Jan, is there an AF200 in the pipeline or not? - Wait or buy a C300, fs700 ...?

Well I could use the extra stop from the S35 size sensor, and I think the lack of native M4/3 lens selection is the formats biggest weakness. But that's just me. I shot both 16mm and 35mm for many years, and always preferred shooting 35 when I could.
 
I like having the extra FOV from S35. I rent an F3 when I need to do handheld walking shots and I can tell the difference. . The look of a 85mm prime is killer for interviews and shallow Depth. Its harder to get that with say a 50mm. It's not a deal breaker but it's also something that shouldn't be taken for granted. Right tool for the job comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
Erik Naso said:
I like having the extra FOV from S35. I rent an F3 when I need to do handheld walking shots and I can tell the difference. . The look of a 85mm prime is killer for interviews and shallow Depth. Its harder to get that with say a 50mm. It's not a deal breaker but it's also something that shouldn't be taken for granted. Right tool for the job comes to mind.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I didn't think the FOV difference would be so appreciable. I like the look of the 85 for those creamy CUs too and the 50 doesn't look quite as good. I guess my strategy involves just pulling back to frame, which is not always an option Huhn. Makes sense. Cool. Thanks.
 
hscully said:
That's interesting. I didn't think the FOV difference would be so appreciable. I like the look of the 85 for those creamy CUs too and the 50 doesn't look quite as good. I guess my strategy involves just pulling back to frame, which is not always an option Huhn. Makes sense. Cool. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Hi guys. I've had a 101 and now have am F3 rig with S-LOG. I have to say I loved the 101 and think back fondly to it. I may actually buy another one as they are such great cameras to have in the bag - as all you need is the 25mm .95mm, recording to the internal cards to get a great picture. The F3 rig is three times the size! I had a great picture profile on my 101 and I didn't have any problem with highlights or banding or any other issues people are highlighting.
The 101 is a great camera and in the right hands is a fantastic film making tool. Sparky x
 
I think there is a follow-on AF100 in the works .. and you can influence what you'd like to see by responding the
the "sticky post" in this forum regarding the top-three features you'd like to see from an AF100 successor.

jeff
 
I just watched "The Raid: Redemption" and you could have told me it was shot on RED ONE and I would have believed you. That movie was shot for 1.2 million dollars and used a sub 5k camera and looks Freaking amazing. I don't even know why we argue about these things anymore as all these cameras produce insane images at hardly any cost compared to yesteryear and I just show clients my footage and they shut up. I actually secured a a music video shoot last week by just linking the client "The Raid" trailer and said. You sure you have to have a 5D? This DSLR crap drives me insane. it's like a hipster craze because they are cheap, yet to get them to function even halfway correctly you have to spend thousands and create a monster to lug around. JUST GO SHOOT PEOPLE!
 
D10S said:
I bet everyone with an AF100 would trade it for an F3 if money was no object, same as any F3 owner would trade it for an Alexa. We always want the best we can get for what fits our budget.
Click to expand...

When I had the budget for an F3 I bought a Scarlet.
 
Jon Hout said:
+1

My AF100 had never delivered anything but stellar footage for clients, but every once in a while I get some DSLR guy (DSLRs seem to be the preferred tool in my area) say something like "I used the AF100 once and didn't like how it handled highlights," but when I ask them what they didn't like about it or how it affected them, they've got nothing to say.

"It doesn't do so well in low light" is another one that's complete BS. I shot a scene in a dark studio lit by a match a few weeks ago at 1600 ISO and got VERY little noise in the image while still getting 70% zebras on the subject's face (lens was a f2/f2.8 split).

A lot of the guys around here think that if you turn on a camera it should look good without adjusting any settings at all or tweaking the image in any way in-camera. These people just parrot what they see online, but it makes producers wary of hiring my gear as a result. It does get rather frustrating, but of course, it's that much sweeter when I prove them wrong.

Anyway, rant over. The AF100 is the right tool for me at the perfect price point for the feature set, and that's what matters. The other guys can keep their DSLRs. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think the most critical point of these "shoot out video's" with half a dozen camera's proves one critical thing: It's the Director of Photography, NOT the camera!
 
Loganm187 said:
I just watched "The Raid: Redemption" and you could have told me it was shot on RED ONE and I would have believed you. That movie was shot for 1.2 million dollars and used a sub 5k camera and looks Freaking amazing. I don't even know why we argue about these things anymore as all these cameras produce insane images at hardly any cost compared to yesteryear and I just show clients my footage and they shut up. I actually secured a a music video shoot last week by just linking the client "The Raid" trailer and said. You sure you have to have a 5D? This DSLR crap drives me insane. it's like a hipster craze because they are cheap, yet to get them to function even halfway correctly you have to spend thousands and create a monster to lug around. JUST GO SHOOT PEOPLE!
Click to expand...

I loved the movie. I own an AF100. But my non-professional pixel peeping friend railed at how bad the image quality of the film was. i can sorta see what he's talking about. But, I guess everyone has their own opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top