-
How does the AF-100 perform in low-light with a slow lens?
I’m looking to buy a new camera for my place of work. It’s looking like I’ll be able to push for a $5000 budget. For the sake of keeping things simple, let’s assume for now that $5000 is for camera and glass only, and not take any other accessories into account. What I shoot is primarily short format promo videos (lot of interviews and b-roll) and long format conferences (basically a single shot, talking head in front of a powerpoint). A lot of what I shoot I don’t have control of the lighting unfortunately, and many of the environments I shoot in aren’t terribly well-lit.
I’ve been looking pretty heavily at the Canon XF300 and the Panny AF100A. The XF300 looks to be a great camera, but it’s a 1/3″ sensor. Even at it’s widest aperture (f/1.8) I question how well it’s going to perform in low light. The Panny I already know performs beautifully in low-light when paired with the right lens. Unfortunately I don’t have the budget for a set of fast lenses. What it seems I can afford that will fit my needs are the camera body, and the Panasonic 14-45mm (f/3.5-f5.6) and 45-200mm (f/4-f5.6) micro 4/3 lenses. Since I’m obviously not going to be operating those at their shortest focal lengths most of the time I can pretty well assume the widest aperture I’m going to get most of the time is close to f/5.6.
How well is the Panny going to perform with a lens that slow? I love the idea of a camera with a large sensor for low-light shoots and to really be able to crush my DoF, but without a fast lens I question if I’ll actually see those benefits over a camera with a small image sensor and a fast lens.