pana af-100 vs. sony-f3

TheDingo said:
Ken Rockwell considers the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 to be the "World's Sharpest Midrange Zoom", so there's a good chance it would be pretty decent with an AF-100.

Ken Rockwell's Review of Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8
Click to expand...

He would be thinking about it as a stills lens. He would know nothing about it as a film lens in the PRACTICAL sense. The focus throw on the ring of this lens is about 25mm from Infinity to minimums. All very condensed at one end. The end of the lens is like a piston and moves maybe 50mm (2")

It maybe sharp et etc... but..

"a lens is a lens is sometimes...not a lens"
 
MCGEE!!!!!!!!!!! Kickin' ass w/ some bounce!!!

What happened to your red zooms? And if you need a sharp zoom lens........

I have a cooke varotal that just a few hours away..... ;)
 
mcgeedigital said:
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 S16 has been out of date for some time now.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........
Click to expand...

Tell that to Kathryn Bigelow, and Darren Aronofsky ....

I've shot with the F3 and I now own a couple of AF100's. I wasn't impressed by the F3 and it certainly wasn't worth 2.5x the price of the AF100.

jb
 
John Brawley said:
Tell that to Kathryn Bigelow, and Darren Aronofsky ....

I've shot with the F3 and I now own a couple of AF100's. I wasn't impressed by the F3 and it certainly wasn't worth 2.5x the price of the AF100.

jb
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about it? I'm building a rental package and I want to know what people don't like about the F3.
 
TimurCivan said:
Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about it? I'm building a rental package and I want to know what people don't like about the F3.
Click to expand...

I did a low light shootout with 35, Super 16, RED MX, Alexa, a Canon 1D and a Sony F3. I should preface by saying the F3 was an engineering pre-production sample. I was only able to use the internal recording and most of what I didn't like was to do with the way the codec seems to work. I've just finished grading all the material for a film out and DCP oiut to compare them. The F3 gave us the most amount of trouble in the grade and seemed to have the worst artifacts, which as I mentioned, are probably more to do with the internal recording setup. The DR didn't seem to be great either, but my test wasn't designed to accurately measure these kinds of things...just how it looks on real people in a available light / low light. The way it reproduced motion seemed a little...*videoey* as well.

The camera itself seemed OK enough for the few hours I had with it, but I really didn't like the pictures that came out of it. I really hope it was only because it was an engineering version of the camera.

You can also read the editors view of the various formats here.....

This was written before we graded the material. He mentioned that he expected the F3 to grade up better than the 1D.....it didn't....

jb
 
Perhaps the prepro versions were way different.

though i will say this, grading the XDcam is most likely the culprit. i really think the camera was intended for offboard recording. My DIT recorded a series of shots, running the full gambit of ISO's and different levels of under exposure, andwe found the camera to be quite resilient. Though wedid record to 10bit 422.

Give it another pass, properly adjusted ( aka not in REC709) and going to 10 bit. I expect you will have a whole different experince.
 
TimurCivan said:
Perhaps the prepro versions were way different.

though i will say this, grading the XDcam is most likely the culprit. i really think the camera was intended for offboard recording. My DIT recorded a series of shots, running the full gambit of ISO's and different levels of under exposure, andwe found the camera to be quite resilient. Though wedid record to 10bit 422.

Give it another pass, properly adjusted ( aka not in REC709) and going to 10 bit. I expect you will have a whole different experince.
Click to expand...

To be honest it was bad enough for me to think so. Deluxe are doing the film out for me and they suggested that it not be included because it looked so *wrong*.

I just think out of the box the AF100 is as good for a fraction of the price. External recorders make a difference for sure, but again, the whole advantage of these micro large sensor cameras is their compact size. Adding an external recorder is another *thing* to carry, power and worry about. I use these mainly to intercut with cameras like the RED. The F3 isn't that far of the size of a RED body. The AF100 is smaller and just as good to me using the onboard recorder.

jb
 
Randomly just ran into a crew using an F3 with the Sony lenses asI was walking around filming some street B-Roll with my AF100. For a moment I thought it would be like two rival gangs meeting on the street, but it was pretty much "ahhh cool camera from both sides. I might get to play with an f3 later this week and I'll post my thoughts if I do.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Screen%20shot%202011-02-26%20at%202.25.06%20PM.png
Click to expand...

Hey Matt- I've been looking for the Socanland LED, but can only find it in large lots from China.
Where'd you get yours, and what size/wattage is it?

Where do you get your beadboard?
And do you know your settings from this interview? (I don't think they got posted- just lens and light info).
Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Shooter said:
Jut shot with my Nikkor 17-35 f 2.8 and we thought its performance was awesome in every respect. Highly recommend it to you. (sorry cant post any pix up yet.)

Now I will go and chase down that Tokina we are talking about....
Click to expand...

+1

I recently picked up a Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 and am impressed with its sharpness. Also found a Tokina/Angeniuex 28-70 f/2.6 (a Series II) for $150... Score!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top