AF-100 Another DSLR $9,000 4:2:0 is a solution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick Navaro said:
This is what Bloom said - copy and paste "(this is a great documentary camera and great for wedding shooters too, great for one man band and great low light)"
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what he said. And I happen to agree with him in as far as he said, but you'd be wrong to think that that's all it's good for. I happen to believe that it would be also great for many more purposes. This is a great, great indie cinema camera, that can also be used as a pro video camera for many (but not all) purposes. It is better than a DSLR in just about every conceivable circumstance, with the only exception being the super-shallow DOF that a 5D can deliver. I happen to think it would be a no-brainer for a wedding shooter who's currently struggling to wedge a DSLR into his workflow. And I think people who are currently trying to shoot interviews with a DSLR, will think they've died and gone to heaven when they get ahold of an AF100.

But for live events coverage, or sports, or news coverage the AF100 is not ideal for that. I'd still go for an HPX170 for those purposes, due to the video lens, servo zoom, and CCD for no flashes or skewing. I still think the AF100 would be better than any DSLR for live events, sports, or news, but it's still a big step down as compared to a real, professional ENG-style video camera for those purposes.

1/3" is not good enough quality. And 2/3" CCD bodies are too big. Anything else suitable!???? This is what I'm stuck on!!! :-(
Click to expand...
If you want CCD to avoid the CMOS issues, your choices are 1/3" (like the HPX170/HMC150 or XLH2), or the XDCAM-HD 1/2" products but their bodies are about as big as the 2/3" anyway. There's the HPX3100 from Panasonic, which has a smaller-than-normal-2/3" body, but it's still a big shoulder-mount body.

If you don't like CMOS issues, the pickings are getting slimmer. You have to go full-size, or 1/3".

If you want a big sensor and a small body, CMOS is the only way to go. And there are no video cameras in a small body with a large sensor. The AF100 is the closest, but it's not a strictly video camera. And there are no regular video lenses for large-chip cameras, so what you want doesn't exist. You'd have to instead look at the available options and choose the most-suitable compromise.
 
Last edited:
Michael Olsen said:
Philip Bloom didn't use the word "general" once in the "3 days with the Panasonic..." article. Nor did he use "one-man".

Here's the skinny. AF-100 is promising to be the worlds first video camera with a ~35mm sensor for less than $10,000. It will have all the usual features of video cameras, save a few which are made virtually physically impossible because of the ~35mm CMOS format. This makes it a good camera for those shooting with a cinematic style - little zooming, usually multiple lenses, usually a bit of time for setup in order to shoot the scene. This can include everyone from true narrative filmmakers to sports shooters to cinema verite to wedding/events films, to fashion/art films, and so on. It doesn't rule any genre out.

It does, however, require a different shooting style than that of a traditional 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. The biggest difference is the lack a constantly fast, long, autofocus, servo zoom. A 14x f1.9 just doesn't happen for any ~35mm camera in this world. Likewise, rolling shutter and banding. These are just going to be there, that's life. So if what you are shooting 1) requires such a zoom lens or 2) requires whip pans and flashes and you can't deal with those artifacts, then do not get this camera. You will hate it because it will not do what you want it to do. Many people who shoot with a "video" style - be it for ENG, Events, Weddings, etc. - have realized this camera isn't right for them. And that's fine. Just because this camera is new and a lot of people are excited doesn't mean it has to be right for everyone.

Instead, get a 2/3" camera with such a zoom lens and a CCD sensor. You will love it because you will be able to zoom in and out all day, do pirouettes with it, and run it down the red carpet, no problems.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Barry_Green said:
Spoken by somebody who hasn't used one, and has only seen scattered previews from people using a preproduction prototype that wasn't ready for use, and that Panasonic USA had specifically asked that people not post footage from. No big surprise that some of the footage has looked fantastic and some has sucked. Look at youtube or vimeo for footage from the 5D, some looks fantastic and some sucks.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I have previously said about THREE times. I'm just referring to the Bloom article. Yes, he needs to be mostly politically correct to keep people happy, so said he'd purchase one. However, he also is brave enough to point out the flaws. Which is something you are really not prepared to do it seems.

Lenses ARE an issue. And so is the x2 crop factor.*

* As mentioned by P.Bloom, not I. :-)
 
Nick Navaro said:
This is what Bloom said - copy and paste "(this is a great documentary camera and great for wedding shooters too, great for one man band and great low light)"
Click to expand...


If you add "cinematic" in front of each of those, I think it would make the phrase much more accurate. Personal opinion, of course. From a guy who's never held the camera.
 
The 2x crop factor only matters if you've ever shot on a FF35 camera (5DMKII).

If you've shot on movie film, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.
If you've shot on 7D, RED, D21, F35, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.

If you've shot on 16mm, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!
If you've shot on 1/3", 2/3", or 1/2" sensors, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!
 
Nick Navaro said:
Not at all. I have previously said about THREE times. I'm just referring to the Bloom article. Yes, he needs to be mostly politically correct to keep people happy, so said he'd purchase one. However, he also is brave enough to point out the flaws. Which is something you are really not prepared to do it seems.

Lenses ARE an issue. And so is the x2 crop factor.*

* As mentioned by P.Bloom, not I. :-)
Click to expand...
2x CROP FACTOR COMPARED TO WHAT??? A STILLS CAMERA??? This is not a stills camera that happens to shoot video - it is a video camera with a 35mm film gate size sensor (not a stills 35mm, something people have trouble understanding). If some hero academy award winning DP says that he used a 25mm lens to get a shot, then that same lens will look the same on this camera.

Even if you wait for the $50,000 dollar Sony (if that's the case why not get the ARRI Alexa, it's out now and is an outstanding camera. Better than anything else mentioned here), you will still need to buy lenses. The same lenses that you've been griping about, and it will present you the same problem** The sensor is the cine 35mm size!
 
Barry_Green said:
, that [AF100] can also be used as a pro video camera

The AF100 is the closest, but it's not a strictly video camera..
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help tho. I really appreciate it. I've kinda reached all this conclusion myself a while ago, but in denial! LOL!

I know what I want doesn't exist, but can't take it. And not great at explaining that on a msg board either. Call me old fashioned but I still prefer face to face. Maybe I should just get a film camera and a big crew! lol
 
Michael Olsen said:
The 2x crop factor only matters if you've ever shot on a FF35 camera (5DMKII).

If you've shot on movie film, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.
If you've shot on 7D, RED, D21, F35, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.

If you've shot on 16mm, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!
If you've shot on 1/3", 2/3", or 1/2" sensors, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!
Click to expand...

Ok. Lenses are OBVIOUSLY not my bag, HOWEVER, what's the deal with a 25mm becoming a 50mm?? Bloom used wide lenses and had some distortion as that happens anyway, but said there were no lenses for the MFT chip that go wide properly.

Bloom got a lot to answer for eh! lol

PS And haven't you all got something better to do than be typing on here on Saturday night!?? I haven't of course! lol
 
Again, it matters if you are used to shooting on a full frame DSLR. Otherwise, it will be roughly equal to or better than virtually every video camera ever made in terms of "going wide properly".
 
Michael Olsen said:
Again, it matters if you are used to shooting on a full frame DSLR. Otherwise, it will be roughly equal to or better than virtually every video camera ever made in terms of "going wide properly".
Click to expand...

Ok. Take a look at this 30 second clip > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCQsfAdR_q4

The guy who shot and edited it used either a 5DmkII or 7D. I think it may have been a 7D. I know him but he can't give me too much info because of the politics between our companies.

He also edited the Lady Gaga - Telephone video, which both versions combined had over 120 million views on Youtube, and of course was TV too.

The trailer link, is for the forthcoming film he's made. He actually shot and edited the whole thing. He's amazing at what he does and I would like to emulate certain elements.

NOW - My question is - If the 7D did this, could the AF100 handle it too??

As much info as possible welcome on this....
 
If the 7D can do it, the AF-100 should be able to do it better.

The only exception would be at the very very wide end. The 7D might give you an extra degree or two more FOV before things turn fisheye.
 
Nick Navaro said:
However, he also is brave enough to point out the flaws. Which is something you are really not prepared to do it seems.
Click to expand...
What flaws are you referring to?

Lenses ARE an issue.
Click to expand...
To you, for your purposes. For many of us, they are not an issue.

And so is the x2 crop factor.
Click to expand...
For you, maybe. Or for Philip. If that's the case, why don't you just end the discussion here and move on?

And, by the way, you do realize that that $50,000 Sony is going to have the same issue with lenses, and the same issue with the crop, right? I mean, it'll be a little bit closer, but it'll still be a "massive" crop as compared to a "full frame" sensor. Same with the Red One, or the F35, or the Alexa.
 
Last edited:
Michael Olsen said:
If the 7D can do it, the AF-100 should be able to do it better.

The only exception would be at the very very wide end. The 7D might give you an extra degree or two more FOV before things turn fisheye.
Click to expand...

So would that be a big deal. Say in this stadium shots? Would you lose the wide aspect? Tell me 2 lenses (wide & functional/zoom) I could put on the AF100, to do it "better"....

I would go for the AF100 and switch my editing and filming style, if I thought it would ultimately look more "cinematic" than 1/3 1/2 2/3 CCD chips... you know what I mean?
 
Nick Navaro said:
HOWEVER, what's the deal with a 25mm becoming a 50mm??
Click to expand...
It doesn't. A 25mm is a 25mm. A smaller sensor sees less of the field of view than a larger sensor does, but the optics and perspective and DOF haven't changed.

Bloom used wide lenses and had some distortion as that happens anyway, but said there were no lenses for the MFT chip that go wide properly.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The 7-14 is an extremely wide lens, and it's native MFT.

Bloom got a lot to answer for eh! lol
Click to expand...
Philip Bloom is one guy, with an opinion. He is not the end-all, be-all answer machine that people seem to want to make him out to be. And his opinions on the AF100 were formed after a very brief usage of a barely-functioning prototype. Cut the guy some slack and wait for him to have some serious, meaningful experience with it before putting his words under a microscope.
 
Last edited:
Nick Navaro said:
Ok. Lenses are OBVIOUSLY not my bag, HOWEVER, what's the deal with a 25mm becoming a 50mm?? Bloom used wide lenses and had some distortion as that happens anyway, but said there were no lenses for the MFT chip that go wide properly.

Bloom got a lot to answer for eh! lol

PS And haven't you all got something better to do than be typing on here on Saturday night!?? I haven't of course! lol
Click to expand...


dude bloom is a good video creator, i.e. he's a good artist but he's not an expert on technical matters in the least. up until last week he thought the AF100 had the GH1 sensor for pete's sake! and Jan had to correct him. that should tell you how much he knows about the technical stuff. whereas the guys here are professional engineers and programmers telling you what the truth is and you still not listening to them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top