Why are folks selling their AF100s?

Grug

Grug

Veteran
Hi guys,

I've had to turn down enough video work recently that I'm finally resigned to the need of purchasing a video camera of my own (as no one appears to be willing to pay the extra for rental, and I can't afford to drop my rate to a level that will allow me to hire the gear I need within the rates I can charge).

Given that with the AF100 and FS100 we finally seem to be at a point where I can afford to buy into a video system and have no real hesitations about it (beyond the obvious ones that separate a $5-6k camera from something costing twice as much, or more) I'm now narrowing down which camera will fit my needs best (I have no particular brand loyalties so that preference doesn't swing me either way).

The larger sensor, and better low-light abilities of the FS100 have me leaning slightly more in it's favour. The 'video camera' features it lacks don't really bother me, as I've never done the sort of ENG or event shooting that particularly cries out for them.

That said, I've noticed a lot of AF100s being sold in the marketplace on here and on ebay, and at prices that would allow me to kit them up with a fair bit of support gear for the same price as a new FS100 body with no support gear - which is a very appealing option.

What I'm wondering though, is the reason so many of the cameras are being sold off so soon after they've been purchased? What issues or limitations or opportunity-costs of the camera are leading people to let them go?

Any help would be much appreciated.
 
I wouldn't worry about it to much. There are so many variables within people and companies and needs and the current market, life changes or whatever.
Some probably didn't like the camera like they thought they would.
Get a used one if it helps you. This is usually best when you know the gear well already. Have you rented one by chance? If you think you might want tech support, warranty support or replacement during a repair; go for the new one.
 
This is totally my unscientific assumption, but it seems as so the folks who quickly buy and sell the a f100 are those coming from a 5D. The 5D gets them a look very quickly without much effort. An Af100 is nothing like a DSLR and every bit a video camera with far more control. Something that requires a lot of patience to dial in. video camera people understand this and are very happy with the Af100. DSLR folks just have a different approach and find it frustrating. My 2 Cents.
 
bgundu said:
This is totally my unscientific assumption, but it seems as so the folks who quickly buy and sell the a f100 are those coming from a 5D. The 5D gets them a look very quickly without much effort. An Af100 is nothing like a DSLR and every bit a video camera with far more control. Something that requires a lot of patience to dial in. video camera people understand this and are very happy with the Af100. DSLR folks just have a different approach and find it frustrating. My 2 Cents.
Click to expand...

Seems like a fair assumption. I've heard a lot of buzz about people disliking the AF100 or GH2 due to the fact, it may take some patience to get the image up to ones standard. The Canon cams are supposedly pretty good looking out of the box, which requires no tweaking. I purchased the AF100 for event work, after MANY advising against it. I have to say I am more than happy with it after shooting dozens of events, and a dozen or so commercial shoots.
 
I don't think it's only DSLR owners... It seems that many of the people who jumped on the AF bandwagon early are event videographers, like weddings etc... This camera takes a lot of patience, and it wouldn't be my first choice for shooting a wedding.

In my case, I make documentaries for a living, mostly handheld, and many here say the AF isn't a good choice for that either. In fact, I would bet a lot of the cameras are for sale for that reason. The AF is a PITA if you haven't worked with a camera like it before. It's a hassle changing lenses all the time, and there are no decent zooms (as you will become aware if you research this site). The Sony is supposedly sharper, with a larger chip, so the tripod/dolly crowd are gravitating to that camera, and the documentarians are looking at something easier to work with, which leaves the AF in the dust.

As I've said many times before, Panasonic could do themselves a huge service by getting a good zoom built that is proprietary for the AF100.
 
Everybody is always looking for the next/greatest/best camera... the view is the camera itself will help to produce the amazing images (not the skill or experience of the OP).

The AF100 was the first large format sensor camera to market... but then various videos came to light with clipping and some harsh roll-offs to white. It's always interesting to see the bad examples be taken more seriously than the good ones. We live in an age of pixel-peeping.

Then we get the FS100 - a nice S35 sensor... but without the better pro options of the AF100... and this produces great images (in the hands of a skilled OP)... and (no surprise here!) in the hands of unskilled Op's has blow out issues etc. The roll-off to white/blow out is better handled (but not by much) - but not as world shattering as everyone seems to want it to be (IMO). The FS100 has bee taken to the hearts of many people who want an F3 but don't have the budget for one... and the argument rages on about the FS100 being a baby F3... but, personally, I see a lot of difference between the two cameras (beyond the price difference, obviously!).

If you want a nice rolloff and control of blown highlights etc - options are an Epic, Alexa or F3 with S-log.

In a nutshell, everyone seems to want 'everything' in their cameras now... the functions of an F3 for the price of a DSLR or the abilities of an Epic for the price of an F3. I shot film in the old days (pre-digital) and remember when 3 chip CCD came in fro SD shooting... what used to happen was, because everything was so much of an investment, you'd hire expensive kit and buy the best you could... and learn how to use it.

Now, people buy a pro-spec camera (like the AF100) having only used a DSLR for shooting... DSLR's don't have the feature sets or picture tunability of pro-kit... (but have given Op's access to images that, up to a few years ago, would not have been available at such a low price point). Often, simply turning on and expecting 'magic' makes people disappointed. It's all about learning how to use the kit.

For example, there was a commotion about 25P motion on the AF100 a while ago... everywhere was full of it (and how bad the camera was etc)... and, the same motion cadence issues came to light on the Pal version of the FS100... but, this time, it didn't seem to explode so much.

It's all about mangaing your expectation about what you're buying & why you're buying it. Amazing stuff is shot on a variety of cameras on a day to day basis... :)

So, long answer to your question (sorry!) but, what do you think will happen when/if the 5DMKIII is announced... people will drop the FS100 and jump back to Canon... or the Red Scarlet (3K) hits the market and eveyone jumps on that. Look at the new Sony DSLR's - current debate is they're great in low light and 'better' that the GH2... but it's all so debatable.

It's the nature of the technology cycle we're in... but, the presumption that new is always better can often be wrong.

Buy what you can, within your budget - and what makes you, as an OP, comfortable.
 
I think this could be attributed to many factors. I will give you an example. When the RED one came out, late 2007, I had the chance to avoid the long waiting list and bought a brand new one from a guy that had just gotten it. It was the 48 or 49 camera. The reason he sold? Because it did not have internal audio recording so he had no use for that particular camera.... I guess that many people buy stuff based on how the trend is going or based on advice given, but as soon as they get the product, they realize its not what they wanted or its hard to operate, at least harder than a 5D... so they sell.

I can tell you from what I know, I own an AF100 and its an amazing camera. I guess it all depends on what you needed for.
 
as many are saying, I wouldnt worry about it. i think what bgundu said is spot on. i do a lot of wedding/events on the side, which almost everyone uses dslr for video work. no one knows what an af100 is most of the time (we use company dslr cameras, not my af100). people look at you strange when you explain it because they think they are the same, but not even close. the af100 requires you to know the camera inside and out to get a good image, and also requires you to know your scene. shot by shot will look drastically different if light changes, colours change etc. but once you know the camera it is wonderful. we just finished an independent short over 7 days taking place in forest/country setting. using the camera with a controlled environment, good acting and good locations, it really looked amazing. with that said i havent tried the fs100, but when comparing the two, i like the features on the af100 and the form factor. the sony falls short on many aspects for me.

all in all, dont worry about many af100 cameras for sale, if anything, it is a benefit to you who is looking to buy. this camera is a true digital cinema camera (at a certain price point) worthy of a really good image, and i feel maybe people along the way didnt understand how much finesse would be required to shoot with it. either choice you make it will be a good choice, if you are a videographer/cinematographer, you will understand the camera and love it.
 
Manual focus and exposure is a foreign concept/skill to an entire generation of people. Until the AF100 has some native zooms that approach Canon L quality its going to be too much camera for many.

Not that many used ones are for sale, and not many of those are going for any significant discount (and they go quickly).
 
Last edited:
Market forces and all that... the other cameras I was looking at when i decided on my AF101 was the Canon XF305... ok different machines but I went for the AF101...now suppliers are dropping the price of the canon and I have been offered a special 2yr interest free deal... i.e. they are making offers to shift stock
The AF101 as far as I know has no offers on it so sales must be ok
 
Thanks for your thoughts guys, they're very helpful (and reassuring).

I suppose the main issue that leaves is lenses, as my photographic work is based around a Nikon DX camera I already have some lovely (and appropriate) glass for a S35mm sized sensor (i.e. the FS100) but the effective FoV of those lenses will become rather awkward on the AF100. I suppose now I just have to figure out which new lenses I'd need to get with the AF100 and factor those into the price comparision.

For reference, the glass I have is:
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8
Nikon 35mm f/2
Vivitar 135mm f/2.8

Thanks again for the help fellas, it's much appreciated.
 
If you ask me you're covered with lenses. The difference between s35 and m4/3 is only 1.25 anyway. They are so similar.
Grug said:
Thanks for your thoughts guys, they're very helpful (and reassuring). I suppose the main issue that leaves is lenses, as my photographic work is based around a Nikon DX camera I already have some lovely (and appropriate) glass for a S35mm sized sensor (i.e. the FS100) but the effective FoV of those lenses will become rather awkward on the AF100. I suppose now I just have to figure out which new lenses I'd need to get with the AF100 and factor those into the price comparision. For reference, the glass I have is:Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8Nikon 35mm f/2Vivitar 135mm f/2.8Thanks again for the help fellas, it's much appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
Grug, add something like the Lumix 7-14mm and you'd be covered (albeit with a not-so-fast lens) on the wide end, and your selection of lenses would make a lot of sense on the AF100. The 17-55mm is a real reliable workhorse on the 4/3 size sensor.

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Grug, add something like the Lumix 7-14mm and you'd be covered (albeit with a not-so-fast lens) on the wide end, and your selection of lenses would make a lot of sense on the AF100. The 17-55mm is a real reliable workhorse on the 4/3 size sensor.

- Greg
Click to expand...

bgundu said:
If you can, the voigtlander 25mm .95 is a killer lens. Even the lumix 20mm is fantastic.
Click to expand...

Cheers guys, I tend to prefer primes for large sensor/still lens shooting (mostly for focussing reasons) so the voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 would be a definite addition. My thoughts to accompany the FS100 and my current lenses were a 35mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.4 and the Sony 16mm f/2.8 prime; the Voigtlander 25mm would cover the 35mm and I suppose something like the Voigtlander 58mm would sort me out for the 85mm equivalent (though with a somewhat different aesthetic), are there any good wide f/2.8 or faster primes for the AF100? (something around 12-14mm I suppose).

I've just called around asking for prices, and it turns out the AF102 body is on special down here for $4600 at the moment compared to about $5800 for the FS100 body. I thought I'd sold myself on the FS100 already, but at that price, it's kinda hard to turn down the Pannie - Why are these choices always so damn hard!
 
the fast lens from 12-14 is the olympus 12mm 2.0 prime. still trickling on the market but it seems like a great quality lens.
 
Grug said:
I've just called around asking for prices, and it turns out the AF102 body is on special down here for $4600 at the moment compared to about $5800 for the FS100 body. I thought I'd sold myself on the FS100 already, but at that price, it's kinda hard to turn down the Pannie - Why are these choices always so damn hard!
Click to expand...

I went with the FS100, mainly for the low light capabilities and the fact that I like the form factor. The FS100 can be stripped down to a "Stealth mode" that is almost on par with the larger DSLR's. That is a consideration for me and I did not see the AF100 doing that. However, with the price difference that you have in Australia, going with the AF100 is almost a no brainer. Both of these cameras are outstanding cameras, and I don't think you would be disappointed with either.
 
David G. Smith said:
I went with the FS100, mainly for the low light capabilities and the fact that I like the form factor. The FS100 can be stripped down to a "Stealth mode" that is almost on par with the larger DSLR's. That is a consideration for me and I did not see the AF100 doing that. However, with the price difference that you have in Australia, going with the AF100 is almost a no brainer. Both of these cameras are outstanding cameras, and I don't think you would be disappointed with either.
Click to expand...

Except I've just stumbled across the matter of highlight rolloff this afternoon... :(

Because so many of my shoots are so limited in terms of time, equipment and assistance (the three keys to good lighting IMO) having the sort of smooth highlight handling that keeps images looking filmic, is really important for me - it's one of the things that keeps blowing me away about the 5DMkII when I use it, how smoothly the highlights spill into the image. The AF100 turns out a beautiful image when you don't have extremes of exposure, but when you do... it seems to be the camera's biggest stumbling block (far more so than the image characteristics of the slightly smaller sensor IMO).

Argh! Now I'm torn between the incredible value of the Pannie, and the notably better highlights of the Sony.

Cue restless nights' sleeping...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top