AF-100 or G7?

T

TheAmazingShane

Member
Hello all,

I've long had my eye on the AF-100...I'm looking to upgrade from my...DVX100. :)

It's tough because on the one hand, I like the idea of a full-fledged video camera. On the other hand, the G7 shoots at a higher resolution.

Either way I'm going to have to get a lens adapter for my Nikon lenses. Also, the G7 is cheaper new than the AF-100 is used.

It's a tough call for me because internally (and for no valid reason) I don't like the idea of using a DSLR for video...however the price and resolution make it really appealing.

I'm not concerned about audio because for any shoots I'd be recording it separately.

I'd love to hear some opinions.

Thanks!
 
If your instinct is to go with a traditional style cam to fit your needs, I would say go with that instinct.
1.) The AF100 offers a lot of the useful features and controls that you're familiar with on the DVX
2.) It's a steal right now for the AF100
3.) It may be lower resolution, but it's still capable of great images
4.) The cost gets a lot closer when you consider that the AF has ND filters/better controls/more stable hand held body.These are things you would need to add to the G7 to make it feel and perform the same.

All of these things become irrelevant if you go check out a G7 (or G6) and love the feel and don't mind adapting to the layout. I would definitely suggest that first....go and try any Panasonic video stills cam to see if you would be able to enjoy it.
 
Everything PulpFiction007 said.

A couple of other considerations to keep in mind is the costs of lenses. You can pick up really good used lenses, but outside of native m/3 mount, you're going to need adapters. And unless you stick to one mount (Nikon, Canon EF), you'll need multiple types. And you often get what you pay for (I've had cheap knockoff adapters fall apart on the camera while in the middle of a shoot before... while the camera was rolling).

I point out the cost of lenses simply to ask what your budget is? The DVX200 is due out this fall, and if you're gravitating towards a traditional video cam, it may be something to look into (AF100 + lenses may put you in the ballpark of the DVX)
 
Last edited:
Well, I have 3 Nikon lenses from my Letus adapter. I figured I would need a lens adapter for either one I decide to go with. So that is at least a bit of money I don't have to spend. (lenses.)

I also have 2 giant battery packs that should be compatible with the AF100. I'm trying to spend as close to $1000 or less as possible, which is why the G7 is so appealing.
 
Of course you'll save money with the G7 and can get consumer 4K capture, but the AF100 has NDs and the ergonomic capture is more ideal.
 
I have both the GH4 and AF100... they are very different animals. The AF100 is my workhorse, because the nature of the bulk of my works demands it, which is very run and gun-ish medical stuff.Sso I don't have time to deal things like audio adapters or external ND's, and have grown to need the waveform monitors and traditional video camera layout. But for those projects that allow me to move at a slower pace, I much prefer the GH4... which is surprising, since I hated dealing with DSLR's before I bought it. I don't know enough about the G7 to compare it to the GH4, but I love the image quality I get from my GH4. It's not that the AF100 is bad... far from it. But the GH4 is just growing on me.
 
Direct XLR inputs are some of the best things in offering professional video work. I've never been a fan of external mobile preamps marketed for DSLR shooters because MOST compact or DSLR cameras are still analog audio capture with low quality impedance. The honest truth, 1/8th trs line-ins are practical methods for external sync audio capture to your codec, but the headroom is just not professional. THere's just too much noise involved in the chain from almost any combo method. I'm speaking from a max potential post audio mix.

So the good thing about the AF100 and most semi-pro to pro camcorders with XLR chains is that it's analog even if you choose to dismiss the internal capture codec. For instance let's say you really want to hire maximum audio capture well then you hire a sound guy with an amazing location sound setup. He'll feed you the source to your AF100, and then you can capture uncompressed PCM WAV 24-bit to an external recorder like an Atomos or anything recent. The AVCHD audio codec has a max rec of about 330kbps or so, but if you capture the source from the SDI or HDMI you can receive that constant 1.4mbps uncompressed PCM feed of audio. This makes a big difference in post audio mixing because I do this myself.

Personally external mobile preamps marketed for DSLRs to your 1/8th line in input jacks are friendly scams. =P To the novice you may not ''hear'' it but when you're working on Genelec's, Opals, or Adams, etc... you can hear the difference.
 
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but the OP mentioned that he's recording audio externally, so audio is a non-factor in his decision.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but the OP mentioned that he's recording audio externally, so audio is a non-factor in his decision.
Click to expand...

Sure. But as far as resale value, there's more of a percentage of buyers that would want an AF100 over a G7 simply for the audio protocol. It's always better to be cautious in recording several realtime backups and masters for any shoot. Sound guy records to his deck, and another source to your deck or camera. I mean the signal chain from a top Sound Devices preamp & eq mixer and bypassing the preamp stage from the AF100 you'Re going to get a phenominal high end audio signal even to AVCHD or better yet to an external video recorder, and it's all synced. For documentary work or indie filmmaking this is the defacto method to encourage is it not? of course slate and sync is a tradition, but you'd be surprised how many indie filmmakers don't understand audio signal chain, and not that I'm implying that the OP doesn'T know routing..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top