Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
Agreed. I could not be happier with this little camera.
Why I'm selling my AF101
- Thread starter analog_addict
- Start date
Agreed. I could not be happier with this little camera.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
I've had my quibbles with it since I got it last spring and although it's up for sale right this minute I'm having second thoughts. I have a lot of great footage from this camera and then other times...not so much. I realize the factors involved are numerous so I'm not blaming the camera outright.
I recently showed a friend a bunch of RAW MTS files via my server, then another DP friend of mine, then another who does Grading / VFX. They were test shots, shots in good light, shots in bad light, different ISO's, etc. The most telling term that came back was from my Grading / VFX friend who said it all looked like "cinematic broadcast." That pretty much sums up how I feel about this camera and why I don't think many who are interested in a more cinematic narrative look are buying it. Some are no doubt, and even Zak Forsman is using it on his new feature and seems pretty happy given my talks with him, but for me I keep getting inconsistent results. Yes, I too like the original poster attribute a lot of my unhappiness with me being the issue (more then likely, not all the time) but I haven't been able to figure out what else I can do. The camera simply takes far more work to get something I can be happy with. My DSLRs? Nope, they handle almost everything very well and give me an image that pleases me. Doesn't mean it doesn't take work, because that's not true at all, but their initial image pleases me far better then my AF100. I think outside the AF100 shines to me, and that's where the majority of my good footage has come from, but my DSLR shines inside and out, and my AF100 has given me the most trouble indoors. The AF100 regardless of style settings has banding far worse then my 5D, and I have had a bit of trouble (at least given the locations I've been in) at getting a DOF that I want. I don't need noses in/out of focus, but it's been more about the background behind someone just not being as knocked out as I prefer. I'm not saying because of that it's not fine or cinematic like some would, because DOF is usually pretty subdued in a lot of pictures, but it's just not what I want a lot of the time.
If I do sell it, I'll miss so much it has to offer...no doubt. However, the C300 is coming and while it's 3x more then the AF100, it has what I love about the Canon cameras (not just DSLRs) like the way they handle color, the smoothness of the highlights, etc. without the disadvantages and a more robust codec then the AF100 (just my personal opinion) and 4:2:2 to boot.
If I end up keeping my AF100 (which I might actually) it'll be because I still need a complete video camera every once in a while and the DSLRs just can't fit that bill without some hefty workarounds.
The AF100 isn't a bad camera not by far, and many have made it SHINE! as have I in proper circumstances, but it doesn't fit like a glove like I was hoping it would when I bought it. Lessons learned!
I recently showed a friend a bunch of RAW MTS files via my server, then another DP friend of mine, then another who does Grading / VFX. They were test shots, shots in good light, shots in bad light, different ISO's, etc. The most telling term that came back was from my Grading / VFX friend who said it all looked like "cinematic broadcast." That pretty much sums up how I feel about this camera and why I don't think many who are interested in a more cinematic narrative look are buying it. Some are no doubt, and even Zak Forsman is using it on his new feature and seems pretty happy given my talks with him, but for me I keep getting inconsistent results. Yes, I too like the original poster attribute a lot of my unhappiness with me being the issue (more then likely, not all the time) but I haven't been able to figure out what else I can do. The camera simply takes far more work to get something I can be happy with. My DSLRs? Nope, they handle almost everything very well and give me an image that pleases me. Doesn't mean it doesn't take work, because that's not true at all, but their initial image pleases me far better then my AF100. I think outside the AF100 shines to me, and that's where the majority of my good footage has come from, but my DSLR shines inside and out, and my AF100 has given me the most trouble indoors. The AF100 regardless of style settings has banding far worse then my 5D, and I have had a bit of trouble (at least given the locations I've been in) at getting a DOF that I want. I don't need noses in/out of focus, but it's been more about the background behind someone just not being as knocked out as I prefer. I'm not saying because of that it's not fine or cinematic like some would, because DOF is usually pretty subdued in a lot of pictures, but it's just not what I want a lot of the time.
If I do sell it, I'll miss so much it has to offer...no doubt. However, the C300 is coming and while it's 3x more then the AF100, it has what I love about the Canon cameras (not just DSLRs) like the way they handle color, the smoothness of the highlights, etc. without the disadvantages and a more robust codec then the AF100 (just my personal opinion) and 4:2:2 to boot.
If I end up keeping my AF100 (which I might actually) it'll be because I still need a complete video camera every once in a while and the DSLRs just can't fit that bill without some hefty workarounds.
The AF100 isn't a bad camera not by far, and many have made it SHINE! as have I in proper circumstances, but it doesn't fit like a glove like I was hoping it would when I bought it. Lessons learned!
analog_addict
Well-known member
Kyle pretty much sums up my concerns. Plus this post with 2x commercials shot on 5D and AF100. I prefer the look of the 5D footage. More often than not I prefer the stuff I get with my 550D compared to the AF100 image.
http://vid35.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/5d-mk-ii-vs-af100-real-life-test-similar-commercials/
To answers a few other questions:
- Couldn't afford the FS100. Was £4k and my AF was £3k
- 2x crop is an issue as most decent/affordable primes are designed for 35mm. I want to use my Super Takumar 50mm 1.4 for most shots but struggle as it turns into a 100mm. Therefore I have to use a 28mm 2.8 to get a 50mmish shot and no longer have a fast normal lens. Yes there is the voigtlander 25mm but a ton more expensive than the Takumar. The difference between 1.6x and 2x crop is quite large. I realised this after setting both cams up side by side each with a 50mm Takumar on. I love my Takumar glass and the AF 2x crop is annoying!
- Moire/Jello/Aliasing are issues with DSLR but I have shot many projects and you just need to keep these issues in mind while shooting. I guess you can buy that filter to fit inside the 5D as well.
The AF100 is a good camera but just not for me. I was never keen on the DVX/HVX so maybe it's just a Panny thing. My issues with the AF100 really hit me when the prospect of a job at a large engineering firm came up and I realised I wouldn't be confident going in with the AF to do the job. I have got some nice shots with this cam but as Kyle says, for me it is inconsistent. Give me a Canon DSLR and I could do the job with a beaming smile.
http://vid35.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/5d-mk-ii-vs-af100-real-life-test-similar-commercials/
To answers a few other questions:
- Couldn't afford the FS100. Was £4k and my AF was £3k
- 2x crop is an issue as most decent/affordable primes are designed for 35mm. I want to use my Super Takumar 50mm 1.4 for most shots but struggle as it turns into a 100mm. Therefore I have to use a 28mm 2.8 to get a 50mmish shot and no longer have a fast normal lens. Yes there is the voigtlander 25mm but a ton more expensive than the Takumar. The difference between 1.6x and 2x crop is quite large. I realised this after setting both cams up side by side each with a 50mm Takumar on. I love my Takumar glass and the AF 2x crop is annoying!
- Moire/Jello/Aliasing are issues with DSLR but I have shot many projects and you just need to keep these issues in mind while shooting. I guess you can buy that filter to fit inside the 5D as well.
The AF100 is a good camera but just not for me. I was never keen on the DVX/HVX so maybe it's just a Panny thing. My issues with the AF100 really hit me when the prospect of a job at a large engineering firm came up and I realised I wouldn't be confident going in with the AF to do the job. I have got some nice shots with this cam but as Kyle says, for me it is inconsistent. Give me a Canon DSLR and I could do the job with a beaming smile.
Last edited:
Ed Kishel
Veteran
This story is like mine- but in reverse: I had a 60D and a T2i, but I couldn't mesh with DSLR shooting for video. The large sensor was great, but to many other issues came along with DSLRs. I didn't want to have to tell people what they could or couldn't wear, and didn't like avoiding entire exteriors for fear of bricks and other fine patterns. Or having to say- "I can't pan that fast, the room will bend". And all the accessories I had to buy to make it usable (for me) drove the price up to nearly what I had to pay for the AF. And the AF breathed new life into all my old SLR lenses. So like the OP I chose to sell and make the switch. I have a GH2, but it's primarily for shooting stills (gasp)! The AF isn't perfect- but you all know about the "perfect video camera". Gotta work with what's best for you
Last edited:
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Yep definitely! The funny thing for me is the accessories you need to buy for the DSLRs to really make them "field ready" were already required for my AF100. A rails setup I already owned, matte-box, etc. Follow Focus can be used on both of them (and I had planned on it) and the AF100 LCD is fine, waveform, focus assist, etc, but I still wanted a good external monitor to deal with so the TVLogic 5.6 was the answer.
All in all whether I use the AF100 or 5D the accessories I want to use it are basically the same. The only difference is with the AF100 I can just pick it up and go and have some good features to deal with and not without. 5D I can't do that, but I still find myself being just fine in a lot of situations without all the accessories and ending up with a good product.
This discussion is good fellas, as it has me rethinking the selling of my AF100.
All in all whether I use the AF100 or 5D the accessories I want to use it are basically the same. The only difference is with the AF100 I can just pick it up and go and have some good features to deal with and not without. 5D I can't do that, but I still find myself being just fine in a lot of situations without all the accessories and ending up with a good product.
This discussion is good fellas, as it has me rethinking the selling of my AF100.
ScottNelson
Well-known member
Every camera has both it's good qualities and bad. I own the AF100, the Canon 7D and my trusty HVX200. I probably shoot 75% with the AF100, 10% with the HVX and 15% with the Canon and truthfully couldn't imagine being without any one of the three. They each have qualities that I can not do without.
Bottom line: Sell one and I'll probably regret it and I'll soon realize that my loss is more than just the cash.
It's not like we're talking about a $25K, $50K or $75K investment. The AF100 is $5000 camera that I paid off in 3 or 4 days of work.
I'm keeping all three.
Bottom line: Sell one and I'll probably regret it and I'll soon realize that my loss is more than just the cash.
It's not like we're talking about a $25K, $50K or $75K investment. The AF100 is $5000 camera that I paid off in 3 or 4 days of work.
I'm keeping all three.
Last edited:
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I think the idea that the O.P. is the "problem" might be a bit harsh. Everyone is going to have styles and workflows and ways of doing things they're used to and prefer. It's less a matter of the O.P. being the "problem" and more a matter of not using the tools that fit the way he does things. If he's getting images out of his DSLR's that he's happy with and he's comfortable with the workflow and it's paying the bills, so be it. That's all that matters.
reem12
Veteran
sale the af100 and get a cheap gh2 and hack it if the other video functions are not that big of a concern to you. This way you can free up the extra funds while getting some added perks of the hack.
On a side note, I personally never liked what I've seen image wise coming out of the af100 and couldn't wrap my mind around why I liked the image from the gh2 better and realised the highlight handeling on the gh2 faired much better but still not like my trusty 5d which is what I think is given the image that much organic look many tend to love.
I've recently purchased 2 gh2s since they dropped so cheap but will probably sending one back tomorrow and keeping the other.
On a side note, I personally never liked what I've seen image wise coming out of the af100 and couldn't wrap my mind around why I liked the image from the gh2 better and realised the highlight handeling on the gh2 faired much better but still not like my trusty 5d which is what I think is given the image that much organic look many tend to love.
I've recently purchased 2 gh2s since they dropped so cheap but will probably sending one back tomorrow and keeping the other.
analog_addict
Well-known member
So bottom line is ..... different strokes for different folks.
Hidef1080
Well-known member
I'm on the same page.
I picked up the 7D to see if I would prefer the DSLR route over the more standard video camera and I have to say I am liking the DLSR more.
Now I'm watching Canon to see what the 1DX and “C” DSLR are going to bring to the table.
Is it perfect?
No.
Are they for everybody?
No.
But it works for me.
Not selling my EX1 R however but I do shoot more on the 7D and I do like it more despite the limitations in some areas.
Last edited:
hscully
Veteran
All the DSLR folks say that they find the image more "pleasing." I have found DSLR footage, especially from the Canons to look pleasing, certainly. I always figured, bigger sensor and nice lenses are creating a softer shallow DOF.
I have a GH2 and I don't find the video all that pleasing. It's harsh and over saturated and I don't really use it for anything except stills right now even though I bought it hoping to use it as a B Cam. I still might. Maybe this latest upgrade will help. I'm not hacking it.
In the Zacuto shoot out artifacts caused by the Canon DSLR changed colors on the shot of the spices. The DSLR does not have an OLPF to combat that so as to maintain fidelity for stills, right? I wonder if that creates side effects that users find pleasing, when they are not as egregious as obvious moire? In other words, is the AF100 more faithful in creating a valid reproduction in video and so somehow less pleasing because the artifacts on the DSLR, when not unusable, seem pleasing?
Regarding highlights, the AF100 will blow out if you are not careful but this behavior is similar in cameras costing more like the F3. I just think that it's more flexible and the user has to be mindful of exposure. Does the Canon DSLR have some limiting circuits to manage this?
I have a GH2 and I don't find the video all that pleasing. It's harsh and over saturated and I don't really use it for anything except stills right now even though I bought it hoping to use it as a B Cam. I still might. Maybe this latest upgrade will help. I'm not hacking it.
In the Zacuto shoot out artifacts caused by the Canon DSLR changed colors on the shot of the spices. The DSLR does not have an OLPF to combat that so as to maintain fidelity for stills, right? I wonder if that creates side effects that users find pleasing, when they are not as egregious as obvious moire? In other words, is the AF100 more faithful in creating a valid reproduction in video and so somehow less pleasing because the artifacts on the DSLR, when not unusable, seem pleasing?
Regarding highlights, the AF100 will blow out if you are not careful but this behavior is similar in cameras costing more like the F3. I just think that it's more flexible and the user has to be mindful of exposure. Does the Canon DSLR have some limiting circuits to manage this?
...I suspect this is largely a result of people NOT grading their footage. The video I shoot with my GH-2 is intentionally adjusted to look flat and desaturated ( ugly to look at ) so that I can retain as much image detail as possible. Then once I am editing it, I have the ability to make my footage look any way I want, which is where that ephemeral "Film Look" is created.
Yes, straight out of the camera the Canon DSLR footage looks great, but unless you are using the flat Technicolor profiles ( which also look pretty crappy until they are corrected in post ), your Canon color is pretty much "baked in" and you don't have as many options to manipulate it in post.
Erik Naso
Veteran
The Canons have that wet look. Very saturated with a lot of contrast. I used to set up all my cameras like this but know want the flat look so I can mess with it in post. I enjoy color correcting and creating different looks so this work flow is best for me.
Good luck with your camera decision and remember you can always buy another AF100 if you regret the DSLR move. Its just a tool. But I do like my AF-100 a whole bunch!
Good luck with your camera decision and remember you can always buy another AF100 if you regret the DSLR move. Its just a tool. But I do like my AF-100 a whole bunch!
hscully
Veteran
Yes, that over saturated look is common in the DSLR footage. Your post encourages me to test more with the GH2. I love it as a still camera. I too shoot flat and work in post.
I watched the OP's commercial videos (nice job!). I thought that the first one had that warm amber look that many find pleasing. I liked the flatter, bluer, less saturated wine guy stuff (AF100) even better. It looked more faithful to what was there and as you say, you can always pump that up in post.
I still wonder if some of the "softness" is a result of artifacts related to video "beats" or undetected moire.
Last edited:
Gary Askham
Active member
Look at a camera like the Alexa when recording Log C. The output is flat, grey, dull and murky. You show that to someone and they'll think something went wrong. Give a colourist a few seconds with it and they will make it more beautiful than anything straight out of a DSLR. Professional video is meant to be graded.
analog_addict
Well-known member
I Hope I didn't open up a can of worms here i.e. DSLR vs AF101
My main points:
- AF101 is a very good camera but just not for me
- The AF101 produces a much nicer detailed image but I find colour to be lacking
- Money has something to do with my choice. The 5Dmk2 frees up nearly £1.5k to invest in much needed audio gear.
DSLR, AF101, FS100, F3, GH2, EX, F3, XF etc are all capable of producing stunning HD footage. It all comes down to what you feel comfortable with and what you can afford.
My main points:
- AF101 is a very good camera but just not for me
- The AF101 produces a much nicer detailed image but I find colour to be lacking
- Money has something to do with my choice. The 5Dmk2 frees up nearly £1.5k to invest in much needed audio gear.
DSLR, AF101, FS100, F3, GH2, EX, F3, XF etc are all capable of producing stunning HD footage. It all comes down to what you feel comfortable with and what you can afford.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I don't think you opened up a can of worms at all, I think you are just voicing an opinion that a lot of people have had to deal with. I too had an AF100 and I sold it. I shot two projects on it and the footage looked great. What I didn't like was the size of the camera, the missing digital zoom for focusing, and no native support for electronic EOS lenses. I came from a 7D and I LOVE the size of a DSLR when shooting. The AF100 took all that away from me. Granted, it gave me MUCH better alias/moire performance, better rolling shutter, and I felt more dynamic range, but it took away versatility in my shooting style. Getting the camera into crazy locations was not as easy. And the weight on things like the Blackbird stabilizer were just too much for me.
I moved on to the FS100 and while I really like the resolution from the sensor, the comparable rolling shutter, larger sensor, and weight, it too still has some issues. The body is VERY long. The non-native mount for my lenses and the lack of ND filters is a pain as well. When I pull out my 7D and shoot, I just love the speed at which I can change ISO and shutter speed. The FS100 menus and settings are VERY laggy (the AF100 was much snappier). Canon just did a good job on their DSLRs to me. Even if they lack features, for some people, like myself, I can shoot SO fast on them and make changes so easily that I miss that a lot.
I only post this because you are not alone. I think the AF100 and FS100 are great cameras, but they aren't made for the person who loves shooting on the DSLR form factor. Not that there is anything wrong about that, but, if people are moving out of their DSLR, these are things to consider.
Like others, the C300 is going to be interesting. I want to rent one to see if it feels like shooting on the 7D? I know it's a bit deeper, but I just want to see what the experience feels like. If the 7D didn't have moire/aliasing, I would honestly have stayed on that, but I can't take it anymore. It's *SO CLOSE* to a camera I don't mind using.
But, as said, we all have different needs.
I moved on to the FS100 and while I really like the resolution from the sensor, the comparable rolling shutter, larger sensor, and weight, it too still has some issues. The body is VERY long. The non-native mount for my lenses and the lack of ND filters is a pain as well. When I pull out my 7D and shoot, I just love the speed at which I can change ISO and shutter speed. The FS100 menus and settings are VERY laggy (the AF100 was much snappier). Canon just did a good job on their DSLRs to me. Even if they lack features, for some people, like myself, I can shoot SO fast on them and make changes so easily that I miss that a lot.
I only post this because you are not alone. I think the AF100 and FS100 are great cameras, but they aren't made for the person who loves shooting on the DSLR form factor. Not that there is anything wrong about that, but, if people are moving out of their DSLR, these are things to consider.
Like others, the C300 is going to be interesting. I want to rent one to see if it feels like shooting on the 7D? I know it's a bit deeper, but I just want to see what the experience feels like. If the 7D didn't have moire/aliasing, I would honestly have stayed on that, but I can't take it anymore. It's *SO CLOSE* to a camera I don't mind using.
But, as said, we all have different needs.
D10S
Well-known member
I too love my AF100. However when the Sony F3 came out I purchased one of those as well. I still use the AF100, mostly because of the ability to record long segments like interviews. Mostly I use it for projects that are going to web. The F3 is now getting all the broadcast work.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Have they released one for the 7D yet? Last time I looked it was 5D only. I've been curious about them and might buy one if they do.