Opines: AF100 vs C100

ShawnMi said:
I guess I don't understand this statement, what do you mean?

Shawn
Click to expand...

He's probably talking about the 2x crop factor, which by the way, has been quite pleasant to take advantage of with my own AF100a. I'm shooting through the sharpest part of my lenses (the center) and when I need to go wide or medium wide I slap on a 14mm lens or a 25mm. Problem solved.

Sure the AF100 is a little noisy, but I like the noise for narrative work and when I'm doing a high end corporate gig I use neat video in post to great effect.

As for the OP, you answered your own question before you even posted this thread... you've got the Canon glass already and you want to hang on to it. Its cumbersome to use EF jimmy jams on an AF100 (what with needing a mount that can control your aperture and all). Sure there's about a $2000 price difference between the cams and the AF100 has great bells and whistles... but you probably won't be satisfied trying to make EF lenses work as great as they will on a body that was designed for them. As much as I love my AF100, I gotta say it makes sense for you to go with the C100.
 
I own 2 AF-101 since they first came out. Pre-ordered them from 3D Broadcast even before they came out. Oh my... Did I wait eagerly for those game changing cams to come out. Yes... They were game changers when they came out, but now I'm not so sure they'd be my choice.
However... I still don't know because in terms of price range/functionality, few cameras match the AF101: SDI and Gen Lock, a LCD screen that rotates in all directions, an excelent EVF, several overcranking speeds, cheap (but quite decent) Lumix lenses, built in microphone and XLR connections with volume control, etc... All that against "only" a 4k sensor with better sharpness, color depth and low light performance of the C100. The one click C100 Auto Focus has been mentioned here but... We have the real continuous autofocus of the AF101 (for Lumix lenses) to match that.

Well... All I can say is that it only depends on what you value more and what you need the camera for. If all that matters is image quality then you can't go wrong with the C100. However if you want an balanced all rounded camera for film making, the AF101/AF100 is far superior in terms of functionalities and tools. A true all in one solution! The C100 is very unbalanced, in the sense that it has an excellent image that contrasts with a lousy useless EVF and a LCD that has limited range of movement... As well as a notorious lack of frame rates, SDI out and Gen Lock...

In fact, the lack of these features would seem really absurd and incomprehensible... If we didn't know that they were strategically planned to safeguard the sales of the C300 and it's outrageous price. We all know Canon loves to overprice their cameras... And the lack of features in the C100 is not because it would make it's manufacturing a lot more expensive... It's rather because it would show how overpriced the C300 is.

Having said that... I've always been a fan of Canon image. I owned several XM2/GL2, XL2 and XL-H1... So, I'd love to have a C100 (or even better, a C300). But I don't think it would be a good idea to sell my AF101s.
 
Last edited:
I don't see enough technical improvements in the c100 or c300 over the af100 to justify the economic investment. When I upgrade the AF100 it will have to be for a camera that has dramatic game changing improvements with ergonomic integrity at a practical price tag.
 
Maybe the upcoming Sony PXW-Z100 would be an option if it didn't have fixed lenses. I always thought that 4K and fixed lenses doesn't make much sense. Not to mention I never liked Sony image too much in terms of color... But that's tweakable. But fixed lenses with a $6000 4K camera?... Naaahhh....
 
I have both cameras, and I really do like the C100. That said, I have also been a big fan of the AF100, which I still own. I got the C100 primarily because my nearly 40 year documentary style has always been to shoot into light sources, I think flat lighting is boring. Sadly, the AF100 doesn't handle highlights well, thus the move to Canon. I was going to sell the AF, but the prices are so low I decided to keep it as a back-up, for slow motion, and (no one has mentioned this) for the times I want to originate in B&W, the AF100 is one of the best at that - it even has a setting for it.

I'm not a pixel-peeper - I think the picture from the AF100 is very organic (I will avoid the word "filmic", that seems to always start another argument) and, after getting it dialed in (takes a while) I've always been really happy with the pictures it produces - except for those darned weird colors in the highlights. The C100 delivers a nice clean image, with a great dynamic range, but it always seems I'm trying to make it look more like my "old" (2 years old!!!) AF100.
 
Pound for pound (meaning price vrs features) it is really hard to beat the Af100. It's a very nice camera and can make some really nice images. You just have to watch the highlights with it. But the camera has lots of very valued built in features. You can pick one up on the cheap nearly anywhere.

I went from the Af100 to the BMC then to the C100. I just like working with the C100 the best. But there are times I miss the Af100 to tell the truth.
 
After reading all the comments I'm about where I started with my thinking. In so many ways I would prefer the AF100 feature set, but my L glass isn't native, but will work. The C100 is a really nice cam that takes advantage of my glass and has a better image, but is lacking some important features. Both require external recorders to get the best out of them. Maybe I'll just wait for a while. Seems that if Panny is going to stay in this segment, they will need a bigger upgrade to this cam than the recent A upgrade. Thanks again for all the insightful comments.

Grant
 
dustylense said:
Pound for pound (meaning price vrs features) it is really hard to beat the Af100. It's a very nice camera and can make some really nice images. You just have to watch the highlights with it. But the camera has lots of very valued built in features. You can pick one up on the cheap nearly anywhere.

I went from the Af100 to the BMC then to the C100. I just like working with the C100 the best. But there are times I miss the Af100 to tell the truth.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I just started shooting with the BMCC... amazing images at an unbelievable price. I feel like I have the camera I've always wanted (image wise). I haven't felt this excited about shooting creative projects since the DVX100 (with anamorphic adapter of course). That said, the AF100 is still holding it's value for us. Once dialed in, it is just a pleasure to shoot with... it makes me wonder why all modern camcorders don't have built in waveform monitors, ND filters and BOTH SDI and HDMI (at the least). It's a crazy amount of features for the price. :-)

Shawn
 
The BMCC brings up an interesting question - If the OP already has EF lenses, you can get an EF BMCC now for the cost of a set of good tires... and it comes with Resolve. That's pretty appealing, even to me (though as a documentarian I hate the ides of fiddling with ND filters). Aliasing is sort of an issue I guess (I haven't used one), and the sound isn't ideal, but talk about dirt cheap! Add some external batteries, ND filters and an external recorder or XLR audio adapter and you're still well under $3,500.

A word on AVCHD _ I shot a 30 minute documentary with the AF100 last year that has been televised nationally through NETA on PBS. I saw it in LA a few months ago and it looked great on the HD channel, so if you're going in with a completed project and it looks good, you're probably okay - digital cliff be damned.

However, one additional comment about comparing the two cameras _ 8 bit banding is sometimes really ugly, especially in dissolves and fades... Supposedly true of all 8 bit cameras, and the AF100 certainly has it's share. However, and I'm not a technical person so I don't know why, I have yet to see any banding on anything I've produced with the C100. To tell the truth, I hadn't even thought about it until writing this - but banding just doesn't appear anywhere - maybe it's the Wide DR, I don't know.
 
ShawnMi said:
Totally agree. I just started shooting with the BMCC... amazing images at an unbelievable price. I feel like I have the camera I've always wanted (image wise). I haven't felt this excited about shooting creative projects since the DVX100 (with anamorphic adapter of course). That said, the AF100 is still holding it's value for us. Once dialed in, it is just a pleasure to shoot with... it makes me wonder why all modern camcorders don't have built in waveform monitors, ND filters and BOTH SDI and HDMI (at the least). It's a crazy amount of features for the price. :-)

Shawn
Click to expand...

I really miss the waveform on the FS700 I own. I also have an AF105A I purchased at a discount and enjoy shooting with it a lot. My thought was to use the AF on more dangerous, dirty industrial/factory shoots only, but I've found myself using it for other applications as well. I used to own Canon digital tape cameras, but I think their SD-based HD cams are overpriced by a factor of two given their feature set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top