AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sooo... do m4/3 and 4/3 cameras not have electronic zoom functions? Is the only way to zoom on a 4/3 zoom lens is to manually turn the zoom ring on the lens? Forgive my ignorance with the format, but it seems like people are over-thinking things. Is it not possible to just use a standard 4/3 or m4/3 zoom lens and use the same electronic control protocol as you would on a 4/3 still camera?
 
there is nothing wrong with AVCHD, and for under $6,000 right now i would not really complain; the AF-100 should provide rather robust performance for a rather low price, and in a form (physically) that bridges the HD-DSLR and camcorder format, with the shallow DOF of DSLR's and form factor and adaptability the camcorder/prosumer community has embraced; really it is a bridge cam, a risk, and a bold move.

whatever foibles it may have, it is a confident step in the right direction of merging HD-DSLR's and HD camcorders, in a common, adaptable, and dynamic format. Frankly, any limitations it may have i welcome; chances are it will do things many much more expensive camcorders cannot (ahem DOF fanatics) and with a much more creativity-friendly layout (ahem HD-DSLR users), so personally i welcome and embrace the fusion it brings.

Frankly nothing out there right now is the perfect solution for each of our individual needs, the AF-100 bridges the gap that many HD-DSLR's and camcorders fail to engender, what matters is that it is a step in the right direction, and as big of one as the DVX100, the Nikon D90, and later the 5D MkII have been. Flexibility, creativity, and expandability are there.

In my experience, with both photography and videography, chances are any mishaps in shooting are not the camera's fault; its the shooter, and how he adapted his ideas to the tools he had. this camera will no doubt add much to any shooters arsenal, even if it is not the perfect solution, for the price, one really cannot complain. As a child i had just as much fun with a few cardboard boxes as i did with a gameboy, for an analogy

I remember 14 years ago using my fathers camcorder for a still movie project; it was impossible shoot single stills, but i worked around it and learned how to adapt it to what i wanted to get out of it; this era is no different, nor this camera. If it doesnt suit you, buy one of the myriad of other products that will.

Personally, i will probably not buy one, but i respect the risk panasonic is taking, and realize what i could do with it should i purchase one.
 
I am probably going to get laughed at for this, but I feel that anyone who thinks AVCHD (or any HD codec for that matter) will look like crap on screen cannot have seen their work on the big screen, or they have a bad post guy.

I recently saw some footage that I shot on a DVX 100b on the big screen at a movie theater and it looked great. It wasn't HD, but it still looked fantastic, and I certainly didn't notice the limitations of the miniDV codec.
 
All I can say is, I fully intend to buy one of these. Sure it's not perfect and lacks a few things I would like, but it's got a sh*t ton of features I need.
 
Bassman2003 said:
It is too bad the AF-100 is many months away because a lot of us are chompin' at the bit to see the images and get a chance to purchase one!
Click to expand...

I think this goes WITH saying :) This is the most exciting AND frustrating of times for those looking at getting into the camera world. I have a 7D and absolutely cannot wait for the next generation of cameras whether it be Panasonic or Canon (or Red) at this point.

I've thought most of the requests on this thread have been spot on and I really hope Panasonic is able to address many of them. I am sure they'd like to address them all, and make us all happy and buy what they have!
 
Thanks to Bassman for a reality check, and I've just gone in and cleaned up and deleted a lot of off-track nonsense. Let's all try to focus this back on the AF100 please.
 
Barry_Green said:
Thanks to Bassman for a reality check, and I've just gone in and cleaned up and deleted a lot of off-track nonsense. Let's all try to focus this back on the AF100 please.
Click to expand...

I hope I didn't contribute to the nonsense. I was not being argumentative or
anything of the sort, my question was dead serious...if there is something that
looks much better than the EX-1 in the same price range, I am VERY interested
in such a camera for sure!

And to get back on track....the AF100 with the ENG lens you posted was pretty
interesting and seemed to be very much in the spirit of this thread to me!
(features of the AF100). I can't wait to see exactly what this camera will do,
it really looks interesting. As for the codec, please. Don't judge the
codec by OTHER AVCHD cameras you have seen. There is a LOT more to what
an image looks like than the codec. From what I have seen, most AVCHD
cameras are of the 'consumer' type with substandard lens and chips,
AND are often using a lower bitrate as well! Let's wait and see what the
image from the AF100 is before we either hail it as 'the second coming of film'
or rip it as 'unsuitable for the big screen because of the codec'. I guess all this
uproar over the camera just shows how much pent up demand there is for
something that has some of the new features it is promising......and THAT
is a good thing for Panasonic and any other camera manufacturer who will
venture into this 'brave new world'.
 
Wish I May, Wish I Might...

Wish I May, Wish I Might...

Oh magical 104 page wishlist/strangely-intense-over-my-head-tech-debate,

I wish for some kind of a magical video kit lens option, like a proper $20,000 ENG zoom lens bundled for only $5000 because of some Panasonic/lens manufacturer agreement, or a Cooke/Zeiss Prime set available at a discount when bought with the AF100.

If Panasonic makes an agreement with a lens manufacturer and offers a high quality lens for a nicely discounted AF100+lens package, they will obviously sell a lot of those lenses for the manufacturer.

This camera is generating unbelievable excitement and gear-lust and if some lens manufacturer teamed up with Panasonic they would reeeallly sell some glass!:thumbsup:


Not to mention that as a beginner filmmaker with no lens collection whatever manufacturer made the first high quality lens that came bundled with my AF100 would get my loyalty as I continued to build up my lens collection over the years, since I would want my lenses to match each other.

Hope this is on topic, and thanks for all the great info in this thread.

I love you all!:love4:
 
Mike Harvey said:
Is the only way to zoom on a 4/3 zoom lens is to manually turn the zoom ring on the lens?
Click to expand...

Yes, at least with every single Panasonic, Olympus, or Sigma zoom lens for 4/3 or m4/3 released so far. Whether or not there is the possibility of future lenses with servo zoom motors remains to be seen.
 
Razz16mm said:
Perhaps not, but the M4/3 lens interface has two extra pins compared to the standard 4/3 interface. So potentially those could be used to power a servo zoom.
That would be a function of the lens though.
Click to expand...

I think the extra pins are for the fast autofocus the lumix g system has and not for servo zoom

im not an expert but i do believe its not possible to have servo zoom on dslr lenses. was there ever a servo zoom on any slr lens?

it is probably possible if it is specially made for this camera (with separate power?) which would cost a fortune...

I hope they make a fast 2-3x zoom lens instead (like 12-36mm 2.0)
 
That would be nice. I would settle for even a 12-24 f2.8 myself.

RED's 17-50mm PL zoom is about $6,000.
A 12-36mm 2.0 cine style zoom for m4/3 would probably be well over $2K even if sold in quantity.
I would pay that, easy.

Just wild guesses at this point, but it would be nice to have a fast wide angle cine zoom.


dcloud said:
I

I hope they make a fast 2-3x zoom lens instead (like 12-36mm 2.0)
Click to expand...
 
dadoboy said:
RED's 17-50mm PL zoom is about $6,000.
Click to expand...
Yes, but keep in mind a few other things, one that it's only f/2.8, and two -- it's not a real cinema lens, it's a rehoused still lens, and it doesn't have the precision mechanicals that a genuine cine lens would have. There's no witness marks, for example. There are reasons that it's so cheap, for a cinema zoom.

A 12-36mm 2.0 cine style zoom for m4/3 would probably be well over $2K even if sold in quantity.
Click to expand...
$2K? For f/2.0? Probably more like 10x that. SLR-style, maybe $2000, but cine-style? Much, much more.

Here's the $600 Tokina 11-16, converted to an excellent cinema lens by Duclos lenses:
http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/PL116.html

In cinema form, it's $3500. And from the reviews I've read, it's worth every penny. But it's still f/2.8.

Just wild guesses at this point, but it would be nice to have a fast wide angle cine zoom.
Click to expand...
Well, such a lens does exist. Not at your exact 12-36, but at 15-40 it's pretty close, and it's f/2.0. A little bit more than $2,000 though...
http://www.zgc.com/webstore.nsf/allbydocid/BY7ABN1HE

Cooke T/2.0 15-40mm S4, at $48,100.

Cinema lenses are not cheap. And fast, wide, and cheap are in the class of "pick two"...
 
Last edited:
The RED 17-50 T2.9 Pro zoom? Of course it has focus witness marks. The old 18-50 had witness marks why wouldn't the new version?

Yes, my $2000 12-36mm T2 cine style zoom is wishful thinking. More like $6000 too.

Barry_Green said:
Yes, but keep in mind a few other things, one that it's only f/2.8, and two -- it's not a real cinema lens, it's a rehoused still lens, and it doesn't have the precision mechanicals that a genuine cine lens would have. There's no witness marks, for example. There are reasons that it's so cheap, for a cinema zoom.
Click to expand...
 
dadoboy said:
The RED 17-50 T2.9 Pro zoom? Of course it has focus witness marks. The old 18-50 had witness marks why wouldn't the new version?
Click to expand...
DOH! I was thinking of the 18-50, the original. And no, it didn't have witness marks. The 18-85 was the first Red zoom with witness marks.

Yes, my $2000 12-36mm T2 cine style zoom is wishful thinking. More like $6000 too.
Click to expand...
I still think that's optimistic. There isn't an SLR lens out there that's 12-36 at T2, is there? Or anywhere near it?

Canon 16-35 F/2.8 lens is the closest I can find, and that's $1420 at Adorama, and that's SLR style, not cinema style. Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 is $1750. Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 is $1500. Now, if you want it to open up another full stop, that'll easily double the price, so $3,000 just for SLR. Then to convert it to cinema... that's gonna inflate the price massively.

I think the $3500 Duclos 11-16 f/2.8 is the closest you're going to find. For an affordable 12-36 cinema lens, somebody is going to have to make an SLR lens first for them to base it off of, and that alone is probably gonna cost $3k.
 
I can tell you I looked everywhere for a SLR lens that is around 10-11 prime OR zoom that was faster that the Tokina 11-16. Honestly, I never found anything (I was looking for EOS mount). So, I just settled on the Tokina which really wasn't settling, the lens is AWESOME.

i'd really like a 11 or 10mm prime at at least F2.0 but just didn't see anything at all.
 
grimepoch said:
i'd really like a 11 or 10mm prime at at least F2.0 but just didn't see anything at all.
Click to expand...
They exist in cinema glass, but again, the price is quite a bit more than lots of people would want to pay. The Cooke 12mm S4/i is an F/2.0, but it's $24,750.00.

Zeiss makes a 10mm T2.1 Ultra Prime lens, which is as close as you're going to get to what you're asking for. Can't find a price on it though, closest I can find is for the 14mm T1.9, which is $17,300.00. I think you could reasonably expect the 10mm T2.1 to be more in the $25,000 price range.

If you want that wide, and that fast, that covers a frame that large, you gotta pay. Like I said before, fast/wide/cheap -- pick two. :thumbsup:
 
Barry_Green said:
They exist in cinema glass, but again, the price is quite a bit more than lots of people would want to pay. The Cooke 12mm S4/i is an F/2.0, but it's $24,750.00.

Zeiss makes a 10mm T2.1 Ultra Prime lens, which is as close as you're going to get to what you're asking for. Can't find a price on it though, closest I can find is for the 14mm T1.9, which is $17,300.00. I think you could reasonably expect the 10mm T2.1 to be more in the $25,000 price range.

If you want that wide, and that fast, that covers a frame that large, you gotta pay. Like I said before, fast/wide/cheap -- pick two. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should have quantified that with being less than $3k as well. :) F2.8 is pretty good and works in almost all situations I've used it, even at night, so I cannot complain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top