Which is really better?

New_Zealand

New_Zealand

Veteran
I haven't been on the forum much due to work but have just started looking at the AF100. I noticed that some people are getting rid of their HVX200 or EX1 cheap so they can buy the AF100. So the question is - is this camera really much better then the the two I mentioned? Is it worth selling your camera cheap to buy this new camera?
 
The crappy answer is that it's... umm... not exactly apples and oranges, more like apples and pears*, but yeah, they're sufficiently different that depending on what you're shooting and your shooting style, an HVX/EX might be better for your needs. Ideally, I'd like to have both camera types (an HMC150 in my case, a better complement to the AF100).


*It's a comparison between a movie camera (deliberate, controlled, planned) and a video camera (on-the-fly, dynamic shooting, all-in-one).
 
Some people will buy whatever's the newest thing. Some will buy because everyone else is buying. And some will buy because the new product offers some significant new advantage that they need.

I fall in that third category. I loved my HPX170, but I sold it, to put the dough towards an AF100. But if I was still shooting events, or was an ENG shooter or shooting sports or something like that, then no, the AF100 would be the wrong camera for those tasks, an HPX170 or EX1 or something would be the much preferable tool.

For the cinematic-style shooter, the AF100 is the bees knees. Its advantages over something like a regular 1/3" or 1/2" camera, or a DSLR, are a mile long. So if that's what you shoot, then you should look seriously at it. If that's not what you shoot, then ... no reason to ditch what you've got.
 
I'll have to second Barry's comments. Much as I would have liked the large imager and the focus control that comes with it, the AF100 is lacking at least two features often critical to the event shooter - a servo zoom and CCD chips. The AF100 is definitely a production camera only.

(Would still love a hand held camera that solves those two issues, Jan. Just in case you're reading.)
 
Jim Simon said:
I'll have to second Barry's comments. Much as I would have liked the large imager and the focus control that comes with it, the AF100 is lacking at least two features often critical to the event shooter - a servo zoom and CCD chips. The AF100 is definitely a production camera only.

(Would still love a hand held camera that solves those two issues, Jan. Just in case you're reading.)
Click to expand...

I'd say global shutter is lacking, not CCD chips :) But yes, if I too were shooting sporting events or more on the fly critical filming, I'd use our HVX200 that we still have. I'd say, even for wedding shooters and such, a good global shutter cam with the AF100 would be the best combination so you can fill in the gaps for both.

Out of the crew I work with, I shot a 7D before, and without question, the AF100 is a huge step up in many many ways.

So, looks like you need to tell people what it is you want to do and what is important to you to get a more detailed answer! :)
 
What I'm looking for is shooting movies. I don't shoot wedding, commercials etc.... no interest in that area just shooting stories either short or full length.
 
Here is a scene from my film 'Memoirs of a Vampire'. It was shot with the HVX200A. I wonder how much better the look would have been if I shot it on the AF100? There is no color correction done this is just out of the camera.

 
Here are my thoughts; with the HVX200 I've always felt you need a lot more light to keep out the noise. Properly lit and it looks FANTASTIC. You are shooting outdoors so I don't think the image quality is over the top different. Given that you do a lot of shaky cam, if you are using longer focal lengths, rolling shutter IS going to be a problem. You'll need to stabilize those shots or use in lens IS. (Which personally, I prefer shots that aren't as shaky, but that is a personal preference, which is why I am fine with some rolling shutter, just not Nikon D90 rolling shutter! :) )

One thing I will say is that with the HVX200, I've felt the freedom of getting shallow DoF is pretty limited. You can get it, as you have, but with the AF100 and the fast lens available, you'll really open up the freedom to use shallow DoF in different ways that are almost impossible due to space restrictions or subject distances.

WITHOUT question, because I could buy either myself personally (a guy I work with VERY regularly actually owns the HVX200), I bought the AF100. For film making (Because we made a film with the HVX, "Dogs of Chinatown", since then he now prefers shooting within the limitations of the 7D and t2i instead of on the HVX200. Mainly because our shot types expanded. All of our new material was with the 7D, but now we have switched to the AF100 (and not soon enough!).

I'd say honestly, maybe consider renting one to try out and MAKE SURE it's where you want to go. :)

PS Awesome location!
 
New_Zealand said:
What I'm looking for is shooting movies. I don't shoot wedding, commercials etc.... no interest in that area just shooting stories either short or full length.
Click to expand...

...then the AF100 is a better choice for you... the real question is, is it better enough to justify the cost difference? THAT will take lots of research on this and other forums, and maybe some faith. It's been said before, and it'll be said again: great stories and not great equipment make for great movies.
 
New_Zealand said:
Here is a scene from my film 'Memoirs of a Vampire'. It was shot with the HVX200A. I wonder how much better the look would have been if I shot it on the AF100? There is no color correction done this is just out of the camera.

Click to expand...

Believe me my friend....with some cheap Canon FD lenses, it would look muuuuuuch better.
 
New_Zealand said:
Here is a scene from my film 'Memoirs of a Vampire'. It was shot with the HVX200A. I wonder how much better the look would have been if I shot it on the AF100? There is no color correction done this is just out of the camera.

Click to expand...

So how do we get to see the whole film? I love the score, BTW.
 
I'm buying an AF101 for controlled shooting conditions when I'm making something in narrative film style.

I'm also keeping my twin HVX200's for when I'm shooting something "as-live" in a multi-camera set up, usually with one cam locked off as a master wide and the other manned as a closeup cam to follow the action. The deep focus here is a significant advantage.

I see the two as complementary right now... but with full-raster even in slowmo 1080p goodness of the AF101 might possibly sway me when I actually start using it. If I really like it, I might go for a second AF101 and sell the HVX's.

And I'm relegating the 5DII/7D combo we have been using to the backup stills kit they were originally purchased for, with a huge sigh of relief. *NEVER* again do I want to be in the position of having everyone on set and ready, but waiting for the damn camera to cool down enough to shoot!

Cheers, Hywel.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
For the cinematic-style shooter, the AF100 is the bees knees. Its advantages over something like a regular 1/3" or 1/2" camera, or a DSLR, are a mile long. So if that's what you shoot, then you should look seriously at it. If that's not what you shoot, then ... no reason to ditch what you've got.
Click to expand...

Side question for Barry and others...
I have seen many people (and many rigs) pimpin out a DSLR for ENG style shooting. Do you guys agree that a DSLR has the same disadvantages as the AF100 for ENG style shooting? Or is one better than the other for ENG style shooting? I'm just curious because I know a lot of people here are still purchasing the AF100 for run and gun type stuff, myself included. And how did DSLR shooters cope with shooting on the fly?

I have an HVX that I've been shooting Docs and run and gun type stuff over the years and everything I have done with it I used all manual controls (no servo, manual focus, manual iris) And aside from changing the lenses, I just feel it would be the same way I have operated an HVX? Does the main difference lie with Limited available OIS lenses?
 
jaerin said:
I have seen many people (and many rigs) pimpin out a DSLR for ENG style shooting.
Click to expand...
I have seen that too. Boggles my mind.

Do you guys agree that a DSLR has the same disadvantages as the AF100 for ENG style shooting? Or is one better than the other for ENG style shooting?
Click to expand...
Okay, let me try to answer this as level-headed and coherently as I can, without exaggeration: the AF100 is at least 7,000 times better for ENG-style shooting than any DSLR, regardless of how much frankensteined rigging you dangle off that DSLR. At least 7,000 times. Probably closer to six million times better, but I'm trying to avoid exaggeration. :evil:

Seriously, the DSLR is a still camera. It has a video feature tacked onto it. It can be pressed into making some decent results, even very good results, in a strictly-controlled cinema environment. But in the uncontrolled ENG scenario, it's woefully, woefully inadequate for that task. No decent exposure tools, you can't even white balance without toggling over to stills mode and taking a still photo, no decent way to record audio, limited recording time, overheating, no way at all to monitor your audio, and on and on and on.

No question whatsoever -- if you had a choice of shooting ENG stuff on a frankensteined DSLR, or on an AF100, run full speed to get the AF100. An AF100 with the 14-140 is a passable ENG-style system, at least as compared to the DSLR. An HVX/HPX170 would still be my vastly preferable choice over the AF100, but ... well, if you wanted it on a scale of 1 to 10, as to which camera would perform best for events/sports/eng coverage:
HVX/HPX170: 10
AF100 w/14-140: 7
DSLR: 1

The only reason I don't give the DSLR a zero, is because you would actually be able to record SOME footage. But with all seriousness, and I am not exaggerating in any way when I say this, I think a little HV20 HDV tape camera would be a much preferable ENG camera as compared to a DSLR with $5,000 of accessories hanging off it.

DSLRs can have their place, but ENG is most definitely not it. If you put a gun to my head and said "you MUST shoot this sporting event with a DSLR", I'd probably say "eh, go ahead and pull the trigger."

I guarantee you others will disagree, and they're free to. But this is my measured opinion after owning a 7D, GH1, and GH2, extensively using an AF100, having had an HPX170 and currently having an HMC150, having owned an HV20, and (many years ago) having made part of my living shooting live events, conventions, and such things.

I have an HVX that I've been shooting Docs and run and gun type stuff over the years and everything I have done with it I used all manual controls (no servo, manual focus, manual iris) And aside from changing the lenses, I just feel it would be the same way I have operated an HVX? Does the main difference lie with Limited available OIS lenses?
Click to expand...
An AF100 will feel extremely familiar to you, if you're used to the HVX. The difference will be entirely in lens operation -- meaning the presence or lack of OIS, the lack of usable autofocus in all but one or two lenses, and the lack of any sort of smooth power zoom. You can zoom with the 14-140, but it's a clunky process as compared to the slick servo. And the biggest thing is going to be focus. On an HVX, you're talking about a chip that is 1/16th the size of an AF100. The AF100's chip is massive, and its corresponding DOF is sooooo much shallower, that you can get away with murder on an HVX but you have to be pinpoint-precise on the AF100. And Lumix lenses aren't the slickest-focusing manual-focus lenses. So if you use a slick manual lens you can probably do okay, but you're still going to have 1/4 the DOF of a 2/3" camera, so focus is still going to be hyper-precise. Other than those elements, it would be just like using your HVX. Except much more light-sensitive and a lot sharper.
 
Last edited:
While I certainly understand that AF100 has the abilities for very shallow depth of field, that doesn't mean it always has to be that way right? I mean you can use a wide lens that is stopped down (obviously assuming enough light) and have a correspondingly deep DOF right? I know I have seen some of the footage starting to appear here on DVX and it seems I have seen some with what seemed to me to be a pretty deep DOF. Am I missing something about those clips? How they were shot/produced perhaps?

Regards,

G.
 
ProAmateur said:
While I certainly understand that AF100 has the abilities for very shallow depth of field, that doesn't mean it always has to be that way right? I mean you can use a wide lens that is stopped down (obviously assuming enough light) and have a correspondingly deep DOF right? I know I have seen some of the footage starting to appear here on DVX and it seems I have seen some with what seemed to me to be a pretty deep DOF. Am I missing something about those clips? How they were shot/produced perhaps?

Regards,

G.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The AF100 gives you incredible control of DOF... from subtle to extreme. All within the limits of your lens choice of course.

Here are 2 examples.

The HVX is very difficult to acheivea shallow DOF and it is difficult to control subtley.

A DOF Adapter eg Letus Elite... gives to much shallow DOF and it is difficult to control because you hit the f- stop issue.
 
If there's enough light, yes you can stop way down. Using the ND filters I have been able to choose proper exposure on a daylight scene with an iris of f/2 and also with f/22.

Even so, under any given lighting conditions, the AF100 will always be much shallower than the HVX would be in those same lighting conditions. I guess that's all I was saying... so if you balance your shooting towards deeper DOF you would overcome one of the concerns about using an AF100 in event shots. But that won't help indoors.
 
Barry_Green said:
If there's enough light, yes you can stop way down. Using the ND filters I have been able to choose proper exposure on a daylight scene with an iris of f/2 and also with f/22.

Even so, under any given lighting conditions, the AF100 will always be much shallower than the HVX would be in those same lighting conditions. I guess that's all I was saying... so if you balance your shooting towards deeper DOF you would overcome one of the concerns about using an AF100 in event shots. But that won't help indoors.
Click to expand...

Understood. That does clarify things for me. And I am by no means an expert on DOF and the relationships between all the various factors which influence/affect it. So, my next question would be, how does the distance between the camera and subject come into play? Could one find themselves in a low light situation, need to open up the iris to achieve proper exposure, and still get a fairly deep depth of field by being far enough away that you focus to infinity?

Regards,

G.
 
DOF is dependent on three factors -- the iris, the distance to the subject, and the focal length of the lens. (pedantics can be argued, but they're moot -- I'm talking about the practical application).

As a practical matter with a large-sensor camera, open iris = shallow DOF. You can make it deeper by getting further away, but then you have to counteract that by using more telephoto to achieve the same framing, and that cancels out your backing-up. And, in fact, will make the DOF "appear" to be even shallower than it actually is, because the background will be more magnified on the more-tele lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top