Last night shot in the studio with little light, mostly modeling light, with my custom settings, overall quite liked it, just watched for exposure, pretty much no color correction here.
Fashion shoot today with stylist Eva Vostroknutova on Vimeo

Few shots took with Canon 5dm2, totally different picture.

Looks great, is the make up part done with the 5d? When you say totally different picture, is that when using the same lens and is the difference in the fact that the 5d gives more saturation?

Few shots took with Canon 5dm2, totally different picture.
oh yeah, and not in favour of AF, 21Mbps AVCHD is a high price to pay for a large sensor camcorder :)

21Mbps AVCHD is a high price to pay for a large sensor camcorder

Do you mean that 45mbs from a dslr is better? considering the resolution a dslr actually resolves that is a ridiculously high bitrate, probably to compensate for that. My guess was that only the make up part was done with the 5d and all the rest with the af100. If that would be the case I much prefer the look of the af100.

...I don't know if it was intentional or not, but with many of your shots the color-balance looks like it has 20-40 CC of too much cyan. ( I am guessing that the "yellow" footage is from the Canon 5D MK2, which looks very yellow )

Both of these color-casts are easy to fix with your NLE, unless this is the look that you intended for the footage.

A real lesson in what can be made with this camera, rather than the snipping and technical comparisons and camera faceoffs that many seem to be getting caught up in.

Some really beautiful images.

Do you mean that 45mbs from a dslr is better?
I can't say if it's better, I'll rather use your terminology and say I much prefer look of DSLR, to me it even looks 'better' than 35Mbps from XDCAM EX, and that is a very good camcorder;
I much prefer the look of the af100.
than it's your lucky day, AF100 is for sale right now; I'm saying lucky because I would prefer to use camcorder instead of photo camera, but to my eye only RED and up look better than DSLRs;

I can't say if it's better, I'll rather use your terminology and say I much prefer look of DSLR, to me it even looks 'better' than 35Mbps from XDCAM EX, and that is a very good camcorder

Buba,

Can you define what you mean when you say it "looks better" ?

- Is it the tonal range ?
- Is it the color rendition ?
- Is it the shallow depth-of-field ?

I'm asking because I've seen many people say they like one camera over another, when what they really meant is "I like the camera-person's choices when they made this film", because most videos can be tweaked to look almost any way you like, either with camera settings or when editing in post.

Having owned both the Canon 60D camera ( which I sold last month ) and the Panasonic GH-2 camera, I think some people are reacting to the the sharpness of the GH-2 / AF-100 compared to the softer image of the Canon DSLRs. The GH-2/AF-100 can look a little harsh for portrait-style interviews if you don't soften up the lighting or soften up the image when you are editing in post. ( It's like the Canon DSLRs have a bit of that old 1950's Hollywood soft-focus filter built-in, which can make things appear smoother )

There are a few technical problems that effect some cameras more than others, things like aliasing/moire problems with the Canon DSLRs, or things like limited exposure range with the Panasonic GH-2 ( your exposure has to be dead-on to get the best results )

to my eye only RED and up look better than DSLRs

You do know that the AF100 can look through the same lenzes as a dslr but with a lot less aliasing and moire issues?

The AF101 looks more video-ish then let's say a 7D.

AF100 came to the market as a "dslr killer" but in my opinion it failed in the "image feel" department. It handles highlights like a video cam and it's dynamic range isn't as good compared with 7D or 5D... These are the two things I like most in this DSLRs... Don't really care about DOF that much. In my opinion it's OVER USED...:)

thanks everyone, what I meant by АF100 better/different than 5dmk2, total DD, level of detail, tonal range. Most important, I struggled for 3 years with my 5dmk2 (had 2 of them at some point, still have one and 7D) with the "dirt" in gradual shadows, and easily obtainable chronic chroma clipping on skin areas, (same can say about ЕХ1, unpredictable highlights and chroma clipping), I feel more comfortable with AF100 in this regard.

Soon I will post some footage, shot on both AF100 and 5dmk2, David Perry, prominent US videographer and I had a seminar recently in Kiev and shot something together in the same conditions, you will be able see what I am talking about.
and to me: the answer is:
- Is it the tonal range ? Yes
- Is it the color rendition ? Yes
- Is it the shallow depth-of-field ? No. but I prefer AF100 DOF better, more 35mm film like.

Even GH1 with the hack, which I used in December (not being able to get AF100) looks better in all regards than any Canon DSLR Synergy, Russian sailing team promo from Miami RC44 Cup. on Vimeo

Oleg: It's nice to see footage from someone who actually moves the camera - so much of what has been posted looks like still screen-savers with a corny rack focus in the middle...

Having raced catamarans for many years (20 years ago), I know how difficult that must have been to do the sailing piece, it's a great ad for the G-1.

How do you rate the AF100 compared to the Gs?

Although having ordered an AF in December, I've held it off because I haven't been too impressed with most of what I've seen. I'm a social-issue documentary filmmaker, so the DSLRs are out of the question for me.

But I do want to explore the possibilities of the larger sensor... Are you generally pleased? Any reservations?

You do know that the AF100 can look through the same lenzes as a dslr but with a lot less aliasing and moire issues?
A lot of different cameras can look through the same lenses, but it doesn't mean they can produce the same quality footage; it's just too bad, but to me AF footage looks about the same as VG10

Steve, good to hear from the fellow catamaran racer :)

it's GH not G different animals! ( and the GH1 I own, allows to set up higher bit rate recording)
I still own GH1, GH2, AF104 (100), as well as Canon DSLRs, able to compare directly!

AF series camcorders have much more settings for chroma, pedestal, etc. in addition to cinegamma, that really matters, imo.

From the serious production standpoint having vectorscope and 80, 100% zebra is crucial for not guessing the exposure, unless one uses a light meter

Buba I have not tried the Sony camcorder, all I can tell, the AF100 much more preferable to any Canon DSLRs when it comes to video, IMHO off course! To me AF104 is a perfect camera for a documentary, or event videography, thanks to AF feature. A year ago I 've shot similar sailing promo, on Canon DSLR, there was much more unusable footage, due to bad focusing.There more tests should be done, to make final conclusions.

Buba I have not tried the Sony camcorder, all I can tell, the AF100 much more preferable to any Canon DSLRs when it comes to video, IMHO off course! To me AF104 is a perfect camera for a documentary, or event videography ...
Oleg,
i love your work and respect your opinion, but i also have my own :)
So far i haven't seen a single piece shot with AF that looks more appealing (to me) than 1/5/7D footage, as soon as it'll be available from Vistek for rent I'll get it for a week and will side-by-side it with all cameras that I have, maybe i'll love it after that, but not likely :)
I also don't understand how camcorder without power zoon and image stabilization (very limited number of fast lenses supporting IS feature ) can be perfect for event video, wedding highlights is just a beginning of the work, but very limited number of people will see the final product, i don't have to explain all that to you, you know that.
call me stupid, but I'm still waiting for Scarlet, and if I'm lucky - Epic

as soon as it'll be available from Vistek for rent I'll get it for a week and will side-by-side it with all cameras that I have, maybe i'll love it after that, but not likely :)

Make sure you get up to speed with the AF-100 settings, as they can radically change the look of the video that this camera produces.

I also don't understand how camcorder without power zoon and image stabilization (very limited number of fast lenses supporting IS feature ) can be perfect for event video, wedding highlights

The AF-100 is not intended for live event shooting, but rather for digital cinema work, where you work with a sound and lighting crew to create your footage. Other digital cinema cameras like the Sony F3, RED One / Epic, or Arri Alexa would also not be well suited for live event work.

I'm still waiting for Scarlet, and if I'm lucky - Epic

Both very interesting digital cinema cameras, but are priced far out of the AF-100 $5K price range. I am very curious to see what the Scarlet finally ships as, because the specs and price seem to be kind of fluid.

GH not G different animals!

I don't know anything about DSLRs, I'm more of an old Arriflex-Aaton sort of guy. My current camera is an HPX500. DSLRs would be pretty useless to me in my work.

My concern has been the general washed-out look of the majority of the footage I've seen from the AF100. That futuristic, barren look, although interesting, doesn't appeal to me personally.

The tried and proven technique with Panasonic cameras since the DVX has been - underexpose a stop or more, use CINE-D and CINE Matrix, crunch the Master Ped to about -5. Even the "normally" acquired footage I've seen from the AF seems vacant, without the rich tones.

My question is, do you think this is the codec, the camera, or the way people are using it?

Steve, I plan to do more testing,
with my sailing promo, I could add an "even saturation", that looks natural without skin clipping pretty much, (close up shots on sailors), which is hard part usually with video, if you compare it to film, setting up low chroma, low pedestal, not crushing blacks in camera important, getting all the contrast in post.

My concern has been the general washed-out look of the majority of the footage I've seen from the AF100. That futuristic, barren look, although interesting, doesn't appeal to me personally.

I have to agree. Whilst I can see that the AF100 is a great improvement on the DSLRs, they do seem to look more filmic even with all their problems. I have seen beautiful things from them and not to offend Oleg because this is very nice footage but the look just doesn't excite me. Everything I have seen from this camera is pehaps too sharp looking. It's not a film type sharpness but almsot an incredibly good type of edge enhancement look. I can't say I like it, nor a lot of the other new cameras too. It's very very clear HD video but to me is a little disappointing. I'd love to see a full broadcast documentary on TV shot with this camera to see what could be achieved.

Well, that's exactly what I will be doing - if I decide to go with the camera...

I may just "settle" for the HPX500 again, and wait... but I do like to experiment with new stuff... and I do like some things about the AF. Main problem with the 500 is that the "pundits" are all dissing DVDPRO HD these days, so I'm pushed into a corner. Personally I think for documentaries the 500 with that codec is more than good enough.

I just wish the AF100 was more "future proofed" - that codec will certainly be obsolete (at least for professional use) within a year.

that codec will certainly be obsolete (at least for professional use) within a year.
Steve Rosen ""

well, Steve, it's not 444 Alexa's codec fur sure, which still will be probably obsolete in a couple of years, from the camera for 80k$ (not the codec itself but the electronic processing, the chip) which still doesn't look like film, imho!

I will do more testing with detail taking down, personally the codec is quite capable, comparing to any DLSR.

The inevitable pundits are already discounting the codec because of the 8 bit output without an option for 10. Personally, after 40 years of making independent documentaries, I don't put much stock in that stuff, it's the image on the screen that counts.

The problem is, the funders hear this stuff and have unwarranted knee jerk reactions to anything that might block a potential broadcast.

Although I think there are many positive aspects to these on-line forums, there are at least as many negative ones - this is one of them.

Steve, I am with you, 3 years ago when 5dmk2 came, (I bought 2 of them to shoot weddings) not too many people believed in it, 2 years later many jumped on that wagon, now next step of revolution came, with new 35mm censor video cameras came to play. Do they look exactly like film? No, none of them, although in controlled lighting condition they look great for TV hd production, imho.
Do these cameras represent unique niche? You bet!

You know I have a colleague, who dropped his Red one, and grabbed AF100, for 90% of his production needs, a true story! Cheers!

oh yeah, and not in favour of AF, 21Mbps AVCHD is a high price to pay for a large sensor camcorder :)

Panasonic AVCHD 25Mbps has been proven to be better than Sony XDCAM 35Mbps
if you want higher bitrate at 4:2:2, get the Nanoflash