Af 105a announced in japan

[Igelkott Film]

I know what happened

The year was 2010 and DSLR ruled the filmmatic underworld.
Then from nowhere a real camera emerged, it all seemed like heaven, there was only one choice for independent pro people.

What they didn't know was that the only camera out there was a camera based on a low price and that it will always be based on what you can get for $4000.

Time went on and the people who wanted the best camera out there started to realize the fact..
They have bought and invested in a budget camera that will always be... budget

 

[Dino]

Grug: There's truth in what you say, but I don't think we're talking about boosting the AF to $13,000+.. If they would greatly improve the camera and offer it for $7,500 I think a lot of people would jump at it because Panasonic still has a loyal following - I think... I'm shooing often with the HPX250 now because I can offer broadcasters 10bit 4.2.2. I paid $5,250 for that camera (it's gone up a little since). True I have given up shallow DOF, but it's an easier sell, and in fact most viewers don't really give a s__t anyway.

As I've said many times, I like the AF because it starts out very light and the MFT sensor means I can use light, manageable zooms... I realize that if they bump it up to take advantage of P2, like the 250, it will gain weight (and more grousing from those who think P2's outrageously expensive*), but it would have much more potential.

Mac,

Agree re: HPX250. It's a hit around here(Silicon Valley) for our corporate clients. Great resolution, low noise, good highlight handling, great codec. We just added an HPX255 due to the HPX250's popularity. When I shoot with it, I get frustrated because it does so many things that the AF100 doesn't. AF100 doesn't have a great codec, doesn't have a low SN ratio, doesn't have great resolution, doesn't have good highlight handling or DR and adds banding to flat fields. I called out the benefits in image quality of a GH2 vs. AF100 long ago and kept harping on the AF100 successor needing a new sensor and DSP. When I saw the AF100 prototypes, I called out the noisy image and was told by Panasonic not to judge prototypes, even though they were being shown at a trade show.

I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the AF100A, but I'm not optimistic. I am sure, under normal economic times in Japan, we would have seen a P2 version of the AF100 by now with AVC-Intra, but not sure if the sensor or DSP would have been upgraded. A sub $10K Panasonic large sensor camera with 1000 line resolution, AVC-Intra with good DR and highlight handling would have done very well, IMO. A pity.

The AF100 has had the shortest viable rental lifespan of any camera we've ever offered. This speaks volumes, but I think this will become the norm with most digital cine cameras going forward(FS100, F3, C300 will probably not have a long shelf life either).

 

[Ed Kishel]

I know what happened

The year was 2010 and DSLR ruled the filmmatic underworld.
Then from nowhere a real camera emerged, it all seemed like heaven, there was only one choice for independent pro people.

What they didn't know was that the only camera out there was a camera based on a low price and that it will always be based on what you can get for $4000.

Time went on and the people who wanted the best camera out there started to realize the fact..
They have bought and invested in a budget camera that will always be... budget

Maybe I'm a bit dense- but this statement is kina vague. Are you saying the AF is a budget camera? Compared to what?

 

[Mac]

----QUOTE from Dino above: The AF100 has had the shortest viable rental lifespan of any camera we've ever offered. This speaks volumes, but I think this will become the norm with most digital cine cameras going forward(FS100, F3, C300 will probably not have a long shelf life either). UNQUOTE---

Dino: That's it in a nutshell... when cameras don't have, as you say, "a long shelf life", it creates huge problems for independents like myself. I don't rent as you do, but I do need to depend on a camera to deliver the image that is acceptable to broadcasters, not tomorrow or next week, but in two or three years - because my personal projects often take that long to complete.

And it's not just me, many filmmakers I've spoken to are very reluctant to spend big bucks on anything now because they need to be assured that what they buy will pay for itself before obsolescence sets in. I use to think nothing of spending $20-30,000+ on a camera package (well, I did think about it) because I knew I could count on the traditional life-span of supposed "professional equipment". That ended for me with the HPX500. I won't make that mistake again. That's why I'm lurking in the shadows of "prosumer" now. I'm just not going to spend that much again if it means having to take jobs I don't really want to pay for my gear.

 

[harddrive]

----QUOTE from Dino above: The AF100 has had the shortest viable rental lifespan of any camera we've ever offered. This speaks volumes, but I think this will become the norm with most digital cine cameras going forward(FS100, F3, C300 will probably not have a long shelf life either). UNQUOTE---

Dino: That's it in a nutshell... when cameras don't have, as you say, "a long shelf life", ...........

Yes, I also think Dino sums it up very well. It's also revealing his comments about the comparison with a HPX250, which I've heard from others (and same applies to Sony EX1 and Canon XF300) - it's not that it's bad; but the AF100 is nowhere near as good as a HPX250 for image quality, the only thing it offers is shallow depth of field.

As far as rental lifespan, I suspect the F5 may be the best to go for at the moment. Maybe a mix of F5s and F55s if you can afford it. I can see them being rented out as a basic unit for 1080p shooting to 50Mbs XDCAM now, but maybe increasing being used with XAVC and then 4k RAW in years to come. Nothing is ever fully futureproof, but they may be better than most.

 

[Mac]

At least Sony got the form factor right - well, almost (the viewfinder needs to be an inch farther forward like the Alexa)... But best guess is 25 grand for the F5, and that's a lot of dough for the box - and as soon as you've plunked down the cash for an F5 the global shutter will become the grail, then you'll have another brick on your hands, wishing you'd spent 50+ for the F55...

Also, the real issue with this race for resolution, for people like me anyway, is going to be lenses.. Those big, heavy wides and zooms are fine for production work, but are a real detriment for fast work and hand-held. That's why MFT appealed to me two years ago when I first ordered the AF.. Oh well, the HPX250 is sitting right here - wish I liked the lens better though...

 

[harddrive]

... But best guess is 25 grand for the F5, and that's a lot of dough for the box... and as soon as you've plunked down the cash the global shutter will become the grail, the you'll have another brick, wishing you'd spent 50+ for the 55''

I'm hearing all sorts of different estimates for F5/55 pricing - and not all the rumours can be right.....

It's also going to depend a lot on what viewfinder you go for, and is the base codec acceptable, or is XAVC needed, or 4k........ I'm waiting to get a proper figure for the costs, real dealer prices.

My gut feeling is that 25 grand is on the high side for a basic F5, but even the most optimistic aren't predicting that it's going to be comparable with an AF100. But the earlier comment was regarding rental lifespan, and what's the best bet if you're a rental house. And here I think the F5 is attractive because of the modular nature - buy several basic units, but maybe only one 4k back, or something like that? I'm looking forward to seeing one for real, but it seems unique amongst the large format cameras so far in being well designed ergonomically, and that applies to the modularity as well. Even with various bits assembled, it still doesn't look like some Dr Frankenstein creation! It all hinges on the real pricing, but I can also see a big market for people buying a basic body, and maybe a zoom lens - then hiring 4k recorder, lenses etc etc as required.

Another reason why the system may be a good item in the inventory of a rental house.

 

[Igelkott Film]

Maybe I'm a bit dense- but this statement is kina vague. Are you saying the AF is a budget camera? Compared to what?

It does not need comparing because AF will always be the best camera for $4000
They are not interested in making the best best camera.

So your budget is 4000, even if it means making a lesser camera.

 

[Rolf Silber]

That's why I'm lurking in the shadows of "prosumer" now. I'm just not going to spend that much again if it means having to take jobs I don't really want to pay for my gear.

To me this is why the AG-AF still makes a lot of sense. It's - relatively - cheap and I don't care for it's life-span in a rental house but what this very nice go-between of a camera can do meanwhile. The bigger bricks can be rented. But that sure may be a different situation for others.

I only hoped the specs of the A version could be added via firmware to the older models to a reasonable price. But as far as I know Panasonic has said nothing about that?

 

[Adamsenoj]

It does not need comparing because AF will always be the best camera for $4000.

Honestly, the GH2 is a better camera and for less than $1,000. Is it a better camera feature-wise? No. But it makes better images, which is the point of a camera. So in my opinion it's a better camera.

 

[Rolf Silber]

So in my opinion it's a better camera.

I have a bit of a problem with a definition narrowed so it fit's a preconception: A video-camera is a tool to take sequences of pictures and sound in the most effective way. So if I get features like focus peaking, nd filters, professional audio recording, wmf and slo-mo along with two dozen other things dearly needed in a professional surrounding, the pure ability of getting a shot is as worthwhile as picture quality. Because fiddling with on-lens nd's and hunting without orientation for focus or let the af function ruin a shot or don't having the ability to record quality sound and a lot more things could lead to not getting the shot of - for instance - the fat, singing kormoran one wanted because the bird decided not to wait long enough....

 

[freezeframereality]

Honestly, the GH2 is a better camera and for less than $1,000. Is it a better camera feature-wise? No. But it makes better images, which is the point of a camera. So in my opinion it's a better camera.

And sound? Handling? Usability? Connectivity? Reliabilty? To me all these things are important factors when choosing a camera. For it's price I would still buy the AF100 today. It's the right camera for my work (events, interviews, documentary).

 

[XSVpro]

And sound? Handling? Usability? Connectivity? Reliabilty? To me all these things are important factors when choosing a camera. For it's price I would still buy the AF100 today. It's the right camera for my work (events, interviews, documentary).

Same here, the crop factor for me helps with the sports shoots I work on and it's also pleasing my director for a few short films as the tele look to regular 35/50/85mm primes is what he's looking for, wide angle is totally achievable too. We actually setup a great shot with a lot of film logic behind it using a 300mm F4 (which is 600mm on the AF), he's happy, my broadcast clients are happy and my sports based clients are loving how close I can get in on the superbike action.

What confuses me here on this board (apart from the pixel peeping arguments) is the guys that can afford the "better" bigger cameras. Why are you moaning about the AF and not just bragging or sneering at us? Why this desperation for it to be what it's not 2 years on? If you seriously can't make decent images with the AF then you might need to go back to the drawing board and look at what you are actually trying to achieve. It's like these amateurs (like myself) who think they know it all (not like myself) and go round filming nothing but flat space out of focus images with there 5D or very 2 dimensional images with there FS100 as "they don't need lights" just bump the iso up? Or are addicted to there slider yet don't understand that if one move has my eyes panning the screen to the right that the next shot needs to originate from this spot in order to cut, not just another film school move that looks cool by itself but starts on the wrong side of the screen.

This small update is still going to be one of the cheaper cameras on the market but now it's going to have 10 bit 422, a lot of these image issues (other than the resolution disaster... Seriously get over the number of bloody lines) are going to be fairly solved and at the very least is going to offer up a camera that can do almost anything and still deliver better resolution than any DSLR.

I mean did any of you guys actually see the Zacuto test with the AF100 last year? Sat next to the F3 in a controlled environment it didn't look like dog shite, now imagine that with 10bit 422? Actually scrap that, just wait for some footage to be released first, which is what we should all do rather than go on a witch hunt.

 

[Adamsenoj]

I have a bit of a problem with a definition narrowed so it fit's a preconception:

Believe me, most people would have a problem with the preconception of a sub $1,000 stills camera kicking the butt of a $5,000 (ok, $3,500 but still) digital cinema camera, including me, believe me. I have both cameras and it hurts that the cheap camera is the better camera. But I decided to stop fighting it and just accept it. If I can, I will use the GH2.

A video-camera is a tool to take sequences of pictures and sound in the most effective way. So if I get features like focus peaking, nd filters, professional audio recording, wmf and slo-mo along with two dozen other things dearly needed in a professional surrounding, the pure ability of getting a shot is as worthwhile as picture quality.

Not really, specially if the picture quality is barely there. How good is it to be able to get the shot quickly and efficiently if the shot doesn't look good?

Because fiddling with on-lens nd's

I always use a mattebox, always, no matter what.

and hunting without orientation for focus

Are you talking about focusing with the AF100? Because the GH2 has a MUCH better focus system than the AF100 because it has a 2x magnification function. With the AF100 is a guessing game. Have you even used the GH2 or are you just going by what you read? It sure seems like the later. I was also skeptical about the GH2 before but it needs to be seen to be believed.

or let the af function ruin a shot

Which professional uses autofocus? I use Zeiss CPs with a follow focus when I shoot with the GH2.

or don't having the ability to record quality sound

The AF100 records quality production sound? Could've fooled me. I always use a separated recorder no matter what, also when I shoot with the AF100.

and a lot more things could lead to not getting the shot of - for instance -

Including the shot looking bad. Again, not much point in getting the shot if it will not look good.

the fat, singing kormoran one wanted because the bird decided not to wait long enough....

Aha, horses for courses. I'm not into wildlife photography. Reason why I always wondered why wedding people want a large sensor camera when most of them have no focus assistants. I guess this is the reason out of focus shots are on the raise.

 

[Adamsenoj]

You know, it's a bit like comparing a hammer which has a very comfortable and ergonomic handle where you can sink in nails the whole day and your hand wont hurt, made of light weight alloy so it wont get heavy when you're tired, anti-fungus grip so your sweat wont be an issue, all the while costing only 3.5x more than your average Home Depot cheap hammer. But when you try to hammer nails down with it, the light weight alloy head can't take it and ends up bending out of shape and making you bend all your nails instead of hammering them straight down. It's sure a nice hammer with great features and very easy to use. But it doesn't do the main thing a hammer is supposed to do well, hammer nails down properly. A camera is an image acquisition device. If the images it acquires are not that good, it's not a good camera. No need to discuss any other features before the image. Believe me, I used to think your way before, because I thought the AF100 was just like a small compromise. Once I got it and started using it I totally changed my mind. There are compromises in the camera that nobody in their right mind can understand why they are there, and they make your life hell and help to off set the nice handy features you speak of. It makes you work your butt off just to get a decent image and you still get bad surprises when you get back to the studio. Then you grab a low life still camera and point it at the same scene the AF100 is giving you hell and the images of the low end still camera look great. What are you going to do? Live in denial? In these situations I just use the GH2.

 

[XSVpro]

Believe me, most people would have a problem with the preconception of a sub $1,000 stills camera kicking the butt of a $5,000 (ok, $3,500 but still) digital cinema camera, including me, believe me. I have both cameras and it hurts that the cheap camera is the better camera. But I decided to stop fighting it and just accept it. If I can, I will use the GH2.


Not really, specially if the picture quality is barely there. How good is it to be able to get the shot quickly and efficiently if the shot doesn't look good?

I always use a mattebox, always, no matter what.


Which professional uses autofocus? I use Zeiss CPs with a follow focus when I shoot with the GH2.


The AF100 records quality production sound? Could've fooled me. I always use a separated recorder no matter what, also when I shoot with the AF100.


Including the shot looking bad. Again, not much point in getting the shot if it will not look good.

Pure dribble, if you have the funds or the rental funds to always use CP2s then why use a GH2? Why not a FS100/C300 or F3 or any other camera that would totally justify using CP2s exclusively?

the sound is also not good enough? neither is the image, my god there is a lot of rubbish spouted in this one post. It's shot a movie and multiple docs and adverts, interviews etc

I always use a mattebox? so are you always using 4 inch filters too? The built in ones are not good right? Haze ridden I would guess?

you must be doing very select projects that the AF was clearly the wrong camera for, you need an Alexa!

 

[Igelkott Film]

Honestly, the GH2 is a better camera and for less than $1,000. Is it a better camera feature-wise? No. But it makes better images, which is the point of a camera. So in my opinion it's a better camera.

I thought the point of a camera was to aid you in making a good story.
I haven't seen any good story made with the AF100 with propper script and lighting. That's not the cameras fault.

I grow with my camera and I have not grown out of it yet.

 

[Adamsenoj]

See, this is exactly the type of reaction you get around here. Fanboyish. People just can't accept criticism to the piece of equipment they have spent their hard earned cash on, even after they say cameras are just tools. They behave more like cameras are their woman or off spring.

Pure dribble,

Is it now? It doesn't agree with your opinion, so it can just be dribble.

if you have the funds or the rental funds to always use CP2s then why use a GH2?

I made a point in investing in a set of CPs a while ago. Lenses are the best and most solid investment you can make. The CPs will be here and still look great way after the Alexa, C300 and F55 are just paper weight. PL mount is also not going anywhere. It makes way more sense to invest in pricier glass than pricier cameras. Besides I can use CPs with the GH2, AF100, F3 or Alexa. I can't say the same for M4/3 glass.

Why not a FS100/C300 or F3 or any other camera that would totally justify using CP2s exclusively?

I hate the FS100 and FS700. Don't much care for the C300. But the C300 and F3 are already RED territory. I would rather go RED then. The point is having a smaller camera for run of the mill jobs and rent bigger ones for bigger jobs.

the sound is also not good enough?

Good enough, yes. Great, no! If I have a recorder why would I put up with sub-par audio?

neither is the image,

Nope!

I always use a mattebox? so are you always using 4 inch filters too?

Yep. Exactly. When I need a filter I use 4x4. Again, as the lenses, they will be here forever and I can use it with any lens I may need. Much more practical than screw-ons.

The built in ones are not good right? Haze ridden I would guess?

Nope. When I shoot with the AF100 I use the internal NDs. They are great. But I still use the mattebox for flare, glare etc. You need some sort of sunshade anyway. I also like using other Tiffen filters and you always need a polarizer somewhere, so the mattebox is quick and useful. Better than stacking up screw on filters on your lens. If you change lenses, you need to go through the hassle of unscrewing filters etc. Not the case with a mattebox.

you must be doing very select projects that the AF was clearly the wrong camera for, you need an Alexa!

When I do, I do rent one.

 

[XSVpro]

See, this is exactly the type of reaction you get around here. Fanboyish. People just can't accept criticism to the piece of equipment they have spent their hard earned cash on, even after they say cameras are just tools. They behave more like cameras are their woman or off spring.

Dude your talking rubbish. I don't exclusively use micro four thirds glass, mainly down to not wanting to invest in glass that I can't instantly take elsewhere if a certain camera is required. Apart from the 7-14mm which is excellent and the 20mm pancake that I like taking stills with on the GH2, everything else I own is Nikon mount plus a few old school OMs that I like using for personal projects (plenty sharp but do flare at times). CP2s would be ace but at $4-5k each I'm sorry but you wouldn't be in GH2 land if you owned a workable range of these and those I know that do own them mostly rent them out. If you do, then you're missing out on creative opportunities that would come from owning a RED or FS700, you can always rent lenses and cameras are the actual tools that allow you to promote yourself via your own work. Phillip Bloom is a perfect example of someone who understands this hence all of his projects that have advertised his skill and taken him to a Lucas film movie set. Investments only pay off if you actually get to use them.


You seem to hate every large sensor camera out there apart from a world that the AF clearly isnt competing in which shows your immaturity, Being a good business man is understanding where your investments should go, so yes your lenses are a good investment but to walk onto sets or to pitch jobs just with your GH2s is ridiculous as is the setup you exclusively use, you have a zoom lens in there buddy? Let me guess a fujinon cine zoom at $25k? Wait you probably say "what professional would use a zoom" pretty much every sports caster or news broadcaster and in fact multiple movies do in fact use a zoom, everything from Green Zone, Argo to classic horror Don't look now, your CP2s would exclusively set you out of half the jobs I am paid to do.


I used to own two GH2s by the way with four thirds glass, loved using them and still own one and will grab the GH3 when its out, i love the system. I moved on to the AF100 when it was a new camera with all the hype, I'm not trying to defend it two years later as I don't have to, it makes me money, has a sound image and feature set that leaves a certain impression with my clients who appreciate flexibility and quick setup times when we have to go go go. Now there is a chance I can send away my camera for an upgrade to 10bit 422 output and possibly take my work to another level that will put me in a position to own an F5 or at least work on projects that can rent one.


I make a living with my AF100, the audio is fantastic, what ever performance you say it doesn't have is not noticeable enough to go backwards to two system sound. On bigger projects we have a sound guy who runs the mics through his recorder but also sends me a feed, not once have I (when editing) or the editor on the job been so disappointed by the AFs sound or so impressed with the separately recorded soundtrack to re-sync the clips. For solo run and gun stuff you can't beat it. I had a job to capture a small tv spot for the British Superbikes, mixed with stock GH2 footage I have collected through out previous seasons. The AF allowed me to setup shop in the middle of the pit lane right at sunset and grab this interview with a continuos 45 min take, no faffing around, just set my exposure, balance my sound and push the red button, you'd still be clapping in front of the guy to sync your recorder while wiping the dust off of your filters that they are collecting from the environment all the while ignoring your subject as you panic over the "do I stop him mid flow to restart the record function despite him talking about the crash that nearly ended his life" decision or compromise the A camera by having to have two GH2s setup just in case. Maybe you live in America and this 29.59 clip length is not a problem, well there is a whole world out there that has to deal with a 30 min record time and a whole world out there that doesn't just take select little shots with there über slider. It's called the broadcast world.


You talk like your jobs are only on a movie set and if that's the case then no the AF was not a good purchase for you, other cameras will do better in that environment but you should have known that by now?


fanboy? I'm a working professional not an ignorant forum member talking up my kit or chucking my toys around because my camera is not sharp enough.

 

[mcbob]

Not certain why we're poo-pooing "budget" cameras... because yes, the AF100 is and was a "budget" camera. I'm operating a business, not an expensive daddy-funded hobby or aristocratic flight of fancy. With budgets, client availability (especially in smaller markets like mine), and turn-around expectations constantly shrinking, and food, energy, and Obamacare costs doubling or tripling, choosing the wrong tools can literally mean your mortgage.

Owning both for well over a year, the opinion of the GH2 always producing a better image than the AF100 is extremely debatable. I have many different clients requesting many different formats and framerates, and the GH2 (IMO) is solely a 24p-trick-pony. Its in-camera sound is simply unreliable as well, and for long interviews, audio and video can and will drift. I'm not sure why someone would tout the GH2's focus assist vs. the AF100's in a thread that points out the AF-100A will now have very similar focus assist. I still think the GH2 is dandy, but there are many, many places where I just can't shoehorn its large deficiencies as a video camera. Of course, there are select places where it works better than the AF100... so they make a nice team.

For many of these clients, ultimate image quality isn't as vital as getting a good enough image and audio as quickly and easily as possible. If you know how to handle an AF, it works, and it works very, very well for the "budget" it sits within. If it didn't work, and work within my usual budgets, there isn't a chance in hell I'd own one. In the meantime, I can't waste my minimal time and money chasing after a few extra lines of resolution here or just a scoche of improved DR there. Once anybody shows me anything else I can afford that is SIGNIFICANTLY better at getting my work done, I'll gladly be all over it.

Drivel about it "barely producing an image" is just that.