is it really all that?

C

ChrissMC

Member
Im more confused than ever before, i feel like for features like nds, undercrank, and ois, plus a non heating camera (con of HDSLR) im still unsure 5k$ is a better investment rather than a 5dmkII anyone agree?
 
I have had two 5DIIs since they were released. For 99.9% of video work, the AF100 smokes them. It's really all that.
 
By far it's all that! Waveform? peaking? 1080/60p? Hd/Sdi? Full hdmi out? VFR? PL mountable? Aliasing and moire? too many to list. Having a 5d is good for slapping a 1.4 lens on and getting an eyelash in focus. But hey, that fad I hope will soon pass...
 
Yes, the camera is great. I sometimes shoot for people who use 5D/7D setups, and a lot of them are switching their setup over to the AF100. The guy I just did some work for has lost shots on numerous occasions to the 7D overheating.

I hope that people don't start to expect less out of this price range of cameras. I want to keep my ND filters, XLR audio, and waveform monitor. Plus my work with the overcrank just got me hired again.
 
As soon as I did my first job with it and saw the footage, I sold my 7d and bought a 2nd af-100.

I still have the 5d but have relegated it back to still where it belongs and it excels.

It is all that and a bag of chips.

Eta, and to say I was one of the first to jump into the dslr/video movement would be an understatement.
 
Even if you invest in a 5D, won't you need to spend quite a bit to get the kind of functionality that the AF100 offers in-camera? Yes you will, and need to invest in lenses just like the AF100. The way I see it if you planned to use the 5D for a feature that's critical and costs you a decent low-budget indie amount, then you'd need to surround it with good glass, monitor, rails setup, handles, batteries, yada yada. The AF100 is a much better investment in my opinion. That said I plan to use my 5D for special shots and anything it would be best suited for.

Get the right tool for the job. The question isn't "is it all that" ...it's "is it all that I need?"
 
In the budget category, the GH1/GH2 solutions represent fewer compromises than the 5D, but as others have said, the AF100 is better across the board in 99% of the situations.

The remaining 1% I'll leave for someone else to mess with. - Tim
 
I have never loved a camera as much as the AF-100. Best purchase I have made in years. Panasonic is knocking it out of the park! i just got a GH2 and I'm blown away by that camera as well. Its a great B cam for the AF-100. Happy man I am!
 
I really enjoy my AF100. I didn't get too heavily into the DSLR crazy. I've always been more of a traditional video camera user.
 
ChrissMC said:
Im more confused than ever before, i feel like for features like nds, undercrank, and ois, plus a non heating camera (con of HDSLR) im still unsure 5k$ is a better investment rather than a 5dmkII anyone agree?
Click to expand...

Many would pay that and more just for those features. The powered XLR imputs, waveform monitor, LPCM Timecode sync, and HD-SDI, which all DSLRs lack, are easily worth $5K when you are doing daily work in a production environment, not to mention the better image quality from lack of aliasing and moire along with the ease of not having to constantly work around all the limitations.
 
I bought a GH2 and then an AF100; fully intending to use the GH2 as a B cam for my AF100. The AF100 was a bit of a stretch for me financially and I almost went with two GH2s instead. However, I've fallen so completely in love with the AF100 that I've now bought a second one for use as my B cam. Not that the GH2 isn't a great little camera and it can certainly work as a good B cam with the AF100. But every time I use the GH2 on a job I end up wishing I were using the AF100 - image quality aside, it's just so much better in so many ways in terms of features and ease-of-use, especially in a dual camera shoot, that the 2nd AF100 was clearly worth the extra expense to me. Using a camera that's ergonomically and functionally designed as a video camera (like the AF100) is just a HUGE plus in my book. Was going to list some of the advantages, but that's already been done:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...s-a-solution&p=2109045&viewfull=1#post2109045
 
For me, I don't have to dual audio system and sync in post (I don't trust those beachtek thingy) - this alone is worth the 5k extra. How much is your time worth doing post audio sync during the whole of the AF100 lifespan? And I don't understand this 5k different, surely a 5dmkii is not that cheap right?
From where i come from the price difference between a 5DMKii and AF102 is only USD2k plus.
 
tflak said:
But every time I use the GH2 on a job I end up wishing I were using the AF100 - image quality aside, it's just so much better in so many ways in terms of features and ease-of-use, especially in a dual camera shoot, that the 2nd AF100 was clearly worth the extra expense to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed agreed agreed. I also got a GH2 as a B-camera for the AF100, and while I enjoy the GH2 for what it is... I, like you, ended up buying a second AF100. There's just no comparison; even if the image was identical between them, the workflow differences make the cost difference well worth it.
 
Amen Barry... I considered using the GH2 as second cam but after starting to like the AF101 I can't be bothered just because of the workflow.

And to answer the OPs question... I moved from 7D to AF101 and wouldn't go back unless I wanted to depress myself on purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top