Af 105a announced in japan

TheDingo said:
...So what's your opinion of the Canon C100 ?

Assuming Panasonic is still using the same sensor in the AF100A, the C100 brings the following items to the table for about $2,000 more than the AF100A:

- Higher resolution 1080 HD image
- Higher Dynamic range
- Maximum 20,000 ISO ( usable range is several stops higher than AF100 )
Click to expand...

I hadn't really considered the C100, true. Like TheDingo, I'm sort of invested in m4/3 lenses especially wide lenses and my better longer lenses are Duclos modded ZFs, so I'm a bit myopic regarding most things Canon. I also forgot the Sony FS100, but I consider AF100 in that tier because they are 4:2:0 8bit without the ability to do 4:2:2 10 bit any which way. Since the upgrade described in this thread would bring the AF100 to 4:2:2 10 bit, I consider the next tier to be the next bunch of 4:2:2 10 bit or greater cameras, with regard to color space, are F3, F5, F55, C300, C500, Scarlet... you know those. I like the 60fps on the AF100 too, but really I was thinking of color space and throughput stuff.

Actually FS900 falls in there too. I have been thinking about that next tier for the past couple of weeks so that range is just bouncing around in my head. Calling Dr. Freud! I was projecting! ;)
 
Last edited:
As I said in a previous post, I recently had the experience of seeing one of my films along with another one, also primarily shot on the AF, screened at a festival on a large screen in BluRay... 90% of mine was shot outdoors and nearly 100% of the other was as well. There was only one shot (admittedly in mine, an interior with a window in the background) that exhibited noticeable chroma clipping - neither film showed objectionable highlight clipping. That's 60 minutes of total screen time, hundreds of scenes. I really don't understand why there are so many posts claiming the AF100 is incapable of handling highlights in exteriors.

I too want an improved sensor, mainly because it seems possible, and with so much negativity surrounding the AF100 on the internet it has put a dark cloud over a very serviceable camera.
 
My own tendency to blow highlights outdoors with this camera when I first bought it hinged around a few no-no's:
1. not paying attention to the WFM
2. exposing it like a HVX-ish video camera (aiming for skin highlights at 70-75%), not trusting its ability to pull lots and lots of shadow details
3. not paying attention to the WFM
4. failing to white balance properly with lens changes
5. not paying attention to the WFM
6. attempting to "eyeball" exposure with an improperly tuned LCD and EVF that were too dark or contrasty to begin with
7. not paying attention to the WFM

Since then, I haven't had a problem.
 
mcbob said:
My own tendency to blow highlights outdoors with this camera when I first bought it hinged around a few no-no's:
1. not paying attention to the WFM
2. exposing it like a HVX-ish video camera (aiming for skin highlights at 70-75%), not trusting its ability to pull lots and lots of shadow details
3. not paying attention to the WFM
4. failing to white balance properly with lens changes
5. not paying attention to the WFM
6. attempting to "eyeball" exposure with an improperly tuned LCD and EVF that were too dark or contrasty to begin with
7. not paying attention to the WFM

Since then, I haven't had a problem.
Click to expand...

+100
 
mcbob said:
Plus, to get auto anything (OIS, most specifically) to replicate my m43 lens kit, I'd need to put money into Canon glass
Click to expand...

...If I go the C100 route, I plan on spending about $1,000 on a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom with OIS. This is enough to get me started, and I can rent more exotic glass when I need it. ( there are at least 4 places in town that rent Canon glass, and it's all very affordable )
 
TheDingo said:
...If I go the C100 route, I plan on spending about $1,000 on a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom with OIS. This is enough to get me started, and I can rent more exotic glass when I need it. ( there are at least 4 places in town that rent Canon glass, and it's all very affordable )
Click to expand...

I hope you have the opportunity to work with one before you commit.. I really don't like it at all, nice picture, but what a pain.
 
Mac said:
I hope you have the opportunity to work with one before you commit.
Click to expand...

I had one when I owned my Canon 60D ( before switching to the GH2 ), and I thought it was a very good lens.

Yes it's not weather sealed, or as nicely made as the uber expensive Canon L zooms, but it's sharp and very stable when shooting handheld.
 
The original Engadget article referenced by the OP stated that the camera will be released on November 15. That's tomorrow.

Is Nov. 15 still the release date? Has any one seen any reviews of the camera?
 
hscully said:
Since the upgrade described in this thread would bring the AF100 to 4:2:2 10 bit, I consider the next tier to be the next bunch of 4:2:2 10 bit or greater cameras, with regard to color space, are F3, F5, F55, C300, C500, Scarlet... you know those.
Click to expand...
In the most general terms, a camera is only as strong as it's weakest link, and if the front end can't deliver it, there is no point in having a recording system capable of extremely high performance. It would be equivalent to buying a hi-fi system and spending thousands on an amplifier, but keeping relatively cheap loudspeakers.

And the point about 10 bit is that it doesn't really bring much advantage unless the front end is capable of very low noise performance, and ideally have a system like S-log to go with it. It CAN improve post flexibility - but only if the front end can deliver the performance to match it. Otherwise, all that 10 bit does is code the noise more accurately!

And the real point about cameras like the F5, F55, C300 etc is not simply that they have 10bit output/recording ability - but that they have the front end performance to take advantage of it.
 
Not sure it's enough of a suprise for those of us using the AF100. Thanks for the update and can't wait to hear more details...perhaps higher frame rates?
 
harddrive said:
In the most general terms, a camera is only as strong as it's weakest link, and if the front end can't deliver it, there is no point in having a recording system capable of extremely high performance. It would be equivalent to buying a hi-fi system and spending thousands on an amplifier, but keeping relatively cheap loudspeakers.

And the point about 10 bit is that it doesn't really bring much advantage unless the front end is capable of very low noise performance, and ideally have a system like S-log to go with it. It CAN improve post flexibility - but only if the front end can deliver the performance to match it. Otherwise, all that 10 bit does is code the noise more accurately!

And the real point about cameras like the F5, F55, C300 etc is not simply that they have 10bit output/recording ability - but that they have the front end performance to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

What front end? I like the front end of the AF100 fine enough. I'm not saying it's going to be as good as those cameras. I'm saying that to get 4:2:2 10 bit you have to jump up in price, a lot. This has to do with how it is stored and how much color information is in it. It's a big improvement whatever 4:2:0 8bit camera you have. The 4:2:2 10 bit color space is better in post color grading. Lots of cameras have the ability to record it that don't do Slog. One of the problems I have with the current AF100 is that it suffers banding or blocking which, I am told is a function of 10:2:0 8bit. I'll take the performance of the "front end" of the AF100 with this upgrade. Sure those may be better. I should not have used the word tier I guess. I know there are other factors in any camera. I happen to be one of the nuts who really like the way the AF100 images look. I have great good luck with mine!
 
hscully said:
It's a big improvement whatever 4:2:0 8bit camera you have. The 4:2:2 10 bit color space is better in post color grading.
Click to expand...
There are two issues here. It may be true that in post there is an argument for using a 10bit system - even if the input is 8 bit. It will handle rounding errors better. That's one thing.

10 bit RECORDING is a different issue. The potential benefits will vary with the quality of the signal from the front end of the camera - if the latter is very good, 10 bit makes sense. If the front end is less good, 10 bit won't make much difference.

It's wrong to think that on very top range cameras that they are so good because they have 10 bit recording - it's the opposite way round, it's because their fundamental performance is so good that it's worth giving them a 10 bit recording system.
One of the problems I have with the current AF100 is that it suffers banding or blocking which, I am told is a function of 10:2:0 8bit. I'll take the performance of the "front end" of the AF100 with this upgrade.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you've been told wrong. And there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Pretty well all broadcast systems end up as 4:2:0 and 8 bit, and that includes the Blu-Ray spec. If banding and blocking really was a "function of 10:2:0 8bit" (I assume that's a typo?) you'd see such on every Blu-Ray, let alone broadcast TV, and original recordings on such as XDCAM 35Mbs. You don't.

I'm not denying that 10bit/4:2:2 recording can bring benefits, but don't see it as a magic bullet. There was a lot of doubt when the C300 was launched about the 8 bit nature of it's codec - those doubts have largely gone away as people have started to get experience. To assume that 8 bit working neccessarily brings a degree of banding/blocking just is not true.

I'm not going to get into the (tedious) discussions about whether the AF100 is "good" or "bad" or does or does not represent value for money in absolute terms - it is what it is, works for some, not for others. End of story. "Can it be better?" is a different discussion. Making the output 10bit/4:2:2 certainly won't make it any worse - but don't expect a huge improvement. The main thing that will make a difference is a new sensor, optimised for video, not still photography.
 
So your saying the sensor is only capable of "seeing" a 8 bit 422 image and will only pass a 10 bit 422 wrapped version via the HD-SDI? I'm sure that's wrong, the sensor is video optimised gh1 sensor (though they claimed it was entirely new at the time?) and the gh1 was capable of 12 bit (or 16 bit?) Raw photographs. So surely at the sensor level a lot more information is seen than just 8 bit 422 and what we have on the current AF is a downscaling of 12 bit 422 to 8 bit 420 and now 10 bit 422 via the HD-SDI?

im sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in and correct me (this isn't my strong suit) but I would argue this is false advertising for Panasonic to claim 10 bit 422 if its just a wrapped 8 bit 422 and I can't see Panasonic doing that.

jan, can you chime in and answer a few things here?
 
harddrive said:
Sorry, you've been told wrong. And there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Pretty well all broadcast systems end up as 4:2:0 and 8 bit, and that includes the Blu-Ray spec. If banding and blocking really was a "function of 10:2:0 8bit" (I assume that's a typo?) you'd see such on every Blu-Ray, let alone broadcast TV, and original recordings on such as XDCAM 35Mbs. You don't.
Click to expand...

I have read this whole thread so I know you know a lot about this stuff. This part of the discussion is the deep end of the pool for me but just to continue the conversation, I found this here http://www.ericsson.com/tvreceivers...ch of Ultimate Video Quality - MPEG-4 422.pdf

It says here: "The loss of precision from 8 bit precision compression systems can be particularly noticeable on video sequences that contain areas of smooth graduation in luminance. In such situations posterization effects become noticeable showing discernable contours (or banding) around areas of similar luminance. This effect is more prominent in MPEG-4 AVC... "

It's not unheard of. I remember from early discussions on the board about this and so that's where I got the idea that 4:2:2 10 bit would improve the banding issue. I've seen the footage from the C300 and it is beautiful in many ways. I'm sure they do more to mitigate the banding problem than the AF100 does which goes to your point about the other important attributes of a camera to deliver. I've learned to work around it but I always thought an improvement in bit depth during recording would improve posterization and banding.
 
Last edited:
According to DxO, the GH1 has 11.6 EVs of dynamic range at the lowest ISO and the GH2 has 11.3. So there should be a benefit to 10-bit recording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top