So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

T

tangierc

New member
I am so disappointed. I was, as many were, looking forward to an AF100 successor. I love what Blackmagic is offering. I am not so sure about making the jump to JVC. I have M4/3 lenses. I don't want to use the GH4 with interface adapter as a replacement and the DVX200 (although a great product) is not the replacement I was looking for.

Is the competition just too tight now? What are you all doing? I know the AF100 is still a great camera and I'll keep using it as well. Just curious what you all are considering and why.

Are you holding out a little while longer in hopes that a successor will be announced? Are you still believing in other posts on these boards that there was a 'reliable sources' that there will be an AF100 successor.

I love Panasonic as a brand even beyond videography. I love their sensibility about technology in general and how they place their products amidst it's competitors. Though this situation eludes me. Somehow I can't help but feel like there's going to be a surprise in the near future; something unexpected. Maybe it's crazy.
 
It really is odd. On the one hand, many felt (I believe Barry too) that there would be no successor to the AF100, and this seemed validated in spades, as there never were even any credible rumors of an AF200, and Panasonic has so completely stopped after the AF100 that it really seems like they totally lost interest; on the other hand - this is a really bad omen all around for Panasonic, because it means serious videographers or people who simply want a videocam rather than DSLR solutions will turn away from all Panasonic m4/3 ancillary products... who is going to invest in m4/3 lenses when you will never have a videocam to use them on, only DSLRs? I mean, at this point, people could rightfully reach the conclusion that they'd rather throw their lot in with a company like Sony that at least seems dedicated to continuing development and therefore buying into the Sony lens system is not going to be wasted capital. So to me it seems like the consequences for Panasonic are not just the loss of any prospective camera sales, but a threat against their whole m4/3 mount system lenses and any other ancillary products. Because unless you are resigned to forever be stuck with only one DSLR line - the GH series for more serious video folks - what's the point of the m4/3 lens purchases... and who wants to limit themselves to only one series cameras that are not even dedicated video solutions? Just a very puzzling situation - it looks like Panasonic has given up the ghost in that whole department. Unless they have a surprise lurking somewhere to announce, but I kinda doubt it, as if they were going to do it, NAB would've been the natural place... and we don't even hear any credible rumors. Stick a fork in it - it's done. May be time to abandon ship for another company altogether... Sony? Canon? BM?
 
I had a chance to try out literally the first or second AF100 in the world back when they first came out. Never bought one as I went for the FS100 instead. I own a GH4 and several Blackmagic Studio cameras, with Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 lenses. I just made the jump to the Canon C100 Mk II for my A camera. Still kept the M43 cameras and lenses for other applications (love the GH4 for personal stuff with the small lenses and body), but the C100 checks all the boxes for me. I am doing some work where I need solid low-light performance, and Panasonic and Blackmagic offerings weren't an option for that. Even if Panasonic were to make an AF200, it's just not possible to make an M43 sensor with the sensitivity and DR of an S35 sensor, at least in the near future. I debated between the FS7 and C100, and went with the C100 for the lower cost, smaller body and smaller file sizes (works better for the type of work I am doing).
 
Panasonic has abandoned the AF100, but JVC has picked up the MFT torch with the LS-300. It looks like a solid upgrade to the AF100, besting virtually all its specs and features, and lacking only a built-in waveform monitor.
Some of LS-300's stand-out features:

* Variable crop-factor adjustment, accommodating virtually all MFT-mountable lenses.
* Active MFT mount, supporting OIS, remote control, and auto-focus on Panasonic and Olympus lenses.
* 50Mbps 4:2:2 1080p recordings at up to 60p, 150Mbps 4:2:0 4K at 24p, 25p, 30p.
* Continuous single-file 1080p and 4K recording on SDXC cards up to 4 hours duration. No 4GB spanning BS!
* Redundant dual-card recording in both 4K and 1080p resolutions.
* Numerically adjustable black level knee and gamma control. An exclusive feature no one else offers.
* Live streaming from a built-in IP-addressible wifi transmitter, ideal for monitoring & remote control.

The GH4 is a great mirrorless 4K camera, but its YAGH adapter falls short of making it a professional camcorder.
The JVC LS-300 is clearly the best upgrade path for AF100 users, well worth the $4000.

Zacuto promo:

 
I was very dissapointed as well. Walked around the corner at the Panny booth to see the DVX200 and almost barfed. Ordered an URSA Mini 4.6 with all the trimmings hours later. I've owned most Panny cameras since the VHS Supercam. Time to move on. I wish that wasn't the case, but here we are.
 
Lpowell said:
The JVC LS-300 is clearly the best upgrade path for AF100 users, well worth the $4000.
Click to expand...

It's also arguably the "only" upgrade path for AF100 users. ; )

I will almost certainly purchase a 4K cam in the coming months and what concerns me about the LS300 has nothing to do with the camera's feature set, which is quite remarkable. It's the purportedly lower DR of the sensor (10 to 11 stops?) and suspicious highlight clipping that is a bit disconcerting. These perceived (or actual?) shortcomings may prevent this camera from becoming a wildly popular production/cinema tool, particularly with new cams such as the high DR URSA mini breathing down its neck. Lpowell, do you share these concerns, or do you think the camera sensor's image will hold up?

To me, the samples I've seen show some trouble in low light scenarios and strange macro blocking artifacts (YouTube compression?) at times as well. Don't get me wrong, I rather want to like this camera.
 
Firstbase said:
It's also arguably the "only" upgrade path for AF100 users. ; )

I will almost certainly purchase a 4K cam in the coming months and what concerns me about the LS300 has nothing to do with the camera's feature set, which is quite remarkable. It's the purportedly lower DR of the sensor (10 to 11 stops?) and suspicious highlight clipping that is a bit disconcerting. These perceived (or actual?) shortcomings may prevent this camera from becoming a wildly popular production/cinema tool, particularly with new cams such as the high DR URSA mini breathing down its neck. Lpowell, do you share these concerns, or do you think the camera sensor's image will hold up?

To me, the samples I've seen show some trouble in low light scenarios and strange macro blocking artifacts (YouTube compression?) at times as well. Don't get me wrong, I rather want to like this camera.
Click to expand...

+1

Spot on. Great cam on paper. But if the DR, highlight handling, and low light performance are subpar, this is a nonstarter. But man, would love it if this camera delivered, because on paper it's a beauty. Of course, I am somewhat apprehensive about the JVC brand, but I guess that's something I'd get over, if the camera was all that. It needs to get out into the wild, into users hands and get tested. I'll follow this with interest - it checks off all the boxes otherwise.
 
Depends on your needs.

Being hired more as an owner/op, I need to move on to a camera system with some sort of demand, either C300.2 or FS7 being the current top contenders. Panasonic does not currently have a solution to fit my needs.
 
Firstbase said:
It's the purportedly lower DR of the sensor (10 to 11 stops?) and suspicious highlight clipping that is a bit disconcerting. These perceived (or actual?) shortcomings may prevent this camera from becoming a wildly popular production/cinema tool, particularly with new cams such as the high DR URSA mini breathing down its neck. Lpowell, do you share these concerns, or do you think the camera sensor's image will hold up?
Click to expand...
Here's a high-contrast LS-300 sample video shot in 4K, using ambient lighting with no fills. Shadow detail and highlight gradients look pretty clean to my eyes. I'd think anyone familiar with the AF100's dynamic range and highlight clipping would have little trouble getting high quality results from the LS-300. The major issue I anticipate is the lack of waveform monitor or histogram. In practice, I'd expect to rely on the zebra to set highlight exposure, and then use the adjustable gamma control to dial up shadow and midrange exposure. I am not an SLOG fan and this kind of exposure methodology is what I use when shooting with Nikon cameras. (The LS-300 is the only 4K camera I know of offering calibrated gamma control.)


The other thing of interest is the LS-300's working ISO range, which appears to be midway between the GH4 and the A7S:

GH4: 200 - 1600 ISO
LS-300: 400 - 6400 ISO
A7S: 800 - 12800 ISO (except in SLOG-2, where min ISO is 3200 and max is sky high)

This is kind of a porridge issue for me - the GH4's ISO range is too low, requiring very fast lenses in low light. With the high ISO range of the A7S you shoot with higher f-stops than I prefer, though the full-frame DOF compensates for it. But with my MFT and Nikon lens collection, the LS-300's ISO range looks just right, and the multi-crop Super35 sensor has the FOV I like best.

The other issue I have is recording formats. I'm fed up with the AF100 and GH4's ridiculous recording formats that split lengthy event videos into 4GB sections, which I then have to patch together. The A7S doesn't even record 4K videos internally. The LS-300 can record single-file 64GB videos on SDXC cards in MOV format, just what I want. In practice, these kind of working considerations are more important to me than DR specs.
 
Last edited:
I can't buy a JVC product. It's down to fs7 or c300 mk2. I really like the features on the canon but's it's grossly overpriced. I'm in no rush to buy anything now.
 
I pre-ordered a JVC, then cancelled when I discovered it is 8 bit only in all formats... Then I ordered a Blackmagic Ursa Mini. only to discover no built in NDs. What is it with these manufacturers? Don't they know what's going on out here?

The JVC was such an exciting prospect, I have MFT lenses, MFT adapted prime lenses, EF lenses, S16 zoom lenses, Z-Finders. I could have used everything I own, and they limit it to 8 bit and H.264? Really?
 
Yes, the lack of NDs on the Ursa Mini is just a head slapper. If you want to use external NDs then just don't turn on the internal NDs but you can't go the other direction... They might be regretting this decision now.

Personally, I really like the JVC design. They are really good at creating cameras for usage. But often fall short on the image/specs. It is like JVC is relegated to the mid-bottom of the market in the Japanese large company power structure. I am sure all of the companies know what people want, how could they not? Just seems like other factors are at play.

When I think of an AF-200 the JVC design is what I envisioned. Even without an AF-200 there is a lot of choice out there! C300s for ~$6,000, this JVC ~$4,000, DVC200 and the Ursa. The reviewers are going to be busy over the next six months.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
It is like JVC is relegated to the mid-bottom of the market in the Japanese large company power structure...
Click to expand...
They've basically always been there on the consumer front. Their videos cameras though seem quite popular.

PS. Back in 1986, I was about to buy my first CD player. I wanted JVC, as it was available at about a 70% employee discount (off retail). My buddies, who by then had several years of experience with the audio gear, looked at me as if I was insane. They had a unanimous vote for Sherwood. "Sherwood?", you ask. Well, it was a rebadged Philips and had the best DAC on the market at the time. JVC was something to sell to those seeking features. Their VCR's were pretty good. Everything else? Meh.
 
Here's where I'm at personally:

Features like 4K, 120fps, and higher bit rate recording are all "wants" for me right now, not "needs." In other words, I am not yet losing jobs in my market by using the gear I currently have. An AF200 would have likely made me adopt a new camera sooner than I absolutely needed to - if it had offered anything close to the rumored improvements over the AF100... but I have decided to stay put for probably the next year now. The one thing I do need for an upcoming gig is an ultra-wide angle lens... so if anyone out there is moving on from m43 and would like to unload their Lumix 7-14, send me a pm.

As for what else is out there that I might look into a year from now:

JVC LS300
pros: Very intriguing the system they've designed for mapping lenses onto the sensor. Great to keep my collection of m43 glass active and economical not having to invest in new lens format. No real issues with JVC products in the past - owned and loved the original HD100
cons: Have not seen any footage thus far that impresses me. Seems to exhibit same highlight handling and exposure issues that have annoyed me about AF100. I don't want to buy a new camera at this point that doesn't give at least 11-12 stops of actual real world DR... so jury still out for me on this cam until I see more footage.

Blackmagic Ursa Minor
pros: love the size & form-factor. Love the VF concept. In photos and on paper this looks like a killer cam.
cons: uncertain about Blackmagic vs. a Sony or Panny pro camera. Can I take it out of the bag 5 days a week every week for 3+ years and have it just work? Every single time? Plain and solid reliable pro performance is something I haven't heard from the same percentage of Blackmagic users as with other brands. No built-in NDs would impact my workflow to the point that alone will probably stop me from seriously considering this cam.

Sony FS7
Pricey for me - but seems like good investment and all-around workhorse cam for what I do that would justify the investment. The kit 28-135 would not do for me - I need a short/wide zoom for 75% of the stuff I shoot and fast primes for the rest. A little larger size-wise than I would prefer, but if I had to buy a new cam today I'm half sure this would be the choice. The other half...

Canon C100/300
Again have to buy all new lenses, but even if I got the FS7 I would probably start investing in Canon EF glass at this point. I really love the footage I've seen from these cameras, and love the low-light performance I've read about. I've only used the C500 and only on a tripod, but the form factor looks like it would suit me. Just would have to kit it out more than the FS7 to make it handle the way I want.


Whichever way I end up going, I foresee keeping my m43 glass active on GH3/4 as b-cam or for certain types of shoots - so not a total loss switching formats. I just mourn the likely loss of m43 as a legit system for a pro cine/video camera. As someone who used to shoot BetcamSP for news but whose back isn't as young as it used to be, m43 allows a great compromise between image quality and the size/weight of the equipment necessary to get it. The AF100 with the Voigtlanders gives me the thinnest DoF I would ever want for interviews & artistic shots, but with the Panny 12-35 also gives me the larger DoF I need for run & gun. Guess I'll milk everything I can out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top