How does the image quality of the FS-100 compare to a GH3?

All I can contribute is that Frank's profiles made my FS100 sing. We used it and a 7D to film our new series "Mario Warfare" on youtube. I suggest looking through the comments and see how many people complained about the visual quality, or skin tones. I used to HATE the way the FS100 rolled off highlights, but now, with Frank's settings, it's great. I use one profile for indoors and one for outdoors and I switch between the two of them. Although I have shot little outdoors lately so most of my experience is indoor and mixed light (from windows). Our next episode will be shot mostly outdoors so I plan on really pushing the FS100 as well.

I will be the first to admit that setting up the FS100 is not as easy as other cameras I have used. Even the AF100 was easier to get nicer tones out of. And from those who've used the FS700, it DEFINITELY works better out of the box with the cinegammas. I though long and hard about upgrading, but then, what is it actually going to give me? Our first episode has almost 2.5 million views I believe and no one is complaining about the visual quality. Anyone that has followed me for a long time, knows this is quite a change in my perspective.

Hell, I still love shooting on the 7D from time to time as well. The best three parts of the FS100 are low light performance, 1080p60 and the better rolling shutter. I use a metabones adapter to use all my Canon lenses.

I think the GH3 is a nice camera as well in the results I have seen with it. But, for me, and not the original poster, low light was a huge concern. The sensor size of the FS100 is more to what I like. I shot with an AF100 for a year so I am VERY familiar with the difference between closer to S35 and m4/3.

I'd say if you want to know if the GH3 is right for you, rent it. That is the ONLY way you will know. You've got to get your hands on it and test it in the situations where you feel the FS100 is just not working like you'd like. Reading about it is never going to give you the information you really want because what matters to each of us is so different. It's not just DR, it's what happens on the fringe of the DR. It's how the colors blend. How the noise looks, on and on and on.

I think Nirv just gets frustrated with people not knowing the FS100. On the one hand, I understand, I was one of those people. But, on the other, when spending more money on a camera, you'd like it to get easier to use, not more complicated, and I think the settings in the FS100 are more complicated than they need to be. I think being critical of that is probably what make the FS700 get some easier to use gammas. I spent a lot of time communicating with the product manager who fed our concerns back to the engineering department, and honestly, a lot of those things were addressed on the FS700. (Not all).
 
camera's should be easy to use, but if you're spending $5000+ you should take the time to learn how to use said equipment, and be a professional, just my opinion. I think Rick had some great words, and he certainly has a larger viewership than a good number of us here, I'd certainly listen to him.
 
Agreed. I think Nirv just assumes some people don't spend that much time to try and figure out the optimal usage of the camera, but, at least in my case, it wasn't true. I've spent hours tweaking the settings and never found anything I liked. And yet, all my other cameras I had no trouble getting what I wanted. It's just different and the sheer number of settings and how much they influence other aspects of the image are just complex. It's why I can certainly see both sides of the discussion pretty clearly.

To me, only one thing really matters, am I getting what I want for my investment.
 
I like my FS100 - after more than a year of tinkering.

Frankly tuning it was the worst experience ive ever had in camera ownership. (again this is why Nirv doesnt share his profile)

A decent profile was extremely painful to make because you have so many options, Tstop and about nine control parameters

Very soon you have billions of combinations and even the most dedicated owner will find any rational testing almost impossible

The FS100 looks good now, but that took dedication by users (mainly too poor to get shot of it) well beyond the norm to achieve

S
 
morgan_moore said:
Am I struggling with the camera? Well yes Ive put a lot of work into getting a look that works for me http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/fs100-ferrari-profile

Is that profile any good? Only you can judge but Im happy with both my skintones and highlight rolls. Lack of experience with the FS100? Ive had it from the week it was launched. You can find a bunch of my tests here http://tinyurl.com/atfzd4q

S
Click to expand...

Your Ferrari settings make a nice profile, its being added to my co-producers FS100. Thanks for sharing.
 
Do to the emails I have been getting from members about Nirv's profiles I am posting these links.

http://wearenirv.tumblr.com

https://twitter.com/WeAreNIRV

If you have any questions for Nirv about his picture profiles for the FS100 you can ask him directly at the above links.
He has told me he would be happy to help anyone who has a real interest in learning how to get the best out of there
camera or just has a general question. I have used his profiles and I must say they work for me, as long as I use them
the way he instructs.
Thanks in advance Gary W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top