When all is said and done, I should have just bought a DSLR...

nedcam

nedcam

Well-known member
So this is just a rant, I realize this is sacrilegious, no one need respond, it's from the perspective of a freelancer who has to meet the "look" of what clients demand...

First let me say I avoided DSLRs and went from full body cameras to the AF100. I have made several wrong equipment decisions over my 33 year shooting career and although the AF100 is a GREAT camera for many people in various niches, for my niche my client base is demanding a DSLR look, so I think I will have to take that step, which may seem backwards technically but forwards business wise. I thought DSLR would be dying out by now but the calls and emails I get, I can make more money with a DSLR than any of the other options.

I've had the AF100 for about 8 months, using it in different situations, for my market, my clients are demanding a look I just quite can't get out of the 100: the DSLR full frame, really shallow d-o-f look. We all know the benefits of an AF100 over a DSLR (audio, ND, codec, etc.) but the examples the prospects and clients send me that they want me to emulate, are all invariably DSLR. Most of the samples were made before the alternatives became available. Besides the talking heads which I have control over, I just can't get the AF100 to look like DSLR in fast moving, real world, cinema verite situations. And because I hand off the footage to the clients I have no control in post.

A few months back I started a thread asking if I could make even the Red Scarlet look like a DSLR because I had a big bank client that needed me to produce 17 one minute videos and they sent a DSLR example. Even the Scarlet with an experienced Owner/Operator could not match that look, unless controlled and tight.

I don't want to start yet another thread re: FS700, C300 or F3s, etc., the popular look I am asked to emulate, and the competition I go up against (mainly corporate and documentary), is still definitely DSLR. It's relatively easy to do shallow depth of field talking heads with my AF100, I am referring to the B-roll having that rich, luscious, full frame look. So this is more of a marketing decision (to satisfy clients' cravings) rather than a technical one (deciding which camera to buy).

Now some will say the AF100 can match the "DSLR look" but in the style I work in (fast moving following reality) I have little control. I've also been thrust into environments, like clubs at night, where I need to see in the dark. Fortunately all the accessories I bought to trick out an AF100 will work with a Nikon 800.

My AF100 will "suffice" for many of the gigs, sing in others, but as a freelance shooter who is sent examples by the clients as to the style they want, the vast majority are invariably a DSLR look, and thus far I just can't get this size imager to do it. I'll be selling it shortly if you want to PM me. May consider a FS700 but leaning 90% towards a Nikon 800.

Thanks for letting me vent.

All the best,

Ned
 
Last edited:
After shooting DSLRs for over three years then switching to the af100 all I can say when it comes to dof is lens choice is paramount, luckily there are great affordable lenses in the f.95 with focal lengths from 17-50. All I can say is f.95 is freaking shallow creamy goodness.having used the voitlander 17.5 a lot its quite the shallow med wide companion. The thing I miss the most would be the focus assist from the canons and the artificial horizon leveler from the Nikon's. Other than that the AF has been great so far. Shooting two shows with it, I can vouch that it sees Lots of use in the field and the more I use it, the more I can enhance the look. The main reason to shoot with the AF for me was the functionality of it. Going on fast paced shoots where you might be hiking miles to get a certain shot its important to pack light and small. The fact I don't have to carry a rig and audio recorder is such a bonus when it comes to almost any situation.
 
Hey Jon Neely,

Interesting point. Are you saying it's the maximum aperature of my lens that's holding me back? I thought it was the size of the AF100's chip. Here's what's in my kit:

Zeiss 35mm ZF f/2.0 lens
Zeiss 50mm ZF f/1.4 lens
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D lens
Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6 lens
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 lens

If you're saying it's just a matter of going Voitlander, maybe I could rent one as a test. But as Ed says, I have to go where the money is...
 
Yeah, get the f.95....you'd have a 5D look going on with that thing. I'm not sure of the exact math but you just need a wider aperture to account for the smaller sensor to get a similar dof to the 5D/D800. That lens does just that..not to mention it'll help you in the dark as well!

(I believe it's equivalent to 1.8 on a d800... QUITE shallow)
 
Last edited:
Let me preface by saying that I'm not a camera fanboy. I have Red, Nikon D800, Panasonic Af100, Gh2... But I will say that the shallow DOF only works on small web videos. Any TV will show how badly the focus is. Unless you have an amazing focus puller, it will drive anyone mad. I find the Af100, GH2, sensor size perfect for making cinematic images. After all the sensor is close to academy 35mm film. The lenses are key. The voigtlander 25mm is a must.

Af100 samples:
https://vimeo.com/27936794
https://vimeo.com/34068290
https://vimeo.com/23735869
https://vimeo.com/22224303
 
To be honest, I'm a bit confused by your post. There are some contradictions and some down flat misconceptions. Now I can't tell you which camera to use. But I can tell you that you can reproduce the look you are looking for with an AF100.

nedcam said:
First let me say I avoided DSLRs and went from full body cameras to the AF100. I have made several wrong equipment decisions over my 33 year shooting career...
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe this is where your misconceptions are coming from. Do you come from the broadcast 2/3" or 1/2" camera world?

nedcam said:
and although the AF100 is a GREAT camera for many people in various niches, for my niche my client base is demanding a DSLR look...
Click to expand...

By all accounts it doesn't seem you are after a DSLR look. It seems if anything you are after a full-frame look. The Canon 7D is a DSLR and wont give you that look you speak of any easier than an AF100.


nedcam said:
so I think I will have to take that step, which may seem backwards technically but forwards business wise. I thought DSLR would be dying out by now but the calls and emails I get, I can make more money with a DSLR than any of the other options.
Click to expand...

That is mainly because of bogus info spread out in forums and the web. Not your fault at all, but that people request a DSLR over a dedicated video camera just shows how stupid and subject to trends this society is.

nedcam said:
I've had the AF100 for about 8 months, using it in different situations, for my market, my clients are demanding a look I just quite can't get out of the 100: the DSLR full frame, really shallow d-o-f look.
Click to expand...

Look, if using fast lenses on an AF100 you can't get a shallow enough DOF to please a client that likes a "DSLR" look, I'm afraid to say it wont be much different with any camera. Yes, a 5D will make it easier for somebody not used to lens, aperture and composition choices to get a shallower DOF in any type of shot. But there are other things you may be overlooking.


nedcam said:
A few months back I started a thread asking if I could make even the Red Scarlet look like a DSLR because I had a big bank client that needed me to produce 17 one minute videos and they sent a DSLR example. Even the Scarlet with an experienced Owner/Operator could not match that look, unless controlled and tight.
Click to expand...

You're honestly telling me that a client, who is not Roger Deakins (no idea why he would hire anybody else to shoot but works for the analogy) can tell you the difference between S35 shot wide open on a fast lens by a professional and the run of the mill vimeo 5D crap?


nedcam said:
Besides the talking heads which I have control over, I just can't get the AF100 to look like DSLR in fast moving, real world, cinema verite situations.
Click to expand...

nedcam said:
Now some will say the AF100 can match the "DSLR look" but in the style I work in (fast moving following reality) I have little control.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, which reinforces my theory that you come from the TV or corporate world used to shoot on smaller chip cameras (2/3" or even 1/2") and zooms. Nothing wrong with that at all. Great way to make a living. It's just a very different goal and technique to arrive at results. Do you really think a full frame (equivalent to Vista-Vision in cinema terms) lands itself better to fast moving, verite, run and gun situations? And all that with razor thin focus? Do you pull your own focus? Do you have a quality, precise and stable follow focus? Is your 1AC used to work on major productions under an ASC DP?

Don't take this in a personal way. But like I said, I think you have some huge misconceptions of what will give your clients the "look" they are looking for. I don't think it's an equipment problem that you have. I think it may be a technique one.
I want to apologize in advance if I come across rude or condescending. Not my intention at all. I just want to be objective and direct to the point and some times it can come across that way.

Good luck and all the best.
 
nedcam said:
Hey Jon Neely,

Interesting point. Are you saying it's the maximum aperature of my lens that's holding me back? I thought it was the size of the AF100's chip. Here's what's in my kit:

Zeiss 35mm ZF f/2.0 lens
Zeiss 50mm ZF f/1.4 lens
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D lens
Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6 lens
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 lens

If you're saying it's just a matter of going Voitlander, maybe I could rent one as a test. But as Ed says, I have to go where the money is...
Click to expand...

Absolutely! F2.8 is not a fast lens by any stretch of the word and all your wider lenses, where the DOF gets the deepest, are "slow" lenses.
 
Are you willing to share the examples that your clients send you that they wish you to emulate for them?

Just curious because I have never had a client that knows their "arsehole from ther elbow" when it comes to what with and how to shoot a "film".

Not disrespecting your decision at all... and of course..nothing stopping you having a few different tools in your kit ( including rental).

BTW: Are these "knowledgeable" clients paying you what it worth for your skills , experience and your kit?

I bet they think you should charge less if you are using a DSLR ( because their cousin has one and he does great youtube videos)

:Drogar-Shock(DBG):
 
Adamsenoj said:
nedcam said:
Besides the talking heads which I have control over, I just can't get the AF100 to look like DSLR in fast moving, real world, cinema verite situations.
Click to expand...

nedcam said:
Now some will say the AF100 can match the "DSLR look" but in the style I work in (fast moving following reality) I have little control.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, which reinforces my theory that you come from the TV or corporate world used to shoot on smaller chip cameras (2/3" or even 1/2") and zooms. Nothing wrong with that at all. Great way to make a living. It's just a very different goal and technique to arrive at results.
Click to expand...

Really agree with this. I come from the corporate world myself and what you're saying hits the nail on the head. Shooting with a DSLR is a very different experience from shooting with an ENG camera. For me, I found I had to learn to slow down a little with DSLRs. That's not a bad thing, just a reality for me.
 
i do not know how you can advise the guy to purchase a .95 lens when he already got two 1.4 (50 and 85) and obviously cannot get what he wants.
We have not seen the samples provided by customers, but i doubt you cannot do it with a 1.4 lens.
for info a on a 550D/t2i 50mm f/1.4-2.0 lense give you a dof of 8" at 10' and for a f/.95 lens it is 4" DOF for same distance, but we all know that a lens is rarely used full open.

if you want razor shape DOF, you have to stick to your subject as near as you can.

the same 50/1.4 at 7' give me the same 4" DOF than the .95 at 10'

The guy needs to get some DOF calculator so he can evaluate what can be done.
 
Last edited:
I understand the dilemma. I come from a 25 year broadcast/film editing background - mainly landmark BBC/Discovery/Nat Geo co-productions. I got bored, had a midlife crisis, moved to the arse-end of nowhere and ended up doing my own productions. I'm NOT confident to call myself a DOP/Cameraman, aside from various bits and bobs back in the late 80s/early 90s with 16mm and BetaSP - but I do have multiple BAFTA and Emmy awards and noms as an editor, so somebody thinks I can butcher stuff together.

In the space of less than 3 years, I've gone from a JVC HM100 via various Canon and Lumix DSLRs to the AF101 - the latter because I liked what I was getting out of the DSLRs, but didn't like the dual-synch audio workflow and vari-ND filters. I'd also invested in MFT glass for a couple of GH2s I was running for a while.

6 months down the line, though it pains me to admit, I still can't confidently say I've got the hang of the AF101. My biggest issue is colour balance and exposure, especially with most of my recent commissions that involve multi-temp light sources inside corporate buildings, all shot fairly rapidly with very little light control - I find the AF101 so unforgiving and misleading and end up spending a lot more time trying to grade my way around it.

So much so, that I cheated on the AF101 recently and went back to a 5DII for a couple of BBC iPlayer films. PITA dual synch work flow (the signal wasn't strong enough on the 5D clips to get a decent pluraleyes synch), but the images were just so much easier to grade and manipulate - and looked pretty good straight off the card. My aspiration is to get there with the AF101, but it often feels it's putting up a fight. I've bought a Zacuto EVF, and that's helping me judge colour a bit better on location.

If it's interesting to you, here's an example of mixing the 5D with the AF101 on one of the iPlayer films. The first one, the Radio film is all 5DII (with Canon 24-105) and the second one, the TV film, mainly shot on the AF101 (with Lumix Leica 25mm 1.4), with a few 5D shots from the first film. There was less natural light to play with on the AF101 shoot, as it was a couple of months later in November, so that was a factor. The grading could obviously be improved with better skills, time and secondary correction, but there wasn't the budget for that.

iPlayer Radio (100% 5DII):


iPlayer TV (80% AF101 and 20% 5DII):


And here's another shot purely on the 5DII:



My analysis so far? My gut feeling is that, in my inexperienced numpty hands, the 5DII has just been a lot "easier" to get half reasonable results from.

I don't find this dilemma as simple as some of the rest of you, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the OP.

If I was shooting as a freelance cameraman and handing over the rushes? I'd probably have ditched the AF101 months ago - at this budget level, I'd be much more confident with a small chip broadcast camera, like an EX3 or XF305. Much more WYSIWYG.

My guess is that many (misinformed) clients think they can get an "expensive" looking image for bugger-all money and it's a challenging time for established camera people. The 5DII and a world-wide recession with too many unemployed hobbyists have a lot to answer for...

I still plan to persevere with the AF101, mainly because I'm an obstinate bastard and also, because I got a glimmer of hope after the iPlayer TV film - which is starting to look better than previous AF101 efforts.


Ben.
 
Last edited:
Good examples there from Ben. I think what they really show is that however much better the AF101 is at being a good camera for the user, it just doesn't quite match the mojo of a 5D. I mean that beyond just the difference in DoF - it's a combination of that, the image processing, colour treatment, etc, etc. It's that indefinable quality that made the 5D such a success and, certainly in the UK, the requests we get in the non-TX arena are either for 'proper' camera shoots (i.e. traditional ENG crews) or 5D shoots (though the C300 is creeping into that category increasingly). I've had a 101 for 2 years and it's great at running around and shooting simply, but sadly for me it just doesn't have the X Factor that FF DSLRs do, despite their limitations and annoyances. At the end of the day, what we want as producers and camera ops counts for nothing compared to what the client wants to see on screen.
 
Last edited:
Partially agreeing. I might also wind up with some FF kit in resignation.

While matching a crop-frame sensor look isn't really a challenge, that full-frame match can be a pain in the rear. The colors are mimicked with some fiddling, but the combination of very shallow focus and generally softened image is not.

Consider the popular 24-105... to get the same "look" on m43, you'd need a 12-50/f2. While the 14-35/f2 exists, it's varifocal, the range is somewhat limited, and... quite simply... costs about as much as a used 5D2 body. Same with the 0.95 primes... when you can get a 5D2 and 28-70/2.8 for the same price as three 0.95 primes and yield a somewhat similar "look" with less fiddling, it draws some attraction away from m43 on those sorts of shoots.

I stick with m43 and the AF100 because it works for how I generally need it, and adore m43 vs. FF for uncontrolled doc/ENG shooting (being able to nail focus twice as easily at the same exposure is kind of nice), and like carrying less weight overall when possible (FF body, lenses, monitor, rig, audio recorder etc. adds up quick). Yet I've had to rent Canon gear from time to time when the client demanded it - on the odd interview where it makes perfect sense, to questionable scenarios like sports video where the specifically-requested 5D was easily the worst, least friendly camera system I've ever used on anything professional. The unfortunate side of this is that fewer and fewer jobs have anything approaching a rental budget, more and more unemployed students are entering the workforce with their Canon-only kit, and more and more producers have their Canon blinders firmly affixed... so I'll probably also wind up with a used 5D2 this year as the cost will be below what my Canon body rental total was last year, or a used 5D3 if it's reasonable - hopefully its longevity and improvements will outweigh the extra cost.

Whatever.
 
Ive done a pile of 5d stuff where I wanted to use my FS100 but the client did not want that

I also got in a bad place with a big poorly thought out job (many operators) where the editor could not get their head round DSLR synch sound, some heads rolled and I think I got tarred in the aftermath

So its tricky.

The 5d is a right funny thing - personally I hate everything about it, the soft image, bad HDMI, rescaling on the monitor, lack of sound of course, but conversly has got great colour and good smooth highlight handling

Its pretty awesome at 480p - web project size and it doesnt show focus wander.

I think a lot of clients dont want 'a video look' and somehow equate that to the words 'sony' and 'panasonic' which is a real problem for the FS and AF which have nothing of the look of a 1/3 in camera

Maybe some linguistics can help - 'I use a cinema chip camera' or something?

I dont think clients actually have enough subtlety to really know the difference, the just know that Reverie looked cool - so they want a camera that looks like that

Which the AF doubtles can, even without 0.95 lenses

S
 
As mush as I love my 5D3 to shoot stills I think the best way of describing the video image out of it is gorgeous yet rubbish. I did an interview with a 5D3 and the client loved it but I hated it and they called it the best interview they've seen from a 5D. Client was happy but me personally I were far from satisfied and it was all due to the limitations within the video coming out of the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top