Would you have bought the FS700 if it didn't have Slo-Mo?

T

True North

Well-known member
I am still considering buying the FS700. I am also very interested in the AF100. The only major reason I have for preferring the FS700 over the AF100 is for it's slo-mo capabilities. There is a $4000 between the two cameras and that seems to be a big premium to pay solely for hi def 120-240fps capabilities. I realise a Phantom will set you back alot more than 4g's, but still....

Taking 4K capabilities out of the picture, how many of you would have purchased the FS700 if it didn't have it's slo-mo capabilities?

Just curious.
 
I would. Maybe I wouldn't have done as quick of a transition between my fs100 to 700, but I'm pretty sure I would have bought it anyway later. I owned fs100 previously and when upgrading slomo and 4K raw capabilities were the last thing I thought about. HD SDI, ND filters, CineGammas, Better top Handle, HandGrip etc were features that I dreamed to have on fs100, Slow Motion and 4K Raw just pushed my purchase and made it happen earlier due to a project that required slomo. I could shoot 60p on that project, but then I thought why the heck no.
 
I shoot with the AF100 all the time and think its a great camera, especially for the price, but with that said I just pulled the trigger on an FS700 this week.
I felt that the Slo-mo and the 4K upgrade ability is worth the extra money.

A little something I shot with the AF100 a while back:

http://vimeo.com/43691068

If you don't already have a bunch of support gear or lenses you might want to pick up the AF100 over the FS700 and spend the extra $4K on a good monitor and a couple lenses?
But if you need slo-mo, the FS700 is the best bang for the buck.

At the end of the day they will both take nice pictures if you know what your doing.
 
Last edited:
That is some very nice work Ben, the images look gorgeous. I like your use of lighting as well. I know that either Camera won't be a hindrance, my experience and knowledge will fall short well before the technical abilities of these Cameras.....lol

I have some decent Canon glass already and just purchased the new Marshall 9" hi res monitor....so I am reasonably OK in those areas. I know my personality and while the AF100 is more than enough camera for me, I will always really be wanting the FS700. I keep trying to talk myself out of it but I keep coming back to it no matter how hard I try.

BTW - are you Canadian or just a Bubbles fan or perhaps even both?
 
Last edited:
There's quite a price difference between the AF100 and the FS700. If I were you I'd actually consider the FS100. I myself switched from it to the AF100, but didn't like the image of the latter, switched back, upgraded to FS700, and finally reverted back to the FS100. I don't need slo mo, and the FS100 for me represented the best compromise in price, IQ, and portability while maintaining XLRs and a camcorder form factor. Its ergonomic flaws are well known, but actually with a shortened loupe and a set of light e-mount primes the FS100 is very useable. The FS700 is significantly bulkier and just too conspicuous for the kind of shooting I do (one man run and gun, sometimes in sensitive places). I'd also feel less worried banging a $3000 FS100 around than a $7000 FS700.

The major flaw of the FS100 is the lack of built in ND's. I rectify this with the Xume magnetic filter holder system, which allows you to quickly attach and detach ND's. The emount lenses (f/1.8 and stabilized except for one) share a 49mm filter thread size so this is a good and easy solution.

Slo mo, 4k potential, and cinegammas (which can sort of be replicated by fiddling with picture profiles) aside, the FS700's advantages over the FS100 I found irritatingly half-hearted. Yes, you get a top handle, but it's still awkward and I'd prefer Caleb Crosby's walnut handle any day. The ND filter wheel is sticky--not quite as smooth as the AF100's. And the yes, the hand grip is more secure and has more buttons, but Sony decided to put a basically useless STILL photo button next to focus assist, and relegate Push Auto-Iris (which is obviously very useful for Run and Gun) to the barely useable pinky position. It does address the shortcomings of the FS100, but just barely, and I can't see it as anything but Sony f-ing with us. For me they weren't worth the extra weight and bulk and price.

Also the ND wheel pushes the hand grip of the FS700 further off-axis. That plus the extra weight makes the FS700 surprisingly more awkward to hand-hold than the FS100, which after some use I got used to and came to love.
 
Last edited:
Purchased the FS700 as an upgrade from the 5D3 to use with the Metabones Speed Booster. Great straight-from-camera film-like image quality when using cinegammas, pro audio, full frame (1.09 crop) with Canon L lenses; slomo is a bonus (probably won't use 4K).
 
Great Question. Honestly, I think yes. Coming from the AF100 and getting the jump in DR, highlight control and the killer stock scene files was enough for me.
 
aly324 said:
There's quite a price difference between the AF100 and the FS700. If I were you I'd actually consider the FS100. I myself switched from it to the AF100, but didn't like the image of the latter, switched back, upgraded to FS700, and finally reverted back to the FS100. I don't need slo mo, and the FS100 for me represented the best compromise in price, IQ, and portability while maintaining XLRs and a camcorder form factor. Its ergonomic flaws are well known, but actually with a shortened loupe and a set of light e-mount primes the FS100 is very useable. The FS700 is significantly bulkier and just too conspicuous for the kind of shooting I do (one man run and gun, sometimes in sensitive places). I'd also feel less worried banging a $3000 FS100 around than a $7000 FS700.

The major flaw of the FS100 is the lack of built in ND's. I rectify this with the Xume magnetic filter holder system, which allows you to quickly attach and detach ND's. The emount lenses (f/1.8 and stabilized except for one) share a 49mm filter thread size so this is a good and easy solution.

Slo mo, 4k potential, and cinegammas (which can sort of be replicated by fiddling with picture profiles) aside, the FS700's advantages over the FS100 I found irritatingly half-hearted. Yes, you get a top handle, but it's still awkward and I'd prefer Caleb Crosby's walnut handle any day. The ND filter wheel is sticky--not quite as smooth as the AF100's. And the yes, the hand grip is more secure and has more buttons, but Sony decided to put a basically useless STILL photo button next to focus assist, and relegate Push Auto-Iris (which is obviously very useful for Run and Gun) to the barely useable pinky position. It does address the shortcomings of the FS100, but just barely, and I can't see it as anything but Sony f-ing with us. For me they weren't worth the extra weight and bulk and price.

Also the ND wheel pushes the hand grip of the FS700 further off-axis. That plus the extra weight makes the FS700 surprisingly more awkward to hand-hold than the FS100, which after some use I got used to and came to love.
Click to expand...

I have brought this up in another thread but Sony has long been known for it's design aesthetics. Sony was one of the only electronics companies that Steve jobs admired for it's design principles. With this in mind, it never ceases to amaze me that Sony would release two (FS100 & FS700) of the most unsightly and poorly designed (aesthetically & ergonomically speaking) professional camcorders in the industry. Obviously the imagery is still solid enough but I think they should have done a much better job on the design. Kind of reminds me of the Homer Simpson car design philosophy.

I continue to also consider the FS100 it's just that I hate the design of the Camera so much, that I would rather go with the AF100. I could forgive the design faults if it had slo-mo and ND Filters like the FS700. I am surprised to hear you say you didn't like the image quality of the AF100, could you maybe expand upon that a little more.
 
True North said:
I have brought this up in another thread but Sony has long been known for it's design aesthetics. Sony was one of the only electronics companies that Steve jobs admired for it's design principles. With this in mind, it never ceases to amaze me that Sony would release two (FS100 & FS700) of the most unsightly and poorly designed (aesthetically & ergonomically speaking) professional camcorders in the industry. Obviously the imagery is still solid enough but I think they should have done a much better job on the design. Kind of reminds me of the Homer Simpson car design philosophy.

I continue to also consider the FS100 it's just that I hate the design of the Camera so much, that I would rather go with the AF100. I could forgive the design faults if it had slo-mo and ND Filters like the FS700. I am surprised to hear you say you didn't like the image quality of the AF100, could you maybe expand upon that a little more.
Click to expand...

Well I will say you should read Adam Wilte's write up on the FS100. Especially the part where he compares the FS100 image to that of the AF100. When I was looking to buy one of those two cameras, I came to much the same conclusions as he did. His write up has test charts from
several cameras including the AF100 and FS100 and his conclusions about which image is
better. It's worth reading at the very least.
http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/review_sony_nex-fs100_super35_lss_avchd_camcorder/
 
True North said:
I have brought this up in another thread but Sony has long been known for it's design aesthetics. Sony was one of the only electronics companies that Steve jobs admired for it's design principles. With this in mind, it never ceases to amaze me that Sony would release two (FS100 & FS700) of the most unsightly and poorly designed (aesthetically & ergonomically speaking) professional camcorders in the industry. Obviously the imagery is still solid enough but I think they should have done a much better job on the design. Kind of reminds me of the Homer Simpson car design philosophy.

I continue to also consider the FS100 it's just that I hate the design of the Camera so much, that I would rather go with the AF100. I could forgive the design faults if it had slo-mo and ND Filters like the FS700. I am surprised to hear you say you didn't like the image quality of the AF100, could you maybe expand upon that a little more.
Click to expand...

My own feeling is that the FS100's ergonomics are not as bad as first impression might suggest. When I first switched from the FS100 to the AF100, I thought wow, how nice it was to have a (relatively) less rectilinear body and of course to have a ND filter wheel. But the image just didn't cut it. The AF100 was far inferior in low light, and the resolution (as Adam Wilt's tests, posted by someone before) wasn't as good. Overall the image struck me as harsh and electronic, whereas the FS100 just gave a nice smooth image to begin with. Back then I really had very little idea about picture profiles and such--I've read up on them a lot recently but still wouldn't consider myself an expert in any case. So maybe by fiddling with the parameters I could've made AF100 produce better images. But I'm pretty sure the AF100 sensor has inherent limitations, being a 16MP still sensor similar to that on the GH1 refitted to a camcorder (not even as good as the GH2). Phillip Bloom did a side by side with the AF100, FS100, and F3 and also found the FS100 to be superior to the AF100 in resolution.

Now the FS100: yes, it's really awkward as is, but I can't stress enough how much a difference certain simple and cheap customizations make. The loupe in its original length creates a lot of torque both up-down and sideways, and pulls the camcorder body very far from your face, making it really awkward to hand-hold, even if you have a light lens in front. But if you shorten it yourself (involves nothing more than unscrewing a few screws), the torque issue almost disappears. And the shorter loupe makes it less awkward to flip it open when you need the screen. Incidentally this also resolves one of the ugliest things about the FS100: the protruding elephant trunk / toilet roll. (All this applies to the FS700 too, actually, maybe even the EA50UH.) See this thread on shotening the loupe: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?288087-Shortening-FS100-lope-revived

Likewise, the ridiculous mic mount / "handle" that comes with it is useless and ridiculous. The moving parts can't be fastened and always slide around. You have to replace it. I've used Caleb Crosby's walnut grip, which is wonderful. I've also used Berkey's components to create a secure mic mount. I remove the tape hook (no use to me) and also the cold shoe plate, and put a Berkey accessory block there plus a couple other small components to mount the mic. Both solutions also create a cleaner profile and help with aesthetics. The Crosby grip is actually beautiful in all senses.

And again, the lack of ND's: I rectify this with a Xume magnetic filter system and filters in a pouch attached to my backpack strap. Not as convenient, but good enough. And aesthetically, I think the front bulge of the FS700 thanks to the ND wheel makes it really quite ugly. Suddenly you're perceived as holding a major (and expensive) piece of equipment, whereas when I use the FS100 most people thought it was just a camera and didn't give me a second look.

Slo-mo: do keep in mind both the FS100 and the AF100 do 60p (the latter without sound recording, but in a slightly higher bit rate), so you could still do a bit of it...

Anyway, my perspective is from someone who does one man observational stuff, where maneuverability and relative inconspicuousness are crucial. I've used all three of the options and find the FS100 to be most suitable for my purposes. When I put an Emount prime lens on it especially, it's so light and really a joy to use, I can carry it around all day and use it like a diary camera much like a DSLR. I do think the FS100 in its factory settings sucks and definitely needs to be customized more than the AF100. I'd give it a chance, especially now that it's basically half the price of an FS700 used and just slightly more expensive than an AF100.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this sounds like a broken record as I've said basically the same thing in several other posts.

For me, I love the FS700. I think the image is nicer than the FS100 overall IMO just because of the Cinegammas. Better highlights, better colors, very user friendly profile which is more important to me than the extra stop of lowlight from the FS100. The FS700 just looks more organic IMO than the FS100 and require little profile tweaking compared to the FS100 to get a nice look. Works out of the box.

If FS700 didn't have super slow motion, I would not pay $8K for it, but if it were less money I would get it because I do like the image.

As for the ergonomics, people who bash the camera relentlessly probably have not used it much or just repeating what people say. It looks crazy at first, but the buttons on the side are really useful as you can change things quickly. The menus you just get used to. It's a great handheld camera if you shorten the loupe because then it's a decent EVF, or at least for my style of shooting which is a lot of handheld. I don't even use the side handle because it throws the camera balance off. I just hold in with my right hand on the bottom and it works great. I also like it because the Mic, LCD / EVF are 1 unit unlike say... the C100 or C300 where there are comprises with the EVF or the LCD.
 
True North said:
... amaze me that Sony would release two (FS100 & FS700) of the most unsightly and poorly designed (aesthetically & ergonomically speaking) professional camcorders in the industry. ....
I hate the design of the Camera so much, that I would rather go with the AF100....
Click to expand...
Never understand people, who don't like "brick-style" design of Sony FS-700... personally I don't like ONLY LCD placement in this camera... but the rest is not as bad as it seems ... :)
Let see what we get with 4K, 12-bit RAW update and than compare it to AF-100 :)
 
If not for the slo-mo and future raw upgrade I would get a used F3.

The f3 is an amazing camera and much more ergonomic.
 
No I would not buy the FS700 if it had no super slo-mo options.
I was actually just about to purchase the FS700 in December... then decided to go with the C300... And I am a slo-mo frequent flyer and admirer!
The image quality/bitrate/user friendliness of the C300 just beats the FS700 fair square... The latter has the weight and 240fps to its advantage (also 50/60fps at 1080p), but that's about it in my book...
Anyway, I chose the FS700 for my recent commercial for a national cell operator where 200fps were needed... performed quite well with Ninja 2...
 
Lcrusher said:
If not for the slo-mo and future raw upgrade I would get a used F3.

The f3 is an amazing camera and much more ergonomic.
Click to expand...

and a used f3 now can be had for less than the fs700. pretty tempting.

the f3 i believe is a bit heavier than the fs700 (even without lens) and quite a bit bulkier, and i already found the fs700 unwieldy. but i haven't handled an f3 myself so i don't know how it feels. if anyone has experience with both please let me know.
 
Interesting thread. I went from the 7D to the AF100 and used the AF100 on a few productions. I can honestly say the body style just never worked for me. The articulating handle of the FS100 has been one of THE BEST features of the body I have enjoyed. There are times when the LCD is amazing, and other times I wish I could move it. The thing is, I don't think it's better or worse than a side mount, they both suffer from being stuck. They both should have been movable and attached by a wire.

The button layout of the AF100 was no better or worse. Having to open the LCD to get to some of the controls is a pain. Same with the FS100 when you are using an external LCD.

All that said, this morning I purchased an FS700. I would have bought one with-out slo mo for cheaper, but I can say that in the production work we do (see Mario Warfare on YouTube) we do use slo-mo a lot and plan on using it more in our series where it makes sense. But that was definitely not the only reason I bought it. The ND filters on the AF100 were fantastic. I've used screw on filters on the FS100 and to be honest, it was really a pain for me to have to keep switching them from lens to lens. I like to optimize my workflow as much as possible. The FS100 was SUPER sensitive and I NEVER worried about noise. However, I did worry about over-exposing constantly without ND and I like to shoot with my lenses pretty wide open.

The FS700 with the ND just means I am going to have less problem, and with the little bit of extra dynamic range the camera has than the FS100, it just means a little more to play with.

I've worked with the profiles on the FS100 A LOT. The best I used was Frank's last non-log based preset. It worked GREAT for indoors. It did not work that well for outdoors. I am sure I would have eventually found something that I was happy with, but I'll be honest, I didn't have an interest in shooting log. Mainly because I don't have the time at the moment to retrain my eye to work with those sorts of images, and I don't have a setup that can show me what I am going to eventually grade but record in log.

All the work I've seen done with the cinegammas have been gold. I talked with Adam Wilt about his impressions of the cinegammas on the FS700 and he said all the issues that he'd had with highlight handling and color reproduction were pretty much gone. That is saying a lot. Sure, it still has issues with high contrast edges in certain circumstances, but given that it is no worse than the FS100 which I never had a problem with it, then it was a non issue.

I'd say my only real concern was the weight addition of a pound. But in the end, it just means I need to maybe frequent the gym a little more.

I thought REALLY hard about the C100 or C300 but I just could not justify the lack of even 60P in 1080. For many people, that probably doesn't matter, but for us it really matters. I think the images out of the C300 are indeed fantastic. But cost/value, I like the FS700 as to covering all my needs right now.

I even thought about the F3, but still, the FS700 is more of the camera I want. I actually like the body style. It grew on me. We all have different needs/wants when it comes to cameras and I am sure my list is very different than anyone elses. But, in line with the original question, it's not just the slo-mo that I want. It's the color science. It's the ND filters. And, it's the possibility of upgrading to 4K in the future if I find a need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top