|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 1st, 2011, 09:38 PM | #31 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Great stuff Gabe. Do you ever find shooting outdoors an issue without an ND filter on board? That is my biggest concern, shooting outside without any ND functionality.
Scott Caplan GKCCOC |
November 2nd, 2011, 06:46 AM | #32 |
Vortex Media
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,450
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Scott, I don't have time today to explain all the reasons the FS100 is a very good camera and superior in many ways to the AF100. But I will say a few things:
1) The AF100's sensor (in 16x9 mode) is 1/2 the size of the FS100 -- so if shallow DoF is a goal, then the FS100 is twice as good. 2) If shallow DoF or extreme low-light capabilities are not big deals to you, then you shouldn't even be looking at the FS100. For my money, the EX1R and EX3 blow the FS100 out of the water in every single way you want to compare them except for those two things. If you're doing corporate work, you will absolutely love the advanced features and workflow of the XDCAM EX camcorders. Yes, those cameras may cost a little more upfront, but you will make up for it very quickly in saved time -- both while you're shooting and in post. Time is money. 3) I have never heard anyone, not a single person, who prefers the picture quality of the AF100 over the FS100. It is not pretty and very easy to blow out the highlights. I recommend you test drive both cameras before deciding. 4) The lack of ND filters on the FS100 is not that big of a deal. Look at some of the other threads here at DVinfo and you'll see that most of us have settled on using a variable ND polarizer. Very easy, and infinitely adjustable (within reason) so in some ways it is superior to having just two regular ND filters on other cameras. I have a single 77mm filter that fits every SLR lens I own with $8 step-up rings. I've checked two brands of variable ND filters on my scopes and charts and there are no unwanted side-effects. 5) Sony certainly did not "rush" the FS100 to market and it was in the pipeline long before ayone outside of Panasonic ever heard about the AF100. It is very well thought out camera that does an excellent job in the right hands. Not having ND filters was a deliberate decision on Sony's part to make the camera more compatible with a wider range of lenses. I hope that helps with your decision making. http://www.vortexmedia.com/DVD_FS100.html
__________________
Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools |
November 2nd, 2011, 07:12 AM | #33 |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
What Doug said!
|
November 2nd, 2011, 08:01 AM | #34 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,088
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Quote:
It is acceptable at the price point but the chromatic aberration makes it utterly unusable for applications where image quality will come under scrutiny. Perfectly fine for delivery to normal consumers but a discerning eye will reject the image produced if other options at budget are considered. 90% of my FS100.shooting is with Dylan's LOMO Russian cine primes.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/ |
|
November 2nd, 2011, 08:19 AM | #35 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Quote:
Piotr PS. Just he language barrier, I guess:)
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive |
|
November 2nd, 2011, 09:49 AM | #36 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 814
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Quote:
As a matter of fact, that was my biggest concern and ALMOST kept me from buying the FS-100 as I knew I was NOT going to be going 'mattebox style' very often. However.....I read on Philip Bloom's blog about the Heliopan variable ND which he called the 'best variable ND I have ever used.' I swallowed hard and spent the $400 to buy it. It is absolutely AMAZING. There are hard stops at both ends, and numbers on the filter so you know exactly how much ND you are dialing in.....which is VERY nice on those variable aperture lenses that Doug and others don't like. That way, if you lose 1 F stop when you change from a 18mm shot to a 35mm shot, you just let in one more stop of light with the Heliopan variable ND. No color cast is introduced, and there is no softness introduced in the image, even at 200mm, which is where it really 'earns it's stripes'. I have to say, that 90% of my fears about no ND are out the window. It can get a little irritating having to screw on your variable ND to different lenses when you change lenses, but even that can be worked around with the Xume adapter, which lets you attach the variable ND's with magnets (I know it sounds crazy but it works, you can even shake the camera and the ND won't slip). If ND is your only concern (and it was my main one) I'd recommend you try the FS-100 out if you can from a local rental house (if you are lucky enough to have one) with a GOOD variable ND. Make sure it's a good one, as there are lots of crappy variable ND's out there. I bet you will find it is better than you thought it would be. I love shooting outdoors with the FS100, even on the wide shots, there is plenty of resolution, as a matter of fact, unlike DSLR's which are good on faces and things, but not on wider shots, the FS100 is good for talking heads, but it also 'loves' the wide shots. Here's another video I did just a week or so ago. Sorry for the annoying watermark, had some issues with someone 'cropping' video so as to remove my corner watermark and 'reusing' it. Anyways, here it is: |
|
November 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM | #37 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Thanks Doug.
My understanding is lens selection matters more than sensor size. Good glass will produce shallow DOF on an interchangeable lens system, the Sony Z7U included. We've done this in the past with good results. Right now it's budget issues keeping me from moving into the FS100, I love what the camera could do on the creative end. My concerns arise from being stuck with the stock lens for shooting lectures with a long run in low light. I've read a few times that the stock 80-200mm is about an 11x equivalent to a video lens, is this the case? I'm also assuming for low light shooting (like in a dark lecture hall) the gain (up to +30 I believe) has little to no noise, am I also correct in this? There are a few reviews on the web that pan the FS100 vs the AF100, they are easy to find on google, mostly from UK shooters. My concern is buying a camera for $6K that will require another $6K in lenses to do what I need it to. I can fake shallow DOF with most 3-CCD cameras, although it's much more challenging (long runs, camera placement, etc) than it would be with this system. I love the idea of shooting interviews easily with beautiful shallow DOF and taking city scenic b-roll to intercut. But even with your "inexpensive" lens list, I'm $6K in the hole for 3 or 4 of them. I am still intrigued by the camera, but mostly worried about breaking the bank making the camera do what I want. I'll peek again at the EX3, it's been on my radar for some time now. Thanks. I guess when it comes down to it, I want a corporate workhorse camera that I can use for creative projects when they come up on my desk - and they do come up on my desk. I do appreciate the time you've taken to reply to me, and I like what I see from this camera. Maybe I'm just fearful of being an early adopter. Scott Caplan GKCCOC |
November 2nd, 2011, 10:08 AM | #38 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Gabe, I lurked all your videos last night before I even saw this post. In fact, your videos (and Doug's informative posts) have prevented me from ruling out the FS100 outright.
So you only use the stock lens and the Heliopan 77mm Vario ND, and you get results that nice? I'm definitely impressed. Let me ask you a question, I think it was your post where you stated the 80-200 stock lens was a 11x video equivalent? I'm curious if you've shot any lectures or interviews on a stage in low light and what your thoughts/results were on that front. For my needs I'm looking at shooting about 30% run 'n gun/events, 40% interviews/lectures in various lighting conditions, and perhaps 20-30% creative b-roll around the City. I'm hoping with this information on the Heliopan I might have to reconsider my choice. How's the control layout on the FS100 for iris, aperture and zoom working for you? Is it intuitive? Thanks, Scott Caplan GKCCOC |
November 2nd, 2011, 11:21 AM | #39 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 814
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Yup, I have only used the stock lens and the Heliopan variable ND
for all my video production with this camera so far. One point of clarification, the stock lens is 18-200mm which is an 11x zoom ratio, not an 80-200mm. You get much more of a range with the kit lens than with most SLR lenses, but you give up things to get that range. It's a variable aperture lens, it opens to F3.5 at the 18mm wide end, but only F6.3 at the 200mm telephoto end. Doug and most others don't like the lens. For some strange reason, it doesn't bother me. Not sure why, but it doesn't. On the other hand many people who get this camera like fast primes. However, personally, I don't like primes. My bias, I usually shoot multiple focal lengths on every shot for editing options. And many times in Alaska, I can't just 'zoom with my feet' as I am either on the edge of a cliff, glacier, or ocean. So the zoom can take me where I can't physically go, which may be right up next to a whale, mountain goat, moose, or bear, or just a closer shot of that glacier calving. I will use a prime for a 'talking head' or specialty shot, but for everyday use, I want a zoom on my camera. I shoot EVERYTHING with this camera. Football games, gymnastics meets, dance recitals, talking heads, freelance news, beauty shots. I also wanted it for some 'Alaska beauty' style DVD's that I want to self produce. I just shot some B-roll and talking heads for The Solomon Group who produces all the US Coast Guard videos, with the Coast Guard air rescue station in Sitka. I just shot some B-roll and interviews for a doc maker in San Fran who needed some stuff from Alaska. And so on.... However, I only had the budget for 1 HD camera. Everyone says, right tool for the right job. Unfortunately for me, I can't afford both an EX-1 and a FS-100 or even a EX-1 and a good DSLR (not to mention that I DESPISE shooting video on DSLR's.) So I make do shooting events and things with the FS-100 which would be better served with an EX-1. But the FS-100 CAN do a decent job shooting those things with the kit lens, and the EX-1 cannot do the things the FS-100 can. With the tool analogy, a claw hammer may not pound nails as fast as a 'power gun' nail driver, but it can pound nails in AND it can pull them out, which the 'power driver' cannot. I guess this is just something that is individual. Trust me, I respect Doug's opinion a lot, the guy knows what he is talking about. Just, like I say, for some strange reason the FS-100 seems to work for me, even for things it probably wasn't meant for, and the kit lens doesn't bother me at all. And I like the fact that I can add fast zooms or primes, or even PL mount glass if I want to. I bought a FD to E mount adapter and some cheap old FD lenses off Ebay. A 28-90 F2.8 zoom for $60. A 50mm F1.4 prime for talking heads for $50. A 28mm F2.5 prime for $20. I haven't got the lenses yet, but for the price, it should be interesting to 'play' with them. The control layout is ok. Could be better I suppose, like most things. I wish the gain worked like the white balance where you can scroll through and adjust it with the wheel. The gain on this camera makes you rethink all previous held ideas about gain. Before, I would ALWAYS shoot at 0db and only very seldom 'gain up' to 3 or 6. Nothing higher. This camera lets you gain up with very little penalty in grain. Which makes you want to have more than the 3 gain settings. You can change them in the menu. But, during the day, you may want L set at 0, M set at 3db and H set at 6db. At night you may want L set at 0, M set at 6db and H set at 15db. Or maybe you want M set at 9db. Or H set at 18db. You see, you aren't getting much if any grain with any of these. So often, you can get away using the slow kit lens, even in low light. I have never seen a camera that is this good in low light. I posted some frame grabs on my review I wrote at kenstone.net that show the low light abilities a little. If you are looking for a low light camera, this is the one. For lectures at the back of a lecture hall, add a Novoflex adapter, and a 70-200mm F2.8 Nikon and you are REALLY going to be good in low light, you will be amazed. After all this, I guess the best advise I can give you, is don't listen to me. Don't listen to any of the 'experts'. By that I mean, yes, listen to them and their opinions, BUT see if you can try the camera out. What works for me, may very well NOT work for you. I shoot events and all kinds of things with the FS 100 and the kit lens and it doesn't bother me one single bit. I thought I'd miss the servo zoom and the ND's. I found out that the Heliopan and the manual 11x zoom of the kit lens work just great FOR ME! But, there are good reasons for negative opinions on the kit lens, so you need to see what you think for yourself. It probably depends on what you are used to and so on. I'm used to low budget crappy video cameras like the UVW 100 Beta SP (talk about crappy) so the FS-100 seems like such a step up that it isn't even funny. Kind of like when I bought my 2001 Isuzu Trooper. Before that, I had always owned a car with 150,000 or more miles on it. This one only had 49,000! It was like brand new! I got made fun of a lot for that one by all my friends who had money (the guys who went into business instead of video) and had always had new cars. Here's an example of the 'low light interview' you are looking for. First is video with an EX-3 so you can compare.....next is the FS-100 with kit lens (it's gained up, but see if you spot any grain!!) No color correction, grading, or noise reduction applied, this is straight out of the camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCSKPHqVJI Last edited by Gabe Strong; November 2nd, 2011 at 01:31 PM. |
November 2nd, 2011, 12:20 PM | #40 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Yes, 18-200mm, I blame lack of coffee.
I am hoping they'll free up an additional 2K for a lens adapter and one or two decent lenses, that way I can get that Nikon or a comparable Sigma or Tamron. I suppose since the AF is disabled using these on the Novoflex NEX/NIK adapter that you could get a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens from the 1990s for about $500 that would do the trick. No? What was your reason for going with the FD-E mount instead of the novoflex? Cheaper lens options? I await to see your footage when you get those lower end primes, I don't mind the breathing or chromatic aberration too much since a lot of what I'm shooting will be seen internally, I just want to get that 'film camera look' on my videos so we get more production value punch. If I can amaze them out of the gate I think getting a budget in Nov 2012 for some decent lenses will not be an issue. I've been renting them my Z7U the last 2 years as a contractor, and just came on as the new video/MM manager and got a nice (but not huge) budget. I have about $12K to spend but that also includes lights and a tripod and an editing computer. That leaves about $6K for a camera and not much else. I appreciate your replies, they have given me hope I can get the "dream camera" that will keep this old-boy's artistic juices cranking out good material in the corporate world. Scott Caplan GKCCOC |
November 2nd, 2011, 12:21 PM | #41 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
You might need to repost that EX3 vs NEX link, I see nothing attached.
Scott |
November 2nd, 2011, 01:30 PM | #42 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 814
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Quote:
Yeah, the only lenses that will work with the 'auto' functions and OIS, are the Sony's as far as I know, no Nikons or Canons or anything else will work with those functions on the FS 100 unless I am wrong. I went with the FD mount frankly because it was cheap and allowed me to 'play around' with other lenses. I am waiting until I jump into the lens thing.....once you go Nikon, or Sony, or Canon, you are in. I want to see how the new LA EA-2 Sony alpha to E mount adapter works. I want to see how the MTF Canon to E mount adapter works. Once that is all sorted out, I can make a decision on what mount to buy lenses in. Until then, I will use the kit lens....but I recently discovered you can get a FD to emount adapter for about $25 and buy old FD lenses. I figured I'd do it as it was really cheap. Here's the link: Grady - YouTube |
|
November 2nd, 2011, 01:36 PM | #43 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Sony FS100 vs EX1R : Sony EX Series XDCAM
Scroll down to the post by Sandy Saar with the 2 vimeo video links. Nice comaprison of the F3, NEX100, 5D MarkII and AF100 side-by-side in real world use. I found this eye opening. Scott Caplan GOCCOC |
November 2nd, 2011, 01:55 PM | #44 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City (NJ/NYC transplant)
Posts: 81
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
|
November 2nd, 2011, 02:39 PM | #45 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 151
|
Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
Quote:
Which two did you compare? Did you check for loss of sharpness at the long end, in addition to color casts? I've been hoping to see someone do a shootout with the various variable ND's, in order to determine if the Heliopan justifies it's additional cost over the Genus and Tiffen. Any further info you could share most appreciated.
__________________
www.stusiegal.com |
|
| ||||||
|
|