significant advantages on the F3 over AF100 to justify the cost

M

maltess2

Well-known member
Hi guys

I am planning to but a F3 or a AF100, to move a little inte the digital film world, I am a panasonic user , so I am amaking a desition here. The F3 cost double price, besides more professional ports, is there a significant advantage in the image to pay this double price? I know the sensor is differren super 25 vs. Micro 4/3 (something like that) what´s the thing with this? and then I heard about the crop thing in the AF100, is this a problem?

Thanks a lot!

cheers
 
The ability to shoot Slog with the update. Much better low light sensitivity. Those things put it in Alexa category.
 
It sounds like money is not the issue. If true, go for the Sony CineAlta F3. The rest of us in the quest for best bang for our buck will ponder the AF100 vs. FS100 decision.
 
If you even need to think about it go for the FS100. Either one is petty cash for serious jobs and the edge of the F3 in IQ, IO, frame rate(?) color depth is pretty clear.
For web video, low end music videos it won't make a difference but will break you financially.
 
Check out Phillip Bloom's eval of the F3, FS100, and AF100 (and 5D). If dynamic range is important, there's no comparison, the F3 blows the others away. That seems to be the biggest advantage of the F3 (plus true 10-bit color). But of course there are some trade-offs, money being the biggest. The sensor size difference between m4/3 and super 35 is not that noticeable, you'll get slightly shallower DOF at the same angle of view with the F3 (or FS100), but not many people will notice the difference.
 
The SCCE test put the F3 at one more stop of DR over the AF 100 and a few more lines of Rez.

10 bit color is great but you can't record it in camera, so you're buying another add on for the F3 Cam. Biggest mystery to me is why no overcrank in 1080 with the F3? For the price diffeence between the AF and F3 I would think that would have to be a given feature of the F3.
 
One of the bigger factors in deciding to go with the AF100 for our documentary work is the ND filter wheel. While the FS100 doesn't appeal to me, we are considering some dramatic work with the F3/S-Log, or Alexa(s).

Regards,
Bern
 
marlontorres said:
It's more than triple the price with S-LOG.
Click to expand...
It's 4x the price when you count in S-Log. An F3 with S-Log is about $20k, the AF100 is less than $5k.

The F3 has more menu controls, a sharper image, better sensitivity, and the ability to use S-Log and 4:4:4 output. Those are the substantial advantages. And they are advantages, to be sure. The question you have to ask is: are those advantages worth 4x the price? For some the answer may be yes, for some the answer may be no. And the next thing to ask is: is a bare F3 body with S-Log, worth more than an AF100 with $15,000 of lights, sound equipment, monitors, grip gear, tripods, etc. etc.
 
For me it came down to price - for the cost of one F3 with 3 prime lenses I bought two AF-102s with NanoFlashes and a fist full of still lenses. Yes I sometimes curse the workings of the various still lenses compared to cinema lenses but my clients have been happy with what I've given them.

If money isn't an issue - buy an Alexa.
 
optitek said:
If you even need to think about it go for the FS100. Either one is petty cash for serious jobs and the edge of the F3 in IQ, IO, frame rate(?) color depth is pretty clear.
For web video, low end music videos it won't make a difference but will break you financially.
Click to expand...

For me, is mainly documentary job and then renting the camera, what do you mean with the F3 being clear?
 
Beyond technical specifications we should be sharp business people. Although in some ways the F3 is clearly a superior camera the question I asked myself was would a client be willing to pay three times as much to use an F3 over an AF 100? I concluded they would not. I'd rather recover my camera investment in the shortest period to prepare myself for the next latest, greatest camera. Another little saying that has served me well down through the years is "close enough" and the AF 100 is.
 
PaPa said:
The ability to shoot Slog with the update. Much better low light sensitivity. Those things put it in Alexa category.
Click to expand...

Lets be clear for a moment. Right now, as far as actually cameras that can be purchased rather easily and put to work the Alexa is pretty much the high water mark at this time: 14 stops DR, 800 ISO, all the image QUALITY you could want. The Alexa is darned close to film in some respects and surpassing in others. I'm sure the EPIC with exceed the Alexa in many respects, and while there are EPICS out in the wild, they are not in general release yet.

The F3, from what I have seen from the SCCE test, is NOT an Alexa. The F3 is really good for the money but it isn't an Alexa and it won't ever be one.
 
Why do you think the Epic would exceed the Alexa? The SCCE had a Red One MX sensor in it, and while it looked good, it certainly didn't exceed the Alexa in anything but raw resolution (where, of course, the 4K system dominated over the 2K/1080p competition).
 
Barry_Green said:
Why do you think the Epic would exceed the Alexa? The SCCE had a Red One MX sensor in it, and while it looked good, it certainly didn't exceed the Alexa in anything but raw resolution (where, of course, the 4K system dominated over the 2K/1080p competition).
Click to expand...


Its just a hunch, nothing really beyond that. The EPIC does embody a form of HDR which will extend dynamic range, and it does have more resolution than the Arri, though I didn't feel at any time like the Alexa was soft....

Arri is pretty much Killing it with the Alexa right now and for good reason. They have a camera that produces fabulous images, that has pretty much worked out of the box even though not all features were enabled. Arri has stuck to their road map in terms of enabling the features they promised, now if they could only get the Alexa power consumption down to 40 watts it would be amazing.

Red has improved quite a bit though the path to where they are now has been tortuous, essentially using their customer base as an extended group of beta testers for a long period of time. They have come a long way and there still may be room for significant improvement with the EPIC.

I don't know, I could be wrong .

THe Alexa is really the cream at this point in an overall sense.
 
The EPIC does embody a form of HDR which will extend dynamic range
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the HDR thing is only for times when it'll work. It's not a general-purpose thing. If it was, it wouldn't even be optional, they'd just enable it all the time.

Watch the SCCE though, watch the segment with the blown-out window. I heard from someone who worked on it that the window was lit seven stops overexposed. And the Alexa held it like it was no big deal -- simply amazing.
 
I purchased the AF100 back in January. I was very pleased. Great for most of my work. However I was not quite happy with the image for bigger work like TV spots. So I just purchased the F3 and a kit of Zeiss CP's. Just shot my first stuff with it this week. Amazing picture, amazing camera. I'll be using BOTH cameras. The AF100 is much easier to hand hold to shoot with and is great for tight places and the image quality is fantastic. I'll use it for things that go to the web or direct to DVD. But when I need/want higher quality, especially when doing lots of post color work and FX the F3 will be my camera of choice.

I also don't have a zoom for the F3 yet, unless someone can find me an adaptor for my Olympus 35-100 so I can mount it to the F3. The zoom is great for interviews. I don't plan on retiring the AF100 quite yet. Is the F3 worth the extra cash? In my mind it was. Now I can compete with Red and Alexa on picture quality.

There is a place for BOTH cameras. I am very fortunate to have both in my arsenal.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yeah, but the HDR thing is only for times when it'll work. It's not a general-purpose thing. If it was, it wouldn't even be optional, they'd just enable it all the time.

Watch the SCCE though, watch the segment with the blown-out window. I heard from someone who worked on it that the window was lit seven stops overexposed. And the Alexa held it like it was no big deal -- simply amazing.
Click to expand...


I saw that the Alexa was clearly superior in DR at the SCCE test. Nothing else was really that close, except maybe kodak, especially if one were to see a projected print struck from the original negative.

I'm perhaps cutting RED some slack with the EPIC which would be out of character for me, but it just might be a camera that works. The Alexa However does work.
 
D10S said:
I also don't have a zoom for the F3 yet, unless someone can find me an adaptor for my Olympus 35-100 so I can mount it to the F3.
Click to expand...
That Olympus lens will not cover the F3 sensor; it's made for the 4/3 sensor of the AF100 and it's bretheren.
 
Mark Smith said:
I saw that the Alexa was clearly superior in DR at the SCCE test. Nothing else was really that close, except maybe kodak, especially if one were to see a projected print struck from the original negative.
Click to expand...
The film was totally amazing in the overexposure latitude, but just awful in the shadow latitude. I think that was one of the most eye-opening moments for most viewers of the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top