Af 105a announced in japan

[Erik Naso]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are in the AF-100 forum with people that like the AF-100 and want to learn and contribute about using it. You come here and for the most part criticize the camera and hone in on only the issues it has. You do this in almost every post with a negative tone. If I'm a Fanboy then you are a troll. I don't understand your motive. Every post you write turns into an argument. If you dislike the AF-100 so much and disaprove of anyone using it move on to the GH2 forum and bash the camera their. We don't need you to save our souls.

 

[Adamsenoj]

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.

Exactly the reason I got the CPs. So why were you criticizing it? I didn't say you used M4/3 lenses or that they are bad. I just said PL is more universal and this is a fact. This is why I got them.

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).

I still don't know why you are defending yourself and saying you don't use M4/3. My reply was in answer to your comment that if I have funds to use CP2s then why use a GH2. Well, asnwer is because I didn't buy CPs for the GH2 or the AF100. I bought CPs because they are great and I can use them with pretty much any camera.

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

Well, I do own a set and I still use the GH2. Am I in GH2 land? Well, what does that mean, that I only use the Gh2? Then no. I also own a AF100, an EX3 and a couple others and rent REDs, F3 and even Alexa for some jobs. But yes, i won CPs and I do use them with the GH2.

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.

You honestly trying to say that owning a camera and renting lenses is smarter than the other way around? Have you seen for how much the $170,000 Arri D21 which was released in 2008 is selling for these days? You can find them for under $10,000. But PL glass, even old is still selling for a pretty penny. How am I missing on RED when I rent them if the project calls for one?

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,

Oh, does it? I don't hate every other large sensor camera. I just hate the FS cameras. The C300 is alright, but it's on RED territory and so is F3, so I might as well go RED. The GH2 is a large sensor camera and I love it. So who said I hate all cameras besides expensive ones? Putting words on my mouth much? Who's being immature here?

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,

Where did I say the GH2 is the exclusive set up I use? Didn't you read me saying I also have an AF100? And I also have other cameras and I rent others if I need.

you have a zoom lens in there buddy?

No. Not for the large sensor cameras. I don't need it. I don't think large sensor cameras are for ENG or run and gun. For that I have an EX3 and yes, I have zooms for that.

Wait you probably say "what professional would use a zoom"

Again putting words on people's mouth. I have nothing against zooms.
But yes, anything auto shouldn't be used by somebody being paid to shoot something. Yes, auto focus is not a professional tool. Probably reason the huge majority of high end lenses have no auto focus. If you're offended by my comment there's nothing I can tell you but learn how to focus manually or don't use a camera which you don't have the crew support for.

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.

Good. This means you are happy with the AF100 and I'm not! Live with it.

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.

First, I have no problems with the sharpness of the AF100. I never complained about that. Second, you're happy with the AF100 and I'm not. You seem to think you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not. You are allowed to voice your praise but I'm not allowed to voice my criticism. You have realistic expectations for the AF100 and I do not. I could also say you just have low standards. But regardless, you talk like your opinion is right and important and mine is not. If that's not being a fanboy, I don't know what it is.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Owning both for well over a year, the opinion of the GH2 always producing a better image than the AF100 is extremely debatable.

I didn't say always. But it does 75% of the time and if the price angle here in these forums is to be taken seriously, it should never outperform the AF100 because the MSRP is less than 1/5th of an AF100.
I never use anything besides 24p though, never 30p, but this shouldn't be a point since the AF100 is touted as a digital cinema camera and cinema is 24fps.
The VFR are nice but how many times one uses it in a project? If that is to be considered then the FS700 is a must have, yet I don't care for it because 99.99% of real world stuff will not be in VFR.

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.

And this is why you're only getting this A "upgrade".

 

[Rolf Silber]

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.

Ouh ... troll-drool all over the place..... but, yes: I own a GH13, a GH2 and an AG-AF and have preordered a GH3 and I am definitely not a wildlife shooter. It was kind of an ironic remark. But forget it.

 

[dcloud]

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.



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.



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.



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.

sorry but yiu make it sound like the af100 is a bad camera which it isnt. Everyone has their own taste but objectively speaking the image quality of af100 isnt bad at all. Gh2 is more detailed. Other wise it has less dynamic range and noisy as the af100. If your main basis is price then obviously youre not the market. Grow up.

 

[Igelkott Film]

Adamsenoj: You sound like you have aspergers.

Because it is not about being entitled to anything. And you don't understand that.
Like, I hate FCP and I know I have the right to do so. BUT I DON'T GO IN TO A FCP FORUM AND ***** ABOUT IT!

 

[Adamsenoj]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are in the AF-100 forum with people that like the AF-100 and want to learn and contribute about using it. You come here and for the most part criticize the camera and hone in on only the issues it has. You do this in almost every post with a negative tone. If I'm a Fanboy then you are a troll. I don't understand your motive. Every post you write turns into an argument. If you dislike the AF-100 so much and disaprove of anyone using it move on to the GH2 forum and bash the camera their. We don't need you to save our souls.

First, I have an AF100, I use it professionally, I paid money for it, I have the right to criticize it.

Second, I don't only put it down. I ALWAYS say it has a great feature set, is a joy to use apart from the incompetent focus system and that it's images are sharp enough. But these of course goes unnoticed because what matters is that I have bad things to say about it. Unless one is blindingly hyping it up, he's a troll.

Look, I have said what I like and what I don't like about the camera. I didn't get it for free for a blog review. I paid money for it. I'm an user just like you. I have the right to voice my opinion. If I was only bashing then ok. But I'm not. I'm just not sucking up.

AF100 pros:

Great feature set
Easy to use apart from focusing
Great form factor
Very well constructed
I love the WFM (pity it can't save the highlights)
I love that I can use any lens with the M4/3 mount.
Fully "professional" features.


AF100 cons:

Image is very lack-luster no matter how you set it up. Unless you think oversaturated and oversharpned images are the definition of great images.
The focus. Oh god, why did Panasonic cheapened out on this?
The highlight handling. No matter what you do, an iPhone will probably handle it better. The GH2 definitely does. It doesn't matter how you do it. If you don't want to put up with mush and if you're shooting under contrasty conditions, you're screwed.
Banding. Enough said.

Not even the noise I find bad. Although yes it is quite noisy. But I can live with it.


If I'm a troll, there a re a lot of trolls in these forums because the things I dislike are factual weaknesses of the AF100 and I know others share these opinion.

Why do I keep saying if everybody knows it? Well, maybe if more people would voice their opinions instead of trying to justify every little fault and jump ahead to supply workarounds, we wouldn't be getting just this A upgrade, which is nothing more than how the camera should have been 2 years ago. And for those who think the upgrade will be available for current users without buying a new camera and for a reasonable price, wake up. If it is and it costs a fair price, I will eat crow!

 

[Adamsenoj]

Adamsenoj: You sound like you have aspergers.

Because it is not about being entitled to anything. And you don't understand that.
Like, I hate FCP and I know I have the right to do so. BUT I DON'T GO IN TO A FCP FORUM AND ***** ABOUT IT!

If you don't, how else is Apple going to know they missed the mark? Grow a back bone.

 

[Igelkott Film]

If you don't, how else is Apple going to know they missed the mark? Grow a back bone.

I don't want FCP to be good.

 

[dcloud]

AF100 cons:

Image is very lack-luster no matter how you set it up. Unless you think oversaturated and oversharpned images are the definition of great images.
The focus. Oh god, why did Panasonic cheapened out on this?
The highlight handling. No matter what you do, an iPhone will probably handle it better. The GH2 definitely does. It doesn't matter how you do it. If you don't want to put up with mush and if you're shooting under contrasty conditions, you're screwed.
Banding. Enough said.

No

Focus is the main problem, highlight is manageable. Oversaturated and oversharpend is complete BS. Gh2 is waaay saturated at its lowest saturation level compared to the af100's default.

again all i read is an over exageration of things that are bad about the af100.

 

[XSVpro]

First, I have no problems with the sharpness of the AF100. I never complained about that. Second, you're happy with the AF100 and I'm not. You seem to think you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not. You are allowed to voice your praise but I'm not allowed to voice my criticism. You have realistic expectations for the AF100 and I do not. I could also say you just have low standards. But regardless, you talk like your opinion is right and important and mine is not. If that's not being a fanboy, I don't know what it is.

It's "in your mouth"


i don't use auto focus


Zooms are not auto in my world, they are mechanical beasts with moving pieces of glass. Not rocker operated.


You are a troll, if you own an AF then you know what it's designed for and make money doing it, why would someone who obviously has access to cheap rental reds and Alexas be complaining about Panasonic not updating the cheapest "cinema camera" out there? One who perhaps doesn't rent these uber machines on a daily basis? One who just owns a GH2 maybe? Who cares, they are just tools, I just find it retarded when someone says it can't produce a good image and has sub par sound quality. BBC don't share that opinion so I'm probably going to side with them on this one.


No camera under 20K with this sized sensor outputs 10bit 422, more than just a small upgrade really, it's either BMC with all of the frankenrig stuff you got to do to that to get internal 10bit on a smaller sensor or this new AF100A, you got a comparable camera for me to look at I'm all ears.


we have every reason to assume this is a send your camera in for upgrade process. If not then hey, depending on how much I am going to lose selling my 2 year old camera and buying the new one will be my chance for a new "business" decision. Keep my current AF and keep earning money with it or will this be the FCPX FCP7 moment where I feel ready to upgrade and start working towards a C300 or FS700. More than likely my AF that has now cost me nothing (due to actually using it for paid gigs) will still net around £1500-£2k second hand, new camera is going to be max £3000.... Yeah I can see me paying £1500 for a 10 bit version of my camera with extra features and better sound.


Ill wait and see what the footage actually looks like first but I think that's my way forward. 2035 will be great for you when the Alexa is just $1500 in the mean time ill make better skills with my "lesser tools"

 

[Erik Naso]

Look, I have said what I like and what I don't like about the camera. I didn't get it for free for a blog review. I paid money for it. I'm an user just like you. I have the right to voice my opinion. If I was only bashing then ok. But I'm not. I'm just not sucking up.

For the record I paid for my AF-100 and every piece of gear I own I paid for it.
Yet more examples of your negative attitude in that entire post and pretty much in general. I find it funny you feel so comfortable calling use Fanboys but then when called a Troll you don't like it. I have a level head you should try it. Makes you a nicer person. My glass is always half full.

As a DP I have more issues with the locations I shoot at than the camera I use. I can fix any issues I have with the right support/grip equipment to avoid what could be an issue that the AF-100 or any camera could have at the location that I need to shoot at.
The fact that you just drill down constantly on what you don't like about the AF-100 makes you sound like a whiner, and you attack people on here. This is just rude and not constructive. I remember your thread you started about issues you had and was seeking help. That thread was mostly you ranting and we helped you as much as we could and your tone was again very negative. Maybe your a nice guy in person but on here you come off like a troll.

 

[Mike Harvey]

The terms "Better" and "Worse" are entirely subjective, and dependent on a particular set of criteria. Just because something is "Better" or "Best" based on your set of criteria, don't assume that your set of criteria is the *only* set of criteria, or that others share it. That at it's heart is fanboyism. After reading through this thread, lot of folks seem to think that their particular set of criteria (absolute possible picture quality) is the end all be all in what makes a camera "Best", and that's the only definition. That may make it "best" for you, but it's not what defines "Best" for me.

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.

I've had the luxury of a regular part time TV job on top of my side business, but I'm being laid off at the end of the year and my side business will soon be my only business. So I'm going to be in a similar boat as McBob... and I agree with much of what he said as it applies to me (except I'm in a much larger market, but with an overabundance of other shooters here). I don't own the GH2, but have helped on a shoot with it. I've also helped on a shoot with a 7D before. The 7D shoot helped solidify my choice to buy an AF100, and the GH2 reinforced it after the purchase. Both take great images (I'm not sure they're better images, though), but were a pain to work with. Ultimately, what I needed in a camera was an HMC150 (which I already own) with a larger sensor. It doesn't need the absolute "best" image, it just needs to be "good enough"... but, with all the other bells and whistles I've grown accustomed to for under $5k.

There are plenty of cameras that do a few other things a lot better. And I'm not saying there aren't a bunch of improvements I wouldn't like to see to the specs of the AF100(a). But I don't know of any cameras that do nearly *everything* on my list of criteria "good enough". Not the FS100, not the Black Magic Camera, not the GH2 (or GH3). Nothing. When I'm trying to shoot website bios and accompanying b-roll for ten doctors in a day, and I only have about 1/2 hour for each doctor because they still need to see patients, I really don't want to be messing and fiddling around with external audio, or ND filters, or lamenting not having a waveform monitor. It is a magic combination of ease of use, features, and picture quality in a budget price... so for me, it's the best camera for what I do. And the health organization that I shot those bios for (there ended up being 120 over four months) was so happy with the work that they just signed a very large contract with the producer I was going through (and by extension, me) for a lot more work. And ultimately, that's all I care about.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm not claiming to speak for you. Please don't speak for me.

 

[DC]

Ugh, enough with the bickering. :kali: rogar-KnockedOut(D

Someone - anyone - please tell me more FACTS about the AF100A! Jan? :happy:

 

[Wesley Byram]

Ugh, enough with the bickering. :kali: rogar-KnockedOut(D

Someone - anyone - please tell me more FACTS about the AF100A! Jan? :happy:

Hear Hear. Complaints about the AF100 seem misplaced as this is ostensibly a thread about the AF100A. For all we know, Panasonic may have improved the image quality somewhat. It's not without precedent for them to do so in an incremental update. The 10-bit output is already a nice upgrade that could make a substantial difference if using an external recorder.

 

[DC]

...For all we know, Panasonic may have improved the image quality somewhat. It's not without precedent for them to do so in an incremental update. The 10-bit output is already a nice upgrade that could make a substantial difference if using an external recorder.

That's what I'm thinking. I'm eager to learn more about this.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Focus is the main problem, highlight is manageable. Oversaturated and oversharpend is complete BS. Gh2 is waaay saturated at its lowest saturation level compared to the af100's default.

again all i read is an over exageration of things that are bad about the af100.

Highlight IS NOT manageable if you are outside of a studio. It just isn't.

By the way, I explain what I meant about oversaturated and oversharpned. I didn't mean that's all the AF100 can produce. It obviously can't be since you can turn both sharpness and saturation all the way down. This is obvious. So I thought it would be obvious that this is not what I meant. Here's my quote again:

Image is very lack-luster no matter how you set it up. Unless you think oversaturated and oversharpned images are the definition of great images.

What I meant is that the images are very lackluster. The AF100 footage out there that people say looks great are just normal lackluster AF100 footage that is oversharpned or oversaturated. Nothing else. So if that's what you like, it can make great footage. This is what I meant.

The only real good looking footage I have seen, which is not just oversaturated and oversharpened footage, is studio stuff with very very soft light and fully controlled lighting situations. Under these conditions even an iPhone would look good.

 

[Adamsenoj]

For the record I paid for my AF-100 and every piece of gear I own I paid for it.
Yet more examples of your negative attitude in that entire post and pretty much in general. I find it funny you feel so comfortable calling use Fanboys but then when called a Troll you don't like it. I have a level head you should try it. Makes you a nicer person. My glass is always half full.

As a DP I have more issues with the locations I shoot at than the camera I use. I can fix any issues I have with the right support/grip equipment to avoid what could be an issue that the AF-100 or any camera could have at the location that I need to shoot at.
The fact that you just drill down constantly on what you don't like about the AF-100 makes you sound like a whiner, and you attack people on here. This is just rude and not constructive. I remember your thread you started about issues you had and was seeking help. That thread was mostly you ranting and we helped you as much as we could and your tone was again very negative. Maybe your a nice guy in person but on here you come off like a troll.

Erik, I don't know why you feel the need of defending yourself saying that you have paid for all your gear. I didn't say you didn't. Are you a camera review blogger? If so, I didn't know. I know you do review on some of your gear, but didn't know you were in the business of reviewing every camera out there. I didn't direct that comment at you. I simply meant to say that I'm not a blogger, so I don't have to sugar coat it and can speak my mind and what I really think of the camera. I paid for it, I use it.

I find it funny you feel so comfortable calling use Fanboys but then when called a Troll you don't like it.

Did I call you a fanboy? As far as I'm concerned you were not even in this discussion till you jumped in saying I called you a fanboy when you were not even arguing with me. But as they say, if the hat fits...
But I did not call you a fanboy. I called the person who jumped all over me because I pointed out the weaknesses of his precious camera.

and you attack people on here

What? Is this a joke? I was attacked first, just because I voiced my opinion. To refresh your cloudy memory.

This was probably the post that started the attacks on me:

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.

Before that, go through the thread and find a post I attacked anybody. Even after that. Show me a personal attack from me. Then this was posted:

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!

Somebody calling my opinion dribble just because it's different from his. And then calling me out on having CP lenses if I use a GH2.

All I did was voice my opinion and state well know problems the camera has. But people prefer to live in denial that the camera is great. I see why Panasonic is just sitting around and not changing anything. Why would they with so many fighting to cover up the cameras faults? If people pretend there are no faults, why will they bother updating the camera?

 

[Bern Caughey]

I don't think large sensor cameras are for ENG or run and gun. For that I have an EX3 and yes, I have zooms for that.

Your certainly not alone in your opinion, but many others disagree.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-Scenes-Afghanistan-Documentary-James-Longley

 

[Adamsenoj]

I don't want FCP to be good.

See. This is the difference here and why I just don't leave, other than having already spent money on the camera. I do want the AF100 to be good!
I would rather have an AF100 without the faults than going for a FS100 or FS700.


If people think the AF100 is perfect and want to live in denial then be it. But I don't have to.
If when somebody complains about obvious faults the camera has he becomes a troll, what a said mindset.

Anyway, carry on about the A "upgrade". The AF100 is just perfect. It needs no updates or upgrades. Anybody who says otherwise is a troll. Rock on!

In the meantime I will wait for more info on what exactly the so unneeded upgrade actually upgrades, and for the price, and if it will even be available as an upgrade for current owners or if they will have to buy a totally "new" camera to get the "upgrades".