Main difference between AF100 and 5D???

[Barry_Green]

Can anyone point oUt what would be the main difference between the cams??

Well, the simple answer has already been given. One is a still photography camera, that also has the ability to capture images in motion (although at fairly soft resolution and with substantial aliasing problems). The other is a professional video camera designed by the broadcast division of one of the major manufactures.

The AF100 has substantial advantages and does a ton of things that a DSLR doesn't. If you want a complete list, check this post.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Sorry for my misinformation on sensor size. I worried my math was fuzzy and I might have been overstating the smaller nature of the 4/3 inch by a tad.



Not sure if I believe that actually. I think there are certainly a big generation of filmmakers who believe that the more shallow the DoF, the better. I think that largely comes from a shallow DoF being quite illusive for low budget filmmakers who were stuck with 1/3-2/3 sensors and 16mm film all of which have a much deeper DoF. I think this has contributed to a shallow DoF being some kind of holy grail.

That said, I don't think this neccesarily is true of your average audience. I don't think they like super deep DoF from weak directors who can't compose a shot to save their lives but I also don't think they neccesarily go nuts for a haze of blur the way so many aspiring filmmakers do. I think your average audience probably cares a lot less about DoF that we realize and saw no problem with a number of HD films shot on cameras with 2/3 in sensors.

Totally agree...viewers don't care about shallow dof. They care about something that looks good for sure, but however you accomplish that is irrelevant to them. Signs was deep dof for the most part as are many Coen bros films. There are many ways to compose a shot to isolate your subject or draw your viewer to a certain area other than blur.
That being said, many many budget filmmakers certainly appreciated that the DSLR's gave them the ability to finally get those types of shots without cumbersome light losing adapters. The DSLR "revolution" happened for 3 reasons in my book - 1. int. lenses and 35mm film like dof, sensitivity, low cost (compared to anything else available at the time that could do these things)

Now that cameras like the AF100, FS100, F3 (I'm sure more to follow) are available you can get those advantages plus functionality...it's a win win if you can afford it. There will still be those who love the "look" achieved by the 5D's vista vision sensor and don't mind working around it's flaws...like Bloom for example. There will also be many others who still use other DSLR's for the low cost of the bodies $700 (for some models) Others have stated that they cost the same as an AF100 if you add all the contraptions and such..true - but many shooters don't do that...they keep it simple. Tri-pod and audio device...that's it. Homemade or budget dollies and sliders for movement.