To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Hey guys,

I'm about to pull the trigger on this camera. Just waiting to see what the Nov 3rd canon announcement is all about first. But if after that time, I'm just as sold on this camera as I am, I'll be ordering.

I wanted to ask about the kit lens. Body only is $600 less. I would love a good all purpose fast zoom, with constant aperture. Would I be better off taking that $600, and putting it with a little more money for a better lens? If I was, what would a recommendation be?

I've been lurking around dvinfo for a long while, and spent last year putting together my editing system. With that out of the way, this will be my first interchangeable lens camera. So that means I don't have a stockpile of old lenses. I spent a great deal of time reading about canon lenses (when I was saving for a 5d mk ii), before the fs100 came out, so I'm pretty up too speed with them. But if I still end up with the fs100, nikon lenses are something I don't know about. As I was saying above, I'd like a good general purpose zoom, to compliment the primes I'll be buying later.

Thanks again for all the great info,
Jeff

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

I use the 18-200mm lens, but it was a carry-over from my VG10. It's not the fastest lens (f3.5-5.6), but it certainly has its uses. I plan on keeping it.
I've since complemented it with a Sony 50mm f1.8 prime on an Alpha adapter. I would like to get a faster zoom lens, like Sony's Alpha 28-75mm f2.8 and the new Sony 16-50mm f2.8. Both are comparable in price to the 18-200mm kit lens.
So, if you decide not to get the kit lens, perhaps these faster zooms would be a good option. Both will need an Alpha adapter, though.

Edit to add - The kit lens has image stabilization. I don't think the Alpha zooms do.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

I'm in the 'pro' kit lens camp. Granted, it has a couple annoying things.
Non constant aperture. Funky focusing. BUT, it also has really
good auto functions. Even if you don't use auto much, I like to use
the 'push auto' buttons as a 'quick check' and leave the camera in
manual mode. The OIS is really, really good. The range on the zoom is
11x....I mean that's almost as good as a traditional video camera.
And the images are pretty freaking good, definitely nothing to be
ashamed of there. However, that's just me, and I do a lot of stuff
that having the kit lens for helps. Your situation may differ.
If you want to take a look, here's some stuff I shot a couple
weeks ago with the kit lens, just one sunny day running and
gunning around, making the most of the nice sunny weather in Alaska.

Summer 2011 By Gabe Strong On ExposureRoom

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Great video, Gabe! There are those who say the kit lens is useless. I dunno, maybe they just don't know how to use it.
When you're in the Alaskan woods, do you carry a gun? There's no way I'd be out in the Alaskan wilderness without a very big sidearm or a shotgun loaded with slugs. Grizzlies make me nervous.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Glen, after reading your post, I started looking into the Sony Alpha lenses. I'm reading that the Tameron lenes (28-75 & 16-50) are the same as the Sony versions, only about 1/2 the price.

My interest in the fs100 is for indie film making. I know what I'm looking for in the way of primes. I just wanted a good all around zoom to compliment them. I may go with the 16-50, and then the 70-200, both of which are f2.8. The reviews on both seem to be good. Price is also not too outrageous, and their constant and somewhat fast.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

One issue to keep in mind is that EF-S compatable lenses (like the Tamron) won't work on full frame cameras like the Mark II.

So if you have any doubt, you might want to think twice. That said, I have the Tamron 15-50mm 2.8 and it's a very nice little lens (which you can get in the Minolta/A mount). Not the sharpest glass, but very decent for the money.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Yes.

I don't like the 18-200 stock lens for all reasons that have already been listed here: very slow, not a constant aperture, no servo zoom control, etc. It is a consumer grade lens.

However, with that said, optically it looks fine, so if those shortcomings don't bother you, then go for it. To me those shortcomings are deal breakers -- especially if shallow DoF is one of the reasons you are buying an FS100 in the first place. I'd never even think if using that lens on an SLR, so why would I use it on video camera? I need lenses that are at least f/2.8 and have a constant aperture. It's not just those features themselves that are important, those are also generally signs that a particular lens is built for professional use.

What lens(s) to get instead? There are literally hundreds of options. Take the $600 savings and apply it to the model and brand of lenses that will work best for what YOU shoot.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Thanks, I always wonder when I hear people talking about how horrible the kit lens is. It's not
like it produces horrible images, that's for sure.

Yes, I grew up in remote Alaska and learned a long time ago, if you are out and about,
you carry a gun period, ESPECIALLY when you are around fish streams like this. I've had
big brown bears 'bluff charge' me. At least I think thats what they were doing, but one shot in
the dirt in front of them and they thought better and turned and ran, every time. My brother
was out hunting and thought he saw a bear den. He started to swing his gun that way,
'just in case' and its good he did. A bear came charging out of the den from 12 feet away.
He had time for one shot so he shot it through the back of the neck and broke it's spine,
smart because they can maul you with a bullet in the brain or heart. It was laying close
enough to him he could have kicked it. When the fish and game department came, they
skinned it out....it was 11 1/2 feet from nose to tail. So although I'd much rather shoot
video of a bear and would not go hunting a bear (you can't even eat the meat, it's full of worms)
if it comes down to him or me, I'm voting him every time.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Because the resolution requirement of even an HD video camera is less than a still photography camera ??

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Thanks for the reply Doug. You've pretty much reassured what I thought I already knew. I have a while list of primes I want to get. I was just on the fence for a zoom. I was looking for 1 all encompassing zoom, but I'm thinking 2 will have to do the job. I'd love a good cinema zoom, but my budget certainly doesn't allow it. Maybe after I get my set of cp.2 primes (I wish).

I do however plan on getting a few of the zeiss lenses (with the ef mount, I think it is) and I'd love to get the cinema modifications done on them.

Thanks again,
Jeff

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

The resolution of the two different types of cameras is irrelevant.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

So if the fs100 is going to be my "it" camera for my indie aspirations, will buying a lens meant only for ap-c sensors be horrible? I understand if I was to get a "full frame" camera, like a 5D, then I wouldn't be able to use it on that. But fs100 will be it, for the time being. So getting a ap-c zoom, won't be such a bad thing, or am I wrong in that thinking?

When it comes to my primes, I am making the investment in them, and they will be full frame lenses. I'm just trying to decide which zoom(s) to get as a starter on this camera.

Also, if I was to buy a brand like Tamron, and I know my future primes wil be Nikon mounts, would I want to look that same mount for my zoom. Or go with an alpha mount?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, I am a newbie, as I'm sure these are newbie questions.

Thanks,
Jeff

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Jeff,

I've learned it is almost impossible to recommend to other people what lenses they should invest in. There are too many lens options out there and too many individual needs and budgets to factor in. All I can tell you is what decisions I have made for myself, but you'll have to decide whether that means anything to you or not.

First of all, if you buy an FS100 now, I doubt that you'll ever invest in a 5D later. And since that is really the only mainstream full-frame camera out there, then I wouldn't shy away from buying lenses that can't cover the full 35mm sensor. It is unlikely you will ever own a full-frame sensor camera for video.

Second, I probably won't ever buy another lens again in my life that is not PL mount. Persnally, I don't care for SLR lenses for shooting video, so I have made the leap to PL lenses on both my F3 and FS100. However, that is an expensive investment and probably beyond the ability of many FS100 owners. So, for the sake of argument, let's ignore PL lenses. In that case, I would only be investing in lenses with Nikon mounts.

Why? Because I feel Alpha mounts and E-mounts won't hold their value over time as well mainstream Nikon or Canon mounts. The Sony mounts seem "proprietary" to me, and I don't want to invest in any dead end lenses that won't serve me for the next 20 years. I don't know any professional photographers who use Alpha or E. Plus, if I invest in Nikon lenses, I can also use those same lenses on all my SLRs for shooting stills.

I prefer Nikon lenses over Canon because I already own a number of nice Nikon lenses, but even if I had to buy them from scratch, I would still choose them over Canon because they all have dedicated iris rings and I don't need a special adapter to control exposure. Changing the iris on a Canon lens is a major hassle.

That's my 2 cents, but like I said, I'm sure you can find other people with completely different recommendations that work better for them. No easy answers.

http://www.vortexmedia.com/DVD_FS100.html

Doug

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

I was able to check out a Tamron 17-50mm zoom on my FS100, and I must say, I was impressed. For the money, it looks to be a very good lens. It also has the same filter diameter as the kit lens. I will probably be picking one up soon.
Jeff, thanks for the advice of looking into Tamron lenses.

Is there a good E-mount to Nikon adapter?

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

I will add, since you asked this question.

Doug, who has given some great advice In this thread, has a great training DVD about the FS100. He recommends a good e mount to Nikon adapter in that (I don't remember what it is off hand). I bought his DVD, and am using it to get up to speed on the camera (prior to buying). I recomend to anyone.

Thanks again Doug for the advice and info, also thanks to everyone else who has responded.

Jeff

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

I have been told that the Novoflex adapter (Nikon to E mount) allows
for aperture adjustment on all Nikon lenses. It costs about $290
from B&H.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Jeff, thanks for the comments on my training DVD.

I have the Novoflex adapter. It works well with all Nikon lenses whether they have their own iris control ring or not.
I have no idea how the Novoflex compares to other adapters, but I have no complaints about it.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Here's a reason to get the kit lens for $600...
It's worth $800+. Buy it. If you don't like it or never use it, you can flip it to someone with an NEX5/7 for at least $600 and break even. Win either way. I've got one and am inpressed that (for a kit lens) it's not terrible at all.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

It's a useful lens to have

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Just curious when you use the novoflex or mtf adaptors with nikon lenses do you lose any image stabilisation on the lenses and if so is it something to worry about? I'm starting from scratch on choosing lenses and adaptors for my fs100 and vg10's but really have no idea which way to go. Thanks, M.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

There is no electrical communication between the FS100 and any Nikon lens no matter what adapter you use -- therefore no stabilization, no auto-focus, no auto-iris. It's only something to worry about if you don't feel comfortable controlling those things manually -- and it's nothing you can't learn.

Mastering the Sony NEX-FS100 training DVD

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Well, the auto iris and auto focus are surprisingly good. That being
said, I don't think they are hugely important....as Doug said, you
are going to want to manually control these anyways. The only
time I use them is to hit the 'quick auto' buttons just to check
sometimes. However, the OIS is pretty good and IS a reason to use
the kit lens in certain situations in my opinion.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

You're right. The auto-functions of the stock lens are pretty good and could come in handy sometimes. My problem with that lens is the dismal f/3.5 - f/6.3 non-constant aperture. That is a deal breaker for me, but acceptable to other people. Different lenses for different folks.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Oh yes - should this lens be a constant aperture (even at F3.5), it would put to shame many zoom lenses costing 10x more!

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Hi Doug, thanks for reply. I can't remember the last time I used auto iris or focus on my z7s so that's cool.

Do you cover adaptors on your fs100 dvd? I think it's time I bought that.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Yes, I cover Nikon, Canon, PL, and a few e-mountt lenses in my three hour training DVD.
Thanks for asking.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Doug, thanks for all your work on the training materials for this camera.

Do you have or know of a list of lenses that are "go to" lenses for the FS100? I'd like to see a list of inexpensive primes and a few zooms vs. higher end ones that people have used.

Thanks!

S.A. Caplan
GKCOC

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

This seems to explain it pretty well. I guess the real question is which direction to go brandwise on a budget for a long zoom and a 50mm prime.

Lenses and Accessories for the NEX-FS100

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Hi Scott, I only have experience with the 20 lenses I talk about in my DVD and wouldn't presume to recommend "go to" lenses for other people. There are too many different budgets, production requirements, and other factors to consider. Just look at the different threads here at DVinfo. There are people who rave about how great some lenses are that I would never want to use on my camera. And on the other hand, there are people who may dislike the lenses I have chosen. I'll bet there are literally 200-300 lenses being manufactured right now that you could use on the FS100.

However, with all that said, the least expensive lens package I could live with would be: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8; Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8; Nikon 50mm f/1.8; Zeiss 85mm f/1.4; and a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. I'm not saying those are the lenses that I choose to use today because I own many other better lenses, but if you took away all my lenses and made me build an inexpensive package from scratch on a tight budget, that's the least I could settle for.

I hope that helps, but that's just one man's opinion.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Thanks Doug.

I've been mulling over the Sony NEX FS100U vs. the Panasonic micro 4/3rd system for a corporate scenario (that does maybe 80% interviews and 20% creative) and after 3 days of crunching numbers and looking at different reviews and footage samples I think I'm still on the fence with either of these systems. The lack of an ND filter on the NEX is almost a deal-breaker in my world, but I love the images it makes, the micro 4/3rd system by panny is a close 2nd and has the features I need built in already.

The hardest part of being a creative professional in a corporate setting is price point vs. quality vs. functionality. Coming from a long line of using sony cameras the last 10 years (Z1U, V1U, Z7U) I find the NEX not a great fit. The Panasonic 4/3rd system has more lens options, but it's still not a perfect camera fit although better in my view for what I need it to do It broke my heart where this led me to today on the budget line.

After a lot of reading up I'm leaning towards the Panasonic AG-AC160 now after really wishing the NEX wasn't so "alpha-ish" (pun) in this stage of it's development - it seems like they rushed it out to compete with the 4/3rd format and they definitely hit some high notes but missed in other departments. I'm hoping it's 2nd revision is more friendly for people who want interchangeable lenses but don't want to break the bank having to purchase a matte box and rails and other items not "in the budget". I can sit on the fence a few more days to see what news Canon is coming out with before any purchasing in the meantime.

If it was for my personal use as a freelancer I'd be all over it, but I'm spending someone else's money these days. Sign of the times and the economy.

Thanks for your input today.

Scott Caplan
GKCCOC

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

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

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

What Doug said!

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

What $6-8000 lenses would be put to shame by this stock lens?!?!

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.

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

OK Shaun, I only meant the "price to performance" ratio, or - as they say - bang for the buck.

Piotr

PS. Just he language barrier, I guess:)

Re: To kit lens or not to kit lens?
 

Not a bit. I was VERY concerned with the lack of built in ND.
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:

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

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

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

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