Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 319
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member Erik Naso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,368
    Default
    I care less about P2 and more about lenses.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Seelys Bay, Ontario
    Posts
    604
    Default
    The market is much bigger than 'digital cinema'. Every one can have the 35mm look, so everyone wants it, you see it on cooking shows for crying out loud. I seriously doubt 4k will be needed by the average shooter any time soon, but 10 bit and an on board broadcast compliant codec for under 10k would be really nice. Second the sdxc argument, keep the cost of ownership reasonable.

    I was totally floored by the c300 price point, given the existing tech is in a $3000 camera, the only thing new is the sensor.

    I actually think that the m4/3 sensor size is ideal for a lot of applications, yes the wide lenses need to be propriety to the format, but that makes for manageable deep focus when you need it, and sexy shallow focus is easily achievable as well. A one man band can't pull focus on every shot. Now if only they could figure out a way to allow for a 2/3" sensor crop, like maybe a slide away olpf, so you could use super16 or B4 zooms, it could truly be the one camera to rule them all.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,546
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Harvey View Post
    Yeah, I fail to see what is necessarily gained by S35 besides even shallower DoF. Look at a comparison of m4/3, S35, and a frame of 35mm cinema film... m4/3 is a bit closer in size than S35 to 35mm film.
    For the record let me say the AF100 is a fine camera and I am not trying to start a 'flame war'. But there are advantages to a Super 35 sensor. It is bigger and so you can have more pixels (better resolution) and bigger pixels(better low light). Obviously this is a very simplistic description but you get the idea. Plus all of the 'cinema'' lenses work on the Super 35 sensor with the same FOV as on the cameras they are made for. But that isn't a big deal unless you are using PL mount glass


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    San Diego, Calif.
    Posts
    302
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil1076 View Post
    ... And fine...keep the 4/3 sensor...An AF200 recording AVC-Intra 4:2:2 would be amazing for $7k or so...
    I've seen more than one post by GH2 owners saying video from their GH2 (which uses a MFT chip) looks higher quality than that from an AF100. If those posts are true, then Panasonic already has the technology to improve in-camera processing of the MFT chip. Now just record 10-bit data with 4:2:2 color internally; no external recorder needed. Hey! They've already got that technology: it's called AVC-Intra. Put all that together for under $10K, and there you have the XF200. I'd buy it.
    - Ken


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Washington, the state.
    Posts
    3,626
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Naso View Post
    I care less about P2 and more about lenses.
    +100.
    I could get excited about this cam if there was a better solution for the bag of L glass sitting in the closet. I would prefer intra and P2 as well.

    Grant


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Default
    I have used the AF100 a few times. LOVE it,..... having come from the JVC700 !

    Question is....do any of you think Panasonic will do some type of update to the AF100 and announce it at NAB in a few months?


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member Igelkott Film's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    384
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskacameradude View Post
    But there are advantages to a Super 35 sensor. It is bigger and so you can have more pixels (better resolution)
    The AF100 has a 16mp sensor from what I have read. How much resolution du you think you want?
    Its still going down to two mega pixel through the Optical low-pass filter.

    When i think about it I also read it was an 16bit sensor to.
    Last edited by Igelkott Film; 01-18-2012 at 01:58 AM.
    Igelkott Film is Hedgehog Film
    www.igelkottfilm.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,314
    Default
    I would like to see Panasonic develop a sensor that works like the sensor in the C300 but in m4/3 size. A chip that needs no scaling and have bigger pixel size thus giving it better light gathering. Combine this with in camera 120fps to SDXC cards in 1080p 4:2:2 10-bit and add 1:1 pixel function. If they also would (or any other manufacture) put together a fast enough lens series with something like 12-120/2.8-3.5 with a working ENG style motor zoom for a decent price that I'll be a great lens for events. I also see a lens around 25-100/2 that would be perfect for interviews. Having tried the Olympus 12-35/35-100 lenses they have the range and speed but they are just not made for video and to expensive.

    There are so many things I love about the AF100 and it sits comfortable with a great price compared to all the other competing cameras. It's not the best but hard to beat price/value. We are at the first generation from both Panasonic, Sony and Canon and what I would like to see this year is the next generation and having cameras spread from the $5k to $10k.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member KINOKS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EU / Slovenia
    Posts
    908
    Default
    GH2 has more resolution than AF100 and an overall better picture if you ask me. I never really liked the pictures coming from the AF100 (it's why I never bought it for my self), they are to bluish, not enough resolution and the handling of the highlights isn't much better than in my HPX171.

    AF100 uses the batteries, codec and media followed from the HMC151 - and that's why I understand the AF100 to be an S35 version of HMC151. So coming from this perspective it's quite obvious that there should come an S35 camera that uses the batteries, codec and the media of the HPX250. AF100 was rushed to the market in the same way that C300 was. Both could have been better.

    Anyway, if you ask me it's not a question of "if" Panasonic will deliver an S35 P2 camera but a question of "when".
    Sanjin Švajger


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Default
    For me the important thing that drew me to the AF101 was the price. It is in the same price range as the PD150, XL1, DVX100, Z1, EX1. This is ideal for the hobbyist or small production company. If you want more camera then you are probably looking to hire.
    Camera
    Panasonic AF101, Shoulder Support, Grips, Matte Box & Follow Focus. Manfrotto HDV501 Tripod
    GoPro Hero2
    Lenses
    Lumix 14mm F2.5, Nikon 28mm F2.0, Nikon 35mm F2, Nikon 50mm F1.8, Nikon 85mm F2, Nikon 18-70mm Zoom F3.5-5.6, Lumix 14-42 Zoom F3.5-5.6
    Sound
    Rode NTG-1 Mic, K&M 23770 Carbon Fibre Boom Pole, Sennheiser EW133 Radio Mic


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •