Opines: AF100 vs C100

G

ggrantly

Veteran
I have EF glass already and am thinking on a new cam. When the AF100 first cam out, and the mythical Berger Mount was about to be released <8-) , I was ready to pull the trigger on an AF100. Glad I waited a bit. By comparison, the allure of a C100 is strong given the native glass compatibility, though it would be a more expensive option. I'm not too interested in buying even more glass, such as mft, so please keep this conversation related to EF glass.

Now that the dust has settled, what is the state of affairs running EF glass on the AF100? Is it an effective alternative to the C100? They do both shoot AVCHD with external recording options and have interchangeable lenses. Obviously the C100 loses on frame rates and other cinematic options, but my focus is corporate, so the cinematic options are not so important to me.

Thanks for your input
 
http://shop.texasmediasystems.com/Canon-C100-Cinema-EOS-Camera-6340B002_p_4993.html

They have a $1k rebate for a few more days. The C100 to me is far superior in terms of image then the AF100. The C100 does lose on frame rates you're correct, so if you have to have the 60p then obviously your choice is easy. Both can give a good image with a good operator and lighting, but the overall image quality (to me) on the C100 is far and above what the AF100 is capable of. In terms of using the camera day to day, I've only used the AF100 and the C300. The AF100 was an absolute JOY to use from an operating standpoint. The only camera that's matched it for me is my C300. I've never used the C100 on a shoot, just seen RAW footage. The EVF on the AF100 wasn't that useful, but the eyepiece itself was decently comfortable. The C100 has a tiny little hole to look through.

If I'm you and I don't need 60p and I have EF glass, I would go for the C100, but cost is a factor. You can get the AF100 significantly cheaper on ebay, although you might find some used C100's out there. It'll still cost more, but as I said the image quality overall isn't comparable to me.

Hopefully I didn't sound too bias there. They both have their strengths. If you always do corporate and you're happy with the EF glass work arounds on the AF100 and need 60p, then it's an easy choice. Another thing to consider is being able to bring EF glass, a C100, and a DSLR to shoots as your possible B-cam. Not that you couldn't do that with an AF100 with adapters, but the color and overall image between them will be very difficult to match. I spent a ton of time trying to get them in sync when I owned my 5D and AF100...it was a nightmare.
 
The C100 has way better DR, much sharper, 12 stops DR through the ISO range. 850-20000. Is way cleaner then the AF100. If you can afford and don't need slow-mo or HD-SDI then it's a great choice. I had the AF100 for 2 years and needed a better IQ in the cam. I went to the C100 and man that was such a huge upgrade. Missed the Slow-mo and it was needed badly. Upgraded to the FS700 and am content for now. Good luck. If you can't afford the C100 then the AF100 is a great option. If you don't need ND-filters and HD-SDI out the FS100 is a great option as well with a metabones EF adapter and has much better sensitivity then The AF100 and better DR but from what I've read not a huge difference.
 
Agreed with above. I have an AF100 and love it but for your use case, C100.

The AF100 is hugely useful for live event/doc work with the portability, ergos, and I do need/want the slow motion for the cinematic aspects. Otherwise, it is hard to beat something like the C100/C300 or as Babu mentioned, the FS700 is fantastic (or the FS100 if you don't need slow motion).
 
I own the AF100 and recently shot with a C300, I also specialize in corporate. To me the main benefit of a C100 is that it practically sees in the dark without noise compared to an AF100. So if your corporate clients put you in dark situations or low level available light then the C100 is the way to go.
 
I got the AF100 when it was released, using it primarily for corporate. I have four pieces of EF glass, and I too waited for Birger, wrestling with the lenses for 2 and a half years.

I rented the C100 for 3 days then bought it a month ago and love it, got the 24-105 also.
It's not just the sensitivity- I prefer the Canon's image and highlight handling- mostly using Wide DR gamma for more straight out of the camera, and C Log is very nice for more extensive grading.

I miss overcranking the AF, but dropping 60i from the C100 in a 24p timeline works pretty well.

With the $1000 discount and the $235/month two year Canon lease it was an easy transition.
 
Features: AF100, by a mile

Image Quality: C100, by a mile

If the choice were mine, I'd live with the Canon's lack of features - the image is worth it (and considerably nicer than the Panny).
 
Dumby adapters (non electronic) or the red rock version. There is no adapter on the market that allows aperture control of ef lenses from the body yet. Metabones is making a speedbooster ef to m43 with aperture control.
 
My opinion:

Chalk and cheese.

We sold our AF101 after a year of pretty comprehensive use and over 20 commercial films. We never took advantage of the higher frame rates available, so we don't miss those. We had the 12-35 and 35-100 Panasonic lenses plus a couple of Leica Lumix primes.

After using the C100 for 4 months and several shoots around the world, I would never go back to the AF100/101.

Apart from the tangibly superior picture quality, one of the C100 features I most appreciate having is the focus punch-in - it gives you a level of focus reassurance that the focus peaking etc on the AF never gave me.

And the pictures make me smile in a way that the AF101 never did. We spent way too much time and money trying to get the AF101 to work effectively for us - the C100 just goes in and out of it's bag, no extra rigs, EVFs or nonsense, and just performs consistently with zero fuss. We use the Tokina 11-16, Canon 16-35, 24-105, 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 lenses. Fab.

Ben.
 
I owned 2 AF100s.

Rented the C100 for a gig and sold both AF100s for the Texas Media Systems Canon financing deal.

Best move I have done in a while gear-wise.
 
Well, I guess I'll be the odd man out. I have tried the c100 and while it does have better dr, I personally think the af100 toolkit is better for me. I never shoot without lighting and I love the frame rates and with proper monitoring you can get a very good picture out of it. I would bank the extra cash or wait until the c100 drops in price. And also, I know everyone swears their children's eye on L glass, but I personally find nikon glass to be just as good and much better suited to the af100. Jmho.
 
c100, no question.

think about it this way, the c100 can easily let you think of your slow lenses as 2 stops faster. its iso power is unrivaled
 
I'm sure Nikon glass is wonderful, but I'm invested in L glass already for my still photography. That is the point of the thread, to discuss the best way to leverage that asset. For those of us who have Canon glass, and have been Panny fans, it would have been nice for the af100 to have better options. Panny would have sold a lot more cams. I realize that still photography lenses don't rise to the level of dedicated cinema lenses, but they do work well on the Canon C-cams, so it can be done.

Grant
 
If your invested heavily in Canon lenses then the C100 is a good move. I love mine and the C300 I have at work. That 4K sensor and the base 850 ISO has a organic look that is so dang sweet. If cash flow is an issue you get a lot of camera for your money with the AF-100 and the MFT mount is very versatile.
I sold my AF-100 but I kept all my lenses to use with my GH3 that I love, and use it if I need over-cranking. The GH3 does a great job with 60fps in 1080p and the stills are very good.
 
Last edited:
The AF100 has low dynamic range and bad signal to noise - so its noisy image making even with good lighting. The M4/3 sensor makes it difficult on your lenses. I would easily recommend the C100 as well. It's probably the best low-budget camera on the market right now. Coupled with a external recorder and you can't go wrong.
 
eddavid said:
The AF100 has low dynamic range and bad signal to noise - so its noisy image making even with good lighting.
Click to expand...

Odd, I've never had trouble with noise on the AF-100, even in dimly lit hotel hallways and conference rooms... not like the HVX-200.


eddavid said:
The M4/3 sensor makes it difficult on your lenses.
Click to expand...

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

Shawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top