FS100 vs. F3

[blackcat]

I want to have both at the same time so I can really see which one I want to keep for the long haul, which I plan on doing. I *know* the AF100, and after tuning it for a few weeks when I got it, it does shoot beautifully.

Great. Let us know what you find. I was interested in the FS100 at first, but as it stands, I am likely to stay with the AF100. There are surely some differences with the sensor and other features, like the presence or lack of ND filters. However, they both seem to be very similar in what they produce, especially once you consider tweaking the camera and quality post-production. I would like to hear if there is a huge difference with the FS100, but I am likely to stay with the AF100 until the next cycle of cameras. They are both going for something too similar for it to be worth switching for me. I am more interested in what comes out 2-3 years from now.

I am not trying to start an AF100 vs FS100 debate. Both seem like great options with some compromises. It is just that both are indie level large chip cameras with some different strengths and weaknesses, none of which I consider strong enough to switch to the other right now.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I was interested in the original FS100 vs F3 topic, but everybody ended up talking about FS100 vs AF100 :-/

 

[vanvideo]

I was interested in the original FS100 vs F3 topic, but everybody ended up talking about FS100 vs AF100 :-/

Well, to be fair, the FS100 and AF100 are more closely in competition. The FS100 and AF100 are closer to my budget. The F3, not so much.
If you can afford the F3, I think it's the general consensus, even from Sony, that the F3 is a better camera.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

I have an AF100 and want to pick up the FS100 as well, for the low light. One thing I noticed on a bunch of FS100 footage is that blowouts still had similarities to the AF100. Specifically, I saw something they were running at NAB (from the web) that had HUGE swaths of cyan in once shot from being blown out, and huge yellow areas in a sunlight overexpose.

Actually I'm surprised how much you can recover with Magic Bullet looks. Even ugly pure blown highlights with yellow fringe can be smoothen and retrieved to something nice on the AF. I've been using a tool that makes the footage flat and then you can apply whatever grading you like.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Actually I'm surprised how much you can recover with Magic Bullet looks. Even ugly pure blown highlights with yellow fringe can be smoothen and retrieved to something nice on the AF. I've been using a tool that makes the footage flat and then you can apply whatever grading you like.

I definitely agree. My general consensus at this point is if you do have some footage that looks blown out in a way you don't like, in post if you know what you are doing, you can tame that top end down.

 

[lennywood]

@ Rick: glad to see you were able to get the af100 looking good. i am just not that patient a man, i wanted the camera to handle skin highlights from the get go. otherwise the af100 was very nice, and to have nd filter, and hd-sdi output, is wonderful, especially for that price. i will probably get the as100 when it is available, i will check it out more then. i am hoping for good latitude, and i do think it is better in low light, but the fact that you can get Olympus zooms that open to f2.0 for the af100 but the fastest zooms for the as100 will be 2.8 gives the af100 a one stop advantage right of the top.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I'm a technology nerd, so when I get something, I push it as far and as hard as I can to get what I want. I've been absolutely thrilled with the skin tones I get. I just did a quick interview piece for someone and his editor actually made him ask him what camera it was because he loved the footage. And these guys shoot on Red as well. They were just surprised with the quality. I don't use m4/3 lenses on the AF100. I use all manual EOS lenses, which I prefer. So I am using F1.4 and up.

Pertaining to the original question, F3 versus FS100, I think it depends where you want to go and what you want to do. I've looked at footage from both and I think both, internal codec wise, aren't that far off from one another. I think the F3 has a lot of features, but I also think having just 2 ND settings is a lot more limiting than the AF100's 3. Everything has a tradeoff. Let's assume for a second I could purchase the F3 (because honestly, given I will have an AF100 and FS100 at the same time, I wouldn't be that far off). When I compare the two, I've got to look at where I am now AND what expectations I have.

Right off the bat, both the AF100 and F3 are larger than what I want. The freedom I've experienced with the 7D and it's size was a wonderful thing. I stuck that camera EVERYWHERE! I had wished the AF100 and F3 had a smaller footprint, but they don't. The FS100 does have a small footprint, and for me, that IS a selling point.

Second, the upgrade to use SLOG 4:4:4 has A LOT more cost associated with it. Not only would I need to buy the upgrade, which I am sure wont be cheap, but I'd also need a recorder that can record 4:4:4 as well. Again, more cost. That is not to say these are a bad thing, but to go all the way to the F3 would be seriously stretching my money, and there would be NO WAY I could afford everything else needed. I am just not at that point.

Now, the F3 has 10-bit HDSDI out. That's a HUGE plus to me. Having said that, I've been happy with the 8-bit on the AF100 after I tuned the settings. Granted, I'd love 10-bit, but I cannot justify the cost differential for the gain right now. I'd rather get 4:2:2 with a cheaper recorder 8-bit at the price points I am seeing. I had to make that value judgement myself as to what is important.

Instead of tying up $8k or more in the F3, that extra money will go a LONG way (if I had it) for all the other things I'd really like to have. Like:

1) Birger mount AND remote kit
2) Lenses
3) Batteries
4) External Recorder
5) Media (HDD and SDHC)
6) Software (FCPX)

And on and on. For some people, all these other aspects are very important to consider. This is why I'd pick the FS100 over the F3 so far from everything I have seen because where I am at in my situation, this makes the most sense. After going through owning a 7D and all that I bought to support it, then a AF100 and all I bought to support it, you realize that there are so many more costs that scale up as the data/quality formats extend up as well.

The biggest thing is, everyone's needs/limitations are different. All any of us can do is explain what are needs/reasoning is and hope it helps others who are trying to make the same decisions.

 

[blackcat]

Pertaining to the original question, F3 versus FS100, I think it depends where you want to go and what you want to do.

I think that is exactly the point. I buy my cameras based on a specific indie project and/or the freelance market. The F3 has some pretty clear advantages over the FS100 and AF100, but that doesn't limit one from using the FS100 or the AF100 for some really great looking stuff. The F3 makes a lot of sense if one is working on something where the value of the F3 can be made back or if an independent film project will greatly benefit from it--assuming the budget is available.

I would think the choice between an FS100 or an F3 would be clear to most people who would be in a position to get an F3 for a project or work investment.