Quick and simple comparison video between the Sony "E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS" and the "AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II" on the NEX-FS100. The Nikon lens was placed on the NEX-FS100 with the Novoflex adapter. Except for lenses and iris, nothing changed between the shots.

Sony NEX-FS100 Nikon & Sony 18-200mm Lens Comparison - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1E1wOWW8Ak)

Hopefully someone will find it useful to watch.

Derran, what were your conclusions? Thanks.

Hi Paul, that's a difficult question. My simple answer would be that these lenses are very similar in performance, more then I expected it to be.

The Nikon 18-200 VR II or VR I is a well known lens in the photography world, so I expected it to perform (much) better then the Sony lens. I prefer the Nikon lens over the Sony to work with, because of the focus ring with true stops and markings. With the Novoflex adapter you can adjust the iris manual and easier then with the small dial on the camera. Also zooming in with the Nikon lens goes a lot smoother. The Sony lens on the other hand has image stabilization and auto iris / focus for fast shooting when you need it. So they both have things going for it.

I couldn't see a difference, which is why I asked for your opinion. The Nikon is manual only, correct?

Significantly less chromatic aberration on the Nikon, as I expected. That seems to be the weakness of the Sony kit lens... Noticed it on test footage I shot, especially on high contrast edges...

I would go with the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 over these lenses. Its available in A-mount.

Better bang for the buck.

Well, a 70-200 isn't so great if you want some wide shots as well.
But it would be better for stuff at the 'long' end of the lens for
sure. As usual the 'do it all' lenses are ok at everything but not
great at anything.

Well a 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 is not a lens I would consider for someone making a living at this - lets be real.
Even for ENG style and run and gun docs.

The FS-100 camera deserves a better lens.

Jon,

Have you used the lens? That is actually EXACTLY what it is good for
is ENG style and run and gun. It may not be as good as a 70-200 F2.8
in low light, but it sure is better for getting wide shots! I don't
know of any one lens that is good at everything (except for those that
cost as much as a decent house).

I make my living doing video, I do not have another job. Right now
the only lens I have for the FS100 is the kit lens. I want to get
a couple fast zooms and a really fast prime, but I am waiting
to see about the new Sony adapter and the possible Birger, before I
decide what kind of glass to buy. In the meantime, I have no
problems with the quality of the video it has put out. I'm not
in a big time market, so maybe that's it, the guys that flew in from
Toyota loved the images I got from it, and so did the documentary
filmmaker from San Fran. Probably depends on what you are expecting
and so on, but the kit lens definitely doesn't put out images
that 'suck' or anything like that as far as I can tell.

I guess it all depends on what you want to do. You can find all sorts of lenses,
each better than others at some things, and worse at some things. I'm not
sure that saying a certain lens is 'better' than another, is true....'better'
at what?

I'd sort of +1 the Sony lens, even though it's not exactly my favourite lens for all sorts of boring reasons.

Okay, an 18-200 turns your FX100 into a sort of fixed lens camera, and my tests demonstrate that, at f8, you're getting the same sort of DoF as you'd get on an EX1 at 2.8 with equivalent shot size and camera placement, maybe a little more so.

I got collared to do an assignment covering a convoy of trucks passing through a town - 5-7 minutes of stuff going on, needing tele shots, wides, handheld and tripod stuff, capturing bystander reactions and needing closeups of people in the trucks. Quite frankly, piece of cake for an EX1, and handled well by the Sony lens on the FS100. Certainly did NOT want to be faffing around between a 17-55 and a 70-200.

The Sony has AF and IS, and it's sad to say that there still times when these are handy.

For me, the Nikkor would be 'yet another widdershins focusing lens' which irritates me beyond reason. It also looked in the test like it wanted to be stopped down a couple of notches on the tele end, where the Sony's happier wide open.

The Sony's focusing direction matters not a jot as the focus control appears to be connected to the mechanism by chewing gum and knicker elastic. Slow movements don't even drive the focus, the switch between speeds is agricultural, and I've ended up relenting to automation even though there's no 'focus assist' mode by using 'Push Auto' almost exclusively.

But hey. it's 18-200 and it's got me out of a couple of tricky situations. It's my fourth of five lenses, but it still deserves a slot in my bag.

I am not talking about the speed of those lenses but more that they are variable aperture lenses - extreme variables like the f/3.5 to 6.3 are starter lenses. Designed to get a person off the ground and shooting but you should really be considering fixed apertures and a starting point is to aim for F2.8 on zooms and faster on primes. It's about the quality of glass to achieve this.

And its not a question of money. I shot an interview on the FS-100 last weekend using a lens that cost less than $300 but it's far superior to the two zooms you mentioned. It was the Samyang 85mm prime F1.4. The images were superb and hardly different to Zeiss primes which I use.

For everyday shooting I use A-mount Sigma zooms - 17-50 and 70-200 and a 11-16mm zoom. I am a documentary shooter so these are my run and gun zooms. I also have Canon L lenses but as we all know these are waiting for adapters.

But my point is I feel we are getting too used to these super wide to telephoto all in one lenses... and I think they affect the quality of the storytelling. I try to stay around 35mm and rarely go below 24mm because this affects the viewers perception of the truth in a documentary ... I also rarely go longer than 85mm. In these focal lengths you should be able to shoot almost anything except some sports.

There is a reason that many pro's carry just three primes....

I'm just saying that I don't know that all inclusive statements like
'far superior' are going to be accurate. Again, far superior in what
way? Yes, a 85mm F1.4 prime would be far superior for getting
a shallow depth of field. Far superior in low light. Possibly
somewhat superior in quality of image. But these aren't the
be all and end all for every person that uses the FS100.
A more appropriate thing might be that you find them far superior.
For me, there is no way in the world I would EVER trade the kit lens
for a prime lens, no way, no how. The style of work I do does not
work with just using a prime or two. I might like to have one for a
'specialty' lens, but that would be in addition to other lenses, not
as my primary lens. When I got the call from CNN for video of a cruise
ship stuck on a rock, I am reaching for the kit lens. I need to be
able to get lots of extremely different focal lengths and very
quickly. The variable aperture thing isn't ideal, but it only takes a
second to readjust iris after I change the focal length, MUCH quicker
than changing out a lens. When I am doing a corporate video for
another client, and they only give me 10 minutes in their facility,
I am using the kit lens. If I had time to set up a nice interview
a 35 or 50 prime would be nice. The thing is interchangable lens
cameras are interchangable for a reason, no lens is 'better' than
another in every circumstance. You would probably need three still
zooms to cover the range of the kit lens. I see this kit lens get so
much flak online because it isn't as 'good' as other lenses. This
often comes from narrative types. Again, you should look at what
you are doing, before you decide which lens is 'better'. They
ALL have advantages and disadvantages, none are just 'better'
for everything....unless you are willing to pay a ton of money.

Gabe, why did you choose the FS100 over an EX1R?

Doug,

That's a good question. I went back and forth on that for a long, long,
long time. I probably do more shooting that is suited to the EX-1R
then the FS-100. However, it is like 65-35. I do just enough of the
slower stuff to make it hard to only have a EX-1R My other option was
a EX-1R and cheap DSLR. I almost went that way. I finally decided
on the FS-100 as I can get the EX-1R type functionality (obviously
not quite the same, but close) with the kit lens, but can also expand
the 'look' and 'style' of shooting by buying other lenses. It can kind
of 'bridge' between the EX-1R and the DSLR look.....you can do a little
of both. Does that make any sense to you? I really don't mind not
having a servo zoom (and I really thought I would) as I usually zoom
quickly to change a shot, but don't use the zoom in the shot very often.
I actually really like the FS100 more than I thought I would, coming
from a 'shoulder mount video camera' background.

Gabe, have you ever shot anything with an EX1R, EX1, or EX3?

I work in docs ... nothing is prepared and I enter almost every location without preparation. I may go from 2 or 3 candles of illumination to dazzling brightness in split seconds or suddenly have the opportunity to grab a few words from a subject.

But it takes me less than 15 seconds to change a lens - I keep a 17-50mm on the lens when I arrive but carry two primes in my pouches - both F1.4. I use my feet to crop if needed.

Switching a lens on the run is the sessence of this type of work - it came from stills work. Veteren war photographers do this while bullits are flying so I am sure we can.

I think the FS-100 is not for journalism style video work - not at all. Far better cameras out there for this.

Doug,

I 'played' with an EX3 that a Sony rep brought to the public TV
station that hires me as a freelance videographer and editor.
Then, about two months ago, I helped shoot a greenscreen interview
with an EX-1R for Citrix. I shoot with the Sony F355 XDcam HD
disk based cam at the PBS station as well. Finally, three weeks
ago, I shot some stuff for a documentary filmmaker from San Fran.
He brought his Sony PMW 320 with him, and had me use that, along
with my FS100 to do some two camera interview shoots where
we had the interview subjects seated, and he acted as interviewer.
I then was able to have one camera on a CU and the other on a
MS. I like all of those cameras....they all make sense to me.

As a business person though, I had a couple options. I could
get an EX-1 or EX-3, and basically have the same kind of cameras
the TV stations have, or I could try to 'differentiate' myself.
But I wanted something that didn't take me too long to figure
out,....something I could use right away, but grow with and expand
my skills with. Not sure if this makes sense to you or not.....but
I have been pleasantly surprised with the FS100 and how it works in
faster paced situations. And unfortunately in my small market, buying
multiple 'expensive' cameras is not a very good business decision, so I
couldn't really go with buying both a EX-1 and a FS100, which I would
love to be able to do.

Jon, if you are that quick at changing lenses I can see how it would
work great for you. I can't do that.....not even close to 15 seconds.
I saw a 17-50 2.8 and a 50-150 2.8 that I thought might make a good
pair. Do you use a variable ND? It seems like a matte box might be
hard if you are doing doc work. Anyways, what gets me, is the adapter
situation and all the workarounds. I don't want to buy some glass unless
I know it's going to work great with the camera....I'd like to be able to
actually adjust the iris on my camera after all, without taking the lens
off and putting it on a HDSLR. As a matter of fact, I don't own a HDSLR,
I'm not a still shooter and don't know much about still glass, which is another
learning curver for me. I've tested a couple on the FS100 and all,
but before I start my investment in additional glass, I want to make
sure I have it all figured out, to give me the best experience with
the FS 100.....so I'm kind of waiting for the new Sony adapter (the
EA-2?) and the rumored Canon Birger adapter to see what they will
be able to do with the camera. Of course, the plus with the FS100,
is that you CAN use different lenses for different situations!
For what it's worth, I've had no problems at all doing TV news
stuff with the FS100, the kit lens, and a Heliopan variable ND
filter. It worked much better than I thought it would. I also
shoot high school football for a local team with it and have no
problems. Is it as good for those things as an EX-1? Probably
not, but it's not that bad either.

Hi Gabe,

It sounds like you had enough experience with the other cameras that you were able to make the right decision for YOU. If you hadn't actually used some of the XDCAM cameras, then I would say you weren't in a position to know what you were missing out on and how they compare to the FS100. But since you've used them all, I'm sure you made an informed choice. That's all I was wondering about.

With that said, judging from what you have written on this thread, I personally think the EX1R would have been the better choice for you -- especially if you're using the kit lens, because that lens destroys a lot of reasons most people would buy an FS100 in the first place. If you truly want to "differentiate" yourself from the other people in your area, you're going to have a tough time doing it with the kit lens. But what the hell do I know? :-)

Doug,

Well...I'd say you know quite a bit, definitely more than I do
about this stuff. To me, it 'seems' that I get more of a
shallow depth of field shooting with the kit lens than I
do with the 1/2 Sony's. It's not as good as what you can get
with a 'fast' lens on the FS100, but it seems to be a bit better.
I know there is a chart somewhere that shows the F stop settings
that offer 'equivalent' depth of field with different sized sensors,
but not sure where it is. It looks to my eyes that the FS100
around F4 or F4.5 is still 'significantly' shallower than the
1/2 Sony's, I did do a comparison with the Sony 320 and the FS100
with kit lens on the interview, and the FS100 certainly looked
shallower to my eyes, but maybe that was my eyes telling me what
I wanted to see.

But, my plan is, to use the kit lens for now, as I learn the
camera...but I will certainly be adding faster glass to my kit
as the adapters come out and I can decide if I should buy
Canon glass or not! If I bought the EX-1, I would not
be able to have this option to expand....there are so many
lenses out there with different 'looks', some of them almost
make the FS100 into a different camera (not really , but it
really changes the look). I actually have 2 or 3 fast zooms and
1 or 2 REALLY fast primes picked out.....but I have to figure out
if I should go with Nikon mount/Novoflex, Sony A mount/EA-2 or
Canon/Birger. Have any recommendations there?

It sounds like shallow DOF was the main thing on your mind when you chose the FS100. If that is true, then you shouldn't be wasting time with the stock lens. You need to invest in some faster and superior lenses that will really let you take advantage of the bigger sensor. I totally agree with Jon and his use of he description "far superior" when describing other lenses compared to the stock lens.

I will tell you that anything I can shoot with the FS100 & the stock lens, I could shoot better with an EX1R and it's fixed lens -- plus the EX1R offers dozens of advantages over the FS100 that are more important to me than shallow DOF. In my opinion, shallow DOF is just an overused style right now that is much less important to me than all the other features the EX1R offers, which would make it a better choice for me if I was shooting the types of things you described in your earlier posts. There are many ways to differentiate your work from other cameramen that have nothing to do with shallow DOF.

I'm not saying the FS100 is not a good camera or that the EX1R would be a better choice for everyone, I'm just saying that using the stock lens on the FS100 negates all the good qualities of the camera. It's like putting K-mart tires on a Ferrari.

As for lenses to invest in, I would recommend looking for three features:

1) Fast. f/2.8 or better. f/1.4 is even better.
2) Constant aperture. The aperture must remain constant through the entire zoom range.
3) Ability to change the aperture directly on the lens itself with no adapters or other add-ons.

Bonus 4) Buy primes. Prime lenses will generally perform better than similarly priced zooms. I never use zooms on my FS100 or F3 and I don't miss them one bit. You get used to it faster than you think. I almost look at zooming as a crutch now. I never thought I'd say that.

Anway, those are the three (or four) things I would look for.

I haven't seen many lenses that have the ability to change the iris
right on the lens itself. Granted, there is only one small lens shop
in town, everything else I have to order online. It does seem, though that
many of the newer DSLR's control the iris electronically....which would
mean I wouldn't want to get those lenses (point 3). More fun lens research
coming up :-)

Gabe,
I, like you, shoot for our local PBS station and have the FS100 and also the NX5. But I am not sure about using the FS100 on those shoots. I have the kit lens also and understand your reasoning for liking that lens. I would like to see someone that has a variety of lenses shoot similar shots to compare what faster lenses really look like. The fast pace of the shoot and them liking smooth push and pull shots makes me stick with the NX5. I would like to see that chart you were talking about too.

Dan

I would like to see someone that has a variety of lenses shoot similar shots to compare what faster lenses really look like.

We are waiting for our Nikon and Canon lens adaptors to arrive and we will be doing exactly that with some of the "usual suspects" from Tokina, Sigma, Canon and Nikon.

Shaun,

That is awesome, what lenses will you be using? And will you be testing the kit lens too? keep us posted.

Dan

I see more Canon than any other brand - especially in Asia where I am right now - Canon everywhere!

But no one would consider Canon for video unless they had a huge investment in them - which is often the case. Not having a manual aperture control on the lens is a big problem... a $1000 adapter problem.

I do not see Canon bringing out their own video camera to take EF-EOS lenses (stupid decision). So if you do not own Canon cameras then Nikon would be a good choice ... Zeiss Nikon especially for primes. A good alternative is Alpha A-mount as I think Sony are expanding rapidly the offerings in this mount and also the E-mount. I started buying A-mounts as the adapter is really nice - A to E by Sony. I would like to see Sony take A-mount into pro vidoe cameras more. You can get most lenses in A-mount now.

What lenses will you be using? And will you be testing the kit lens too?

I share office space with a DVInfo moderator (Dylan Couper) who runs a video production gear rental business so we have a pretty decent selection of the "Usual Suspects" here. Some Nikon primes and zooms, some L series Canon glass... The EXACT list will go up once it's done but as we are both busy these days (me SHOOTING the FS100 and Dylan renting the gear out) it might be a while yet...

I shot a quick interview last week on the FS-100 with the Samyang (Rokinon in the USA) 85mm... an amazing bargain lens that I have touted for a long time. F1.4 and superb in the late afternoon light. This raw frame grab is at F4. No color retouching. at full frame you see every hair on his skin.

At $300 this is what makes using primes a fantastic option now we have the FS-100. You cannot ignore the choice that is now out there....

But no one would consider Canon for video unless they had a huge investment in them - which is often the case.

One of the MOST UNDERAPPRECIATED things about Canon stills lenses is that focus works in the SAME DIRECTION as on a video lens. Nikon's focus is "backwards" to those of us in the video world. It's sure nice to turn the lens the right way every time when rack focusing or working non-repeatable events...

Having said that, most of my large sensor shooting is done with LOMO ciné primes these days so...

Jon,

Did you see this thread?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/500720-something-new-canon-nov-3rd.html#post1682321

Canon has 'something big' to be announced November 3rd. All kinds of
speculation, including that it may take their still glass....who knows,
but interesting times for sure. With the rumored price of
the Birger adapter, I have to say I am mostly considering Sony A or Nikon
glass for the FS 100.

In the meantime, here are a couple still grabs of what I did with the
kit lens. Now I was never able to get anything like this with the EX-1
or similar cameras, but that may have been because I didn't own them and
so didn't know them as well. I like this kind of look for interviews sometimes
and I can get it with the kit lens really easy....I'm sure it would be better
with faster glass, but unlike you Doug, I am fairly certain I am not going to
be a 'prime lens' guy. I may use them every so often, but I can never see
myself only using primes like you do. It takes WAY to much ability to do
that, I am nowhere near that good yet.

Gabe,
I fully understand where you're comming from. I've been using the 18-200 quite a bit, especially for fast paced, run and gun. I also bought the 16mm f.2.8 Sony lens, which is an amazing lens for the price( $129 on ebay). I also used it on my indicam ( steadycam type rig) and it workeed pretty well. I'm really impressed by the autofocus usability on both Sony lenses, when needed.

I also have a nice collecion of older nikon pimes from when I used a letus extreme, and they look better than the kit lens. I have a 105 f 1.8 that is beautifull, and a 50mm f 1.4 that is great in low light, and looks great. Also, I have a tokina (Nikon mount) 28-70 f 2.8 which is nice. But i have no complaints about the image quality on either of the Sony lenses.

I Sold my letus, Canon H1 , two A1's and one of my Canon 7d's in order to move up to the fs100, etc. I still have one 7d and sveveral fast Canon lenses , but still nothing from Birger.

To Dougs point- I REALLY miss a shoulder mount camera. Between the Canon XL2 and XLH1, I shot with a shoulder mount cam for 7 years. The FS100 is very modular, which is great, but you can't just throw it on your shoulder and start shooting. But the image makes it all worth it.
In the meantime, I'm still experimentinng with different set ups.
Bruce Yarock

"I do not see Canon bringing out their own video camera to take EF-EOS lenses (stupid decision)"

The canon announcement is what I was referring to - rumor being a 35mm sensor body only video cam for EOS lenses. I doubt it.

I understand the one lens concept and say, for the 2/3rd Red scarlet it makes sense - the fixed lens is the way to go (however it is a great lens and fixed apperture). As a doc maker myself this makes sense but for the FS-100... no sense at all on a super 35mm sensor. Using a zoom like the 18-200 will just make you lazy and stay in the "just good enough" category. Thats fine for journalism maybe but when you have 19 year old kids taking delivery of $50k Red Epics (see Red forum) then your competition is steamrolling you over. You can bet they will be producing amazing images.

How will you set yourself apart? The huge advantage with the FS-100 is the 'cheap' still lens primes available - glass as good as many cinema lenses. Not using them puts you in the disadvantaged category.

Jon,
I'm waiting impatiently for a job where I can use my primes. The few shoots I've done with the fs100, have been quick, and I haven't felt comfortable enough yet. But I do a lot of practicing at home with the primes and will be using them real soon.
Bruce Yarock

"I do not see Canon bringing out their own video camera to take EF-EOS lenses (stupid decision)"

The canon announcement is what I was referring to - rumor being a 35mm sensor body only video cam for EOS lenses. I doubt it.

I understand the one lens concept and say, for the 2/3rd Red scarlet it makes sense - the fixed lens is the way to go (however it is a great lens and fixed apperture). As a doc maker myself this makes sense but for the FS-100... no sense at all on a super 35mm sensor. Using a zoom like the 18-200 will just make you lazy and stay in the "just good enough" category. Thats fine for journalism maybe but when you have 19 year old kids taking delivery of $50k Red Epics (see Red forum) then your competition is steamrolling you over. You can bet they will be producing amazing images.

How will you set yourself apart? The huge advantage with the FS-100 is the 'cheap' still lens primes available - glass as good as many cinema lenses. Not using them puts you in the disadvantaged category.

I would laugh myself to sleep if anyone in my market tried to buy a RED
and use it to run a business here. I think there is a reason I am the
only one left doing it as a full time business in my market....you have
to really look at cost/performance and balance it against what kind of
money you can bring in. Luckily I do not run out and buy something
unless it will actually make me more money. Before the FS100, the
only camera I owned was a PD150. Plenty of companies have came
and went since I started, and most times they 'went' because they
spent too much money on the 'toys'...this in a market where you aren't
going to be getting high end jobs. In LA, or even Anchorage,
a RED may make some business sense....but unless I am missing
something huge, it's not going to work in my market.

I'm not in the 'disadvantaged' category, because even the cheap kit
lens generally looks better than the cameras my competition
(the TV stations and some 'weekend warriors') have (1/3 inch or 1/2 inch chips).

But, like I said, I am totally open to lens recommendations, as
I don't know that much about stills glass. A 17-50 F2.8 sounds
like a good lens Jon. I was also thinking about the new Sony
E-mount prime......50mm F1.8 that will be coming out next month
I think. I was thinking about an E mount prime, because with a
prime, how do you change your shot? Moving the camera. So I'd
like to be able to do it handheld, instead of moving a tripod as
well. So if I can have use of the incredible OIS, that would be
sweet. I can shoot handheld at 200mm with the kit lens with
almost no wobble with the OIS on. Not sure about things like
the 70-200 as then I'm looking at having to spend more money on
rails and so on, not sure I want to go there quite yet. I have
to be pretty careful about what I spend, as I said, this is not
a great market for video professionals. Gotta treat it like a
business, not a hobby where I buy what I want.

does a NON sony lens that has image stabilization built into the lens work with no issues with the FS100? I am also very new to working with a camera (FS100) that has interchangeable lenses. I did purchase the 18-200 kit lens as well as the Sony 16mm. I am always doing a bit of hand held work and having image stabilization is important to me.

Chad,

Only E-mount lens work with the OS and focus. Some A-mount lens work with auto iris. At the moment only E-mount has that option.

Dan

So i guess the question is will the Nikon lens mentioned in this thread with VR still work as a stabilizer even though the camera's OS will not? Or any lens with stabilization built into the lens for that matter?

Unfortunately not. The VR function of the Nikon lens does not work on the FS100. Because there's no real connection between the lens and the camera.

I think Gabe has some very good points. I know this camera would benefit from using prime lenses, but this camera also delivers fantastic footage with 'just' the stock lens. I've owned a lot of camera's and worked with many others and this camera just delivers a certain look that's appealing. Also thanks to the modular design I feel like having several camera's with just one FS100. I can modify it for use on a Steadicam, for run 'n gun and for film. Having a camera with interchangeable lens system is also a big plus over the EX1(R). I'm not so happy with the wide converters and barrel distortion you get with them when you want to go wider with these camera's. It's also nice to know you have a camera that has a lot more potential to it, just waiting for you to use it.

I believe some non Sony lenses do work with built in image stabilization - The Sigma for example in A-mount. There is a video test footage around and you can hear the 'wirr' as the IS comes into play. Also the Sigma aperture control works on camera as well.

Of course the Sony A-mounts will work. The control that is an issue is auto-focus.

My previous posts on this topic just point to the fact that there are far more suitable cameras out there for ENG and run and gun journalism - the FS-100 is not the best choice by far. Beside the lens issues try putting the FS-100 on a shoulder rig...not easy.

In fact the GH2 with a small grip or light shoulder rig would be much more ideal for reporting - I take mine everywhere to get those type of shots.

I think the new Sony A to E mount is supposed to address the autofocus and
give autofocus to all A mount lenses.....I am waiting to hear exactly
how that works, as that may swing me toward buying those type of lenses.

Darren said it better than I did. The FS100 feels like owning more than
one camera. You can rig it into steadicam mode.....strip it down and
maybe use the 16mm E mount lens...works great on a Merlin. Use it with the
kit lens for fast paced stuff. Use it like you do Jon for docs.
Use it with prime lenses and rails and matte box for narative.
For those of us who don't have the money to own multiple cameras, I
think it is neat that it does a decent job of filling in all the
different cracks. And even with the kit lens, I just think it has
a kind of 'look'....it's different and I really like it.

I think the FS100 is an amazing camera for the price and I agree that it is quite versatile. I found the kit lens a bit uncomfortable at first, as I didn't like the continuous focus ring or the clunky iris changes. In fact, my opinion of the camera jumped about 500% when I threw some Nikon glass on it, but that's just my opinion.

This is not to say that I don't think the 18-200 lens is usable, it certainly is, and with some care you can get great images with it. You can't beat the price and it allows you to get out there shooting so that you can earn enough money to get a better lens.