Tired of DSLR... should I move to the AF100

J

jrod81

Veteran
I've been shooting interviews for a few years with a t2i and I'm just exhausted at the audio work arounds...
Looks like the AF100 are going for $1200-$1500 on ebay and I'm wondering if it is a good camera for interviews or if another camera has surpassed it by now?
I never have lights... just use natural light... I'm trying to show up with as little equipment as possible... I'd love to show up with a lav mic and a camera and that be all... Right now I have a Zoom H4n and cables running all over the place, along with batteries, etc... Just wanting as close to a one stop camera as possible for interviews but don't want to give up my easy to obtain shallow dof of the dslr...
thanks for the input
 
I should add that I've been looking at the GH4 with the XLR add on because I'd still like to use the camera for the "family" soccer game/Disney World etc camera (which i don't think is ideal for the AF100)
 
So a camera with internal H4n quality audio, shallow DOF and long battery life, hmm. Yes you probably want a real video camera to find these as an all-in-one package. The lowest budget large sensor camcorder options from best to worse: used C100 (new is 2900$), used FS100, (new is 2300$), used AF100, I think that's it. All the other options such as GH4/nx1/Ax100/RX10/7D/A7 do not have the audio quality or battery life so get a camcorder since you require these.
 
Well the GH4 with the XLR adapter is 1- Very expensive, 2- Requires external bulky power supply, and you say you want a cheap small/chord-less package.
 
Don't do it!

Look man, if you go to a shoot and suddenly there's no audio recorder to unpack and set up, no ND filters to lay out, no EVF to hitch together...all that extra time on your hands is going to leave you wandering around mumbling to yourself about "how did I ever..." or something, and that does NOT look good in front of your clients or your subjects.


[Heck, the AF100 is down to $1,999 NEW at B&H..]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...af100apj_ag_af100a_digital_cinema_camera.html

Whole Kit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750702-REG/Panasonic_AG_AF100_Starter_Kit.html
 
I have been told several times to get a camcorder instead of a DSLR but this has never been a massive passion of mine... I've done things for side income... quite honestly I learned on a T2i and have stuck with the stupid thing for, geez, I guess nearly a decade now... I had a t4i for a bit but sold it to a friend cause I didn't really see much of a difference... I still use it occasionally too.
I know this sounds lazy but I don't know that I have the energy, interest, or time to learn how to properly use a true camcorder... I fear low light situations mostly... and I can't lose my shallow depth of field (yes I know- scoot back and zoom in)...
Anyway, I'll spend a bit more time looking over the 3 suggestions given to me above (although by price alone I can narrow it down to 2)...
The GH4 is overkill no doubt... I can just use the T2i for family pics...
Shoot, I guess I could look at the 7dii since it has a headphone jack too but I'll just be in the same spot audio wise again...
The Rode Wireless Filmmaker Lav looks like a great choice, but I assume you guys will tell me that has to go thru an audio recorder as well and not directly into a DSLR...
 
I have an AF100 and a G7 with a small screw-on Beachtek XLR adapter. So both cameras use the same mics and same lenses. The G7/Beahtek is much more compact and the sound quality is good to my ears.

Two advantages of using the AF100 are the built-in NDs and being able to monitor audio from the camera (rather than the Beachtek). I use Xume adapters on NDs for my G7, so that's not a big issue. And if you want on camera audio monitoring, the GH4 could provide that.
 
Complete side question, but... why do you never have lights?

but back to the main point, you won't really lose anything in transitioning to an AF100 unless you're one of those Canon folks that just repeats "skin tones skin tones skin tones" until someone politely asks you to stop.
 
I recently dumped a gh4 and bought an AF100 and liking it so far. So many are being sold to buy gh4 cameras. I'm still getting good use for industrial/corporate things with my HPX170. I've used it for tv spots too. I bought the gh4 and all the extras to make it a production camera. I toyed with it for awhile and sent it back after problems with that teeny tiny micro hdmi port. Drew the line at buying another add-on just to prevent tension on a tiny plug. But no doubt gh4 can get great looks and is an inexpensive way to get into the biz.
 
mcbob said:
Complete side question, but... why do you never have lights?
Click to expand...
Must admit I thought that as well - especially for interviews. (Unless maybe they are all done outdoors.) I appreciate you may want to keep things simple and light, but nowadays you can get something like a Ledzilla ( http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/dedolight_dlobml2_ledzilla2_daylight ) which is very light and easy to set up, and will run quite a while on batteries if you don't want mains cables. You won't light a large area with it, but great for giving modelling to a face on an interview.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
So a camera with internal H4n quality audio, shallow DOF and long battery life, hmm.
Click to expand...

- GH4 has internal audio that is equivalent in quality to a H4n recorder, but no XLR inputs or phantom power.

- GH4 has shallow DOF with the appropriate lens.

- GH4 can shoot for 3+ hours on ONE battery.

- Add a Tascam DR-70 recorder to the GH4 and you've got 4 separate channels of XLR with phantom power covered, along with the ability to make two simultaneous audio recordings.

( 4 internal channels with the DR-70 and 2 internal channels with the GH4 )
 
It's fairly horrifying that you don't use lights for corporate, although with enough reflectors and neg and careful subject placement you can usually fake it. Pick up one or two big V mount LED panels. So cheap and so useful. The on-camera lights are horrifyingly bad for shooting decent looking footage. I would go naked rather than with one 10/10. You can get good enough light panels for half of a low day rate, I mean come on, then eventually buy a V mount battery if you really want to stay self-contained, but they should have AC adapters so that can wait.

Get a used C100. Great preamps (for what it is, but WAY better than the zoom) and you can keep the same lenses. Plus super super fast and good for people who don't have a lot as regards light.
 
jrod81 said:
I have been told several times to get a camcorder instead of a DSLR but this has never been a massive passion of mine... I've done things for side income... quite honestly I learned on a T2i and have stuck with the stupid thing for, geez, I guess nearly a decade now... I had a t4i for a bit but sold it to a friend cause I didn't really see much of a difference... I still use it occasionally too.
I know this sounds lazy but I don't know that I have the energy, interest, or time to learn how to properly use a true camcorder... I fear low light situations mostly... and I can't lose my shallow depth of field (yes I know- scoot back and zoom in)...
Anyway, I'll spend a bit more time looking over the 3 suggestions given to me above (although by price alone I can narrow it down to 2)...
The GH4 is overkill no doubt... I can just use the T2i for family pics...
Shoot, I guess I could look at the 7dii since it has a headphone jack too but I'll just be in the same spot audio wise again...
The Rode Wireless Filmmaker Lav looks like a great choice, but I assume you guys will tell me that has to go thru an audio recorder as well and not directly into a DSLR...
Click to expand...

if you're really that lazy you are in the wrong business. Why don't you leave opportunities for the many people on this forum who are willing to work extremely hard for their clients? Go work in something much less competitive, where mediocrity and low effort are acceptable. Video production is not one of those fields.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
if you're really that lazy you are in the wrong business. Why don't you leave opportunities for the many people on this forum who are willing to work extremely hard for their clients? Go work in something much less competitive, where mediocrity and low effort are acceptable. Video production is not one of those fields.
Click to expand...

If he's making money at this, he's doing better than most of us. You're criticizing the approach, but we all aspire to master a skill-set sufficiently to be hacks when we want to be. You have to be pretty good to get by just doing the bare minimum, mostly because you have to have the bare minimum mastered. That said it takes a ton of skill to pull this stuff off without lights or proper gear. If you're pulling this much in with that little effort, imagine how much just a little more effort could pay off in? Of course if you're not experienced with lighting then you could end up making things worse.... why I recommend a single soft LED light just diffuse it, dim it to the right level, and put it as an offside key. Will it look as good as an experienced pro wrangling HMI book lights and and five kinos light set up? No. Will it look as good as a beginner's attempt at that? Probably a lot better. Get something like a 5600K poor man's light panel 1x1 and some diff and a few CTO filters and a plus green to match fluorescents and you're so good.

This is new but should get you far:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1136079-REG/sennheiser_clip_mic_clip_mic_digital.html

The ME2 is a really solid mic and the preamp should be a lot cleaner than the zoom's. But honestly just get a used C100. You'll have the shallow depth of field, surprisingly awesome preamps, and the low light on it is nuts. I would say 6400 ISO on the C100 is about where 800 ISO is on the t2i.

Which microphone are you using as your primary mic? I've found a lot of low end stuff to be garbage.
 
Last edited:
Policar said:
If he's making money at this, he's doing better than most of us. You're criticizing the approach, but we all aspire to master a skill-set sufficiently to be hacks when we want to be. You have to be pretty good to get by just doing the bare minimum, mostly because you have to have the bare minimum mastered. That said it takes a ton of skill to pull this stuff off without lights or proper gear. If you're pulling this much in with that little effort, imagine how much just a little more effort could pay off in? Of course if you're not experienced with lighting then you could end up making things worse.... why I recommend a single soft LED light just diffuse it, dim it to the right level, and put it as an offside key. Will it look as good as an experienced pro wrangling HMI book lights and and kinos five light set up? No. Will it look as good as a beginner's attempt at that? Probably a lot better. Get something like a 5600K poor man's light panel 1x1 and some diff and a few CTO filters and a plus green to match fluorescents and you're so good.

This is new but should get you far:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1136079-REG/sennheiser_clip_mic_clip_mic_digital.html

The ME2 is a really solid mic and the preamp should be a lot cleaner than the zoom's. But honestly just get a used C100. You'll have the shallow depth of field, surprisingly awesome preamps, and the low light on it is nuts. I would say 6400 ISO on the C100 is about where 800 ISO is on the t2i.

Which microphone are you using as your primary mic? I've found a lot of low end stuff to be garbage.
Click to expand...

Not knocking the AF100, I have one, but if you've been using a Canon DSLR that means you have Canon lenses and these will work natively with the C100. You could adapt them to work on the AF100 but that just adds more expense as would acquiring m 4/3 lenses.
 
dwiener said:
Not knocking the AF100, I have one, but if you've been using a Canon DSLR that means you have Canon lenses and these will work natively with the C100. You could adapt them to work on the AF100 but that just adds more expense as would acquiring m 4/3 lenses.
Click to expand...

The AF100 is great, especially for higher end gigs where you can light for it and need the HDSDI jam sync. It's got less dynamic range, much worse low light, a smaller sensor so less of something this guy needs, and is a little more work to rig up. I'd definitely recommend the C100 above it for a lower end more run-and-gun type scenario, not because it's better, but because it's more consumer-oriented. Lower end overall than the AF100, but also newer tech.

Plus the native Canon mount is nice.
 
TheDingo said:
- GH4 has internal audio that is equivalent in quality to a H4n recorder, but no XLR inputs or phantom power.

- GH4 has shallow DOF with the appropriate lens.

- GH4 can shoot for 3+ hours on ONE battery.

- Add a Tascam DR-70 recorder to the GH4 and you've got 4 separate channels of XLR with phantom power covered, along with the ability to make two simultaneous audio recordings.

( 4 internal channels with the DR-70 and 2 internal channels with the GH4 )
Click to expand...

Based on this comment I just attached a Rode Video mic Pro (the older DSLR one with 20db Gain) to the GH4 3.5mm mic input, then attached it to the H4n 3.5mm input, and the audio quality is miles, miles, miles ahead on the zoom. For kicks, then I attached to the Zoom H1 input, and it sounds much better than the GH4.

It's a pretty unscientific test, but all my experience with DSLR/mirrorless camera always proven in-camera audio quality is simply bad, it's only production-ready quality on camcorders like the C100, FS100, AF100, X70, etc, which seem to have much higher end audio components in there. There are two exceptions to this however, the GH4 with the YAGH module and the A7s with the KLM-XLR module, both terrific audio quality. I'd suggest OP to look into them if he needs internal synced audio.
 
I'm nervous to defend myself... I'm nervous to post any of my work because I don't really want to hear all the things I did wrong, but I think it might be necessary to explain what it is that I do with these clients.
I typically show up at their house. The appointment has been set up with the case manager at the firm. They only know that I am showing up with a camera to gather a glimpse into how an accident has affected their life. This video is then shown in mediation to attempt to get the insurance company to have some sort of emotional connection with the person to give a decent settlement offer.
This is not used to show on big screen or to sell on DVD or anything like that...
I typically show up with an attorney who does the "questioning." They are somewhat lenient with how long it takes me to set up but "legally" I can't be present alone with the client without the lawyer there so I have 2 sets of eyes looking at me while I get everything set up.
I try to spend a bit of time getting the client calm about having a camera pointed at them... I explain we can do multiple takes etc.
But I don't have time to set up lights... most of the time it is hard to even explain to the clients why I need to put a lav mic on them (and sometimes I just use my Rode Video Mic Pro for that reason).
So I'm sorry if production quality is not where it needs to be and I'm sorry that I've lost my passion in the film industry world (it was my life from age 22-28 but other things steal my time now and the law firm uses me as contract labor on a "as needed basis."
Enjoy and may the criticism begin:
https://vimeo.com/66883275
 
And here is what happens when I use lights... I didn't take enough time to make sure my audio was good... Geez... one man show is tough and I typically get about 15-30 minutes to get everything set up...
https://vimeo.com/9459518

But this is real world and these people are being very vulnerable... very emotional stuff here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top