AF100 depreciation is bad for Panasonic

Jon Hout said:
Ok. In order of mention from the OP:

1. The AF may have been a bit overpriced in the beginning, but not by much. The FS100 didn't have nearly as many features as the AF100 out of the gate, and it cost a good $1000 more with the same recording options as the AF (24mbs). The only real difference between the two was the more sensitive sensor and lack of a highlight issue. At the time, for the price it was worth it for the feature set IMO.

2. Sales tapered off due to the reputation that filmmakers (US!) gave the camera. We have no one to blame but the filmmaking community for the price decrease in the AF100. The preliminary reviews for the camera were really quite promising, and the reviews of the final product were actually quite favorable. When the FS100 came out and a few prominent bloggers began to praise it over the AF for it's higher sensitivity, the pixel peeping poparazzi (many of whom are amateurs at best) latched on to that, and they trashed a perfectly good camera that was really capable of creating very competitive images in the right hands ("The Raid" for example). The hype over the GH2 hack didn't help matters either. The price drop is a result of Panasonic trying to keep the line profitable. Don't blame Panasonic, blame the filmmakers who didn't support the camera like we should have.

3. See #2. The GH2 hack was yet another example of internet hype and the "more is better" mindset doing its thing. If the people championing the GH2 hack were shown an identical GH2 clip and AF100 clip side-by-side, 90% of them wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They just parrot what they see in the blogs. The AF100's fall from glory was very much in progress before the hack, though this seems to have dealt a large blow simply because of what came before it. That said, it's very silly IMO to hold Panasonic accountable for something that an unlicensed hack did to one of their cameras. The AF100 wasn't crippled, the higher bitrate was just never a part of the plan in the first place. If you wanted that, you were meant to just use an external recorder. Sometimes I think people forget that Panasonic asked US what WE wanted in a camera and hit almost everything on OUR list. The bitrate comparison is more than a bit unfair IMO. Also, I don't see anyone knocking the FS100 for its 24mb/s bitrate, but I supposed that's moot at this point.

4. Internet parrot syndrome at its finest. See #3 and #4.

Now, all that said, I'm not exactly pleased about the price decrease of my AF100 either. Producers often want to hire a 7D over my gear until I prove them the AF is far more capable. Regardless, I've never regretted my purchase, and while I'm sad that the camera has been devalued so much, it still produces great images for me, and I love it for that. Like these guys said, if you're upset about the bitrate hacks and such, just grab a Hyperdeck and go to town. It might be your best bet in this case.

Anyway, sorry you're having such a hard time selling the camera. Hope things turn around for you!

- Jon
Click to expand...

I owned both, I liked the fs100 image better, but it cost me ND, SDI and waveform...
 
biginvegas said:
Trying to sell my AF100 and looking at what I can get for my used but almost brand new AF100. Paid $4700 at Abel Cine a year ago. BH now sells to cart for $3895 plus $500 mail in rebate $3395. At $3k here on sale on DVX not a sniff for sale in NYC. An $1800 depreciation on a 18month old camera system! That is outrageous on the part of Panasonic dealers to sell of the AF100 at IMO way below market price for this technology. Please someone show me a camera in the last 20 years that lost so much of it's value in months. Looks like I will end getting about $2700 in current market if I am lucky! yes it is the times we live in and there is a lot of cameras out there but 1. It shows you the AF to start with was overpriced 2. Panasonic USA betrayed it's customers base by selling off this model at such discounts BEFORE a succesor is announced. 3. Panasonic AF was cannibalized by the GH2 hack and the perception from filmmakers was the AF was crippled and in my opinion it was. 4. The AF got a bad rap online ina very fickle market place and never recovered or built a reputation beyond the DVX user base, fault who? I dunno either way a substantial investment onmy part although paid off in hardware the depreciation irks.
Click to expand...

i really dont see how AF100 community would win from higher prices on camcorder? i think its very selfish.... just because u cant sell it used for more others should spend more to buy it new? yes its cheap and its great and i hope it will remains this way unless there will be a much improved successor with things on board that we dont have now! i bought my af one of the first, and have not got any "freebies" like free lens or mail in rebates or free cash for accessories, and i also live in EU so payed like 30% more of the usa price (before vat - vat is not included), but it does not mean i should cry about it now! if u want to invest & save your money buy a gold.......its a best investment in terms of future money savings... i am glad i got a chance to learn so much with that cam that i would never learn from my old hdv cam. It was a great investment, not that i got just knowledge, but also improved my income.

I must say - if your camcorder did not pays out for you since then - there is something wrong, and it has nothing to do with the camcorder it self or panasonic. but if it did pays out - then what is to sorry about, sell if for as much as u can and move on!

Price policy - well it would be really stupid of them to sell it cheaper at the beginning as there just were no one else on a market! i mean who would do other wise? this is like 1+1=2 , not even 2x2=4, if you got the market - rise the price - 1st rule u ll learn at any business school. at the time i were buying my AF i knew 100% that there will be a price drop after 6-8 month as sony were making a similar product, there were no surprises at all not for me. I think all of us who bought i the 1st 2-3 months were kind of as beta testers and for its technology and for its price, and some losses has to be accepted.

at the end i am glad i bought it ! and i am glad its cheap now and i only wish the future model will be cheaper then competitors at least the current price lives me some hopes for it!
 
I think out and out we are really going to have to watch our purchases. Cameras are coming to market like clock work, cheaper and cheaper. They are not holding value, game on!
 
Mike Harvey said:
This isn't aimed at the OP, but a general agreement with the your post in general and these points in particular. I'm associated with someone who bought into the GH2 hack hype and got one and is charging a pretty penny... but his stuff looks like absolute s***. And these are spots being broadcast on a network affiliate in a top 15 market. Me and a few others I know cringe ever time we see a lot of his stuff. That said, at work we aired a weather doc produced by one of the local PBS stations (we have two in Seattle) that my station helped with that was shot on a pair of non-hacked GH2's. It looked fantastic.

The point being that if you don't know how to use your camera, how good or bad it is is a moot point. And if you do know what your doing, there is no reason why you can't get stellar results out of it.
Click to expand...

This, right here. I've seen really great images shot on 5d MkII, GH2, GH1, AF100, FS100, C300, Red One/Epic/Scarlet, the list goes on. You know what all these cameras had in common? Talented cinematographers. Conversely, I've seen really lousy images shot on all of these cameras. As a cinematographer AND a director myself, I wouldn't hire a DP if he/she had a Red, I'd hire the person if they had a quality reel of footage.
 
Mestizo Devon said:
I think out and out we are really going to have to watch our purchases. Cameras are coming to market like clock work, cheaper and cheaper. They are not holding value, game on!
Click to expand...

That's just it Mestizo. I'm not whining. I understand business and the business of camera to a degree. Panasonics US decision to add additional $500 rebate off distributors cuts to spur sales did one one thing though, they exposed the true value of the camera and eroded confidence in the next generation of products in this mid $5k camcorder market. Their decision was based on panic not sensible business practice for a brand. To cut rate a camera for a few sales to clear shelves will do them more damage in the for next AF.

This thread is not about comparison between GH2 hack and the AF, good lord read, seen enough of those. I am not even interested in bit rates, it was my observation based on pixel peeping vidiots who have never made more than a few Vimeo tests. I bought the camera for a feature doc to use with a hacked GH2 and found as a solo shooter, I preferred the lighter, discreet hacked Gh2 run gun set up over the months. My next doc starting August in NY will use the same GH2 setup and the AF as a B interview cam if it does not sell. As a doc producer over the last 15 years, worked with film and saw the difficult transition to video and know how pioneers struggled with Auricons, Aatons and Arri's to make great films, I am appalled at this new generations constant complaint about bit rates. I know how good the AF is as a cheap doc camera for filmmakers to make great films. I think it will be around for a many years because it's so reliable, I'm just amazed that Panasonic essentially dumped it to make a few lousy bucks when promoting it as a cost effective indie doc and corporate tool would have given them more credibility in the long run.
 
I have adapted my older Canon 2/3s 4.7mm to 52mm zoom len and am blown away by the wide angle view and crispness. And too boot, I can zoom in and out using my old Canon rear zoom controller. This is due to the fact that there are no zoomable zooms out there and after some investigation, I was able to pull this off. I'm not the first, but I may be the most delighted.
 
I know I'm late to the party but I pre-ordered the AF100 and got a unit on B&H's very first shipment when the camera was $5k and from day one have LOVED it!! For the time, the camera was NOT overpriced since it was the only affordable large sensor camera on the market that wasn't a DSLR but things have changed. With the launch of newer DSLRs and cameras like the Sony FS100, the AF100 is already showing it's age and does indeed have major images problems (noise, banding, crop factor, how it handles clipping etc...) but overall, you still can't beat the image for the price. I agree 100% that if the cam was hackable it would have changed EVERYTHING. If we had an AF100 driftwood-like hack, this topic wouldnt even exist right now and this cam would be flying off of the shelf. Hopefully Panasonic takes note of that...
 
biginvegas said:
As a doc producer over the last 15 years, worked with film and saw the difficult transition to video and know how pioneers struggled with Auricons, Aatons and Arri's to make great films, I am appalled at this new generations constant complaint about bit rates. I know how good the AF is as a cheap doc camera for filmmakers to make great films.
Click to expand...

+1
 
My AF100 paid for itself in less than a month. It's value to me over the past 16 months has been unmatched by any other camera I've owned. Very very happy with it.
 
As a former DSLR shooter, the ONLY reason I purchased a used AF100 was BECAUSE it was cheap! If I had real money to spend I would have bought an f3 or an f35 for that matter. With SOOOOO many new cameras popping up everyday it is inevitable, and when shopping for mine, I saw postings for the fs100 and others in the same 3500 range. I think the real reason this camera is losing value is because more and more people are just shooting on a pigged out DSLR.
I think this camera would have been the DSLR killer they wanted if it was like 3k from the get go and the 4/3 sensor is a show stopper for alot of people.
But back to my original point, it was geared to the new breed of 'cheapos' who think, "I want to spend $900 and have all the features of a 250k camera." and in the end just buy the t3i or d700. imofwiw
 
I would agree that its not the gh2 hack nor any of the reasons by the OP. its the DSLRs thats causing everything to depreciate along with more competition.

I do believe getting a lower priced af100 is better. Ive earned back the money from mine and earning more. I wouldnt worry if i sell it at a lower value. It wont get so low.
 
So what if it depreciates. It was so cheap to begin with that it should have paid itself off in a month of paid shooting. I thought about selling mine but have not. Not because I won't get back what I put into it. It will still be a viable camera for years to come, as long as you understand the camera. But with the features packed inside the camera, I can't think of any camera that offers so much for so little money. Plus, it's a robust little beast. And, if you find a project where you need another camera, you can pick one of these up for dirt money. It still delivers a pretty darn fine image, and if you add an external recorder, even a better image. I actually like the 4/3's format. It's easy to work with. You can obtain deep dof and with the right glass, shallow DOF without sacrificing ISO to maintain deep DOF. I'm gonna stick with the camera and see what Panny offers with the AF200.
 
It's a painful reality, but this is the digital age - and the pace of technology is rendering almost all used electronics brutally low resale values.

The only real solace I can offer, is the fact that we're finally reaching a point of diminishing returns with the image quality of these cameras - so the need to keep upgrading constantly is lessening somewhat.
 
I never buy any electronic item with the idea that you could sell it for half of what you paid for it. I think it’s silly to think you can. I paid top dollar for my AF-100 and I don’t care if they start selling it for $2500. Heck I still own a Canon XHA1. Don’t use it anymore and I couldn’t trade that camera for a ham sandwich! Trust me. I made my money back on that camera as well.
If you don’t want the camera sell it for what you can get and move on. I sold a AJA Kona LHe recently for a fraction of what I paid for it. Sure I wish I could have bagged half the cost but AJA discontinued it and that is that. That card still works great for FCP and the guy that bought it is happy. So am I. I made good money editing with it and moved on.
I’m not beating up on the OP but the idea that resale on a $5K camera is an issue is kinda crazy. Oh and I also still own the original Canon 5D. I’m thinking about selling it but gosh I might only get 1/4 of what I paid for it.
If this is a hobby you have to put a value on how much fun you had playing with the camera. If your a pro. You must have made your money back in at least five jobs. This thread makes me laugh.
One more thing. I received two cinematography Emmy awards and two Telly awards this year for spots I shot with the AF-100. This camera does the job and hasn’t failed me. I consider it a value.
:Drogar-Love(DBG): :crybaby: :zombie_smiley: :)
 
Last edited:
As an exclusive buyer of once-gently-used camera hardware, I thoroughly appreciate depreciation.

Bought mine used after the FS100 dropped, and paid (IIRC) $4200 with a Lumix 7-14 (which is also freaking wonderful).

However, I DO wish its makers would embrace the AF like a "16mm," cheaper, lighter, and easier to work with than all the S35-sized crowd. I adore the m43 crop and depth of field and crop - shallow, but not stupid shallow; get exposure while still keeping a moving subject in focus and losing background details; and get great long, bright shots with cheaply available not-so-long lenses.

While my fantasy is to own a C300 instead, I often feel I'd miss many of those characteristics... not to mention ~$10K.
 
Kind of funny, this almost reminds me of the two different camps of Ferrari owners, and the attitude between them being completely different. A: Waxers; who religiously wax their Ferrari but don't drive it for fear they will put too many miles on it and hurt the resale value. B: Drivers; who's motto is "drive it like you stole it", with the attitude "I didn't buy a Ferrari to save it for the next owner".

Searching my mind, I can't recall ever purchasing a camera with the thought of resale value.
To me a camera is a business deduction you depreciate on a schedule and replace when needed.
 
Think the depreciation on the AF100 is bad?

List price on a new Red One MX camera "body only" is $25K
Complete used Red One MX kits with all accessories and drives are having trouble selling for $12K
 
Paid $4600 for my HPX170 in 2009. I see on dvxuser the going rate for used is about $2500. I might just pickup a second low hours one as a backup since Panasonic abandoned CCDs .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top