Quieting down... Something special

TheReverend

TheReverend

Well-known member
It's kinda nice to have all the camera pixel-peeping kids out of the AF100 forum and in the XdCAM forum drooling over the F3. Of course it's good to have more great cameras coming out. More choices more competition.

I truly think that despite the recent Sony announcements and footage, the specialness of the AF100 has in no way been dulled. What you get for under $5000 is a bargain! And I really do believe that we haven't even seen or really scratched the surface of what the AF's imagery is capable of. In many ways, i wish that Panny would have done exactly what Sony did and given the camera an ideal situation with a good DP and story. That kind of stuff can go a long way in capturing people's attention and favor.

That being said, I excitedly await more footage from the AF, and still plan on getting one or maybe two early next year. A $16000 cam doesn't tempt me, and a Sony box cam for more than the AF doesn't either. Until I see another large sensor cam at $5000, I'm sold on the AF100!
 
I agree a proper shot video just like the way it will be used would boost sales even more. I'm also confident this camera will be a great tool for me coming from HVX200 and DSLR shooting. It's like a combo of both in the same body. There's always something better to be had but for now the AF101 will do nicely.
 
Agreed.
I was floored by the F3 as well. However, you must step back and realize what went into that shoot.
4:4:4 , a 5 digit lens ($$$), crazy high bit rate recording.
The AF will be just fine in the right hands with nice glass.
Apples to Oranges IMO...I just want to start eating some fruit!
 
editman said:
. I'm also confident this camera will be a great tool for me coming from HVX200 and DSLR shooting. It's like a combo of both in the same body. There's always something better to be had but for now the AF101 will do nicely.
Click to expand...

Exactly my feeling too- combining most of the best bits of my 7D and HVX200 in a package with video camera ergonomics. The best camera in the world? Of course not. But the best match to my own shooting needs for the next year or two? Yes, it should do nicely. Especially since it is affordable too. The technology is moving so fast that I'd be wary of spending much more on a camera body right now (it is only a matter of time before codecs like AVCHD are consigned to the dustbin by vastly increased data rates on cheap media for example). Better to buy the tool today to do the job you need today. I'll invest extra cash in on screen talent, locations, and start building up a collection of PL-mount lenses as that seems to be a forming consensus on a longer-lived format for lenses at least.

Looking forward to getting my hands on one at an event my local dealer is organising in a couple of weeks.

Cheers, Hywel.
 
Last edited:
My last two cameras were the HVX200 and then the Canon 5D. Last spring, before the AF-100 was announced, I kept telling people that I loved aspects of the Canon 5D but I really missed my HVX200. I said that I wished that somebody would come out with a combination of the two.
A few months later, the AF-100 was announced. I can't think of a better answer than that.
I'm sure that I'll sell the AF-100 a couple of years down the line, but it will have more than paid for itself by then.
 
Johnf said:
Agreed.
I was floored by the F3 as well. However, you must step back and realize what went into that shoot.
4:4:4 , a 5 digit lens ($$$), crazy high bit rate recording.
The AF will be just fine in the right hands with nice glass.
Apples to Oranges IMO...I just want to start eating some fruit!
Click to expand...


It was recorded in 4:2:2, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference if they posted an offline grade from the xdcam ex files, especially with the really high contrast grade that was on it. Vimeos bitrate is like 1.5mbps, the giant compression blocks and color detail sapping make it hard to really look into stuff. if the sr was being projected on a 2k screen, then that would be a different story...
 
Lots of new things have been thrown into the mix to stir stuff up and distract; it's amazing to me just how incredibly short the windows of attention are nowadays. Remember when Solomon Chase announced his Noktor lens? He announced it on, I think, the 15th of the month, with delivery to occur on the 1st of the next month. Three days later (three days!) someone was calling the Noktor "vaporware". Even though it delivered exactly when he said it would!

Sony's done a good job of disrupting the AF100's path to launch, that's for sure. But the AF100 will be here in about five weeks, whereas the F3 is unaffordable for most, and the NXCAM is a computer rendering, not a camera you can buy, so ... yes it's quieted down in here, but it'll heat up when units start arriving, when people start showing their work, and when the time comes for people to actually consider pulling the money out of their wallets to make a buy. That's the point where a $4700 AF100, vs. a $16,000 F3, is going to separate the talkers from the do-ers. Lots and lots of folks spend endless time debating the merits of ferrari vs. lamborghini, but when they get in their car, it's a Nissan or a Toyota or a Subaru.

The way I look at it, the AF100 is the one you buy. The F3 is the one you rent.
 
Barry_Green said:
Lots and lots of folks spend endless time debating the merits of ferrari vs. lamborghini, but when they get in their car, it's a Nissan or a Toyota or a Subaru.

The way I look at it, the AF100 is the one you buy. The F3 is the one you rent.
Click to expand...

Great Quote Barry. It's fun to dream, but in the end it all comes down to what you can afford. I'll still look at the big camera's and car's and think, only if I could be at the level of work to use those.
 
Barry_Green said:
The way I look at it, the AF100 is the one you buy. The F3 is the one you rent.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. F3 without lens package is $16K, my Sony dealer said closer to $15K. So really $10K over the price of the AF100. Many people would rather invest in something like that so they dont have to rent. One thing yourself and Philip stressed (regarding the performance of the AF100 in Japan) is a camera system takes time to learn. So, now add in another $1-2K in renting the camera just for testing purposes and the renting option doesn't look so great.

that said. if your budget is $5K the af100 is the best camera right now on the market. it comes with a 2.5 pound (!) package and has a nice codec (so no $3K nano needed). If I didn't have the funds to buy the F3 I'd go for the AF100.
 
Barry_Green said:
The way I look at it, the AF100 is the one you buy. The F3 is the one you rent.
Click to expand...

Agreed. One can own three AF100 cameras for the price of one F3. There's no contest. No way that the image of the F3 is three times better. 15% better? Sure. 25% better? Maybe. But not 300%. No way.

I'd get the AF100, and then $10000 worth of lighting and lenses before getting an F3 body.
 
vagarob said:
I don't know about that. F3 without lens package is $16K, my Sony dealer said closer to $15K. So really $10K over the price of the AF100. Many people would rather invest in something like that so they dont have to rent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but... I think there's a lot more to it than that. The F3 might be sold as a camcorder body, but in reality it's best thought of as a camera head. XDCAM-EX is not a format that I'd want to use on a $16,000 body. It's not even as good as AVCCAM PH mode. I think AVCCAM is fine for a $4700 body, but I sure would expect something better on something 3x the price. I don't think XDCAM-EX, at 8-bit 4:2:0, is going to take proper advantage of what you're paying the extra money for on the F3. Like I said, it's like buying a championship racehorse and feeding it McDonald's french fries.

As a total workable system, the AF100, with a battery and a couple of Lumix lenses, you're up and shooting for six thousand. With the F3, to get a reasonable system, it's going to be more. At the bare minimum you're going to want/need/demand at least a Ki Pro mini or a NanoFlash, and Sony's making a memory-recording HDCAM-SR recording deck for it. Then there's lenses; people will be using stills lenses on the AF100, but I doubt many F3 buyers are going to be content using stills lenses. It's all a matter of perspective and getting what's appropriate.

The Red One cost $17,500 at the time, and to get a barely functional rig you had to add at least a power system, a monitor, a recording format and a Nikon mount. So you could get something that could technically record footage, for $20,000-$22,000. But that would be such a waste. Nobody did that; I don't know if Red ever released the stats on their "average purchase" but I would seriously wager that Red One buyers spent an average of $30,000 to $40,000 on their kits, and that's with a basic lens, not even "real" glass.

I don't know if you're following along, but it's like the girl-next-door vs. the Victoria's Secret Underwear Model girlfriend. The girl next door might be plenty happy with shopping at Kohl's and eating at Olive Garden and SuperCuts, but the VSUM is gonna demand designer clothes from Nordstrom and $400 hair appointments and first-class airfare and she isn't gonna stay at the Red Roof Inn when you go on vacation.

I mean, you can TRY taking the VSUM to McDonald's, but ... it's just not how things are done, y'know?
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't know if you're following along, but it's like the girl-next-door vs. the Victoria's Secret Underwear Model girlfriend. The girl next door might be plenty happy with shopping at Kohl's and eating at Olive Garden and SuperCuts, but the VSUM is gonna demand designer clothes from Nordstrom and $400 hair appointments and first-class airfare and she isn't gonna stay at the Red Roof Inn when you go on vacation.
Click to expand...

So the question is, would you rather spend the money on a Victoria Secret model, or a new camera? :)

i agree though. I don't even know why people are comparing the F3 to the AF100 anymore. Early on, there was a lot of confusion (I thought the F3 was sony's AF100 contender as well). but now things have changed. The AF100 offers small size and weight without needing the Frankenstein rigs of a DSLR.

On the flip side, some AF100 fans are bashing the F3 like its only good using $100K lens sets and $60K recording decks. People also dump $300K to tweak a $180K Ferrari. Ultimately the tweaks help but its still the stock Ferrari that is doing most of the work. Considering the Cinedeck is $10K (4:4:4) and the Nano is (4:2:2) are two cheaper alternatives to a $60K recorder.

I also don't get this $100K lens set thing either. Some major movies have been made using two primes for the entire movie. There are several well done art movies made using just one focal length. Just because Arri, Cooke, and Leica offer $100K-200K sets doesn't mean you need to buy or rent them all.


F3 with 3 lens set - $22K
Duclos 11-16 - $3,500
Cinedeck - $10K

so for $35K you get an amazing camera, four lenses, and a 4:4:4 recorder... or a barely functional red one for the same price.
 
vagarob said:
I don't know about that. F3 without lens package is $16K, my Sony dealer said closer to $15K. So really $10K over the price of the AF100. Many people would rather invest in something like that so they dont have to rent. One thing yourself and Philip stressed (regarding the performance of the AF100 in Japan) is a camera system takes time to learn. So, now add in another $1-2K in renting the camera just for testing purposes and the renting option doesn't look so great.

that said. if your budget is $5K the af100 is the best camera right now on the market. it comes with a 2.5 pound (!) package and has a nice codec (so no $3K nano needed). If I didn't have the funds to buy the F3 I'd go for the AF100.
Click to expand...
You do have to take into account, if you had an AF100, what would you really want or need to rent an F3 for? If you want higher quality than the $5000 entry price, a simple device gets you 4:2:2, and significantly larger grading potential with higher end codec. And that is at the $7000-8000 point. F3 is still $15000 alone for XDCAMEX... Is it REALLY worth it? That's the question, and I think after we see some better production shoots with the AF100, the answer is going to be mostly no.
 
Well, the price point does largely dictate what they can offer. You do, frequently, get what you pay for. I'm sure that with equivalent lenses, equivalent scenes, etc., the F3 would deliver better footage. I mean, it has to -- it costs 3x as much! If it doesn't look substantially better, then they screwed up bigtime and should be embarrassed. So of course the F3 should look better. The question that it always comes down to is -- how much better, and do you need that extra bit? Some folks will. Some won't. For some folks, the F3 wouldn't be worth shooting on, they'd need and demand the F35. For others, the AF100 will be more than enough. And, for some, the DSLR will deliver all that they need.

Point is, these products all exist within their price brackets for some very good reasons.
 
I think the F100 is going to be a very effective tool for me. I do mid level corporate and safety videos, as well as a lot of tourism promo for the State of NH.

My budgets easily allow for this camera. My current stable of cams are EX1R, EX3, 5DmkII and a 7D as well as a couple "crash cams". I will be selling the 7D. I would love to have the F3 but frankly I can't currently justify it. In my mind your clients drive your equipment needs.

I shoot a lot with the NanoFlash and the XDcams. I have to be very picky what shots I can use the DSLRs for to avoid the known problems. The 5DmkII is still a fantastic camera. But I see the AF100 as a replacement for the 7D, and a much better one at that. I will be able to use my old FD and FL lenses right away and soon my L's, GREAT.

I like having the small sensor matched pair of EXcams, but the SDOF is another great tool, my guess is 50% of my shooting will now be with the AF100, I was only using the 5 and 7 10% of the time, because they are a pain to work with really. I hope to figure out how to match the PP's in all these cams, I can now match the XD's and the DSLR's pretty well.

Just a few thoughts as the sun is setting here in NH. Here is a shot from my live web cam looking out from my studio.
wavecam.jpg


Here is a live link: http://www.westsidestudios.com/KEYcam/WaveWEBcam.html
 
Last edited:
Fohdeesha said:
It was recorded in 4:2:2, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference if they posted an offline grade from the xdcam ex files, especially with the really high contrast grade that was on it. Vimeos bitrate is like 1.5mbps, the giant compression blocks and color detail sapping make it hard to really look into stuff. if the sr was being projected on a 2k screen, then that would be a different story...
Click to expand...


well what do you know, he posted the offline. and more so, it still looks fantastic, just as I presumed it would

http://convergenceblog.co.uk/?p=87

massive chroma information and bitrates don't matter when it ends up on 1.5mbps vimeo people!
 
Well, since I can't come close to affording to purchase the Sony F3, my decision is pretty easy - AF100.

At this rate, there will be more awesome cameras coming down the pike, so even if I could spend nearly $15,000 on the Sony, I wouldn't want to right now. Also, Scarlet has to be getting close by now (next year maybe)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top