Skeptikal
Active member
I agree 100%...and you've listed the technology drip-feeders in just about the right order.
It's 2011 and we still have 8 bit 4:2:0 in a "serious" camera!
AF-100 Another DSLR $9,000 4:2:0 is a solution?
- Thread starter pallllaaaaa
- Start date
- Status
I agree 100%...and you've listed the technology drip-feeders in just about the right order.
It's 2011 and we still have 8 bit 4:2:0 in a "serious" camera!
Just Shot a music video on the AF100 and producer had a 5d for 2nd camera. Guess what? He loved the AF100. Why? How about cleaner more accurate color. How about, no jagged edges or pattern ringing which plagued us on the 5D. He also loved he could watch full HD output while recording. Something we could not do with the 5D. One of the concepts was whip pans, and again, the 5D failed and the AF100 proved itself again. With the proper settings the image is just as sharp and noise free as the 7D and in most cases the 5D. Trust me on this. I've shot 2 features, 4 music videos, and 5 shorts in the past year on my 5D. Barry is right about the canon h264 for sure. I've already stepped on the footage shot to the sd cards on the AF100 in color. Let me tell ya, it handles it far better then the 5D footage.
Probably the best thing to do is find someone who has a Af100 and play around with it. This way you can see for yourself whether you like it or not. I took the leap and bought it because I knew it was going to be great. In my opinion, A "DSLR" killer.
It's really better to field test a camera then form pre-conceived opinions. It's always worked for me.
Probably the best thing to do is find someone who has a Af100 and play around with it. This way you can see for yourself whether you like it or not. I took the leap and bought it because I knew it was going to be great. In my opinion, A "DSLR" killer.
It's really better to field test a camera then form pre-conceived opinions. It's always worked for me.
Yes true about the 4:2:0. It is 2011, but the fact is, if you want something more, you just have to pay for it. Sony's new camera coming out this month will eventually have 4:4:4: with a super 35 chip. But it's going to cost you $14 grand. But i agree to some extent. Panasonic should have come out with super 35 chip on the Af100. I wouldn't of minded spending another 2 grand for that. But the fact is, look back 5 years ago. Look how much we are getting out these cameras for virtually the same money. Think about how much more camera we will have in the next 4 years.
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I'm sure the AF100 is better than the 5d and 7D, it's a great design that brings the best of Panasonics cameras together, but I don't think it's a DLSR killer - it's far more expensive, and I'm not talking about all the ridiculous rigs that people put together (those probably end up costing just as much). I'm talking about the really budget challenged guys who just want to make a short film or video and find workarounds for less. A T2i at $700 plus a couple of decent lenses and a sound recorder for about $1000 more can't be beat for those in that situation. The DLSR forums are still the most popular on here for a reason - they offer a way "in the door" to creative shooting with an S35 sensor- problems and all.
Last edited:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Yes....totally agree with you there! Yeah, for a totally reliable, clean, non aliased image, better controls and you have the choice - NO CONTEST.
Viddovation
Veteran
You're right. The guys who want to shoot a movie as a hobby with whatever cash they can squirrel away... those guys will go for DSLRs, and bully for them that technology has improved to where that's a viable option.
Those guys don't bother me. They live in a different world. For those of us who get paid to shoot, the 5DmkII represented a new low in what producers thought was acceptable, and budgets tightened accordingly.
I've worked on a feature set where they shot with two 5DmkII rigs. They complained constantly about the lack of proper video output, and focus was an issue as well.
In my experience, if a producer hears something is a good way to save money, they'll try it, and they'll only stop once it burns them.
It's refreshing to see some sanity due to the AF100!
burrencrawler
New member
Yes I agree that the focusing on the 5D is a pain, and the rolling shutter (jello effect) is sometimes utterly unbearable. However the low light quality is cool. I will wait to see what Sony come up with , otherwise I am ordering a AG101. It works much better on a tripod than handheld, sometimes the jello effect is much worse handheld even if you are very steady, its almost like the steadier you hold it the worse it gets and this breaks MA balls.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Well, to make you happier probably, the AF100 shutter is about as fast as a Red One. I measured it, and it is twice as fast as the 5D. You can still get skew as you'd expect, but the jello feeling is GREATLY reduced. I am VERY happy about that.
Just follow the golden film rule that Barry has said, your subject matter should NEVER take less than 7 second to cross the entire frame or you will see perceivable skew. I believe this is a film rule that translates well to AF100 as well.
Just follow the golden film rule that Barry has said, your subject matter should NEVER take less than 7 second to cross the entire frame or you will see perceivable skew. I believe this is a film rule that translates well to AF100 as well.
Fohdeesha
Well-known member
Kenny, I've tried my hardest to ignore your blatantly ignorant and hateful posts as long as I can, but I just can't do it anymore.
1. the sony f3 is 12k with no lenses. the 16k everyone keeps quoting, including Jan, somebody who works for panasonic, (I would get your facts right), is for the package including THREE professional grade prime lenses
2. the sonys sensor has 12 micron wide photosites. that is FOUR times as much surface area per photosite as the Arri Alexa, several more times than a Red. that means huge dynamic range, and huge light sensitivity. It's literally noiseless at 18db of gain (6400 iso)
3. It's putting out 12 stops of DR, and god knows how many once the s-log update comes out and the full log output of the sensor can be recorded.
4. a 10-bit 4:2:2 recorder is 2000 bucks, that is nothing for people who work professionally and are in the market for these types of cameras. internal recording formats are a completely null point in this price range, people who use these cameras professionally use it for nothing other than offlines. It's a shame the af100's output is only 8-bit, but with it's average noise performance the extra bits would be dithered and posterized by it anyway, giving you around 8 useful bits in the end. So good decision there panasonic. Have you guys even published the actual S/N ratio? Or is that "private information"?
5. Sony listens to customers more than panasonic ever has. When the ex1 came out, the xdcam forum - full of people posting how much they are loving their new equipment, don't remember a single outstanding issue (Other than ergonomics, which sony listened to and addressed with the ex1r). the hvx forum - full of people complaining and trying to get to the bottom of problems. Exact same now. f3 forum - full of new owners literally not believing how good the performance of their new camera is ("is this actually 6400iso? it's noiseless!") The af100 forum, full of owners posting problems, and people like you trying to make buying decisions for other people based on a clear lack of knowledge. I've tried my best to stay in the f3 forum, where it is all very mature, technical discussion amongst professionals. Whenever I make the terrible decision to visit this af100 forum, I see posts like yours and it really makes me very, very sad.
The only other camera out right now offering full 4:4:4 rgb log output and photosite size/DR/noise performance similar to the f3 is an Arri Alexa. guess how much that is? around 60k, body only. The f3 is 12k, body only. A ripoff you say? Totally, bro. It can see in the dark, has the dynamic range of 40k+ cameras, and can unnoticeably step in as a b-cam to an f35. Totally a ripoff, man.
If I posted half the things you just said about sony, about panasonic, I'd probably be banned. Why it's allowed so rampantly in the af100 forum is beyond me, but rather than get myself in trouble over it I've tried my best to ignore it.
Do your own research, make sure your technical background is strong, and then make your own unbiased, informed buying decision. If you have to ask a bunch of fanboys on a general filmmaking forum about a 5k+ purchase, you're probably in the wrong business. Especially when you come into an af100 forum, and ask if you should get a panasonic or a sony. Hmm, I have no idea what the answers might be!
I understand that the appeal of log output, huge photosites, more dynamic range, and 4:4:4 output is lost on a lot of people in the market for cheaper cameras, and that anything above 10k seems to enter a whole new realm of "woah man, way too pricey, no matter what it is" I completely understand that, I really do. And it should, because you should be worried about making movies, not equipment. I don't come in here and berate people for buying the af100, I have no idea why so many people here feel so lax about berating people for being in a different budget group and buying an f3. As an intelligent, unbiased, practiced filmmaker with no attachment to equipment or brands, I can say without a problem that the af100 is a great camera for what it is, and it's price. People are making films on it, and that's what should be happening. I'm a sony owner, and will be eventually an f3 owner. But I don't let that effect my judgment of something like the af100, because it's a completely different camera. I don't know why you let it effect your judgment so much yourself, Mr. Kenny_G.
Last edited:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
First of all, people keep misquoting the price of the F3 - it's $13,300. Saying $16,000 constantly is like saying the AF100 is $7000.(it's $4795). Is $13,300 too expensive- the market will say. So far though the people here who have bought the camera are more than pleased with it's S/N ratio, dynamic range, and lowlight performance. I've never understood this Company hate thing...if you don't like their products, it's an easy fix...don't buy them. I can understand buying something and then if the product is not as promised, being upset, but neither SOny, Canon, nor Panasonic owes us a thing...unless you're a customer. I do agree the Af100 is the best value for independent film makers available today.
As far as a company not listening to it's customers...I think Sony is actually starting to get it. As of this year they will have 3 large sensor cameras in 3 different markets under $20,000(not counting stills cameras). They are also adding 24p and full manual controls to their high end consumer line (finally!) I think right now Canon is the one not listening - they don't have a single large sensor camcorder on the market. Hopefully that will change at NAB, but who knows. (I really like Canon's other stuff by the way..I own 2 of their cameras)
Sorry Fohdeesha beat me to a lot of these points so +1 to what he said.
The F3 specs are no doubt good and in some points better than the AF100, but the difference is not worth 8300us$ more - F3: 13.300us$.
By the way I ordered three AF101. I have bought a Sony PC100, VX2000, VX2100, PD150, PD170, EX1 and EX3(sadly defect and Sony seems to want to repair it for about 5000us$ - the price of an AF100)
I also shoot with a Canon T2i - underwater/remote heli/in-under-out car shots.
By the way I ordered three AF101. I have bought a Sony PC100, VX2000, VX2100, PD150, PD170, EX1 and EX3(sadly defect and Sony seems to want to repair it for about 5000us$ - the price of an AF100)
I also shoot with a Canon T2i - underwater/remote heli/in-under-out car shots.
Last edited:
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Worth is subjective. The F3 isn't worth another $8,000 to you. It's DEFINITELY not worth it to me. But that doesn't mean it's not worth it to other people who have different priorities than you or me. If the AF100 suites your needs, more power too you. I know if I get it it will definitely suite most of my needs. But for some folks it simply won't, and the F3 is the next logical step.
Don't assume that your set of criteria for what is and isn't important in a camera feature set is the same for everyone else.
Let's just say, you get what you pay for. The F3 is worth every penny to me. I do commercials, music videos, and films. I need the flexibility and firepower. And I also don't care about the 4:2:0 onboard. Anything I shoo will be on KIPROmini or Cinedeck Extreme. I care about the camera head.
That said and more to the point, the AF100 is a steal, because of the quality it puts out for the price. I've shot a film on it, I know it puts out great footage. I ve seen it do it.
nyvz
Veteran
Could you cite a source on this? I believe Sony's specs say 63db which seems like it should equate to about 10.5 stops.
Fohdeesha
Well-known member
It's fully saturating the rec. 709 color space, which can hold around 11.5-12 stops if I remember correctly, depending on the gamma applied. I'm not sure if anyone's done a solid test, they won't be useful until the s-log upgrade is released and we can see what the sensor itself is capable of. Sonys manual also says 12 stops, as did the q&a session with the engineers that was held a while back online. I'm excited to see what the number ends up really being when s-log can be tested.
OK this thread has been around since the dawn of time and should probably drift off into the archives.
CLOSED
CLOSED
- Status