AF-100 - best indie film maker can get for $6000? Not always.

I think the GH2 announcement on the 21st should help us to work out the best solution.

I'm now in love with the DSLR format for filming.

Hopefully the reported 40fps frameburst can lead to some interesting filming experiments too... I would imagine it is at least 6mpx (3k).
 
I don't think that GH2 announcment is very important.
As right now Panasonic is struggling to make GH2 announcment anything but disaster.
They even made some efforts to reduce expectations, but failed miserably,
because people who got information can not understand tech things and so, can't believe in it. :-)
 
There is no doubt that the modular approach offers more flexibility and you can save a considerable amount of money if you shop around. That is why many people prefer to build their own computer instead of buying a Mac Pro for instance. From an indi filmmaker point of view, the DSLRs will continue to be an option, especially for film students.
It is so much easier for a person with a small budget to buy a DSLR camera and team up with other people that own the additional equipment (lenses, lighting, sound recorder, mics, external monitors, support…etc) necessary to properly make a movie. A lot of people will go with the AG-AF100 because it offers a simpler elegant approach, but enough flexibility to add value to the package by adding extra gear without breaking the bank.
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
I don't think that GH2 announcment is very important.
As right now Panasonic is struggling to make GH2 announcment anything but disaster.
They even made some efforts to reduce expectations, but failed miserably,
because people who got information can not understand tech things and so, can't believe in it. :-)
Click to expand...


you're the first and only person that seems to agree with what I've been saying for MONTHS.

Namely, that you basically ruined their GH2 launch and they would prefer to sweep the GH2 under the table if they could (well in reality they would prefer to sweep the gh13 under the table if they could, and apparently they did with their firmware update).

The point is GH1 was supposed to be a certain type of camera, and AF100 was supposed to be a big evolution towards a much higher end with GH2 filling the gap in between for video. However with the unexpected advent of GH13, this threw a huge wrench into Panasonic's gears because GH13 now will have video that rivals and is probably pretty much identical with AF100, let alone the GH2 which the GH13 will probably still be better than video quality wise or at least identical to. So now Panasonic has no recourse because they have no idea how to market the GH2 and is probably why we've heard so little noise about it from them.
I really am very very curious to see what will happen with GH2 and what tricks they might have up their sleeve but in reality I'm pretty sure I know what to expect as outlined before.
Point is GH13 really did a number on Panny and the GH13/GH2 will probably remain a very viable solution over AF100 for anyone without a completely disposable income.
 
Everts said:
got a link ? thanks
Click to expand...

Link? I only know that few chinese companies want to make this at about $300 price range (at least according to their not so good english).
Of course, it won't have all this bells and wistles. Only few basic things.

As for full portable broadcast screen with HDMI integrated with audio recorder and uncompressed video recorder. It is possible to make this for $500-550 (street price). Today. And I know almost all components.
 
Homunculus said:
you're the first and only person that seems to agree with what I've been saying for MONTHS.
Click to expand...

Generally, I do not agree.
Body do not play so vital part in all this.
And I did not mean GH2 disaster in indie perspective.
Only pure wide market.

This thread is not about bodies. It is about marketing.
Then someone want to sell you all in one package you always must turn and go away, research market for modular solution and return if such thing can't be found.
Such behaviour is right in all situations.
While marketers and fans will pray to stop wasting your time and buy this "perfect solution" because "nothing come close for such amount of money" (they have this phrase in every marketing book).
 
Last edited:
Well, the AF100 is my cup of tea.... To be able to NOT have to rig up my camera with all of the encoutrements to make it work adequately, to also allow for it too cool down so it doesn't overheat as I've made both the 7D overheat and also the 5d... This coupled with a highly unreliable LCD screen and the need to spend 10-15 minutes each and everytime to get an ergonomic and working rig...


So, with your analogy... let's just say that I use my camera 100 times and each time, I save myself 15 minutes in setup time... well then I've just saved 40 hours of time.... It's kind of the same thing, or is it?

I'm for one, happy for the conveience and I'd rather just get to the work... I'm of the mind also that I like my Mac Pro and it works without headaches... so I'll let someone else build theres...
 
Special note to Justyn. Read first line in first post of this thread carefully, please.

I really do not want wedding phootograthers or wedding filmmakers here as well as other pros to start flame about how AF100 is perfect for their work. I agree here. Many time it is much better to have one solution. But for many tasks it is not so.
 
Last edited:
DVX user discussions about DSLR rigs seem to frequently mention audio limitations when compared to traditional video cameras, specifically with regard to XLR inputs and using camera to record audio.

For a lot of fiction narrative productions (arguably most), recording synch audio with the camera is impractical, undesirable, inefficient, or all of the above. Audio being tethered to the camera can be a flat-out pain in the arse.

Obviously, ENG/wedding photographers will feel differently and it's of course nice to have the *option*, but excellent in-camera sound recording is not a high priority for everybody, so Vitaliy's basic argument about the marketing aspect of DSLR rigs vs. AF101 should take this into consideration.
 
All DSLR configurations include audio recorder with two XLR inputs.
They have some advantages compared to AF100 (like Z4n is able to do 4ch recording) and some disadvantages (audio levels setting and Z4n overall interface).
Pay $450 instead of $300 and you'll get 8 simultaneous channels with XLR inputs (Zoom R24).
If you use dynamic mics mostly 8 channels will be <$370 (Zoom R16).
 
The point I was attempting to make was that even if I (or many indy filmmakers) buy the AF101, I won't be using it for audio so that would be another expense to add to the ~$6000 price tag.
 
DSLR's will not approach the level of video quality of a dedicated video camera like the AF100 because to make the necessary changes to elminate aliasing and moire, like more agressive OLPF , would sabotage their primary function as high resolution still cameras.
When processing power advances enough to fit full resolution digital scaling into the DSLR form factor at low power consumption levels, then you may see it happen, but not before. That is at least 3-4 Moore's law cycles away. 5-6 years.
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
All DSLR configurations include audio recorder with two XLR inputs.
They have some advantages compared to AF100 (like Z4n is able to do 4ch recording) and some disadvantages (audio levels setting and Z4n overall interface).
Pay $450 instead of $300 and you'll get 8 simultaneous channels with XLR inputs (Zoom R24).
If you use dynamic mics mostly 8 channels will be <$370 (Zoom R16).
Click to expand...

Pay $1500 and you get a good high quality CF recorder with studio quality preamps.
 
The point I was attempting to make was that even if I (or many indy filmmakers) buy the AF101, I won't be using it for audio so that would be another expense to add to the ~$6000 price tag.

Absolutely 100%. On an upcoming project, I'll be shooting in tiny spaces where each inch is at a premium (small 2 person tent with 2 actors). I'll need to make small openings and there is not much room to move. Anything I can take off the camera, I'll do and the last thing I need is cables.

The af-100 is a very exciting camera, and I'll probably buy it (or my DP will). But each shooting situation is different, and a modular solution may actually be more useful for some. And if the capture quality is equivalent, then quite a few people may decide to stick with the modular approach.

I think the main problem in that case, for marketing, would be that the af-100 really needs to bring something to the table - something extra and big that you can't easily reproduce with DSLRs, while still keeping the price within competitive limits. I mean, a $1K premium is doable, but once you start looking at $3K or more, it becomes a problem.

The bigger issue Mirezzi raises is therefore important: the $6000 price for the af-100 is not the whole price - you can't shoot with this for $6000. You need to add quite a bit more money before you can actually use the rig. And you push that too far, and people will start looking at DSLRs again.
 
Vitaliy Kiselev said:
AF100 is perfect solution, especiall concerning current time. But you must always look around and know why you spending such amount of money.
Click to expand...

um, no.

You can save 25% money but you will receive much more less and you will double the time that you need for your production: this is not a business, this is a serious handicap, even for an indie and increases the budget, even in an indie production.

Regards

Gary
 
Razz16mm said:
DSLR's will not approach the level of video quality of a dedicated video camera like the AF100 because to make the necessary changes to elminate aliasing and moire, like more agressive OLPF
Click to expand...

I do not see any relation to electronics here.
Replace OLPF.
It is good nich for small firm.
Produce small amounts of OLPF filters and offer send-in service to replace them (as IR removal firms are doing last years).
But I'll tell you interesting thing. Most of the time in real situations, most of the people prefer aliased image :-).
If you'll provide them image from AF-100 and from same sensor camera (GH2) image properly downscaled to 1080p people always prefer downscaled version.
 
Gary Senda said:
um, no.

You can save 25% money but you will receive much more less and you will double the time that you need for your production: this is not a business, this is a serious handicap, even for an indie and increases the budget, even in an indie production.
Click to expand...

This is not real argument with facts. This is flame, sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top