerably more forgiving of focus errors than the FS100.

My EX1 has a somewhat 'softer' look to it than my FS100. And skin tones, right out of the box with no CC, seem more pleasing with the EX. At least, to my eye.
 
May I just express my personal opinion: the 2 cameras discussed in this thread compliment each other beautifully. The answer to an "FS100 or EX?" type of question is definitely : BOTH.
 
So let's say I went with a mattebox and some ND's, how does it handle highlights? I know that in low light situations the FS100 fares better than the AF100 for example but how does the FS handle highlights compared with the Ex1/3, F3, and especially the AF100 (now I'm really interested)?

I've heard the FS100 has less of a crop factor compared to the AF100 and even a shallower DOF (slightly) is this true?

If so, I think for my line of work the FS100 would be a more practical fit, even if I had to compensate here and there (due to the fact I shoot in studio settings rather than sports imagery).
 
any of them are harsh if the highlights are clipped, expose to protect highlights is the order of the day, the FS's ablity to pull images out of the shadow areas is a huge plus

Between my partners and myself we own EX1, EX3, 7D, and FS100... we all see the EX's as the tool set more suited to doco, the FS more suited to production. I use a MB to hold my ND filters, my main lenses are the Zeiss 16-35 & 24-70, they internal focus so no issues with the lens and MB.

d
 
When I've thought about buying a broadcast cam to compliment my FS100 I've kind of wondered if I would get a Canon XF 300 or 305 because of the 4:2:2 color sampling and 50 mbps processing. Is that a cam the OP should look into instead of a EX3? I guess the EX3 has 1/2" sensors and the Canon 1/3".
 
moldcad said:
May I just express my personal opinion: the 2 cameras discussed in this thread compliment each other beautifully. The answer to an "FS100 or EX?" type of question is definitely : BOTH.
Click to expand...

Certainly I agree if you have the money to do this, it is a great idea! I can't swing this at the current time, although I wish I could. So I had to go for one or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top