pana af-100 vs. sony-f3

Thanks for your replies. I notice it with the EX-1. I do not have an AVCHD CMOS camera to test with but have read similar complaints with the HPX-300/370. Whips pans are not the issue. Any movement causes this.

The best way to see it is do a very slow pan, start and stop. If the image suddenly gets tack sharp upon stopping this is the behavior.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Thanks for your replies. I notice it with the EX-1. I do not have an AVCHD CMOS camera to test with but have read similar complaints with the HPX-300/370. Whips pans are not the issue. Any movement causes this.

The best way to see it is do a very slow pan, start and stop. If the image suddenly gets tack sharp upon stopping this is the behavior.
Click to expand...


My HPX300 performed exactly as you have described when introducing any motion. I thought at first it was maybe just on the LCD but was actually recorded the same in the AVC-Intra codec. I was happy when I sold it last month. I don't see the same issue with the AF100.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
The best way to see it is do a very slow pan, start and stop. If the image suddenly gets tack sharp upon stopping this is the behavior.
Click to expand...

Ok, I know what you are talking about. I think it has more to do with the quality of the chip or maybe earlier generations and/or cheaper CMOS chips, but the RED, RED MX, Alexa, AF100, HPX370, etc do not have this. I haven't enough experience with the F3 to say for sure, but I'd bet the F3 doesn't do it either.
 
I was really interested in the AF100 when I first heard about it.
I have not really seen any OMG AF100 footage yet.
After seeing these F3 clips, I think I will take a serious look at the Sony.



 
Thanks for your replies about the AF-100.

Those two videos do look nice. It will be interesting to see side by side shooting of these two cameras. There is some serious detail in the F3 shots although the camera is so clean it can look clinical at times. But that can be dealt with in post.
 
HVXguy said:
I was really interested in the AF100 when I first heard about it.
I have not really seen any OMG AF100 footage yet.
After seeing these F3 clips, I think I will take a serious look at the Sony.



Click to expand...

I know what you mean. The F3 stuff just leaps off the screen.
 
Kenn Christenson said:
Always thought the F3 form factor didn't lend itself to the price Sony is charging. Now, put the guts of the camera into an over-the-shoulder, ENG/EFP from factor and the price makes a little more sense. Will be curious just how many of the F3s Sony will sell, compared to their EX1/EX3 lines.
Click to expand...

AT 16 grand why not just get a RED ONE for a few bucks more?
 
ripupthehwy said:
AT 16 grand why not just get a RED ONE for a few bucks more?
Click to expand...

Sure you could get a used RED for a little more. The problem with RED has been and always will be the workflow.
Not everyone will spend the extra cash it takes to post with RED. I have produced several spots with RED but
I could not imagine doing long form work without a serious post budget. The AF100/F3 workflow is
easier to manage.
 
First off...RED workflow issues are a myth unless you are using seriously inadequate computer equipment, before buying our AF100 we were seriously considering a used RedOne and tested a lot of sample footage on all of our systems including a dual core laptop. Also, I'm probably in danger of looking like a Panasonic "fanboy" here, but after looking at the footage above I see nothing different than what could and has been produced with the af100. With that said, I'm sure the F3 will be an awesome camera, and if Sony produces on their feature promises like Slog & 444, I think it will be worth the money. But I can tell you that there is NOTHING I have seen from the F3 so far that could not be captured by the AF100. IMHO
 
ripupthehwy said:
AT 16 grand why not just get a RED ONE for a few bucks more?
Click to expand...
A few being... $11,700 more?

Red One is $25,000 for the body alone.
The F3 is $13,300 for the body alone.

For most folks, that's more than "a few" dollars.

There's a bigger price gap between the Red One and the AF100, than there is between the F3 and the AF100 (although, proportionately, I guess not, the Red is about 2x the cost of an F3, whereas the F3 is about 2.8x as much as an AF100.)

Here's the thing, in deciding between them -- it's not about the codec, it's not about the features, first and foremost, there is a massive gap in price. You have to reconcile that a body alone of the AF100 is $4700, and on the F3 it's $13,300. That's almost 3x as much. That is a market segmenter right there -- that's a dividing line that many, many people will not be able to cross.

In other words, for many folks, there's no way that an F3 could be $9,000 better than an AF100 plus $9,000 worth of lights, sound equipment, a Nano, a good monitor, and whatever else you could buy with that price difference.

For other folks, there's no doubt that what the F3 offers is well worth the difference in price. The ability to do 10-bit 4:4:4 is of substantial value to one segment of the market, whereas for another segment, not so much. The wider field of view of the larger sensor will be highly valued by some, not so much by others. The sharper images and noise-free texture might be what makes it an unquestionable choice, whereas for others, they can live with a little softer images and maybe a little more grain, you know?

It's about your wallet, and your needs. What does what you need, at a price you can afford?

They're not the same, they're not direct competitors, they're not even in the same class.

Really, it's like comparing a DSLR to an AF100. There are many folks for whom they cannot fathom why anyone would spend $3,800 more for an AF100, than for a GH2. Then there are many of us for whom it was never a question -- the GH2 doesn't do what we need, so it's not an option. The AF100 does everything we need, therefore it becomes a screaming deal. I think the AF100 is well worth what it costs over the GH2, no doubt -- unquestionably, it is a great deal and much, much more suited to many types of jobs than a DSLR. The price gap, to me, is irrelevant -- the AF100 does the job, the stills-camera doesn't, so what does it matter that the price is less?

Well, there may be many folks in that same position with the F3 -- if the AF100 doesn't do what they need, what does it matter that it's cheaper? If the F3 does what they need, and the AF100 doesn't, then there's no choice to be made -- it's already made for you.

Will the F3 deliver sharper, clearer footage? Certainly -- it had better, it costs 3x as much. Does it do things the AF100 doesn't do? Definitely -- again, it had better, it costs 3x as much. So it does things like 4:4:4 and dual-link HD-SDI and full 10-bit and many more menu controls and a sharper image and such. It should. You do, frequently, get what you pay for.

The question facing the buyer is: what do you need, to do what you need done? If all you really need is a GH2, get the GH2. If you need a real pro video/digicine camera and your budget can afford an AF100, get that. If you need a high-end "baby F35" and your budget can afford an F3, then get the F3. If you need a full-on digital cinema camera that does 4K and variable frame rates up to 120fps and records raw, well, get a Red One. It's rather pointless to compare a Red One against a GH2, as they're in completely different classes (even if sometimes, under the exact right circumstances, with the light perfectly right and if you squint just right, they make footage that looks similar). They're in totally different classes.

Look at what you can realistically afford, and what you actually need, and then get the appropriate product that does the job you need done, at a comfortable price.
 
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
But I can tell you that there is NOTHING I have seen from the F3 so far that could not be captured by the AF100. IMHO
Click to expand...

Without even getting into things like DR, resolution, noise levels etc.... there are plenty of F3 examples that were shot in 10bit. That is something that is not possible on the AF100 and never will be.

If you can get this kind of image out of an AF100.... then I salute you.

 
stockfuel said:
Without even getting into things like DR, resolution, noise levels etc.... there are plenty of F3 examples that were shot in 10bit. That is something that is not possible on the AF100 and never will be.

If you can get this kind of image out of an AF100.... then I salute you.

Click to expand...

That is some stunning footage. I can't find a flaw in the image...it's like the camera isn't working hard at all, if you know what I mean. Like with the DLSR stuff shot well that also looks great...there always seems to be parts where the camera seems to be straining. None of that here at all.
 
Yes 10 bit is a plus, but when comparing camera to camera that really doesn't matter because without spending additional $$$ you are still recording to a 4:2:0 8bit codec. Yes I understand that if you want to spend significantly more than the already higher price tag of the F3 it will produce far superior footage for post production simply because of 10bit and the future expansion of 4:4:4. As far as "bonhomme" goes I think it's a great piece. I do not however see anything in this film that could not be done on an AF100. Maybe if you gave me a specific instance in the above film I could take a look at it and be persuaded, but I just don't see it. In the future I would love to see a comparison between the F3 and the AF100 from both on board captured footage as well as an external recorder at 4:2:2 8/10bit respectively.
 
Additionally, one of the big issues I have with a lot of these comparisons is that the argument has changed from "Can I get a shot like this?" to "Can I get a shot like this then change it to look like this other shot in post". Personally, I might be a little old fashioned but I shoot for the look I wish to capture, then do a little bit of cleanup/grading in post. NOT to say that I don't love the flexibility that RED and RAW have brought us, I just can't justify charging my clients 3-5x more when I don't have to.
 
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
Yes 10 bit is a plus, but when comparing camera to camera that really doesn't matter because without spending additional $$$ you are still recording to a 4:2:0 8bit codec. Yes I understand that if you want to spend significantly more than the already higher price tag of the F3 it will produce far superior footage for post production simply because of 10bit and the future expansion of 4:4:4. As far as "bonhomme" goes I think it's a great piece. I do not however see anything in this film that could not be done on an AF100. Maybe if you gave me a specific instance in the above film I could take a look at it and be persuaded, but I just don't see it. In the future I would love to see a comparison between the F3 and the AF100 from both on board captured footage as well as an external recorder at 4:2:2 8/10bit respectively.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I'd bet that this film on an AF100 would look pretty similar - other than how gracefully the highlights and lowlight are handled. Seem to be VERY strong points on the F3 and just strong on the AF100 (according to a lot of users who have only minor complaints and have developed ways to make footage sing) I think those paying for the F3 are paying for just that little bit extra. Seems the higher up the scale you go with products, each little boost costs a lot. It's that way with cars, televisions, guitars, and to be sure - cameras. The F3 isn't 2.8 times better than the Af100 but it costs 2.8 times more. People that have the money pay that 2.8 times cost for that device/gizmo/gadget that happens to go to 11, not just 10.
 
Brian@202020 said:
+1
Click to expand...
IMO the F3 is a better camera than the AF100 on the points of Low light performance, 10 bit 4 2 2 and a better codec 35mbs LGmpeg2 versus 23/24 mbs avchd h.264. The AF100 is on the other hand IMO better in functions layout and price. The price tag of the Sony is IMO a real ripp-off just to protect the line of EX1/EX3 etc. The productioncosts of the EX3 is much higher than the F3, but still Sony choose to put the higher price tag on the F3. I whish Panasonic can blow this thing up by comming out with say a AF200 with a price tag of 8000 and with at least the same specs as the F3.
If you are loaded with money or just want to support Sony, go for the F3, but is your a filmmaker with a knowledge how things are done, go for the AF100. It will take a little more to get the same results as with the F3, but you will have money in your pocket to buy other stuff to complete your mission. In the end it is not the camera that makes the picture, it is you with your creative qualities and technical skills and the people who watch your product.
 
cckid said:
any other thoughts...where would you put your money on?
Click to expand...

Af100 now then if you're not happy sell it and get the NXcam when it comes out or keep both. Either way will be cheaper than the f3.

Sweat your decisions on lens choice. One thing that won't be going out of date every 6 months.
 
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
I do not however see anything in this film that could not be done on an AF100. Maybe if you gave me a specific instance in the above film I could take a look at it and be persuaded, but I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

It's all about the highlights, shadows and range.... look how it handles the light in the forest scenes.... when he looks over the Paris landscape... the subtle cloud textures rather than blow outs... the lowlights on the fire blower guy... I know the lighting conditions were not that dificult (overcast) but you can still see the DR at play...

As pulpfiction says.... the step up in image quality is not incremental to price (same can be said for GH2 to AF100 in some people's eyes).... but to some, that extra couple of stops DR and extra resolution is well worth the money (plus the upgrade path, PL mount, rocker zoom, s35 etc).

The only thing stopping me right now is I don't have to shoot till June and I wanna see what NAB offers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top