AF100 depreciation is bad for Panasonic

I think a lot of people including me put a lot of emphasis on the end image quality. Features are great but are less great if they are used to create an image you are not crazy about. Hence people compare a GH2, AF-100, 5D and RED in the same sentence. Sure they are in different "classes" but in the end they are large chip video devices which all have their own look. For me, I have been hovering around the AF-100 for a long time but I pause at the look of the footage. It is fine but I need to convince myself to really like it, so I am waiting. The pace of change is so quick that the wait might not be too long.

I would like an AF-200. Panasonic is always a great brand and I think they could knock it out of the park if they wanted to. To be frank, the AF-100 feels like my HPX-500. A great camera for it's time but it is a camera you will upgrade away from before it reaches end of life so to speak.
 
There is no doubt it's a victim of this era. My argument was not the fact that it would depreciate, all cameras do. My point was Panasonic gave the go ahead to distributors to sell off stock at greatly reduced prices. Adorama, BH all LIST the camera for above $4700 but everyone who clicks link knows that is not even close to the price eventually paid for the AF100 body. A camera company division of the biggest electronic company in the world has to report losses and when they do, like any company selling anything are told to order their distributors to sell, sell, sell.
A barely used AF100 has been sitting on the Adorama site at $3200 for weeks now. Clearly the AF is simply not selling at any price anymore. My argument was Panasonic had a choice, essentially dump the stock and risk losing a hardcore Panny customer loyalty base by the appearance that they failed to make it a success. Or hold the true value of the camera with a decent discount and possibly include free firmware upgrades. Come NAB 2012, what does Panasonic do? They dump it. A year old camera that has no modular or software improvements bar a $250 firmware that should have been free as a loyalty coupon. Remember this is a company that lost $10 billion last year.
It's not a company you as a manager want to report losses to your superior. Panasonic is not a forward thinking company, their successes ( and failures) are spread over hundreds of divisions, thousands of products, the CEO of Panasonic President Fumio Ohtsubo likely has no idea his company even made a camera called the AF100. That I own and use a $700 Panasonic camera for most of my needs now is only due to the persistence of one Russian hacker, certainly not Fumio Ohtsubo.
When Japanese giants begin to understand new technology the way Apple Corp does and risk products to cannabilism and not panic sell, they might just make a product that will last beyond two NAB's and gain back the trust of it's customer.
 
Welcome to the age of the "camputer" folks. These things are mass market electronic devices. Go buy a laptop and see what you can get for it in a year or two. Same principle.

When I started, we shot on film cameras that cost more than some houses. Those same cameras are now going for four figures on the 'bay. Read recently about someone who picked up an Arri SR3 Advanced for under $1000. That camera was $75000 new. Now that is depreciation. Progress I guess.
 
An AF100 is hard to sell these days especially since it's the least attractive camera in a bunch of many. This doesn't make it a lesser camera just less people find it interesting. Honestly I love the little thing because it just works and puts out good images but I don't find it that exciting.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think a lot of people including me put a lot of emphasis on the end image quality. Features are great but are less great if they are used to create an image you are not crazy about. Hence people compare a GH2, AF-100, 5D and RED in the same sentence..
Click to expand...

I guess this is where there is a disconnect for some of us. IMO, the AF100 produces images every bit as good as any of the DSLRs or the FS100. In fact, I'm working on a project with footage from a number of shooters around the world right now. Last week, I recieved a bunch of footage from a vendor in China... it looked great; natural colors, s35 like DOF, low noise, etc. At first I thought it was from the AF100, but when I looked at the metadata, I saw that it was all shot on the FS100. I remember think to myself that, that footage looked so much like what I shoot, I just assumed that it also come from an AF100.

Also, I disagree with those that compare a Red, or an Alexa with the Af100... or even any DSLR for that matter. These are completely different animals in a completely different class. I trust that we don't have to go into this? :)

Bassman2003 said:
I would like an AF-200. Panasonic is always a great brand and I think they could knock it out of the park if they wanted to. To be frank, the AF-100 feels like my HPX-500. A great camera for it's time but it is a camera you will upgrade away from before it reaches end of life so to speak.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think the HPX-500 is a great camera that I don't see myself upgrading from anytime soon (or the HVX-200 for that matter). Just the fact that I can record with for hours on end in DVCPro HD with these cameras will keep them valuable for me for years to come. YMMV.


Shawn
 
A camera is not an investment it is a tool.
Click to expand...

Being that two different people + this statement, I dont understand the logic. Why wouldn't a tool be an investment? If you put money into buying a tool, or anything else for that matter, with the intent to use it for business, or to make money back. Why wouldn't it be an investment.

If a carpenter buys a new table saw, (which is a tool) and he uses it for jobs, wouldn't that be an investment? I guess Im missing something here.
 
maranfilms said:
If a carpenter buys a new table saw, (which is a tool) and he uses it for jobs, wouldn't that be an investment?
Click to expand...
Sure it is.

But the difference is, people are saying you PUT IT TO WORK to make it make its money back. You don't sit around thinking "wow, I bought this thing in 2011 for $4500, I bet in 2014 I'll be able to sell it for $5500." That's what folks mean when they say that the camera itself isn't an investment that is going to go up in value. It's electronics. It's going to go down in value. But if you go out and put it to work, you should make back 5x, even 10x your investment, within six months to a year.

So it is an investment exactly as the carpenter's table saw is an investment.

And those who invest in such tools, rarely concern themselves with what the residual value will be. They work it, they use it, they use it up, and when it's time to move on they sell it for whatever they can get for it.

Would we all prefer to live in a magical fairy land where when we buy cameras, they just go up in value and don't depreciate at all? Well, sure. But that ain't reality. Reality is that cameras go down in price, and they go down in resale value. And that's why I bought my most recent AF100 used, and saved about $1200 as compared to when I bought my first one.

Here's the harsh truth: if you can't make money with an AF100, then you probably shouldn't be buying one. And if you do make money with it, you're not really going to care all that much for what it'll sell for some day in the future, because it's currently making money for you.
 
This is where the imaging world gets subjective. We all have different needs and judges of quality. I have heard Barry speak about not comparing cameras from different classes for a long time, and I understand the reasoning, but it does not always apply. The fact remains that when we spend our money it spends all the same. So if I am going to buy a camera I want to compare to see what gets me the most value, image wise and usage wise. How could one not compare to make an informed purchase? I don't care about the box that the camera is supposed to be in...

My comments did not say the AF-100 nor the HPX-500 were not fine cameras. I just knew when I purchased the HPX-500 I would replace it when resolutions came up for the same amount of money, which did not take very long. I shoot a lot in 720p60 and have found the Varicam "H" model (with Nanoflash) to be that upgrade from the HPX-500. The Varicam cost me less than I was able to sell the HPX-500 for. One example of how things can get upside down and how it is useful to compare the entire spectrum of cameras available when shopping.

I have two GH2s and deep down wish Panasonic broadcast would give me more compelling reasons to upgrade to the better suited model. But outside of ergonomics, I can not see the reason to spend the thousands right now.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I have two GH2s and deep down wish Panasonic broadcast would give me more compelling reasons to upgrade to the better suited model. But outside of ergonomics, I can not see the reason to spend the thousands right now.
Click to expand...
Well, exactly like you said -- it gets subjective. I have an AF100 and a GH2, and I can't bring myself to shoot with the GH2 over the AF100, in just about any circumstance. For personal use and travel, yes, the GH2 gets the nod. But for anything serious, I can't give up all that the AF100 offers. So it's subjective.
 
Another way of looking at depreciation is that it brings the AF100 within the reach of another user group, amateurs who want to step up a league. I looked long and hard at the options available when I decided, as a rank beginner, to start using videos instead of stills to promote my work. Although my budget stretched only as far as DSLRs, I was dubious the usability of the format and was concerned about the significant cost of all the bolt ons that were seemingly needed to produce quality results. When I saw that for the same cost I could buy a low hours AF100 with most of those bolt ons already built in, I checked out the quality of work being produced with each camera. To my eye the AF100 was up there on image quality and with an ease-of-use factor that other cameras up to that price bracket simply couldn't match.

I believe buying the AF100 has given me the best tool currently available to do the job for the money I had available. When one considers all those other components necessary for the task of film or video making - in pre production: lenses, follow focus, rails, mics, boom poles, field recorders, etc., and the cost of hard drives and editing software for post production work - the cost of the camera body wasn't a big deal.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I have heard Barry speak about not comparing cameras from different classes for a long time, and I understand the reasoning, but it does not always apply. The fact remains that when we spend our money it spends all the same. So if I am going to buy a camera I want to compare to see what gets me the most value, image wise and usage wise. How could one not compare to make an informed purchase? I don't care about the box that the camera is supposed to be in...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't see how anyone can compare a 4:4:4 10bit image recorded in a RAW format to something recorded in 24Mb H.264. It's nice to see that DSLR or AVCCAM footage CAN cut nicely with RedRaw or ArriRaw... but that doesn't mean that there arent any limitations with MPEG4 and that we can judge these two things to the same standards. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Shawn
 
Essentially I agree, there are different animals at different price points. Sure cameras are not the same, nor was it ever mentioned that they are the same. Standards are for certain situations. Broadcast standard is different from cinema as well as web productions. It all depends upon how you will use the camera and if it fits for your work. There are times when 4:4:4 10bit would get in the way due to its shear size and processing requirements or be considered overkill.
 
Well the actual depreciation of the AF100 (if you use S/L depreciation over 5 years - which is generous for a camera these days) is $1,410 after 18 months. That puts the price at pretty much exactly what the camera is selling for.

So Panasonic is actually not selling it at some greatly reduced price. They are selling it at a reasonably depreciated price based on how long it has been out, and obviously market demand. So I don't really see what the problem is?

On top of all of that, as many have said, use the camera as a tool to make money, art, whatever you want - and the price doesn't really matter any more. If you bought it for $4,700 you clearly thought it was worth that amount, so I don't see why the depreciation matters, especially when it is in line with how you would depreciate it as an asset (unless you took section 179.)
 
FilmBoy77 said:
Do those cameras have a majority of those things? I'm asking not to be asmart a$# but because I have never considered a DSLR and have no idea what shortcomings they have other than no xlr inputs and a coupla other things that may or may not be included in whatever the hottest version is out now.
Click to expand...

I think the short answer is, no. :) DSLR cameras don't have:

- XLR inputs
- Built in ND filters
- Video like exposure tools (spot meter that measure IRE, zebra patterns, etc)
- HD-SDI I/O
- variable frame rates
- switchable NTSC - PAL modes
- timecode in/out

Perhaps others can chime in and let me know what I've missed.

Shawn
 
Yes on all the physical working features you mentioned but I think other important features include the ability to dial up and down all the settings including detail and saturation, gamma, color matrix, mped, etc. I have a GH2 and I can't use it for any serious work. The edge detail is uncontrollable on that camera, especially in bright daylight. It's all contrast and I can't control that. It's good but not as good as the AF100 to me. I just have so much more control over what I'm aquiring. Also the DSLRs suffer terrible moire which is not an issue with the AF100 or rolling shutter. So workflow, yes, but image as well. I'm loving the images I'm getting with the AF100.

I will reiterate an earlier assumption. It appears that a lot of the folks that find they don't like the AF100 have based their opinions on "images they saw" or "reports" but haven't really tried one.
 
Last edited:
hscully said:
Yes on all the physical working features you mentioned but I think other important features include the ability to dial up and down all the settings including detail and saturation, gamma, color matrix, mped, etc. I have a GH2 and I can't use it for any serious work. The edge detail is uncontrollable on that camera, especially in bright daylight. It's all contrast and I can't control that. It's good but not as good as the AF100 to me. I just have so much more control over what I'm aquiring. Also the DSLRs suffer terrible moire which is not an issue with the AF100 or rolling shutter. So workflow, yes, but image as well. I'm loving the images I'm getting with the AF100.

I will reiterate an earlier assumption. It appears that a lot of the folks that find they don't like the AF100 have based their opinions on "images they saw" or "reports" but haven't really tried one.
Click to expand...
Try converting that Gh2 footy in 5d2rgb. Hell, I even convert the af100 in 5d2rgb sometimes.
 
Well, at least here in Norway, you hardly see any af100's at work. Certainly not in broadcast. I think the camera let a lot of people down when they started using it, myself included. The people that I know who have used it are the ones that are unhappy with it, not the other way around as some people imply here.

I shot a 10 episode documentary for broadcast on 2 of the first af101' s that came out here, and I would never do that again.
I still have my AF101, but it's only because I can't sell it for anything worth selling it for. I rather get the odd income every no and then when I rent it out. Thankfully I made back the money I spent on it and then some, by renting it out.
Pat least I have a lot of lenses for my GH2 (that I only use for stills though)

I can understand why the original poster is very unhappy with Panasonic, a camera is an investment and if you are just starting out its not certain that you will make your money back in renting it out. I know I don't, but I learnt from that and have on every camera since.
 
Yoak said:
I can understand why the original poster is very unhappy with Panasonic, a camera is an investment and if you are just starting out its not certain that you will make your money back in renting it out. I know I don't, but I learnt from that and have on every camera since.
Click to expand...

A camera isn't an investment.

A 401K is an investment.

Sometimes real estate is an investment.

A camera is a production tool that starts losing value the day you buy it.

Regardless of which camera it is.

have you seen what RED ones are going for these days?

My AF-100 is still happily making me money and me and my clients continue to love the image it makes.
 
mcgeedigital said:
A camera isn't an investment.

A 401K is an investment.

Sometimes real estate is an investment.

A camera is a production tool that starts losing value the day you buy it.

Regardless of which camera it is.

have you seen what RED ones are going for these days?

My AF-100 is still happily making me money and me and my clients continue to love the image it makes.
Click to expand...

+1

Cameras have a limited lifespan now, and as quickly as they are changing I have made the decision to no longer purchase expensive cameras. They have become a rental item when needed above the cameras I already own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top