Jump to content

Which digital cinema camera to get now?


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
[html]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/digital-cinema-cameras-guide.jpg[/img]

Disclaimer: I usually say don’t wait – shoot with what you can get now, the best you can afford. But March 2012 is an unusual month because NAB 2012 is around the corner in April. The picture may change somewhat. Bear that in mind!

The candidates are:

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7576/which-digital-cinema-camera-to-get-now/"]Read full article[/url]

[/html]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
So you bought the FS100 and [i]consistently never mention[/i] or dismiss the Panasonic Af100 that has now dropped into that $4200k price zone. I have just shot a feature doc, shooting it solo with a hacked GH2 (driftwood) and AF100 with mostly the Voigtlander 0.95. as it was mostly a night shoot.  The only issue I had shooting daily for 6 weeks with the GH2 was inconsistent decent sound (Beachtek to XLR mic or Zoom H4N) as compared to the AF100 plug in my Rode NTG and go.  The AF as a pro doc camera for its price is the best out there.  I often backpacked both and would shoot depending on circumstances. Intimate more personal space the GH2.  Events, out door run and gun, the AF rocked handheld or with a monopod, no rig needed even though I own the Cineroid EVF.  I did the full comparison with the FS100 when I bought the AF.  Barry Greens ( I know how you love the guy!) comparison pretty much summed up the two for me.
[url=http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260461-FS100-and-AF100-compared&highlight=af100+v+sony+fs100]http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260461-FS100-and-AF100-compared&highlight=af100+v+sony+fs100[/url]
The only issue I have is blown highlights in the AF100 that I get around by either figuring out composition in shot, use the GH2 or live with the image and try grade.  This is documentary after all and it's always how I tell the story first (that is get the story!) rather than what my footage looks like.  BTW peaking on AF100, in camera ND's and waveform excellent when I'm handheld run and gun. I'm putting in an order for the Voigt 17mm 0.95 and with that and my Nikon primes figure I'm good to go for next few feature docs and several years to come.  At the moment cutting and still shooting and I'm 60-40 GH2 ratio of shooting but expect to be 50-50 by end. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the AF100 has worse picture quality in some ways than the hacked GH2, but it does have an ND filter, XLRs, etc, and sells for as little as $3K on eBay.  I'd probably prefer the FS100 to some extent, but you could get the AF100 and a GH2 for the price of the FS100, and you share lenses between the two.  Sounds like a pretty good combo to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
[quote author=biginvegas link=topic=454.msg2860#msg2860 date=1332517823]
So you bought the FS100 and [i]consistently never mention[/i] or dismiss the Panasonic Af100 that has now dropped into that $4200k price zone. I have just shot a feature doc, shooting it solo with a hacked GH2 (driftwood) and AF100 with mostly the Voigtlander 0.95. as it was mostly a night shoot.  The only issue I had shooting daily for 6 weeks with the GH2 was inconsistent decent sound (Beachtek to XLR mic or Zoom H4N) as compared to the AF100 plug in my Rode NTG and go.  The AF as a pro doc camera for its price is the best out there.  I often backpacked both and would shoot depending on circumstances. Intimate more personal space the GH2.  Events, out door run and gun, the AF rocked handheld or with a monopod, no rig needed even though I own the Cineroid EVF.  I did the full comparison with the FS100 when I bought the AF.  Barry Greens ( I know how you love the guy!) comparison pretty much summed up the two for me.
[url=http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260461-FS100-and-AF100-compared&highlight=af100+v+sony+fs100]http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260461-FS100-and-AF100-compared&highlight=af100+v+sony+fs100[/url]
The only issue I have is blown highlights in the AF100 that I get around by either figuring out composition in shot, use the GH2 or live with the image and try grade.  This is documentary after all and it's always how I tell the story first (that is get the story!) rather than what my footage looks like.  BTW peaking on AF100, in camera ND's and waveform excellent when I'm handheld run and gun. I'm putting in an order for the Voigt 17mm 0.95 and with that and my Nikon primes figure I'm good to go for next few feature docs and several years to come.  At the moment cutting and still shooting and I'm 60-40 GH2 ratio of shooting but expect to be 50-50 by end.
[/quote]

I just don't think, aside from the ND, that the AF100 offers much over the FS100 because it has a weaker sensor and a bulkier form factor. The GH2 has better image quality for $600 with the hack. I don't need the AF100 alongside it, the FS100 is just flat out better for my needs. Read Barry's views on the AF100 vs FS100 and he is welcome to keep them!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize how much the FS100 has changed. Thats a great bang4buck. I would get that now of the choices. My only concern would be in getting used to all those buttons. :) Hoping Panny will update an AF200 but i'll likely pick up a GH3 when that comes out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn guys, all this waiting and now i have only more questions than answers.

Initial idea was to get Nikon d800 with one of the cheep external recorders, but i hate moire so that one is not going to happen.

MkIII video improvements for 4 year wait are simply not good enough...

Can there possibly be more 1080p like image on 1Dx or it will be exactly the same?

fs100 is a great one, but i need good stills too...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
The reason the F3 wasn't included was because I don't think it is unique enough.

All the cameras in the article had unique differences... such as the slow mo of the FS100 and the price, the cheap cost of a 5D Mark II on eBay used relative to other full frame video cameras capable of as good an image, the cheap price and astoundingly insane res of the GH2, etc, etc.

The F3 is a great camera but it basically delivers nip and tuck the same image quality as the FS100 with G-LOG profile. And I don't like the form factor... At least the C300 and Scarlet have unique selling points for their high prices... The C300's 'perfect 1080p' downscaled from a 4K CMOS, the form factor and the Scarlet's 4K and aggressive specs.

The F3 like the FS100 is not completely free of artefacts like the C300 is but I doubt anyone in an audience would notice to be honest! Even on a cinema screen!

That leaves us with one more notable exception in the article... the AF100. You have to REALLLLLY want the ND and HD-SDI of this camera to downgrade your sensor so much over the similarly priced FS100. I also dislike the design of it, seems a bit dated now. Don't forget the GH2 performs better than the AF100 for image quality, even on a chart!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to not just compare specs and features but to also compare the looks that these cameras create.  Personally, I love the look of the footage shot with the MII.  I am still thinking of adding a MIII for the low light features but I'm not in a particular hurry to pull the trigger.  The FS100 sounds like an amazing camera but the footage looks very stale and flat to me.  Very "video-y".  Yeah, I know, that's very technical of me to say...  I really want to see the MIII and the FS100 footage side by side.  I'm also worried that cutting the 5D MII footage in with the FS100 footage won't look great. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
[quote author=ZigFilm link=topic=454.msg2885#msg2885 date=1332545791]
I think it's important to not just compare specs and features but to also compare the looks that these cameras create.  Personally, I love the look of the footage shot with the MII.  I am still thinking of adding a MIII for the low light features but I'm not in a particular hurry to pull the trigger.  The FS100 sounds like an amazing camera but the footage looks very stale and flat to me.  Very "video-y".  Yeah, I know, that's very technical of me to say...  I really want to see the MIII and the FS100 footage side by side.  I'm also worried that cutting the 5D MII footage in with the FS100 footage won't look great.
[/quote]

Agree with you that the aesthetics are more important than specs but I don't think the FS100 footage looks like video, it depends how it is shot and graded. Sharper footage doesn't always look less cinematic. Take a look at this for a good example of what the FS100 (and F3) is capable of...

[url=http://www.vimeo.com/29106428]Reeling Back / Autumn 2011[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=ZigFilm link=topic=454.msg2885#msg2885 date=1332545791]
I think it's important to not just compare specs and features but to also compare the looks that these cameras create.  Personally, I love the look of the footage shot with the MII.  I am still thinking of adding a MIII for the low light features but I'm not in a particular hurry to pull the trigger.  The FS100 sounds like an amazing camera but the footage looks very stale and flat to me.  Very "video-y".  Yeah, I know, that's very technical of me to say...  I really want to see the MIII and the FS100 footage side by side.  I'm also worried that cutting the 5D MII footage in with the FS100 footage won't look great.
[/quote]

I think you got those two confused - imo MK2/3 are far more videoy vs an FS100 or F3

But if you really want to ditch the video look rent/buy the Ikonoskop A-cam - global shutter, raw, very soft organic look to the files with milky shadows.  Dynamic range is limited and the small sensor would probably make super shallow depth of field tricky, but it does produce a very pleasing image.

https://vimeo.com/28717821
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=454.msg2887#msg2887 date=1332547458]

Agree with you that the aesthetics are more important than specs but I don't think the FS100 footage looks like video, it depends how it is shot and graded. Sharper footage doesn't always look less cinematic. Take a look at this for a good example of what the FS100 (and F3) is capable of...

[url=http://vimeo.com/29106428]Reeling Back / Autumn 2011[/url]
[/quote]

Thanks, Andrew!  I really appreciate the link.  I would love to see a real narrative scene shot with this camera.  All I've been able to find has looked like soap operas and porn...  To be honest, this reel is so full of over processed shots, slow motion, lens flares, and other stuff it's really hard to tell what any normal footage would look like.  When I say normal, I mean footage you would actually use in a narrative.  Please post any more links or PM them to me.  I really want to love this camera since it has so many great features and is pretty inexpensive!  8)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Andrew, I was just wondering where you were getting the $4000 price for a used fs100 from? I've been watching eBay for weeks and the lowest I've seen for the body has been about $4500-4700 usd. I'd love to know where else I should be looking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=Sara link=topic=454.msg2892#msg2892 date=1332551659]
[quote author=ZigFilm link=topic=454.msg2885#msg2885 date=1332545791]
I think it's important to not just compare specs and features but to also compare the looks that these cameras create.  Personally, I love the look of the footage shot with the MII.  I am still thinking of adding a MIII for the low light features but I'm not in a particular hurry to pull the trigger.  The FS100 sounds like an amazing camera but the footage looks very stale and flat to me.  Very "video-y".  Yeah, I know, that's very technical of me to say...  I really want to see the MIII and the FS100 footage side by side.  I'm also worried that cutting the 5D MII footage in with the FS100 footage won't look great.
[/quote]

I think you got those two confused - imo MK2/3 are far more videoy vs an FS100 or F3

But if you really want to ditch the video look rent/buy the Ikonoskop A-cam - global shutter, raw, very soft organic look to the files with milky shadows.  Dynamic range is limited and the small sensor would probably make super shallow depth of field tricky, but it does produce a very pleasing image.

[url=https://vimeo.com/28717821]https://vimeo.com/28717821[/url]
[/quote]

Yeah, the more I see comparison footage between the 5D and other cameras the more I like the 5D.  I guess that's lucky for me since I already have one :)  This one really sealed it for me:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKSwnlIUNeU#ws]Canon 5D Mark II vs Sony NEX-FS100 vs Canon T3i[/url]

Thanks for the Ikonoskop link!!!  The footage is great.  I can find that camera used plus a couple lenses for about 12K.  Not too bad.  Cheaper than the C300!  I think I am going to wait for April 15 to see what Canon is announcing before I buy anything more. 

Thanks again for everyone's help!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...