AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tzedekh said:
Uh, nope. The camera will have to be usable as a still DSLR, so the lenses will have to resolve a heck of a lot more.
Click to expand...

What?

Why would you want any type of high resolution still capability for this camera? This is a video/motion film camera, not a hybrid still/video thing. They already exist. This camera represents an evolution beyond that design.

High still resolution is the very thing that will hold this camera back from being a great, affordable video device.

As Hunter stated, a relatively low HD resolution will allow for better glass for less money. There has to be compromises at this pricepoint and resolution seems like a great place to start.
 
Ahhh, it feels great to be able to say this:

But, seriously though... if you want STILLs buy a STILL CAMERA.
 
robertrogoz said:
Thank you for the info. After reviewing the links you provided looks like none of the 3 lenses really "outperforms" the others. In this case what it comes down to is the price. And unfortunately for Olympus their cost is much higher then the competitors (we are talking 300 bucks minimum).
Click to expand...

If you compare apples to apples in terms of field-of-view, looking at the full-frame tests of the Canon and Nikon lenses, compared to the Olympus lens, specifically the blur index (in the full-frame results tab for Canon and Nikon,) you'll notice:

At 27mm on the Canon, 28mm on the Nikon, and 14mm on the Olympus (same FOV) the Canon and Nikon lenses have to be stopped down to f/4 to match the performance of the Olympus lens at f/2.

At 50mm (Canon & Nikon) and 24mm Olympus, the Nikon is nearly as good at f/2.8 as the Olympus is at f/2, but the Canon has to be stopped down to f/5.6 to match them.

At 68mm Canon, 70mm Nikon, and 35mm Olympus, the Nikon has to be stopped down to f/5.6 to match the Olympus at f/2, and the Canon at f/8 isn't even quite as good as the Olympus at f/2.

So to get the same sharpness across the entire image at 70mm or equivalent, the Nikon lens gets stopped down 3 stops, and the Canon lens 4 stops.

Therefore, for all the people who want shallow depth-of-field, the DOF difference between Fourthirds and full-frame is only 2 stops, so the Olympus lens on a Fourthirds camera in this scenario would provide shallower DOF than the Canon or Nikon lenses on their full-frame bodies.

If you're still with me, load up the chromatic aberration charts, again on the Full-frame results tab. The Canon and Olympus trade superiority back and forth across the zoom range, but the Nikon lens is off-the chart horrible without the chromatic aberration correction in the D3. Even with the correction, it's outpaced by the Canon and Olympus.

Not bored yet? Light fall-off (vignetting) shows the Olympus to have less fall-off at f/2.8 and f/4. By f/5.6 they are equal. Compared to Nikon, the Olympus has less fall-off at f/2.8 and f/4, by f/5.6 they are trading back and forth depending on focal length, and at f/8 and beyond the Nikon is better than the Olympus and the Canon.

Almost done... Geometric distortion. At the wide end the Canon and Olympus lenses are neck and neck. By 50mm or equivalent the Canon is showing more distortion, and by 70mm or equivalent, the Olympus is clearly in the lead. The Nikon is all over the place, worse than Canon at almost every focal length except 70mm, where the Nikon is superior to the Canon. The Olympus is still better at 70mm equivalent, though (and every other focal length, too.)

Now, if you put all of these lenses on a Fourthirds video camera, you could say the difference is not as stark as you are cropping out the edges of the Canon and Nikon lenses where their performance suffers the most, but that's hardly any comparison at all, as on a Fourthirds video camera, the Olympus lens will be twice as wide.

On their respective still photo systems at the same FOV, the Olympus lens does indeed vastly outperform the Canon and Nikon lenses. It's right there in the tests. You just need to be comparing apples to apples: compare the full-frame results of all systems, and bear in mind that the Fourthirds systesm has a "2x crop factor" over full-frame 35mm, meaning it has the same FOV at 14mm as the Canon & Nikon at 28mm, at 25mm as the C & N at 50mm, and 35mm as the C&N at 70mm.
 
Last edited:
strangways:
the only people i see who would complain there are people who want extreme shallow DOF which full frames have,

imo, thanks for the info. olympus maybe a expensive lens but thats probably my target dream lens in the future for the af100
 
Tzedekh said:
Uh, nope. The camera will have to be usable as a still DSLR, so the lenses will have to resolve a heck of a lot more.
Click to expand...
AF-100 will NEVER be a still camera.
If you want stills, buy a still camera or a Scarlet LOL
Optimising the AF-100 for stills is the antithesis of what Panasonic is trying to achieve with this camera.
It is also ANATHEMA to most of the people who clamour for this camera.
NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!!!!
 
Something I'd like would be a IR (Nightshot) mode. I really don't get why prosumer HD cameras don't have this. The only thing on the market with IR HD in the prosumer market is the Sony A1U. It can't be that expensive to add; It's just a flip switch and a lever to remove the IR filter from the optical path.
 
That reminds me of the predecessor of the HMC40, the DVC30 which had an infrared mode as well as an attachment for even more sensitivity. At least we know Panasonic is capable of it unless theirs some licencing issues which would explain why they couldn't being it to other cameras.
 
Sorry i keep ranting about the touchscreen, this will be the last time...

test clip of what I am suggesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HYSUsmfxws

quote from the review:
I tapped in the center of the LCD, and the AF point jumped to the center. That's better. I started to compose the image again, and decided I wanted the autofocus high and to the left, rather than the right, and tapped again. The focus point moved instantly and I was able to get my shot. Easier than ever. Wow.

Of course, the problem was that sometimes an accidental touch on the screen as I walked around would put the AF point yet somewhere else I didn't intend. Thankfully, you can either turn off this feature, or just tap again to select your AF point.

The other thing I like about Panasonic's implementation of their Touch Panel is that it's not for everything. Many companies have tried to eliminate all buttons so they can make their cameras small, yet with a big LCD. On the Panasonic G2, touch is used for the AF point, for moving the histogram around, for flicking through pictures in Playback mode, for zooming in on pictures (just tap), and for making selections from the Quick Menu. You can also use it as a shutter release.

Though I say it's not for everything, the Touch Panel is still used to enhance quite a few functions, autofocus in particular. In AF Tracking focus mode, you can tap on your subject to have the Panasonic G2 track it. It's pretty impressive to watch the yellow target icon follow your subject around. When Face Recognition is active, you can touch to override this mode's AF component; the camera will still recognize and set exposure based on faces, but focus will be confined to the area you select. Note also that you can enlarge or constrict the focus size with the Rear dial while the AF point is yellow.
Click to expand...
G2 Review
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG2/DMCG2A.HTM
 
ok. I'm an HPX170 owner and user and have owned and used an HVX200 and HVX200A as well. I just recently started using a GH1 for video purposes so that I can get used to the 4/3 lenses in anticipation of the AF100. I'm aware that the GH1 uses the consumer AVCHD and the AF100 will use the slightly more robust AVCCAM, but I have to say that my number one request now for the AF100 is AVC-INTRA. there HAS to be a P2 verison of the AF100, HAS to be. I can't deal with 4:2:0 and long GOP, not to mention that SD cards just don't give me the peace of mind and speed that P2 does. the AVCCAM viewer app from Panasonic is also a turd compared to P2CMS. I just find the P2 workflow so much faster and more professional overall.

please Panasonic, give us a AVC-INTRA (or even AVC-ULTRA) version of the AF100. heck, I'd even settle for DVCPRO HD. please please please please please.

end of begging.
 
Phew. I think I've read every page of this thread now.

Fantastic news! Saw it at NAB. I've been shooting most of my paid work with a 7D recently - love it for the look, hate it for missing features (audio, output, exposure monitoring, form factor, rolling shutter, moire, lack of ND). If Panny can give me the look of a DSLR with the functionality of the HMC150, sold!

Regarding the Codec hub-bub: At this price range, I'm thrilled to get AVCCAM on this camera. Yeah, P2 AVCIntra would rock, but I don't think they're targeting users that NEED that robustness with THIS camera. Yes, I'd pay an extra $2k for P2 on board, but I don't see that happening. What I do see happening is coming out with another model that has several more features that could compete with RED or Alexa.

Some features that I would give the +1 to:

- Low-light: it's an absolute must. If we're talking some of the same mechanics and technicals as the GH1, then we'll be in good shape.
- SDI or even HDMI out. Just give us what we're used to getting from the HVX et al. That would be a HUGE upgrade for us DSLR guys, and a feature worth a couple grand, to me.
- Built-in DSLR-like Intervalometer features. Face it. DSLR timelapse is awesome.
- Focus in Red in all VF, LCD, and Monitor outputs. Many users will be doing tracking focus with or without an AC...this feature just makes the job do-able.
- Zebras: I assume we will get this, right?
- ISO at least to 3200

Those are the big ones for me. I assume all of those will be included. And if so, I'll be first in line.
 
Actually, the codec that's used in the GH1 is a lot worse than what will be used in the AF100. To give you a somewhat of an idea, just compare the GH1 to the HMC40 and you'll see a huge difference. The codec in the GH1 is really terrible and looking at this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=206788, you'll see that it's not just the lack of B frames and the lower bit rate that makes it awful, the GOP was also poorly constructed. Another thing to keep in mind is that the AF100's chip is being built to shoot video first.

I guess Panasonic figured that if Sony can get away with putting XDCAM EX into the very expansive PMW-350, than it won't look all that bad if they put AVCCAM into the AF100. The price difference is gigantic.

Still, I believe Panasonic will have 2 versions. Release the AF100 first and then release a more advanced version with AVC-Intra.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top