Pros and Cons FS700 vs AF100

Shooter

Shooter

Veteran
I am considering the FS700 and I need a little help with the decision and I am aiming this question particularly at those experienced users (or owners) of AF100 and the FS700. ( I have the AF102)


What would be the 5 main "Pros" of the FS700 over the AF100?


What would be the 5 main "Cons" of the FS700 over the AF100?


I am primarily a tabletop and food shooter but "skin" is also important . (Broadcast TVCs)

Will be doing my own shoot tests with FS700 next week ...but very interested to hear from you guys.

If anyone wished to add their subjective opinions of "image look" by way of comparisons..that would be helpful as well.

Thanx.
 
Hey, Craig - welcome.

Only a few cons, mainly single card slot, multi-steps to invoke color bars and to change color temp.

Perhaps I never really understood the Af100 cine options but with the FS700 I'm just producing better images with greater options in grading for a fuller DR range. Additionally, I do see (a totally subjective) image quality boost with the S35 sensor. Out of the box, the profiles are pretty broad and it takes a bit of experimenting to create a Cine1-4 preference (I'm still experimenting with Cine2 and Cine4).

240fps is amazing - enough said.

It won't affect you much as a Nikon user but the Metabones II adaptor opens up Canon L lens shooting, unlike the non-existant Birger.

Olof has a good handle extension and Berkey has some good add-ons.

I suspect someone at Sony saw a Panavision and decided we needed a long eyepiece - there's a mod to shorten it to a more reasonable length.

Final pro is, we've got Postmaster - you'll meet Frank soon enough!

Regards,
Scott
 
Last edited:
Main advantages of FS700 would include:
1. Super-Slow-Mo
2. Upgradeability to 4K at some point in the future, although we know nothing of what that will cost or what capabilities it will have
3. Larger sensor for a wider field of view and slightly shallower DOF (about 1/2 f-stop shallower)
4. Perhaps sharper, although i'd have to quantify just how much sharper; I found the FS100 not much different but the FS700 has a new 4K sensor
5. Extreme gain is cleaner so you can shoot in darker scenarios

Main advantages to AF100 include:
1. It's half the price, or less.
2. Real video camera form factor instead of bloated-DSLR-with-a-tube form factor
3. No color moire; the FS series can exhibit some color moire.
4. Syncro scan for infinite shutter speeds.
5. Really, it's mainly that the AF100 is less than half the price, so it's in a different league. The FS700 is a class above, it does all the important stuff (SDI, built-in ND's, etc) and it has a 4K sensor with an upgrade path to raw. It's $8,000 vs. $3,500 and it does mostly everything the AF100 does, plus (as you'd expect for the higher price) it does more. I hated the FS100's form factor and (lack of) usability, but I would say the FS700 is probably the most interesting camera in Sony's lineup. Still don't like the goofy box form factor with that mockable tube, but 4K potential, raw, larger sensor, proper SDI and ND filters... it's probably the most usable, most interesting product in the Sony lineup (to me).
 
Hi Scott and Barry

Thanx to both of you .

Scott mentioned DR and Barry didnt? DR is something I am very interested in.. particularly the highlight end.

Neither of you offered up a subjective opinion on the image.

Slo mo... very interested in that for my usual line of work.

(BTW - I am not even considering giving upon my AF102 - just considering another tool in the kit)
 
Regarding DR, say in an interview in a shaded area and highlights in the background, I set my zebra to 100% and never let it exceed that level, whereas in the past I would think, just blow the background out a bit. Now I raise the black level in setup and watch the histogram land around 50ire. First few experiments were nervous, seeing a darker monitor but the minute it's in post, with only FCPX color grading, I'm able to pop the details like never before on the AF.

Nature stuff, I always use a .6 grad on the sky but now I'm even more pleased with the range possible shooting flat with selective grading.

Hadn't planned on it but a guy offered me $3300 for the AF and I jumped on it plus I sold my HVX200 a week earlier for $1500. Then I sold my other HD, Harley Davidson, for $4k so I paid for the '700 thru CraigsList (no pun intended). I'm feeling a bit exposed with no backup though I do have my 7D if needed - Canon just added variable audio controls with a free firmware upgrade.

Barry's right, FS700 is a highlight of the Sony line these days - it remains to be seen how soon and how much the 4k output will cost us but frankly, the output right now is exceptional and I do like having the 1.5 crop factor rather than the AF100 2.0 or the BMD 2.4 crop.

Regarding slo-mo, I jumped all over 240fps in the beginning but have now discovered a fondness for 120 - just another tool, as you say.

edit: I bought the Voigtlander nikon/nex adaptor ($179) and it's tight as a drum. I have all 'D' lenses so I don't need iris control.
 
Last edited:
FS100 is probably a better comparison to the AF100 given similar pricing, but that may not be relevant if you own an AF100 and are thinking of upgrading to the FS700.

In my experience with the AF100, it has a lot of trouble with highlights. No matter what you do they look pretty horrible unless you can avoid blowing out highlights or even getting close to blown out. For me that's all I need to know about the camera, since I used it on many shoots for a couple production companies that bought AF100s and on one even the Director saw how bad the highlights were and complained so they switched back to the 7D's they were using before.

Besides that, the AF100 draws a bit more power than the FS700 and uses smaller capacity batteries.

Then again the AF100 is half the price, half the sensor area, and about a year and a half older.

I would take issue with a couple of Barry's comparisons:

AF100 is not a "real video camera" form factor, its a real handycam form factor which has always been pretty lacking ergonomically in my opinion. I suppose there may be more people around that are used to that form factor since it has been around longer, but obviously whether one prosumer form factor or another is better is quite subjective. I personally prefer the FS700 formfactor with the rotating hand grip and top mounted LCD, though I never use the EVF and I often find myself in situations where it can be handy to see the LCD from the right side of the camera. Then again I also find situations where I wish I could see the LCD better from below the camera so there are tradeoffs to any LCD positioning.

With the FS700, you can move the side grip forward with a rosette, put a mini ball head on the front most coldshoe and put a 3rd party EVF on that and have a nice shouldercam form factor without too many extra bits and pieces and you still get the functionality of the hand grip buttons like the rec, photo, and expanded focus buttons and zoom rocker. The best you can do with an AF100 is put it on a big shoulder rig with grips and add an EVF which takes more equipment to give you a bulkier configuration and less functionality. And in that configuration, an AC or anyone else can still monitor from the built-in LCD, whereas in a similar balanced shoulder rig position, the built in LCD and EVF are no longer useable at all.

The FS700 is not 1/2 stop shallower DOF conversion, its closer to 1 stop shallower DOF compared to the AF100.

I have seen more evidence of aliasing in the AF100 than in the FS700. I'd be interested to see any tests that show otherwise though. In my experience, the AF100 seemed to do line skipping or binning of some sort, probably because it uses a 12MP sensor designed for still cameras, whereas the FS700 has a 4k sensor designed for video.

On the other hand, the FS700 has some issues with artifacting in high contrast edges and some odd color shifts in brightly colored highlights.

The FS700 cine gamma curves and DR and low light performance are leaps and bounds ahead of the gamma curves in the AF100. Then again the $800 GH2 has gamma curves that are leaps and bounds ahead of the AF100 gamma curves.

Oh yeah and 240fps doesnt hurt. Nor does the prospect of a 4k raw upgrade option.
 
Last edited:
I guess S+Q gives 1second TL?

--

On choosing the cameras it is woth considering the lens investment if you have one.

For example moving from fullframe to S35 I need to buy a $700 18mm lens to complete my prime set - a smaller sensor i needed a wider lens than the 24 which I was happy with on the 5d

Each sensor size has different attributes lens wise.

For example the 18-200 sony kit lens is extremely cheap and useful.. on the FS

the SL magic 12mm will give a pretty unique look .. on the AF

A $200 manual 35-70 is really good interview lens on the FS, maybe a little long on the AF, or maybe a really useful mid tele on the AF

S
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top