pana af-100 vs. sony-f3

cckid

cckid

Well-known member
How do these two camera compare...I have just sold my ex-1 kit and I am looking into investing into a new camere...

Plus Minus chart for sony
Sony double the price
bigger sensor
true pl mount
less frames per second in 1080p
slightly better codec performance
true 10bit output


Plus minus chart af-101
one time cheaper
better overcranking capabilites in 1080p mode
smaller sensor
slightly more compressed codec
only 8-bit output through hd-sdi

any other thoughts...where would you put your money on?
 
If I had the cash I would take the F3. With the AF100 you have a wider range of lenses to use and you can put together a cheaper set of lenses than what you could do with the F3. Everything is more expensive with the F3 but it is also better!
 
cckid said:
Plus Minus chart for sony
...
slightly better codec performance
...
Click to expand...

Read this and tell me if you still believe that. AVCCAM is more compressed yes, but it also out performs XDCAM-EX. And that test was done with AVCCAM at 21 mbps. The AF100s does 24 mbps (I believe). So the AF100 implementation of AVCCAM is even 12.5% better than the version used on the test.
 
Last edited:
Improved codec?

Improved codec?

I'm not sure the F3 codec is better than AVCHD.
Barry already tested it and proved the opposite.

F3 might be a better camera, but as far as internal recording it has no advantage over the
AF-100.

I think its native ISO is 800 compared to the AF-100 400, but i did an ISO test to the AF-100
and you can hardly see ant noise difference between 400 vs 800
 
Is the F3 a true PL mount? I thought it was a proprietary Sony mount that you would have to use an adapter to make it PL. So same-same-ish.
 
The only benefits to the sony I can see without full sensor specs is, 10bit output, slightly bigger sensor size, and future implementation of Log-C. Does that outweigh the drawback of a huge price tag and lack of 1080p overcrank? Maybe if your clients can tell the difference and are willing to pay more, if not the AF100 is a far better choice.
 
amosrafaeli said:
I'm not sure the F3 codec is better than AVCHD.
Barry already tested it and proved the opposite.

F3 might be a better camera, but as far as internal recording it has no advantage over the
AF-100.

I think its native ISO is 800 compared to the AF-100 400, but i did an ISO test to the AF-100
and you can hardly see ant noise difference between 400 vs 800
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, who recording with the F3 will be recording ONLY to the internal codec on a regular basis? Only a small handful of people. The majority of the time an external recorder will be used and the internal footage used for the offline edit or backup.
 
heavyG said:
Is the F3 a true PL mount? I thought it was a proprietary Sony mount that you would have to use an adapter to make it PL. So same-same-ish.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a Sony mount, that comes with the PL mount/adapter with it when it ships I believe.
 
vcfilms said:
Let's be honest, who recording with the F3 will be recording ONLY to the internal codec on a regular basis? Only a small handful of people. The majority of the time an external recorder will be used and the internal footage used for the offline edit or backup.
Click to expand...

Yes this is true, but it also adds to the price since you'll need to buy the recorder, and the price for that hasn't been announced yet. The F3 stand alone is a waste of money in my opinion, but for high end projects the will compete with the Alexa. I think cckid is not comparing it to the Alexa tho, cckid is comparing the non recorder version to the AF100.
 
cckid - thought you already had the AF100 and was going the PL route with Red zooms?

Really, depends what you want from the camera, with your EX1 experience, the workflow will be better for you on the F3? (SXS etc).

Price wise in Europe the F3 is about £9.8K without lenses and the AF101 is £3.5K (all ex vat) - so you could get 2.5 AF101's for the same price (or X2 AF101's and some GH2's or more gear like a Cineroid EVF or maybe an outboard recorder) or an AF101 and a nice new Red Pro zoom and still have some change!

In broadcast terms, they're both not approved yet and they'll probabably only be approved when recorded out to a Nano (50mbs or above) - so, if an AF101 can couple with a Nano for broadcast, that's a cheaper option than the F3.

I think you need to examine what your workflow is and what you want to do with the camera - how far do you want to push the grading (if it's really important, then you need to consider 10-bit or even the 4:4:4 option for the F3 giving dual-link) this is where, IMO, the F3 will start to shine, as a B & C camera on larger shoots and as a cheaper alternative to the larger S35 Cinealtas (so smaller studios will get an F3 for 4:4:4 to use for greenscreen/VFX etc).

Again, IMO, there's currently a lot of negative press on the AF100 and GH2 etc so the focus and attention is zooming in on the F3. But, give it a few more months and we will (without a doubt) start hearing about niggles/gripes/issues with the F3.

I think it's all about the camera that suits you - your style of shooting - your workflow - your budget and your eventual delivery format.

On the plus side - this year is an interesting one... AF100 and F3 now - the S35 NX cam (June???) with the same chip as the F3 so that's Sony's real competitor to the AF100... and the Scarlet fixed ('reported price' $6K) & non-fixed (OK, a much smaller sensor - but RAW... but RED... so it might take XXX time to arrive!!!) and even the EPIC-S (again, when it arrives - but the price point there is 'reported' to be $12K. The EPIC-S is the interesting one, it'll probably end up costing $20K to fully rig... but it promises a lot.

Of course - Canon is very quiet... so who knows what they're going to do... NAB is around the corner and they launced the XF305 last year (which the BBC approved for full 100% HD acquisition with it's native recording) - so they may surprise everyone with something. Not really likely, as Canon Broadcast & Consumer divisions seem to be like Panasonic (very different Depts) - but, NAB's not far away.

If you're not in need of a camera to shoot a project with now, hang fire for a few months & let the dust settle (post NAB) and see what the options are. Just get a GH1/2 to play around with in the interim? (grab a PL adapter and some PL lenses).
 
My thoughts.... What requirements do your clients have, and how much do you need to spend to meet those requirements? The key is knowing your clients, and knowing your craft.
A few years ago I made the decision to stop over-buying, or basically spending money on features I didn't need which added to the purchase price of a camera. The higher price meant it took much longer for the camera to pay for itself and thus became a poor return on investment.
We now have cameras in-house that cover 95% of our clients needs, and rent when we need more rather than tying up the funds for a camera we only use 5% of the time. So what do you need to do your job? Do you need 10-bit output and a super 35mm size sensor? If so then the Sony F3 meets those requirements.

Good luck!

Dave
 
There doesn't seem to be much talk about the actual image.

When both are using internal codec, it is clear to see that the F3 has more resolution, DR and better low light. The F3 has a good upgrade path to get even better image quality... stick a 10bit recorder on it and you will see a big difference, can the same be said for the AF100?

The F3 seems to be rocking in at 12+ stops of DR, I have heard 13 stops from Sony reps. If you have the cash, the F3 looks like the winner to me (as it should).
 
People should not be delusional, the avchd codec might be better but the sensor and image pipeline of the F3 makes up for it. Just peek into the other forum to see that the dynamic range and low light of the f3 is better to much better, depending on who you ask. I am not saying that the af-100 is a bad camera but just pointing out at one aspect of it and say 'hey the codec is better' to feel secured and discard everything else is not very serious.

The Msrp might be $16000 but god, everybody knows that it is selling for $ 13000 for two month. Why put it back at $ 16000 again, it is still 2,5 time the price of the Af-100, but still why inflate it ? People should really stop just saying anything to defend there purchase, brand, etc . It is not as if I am going to buy an f3 tomorrow because it is out of my budget, but I am not going to feel flawed or jealous because I can't buy it. It looks like a very good camera and could be described as a small alexa for 1/4 the price. For me, I am going to wait for the Nxcam S35 to see if it has the same sensor and image quality than the base (without slog) f3 at $ 6000.
 
Danielvilliers said:
The Msrp might be $16000 but god, everybody knows that it is selling for $ 13000 for two month. Why put it back at $ 16000 again, it is still 2,5 time the price of the Af-100, but still why inflate it ?
Click to expand...

MSRP vs. MSRP? >3X. What I paid for my Af100 vs. street price of F3? 2.95X. A perfectly valid comparison, not "inflation". At 3X the cost, the F3 had damn well better be a superior camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top