pana af-100 vs. sony-f3

stockfuel said:
The only thing stopping me right now is I don't have to shoot till June and I wanna see what NAB offers.
Click to expand...

Then you can also wait for photokina and then for the NAB again and then for the photokina and for.....

This X vs. Y discussions are not really helping very much. If a tool fits your needs and you can afford it and it is around and you feel comfortable with it- use it. If not, not.

Camera ownership is not a religion.
 
tipota said:
Then you can also wait for photokina and then for the NAB again and then for the photokina and for.....
Click to expand...

I guess the fact that I said I have a shoot in June didn't register with you?

As for X/Y comparisons... the OP has already said that he has received good advice here... and it is hardly a flame war. So what is the harm?
 
stockfuel said:
I guess the fact that I said I have a shoot in June didn't register with you?

As for X/Y comparisons... the OP has already said that he has received good advice here... and it is hardly a flame war. So what is the harm?
Click to expand...

No harm at all. Just an observation. Sorry for my commenting. Use whatever fits your needs.
 
To me it's becoming clear that AF100 can be satisfactory under controlled light/studio conditions (some other issues resolved) while into the open locations I'd send my crews with the F3 and 422 s-log recorder.
 
Sweat your decisions on lens choice. One thing that won't be going out of date every 6 months.
Click to expand...

Tell that to people like me that have over $50,000 invested in super16 lenses that are now basically thermoses - I wish that the tech didn't jump to this chip size without also considering a super16-size option. I know, I know, DOF is God this year... But, will that go out of date in 6 months?
 
S35 has been the standard for decades. S16 has been out of date for some time now. Surely you aren't blamimg manufacturers who are standardizing on the industry standard s35 size........
 
Surely you aren't blamimg manufacturers who are standardizing on the industry standard s35 size
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not blaming anyone for "standardization" - I'm merely pointing out that spending a lot of money on lenses is not any sort of insurance against obsolescence.

When I invested (a lot of $) in my Aaton, it was intended (based on industry marketing at the time) to "protect" filmmakers by anticipating the 16x9 format of the future. Unfortunately, soon after 16x9 became a broadcast standard, super16 acquisition was deemed unacceptable by broadcasters (although it's apparently still used to great effect by NFL Films and others).

What I do blame manufacturers for is fanning the flame of (sometimes silly) fads to sell merchandise. We, the independent filmmakers, are caught in the jaws of this vice because we need to stay abreast of the current "thing".

The one - and most positive - feature of the AF100 relative to the F3 (funny how "F" is the in letter now, it used to always be "X" and "Z") is that it is cheap. After the number of cameras I've had to purchase over the last ten years, I WILL NOT spend more than $10,000 on one again, ever.

Again, I'm not blaming anyone, it's the nature of business, and Panasonic isn't a non-profit entity.. But it would do well for us all to remember that Jan and Barry have vested interests in the success of this camera.
 
well, I know there is a big buzz for s16mm lenses over on the RED forum. I think we will see a resurgence is 16mm when the scarlett 2/3" launches.
 
Mac said:
After the number of cameras I've had to purchase over the last ten years, I WILL NOT spend more than $10,000 on one again, ever.
Click to expand...

10000000++++

I think frankly the whole video industry sucks greatly these day, in spite of all this praise of the big sensor revolution. The big players in the industry seem to be technically and ergonomically paralysed dumping repeatedly, for whatever reason, never learning, only very partially innovative solutions, kind of last minute chaotic brews, alleviating only for a short moment their own desperation... Small knobs, text erasing within two month, Fisher price plastic toy housings, knob layout done by a mad alien, sub-par reused sensors (Sony F3 being a possible exception), erratic technical feature amputation (4:2:0, 8 bits, what a deception !), total lack of ergonomic thinking (had such cams been cars or vacuum-cleaners, they would never been allowed on the market), etc., etc.

This is why I end putting the AF100 (I own one) and the Sony F3 in the same bag. Old school products. Not to speak about Sony's unacceptable pricing of the toyish F3.

I think that real innovation may come from smaller companies offering decent high-quality modular solutions designed to last (RED and Ikonoskop may have been this kind of precursors).

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TODAY NOT TO GET CHEAP 4:2:2 10 BITS lightly compressed footage.
 
Last edited:
Mac said:
But it would do well for us all to remember that Jan and Barry have vested interests in the success of this camera.
Click to expand...
So what do you mean by this? I have to say I am feeling a little offended. Do you mean that the people gathered here cannot believe the answers we give? That we are lying about things just so that you will buy one? Of course I have a vested interest, I do want people to buy the camera but not if it is the wrong camera for you.

Thanks,

Jan
 
Jan, I think you (and Barry) have gone FAR FAR FAR beyond the call of duty in getting as much information about the cameras out to the world so we can decide if the camera is the right for each of us individually.

I have bought an AF101, am still getting up the learning curve using it, very happy with it overall. I very much appreciated the detailed technical information you made available in the run up to launch so that I could make an informed buying decision. The one thing I really don't think you can be accused of is lying about things (not even by omission- the information has been detailed and very generous).

I think the camera is been the right one for me this year, thank you. It seems just the ticket for 80% of what I shoot, rescuing me from the ghastly shooting ergonomics of dSLR hell. The other 20% of my shoots I'm still using my two HVX200's which were exactly the right camera for me a few yeas ago and remain the right cameras in run-and-gun or multi-camera one rolling take as-live shooting situations. Of course the AF101 isn't perfect- no camera built to a budget ever will be. The important thing is that you have been very clear about exactly what it will do (1080p slowmo...) and what it won't (10 bit 444 log-S output...).

I for one greatly appreciate the openness and free information flow. Thank you.

Cheers, Hywel Phillips
 
Last edited:
danap said:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TODAY NOT TO GET CHEAP 4:2:2 10 BITS lightly compressed footage.
Click to expand...

+10000000++++

The 8 bit thing... you know very disappointing. Noting to be done now. I love the camera but yes disappointing.
 
Not again! :(

Not again! :(

I am not quite understanding why people are STILL bummed about 8bits. It is not like Panasonic hid this fact from us. It was well known before the camera was released. What amazing films are people making that are so "damaged" by 8-bit?

Last time I checked, 8-bit does not affect the script, content and heart of a film.

I love my af100 - 8 bits and all. :)

Simon
 
First Rule of Camera : Buy a cam that fits your job NOW and make the money NOW.

Second Rule of Camera: See First Rule of Camera.
 
Hi everyone,

thanks for everyone on the input...Barry you have written a great post on the pros and the cons for both cameras...after reading all posts I am very glad I have placed my money on the af-101 seems definitely the way to go for me and my production needs...if I need anything better I will rent be it a redone, an alexa or an f3 for that matter....but for 80 percent of the stuff that my company does af-101 will be, at least it seems, a great solution...so far I have been using the ex-1 and renting the red one...from now one it will be af-101 combined with my canon 5d for shallow dop and ultra wide shots when needed....
 
szimmer said:
I am not quite understanding why people are STILL bummed about 8bits.
Click to expand...

If you go back to trough the history of when the camera specs were released you will find somewhere a post by Barry where he sounds a bit bummed that it was an 8bit final spec.

The real problem with 8bit is that it is old technology and that as the AF100 is geared towards the low budget indie film maker to have the convenience of 10bit would have been a very nice thing. The very nature of indie film making by definition is a lack of control in many, many locations.

I'm not bashing the camera. I love mine. But, if a 10bit version came out in a year or two I'd probably sell the 8bit. If an Andromeda hack is produced in a year or so I may consider that. It just is nice to have that flexibility. Meanwhile I'm shooting projects and having a blast!
 
Last edited:
10 bit not for AF100

10 bit not for AF100

10 bit recording makes sense only when the front end delivers very clean signal, ie. PSNR>50dB.
Not many cameras do it, eg. RED ONE does at 500ASA.
Little chance any iteration of an affordable camera will benefit from 10 bit recording. AF100 for sure would not. But of courrse it makes sense to have the 10 bits for postproduction.
 
Steve Kahn said:
I'm not bashing the camera. I love mine. But, if a 10bit version came out in a year or two I'd probably sell the 8bit. If an Andromeda hack is produced in a year or so I may consider that. It just is nice to have that flexibility. Meanwhile I'm shooting projects and having a blast!
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

I can understand the immediate reaction after the specs were released that people were bummed but a few months later it seems like old news.

But I am glad you are enjoying your af100. I have had mine for about 1 month and next week I am getting the follow focus from jag35. :D I can't wait. I still have a lot to learn but that is part of the fun right?

Happy shooting!

Simon
 
Barry wrote:

>whereas the F3 is about 2.8x as much as an AF100

There is also:

- F3 requires more expensive lenses
- F3 is bigger and weighs more (don't want to carry it in my backpack).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top