Run and gun with Panny AF100?
 

Has anyone tried run and gun style work with the AF-100? or is it a clunker like any other dslr? I'm on the market for a camera and I'm looking for the best of both worlds right now. Large sensor with comfortable and fast ergonomics. It doesn't seem to exist at the moment, though. I think the Canon XF300 would be good for reality shows, and corporate stuff, but it's too bad about sensor size. It'd be hard to get a cinematic look out of it.

I really can't see why people now want to shoot "run'n gun" with large sensor cameras, whether DSLRs or the new range of video cameras - they were never intended for that. Imagine trying to shoot a doc with an Arri 35ST (well, I suppose they did in WW2, as well as with the Bell & Howell cameras, but I guess they just had to...)
Getting a cinematic look is more than a narrow DOF; it's a combination of the lighting, framing,camera movement - and a good script.

Sorry, I don't see the problem with that. Most R&G is shot with a wide lens anyway and I don't see the difficulty in maintaining focus that way. I know what you mean about the trend nowadays with everyone getting crazy over shallow DOP, but it is something I have wanted long before the dslr trend happened. It's an important tool for directing the viewer's attention and maintaining narrative focus. Great for interviews.

That was with a "clunky" 5D.

You'll be fine.

so you're saying 5D is clunky compare to AF100?
and since when narrative became run&gun?

1- Yes.
2- That clip was virtually the definition of "run & gun"


Expanding on previous hinted notions, the proliferation of so many equipment choices is making many cameramen think less about how to use what they have and more about what they should have gotten instead.

Concentrate on the story, adapt your shooting style, tweak whatever's lacking, and you'll surely do just fine.

I consider "run & gun" to be in an uncontrolled shooting environment, often live, shooting non-actors.

I do not think "run & gun" is interchangeable for handheld...

If a lot of your shots will be wide angle and there is enough light around for a less than huge aperature you would be fine though.

I have to agree with Tim about the definition of Run and Gun. When using actors in a "controlled" situation movement and handheld camera work isn't R&G.
Think news, sports and other live events

The footage is good, but I'm not just looking at the end result, I'm also looking at the means of getting there. A dslr camera would not cut it in a fast paced shooting environment every single day of the week unless you had it tricked out with all the frankenstein accessories. And even then, your process would be esoteric in a broadcast environment.
Shouldermount is the tried and true method. Your body bears the weight leaving both hands free to operate the camera. Camcorder form factor is still a compromise because your arms bear the weight while having to control the camera simultaneously. Dslr form factor is even worse for that type of work.
I think I understand the big companies approach to the marketplace now; Divide and conquer. They want the ENG guys over here and the film makers over there, and they can monetize effectively that way.
Maybe I'll just have to get an XF300 for broadcast work and a dslr when the cinematic look is called for.

Mike, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Horses for courses in the end.

After playing with an AF100 today, some of it handheld, I was wondering..

If you stayed pretty wide and used the red focus assist, I suppose you can quickly focus and follow run-n-gun action. It wouldn't be my first choice of camera for doing so, but I guess it isn't impossible.

For anything like run and gun, the AF100 would not seem a good choice. You might be able to make it work after a fashion, but why handicap yourself?

Compared to something like an EX3, the first problem is lens availability. AF100 suitable lenses don't have servo zooms, and tend to be either reasonably fast primes OR much slower zooms - mostly of a more limited zoom range than most conventional video cameras. Compared to an EX3, you're either limiting the zoom options OR limiting low light working abilities.

Then there's the way the lenses are controlled. The AF100 is mainly being used with lenses primarily designed for still use. Such as the iris have to be adjusted via a servo mechanism, and whilst that may not be too bad in controlled situations (such as drama) it's just not as good as turning a manual iris ring in an uncontrolled situation.

That's before we even start to think about handholding ergonomics........

no my man, just because camera man is running doesn't make shot R&G :)
when you say : Camera! Action! - is no ran&gun, it is well simulated, but still, it's narrative;
talkin about AF100, it wouldn't be my first choice for run&gun work, occasionally maybe, some people do it with DSLRs, but I would choose something more ergonomically and functionally traditional.
but hey, that's me :)

I had my first day on a new TV series we are shooting yesterday. Producers wants the 101, so I tried it out.
It was a mix of tripod and "walk and gun". I was worried how it would work out.
It involved following 2 people around in semi controlled enviorment, meaning available light, but I could ask them for a second take in some situations (not all)

Other than it´s akward to hand held (just like the HVX before it), it worked surprisingly well. I used the 14-35mm f2 Olympus mainly and looking at the footage today, I managed to be in focus most of the time. I missed a few moments in the evening, but quickly found it again.

It´s easier to do this with a shoulder camera, but it wasn´t too bad with the 101 either.

We wanted a different look to this docu series, and not really having a zoom will help with that. the pace will be slower for sure.

Being used to work handheld and manual focusing with a full size ENG camera is definitly an advantage when doing R&G with the 101.

The RED focus assist is invaluable,without it you wouldn´t have been able to pull it off

That's a bit of an understatement. My AF101 just arrived & I am amazed at how uncomfortable it feels when held in my hands. None of the buttons fall neatly under my fingers & the Start/Stop button is particularly awkward to operate. I don't think that it's just my large hands as the Canon XF305 feels really comfortable to operate.

The 5DII is not clunky at all compared to the AF100. For one thing it is specifically designed to be used handheld & the shutter button & video start/stop buttons are easy to operate while the camera body feels comfortable in the hand.

Give me a break, the ergos on the 5DmkII really suck for video. If you don't think so you have not used video cams very much.

Now I love the 5DmkII and I am not getting rid of it because I have the AF100, I also have the F3 on order. The F3 and the AF100's are real video cams. The 5DmkII is not, (like I said I still will use it for video and stills of course).

Niether of these (AF100 and F3) cams are meant to be R&G cams, but they are real video cams with proper audio etc. This makes them much easier to use for video, if you can't admit that the 5dmkII, is a challenge to use for video, you are in denial, in my humble opinion. Like I said I still will use the 5D for video, one really good reason is it can be invisible, when naked. But it is not a video camera.

The AF100 and the F3 can be set up as can the 5D to be shoulder mounted, but the short comings in the 5D ergos and bad audio make the real video cams way superior in my opinion.

My favorite ENG cam at this time is the EX3, with shoulder bracket and NanoFlash and IDX battery. Very comfortable light and balanced. And it has a proper servo zoom lens and the possibility of mounting better (more expensive) ENG lenses.

So my bottom line is I will be using the AF100 for more relaxed ENG (is there such a term) and the 5D for low key shoots, but most of my pure ENG will be with XDcams.

Just my nickel, I don't mean to offend anyone.

These are exciting times, I love all the new options coming out.

I think that you have misunderstood my point. I was specifically referring to the ergonomics of actually holding the 5DII vs the AF101. The 5DII feels comfortable & balanced in the hand whereas the AF101 (for me at least) feels awkward. With my hand in hand-grip of the the AF101 the Start/Stop button is just not in the right position. The grip is passive & designed to be easily removed so button cannot be put in the logical position under the thumb. The video start/stop button on the 5DII is better placed in comparison although that's not saying much:-).

I totally agree that on a tripod & in all other regards that I can think of the AF101 is a far better camera for shooting video.

The AF-100 cameras have the boxy design that Panasonic has been employing for their sub $10,000 cameras for years. Not conducive to long bouts of hand-held shooting without an extra shoulder brace.

I have used an HMC-151 which is not dissimilar in size & shape to a Canon XH-A1. The AF101 feels much bigger & boxier.

Except that wasn't. That's a documentary. Those were actual Taliban bullets whizzing by and actual dirt clods falling from an actual RPG (or whatever) explosion, which is difficult to stage. Even though I've never personally worked with a terrorist, my hunch is that they'd have unreasonable demands from catering services and be highly averse to constructive criticism or a second take.

Anyway, point was that for all the whining and moaning I used to do about how unusable DSLR's were in fluid shooting, learning about that guy's work kinda shut me up to concentrate on my skills more than my gear.

Kevin, thanks for sticking with it and pointing out that the trailer you posted was live and run & gun.

I am sorry I did not pay more attention as I thought the clip was something else. You are correct, the use of the 5d in that environment is quite an accomplishment.