4 months in, is the AF100 worthy?

Isaac_Brody said:
We've hit that point where the tech has outpaced the talent. AF100 is plenty worthy, but really, how many people are going to actually make a feature with it instead of nitpick tech flaws to death or wait for the next best thing? You can't really blame the camera now.
Click to expand...

I think it takes going into production for a major project a few times to have a larger perspective on camera cycles. The F3 is a great camera, and the FS100 looks like it might be a good option. The AF100 makes some really pretty images. Panasonic, Sony, and other companies will have something newer that catches everyone's eye two years from now, and in two years, I will have finished a few more projects with my AF100. I will sell my AF100, and I will buy one of those other options.
 
blackcat said:
I think it takes going into production for a major project a few times to have a larger perspective on camera cycles. The F3 is a great camera, and the FS100 looks like it might be a good option. The AF100 makes some really pretty images. Panasonic, Sony, and other companies will have something newer that catches everyone's buzz two years from now, and in two years, I will have finished a few more projects with my AF100. I will sell my AF100, and I will buy one of those other options.
Click to expand...

Right on. I bet there are several AF100 shooters here whose cameras have already paid for themselves, nevermind by the time an AF200/F4/whatever rolls out.
 
jdesignhi said:
There was something wrong with the setup on that AF100. Have a look at Mr. Bloom's own video of six months ago:

http://vimeo.com/16000333?ab

This video image was burned into my mind. I think that AF100 does fine lighting cigars in the dark!
Click to expand...

Man, that match was BRIGHT!

The lens used in that test was almost two stops faster than the one in the latest video. But then again, he says in the comments that the camera was actually operating at ISO 2000 instead of 3200, which would cancel out part of the difference. I'm almost thinking he might have left an ND filter engaged or something in that newer test. Assuming (and it's probably a pretty big assumption) the ISO settings on all the cameras are correctly calibrated, shouldn't the basic exposure look the same at the same shutter speed and aperture? There could certainly be differences in noise/color/sharpness/dynamic range, but you'd expect to see pretty much the same general range of tones, right? At most, the new test may only show that his AF100's ISO 3200 setting is off spec.

- GDS
 
To answer the OP go to this vimeo video that Phil bloom just posted: Which camera is which? F3, FS100, AF101 and read the comments. Most people can't tell which camera is which and in the challenge and actually prefer the look and resolution of the AF100 over the F3!

IMHO these tests are just silly. Go out and shoot great footage. At this pont any of these three cameras would do the job nicely.

(BTW: We've been editing footage from a commercial my production company shot with the AF100 and the footage is STUNNING including iso 1600 shots which are clean! clean! clean!)
 
Last edited:
mkfotos.com said:
Right on. I bet there are several AF100 shooters here whose cameras have already paid for themselves, nevermind by the time an AF200/F4/whatever rolls out.
Click to expand...

I have enough booked that I am sitting well. The rest of my time goes towards my indie film work, which is for myself.
 
Um...yeah !

I'm just about to wrap on a 16 week shoot of the second season of a prime-time TV drama series shot in Melbourne called Offspring.

Our principal cameras at three RED MX cameras on the main unit, but we've used the AF100's plenty of times to either intercut with the RED's or to even shoot entire scenes with them. I've used them up to 1600 iso with fast primes to get amazing shots I couldn't get with any other camera.

They are a great little camera and offer terrific bang for the buck, even using the on-board recording.

jb
 
TornFusion said:
That test is kinda depressing....af100 didn't hold up that well at all.
Click to expand...

Bloom made a mistake:
i cocked up on the AF101 and had too much shutter in which cost me a stop so I have cut it out and shot a new test. Apologies! It was late, I was tired!
Click to expand...
And tried to correct it- he cut out the AF100 footage, re-uploaded the video and took Af100 off the video title.
But there's still quite a few negative comments regarding the AF on the Vimeo comments, and now in this thread, based on the earlier test...
 
This really sucks! I have friends, producer/director types, who do look at these forums and hear about these "tests." While I agree with you, my brethren AF100 users, that most of our customers don't care what we use, bad impressions created by losing a "test" last far longer than the corrections ever will! How many times will all the negative comments from this "test" show up in Google searches?

Mr. Bloom's retraction is too little, too late.
 
Mmm, well I'd worry much more about Laforet's relative slagging of the AF100...
Regardless, interested to see Phillip's full review of the comparisons in three days time...
 
Let me ask you Af100 users this (myself being one). Are you happy with the footage you are getting while keeping the price paid for the product in mind? Come on. One can run side by sides all day! Bloom did a test with the 3 cameras shooting a bridge, and if you read the early comments of which was which, most people picked the AF100 footage as the F3 footage. Not until he disclosed which cameras were which did the comments shift to AF100 bashing. Now I won't bash Philip as I like what he is doing because it's helpful for people to see real footage and make decisions about what to buy. But when those comments go some 50 deep and only 1 guys got the correct answer right, it shows me that ALL OF THESE CAMERAS are capable of making a good image. MY GH2 makes a good image! It just doesn't have the tool set for me to consider a serious production camera.
I bought the AF100 mostly due to the fact that I LOVE THE ND FILTER WHEEL. I though about the FS100. I'm still interested in it. But to have to use a DREADED FADER (because that's what people will do with it) or lug around 3 different ND's with step rings or have to rely on HAVING a mattebox on, made me go AF100. HD/SDI is a plus as well. Have fun with your NANO on the FS100. These things alone made me go AF100. And I'm quite happy about the purchase. Also, I'm kinda sick of all the Shallow DOF hype, where people shoot and hold only eyelashes of the subjects face. The AF100 can go very shallow, but can also go very deep on focus. The image is super cinematic.
Buy what you want to buy, based on what it has that you want it do do. And the AF100 has lot's of very nice features BUILT IN.
 
I have to say I'm happy. The only times I'm unhappy is when I screw things up and I get less than stellar footage. But is has to do more with lighting and me than the camera it self. Just to flip that ND and to switch from interval to 50fps shooting is a great thing. I think this camera is very revealing of what it sees and that pushes me to shoot better. I can't be as sloppy as one can be with a DSLR with the AF, but as long as I do it right it's gorgeous footage coming from the camera.
 
I've been very happy with my AF100. I was skeptical when it came around and was very worried about some of the issues I saw like poor highlight handling and things of that sort. Even when I reluctantly jumped on one to see if I was wrong within 30 minutes I was looking to get rid of it feeling sick thinking I made a huge mistake. Not until I spent a number of days with it under more controlled light, read a ton of the threads here on scene files, read reviews and ESPECIALLY Barry's Book for the AF100 did I see that the only reason my footage sucked was because of the user...me.

This camera is in many ways the perfect combination of size, features, and performance...not to mention price. It's smaller than an F3, has more features then a DSLR, and has footage that is comparable to both, including a sweet spot for DOF where it's not a 5D full-frame but it's not an ENG-style camera either...not even close.

The codec scared the crap out of me too until I saw just how good it really was. I've been very satisfied with how it's handled things and will use it whenever possible with a possible external recorder in the future.

I've found that a good DSLR is the perfect companion to this camera as well. My 5D's footage can match this thing extremely well and from what I see/read the GH2 is a great companion too. Like I said, this thing is what I love about the DSLR's (size, weight, DOF, lens options) but with video features like the waveform, built in XLR, focus assist, HD-SDI / HDMI out, and so much more.

It's my opinion that if anyone got this camera and got terrible footage with it...it's all their fault. All these ridiculous comments I read about terrible highlight handling, overcooked skin-tones, poor ergonomics, noisy, etc. are all misinformed and rash at best. This thing is a very good alternative to the other options out there and I'm glad to have made the switch.

A lot of the benefits of some cameras and how they handle poor exposure and still make things look decent...can be useful if that's something you can't get around often in your line of work, but its bread a lot of laziness with hunting consumers who instead of looking for a great piece of gear with the proper features, price, size, etc. they're looking for all that and something that can make up for some of their laziness. I'm not that kind of customer, LOL...so I'm very happy with my AF100.
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
I'm just about to wrap on a 16 week shoot of the second season of a prime-time TV drama series shot in Melbourne called Offspring.
Click to expand...

Wow John! My wife & I loved the first series of Offspring, great storytelling! :) Will definitely be looking out for scenes featuring the AF102.

As an event shooter the whole low-light thing is of great consideration to me but I am quite pleased with the AF102 in that department. Here's a 30 second sample (not a test) from an event I shot recently using my AF102 & beat up old FD 50mm f/1.8 complete with fungus around the inside of the front element. The only direct lighting in this sample was provided by the 6 or so tea candles on the table (ISO was cranked up to 2000.)


I used my own low-light setting on the camera & of course the footage has been tweaked & stabilised in post.
 
Last edited:
Tickets are now available for the may 17th event where we're getting a theater to see some af100 footage and some competitors up on a movie size screen so everyone can judge for themselves whether it's 'worthy' or not. matt if you could put together that green screen footage that would be great for the event.

official details and tickets over at http://wp.mediahalo.com/test-fest/
 
Wel ,what to say. I cannot say that Iam very satisfied with the camera. I like it in a way, but it is not what Iam used to in term of sharpness. You can get a sharp looking picture, but it has some issues IMO.
Using the V-detail + setting makes it look sharper however its the old story..............
The menu structure also needs some time to get aquinted to. On the other hand, de camera looks robust, I am afraid for the display that it will break off when falls in hands of an unexprienced user. Th picture looks nice and indeed the overexposure can be a problem if you are not a real cameraman. My wish is that Panasonic comes up with a firmware update that gives me 35 to 50 m/bs.
Looking at a picture on a big monitor in live mode, i can see the image sharpness changing in the fine details when v-detail is +2 or +3; looks like breathing??????

Sony is doing everything to get possitive reviews, so why not do something Pana??????
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top