Panasonic AF-100 being called the "DSLR killer". Any thoughts?

[dtjohns1]

I come from strickly a guerilla music video background and I was about to pull the trigger on a 5d to compliment my T2i until I heard the news of the $4995 price tag for the AF-100. Now I am driving myself crazy as to what my next move should be. In my field the artist I work with and the people that see their videos could care less about moiree and aliasing. All they want to see is that the image looks incredible and it is edited well. With my background will the AF-100 be worth me spending the extra money or is the boost in quality minuscle to the cost. I know about the advantages of the audio and everything else but I do music videos so I rarely ever use audio and if I do I have a zoom h4n and also the form factor of a dslr allows me to be a little bit quicker and discrete since im not getting permits for my locations. Also do you guys think the AF-100 will really do away with the dslr craze?

[Jay Birch]

I would wait to see the results of the GH2, D7000 and (hopefully) Canon 5DIII.

The AF100 will no doubt have a better all round image... cleaner, sharper... possibly more DR and, as you mention, minimal moire/alias/skew. But by the time it has launched... there should be 2nd generation DSLRs starting to show up.

[TooTallTim]

You basically answered your question, DSLR gives you a lot more discretion and you don't often need XLR mic'd audio, so why buy something that might give you a better picture, but ultimately is too big for you to use and has features you will never use.

[dtjohns1]

^^^Well people are acting like the image is going to be SOOO... incredible and the clarity, quality, etc. is my main focus because thats how i retain and get more customers. In the music video world you dont want to be behind the curve gear wise. Ive seen people who had all the work in the world with their hvxs and xha1s with 35 adapters left with nothing after the dslr phase hit and i dont want that to happen to me. I currently have a good amount of money to spend and I want to make the right choice as to what to do now so i can begin saving or know not to spend as much money on other things such as lighting, lenses, etc. Ill deal with the discretion issue if the image is noticably better than canon dslrs. But if it looks anything like gh1(3) footage ill prob. pass. People say its so great but Im not seeing anything special

[HHL]

Did the Wii kill XBox or PlayStation?

I think this is what time will tell. I think there are two different segments. Two different people. I KNOW....right now....there will be many "high-end" DSLR users who are gone for good. (Barry Green being the prime example) But more than HALF (prob much more) of this forum's user base will NEVER be on Barry's level...AND THEY KNOW IT.

The Wii's marketing objective was NOT to winover GAMERS. Their objective was to bring people into gaming that HAD NEVER PLAYED A VIDEO GAME IN THEIR LIFE!! The Wii COMPLETELY LACKS IN RAW POWER....but it's user groups (senior citizen centers, house wives, workout buffs) could care less....it does what it need to....AND FILLS THEIR NEEDS.

I don't think the DSLR market was EVER AIMED AT US. We're lucky that with a few tweaks, we've gotten away with it....but the truth is....the DSLR revolution was aimed at people who WEREN'T shooting video BEFORE. Photographers that hadn't shot much video....are NOW SHOOTING VIDEO. Soccer moms that were already shooting pics of their children....are now shooting jello-goodness on the soccer field. DSLRs are here to stay....but whether are not they stay with our "high-end" user...that's another question. Whether or not DSLRs stay in OUR HANDS is another question.

I PROMISE YOU THIS: Soccer moms aren't going to put down their D5000...and pick up a AF100. Newer micro-budget/hobby film-makers aren't ALL going to put down their T2is/GH13s and pick up a AF100...because they can't afford it....and for the work they are shooting...FRANKLY THEY SHOULDN'T. (I know I'm not shooting anything that DEMANDS the AF100) That doesn't mean that Kholi, Barry, and other "high-end" users won't happily walk into the promised AF100 land and NEVER LOOK BACK.

I'm THRILLED with the upcoming launch of the AF100....it means GREAT THINGS NOW and in the FUTURE for indi film makers.

Judy Smith is shooting vids of her baby in the bath tub with her husband's T2i right now and she is JUST AS HAPPY!

[Chris Santucci]

....the DSLR revolution was aimed at people who WEREN'T shooting video BEFORE.

Well... it only became a revolution after cinematographers and filmmakers discovered what they could do with the DSLR. The DSLR Revolution was unintentional I'd say, and has yet to be really be capitalized on by Canon in my opinion. Producers and directors aren't asking for Red anymore, they're asking for 5D and 7D, and when Canon ads a few grand worth of business to their DSLR units (or even more), I'm thinking their dominance will continue.

That doesn't mean that Kholi, Barry, and other "high-end" users won't happily walk into the promised AF100 land and NEVER LOOK BACK.

The 5D/7D tools have significant cache built up with "high-end" users. You might be surprised by what's being shot on these cameras. The AF100 would have to be pretty special to displace the Canons as the go-to cameras for commercials, and web video. As I've said before - All it has to be is "good enough" to produce the intended results.

Having much more color depth and resolution is useless and not worth the expense if the general public can't tell the difference between something shot on a 5D, film, and Red.

.

[acoelho1]

Exactly. Rather or not these DSLR's were intended for us is irrelevant since "Pro's" from all walks of life are using them and loving it. Lets be clear, there are some people who just do not like DSLR's for production use and even if there weren't any alaising or moire, they would still be bitching about the other so called limitations.

Will this camera be the end of DSLR's for production work? I doubt it and but only time will tell. The question everyone should be asking themselves is does this camera offer a feature that justifies the added price.

If your shooting only music videos, I would choose the 5D since you probably already have the support gear.

[ethan cooper]

Not sure you can call a repackaged HDSLR with audio inputs & better output options a killer when it's 4x - 5x the price of the camera it's improving upon.

I'm going to bring up the 'camera which shall not be spoken of till it's released' & say that for around the same price difference you're getting greater distinction in resolution, DR (most probably) & more importantly recording format. For the extra $$ there needs to be something more to set it apart & I think the 'camera which shall not be spoken of till it's released' offers that distinction... in theory... once it gets here... whenever that is...

[morgan_moore]

If you own a few bitties like a nikkor 14 2.8 and love the stupid view it gives on a DSLR, If you want to travel light and do stills to the panny wont cut it, If you like being able to fly your camera on a $500 stabiliser etc the the panny wont cut it

if you want to shoot without lights the panny probably wont cut it

If you are pissed with synch sound, rainbow men in striped shirts, pissed with mpeg streamclip and hours of lost computer time

pissed with sweating when filming anything with a wall in the bakground

the the panny could be a godsend

Id love one, what I would trade for it is my EX1 not my 5 or 7

S

[ethan cooper]

what I would trade for it is my EX1 not my 5 or 7

Makes sense... how long can you continuously shoot on the AF-100? That might be the only reason to maybe keep a traditional camera around.