RED One MX vs PANASONIC AF101 vs CANON 5D

I don't know about other people but... To my taste, AF101 is way superior. Too much brightness and too little contrast for RED, not to mention color depth... Everything is too pale. I know all about cne look and stuff but, this is too much. 5D has too much contrast and shadows become too dark IMHO. But I guess either camera could be tweeked to look more like the other, if one wants... Not sure though.
 
RED wins by far, with a RAW image you can make RED look like anything, even a AF100. You would have a VERY hard time having a AF100 look like RED though. It's like comparing video to film, such a huge difference.
 
It's a pretty pointless comparison if you take into consideration that the Red is DESIGNED to shoot as flat as possible so you have the most to work with. Look at the details in the Red image, it is FAR superior in detail. If you graded all three images, I bet you'd get a ton more detail in the Red, which of course makes sense, it is also higher resolution to start with.

But, as I said, how can you really compare them? Each camera works better at certain settings than each other. I've used the 5Dm2 and AF100 and they don't work the same AT ALL in terms of exposing and in camera settings to get what you want for final grading. I am SURE the Red is also MUCH different as I said.

The only way to even get close to comparing them is shoot each camera with the best settings for a scene with the same grade in mind and then grade them all the same to hit that target. Pick something challenging if you want, but you've got to decide what matters. Do you allow blown highlights? Do you allow patterns that will Moire? How much of the shadows will you try and use?

If anything can be drawn from this, they all shoot nice images :) I love my 7D still, even though I own the AF100. But, I'd take the Red HANDS DOWN over my AF100 (or any Canon DSLR).
 
Mikungfu said:
Too much brightness and too little contrast for RED, not to mention color depth... Everything is too pale.
Click to expand...

The video specifies that the footage is untouched and ungraded. What you're looking at is the RAW image from RED, which means you could change nearly anything about it. More contrast, more saturated colors, whatever you want. RED is on another level from the other cameras in this demonstration.
 
guys the commentary said that it ws done to show students how shooting flat can be advantageous...its not a who wins thing.
 
*Sponsored by Kodak*

Kidding, but this certainly reminds us how terrible every camera looks if you don't know how to use it or how to light.
 
jambredz said:
guys the commentary said that it ws done to show students how shooting flat can be advantageous...its not a who wins thing.
Click to expand...

But how does it show that? It doesn't to me at least. If I wanted to show that shooting flat was advantageous, then I'd grade the videos as well and show where baked in curves on a low bit depth camera cannot go that far (ie, AF100/5D).
 
Actually this shows us the main issue with all these cameras, the 5D looks bad unless configured correctly, the AF100 looks noisy if you dont give it enough light, and the RED MX does not have proper black levels or can look odd if you use whatever workflow they were using.

Moral of the story is, configure your camera right, give it enough light, and make sure you test and understand your post workflow.
 
It's like saying a Porsche beats a Ford Explorer or a bottle fine wine beats a jug of iced tea. As others have said, they serve different purposes to different markets. Regardless of the type of camera (or any other type of gear), don't presume that just because it meets all your criteria for what is superior, that your criteria for what is superior is the same... and thus the end all to be all... as everyone else.

Because a bottle of wine and a Porsche, regardless of their merits, won't be very useful to me on my next hunting trip.
 
I like the colors on the 5Dll...that is until you look at the skin tone. The colors were a bit oversaturated but...that's Canon. It's image lacked the obvious resolution though. The AF100 looked good... It was sharper than the others (please don't jump all over me for saying that...sharpness is different from details). I would have turned sharpness all the way down...(unless of course he did). The Red looked superior...even in its raw look. The image was so detailed...yet...softish (like film ). I like that. The skin tone was flat....but that's kind of the image I would like to start out with.

Is it me...or did the AF100 look like it could see better in the dark than the other two?
 
REDMX-5DII-AF101.jpg


The RED is beyond the others. However the 5D looks nice- The AF100 DR looks like crap. Good old video camera look.... The GH1 hack or not looks better as for DR goes. The GH2 even more so. Panasonic needs to let go of it's holding to video broadcast specs , and start designing cameras that are photo imagery centric. Broadcast spec and it's look is the past.

The reason that the DSLR's like the GH2 produce better images, is the fact that those cameras are competing with the Holy Grail of imagery. It's about time that Video camera makers step it up and start doing
same.

Pappas
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
^looks like the af100 is overexdposed to me. Adjust camera or lighting for exposure and the af100 will look quite nice in this shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top