AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can we please leave the format discussion to other threads?

As I've said before; the P2 request has been put forward a million times in this thread already. Let's move on, please.



Hi Gabe!


Barry_Green said:
They can't adapt 2/3" lenses to it, because those would only cover 1/4 of the chip. It'd be like using a 1/3" lens on a 2/3" camera. So that's what I'm saying -- there's no lens out there that covers anywhere near the size of the chip. So it means all new engineering for the lens manufacturers.

Hopefully they'll be on it. But, given the price difference of a 1/3" lens to a 2/3", I don't have a lot of hope for the difference between 2/3" and 4/3".

So, yeah, let's hope for a motorized zoom on the GH1 lens, it's already a 10:1 zoom with proper auto and manual focus, etc.
Click to expand...

Barry; yeah, I know about the physical lens compatibility issue.

However if they are going to provide any facility for motorized lenses; then I'd hope (request) they use the industry standard camera-lens connector to do it.

- Mikko
 
Mike Harvey said:
Yeah, better DoF and probably better low light than the other three cameras in this price range (HPX170/EX1/new Canon) with the option to slap on a really nice prime when the situation calls for it? I think I can live with that. :)
Click to expand...

Better low light with the 10x zoom? It depends. f4.0 (AF-100) requires more than 4x the ISO of f1.9 (EX1/3). Will the AF-100 have an ISO1600 so clean that it will compare with the ISO400 equivalent of the EX1/3?
 
mikkowilson said:
However if they are going to provide any facility for motorized lenses; then I'd hope (request) they use the industry standard camera-lens connector to do it.

- Mikko
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a request I would second.

By the way, if I remember right you are leaving on July 31st. Which is the very
day that I was going to see if you could work on a shoot........darn it! Hopefully
I'll get you next time. Have a fun trip!
 
Otis Grapsas said:
Better low light with the 10x zoom? It depends. f4.0 (AF-100) requires more than 4x the ISO of f1.9 (EX1/3). Will the AF-100 have an ISO1600 so clean that it will compare with the ISO400 equivalent of the EX1/3?
Click to expand...
So correct me if I am wrong- if the GH1 kit lens is used (or such equivalent), why would I buy this new camera? It will yield about the same DOF and be actually worst in low light then EX1 and cost the same? why bother then- I'll just buy another EX1 and at least I don't have to deal with AVCHD.
 
Last edited:
Here is another rumor from dvinfo:
"Last news are saying the Af100 will feed the HD-SDI with 4:2:0, not 4:2:2...
The NanoFlash will be useless, and so is the SDI output.
I hope it's a mistake. If it's not, I don't think Panasonic will sell a lot."
Anyone can confirm? However if it is true it will be a consumer cam with high price tag.
 
whats the pont of hd sdi if it doesnt work how it should be? thats a stupid rumor

i think jan has never said anything like that
 
robertrogoz said:
So correct me if I am wrong- if the GH1 kit lens is used (or such equivalent), why would I buy this new camera? It will yield about the same DOF and be actually worst in low light then EX1 and cost the same? why bother then- I'll just buy another EX1 and at least I don't have to deal with AVCHD.
Click to expand...

You will be able to get shallow DOF and good low light with the fast primes. Until it comes out we don't know how it will compare in low light when using small apertures.
 
robertrogoz said:
Here is another rumor from dvinfo:
"Last news are saying the Af100 will feed the HD-SDI with 4:2:0, not 4:2:2...
The NanoFlash will be useless, and so is the SDI output.
I hope it's a mistake. If it's not, I don't think Panasonic will sell a lot."
Anyone can confirm? However if it is true it will be a consumer cam with high price tag.
Click to expand...

Even if it is 4:2:0, there is an advantage in recording in a better codec. The actual color sampling is only a small part of image quality. A better codec will improve motion, reduce luma and chroma artifacts, etc.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I think that would be fine with me. I wasn't saying that I wanted them to figure
out a way that I could put a broadcast lens from a 2/3 camera on the thing
(although that would be cool).

I was saying I hoped that they would figure out a way to include some sort of lens
with this camera that offers similar functionality to what you get on those cameras
.....and NOT be forced to only use still lenses or primes. As this is
the thread for those type of requests, I thought I'd throw in my opinion. As I said,
if it can't be done, I won't whine about it, I just won't buy this camera....no big deal.
If it can be done, then yay, Panasonic gets another customer.
Click to expand...

I would guess that if 4/3rds cameras became popular for ENG applications, that Fujinon and Canon would adapt, and make 4/3rds-format "TV zooms." They would likely introduce a "broadcast line" and an "industrial line." They know that they can't price the industrial lenses out of the market's willingness to buy them (e.g., local affiliates with small budgets). They would be incentivized to make affordable TV zooms, if the market size warranted the development of such a product. Panasonic may in fact be talking with Fuji or Canon in preparation of just such a lens to address this market.
 
Barry_Green said:
The networks are consisting of their own "Owned & Operated" stations, plus a number of affiliate stations. CBS O&O stations are standardized on XDCAM-HD, for example, but there are plenty of individual CBS affiliate stations that are running P2. Whereas all NBC and Fox (and I think ABC) O&O stations are all standardized on P2, but there are some NBC, ABC or Fox individual affiliates that are running XDCAM.
Click to expand...

Hey, Barry! Long time no talk!

There's an even finer distinction. The "network" may often buy different gear than even the network-owned local affiliates, i.e., the O&Os. XXX Sports and XXX Net News buy in tandem, but the local O&O affiliates of that same network have totally different gear, mostly due to budgetary considerations. ABC seems to be the most integrated so far, and I believe most, if not all ABC O&Os are mostly P2. I say "mostly" because there are also many instances of transitional growing pains. For a while (and, I believe, still), while some ABC guys are shooting with fancy new Panasonic HPX2000s, a bunch of ABC shooters still just have tape-based JVC HD100s to shoot with--and this is at the same station!

A local ABC shooter told me that they're consolidating their servers in Fresno, among several of the West Coast affiliates. Pretty neat! CBS initially bought 2/3" XDCAMs for their networks guys, but skimped on the locals and bought them the 1/2" XDCAMs, but at least they were all recording on the same media. Curiously, the network I work for is currently shooting on HDCAM.
 
Last edited:
Ralph Oshiro said:
Jan said on one of the trade show floor video clips that the camera records 4:2:0.
Click to expand...

But what it records and what it puts out via the HD-SDI socket are two different things. The HMC records 4:2:0, but the HMDI out bypasses the compression and puts out 4:2:2 straight from the chips.
 
robertrogoz said:
Here is another rumor from dvinfo:
"Last news are saying the Af100 will feed the HD-SDI with 4:2:0, not 4:2:2...
The NanoFlash will be useless, and so is the SDI output.
I hope it's a mistake. If it's not, I don't think Panasonic will sell a lot."
Anyone can confirm? However if it is true it will be a consumer cam with high price tag.
Click to expand...
That sounds ridiculous. Every camcorder on the market that has HD-SDI feeds out 4:2:2.

Probably somebody heard something wrong, they might be talking about 8-bit vs. 10-bit; some cameras like the Canon XLH1/XHG1 and HPX500 output 8 bits of data on the SDI port, embedded in a 10-bit word. Others, like the EX1 and HPX300/370, output a full 10 bits. I would guess the rumor (which is all that that could possibly be, is a rumor) is just wrong and they're thinking 8-bit vs. 10-bit.

But anyway, it's totally ridiculous to even report something like that -- there's no functional AF100 model, and won't be for months. How could anyone possibly know something like that?
 
robertrogoz said:
So correct me if I am wrong- if the GH1 kit lens is used (or such equivalent), why would I buy this new camera? It will yield about the same DOF and be actually worst in low light then EX1 and cost the same? why bother then- I'll just buy another EX1 and at least I don't have to deal with AVCHD.
Click to expand...
Well, let's examine this carefully -- we're saying that at the very worst, the AF100 should have an equivalent DOF, better low light, and equally sharp pictures as the EX1, when the EX1 is at its very best.

Then, if you put on a 35mm lens, the AF100 *destroys* the EX1 in low light and DOF.

So in the worst possible case, it's as good as the EX1 in the EX1's best possible case. And in its best possible case, it embarrasses the EX1.

So -- the question becomes -- why would you ever even *consider* an EX1?

And while you may not want to "have to deal with AVCHD", there are plenty of us who'd much rather "have to deal with" a better more robust codec that takes up half the file space.
 
Ralph Oshiro said:
I would guess that if 4/3rds cameras became popular for ENG applications, that Fujinon and Canon would adapt, and make 4/3rds-format "TV zooms." They would likely introduce a "broadcast line" and an "industrial line." They know that they can't price the industrial lenses out of the market's willingness to buy them (e.g., local affiliates with small budgets). They would be incentivized to make affordable TV zooms, if the market size warranted the development of such a product. Panasonic may in fact be talking with Fuji or Canon in preparation of just such a lens to address this market.
Click to expand...
The saving grace here may be that the actual resolved detail doesn't need to be all that high, in order to deliver the best the chip can handle. On a 1/3" chip, the amount of resolved detail the lens needs to deliver is incredibly high; 1920 pixels across a 5mm chip width. But on a 4/3 chip, while the lens needs to cover a larger area and use bigger glass, the actual resolution doesn't need to be nearly so high. It only needs to resolve 1920 pixels across a 19mm chip width. That much-looser tolerance might open the window to Fujinon/Canon being able to make a decent lens that doesn't cost an insane fortune.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, let's examine this carefully -- we're saying that at the very worst, the AF100 should have an equivalent DOF, better low light, and equally sharp pictures as the EX1, when the EX1 is at its very best.

Then, if you put on a 35mm lens, the AF100 *destroys* the EX1 in low light and DOF.

So in the worst possible case, it's as good as the EX1 in the EX1's best possible case. And in its best possible case, it embarrasses the EX1.

So -- the question becomes -- why would you ever even *consider* an EX1?

And while you may not want to "have to deal with AVCHD", there are plenty of us who'd much rather "have to deal with" a better more robust codec that takes up half the file space.
Click to expand...
Really the answer is in the pudding- when we see the actual footage, then we can judge it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top