Ticheli
Well-known member
I'll be scarce around here for a while; many jobs in the queue and, really, there's not very much left to discuss about the AF100, although there is much excitement about new lenses and accessories. I'll just sum my evaluation with this post and move on to the real world.
1. We can debate for decades just what "filmic" and "cinematic" means, but in the commonly accepted definitions, the AF100 is fully capable of producing filmic images. It takes more skill than shooting film or high-end digital, both of which are more forgiving because they have inherently better image quality and latitude, but any good cinematographer can do it.
If you do really stupid things, like one-thousandth of a second shutter and wacked out settings, you can easily make the camera look terrible. You can do lighting that would embarrass a blowtorch and make terrible pictures. The fault is yours, not the camera's. If your images look like "video," the fault is yours. Learn to do your craft better.
2. There is currently nothing else on the market that offers this kind of price to performance. Nothing. Every DSLR is a horrible kludge with severe problems. Barry Green has posted a very definitive list that covers this like a blanket. If you don't believe this, you're in denial.
3. If the image quality of the AF100 is not up to your standards, you have no choice other than shooting film or high-end digital; e.g., Red or Alexa. It's perverse to complain that a sub-five thousand dollar camera is not a Red; it's insane to complain it's not an Alexa. It's also annoying and sophomoric. I take that back; it's not to sophomore level; it's third grade; bratty.
I wish you all the best; make pretty pictures with whatever you're shooting.
Leo
1. We can debate for decades just what "filmic" and "cinematic" means, but in the commonly accepted definitions, the AF100 is fully capable of producing filmic images. It takes more skill than shooting film or high-end digital, both of which are more forgiving because they have inherently better image quality and latitude, but any good cinematographer can do it.
If you do really stupid things, like one-thousandth of a second shutter and wacked out settings, you can easily make the camera look terrible. You can do lighting that would embarrass a blowtorch and make terrible pictures. The fault is yours, not the camera's. If your images look like "video," the fault is yours. Learn to do your craft better.
2. There is currently nothing else on the market that offers this kind of price to performance. Nothing. Every DSLR is a horrible kludge with severe problems. Barry Green has posted a very definitive list that covers this like a blanket. If you don't believe this, you're in denial.
3. If the image quality of the AF100 is not up to your standards, you have no choice other than shooting film or high-end digital; e.g., Red or Alexa. It's perverse to complain that a sub-five thousand dollar camera is not a Red; it's insane to complain it's not an Alexa. It's also annoying and sophomoric. I take that back; it's not to sophomore level; it's third grade; bratty.
I wish you all the best; make pretty pictures with whatever you're shooting.
Leo
