I came so close to buying one, But now that Canon is possibly coming out with a new camera on November 3rd I want to see what and if they offer something I'll want.

So much talk about cameras offering 4k images now...does it-will it matter, aren't the images good enough considering most people never view our stuff on a decent tv/monitor anyway?

What I really want in a camera is a button that makes me a better story-teller!

Monty

FS100 + Active EOS adaptor + EVF + Bracketry + aftermarket Handle ...

It's a cute little beastie, but you're buying one Lego brick, not a whole model.

I am still cool with that, but I really want all the features of my Canon glass I already own.

To be honest, if I had a Canon 7D or 5D instead of a 550D that fouled up twice, I don't think I would have bought an FS100 quite so fast. I would now be nailed to the fence unable to make a sensible decision until after the announcement.

Not the Canon announcement, the Scarlet one that could be an EOS mount with AF and IS over an S35 sensor shooting to an optional ProRes format as well as limited frame rate R3D at F3 price point.

Then I would have to wait for Sony $1.5k price drop or free s-log.

Meanwhile, the FS100 is busy paying for it's self...

I'm not buying one. IMHO, both the FS100 and AF100 are over-priced at this time. Both can produce excellent video to be sure, but are they producing video that is $3000 better then the Mark II (refurb list price)? Or $4,000 better then the GH2? Simply put, no. Arguably, the AF/FS100 are inferior in ways - smaller sensors (particularly the AF100), limited number/types of naitive lenses, larger form factors). Certainly the images are very close between the AF100/FS100 and the Mark II/7D... I wouldn't want to live on the difference.

Now for some shooters who have many clients, the form factor, XLR audio, and built-in ND filters (AF100) might be worth it - indeed they might be must haves. But for anyone trying to achieve the best result while not breaking the bank, the DSLRs are still king - namely indie film makers.

Let's put it this way - you could buy two refurbed Mark IIs (which are considered new by Canon in every way except title), a new T2i, a used nifty fifty lens, and a new Zoom H2 sound recorder for less then a body only FS100.

That's why people are interested in the VG20 right now - it will likely produce results quite close to the FS100, with a true videocamera form factor - with a $1,600 price tag.

Perhaps more importantly, all of the cameras mentioned above are essentially last of the line for this generation of cameras. Canon is about to announce something big, with more announcements to follow. Whether or not it's the DSLRs or the videocamera makes little difference - we know they're coming. The AF200 is pretty much an open secret at this point. Rumors abound of a 4K Sony camera. RED might be ready - finally - to shock the world.

Bottom line is that the AF/FS100 are 8 bit cameras, and both have some serious limitations in other ways. And $,5000 is an awful lot of money in today's world, regardless of how manny clients you have. For all of the above reasons, I've gritted my teeth and told myself, "Wait."

Yeah, but you don't need to panic every time you need to shoot buildings with brickwork, tiles etc. Nor do you need to worry about water and waves when you shoot with an FS100 or AF101, like you do with a DSLR. Wood and other textures are not going to turn into funky shades of pink and purple.

The FS100/AF101 have higher real resolution as opposed to the fake image sharpness that the alisasing from the Canon's adds.

Yes, in the right application the Canon's and other DSLR's or even the VG20 can and do produce incredible images for the money, but in others circumstances they can fail dramatically and in a way impossible to fix in post. Then there's the DSLR's 12 minute take limitations, heat issues and lack of proper audio inputs, clean full frame output etc. Perhaps whatever Canon has up their sleeve will overcome these serious shortcomings, but any camera, VG20 included, tailored for high resolution stills will be compromised for video (unless you add an anti aliase filter).

You need to consider what it is you want to shoot. For getting together with some mates to produce a short film for Vimeo or YouTube where you can control everything, avoid scenes that you know will be difficult for a DSLR, then a DSLR is very hard to beat and great value. But if your shooting stuff where you have less control, might need to shoot for extended periods then a video camera may be a much better fit, possibly essential. I think the FS100/AF101 are much more all-round capable than any of the current crop of DSLR's or DSLR based cameras and that's what your paying for.

"Yeah, but you don't need to panic every time you need to shoot buildings with brickwork, tiles etc. Nor do you need to worry about water and waves when you shoot with an FS100 or AF101, like you do with a DSLR. Wood and other textures are not going to turn into funky shades of pink and purple."

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/499812-new-5dmkii-anti-alias-optical-filter.html

There's known color aborations with both the AF100/FS100. Highlights in bright light notoriously bad for the AF100. Both will exhibit rolling shutter.

In other words, they aren't perfect. Far as totally failing to produce a useble image, I suppose it's possible... but no more likely than any other camera - film, electronic, or otherwise. The GH2 and VG20 don't have the 12 minute limitation.... which is much longer than any narrative film or video shoot is likely to need.

As I said, some of the limitations of the DSLRs are deal-breakers for some shooters, But if we're simply talking about images that are possible on a consistant basis, it's very very close. If we're talking about what level of sophistication these cameras have, again they're very close - ALL of those cameras will likely be totally out-classed by similarlly priced products in one year (and quite probably, much less time that that). All are 8-bit cams; all use fairly old codesc. Only the AF100 has SDI outs. Bottom line is that with an experinced shooter, you're as like as not to achive virtually the same results with any of the cameras listed.

I'm certainly not bashing the AF100/FS100 - I'd love to buy them for the $2,500 I think they're worth right now as I write this. Problem is, they're priced double that. Problem is, in a month and half even $2,500 will likely seem too much for what they can do. Right now, the notion that a AF100 is worth $4,999 is laughable. In two months, it will be hilarious.

So if the quesion is whether or not to wait, I think it's a total no-brainer.

It does depend on your circumstances. I tried shooting with a 7d and absolutely hated all the kludging necessary to make it work as a video camera. My FS-100 has paid for itself within 2 months and I'm well into profit on it. (But I'll still use my EX-3 for run 'n gun shoots.)

So much talk about cameras offering 4k images now...does it-will it matter, aren't the images good enough considering most people never view our stuff on a decent tv/monitor anyway?
The real question to ask may whether you REALLY need a new camera between now and Nov 3rd? Will it make you money?

If the answer is "no", and any jobs may be done with what you've already got, the obvious answer is to wait. You can wait for ever, always wait for the next and best, but Nov 3rd isn't "forever".......

As to 4k, then it's a much used term, and a much confused term. Are we talking about a 4k system - with about 4,000 red, green and blue pixels? Are are we talking about a sensor with about 4,000 photosites total - so about 2,000 green, and a thousand each red and blue? There's a big difference between the two. A 4k sensor like the latter will not do full justice to a 4k system, and this is often overlooked.

One big potential step forward would be to have such as a 4k sensor, but record it in a RAW fashion, similar to DSLRs in stills mode. That records each photosite with a minimum of processing, no de-Bayering, matrixing, colour balance etc etc. The big advantage would have less to do with image quality, more with flexibility in post. The downside is that all the processing then takes up computing time - but for the sort of project we're thinking of, it's likely to be over a longish timescale anyway.

And such may end up producing a very high quality 1080p final product, not ending up 4k. And remember display technology is improving all the time, don't produce for the lowest common denominator.

Ideally, any such camera would also have the option to record a version which was already mostly processed, (and 1080p) and such as XDCAM422 would be an obvious advantage for a Canon camera to have over the AF100/FS100. It would mean no need or expense to get any external recorder.

I went with the FS100 as it was the only "Middle path" to take when factoring in my clients needs and real world operator usability.

Had to spend another $5000 bones to make it work in multiple configurations. We professionals are in a very expensive trade and going the perceived cheaper DSLR route was and is riff with issues.

I came so close to buying one, But now that Canon is possibly coming out with a new camera on November 3rd I want to see what and if they offer something I'll want.

So much talk about cameras offering 4k images now...does it-will it matter, aren't the images good enough considering most people never view our stuff on a decent tv/monitor anyway?

What I really want in a camera is a button that makes me a better story-teller!

Monty

It is not the camera which tells your story...you only need a decent camera and glass but YOU are the story-teller!

Menno Mennes

"I'd love to buy them for the $2,500 I think they're worth right now as I write this"

If you are a professional making a living with a camera this statement is nonsense - you do not say "is it $3000 better then the Mark II" - the work comes first then you make a choice, regardless of cost comparisons. I set my work above wether I can get away with a DSLR or not or maybe I have to go with an Alexa or Epic.

I made a feature film with a 7D - mainly because it was in China in a very restrictive location with many regulations on how we could shoot. It was horrible to say the least - I will not go into all the problems as they are well documented on DSLR's. I also have a 5D and GH2.

But now I shoot with the FS-100 and they are a world apart from using DSLR's ... $3,000 apart? Who cares!! I just shot for 2 weeks in Hong Kong and the FS-100 was flawless. I almost got the F3 but the small form factor is what I really need for my doc works. I will move to the Epic in the spring when all the dust settles on this camera.

"If you are a professional making a living with a camera this statement is nonsense - you do not say "is it $3000 better then the Mark II" - the work comes first then you make a choice, regardless of cost comparisons."

Certainly not nonsense (more on that in a sec) - and if you read the entire post, I clearly state that for some shooters these cameras at those prices might be worth it. However, my example of what can be bought for the same money is spot on - and Mark II's are still being used in productions all around the world (and their re-sale value at least as good as the brand new FS100, and arguably better then the AF100 judging by recent ebay auctions).

In the end, the AF/FS 100 are 8 bit cameras, each with their foibles. The $700 5n has better low light noise performance then the AF100 and Mark II, and is close to the FS100 judging by respected reviewers. If true, then the $1,600 VG20 should be very close to the AF100, if not superior, in image quality in most situations (and better in low light). The 36 Mbps JVC PX10 for $899 was just announced. The difference in between a $600 Canon 550 and the $5,000 FS100 is marginal in an experienced shooters hands. No network I'm aware of is accepting footage from either the FS/AF100 unless it's first been recorded to something like a ninja - a large additional cost. And as one DP mentioned in the Zacuto shootout, the difference between ANY of the cameras used was minor when compared to having a good script, etc.

Even more interestingly, a hack for the GH2 that gives it AVCHD Intra at 176Mbit was recently announced. Canon will intro it's next gen cameras soon and everyone knows 2K cameras are coming sooner than later.

I could go on, but the point's been made - there are current, much cheaper solutions that essentially deliver the same quality as the $5 cams, and newer solutions promising better quality right around the corner. If there was one thing the Zacuto shootout proved was that the sub $13,000 cameras all performed fairly evenly when all things were considered. Given the above factors, and judging on image alone, $5,000 is too much dough for the AF/FS100.

Now if walking up to a producer with a FS100 in hand gets you the gig where a hacked GH2 doesn't, then yes, as a business decision it makes total sense to spend that kind of cash for those cameras. And yes, there are some shooters who simply need to have a built in ND wheel or XLRs. I get it. But that's someone's preference for his own ease of use; someones preference in what sort of form factor in a camera they want. Ultimately those considerations have little do do with the final product - the image.

And that's not what I inferred from the original post - it doesn't sound like he has a job lined up that has the immediate need for the AF100/FS100. True, there are still some shooters who will gladly pay $5K for those cameras. To them, it must make sense and I certainly don't begrudge them their opinion (or yours). But for others who want comp image quality - perhaps even better image quality - for less than half the price, it's no minor point. Three grand is three grand - esp when considering you know the cameras are literally the end of the line for that generation of tech.

Shooters who work in smaller markets or make their own films are far less likely to need the "wow" factor of the AF/FS100 or the F3. For them, a ticked out 7D or VG20 might be totally fine - indeed, their form factors might even be a plus. For those shooters, why pay more?

Again I'll pose the question - unless you have a paying gig or are scheduled to shoot right bleeping now, why not wait a month?

I'm not buying one. IMHO, both the FS100 and AF100 are over-priced at this time. Both can produce excellent video to be sure, but are they producing video that is $3000 better then the Mark II (refurb list price)? Or $4,000 better then the GH2? Simply put, no. Arguably, the AF/FS100 are inferior in ways - smaller sensors (particularly the AF100), limited number/types of naitive lenses, larger form factors). Certainly the images are very close between the AF100/FS100 and the Mark II/7D... I wouldn't want to live on the difference.

Now for some shooters who have many clients, the form factor, XLR audio, and built-in ND filters (AF100) might be worth it - indeed they might be must haves. But for anyone trying to achieve the best result while not breaking the bank, the DSLRs are still king - namely indie film makers.

Disagree on all points, have you used the FS100? I have owned the 5D, 7D, and FS100 and used the AF100 extensively. The AF100 is the worst of the bunch and nearly unusable due to its gamma curves, so I suppose I agree on its inferiority. On the DSLRs, however, the limitations are pretty tough to swallow. If I was only shooting web content I was editing myself and never did run and gun without lights I would say OK maybe stick with the 5D or 7D. The DSLRs are quite a bit softer than the FS100 or AF100, fine for 720p and under delivery but far from ideal for 1080p or theatrical release. If you are a hobbyist and never make a cent off shooting with one camera or another and are willing to work around issues to save a couple bucks then yes also maybe stick with the 5D or 7D etc. If you make money shooting and have a stake in doing your job well and fast and without hiccups, $5k is not a big deal after you consider resell value and when you factor in the flexibility the camera adds.

With the FS100 you literally do not have to change batteries or media anymore if you do not want to, this saves time and energy, which are usually some of the shortest resources on set. If you want to shoot in low light, there is no other camera to look at. I shot recently with my FS100 alongside a 5D operator using basically identical 24-70 2.8 lenses in a run and gun environment and he literally couldnt get an exposure that looked normal at iso 6400 and f2.8 not to mention even with that he had a ton of noise. I just turned my gain to 30db and everything looked bright and great with minimal noise. The FS100 has easily a 2-3 stop low light/noise advantage over the 5D and even more over smaller sensor cameras.

One company I shoot for a lot, ive shot for them with AF100 and 7D and FS100, and their editor's FCP workflow somehow always clips my white and black levels and makes things look pretty terrible. The FS100 has the ability to set both the black and white levels to keep them broadcast safe and safe from poor post workflows, this is a big deal to me especially for material that I have no control over after I shoot it and there is no colorist to fix any problems the editor creates.

I could list a dozen other features the FS100 has over DSLRs each of which make it easily worth twice the value of a 5D, like clean 1080p HDMI monitoring, short flange to use any lens, quality sound recording and monitoring, comfortable run and gun handheld, expanded focus while rolling, 60fps, 120fps, better encoders despite lower bandwidth, picture profiles, etc...

In your first sentence you agree with me - the AF100 is inferior to products costly a 1/5 as much.

There's nothing inaccurate in my descriptions of pricing, lens mountings, or of comparative reviews in the past year on all the above mentioned cameras (excepting of course the VG20, as it's not out yet). Yet you post has numerous errors. To wit:

In your last sentence you state the AF/FS 100, "clean 1080p HDMI monitoring, short flange to use any lens, quality sound recording and monitoring, comfortable run and gun handheld, expanded focus while rolling, 60fps, 120 fps."

Yet the Sony VG10, VG20, 5, 5n, A77 all have same mount as the FS100. The GH2 has the same mount as the AF100. The GH2 has clean HDMI out, as does the Sony VG10 & 20. Neither the FS100 or the AF100 can not shoot 120 fps. Neither does the $13 K F3 for that matter.

The VG10/20 both have "video camera" form factors - and in fact, look a little more like a true video camera then the FS100 does, which looks something like a brick.

Yes, the FS100 is very light sensitive - its main claim to fame - yet there have been no head to head tests between it and the 5n or the VG20 to determine how far apart - if at all - they are. The Mark II is certainly no slouch in low light and is better in low light then the AF100 - see the Phil Bloom posts for proof of that.

I never said nor intimated that the AF/FS100 weren't good cameras - of course they are. What I said - and what you did not dispute - is that they are thousands of dollars more than cameras that produce comparable images. I said they are 8 bit cameras and likely the "end of the line" for that tech - no dispute there. You did quote where I stated that for some shooters, the various differences between DSLRs and the "true" video cameras might be worth the difference. Indeed, your post proves my point nicely (although your post has several technical inaccuracies).

More to the point and to the original posting in this thread - nothing in your post indicates why a potential buyer shouldn't wait at least for the VG20 (which looks to have the potential to outperform the AF100 visually along with having a video camera form factor and sound inputs) - a camera costing a third of the price of the VG20. Canon looks to be announcing a DSLR in 10 days (a FF to boot if CR can be trusted), and perhaps a true video camera two weeks after that.

I have a VG10 and an FS100. I don't know how the image of the VG10 will compare to the VG20, but I suspect they won't be too far off. I can tell you the FS100 is leagues better than the VG10, both in image quality and professional features. The VG20 will correct many of the shortcomings of the VG10, but it still won't be at the level of the FS100.
I could have waited for the VG20, maybe go for the AF100. Given the choice, I picked the FS100, regardless of the extra cost. This is not saying the VG10 isn't a very good camera (and presumably, the VG20), but there's a reason it costs less than half that of the FS100.

As far as the form factor between the two, that's entirely subjective. You may say you prefer the form of the VG10/20, and that's fine - for you. The VG10 does fit comfortably in my hands. Still, I prefer the FS100. Sure, it's heavier, but then it packs a lot more. The viewfinder and XLR inputs alone are worth the extra costs. And let's face it - it looks a heck of a lot more professional. This can matter to clients.
And I've done video shoots with DSLRs. I'll stick with my FS100, thank you.

You don't think the FS100 or the AF100 are worth the cost? The solution is simple - don't buy them. Myself, after years of buying different video cameras, I think they're a great bargain, for all the features and the images they give you. 5 years ago, I didn't think it'd be possible to get what these camera can give, not at $50,000, much less $5,000.
But, your opinion may vary.

As far as waiting until the big November announcement: if you can wait, sure, why not? I could have waited, but I got a really good deal on an FS100 and decided to take the plunge. So far, I'm happy.

Well said Glen - I agree 100% that 5 years ago, either the AF or FS 100 would literally been world changers. But 5 years is an eternity in today's quickly evolving camera world.

"The viewfinder and XLR inputs alone are worth the extra costs. And let's face it - it looks a heck of a lot more professional. This can matter to clients."

Well, I said that too - if you know you'll get enough work based on having one of the more expensive cameras to justify the cost, of course it makes sense to buy them. But for indie film makers and small market guys, this isn't such a no brainer as it seems to be for LA based shooters.

And it's not as though I wouldn't like to see an XLR input on a DSLR or VG20 style camera, but coming from a film background, I'm used to a double system - and you can get totally pro results from the Zoom h4n for $200 - a revolution in itself.

"You don't think the FS100 or the AF100 are worth the cost? The solution is simple - don't buy them."

Exactly.

I'm a 'small market guy'. I live in a town with no road system in or out, in
Alaska. So I'm not a LA based shooter. For me the FS100 was a no brainer.
Of course, I'm not a 'film maker'. I make motion pictures for clients
who pay me, in other words, it's my livelihood. The FS 100 fit into the
'sweet spot' of the 'price/performance' continuum. I'd rather have an F3, but
in my small town, I can't get the budgets to make it worthwhile.
I've always said, figure out your budget, THEN buy the best camera you
can afford for that budget. I mean you can take your logic to any
market segment. 'Why buy a F3 when you can get a FS100 so much cheaper?'
'Why buy a Alexa when you can get an F3 so much cheaper?' It seems like
with many market segments, you can get 80-90% of the way to the next
step 'up' for MUCH less money. To get that last 10-20%, you have to
pay a lot. I for one am glad they came out with the FS100. HDSLR's
can eat my shorts, too many workarounds, I literally cannot stand them.

Well said, Gabe.

Plus, in Alaska, you need to budget for a S&W 500 revolver. That'll handle the bear issues on your shoots. ;-)

I'll throw my 2 cents into this ring.

I am not a video professional. I'm not really not even an "Indie" guy (yet). I'm pretty much a "wanna be" at this point. I spent last year putting together a nice editing system, while researching cameras. I had settled on a 5D, but since that camera (while still very good) was nearing the time for an update, I decided to wait for that. In the mean time, the FS100 came out, and I've loved everything I've seen from it. I have to say, I've also loved much of everything I've seen from the canon cameras also. But it was the other features that sold me on the fs100. The clean out, my indie aspirations have much After Effects work involved. Eventually I will pick up a hyperdeck shuttle or something of the like. I wanted over and under cranking in camera. While the fs100 isn't perfect in this, its leaps and bounds ahead of other cameras. I like the zebra, peaking, and histogram, in camera. I will still pick up external monitors, but now I don't need to worry whether they have that option, because the camera does. I own a zoom h4n, but I like the idea of having sound in camera. That just names some of the reasons.

Needless to say I'm sold on the Fs100, BUT, I've waited this long, and I had been waiting to see what the new 5D mkIII might bring. I am waiting for Nov 3rd to see what canon has in mind. 5k is my price point, and I am hoping canon comes out with something to compete head to head with the AF100 and FS100. Not because I'm a canon fan boy, but simply because the AF100 came out, and it had/has features that are important to me. Then the FS100 came out and it was a little better over the Af100. Now I'm hoping canon is stepping up with something similar, but better.

I would love an F3, hell saying that, I would love an Epic M, but neither is going to happen at this time. I'm not really concerned with a the Scarlet, simply because what I've read is still putting it at 2/3 chip. No way I'd buy anything less then S35.

is 5k a lot, sure, so is 2k or 3k for that matter. I'm investing in glass, so that as I move forward, that will serve me well. I can understand the argument, but to me, the extra 3k is worth it. Will they make me a better story teller, who knows, like I said, I've seen things from 60D's all the way up to F3 that were incredible. Was it the camera that did all the work, nope. But I'm 39, and I have a job that pays the bills, and allows me to dive into this hobby all that I can (just have to save a little while to get there). If I were a student, sure, a less expensive DSLR is where I would be at.

I'm not buying one. IMHO, both the FS100 and AF100 are over-priced at this time.

Heh, got a laugh out of that.... .
$5000 for a Super35 digital cinema camera is the bargain of a lifetime. 3 years ago you would have laughed in my face if I told you that you'd be able to get that much camera for that much money.


And $,5000 is an awful lot of money in today's world, regardless of how manny clients you have. For all of the above reasons, I've gritted my teeth and told myself, "Wait."

$5k is chump change in video production. If you can't pay for that in a month of gigs, your business model is fail.

If you have no interest in the FS100, perhaps you should leave the FS100 forum... no?

For me the FS100 is actually cheaper than any DSLR, even a T2i. The time I save in post not having to resynchronise sound, scrap, reshoot or try to correct shots because of excess moire. Since I bought the FS100 in july, I already saved more than the cost difference in post hours.

jean-phillippe-

after watching your lovely pieces for the alcan string quartet, both shot w/canon's dslrs, i'm surprised you hopped onto the fs100 parade.

can you please post some links to your fs100 efforts?

thank you in advance.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

If you have no interest in the FS100, perhaps you should leave the FS100 forum... no?

Wow.

The very title of the thread "Holding off on buying the FS100;" I was clearly - and with solid facts - agreeing why that might be true for some.

Nothing remotely usable in my comments? Not one thing? I never said anywhere that some people would totally think the price is worth it?

So, saying I think a product is overpriced - and giving many examples of why I might possibly think that
way - means I shouldn't come to the forum huh?

Good grief.

I for one have found this conversation most helpful and that includes your comments John Vincent. The NEX FS 100 is at the top end of my budget but it's there so the thread has been totally of interest and, let me repeat, most helpful.

Just got a note from Sony about a rebate on the FS100. $500 back for the camera and memory unit.

A Super offer for a Super 35mm camera. (http://wordsandpictures.net/Sony/3902-NXCAM-Flash-Memory-Eblast/)

jean-phillippe-

after watching your lovely pieces for the alcan string quartet, both shot w/canon's dslrs, i'm surprised you hopped onto the fs100 parade.

can you please post some links to your fs100 efforts?

thank you in advance.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

Hi Rob, Thank you for your kind words about my work. You are right, the Canon DSLR allowed me to do nice work and my clients were always perfectly happy with the results. But I always disliked the camera and it's workflow. The reason I got the 7D was to be able to offer the 35mm look to my client without the hassles associated with using a 35mm adapter. Compared to that, the 7D was a great tool, but far from a true video camera. I always hated doing dual system sound, always hated the ergonimics and limitations (recording limit, low res, moire, alliassing, no zebra or other exporure tools, no proper time code, etc).

I was pretty interested by the AF100, but the 4/3 sensor keeped me from buying it for various reasons. So when Sony announced it's camera, I pre ordered it instantly. It is not perfect, far from it, but it solved about every grips I had on DSLR, while being close to the ergonomics and workflow of a true camera.

And the price was right. I started doing freelance video in 2002 and I am used to buy a new camera in the 5K-8k bracket every 2-3 years, reselling the older one for about half it's price. So for me it was the perfect tool.

For now, I only have this piece online, Auberge de la rivière Saguenay - EN on Vimeo a small corporate video with some aerial footage in it. I have shooted a lot with the FS100 but a lot of stuff I don,t have the right to post it online, or the editing is not done yet.

jean-philippe-

thank you for sharing your fs100 footage.

obviously the aerial footage looks good (glad there was no moire of thinly spaced water ripples).

but i also very much appreciated how a little dolly/slider push really adds to a given shot.

and you do that move very well.

you have a good eye for composition.

i look forward to additional fs100 postings.

as to camera purchasing, i am in a similar camp every 2-3yrs for the past decade:
jvc dv500 -> dvx100a -> hpx200 -> ex1 -> xf305 (month long loan) -> ?

as we all are waiting for the november canon announcement, i am most interested in the pannie hpx250 or the sony fs100.

each has their virtues and ease but i am often most drawn to the "possibilities" that the fs100 seems to offer.

ymmv

(your mileage may very = you might have your own opinion)

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

Wow.
So, saying I think a product is overpriced - and giving many examples of why I might possibly think that
way - means I shouldn't come to the forum huh?

Good grief.

Exactly! I'm glad you agree.

If you think the FS100 is overpriced, simply don't buy it and move on. DVinfo isn't built on people with negative opinions dragging down products that aren't right for them.

Saying a product is over-priced isn't saying a product isn't good.

Comparing what products can do in the same basic price range isn't being negative.

But anyway your arguments about image quality dosen't hold. Sure, with carefull handling in specific situation, a dslr can shine. But the FS100 image quality is in another league. a lot (I mean a lot!) more resolution, less noise, hard to see any trace of aliassing or moire, all of that, in any situation. And that, without taking into account that the image is a lot more customizable.

So even without considering the better ergonomics, better audio tools, better exposure tools and better workflow, the FS100 is worth the difference.

When you have shooted on dslr for two years and you start shooting on the FS100, the difference in every aspect is like days and nights.

If you think the FS100 is overpriced, simply don't buy it and move on. DVinfo isn't built on people with negative opinions dragging down products that aren't right for them.
I find negative opinions can sometimes be highly useful - otherwise you just end up with "fanboy" sites, any criticism just getting censored, no matter how sensible or true. Negative opinions can spark debate - if anyone doesn't think they are valid, then shoot them down!

It depends on the criticisms, of course. I'm not advocating remarks along the "camera A just sucks!" line, or anything that falls into the personal abuse category, but a reasoned argument is a different matter again. And whilst I don't fully agree with them, I think Johns comments do fall into the "reasoned argument" category.

Bottom line I want to buy my next camera and keep it for 5-10 years lol. Thats why I said I was holding off purchasing the Sony fs100. Now I'm thinking the the f3. But we'll see how things shake-out after Nov. 3rd.

It's a good time for us filmmakers right now, cameras are so excellent right now and just keep getting better every 6 months.

Looks like the FS100 will definitely be my camera. The new Canon is way out of my price range, and so would the Scarlet X. I've Loved the footage I've seen from the Sony, and now that the Nov 3rd hype has come and gone, I'm happy with my decision and can't wait to get the fs100 in my hands.

I'm very glad I got my FS100.

Yup, even more so today. I usually say, figure out your budget, and then
buy the best thing you can afford in your budget. Although both the
Scarlet and the new Canon look nice, they are in F3 budget territory, and
not in my range. FS100 still looks like a very good performer in the
'price/performance' area. I'm glad I bought when I did, instead of
waiting for the November 3rd announcement. I have made back every
cent I spent on the FS100 and more in that time period, and I am
a LOT better FS100 operator than I was a couple months ago.
But not to take anything away from the new cameras, the more competition
the better as far as I am concerned!

Looks like the FS100 will definitely be my camera. .....now that the Nov 3rd hype has come and gone, I'm happy with my decision and can't wait to get the fs100 in my hands.
I was all for waiting until the 3rd Nov... now I fully agree with you. At the price point it's the FS100 or the AF100, and all the evidence is that the FS100 is by far the better value for money. Not perfect, but....

I, too, am glad that I purchased the FS100.

I was all for waiting until the 3rd Nov... now I fully agree with you. At the price point it's the FS100 or the AF100, and all the evidence is that the FS100 is by far the better value for money. Not perfect, but....

I have both. The FS100 smokes the AF100. The m4/3 is a major part of the dealbreaker though.

Gabe, me three. We're buying the FS100 on monday. Still undecided on nikon or canon lens adapter, but we are going to play with the camera for a few weeks before deciding.

Scott Caplan
GKCCOC

Yup, even more so today. I usually say, figure out your budget, and then
buy the best thing you can afford in your budget. Although both the
Scarlet and the new Canon look nice, they are in F3 budget territory, and
not in my range. FS100 still looks like a very good performer in the
'price/performance' area. I'm glad I bought when I did, instead of
waiting for the November 3rd announcement. I have made back every
cent I spent on the FS100 and more in that time period, and I am
a LOT better FS100 operator than I was a couple months ago.
But not to take anything away from the new cameras, the more competition
the better as far as I am concerned!

I'll be ordering soon. The $500 rebate for camera and fmu, has altered my budget a little. I'm new to removable lens cameras, so I'll be buy glass also. But I'll be picking up the camera and fmu next week or week after. Have they come out with a smart adapter, for canon lens yet? I'm planning on going Nikon right now.

I have both. The FS100 smokes the AF100. The m4/3 is a major part of the dealbreaker though.
From what I've heard, it's sensitivity and highlight handling that many people comment on - any comments there? How are the rentals going for one versus the other, out of interest?

Gabe, me three. We're buying the FS100 on monday. Still undecided on nikon or canon lens adapter, but we are going to play with the camera for a few weeks before deciding.

Scott Caplan
GKCCOC

You are going to love it. I still can't get over the 'video/motion pictures' (not sure what to call it anymore) that this thing produces. Just
stunning.

You play with those Canon FD lenses yet? I was eyeing up some aspherical ones on ebay tonight, pricy but not as pricy as a single prime video lens by a longshot. All about $1-2K each.

Scott Caplan
GKCCOC

Scott,

I have never used ebay before. However, I ordered 3 FD lenses off ebay.
The first one was a 28mm F2.5. I got it about a week ago.
I paid $20 for it. I also bought a 50mm F1.4 for $50. I received a
flat rate envelope with a rip in it and nothing else. The seller
claims he had packaged it in bubble wrap and cardboard, but I got
nothing. The seller had PIP insurance and has made a claim. I am
supposed to be getting my money back as soon as the insurance company
refunds the seller. If I don't get it back in a couple days, I will
be filing a claim through Paypal as you have 45 days to do that.
I have already filed a claim with the PO for the lost lens as it
helps my position later if needed. Third, I bought a 28-90 F2.8
for $70. I am supposed to be getting it on Monday or Tuesday.
So the onlyFD lens I have actually USED is the 28mm F2.5.
Can't say a ton about it as I'm not really a prime lens guy.
It seems like it would work pretty good for a wider interview shot,
I thought between it and the 50mm (which I never received) I'd use
them for different shots during an interview in which I wanted more
shallow depth of field than the F3.5 kit lens could give me.
The 28mm has a manual iris ring, is in great shape, and has a
loooong focus throw compared to the kit lens. It looks pretty
good though, if you'd like to see some shots, just let me
know and I'll post some up.

Gabe,

Sorry for your eBay misfortune. I sell as well as buy in eBay, and I would recommend filling a claim with eBay also. They will do a little investigation, then, if they find the seller at fault, will refund your money. I've been on both ends of that situatio (sold a motorcycle fender, and ups decided it needed to put everything heavy they had ontop of it, and dented it in two places). I had to refund the item, and ups denied my claim, so I was out. Ended up selling the item a 2nd time as is. Got $85 for it, as opposed to the $185 I originally got. You shouldn't have to wait for the seller to get a claim from the postal service, that will take weeks.

I concur with filing a claim immediately with paypal to cover your ass - it also motivates the seller to do their due dilligence in case it's b.s. I buy and sell on ebay A LOT - I did it professionally for a number of years. If the items were stolen, just file the claim with paypal anyway as a backup plan. Anyone who mails a lens in a bubble wrap envelope is suspect as a major moron in my world.

And yes, please post some shots. I'm still on the fence with the entire Nikon vs. Canon FD lens choices. I can pick up some ridiculously good glass (aspherical) and stay in my budget on 2 primes and a zoom. They agreed to up my budget $2K more for good glass. I'm definitely getting a 50mm prime, and maybe a telephoto and long zoom, but I have the whole weekend to browse.

I plan to get the kit lens to run it through its paces - but I can't order from B&H until Monday. So even that may change before now and then.

Scott

Ok, I just got in a 28-90 F2.8 FD lens that I bought off ebay for
$60. It has 67mm threads, so works great with my 77mm Heliopan
and 67-77 step ring that I have for my kit lens. It seems a little
heavy I think I may need to buy a rail system with lens support.

Anyways, it has been pouring out here, so I was only able to
shoot a couple shots outside before the crappy weather returned.
These were handheld, shaky, and really not much to look at.
But you can get an idea of the quality of a $60 lens.....I did
no color correction or anything, these are straight from the
FS 100 images. Once the weather clears up, I'll put together
a real little short video, that will be shot entirely on
this FD lens.....here's the link:

cannon FD - YouTube (http://youtu.be/rJKa-FlEkpw)

Which adaptor are you using for the canon lens? Am I correct in thinking it doesn't allow iris control? I've been looking at Nikon lenses on eBay, and have stayed away from looking at canon, simple because there isn't a way to control the iris. While I love using depth of field in my shots, I don't always want to be wide open.

Ah, but this is a Canon FD lens. These lenses have a manual iris ring
as they are from the old days before DSLR's when people actually shot
film with film cameras. So you can control the iris just fine with
FD lenses. I'm just using a cheap adapter like this:

Amazon.com: RainbowImaging Canon FD & FL mount lens to Sony E Mount NEX NEX-3 NEX-5 Camera Adapter, (RainbowImaging Adapter): Camera & Photo

Gabe,

Would love to see more footage, when you have the time, and weather permits you to film. I hope you'll start a new thread with the footage also. I'm very curious to see how your footage turns out. As I said before, I'm buying mine this week, and have a long list of primes and a couple zooms I want. But in the mean time, I might pick up some eBay lenses myself. Had been looking at the nikons, didn't know about the canon fd lenses. And a nice inexpensive adapter to tide me over until I get the novaflex adapter will be great.

Thanks again.
Jeff

From what I've heard, it's sensitivity and highlight handling that many people comment on - any comments there? How are the rentals going for one versus the other, out of interest?

As the guy that shares office space with Dylan, I can attest to the fast early adoption of the FS100 while the AF100 never REALLY got a foothold.

Noise of the FS100 is SIGNIFICANTLY less than that of the AF100 IMHO and the FS100 can be pushed up to 15dB of gain with little impact while I won't shoot the AF100 at any sensitivity above 200ISO.

Your mileage may (and likely WILL vary).

For me, it's a NO BRAINER. I STRONGLY suggest "try BEFORE you buy"...

PS. And I LOVE that the AF100 has HD-SDI out... my only complaint with the FS100 is the exclusive HDMI out for what I do personally.