The FS100 - A different perspective.

Barry,
My point is, that both companies say the word HDSLR when describing their product. EVERY SINGLE VIDEO by the marketing department compares these cameras to HDSLR's. So, who is really the target market when it comes to the marketing program as dictated by the marketing manager?
To quote you "Why not just ask Jan what her official marketing position is on what the AF100 is and who it's aimed at?"
I don't have to. It's on youtube, many times.

So going back to the point of what is a professional camera. I said the one in the professionals hands. The argument was that the AF100 has HD/SDI out, so therefore it's professional, and the FS100 is not. Would you consider a HVX200 professional? I have one, and have done many professional jobs with it. Sure, it has an awesome codec. Even if I had a Red Epic, I still will not sell my HVX! NEVER! It's trusty.
The FS100, too me, is just as professional as the AF100. Just as the GH2 is just as professional as the FS100. It's just how you use it and know the "limitations" and understanding them.

Love ya Barry! I really do. And you're right, it is silly. It's silly to sit and compare what camera is better when one of them is not even available yet. RED scarlet will blow all of them away. Wait! Scarlet has never produced more than 2.5 seconds of motion that we've seen? ****! Red Scarlet vrs. Gh2? Crap!
This camera, that camera, it's endless. But a single feature (HD/SDI) to me cannot determine if a camera is pro or not....
 
S. Matthews said:
in terms of HD broadcast cam's it is definitly not professional feature level, but I don't think that is what it is meant to be. Not saying it is pro, just that buit in ND is a broadcast cam feature not many in cine style cam's (that I know of) and apparently it has timecode through hdmi but we are not sure on that yet so why the speculation of what it isn't before we know what it really is?

I could be wrong but we did fine with film camera's with no built in ND's for a while, as well as many of the other features that now define a "pro" camera whatever that is.


have a good one! exciting times ahead... and now, have fun!
Click to expand...

Not that im complaining BUT.... The F3/FS100 only go down to ISO 580 @ -3dB. Thats WAAAAAAAY too sensitive for use in daylight. The F3 has the filters built in so knocking it down to an effective ISO50 is no sweat. The FS will need A LOT of ND in broad daylight. especially to shoot wide open. Think about it, on a sunny day, @ 180 degree shutter @ 24p:

IN broad daylight, you will need, using the Sunny F16 rule: @ f16 ISO 100 @ 1/50th a sec shutter. So to shoot @ a T2.8 you need six stops of ND. but wait... the FS is ISO 580 @ -3dB...... so make that 9 stops of ND. THATS ND 2.7!!!!!!!! thats INSANE!!!!!!!! Thats like $700-$1000 in good quality ND.......

the reason it wasnt a big deal in film days was you can get 50ASA daylight stock.
 
TimurCivan said:
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.
Click to expand...

Well, food for thought. Is the camera worth 6 grand?

But Timur, let me ask you a question -

If you were given an FS100 (with a PL adapter, of course) to shoot a successful film, music video or commercial - could you do it?
All conjecture, of course, until we get real production models out there.
 
vanvideo said:
Well, food for thought. Is the camera worth 6 grand?

But Timur, let me ask you a question -

If you were given an FS100 (with a PL adapter, of course) to shoot a successful film, music video or commercial - could you do it?
All conjecture, of course, until we get real production models out there.
Click to expand...


Ok. Heres my point... i COULD do it.... but its would be more difficult. So with the plethora of choices.... why?

Why choose to work so much harder, and add to the complexity of the film set.
 
Since Barry brought up the Hendrix analogy which I agree with....I'll say this to add another element to the metaphor. Kurt Cobain played on pawn shop guitars....that LATER....became "serious" guitars again in the eyes of players. Now Kurt was no Jimi....but he made his mark another way. Many of us will play/shoot on whatever we can afford at the time and make money doing it, so in that respect the tool is a professional tool....and as far as the FS100 being pro or not - that depends on the user and his/her needs. I do get that the FS100 has less of the pro standard feature set than the AF100.....but a Fender Mustang (one of Cobain's pawn shop specials) was not as "quality" as a Strat.
If you don't need the HD SDI and don't mind adding NDs....I'm sure the FS100 can play just fine.
 
TimurCivan said:
Not that im complaining BUT.... The F3/FS100 only go down to ISO 580 @ -3dB. Thats WAAAAAAAY too sensitive for use in daylight. The F3 has the filters built in so knocking it down to an effective ISO50 is no sweat. The FS will need A LOT of ND in broad daylight. especially to shoot wide open. Think about it, on a sunny day, @ 180 degree shutter @ 24p:

IN broad daylight, you will need, using the Sunny F16 rule: @ f16 ISO 100 @ 1/50th a sec shutter. So to shoot @ a T2.8 you need six stops of ND. but wait... the FS is ISO 580 @ -3dB...... so make that 9 stops of ND. THATS ND 2.7!!!!!!!! thats INSANE!!!!!!!! Thats like $700-$1000 in good quality ND.......

the reason it wasnt a big deal in film days was you can get 50ASA daylight stock.
Click to expand...

OK, so I found a good 2.8 Zeiss zoom lens that would fit to an a-mount adapter on the FS100. To fit a circular ND 2.7 filter, I found a Hoya 77mm, B&H cost - $136.35. Would this be adequate ?

I couldn't find 4x4 filters in 2.7, but I did find one in 3.0 for $83.50 and 2.4 for 164.95.
 
Last edited:
TimurCivan said:
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.
Click to expand...

But put the shoe on the other foot. You are paying $12k for a PL mount, genlock, ND filter and an HDSDI port? Maybe I think you are getting ripped off! :P (Yes, I know there is more than that, I'm just pointing out how others feel as well). I do not need genlock, I do not need PL mount, but I'd miss the ND filter and HDSDI port. That said, I think the ND filter implentation on the F3 is poorly conceived compared to the AF100 ND filter selection which works perfect for me. Why doesn't the F3 have a larger professional selection of built in ND? (And yes, I put professional in there to be snarky) :)

We can go at this all day because it's all opinion based on personal need. Why do SO MANY people use Matte boxes with 4x4 ND filters? Are they not professional? Not every camera in history has had built in ND filters. I am sure we can find a HUGE selection of cameras in history considered professional without ND.

Like I said, at what point do you say "It's missing 5 professional features, it's not professional". It's the same way I feel about the F3 and you needing an external recorder to get higher quality output from the camera. That DOES NOT interest me one bit, period. Sure, that's the design intent, but how many people have complained about using a DSLR and having to hang additional hardware off your rig to "make it professional". So it's okay to hang off an external recorder since the camera cannot handle recording higher quality video internally, but not when the camera records say inferior sound? Everything has tradeoffs. A $12k camera like the F3 is less elegant to me than say the Red Epic implementation. But I don't think it makes the F3 not professional.

It just makes me laugh, because everyone's requirements are not the same. Everyone's value add of features is not the same, yet everyone feels like they can decide what is professional or not. I'll decide that thank you :)
 
Rick Burnett said:
But put the shoe on the other foot. You are paying $12k for a PL mount, genlock, ND filter and an HDSDI port? Maybe I think you are getting ripped off! :P
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! those features have never been available in a camera this price before that offered so much. 10bit 422 , Dualink 444 is WELL worth the extra $3500. ITs like... remember the Andromeda? It took a SD DVX100, and made it into one of the most beautiful 720p cameras ever made. It was like RED before RED was RED. "Raw" workflow, amazingly organic images, and a grain that read film. it was the most amazing thing ever. the 444RGB out a F3 is the same thing. but its factory supported and made convenient by things like the SR deck or the Gemini.

And you say missing 5 features makes it non pro... well like, if you cut 5 features from a race car.... will it help the driver win the race?

Yes the car will finish the race but not first. unless hes ricky bobby. then it ALWAYS finishes first.
 
TimurCivan said:
I just see it as, if youre paying 6grand.... and not getting those things... YOU are getting ripped off.... The EX3, AF100, EX1, HPX170, JVC somethign or other... all offer these kinds of functions built in ( save PL mount, *but the F3 comes with it). Thats my issue, its not even a "Prosumer camera!"....

Why are some people content with not having the tools they need? ( mind you i'm talking from the point of view of a DP for Films/commercials) Perhaps you dont need it if you are shooting weddings, events, and sports. Then the FS100 makes total sense.
Click to expand...

So a bunch of suits has agreed to pay you $5 mil for a smaller feature with the condition/requirement that you have to chose either the FS100 or the HPX170. You could outfit the camera any way you would like, other than running a line to an even better camera. You'd still go with the HPX170???
 
Rick Burnett said:
But put the shoe on the other foot. You are paying $12k for a PL mount, genlock, ND filter and an HDSDI port? Maybe I think you are getting ripped off! :P (Yes, I know there is more than that, I'm just pointing out how others feel as well). I do not need genlock, I do not need PL mount, but I'd miss the ND filter and HDSDI port. That said, I think the ND filter implentation on the F3 is poorly conceived compared to the AF100 ND filter selection which works perfect for me. Why doesn't the F3 have a larger professional selection of built in ND? (And yes, I put professional in there to be snarky) :)

We can go at this all day because it's all opinion based on personal need. Why do SO MANY people use Matte boxes with 4x4 ND filters? Are they not professional? Not every camera in history has had built in ND filters. I am sure we can find a HUGE selection of cameras in history considered professional without ND.

Like I said, at what point do you say "It's missing 5 professional features, it's not professional". It's the same way I feel about the F3 and you needing an external recorder to get higher quality output from the camera. That DOES NOT interest me one bit, period. Sure, that's the design intent, but how many people have complained about using a DSLR and having to hang additional hardware off your rig to "make it professional". So it's okay to hang off an external recorder since the camera cannot handle recording higher quality video internally, but not when the camera records say inferior sound? Everything has tradeoffs. A $12k camera like the F3 is less elegant to me than say the Red Epic implementation. But I don't think it makes the F3 not professional.

It just makes me laugh, because everyone's requirements are not the same. Everyone's value add of features is not the same, yet everyone feels like they can decide what is professional or not. I'll decide that thank you :)
Click to expand...

Excellent post! I'm sure to a lot of HIGH HIGH end shooters, NONE of the cameras we're discussing qualify as professional. It is an endless cycle......It reminds me of the lens debates. One man's gold is a vintage Nikon....to the next guy a vintage Nikon is "not suitable" for cinema style shooting.
 
JWVaricam said:
So a bunch of suits has agreed to pay you $5 mil for a smaller feature with the condition/requirement that you have to chose either the FS100 or the HPX170. You could outfit the camera any way you would like, other than running a line to an even better camera. You'd still go with the HPX170???
Click to expand...

That would never happen. :P
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Excellent post! I'm sure to a lot of HIGH HIGH end shooters, NONE of the cameras we're discussing qualify as professional. It is an endless cycle......It reminds me of the lens debates. One man's gold is a vintage Nikon....to the next guy a vintage Nikon is "not suitable" for cinema style shooting.
Click to expand...

+1

I think i lost perspective on whats valuable to some folks. Deal breaker for me, is no sweat to someone else.
 
JWVaricam said:
Chicken.
Click to expand...


Well the truth is man, i would need to run monitors, have exposure tools. There is no winning in that scenario, because the HPX170 is great to work with. but needs a 35 adapter. The FS seems like its great to light with, ( sensitive) but the lack of standard protocols; means thigns like Black magic boxes and converters, and all this other crap. So its like really no wining.

Its about seting up easier, or shooting easier. This is the point. You should not have to make this choice in a 6K camera, when a $4700 AF100 does it ALL.

honestly its a coin toss. The speed i gain in setting up w/ a HPX170, is offset by the 35 adpter. The Speed i gain in lighting w/ the FS is offset by a complicated monitoring, and workarounds for standardizing the ouput and recording.
 
Faders do blow! Use standard ND's instead. The second your fader see sky, your shot is crap. It's a polarizer. It's OK if you don't see sky or polarized material (like blades of grass). Better off with a set of ND's....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top