Af 105a announced in japan

[harddrive]

The AF101A around € 4000, it is not not ridiculous at all... I just hope that they also revised a little the anti aliasing filter to restore the definition, and pass from 750 to 850 lines ...

Did you see the link I posted before?

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P1/ in case you missed it. Both Adam Wilt and Alan Roberts found the AF100 to have a limiting resolution of only about 680lpph. And Adam publishes a chart that conclusively backs up their statements.

Just look at the horizontal section of that chart, with the trumpet of near horizontal converging lines. If you looked at the real chart you'd see lines converging all the way towards the centre. On the image they start to converge - then start to diverge again. The point at which the change happens corresponds to the limit of true resolution. Where real resolution becomes aliasing. And it's plain that that happens well before 750lpph, if anything, 680lpph is being a bit generous.

As for the anti aliasing filter, it's also clear from those charts that it is not very aggressive. The diverging lines are distinct to well beyond 1000lpph - and that they are diverging means they must be aliases. That they exist at all means that any anti-aliasing filter is not much attenuating detail of 1000lpph and above.

So no chance of tweaking the OLPF to improve real resolution. Without a sensor upgrade, it will be limited to 680lpph at best. That's not just opinion - the chart proves it.

 

[Adamsenoj]

. and the BMC is a good example of features that many have said only exist in the higher priced products in a very affordable package...

Th BMC is a camera for hobbyists making little short films or student movies. No professional production will put up with it's shortcomings for an A camera. And now with a RED ONE costing only $4,000, why would anybody on earth drop $3,000 on a smaller sensor camera, with the ergonomics of a point and shoot consumer camera, horrible rolling shutter problems and an useless battery solution, when you will need to pay more to make it a workable professional tool in terms of add-ons than you would with the RED ONE camera?



About the new AF100A. Yes, too little, too late. The RED ONE price drop will also affect it, as well as all cinema cameras out there now.

 

[hscully]

Sounds like "we want to stay in the market a bit longer until.....". No big deal. If this small improvements could be delivered via a firmware upgrade also for older models it would be some news. I'd spend some money on that.

I agree. I wish this were a firmware upgrade. Even if I could send it in for a hardware upgrade, I'd do it if it weren't too crazy expensive.

 

[hscully]

How could Panasonic after having forked out 6000 USD + 25% VAT in Norway for the AF101E, convince a rather rational buyer like your humble servant to fork out - again - 6000-8000 USD + 25% VAT for a slightly upgraded cam?
I would rather see Panasonic offering its AF100 AF10# customers a hardware upgrade deal since the old and the new camera have the same housing. Such an update should be proceed maximum 2000 USD making it possible to hand-in one's old AF100 and get back an AF105 or whatever it will be called. It would be a wonderful way to keep an otherwise quite vaporous customer base close to the Sonny, eeuh pardon .. Panny womb...for a while.

+1

 

[mcbob]

The other point is how out of touch Panasonic is if they really think the AF105a will be compelling to any cinema shooters, DPs or Hollywood. I live in this town and can tell you as a fact how little respect the AF gets and how directors and producers still like the 5Dmk2.

And sorry. I can't speak for you other guys. Large chip cameras were originally intended for us. I don't think a doc guy or eng shooter ever used one of those terrible 35mm screen adapters on a small chip camera back in the day to obtain shallow dof.

You're absolutely right in "Hollywood types" still preferring the 5D2. Shooting a football short for a major media outlet on 5D this week, I was unable to sell the AF on the project even though it'd shoot better slow-mo, keep action in focus easier, get in tighter from the sidelines, and all that other stuff, at less cost than renting 5D3's. They were just set on 5D, and had enough rental budget that they didn't care. That's fine, and it's just one of those things. Plenty of simpler owner/op gigs are alike, they'll prefer even a T2i, just because it's a "Canon DSLR" even if it's a gigantic compromise to so many other areas of the production.

Since I bought the AF as a preferred camera for my personal work and those many, many, many bread & butter jobs with low budgets and quick turnaround, it doesn't phase me too much.

You're absolutely wrong, however, in large-sensor cameras not being for doc shooters. That's what I do, and use different models of them all the time. Philip Bloom isn't primarily a cinema shooter and was amongst the first on this bandwagon. Danfung Dennis proved beyond a doubt that the 5D was fine for "run and gun," with emphasis on the gun. "No Reservations" used DOF adapters extensively on Z1/7 and EX1, and later 5D's, 7D's, AF's, F3's and the like. Mac from these forums has been a doc shooter for longer than I've been alive, and does pretty darned well with his AF. Wedding shooters the world over... 95% of any interview... broadcast news stations big and small are even using them. They're everywhere, and doc shooters are simply not very well served by cameras like the BM or RED.

 

[hscully]

I know it's Panasonic's cycle but times have changed dramatically and MFT needs to move forward. This camera isn't one I will buy mainly because Im not interested in external recorders. If the 10 bit 4:2:2 signal coming out is much better than the internal codec records then maybe I would think about buying one but then I would have to invest in an external recorder that will be a permanent part of the rig. That I don't like. So the investment just went up. We have seen how the AF-100 SDI out wasn't much better. I'm wondering if it's the same sensor or a newer version of it. If the image is pretty much the same then it's a hard sell to make current owners want to re-invest. I have a feeling if you own an AF-100 now you aren't going to sell it and buy this one.

Right. I would not take the hit on my AF100 to buy this new one. They would have to figure out how to get it on board. Once you introduce adding another recorder to the hit on selling it, the options open up.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Another question is where is Panavision in this digital cinema cameras race? I know the Genesis is still being used but it's just a matter of time. They were always so dependent on Sony. Will they have a new Panavision camera made by Sony maybe based on the new F55? Will they become a lens company only, like Cooke, or perhaps even a rental company only?

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Price point really shouldn't be such a dividing factor. They are both tools for the same job.

But price point is a factor when it pertains to the technology that can be put inside of a camera. To think because they are both digital cinema cameras that they should both work equally as well because of they are both digital cinema cameras is a little naiv. That says that the AF100 should work as well as an Alexa too. No the reality is that price point is everything, and in its price point the AF100 is a winner. There isn't another camera that has all the features that the AF100 has to offer in its price point.

 

[danap]

Yes the AF100 has its shortcomings as it the case for any camera. True resolution is part of the equation. However the discussion in this thread tends to focus too narrowly on resolution (no pun intended ) . In Adam Wilt's test, the AF100 comes out as the winner with Alexa in terms of ABSENCE of aliasing AND chroma moiré. Even better than the F3. So why have so much fake resolution (look at the F3 color rich moiré past 1000 lines), if the details in the final picture look like cooking oil in a hot frying pan? Resolution is not all. Perceived sharpness may be fake due to moiré, aliasing and micro-blocking. Too much resolution or low level visual information, fake or real, may disturb the viewing experience. The human eye too has only high detail resolution in a narrow central field of vision. It appears to me that dynamic range, hue gradation steepness, and macro composition of the shot on the other hand is a much more important factor for the emotional reception of the shot or sequence.

 

[danap]

Dear Jan, would you support the idea as stated earlier in this thread to offer an affordable hardware upgrade path (trade in AF100, AF101,AF102 for AF105A and NOT buy another AF105A) for half-hearted owners of the AF-100? Or would Panasonic prefer to lose their existing customer base?

 

[hscully]

I shot Monday for 15 hours on the AF100, loaded up 176 takes on a web series. Leaving that shoot at 10:00PM I remarked to my wife that that damn camera is solid. I had no problems. It just chugged all day and night. It was the perfect camera for me and my modestly heeled clients. The audio is clean, line into the camera from the mixer, and the shots we got are smoking, including some night exteriors that are the best I ever shot.

 

[EndCredits]

But price point is a factor when it pertains to the technology that can be put inside of a camera. To think because they are both digital cinema cameras that they should both work equally as well because of they are both digital cinema cameras is a little naiv. That says that the AF100 should work as well as an Alexa too. No the reality is that price point is everything, and in its price point the AF100 is a winner. There isn't another camera that has all the features that the AF100 has to offer in its price point.

Thats the attitude of some one selling something, sure. I worked in retail many years ago and I would say the same thing to sell something. But if price is your only selling point, not quality, or ability then you are only an interest to the budget minded. You become the "if you cant afford the others well you can still choose us" option which is not a proud place to be.

Keep in mind the GH2 certainly has its fans, and packs a lot into an even cheeper package, the zukuto guys were happy to put it up against the alexa, epic and all that. Should it not have been included because it was too cheep? Im not saying they should all work equally as well, just that price should not be the determining factor as to weather some one can compare two cameras. Price affects weather you buy it but not weather you like the image, the usability and all that. And regarding how much you can put inside a camera, thats Panasonic's problem or any other company's problem, its not the customers problem. Thats like telling your boss you were late cause the bus was late, not his problem, its yours.

 

[wasmey]

Some german vendors like Teltec are already listing the AF101A for 4150,- Euro. The price should not be higher in the US.

 

[Wesley Byram]

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P1/ in case you missed it. .

Thanks for this link. It seems pretty definitive that the OLPF is not the issue.

 

[TheDingo]

the C100 is on pre-order for $6500 and the af100 is $3600

The current selling price at B&H Photo is $4,095, with a $500 American Express rebate deal that ends Dec 31st, 3012. This is a great deal, but it's not exactly the same as paying $3,600, unless you can sell your AMEX card for $500 cash.

The current B&H list price for the AF100 is $4,530, I don't know what the list price of the C100 is expected to be. ( not sure if the $6,500 price that is being batted about is for list or street price )

Here in Canada, we have no AMEX deal, so the AF100 is $4,400 on Sale. ( $4,880 regular price )

...I expect the updated AF100A / AF105A camera is not going to come with the $500 AMEX deal, so I honestly expect we will be comparing the updated AF100A that costs $4,500 against the new C100 that costs $6,500. This is where I got my $2,000 difference from.

To me it seems a bit unfair to compare a camera that is 2 years older, and costs about 1/2 as much to one that hasn't even been released yet.

Based upon the title of this thread, I was comparing the new Panasonic AF100A against the new Canon C100 camera, which to me seems absolutely fair. Yes, the Canon costs $2,000 more, but spending an additional $2,000 seems like a good deal to me based upon what you get for this money. ( sharper image, low-noise high ISO shooting, better dynamic range )

...I honestly think the only way the new AF100A is going to succeed is if has a street price of $3,000, and does not rely on any AMEX deal to get the lower price. I strongly suspect this will not happen, and Panasonic is going to try and sell this camera for $4,500.

 

[Igelkott Film]

I shot Monday for 15 hours on the AF100, loaded up 176 takes on a web series. Leaving that shoot at 10:00PM I remarked to my wife that that damn camera is solid. I had no problems. It just chugged all day and night. It was the perfect camera for me and my modestly heeled clients. The audio is clean, line into the camera from the mixer, and the shots we got are smoking, including some night exteriors that are the best I ever shot.

I want to see

 

[harddrive]

Yes the AF100 has its shortcomings as it the case for any camera. True resolution is part of the equation. However the discussion in this thread tends to focus too narrowly on resolution (no pun intended ) .

My posts were in specific response to Editman Sweden giving the res figure for the AF100 to be 800 lines, and a later claim of 750 lines. Adam Wilts chart clearly shows it is about 650-680, no more. But yes, true resolution is only part of the equation.

In Adam Wilt's test, the AF100 comes out as the winner with Alexa in terms of ABSENCE of aliasing AND chroma moiré. Even better than the F3.

Not quite - the AF100 does indeed have little chroma moire, and little undesirable chroma aliasing etc - but it has a lot of pure luminance aliasing. That's the divergence in the lines in the range 700-1200lpph.

So why have so much fake resolution (look at the F3 color rich moiré past 1000 lines), if the details in the final picture look like cooking oil in a hot frying pan?

Well, the F3 resolution is not fake up to 1000lpph, and maybe a bit beyond - the full 1080 system resolution. The lines continue to converge in this range, truthfully showing what the original chart showed, unlike the AF100.

The coloured aliasing doesn't start until about 1250lpph. The significance of that is not so obvious from a chart, which is a tool for accurately seeing what is a camera does with a controlled input. For real pictures, if you were to do an analysis of frequency content (amount of each resolution) you'd find that the finer the detail, the less there was. Significance of that is that the lower down the aliasing starts, the more of that frequency detail there is in the image.

Too much resolution or low level visual information, fake or real, may disturb the viewing experience. The human eye too has only high detail resolution in a narrow central field of vision.

What tends to happen with practical linups is that the better the "true" resolution of a system, the more you can turn down the detail level of the camera without it looking soft. And with corresponding benefits to noise levels. Your point about the human eye is true - but people don't just look at a single portion of the screen. They "target" the perceived interest in the image, and expect it to be full resolution.

It appears to me that dynamic range, hue gradation steepness, and macro composition of the shot on the other hand is a much more important factor for the emotional reception of the shot or sequence.

If you are saying "resolution isn't everything", then I fully agree - though it's a significant factor. Unfortunately, the AF100 doesn't do too well (relative to other cameras) for most of the other main factors - dynamic range, low light ability etc.

 

[harddrive]

No the reality is that price point is everything, and in its price point the AF100 is a winner. There isn't another camera that has all the features that the AF100 has to offer in its price point.

Jan - I agree with your main premise (that you have to take price point into account) but on that basis a main comparison for the AF100 should be based on the Sony FS100, would you not agree? In the UK, they seem to be more or less the same street price, at least within about 10% or less.

You may quite truthfully say that the FS100 lacks the ND filters and SDI output of the AF100. But technically, the FS100 has a far better performance in terms of resolution, dynamic range, low light performance, noise level etc - and is super35 in addition. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I know many people who will say that *OVERALL* it offers more than the AF100 at the price point.

We could debate the detail all day, but it would still boil down to you debating detail with me between the lowest camera in Sonys large format video range and the ONLY camera of the type that Panasonic has to offer. Where are Panasonics competitors for Sonys FS700, their F3, the new F5 and F55? Where is the competition for Canons C100/300/500? Let alone Red and other manufacturers.

The trouble with the AF100 is that for any mid-market product the question is whether it hits a sweet spot or falls between stools. And the trouble with the AF100 is it falls in the latter category. It's expensive compared to a DSLR - yet noticeably lacking in performance compared to cameras a bit dearer. Maybe some people may just want to spend that amount of money - want something a bit better than a DSLR - but then the superior IQ of the FS100 is more likely to pull them towards that than an AF100, from what I hear.

But if you are getting a message of general disappointment, it's probably due to many having hoped that a second generation Panasonic large format video camera would be more of a competitor to the C300 than the FS100. The fact of a minor upgrade makes any real second generation camera with true video chip seem far more likely to be much further off.

 

[ShawnMi]

I usually cringe when some one uses the phrase... Let's keep it real.
Reality is very context sensitive. In a market awash in crazy money , the sky is the limit. In one that is on the brink of depression, the sky is down bye our knees.

No, reality is objective... perception is subjective. The Earth has always revolved around the Sun, no matter how we perceive it. How we perceive a financial market doesn't change the market, regardless of how well or poorly we do inside of it.

In 1996 an SGI workstation running Discrete Flame cost around $30,000. The same capability in 2012 is a $3,000 laptop running FCP. Real means nothing. The price-point is very much a function of hype.

SGI workstations and Discreet Flame are examples of products that are expensive to develop but have small user bases. Mac Pros and Final Cut Pro are commodity products, each having a large user base. The economics/pricing shouldn't be that hard to understand... but that's only my perception.

If enough people REFUSE to buy in, Manufacturers will be forced to capitulate.
Witness RED's recent and precipitous discounting..

You may note Red's reason for dropping their prices "the price drop is the result of the company’s incredibly efficient factory in Irvine, California." This means that their manufacturing costs dropped, so they passed the savings onto their customers. Or, you could say that their first generation of cameras were more expensive to produce... you know, before they had such a large customer base.

If you want manufacturers to 'get real; stop upgrading so damn often. Run your gear into the ground and laugh all the way to the bank. Then the features to price equation will fall into a buyer's market.

I agree with the first part, use your gear until it isn't useful anymore... the second part is a bit of wishful thinking. Prices on gear drop relative to performance, as technologies and manufacturing processes evolve. This only happens when said technologies become widespread... see the GoPro Hero 3.

 

[John Andersson]

For the record it was Panasonic that stated 800 lines of resolution and I would consider the AF100 to be a 720p camera when it comes to resolved detail or a little bit below 720. I see about the same amount of detail from the 5D2 and 5D3 as from the AF100. The F3 resolves much more detail, how much more I don't know but it's about as much as you can get out of a 1080p camera I guess.