AF100 depreciation is bad for Panasonic

Yeah, I don't see cameras as an investment anymore. They used to be, yes -- when you were the guy with the $70,000 VariCam, and you were the only guy in town with a VariCam, and you rented it out for $2200/day, then ... yes, that was absolutely an investment.

But today? They're not an investment, they're practically disposable. At this price point, $3500, it's practically free. If you can't make your money back on an AF100 in the first two months of ownership, then you're in the wrong business.

Now, with that said, there's no denying the AF100 had a hard launch. People didn't know how to use it, and there was a LOT of pushback from the DSLR fans when they started to face that the DSLR really wasn't going to be the future, that it was actually going to be a stopgap measure. Nowadays no pros that I know of really aspire to or even pay attention to DSLRs, they all want to hear about the next large-sensor pro camera (whether that's AF100, FS100, BMC, F3, C300, C500, Alexa, KineRaw, whatever). So there's much less pushback from the DSLR users, and the camera is getting much more fair evaluation today.

The AF100 works. It does a good job. It isn't an Alexa. But it's incredibly better than a DSLR. And it's cheap. Way cheaper than anything else out there that's in any way comparable. It is a good camera. It puts out much better pictures than the HVX200, and the HVX200 was an absolute staple of lower-end professional production for 5 years.

There are other, more expensive, cameras out there that can do better (such as the F3). No argument. But at its price point, the AF100 is fine. And let's not forget that the BBC evaluated it and approved it for unlimited production use in the HD Specialty category, and that's no small endorsement. The camera is fine, if people will just learn to use it. Not everybody has to love it, clearly there's plenty of room for individual preferences, but it's not like it's "bad".
 
The perfectly good Bell and Howell 8mm (pre-super 8) camera I first used as a child didn't sell at my garage sale! It was in flawless condition. This really ticks me off! My Dad paid a lot of money for that camera.


Okay, seriously- it is disconcerting that digital cameras lose value so quickly. The fact is to change out the 'retina' of a film camera, you put in new film. Not quite that simple with sensors and onboard computers. My XL1's and 2's made as beautiful an image the day they sold as the day were bought new. So what? I like the AF-100 with most of the common caveats. Especially being able to use my collection of Nikon primes. They do require tweaking, but nobody pays you to shoot on Automatic, eh? Oh, and reading above me:
" And let's not forget that the BBC evaluated it and approved it for unlimited production use in the HD Specialty category, and that's no small endorsement."

That I wasn't aware of. Thank you, Barry Green, and could you point me to that with a link? BTW, as you've been told: your directions and illuminations on the AF-100 have been invaluable, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Yeah, I don't see cameras as an investment anymore. They used to be, yes -- when you were the guy with the $70,000 VariCam, and you were the only guy in town with a VariCam, and you rented it out for $2200/day, then ... yes, that was absolutely an investment.

But today? They're not an investment, they're practically disposable. At this price point, $3500, it's practically free. If you can't make your money back on an AF100 in the first two months of ownership, then you're in the wrong business.

Now, with that said, there's no denying the AF100 had a hard launch. People didn't know how to use it, and there was a LOT of pushback from the DSLR fans when they started to face that the DSLR really wasn't going to be the future, that it was actually going to be a stopgap measure. Nowadays no pros that I know of really aspire to or even pay attention to DSLRs, they all want to hear about the next large-sensor pro camera (whether that's AF100, FS100, BMC, F3, C300, C500, Alexa, KineRaw, whatever). So there's much less pushback from the DSLR users, and the camera is getting much more fair evaluation today.

The AF100 works. It does a good job. It isn't an Alexa. But it's incredibly better than a DSLR. And it's cheap. Way cheaper than anything else out there that's in any way comparable. It is a good camera. It puts out much better pictures than the HVX200, and the HVX200 was an absolute staple of lower-end professional production for 5 years.

There are other, more expensive, cameras out there that can do better (such as the F3). No argument. But at its price point, the AF100 is fine. And let's not forget that the BBC evaluated it and approved it for unlimited production use in the HD Specialty category, and that's no small endorsement. The camera is fine, if people will just learn to use it. Not everybody has to love it, clearly there's plenty of room for individual preferences, but it's not like it's "bad".
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up.
 
That sums it up well indeed, with the additional comment that now that there is one zoom that works really well with the AF100 (the 12-35 f2.8) and hopefully a big brother to follow (the 35-100 f2.8) the camera is fully versatile... With that little zoom, an EVF (the original Cineroids are cheap now and have red peaking) the camera is incredibly light and mobile.. and that package would be about $5,200 out the door... Pretty good I'd say...
 
yes completely with you there - the new 12-35 is a great little companion, particularly handheld.
i still smile when I see some of the images the af101 keeps on giving me - I'm in no rush to jump to the latest new shiney thing, it will serve me well up to the next generation of new shiney things.....invest in lenses
 
Mac said:
That sums it up well indeed, with the additional comment that now that there is one zoom that works really well with the AF100 (the 12-35 f2.8) and hopefully a big brother to follow (the 35-100 f2.8) the camera is fully versatile... With that little zoom, an EVF (the original Cineroids are cheap now and have red peaking) the camera is incredibly light and mobile.. and that package would be about $5,200 out the door... Pretty good I'd say...
Click to expand...
12-35 is a great lens and I will buy the 35-100 as well. If these where available from the start they would have sold twice as many AF-100's.
 
alexthecat said:
Let's face it: AF-100 has not been the new "DVX100" as we all wanted. It's a good camera, but not a great one. At least for my needs (indy movie etc.) there are cheper cameras with better image out of the box (GH2, MKII and III, 7D etc.).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I know these cameras are cheaper, but how do they make better images? Yes, the GH2 looks a bit sharper. But that's it. If sharpness is all there is to you then... But the Canons look like crap next to the AF100. Did you see the Zacuto shootouts?
 
xenic said:
" And let's not forget that the BBC evaluated it and approved it for unlimited production use in the HD Specialty category, and that's no small endorsement."

That I wasn't aware of. Thank you, Barry Green, and could you point me to that with a link? BTW, as you've been told: your directions and illuminations on the AF-100 have been invaluable, to say the least.
Click to expand...
The list was published about, oh, a year ago? It was I think right before the AF100 officially hit the market, or maybe a month or two thereafter. The BBC has several categories, and the particular one the AF100 was on was called the "HD Specialty" list. It includes cameras that would normally be used for a certain type or purpose other than general ENG, so the list includes the Red One, Red Epic, Alexa, Sony F3, and cameras like that, and the AF100 is also included. The caveat was that it requires the use of an external recorder, recording at a minimum 50mbps/4:2:2. They require that of all footage, so any camera (such as the F3 or AF100) that don't have 50mbps 4:2:2 on-board, would need to use an external recorder.

Here's a PDF link of the list of approved cameras: http://www.dvuser.co.uk/images/img/news/bbc-approve-ag-af101/bbc-approved-hd-cameras.pdf
 
AF100. Best bang for the buck that has all the features you need. PERIOD. I have NO regrets buying this camera. Once you dial it in it makes great images. It was the first kid on the block and even still the least expensive then and now. If you shoot Dlsr's and hate moire and aliasing, the AF100 is the cure without breaking the bank. Now if you have $100,000 to spend on a camera, the AF100 is not the choice. But if you're tired of shooting 7d rainbow eyebrows and $3-4000 dollars is what you have, take a look at the Af100. I know that if I sold the camera that I would miss it instantly. Now panny needs to release the 35-100 2.8. I have the 12-35 and it lives on the AF100.
 
Yes. The thing is if you only have $4,000 it seems you can't buy anything else that is nearly better. The FS100 is a trade off. So is any DSLR and in this case to much worse.

I also don't understand, if you are a working professional and make money with your camera, how showing up to a shoot with a little stills camera is more impressive than showing up with a professional camera such as a AF100 package.
In terms of image quality, no DSLR is BBC approved. The GH2 definitely isn't as far as I know, with or without hack. Heck have they approved even FS100 or FS700? The AF100 is. That should say something.
I also doubt most clients will even be able to tell the difference between the AF100 and any camera, unless you are working in the high end. But then you shouldn't be using anything bellow and Epic or Alexa anyways.

So to me it all seems more like a case of buyer's remorse want to have the latest toy really.
 
This is going to be one of the harshest posts Ive made on DVXUser, and as a mod should use my better judgement however, this thread riles me.

If more people were attuned to this is as a business you would see the AF100 is a great camera - delivers what you need on a shoe string from the outset - even when it was $5k. If you dont work in this industry full time and dont get your $ back quick smart, then its a hobby and you're indulging anyway so why does it matter? We used an AF102 to shoot a $150000 budget production. I must have been crazy?

No, the AF performed exactly what I asked. Ive seen some incredibly beautiful shots from AF100's. Stop making it the excuse.

Barry_Green said:
Nowadays no pros that I know of really aspire to or even pay attention to DSLRs, they all want to hear about the next large-sensor pro camera (whether that's AF100, FS100, BMC, F3, C300, C500, Alexa, KineRaw, whatever). So there's much less pushback from the DSLR users, and the camera is getting much more fair evaluation today.
.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.
 
SJX said:
I also don't understand, if you are a working professional and make money with your camera, how showing up to a shoot with a little stills camera is more impressive than showing up with a professional camera such as a AF100 package.

In terms of image quality, no DSLR is BBC approved. The GH2 definitely isn't as far as I know, with or without hack. Heck have they approved even FS100 or FS700? The AF100 is. That should say something. .
Click to expand...

I consider myself a working professional, and have several DSLR style cameras which we still use. It's not about impressing the client with which camera package you show up with, it's picking the right camera for the job at hand, and impressing the client with your finished work.

BBC TV approval is of no consequence to me. Seriously, are any of you shooting content for the BBC?

Look, I know you have been doing your online homework, gathering information, getting people's opinions and watching videos. But as others have suggested, its honestly pointless to compare two or three cameras which you have never actually used. Why? Because you are the limiting factor in the equation. In reality any modern camera is capable of delivering great images in the hands of a talented filmmaker. My advice, Take it or leave it... Unless you are independently wealthy, Rent, beg, steal, borrow, the cameras you are considering purchasing before you spend your hard earned money.

All the Best!
Dave
 
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.[/QUOTE]

Firstly let me say IMO some online criticisms are valid but most are posted by the mis-informed. I do not work for Panasonic but after selling my Sony PD150 and purchasing an HVX200 I never looked back, this P2 camera at it's price point was a revolutionary event.
I was able to wean my clients off a tape based workflo, the DVCpro codec was a dream on the time line...
I love the look I can achive on my AF100 using inexpensive Nikon primes.
I have recently purchased a AG-AC160a as a second camera to do legal videography.
Both Barry and Jan give informed support of these products and I'm very happy to be a consumer of Panasonic products. Yes there will be better products in the near future but the bottom line is - does your camera suit your needs and make you money - the rest lie in the talents of the user.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
Barry_Green said:
The camera is fine, if people will just learn to use it. Not everybody has to love it, clearly there's plenty of room for individual preferences, but it's not like it's "bad".
Click to expand...

This. So much this.

So very much of the backlash against this camera came from DSLR users who were used to turning a camera on and having it "just look good" (if I had a nickel for every time I'd heard that phrase out of a DSLR guy's mouth...) - people that have no idea what it's like to actually finesse an image in-camera. The vanilla image on the AF100 isn't great, but with a little tweaking it can be beautiful. Unfortunately, laziness rears its ugly head and these guys would rather waste time putting together a frankenrig than actually adjust settings and tweak an image like a real DP. Drives me nuts.

I do realize that for some shoots a DSLR is just the ticket, and there are some fantastically talented people that shoot on them. It's the people that have DSLR blinders on that I can't stand, and unfortunately, there are far too many of them still about.

- Jon
 
Not to incite our friends in the UK, but here in the former colonies if the picture looks good, we broadcast it. Often we broadcast pictures that don't look so good. Some low end reality programs come to mind. For the price point, the AF-100 puts out some damn fine pictures. Remember this is a first generation camera and as I understand it, a camera that was brought from concept to market in a relatively short time. I suspect Panasonic is working on a higher end 4/3 camera and/or AF 100 upgrade, so we can all save up the money we making with the AF 100 to afford one.
 
So much criticism of this camera is ridiculous. Sounds like sour grapes from some and pontificating from others. I won't get into billablles but the AF100 is the foundation of my business which has to make payroll, insurance, office rent, accountant, equipment, software, pay my mortgage and two vehicles...not to mention feed my family. If the camera is not working for you perhaps it's you.
 
Dealer perspective: I reember when the HPX250 was announced and we were very excited. I was so excited I got a demo camera and took it home and shot VFR and other stuff for the world to see. I sent the camera to Barry Green when I was done. It has just come from Kevin Railsback. After I posted the videos with music from bands used by permission a reseller, not the biggest one if you are wondering, set the camera for sale at $500 less than I had it for. I went back and saw the minimum advertised price. It was $500 less than what I thought. The camera entered the market with more than half the profit taken out. Dealers were NOT to make much money selling cameras. I guess this took care of the price inflation at the outset, but when certain resellers WONT be undersold, ALL resellers race to the bottom. IMHO the end user keeps making out.

Keep hitting me over the head.

Blackmagic Camera needs to have a pirate in their marketing, right? The people's camera! La raza!
 
Erik Naso said:
12-35 is a great lens and I will buy the 35-100 as well. If these where available from the start they would have sold twice as many AF-100's.
Click to expand...

Are these the "powered zoom" MFT lenses? I remember reading about there being some powered zooms that were going to be released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top