AF100 lived up to the HYPE?

I am very happy with the camera. For the price point and what it delivers it has no rivals.

I have been torturing it with gradients and deep blacks along with very bright highlights. It takes a bit of dialing in, but it produces beautiful video.

I will be using it a lot in my productions, my 7D is now retired to stills only.

It is a very usable and easy to work camera, with incredible choices for lenses. If you SDOF and good workability this is the only act in town in this price range.
 
Absolutely!

I am simply STUNNED at the AF100's performance in every way. I also have a GH2 as my backup or B-cam. These two cameras are performing beyond my most wildest expectations. I now plan to sell my Canon 60D and just keep my 7D for photography use. Once again it looks like Panasonic has it out of the park, way out, with the AF100 and GH2.

I'm not loyal to any brand, but having evolved from a Sony VX2000 (1998) to Panny HVX200 (2004) to Canon 7D (last year) to the AF100, I would never look back. All I can say is the AF100 meets my demands in every way possible: spot on exposure with the waveform monitor, hi-res screen (lacking on the HVX200), long record times, overcranking to 60fps at 1080p, the ability to use any lens, no moiring. As an independent documentary film maker, what more could I ask for?
 
Last edited:
I just came back from my first job shoot with my AF101 and Olympus 14-35/35-100. We did interviews at the airport and at the central station in Stockholm as well as some interiors in a store and garage. A very mixed set of lights indeed. Both shadow and direct sun outside. Fluorescent of the cheapest sort in the garage. Looking at the footage in 1080p full screen on my laptop revels everything and it looked so great. High resolution, great colours, great shallow DOF. I couldn't find anything to complain about expect me missing focus and doing some bad slides.

Audio was captured via one AT875 mounted on the camera and one AT897 as interview mic. I know it's not the greatest to do interviews with but it sounded great. This camera is just superb for what it is.

Here's one screen capture from one of the interviews:

View attachment 28614
 
I got to play with one awhile back. It's cool, but I'm not ready to jump off the DSLR bus quite yet. The DSLR workarounds seem like second nature these days, we've adjusted our workflow to compensate for any minor hangups.

The noise differences between the 5D and AF100 seemed very obvious when compared side by side on 17" panasonic production monitors. That being said, there were no ped/gamma/etc tweaks made to attempt to minimize it. Like I said, it's pretty sweet but I'll be holding off until the next generation of this new breed comes out. To each his own, let you work speak for itself. No need to get heated.

-KD
 
Last edited:
dmpsk8 said:
The noise differences between the 5D and AF100 seemed very obvious when compared side by side on 17" panasonic production monitors. That being said, there we no ped/gamma/etc tweaks made to attempt to minimize it.
Click to expand...

The difference in aliasing and moire is also pretty obvious on a 17" production monitor as well. There is no cure or workaround for moire or aliasing on a 5D/7D, but a little noise is an easy fix in post with neat video. I find it interesting that noise is brought up but the lack of aliasing and moire are not touted enough. I just about pulled my hair out when I had a 7D. The worst part about aliasing and moire, once you see it you can't unsee it. Your eyes grow accustomed to spotting it immediately in footage. And then there's that worry of having a shot be ruined by it. I don't miss second guessing whether a shot is usable, it frees you up to focus on more important things.

It's ironic that you forget how much worrying about workarounds can steal from the ability to just be creative. I have a small theory. I think in some ways the DSLR footage available has been less creative because it is hard not to fall into the trap of buying accessories to make it behave like a normal camera to allow you to be creative. And because you need so many extra tools to make it usable it can quickly distract from the other areas that need tending.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
The difference in aliasing and moire is also pretty obvious on a 17" production monitor as well. There is no cure or workaround for moire or aliasing on a 5D/7D, but a little noise is an easy fix in post with neat video. I find it interesting that noise is brought up but the lack of aliasing and moire are not touted enough. I just about pulled my hair out when I had a 7D. The worst part about aliasing and moire, once you see it you can't unsee it. Your eyes grow accustomed to spotting it immediately in footage. And then there's that worry of having a shot be ruined by it. I don't miss second guessing whether a shot is usable, it frees you up to focus on more important things.

It's ironic that you forget how much worrying about workarounds can steal from the ability to just be creative. I have a small theory. I think in some ways the DSLR footage available has been less creative because it is hard not to fall into the trap of buying accessories to make it behave like a normal camera to allow you to be creative. And because you need so many extra tools to make it usable it can quickly distract from the other areas that need tending.
Click to expand...

BIG PLUS ONE.


Just shot a video on Monday with a woman speaking, and she was wearing a herringbone blazer, which would have KILLED any DSLR.

Some things like audio, can be worked around, but there are few if any ways to work around the inherent limitations of how the image is made on a dslr.
 
Thats seems like pretty interesting tone, coming from a mod. Just contributing my take on the conversation, keep it cool.

Moire is big problem, don't get me wrong. You have to choose the right tool for the job, and there are plenty times we put the DSLRs aside for that reason. But that being said, our work is in no way hindered by DSLR "problems" these days. We have killer pre-pro, and if the climate is wrong for DSLRs we pull out the RED, HPX, or whatever gets the job done.
 
I thought the AF100 was supposed to be a cinema camera? Now interviews and corporate videos are being talked about for comparison purposes? Huh??

Sure aliasing and moire might be bad, but I have yet to have a single client complain about my DSLR footage. From my smaller clients to my national clients, no one has commented on aliasing or moire and have been ecstatic about the footage that the Canon DSLRs have provided. That being said, I can understand and respect that the AF100 beats the DSLRs on paper and definitely in certain situations. I, like dmpsk8 have gotten used to the DSLR workflow and feel no need to upgrade to the AF100 yet. Clients are satisfied (both big and small) with DSLR footage and when the project warrants it, I just rent a RED.

However, once I get started on my documentary, the AF100 will be on the list of items that need purchasing. For the type of scheduling and shooting I'll be doing, it'll make the most sense considering my budget. I just don't particularly care for the "look" I've seen come out of it. Footage looks great, but it lacks "mojo" in my opinion (this coming from a previous DVX100b owner).

To each their own and best tool for the job and all that,

Kegan
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I have used one, and as already mentioned the workflow and ease of use is much different (better) than the DSLR experience. As far as noise goes, I blame this on improper and cheap lcd monitors/monitoring, and some issues with NLE programs improperly handling AVC files in the post production chain. If you are just judging noise and banding based on a few vimeo clips you are missing the big picture. From what I've seen the image is very clean and usable shooting at higher iso's.
Click to expand...

Not commenting on the AF100 itself, but this doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but this is the equipment people will watch, hardly anyone will watch on calibrated high end monitors. And unfortunately AVCCAM (or AVCHD) edited native doesn't hold up in post production at all, particularly 3rd generation on. While DVCPRO HD or XDCAM EX (in FCP- rendered as ProRes) will have minimal deterioration, can't say the same about AVCHD in CS or other NLE's editing native.

Isaac_Brody said:
Also, if you can't get a filmic image from this camera there is a good chance that you aren't lighting properly. It has that Panasonic mojo, reminds me a lot of the DVX, and if you shoot without contrast or proper lighting ratios you are not going to get an impressive image.
Click to expand...
This is true, I would say a vast majority of bad looking video are bad looking due to lighting, scene composition and bad acting.
 
robertrogoz said:
And unfortunately AVCCAM (or AVCHD) edited native doesn't hold up in post production at all, particularly 3rd generation on. While DVCPRO HD or XDCAM EX (in FCP- rendered as ProRes) will have minimal deterioration, can't say the same about AVCHD in CS or other NLE's editing native.
Click to expand...

AVCCAM holds up just fine in FCP7 for both keying and color correction when imported as ProRes.
 
robertrogoz said:
Not commenting on the AF100 itself, but this doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but this is the equipment people will watch, hardly anyone will watch on calibrated high end monitors. And unfortunately AVCCAM (or AVCHD) edited native doesn't hold up in post production at all, particularly 3rd generation on. While DVCPRO HD or XDCAM EX (in FCP- rendered as ProRes) will have minimal deterioration, can't say the same about AVCHD in CS or other NLE's editing native.
Click to expand...
3rd generation? why would it reach that far?
 
Hunter007 said:
I thought the AF100 was supposed to be a cinema camera? Now interviews and corporate videos are being talked about for comparison purposes? Huh??

Sure aliasing and moire might be bad, but I have yet to have a single client complain about my DSLR footage. From my smaller clients to my national clients, no one has commented on aliasing or moire and have been ecstatic about the footage that the Canon DSLRs have provided. That being said, I can understand and respect that the AF100 beats the DSLRs on paper and definitely in certain situations. I, like dmpsk8 have gotten used to the DSLR workflow and feel no need to upgrade to the AF100 yet. Clients are satisfied (both big and small) with DSLR footage and when the project warrants it, I just rent a RED.

However, once I get started on my documentary, the AF100 will be on the list of items that need purchasing. For the type of scheduling and shooting I'll be doing, it'll make the most sense considering my budget. I just don't particularly care for the "look" I've seen come out of it. Footage looks great, but it lacks "mojo" in my opinion (this coming from a previous DVX100b owner).

To each their own and best tool for the job and all that, Kegan
Click to expand...

How did you arrive at the conclusion that interviews and corporate videos are not "cinema" style productions? They are, in fact, exactly that; at least they should be.

If your clients never complain about aliasing and moire, you are talented enough to know how to avoid scenes that ruin the footage; good for you.

Can you name any situation where a DSLR is a superior choice to the AF100, other than the more shallow DOF of the 5D or the DSLR tiny footprint in a very tight space? In every regard, ergonomics, professional connectors, sound quality, picture quality, variable frame-rates, synchroscan, and filter wheel, the AF100 is not just superior, but clearly superior.

Furthermore, fully tricking out a DSLR to have the features of the AF100 pretty well renders moot the price advantage of a cheaper DSLR body and you still won't match the AF100.

Yes, the best tool for the job. I can think of very few where the best tool is a DSLR. No! Wait! I've got it! Stills. Yep; the DSLR is definitely superior at stills; after all, they are stills cameras...

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
What do you digital filmmakers think of the ergonomy, the handling, how does it fullfill your expectations with handheld documentary work, operation, focusing, the weight and stability with lenses on it...

Please give your 'naked' experience, without all the great workaround stuff and things one can buy... :badputer:

TNX
 
the way the nikon to m4/3 adapter is, you don't need to buy one for every lens. its very easy to mount and unmount a lens.
 
joesiv said:
However, what if you didn't quite have it dialed in right, and your broadcast calibrated monitors minimized the noise in the 0-5 IRE range, whereas your viewers primarily are boosting that range. What a disappointment that would be to me. Actually and it was evident in many uploaded clips from very experienced shooters pre-release.
Click to expand...

Actually its not something that concerns me a great deal. Again if my workflow is clean and no part of the process artificially lifts gamma Im ok. Im not terribly fussed about the lowest denominator here - people watching on uncalibrated computer screens, theyre used to seeing rubbish and are probably OK with it. If its something that goes through my REC.709 worfkflow say to a network, again Im not worried about the lowest denominator - most HDTV screens come shipped with NR on and a bunch of other things for a clean signal. And if they have their screen set with some kind of gamma lift, theyre used to seeing some noise. Not to mentions whats going on when its output from the network in HD through mpeg2.

And FWIW people on this forum are not my clients. (Actually there are a couple that are members here but they dont post).

And as far as getting a clean image - I started off by using the same preferred settings I had on my HPX500 and it was great
 
Alvise Tedesco said:
That's interesting. How?
I'm using Nikons on a 7D. I thought I will have to buy more adapters now for an AF100 (1 for each lens).
Click to expand...

manglerBMX said:
the way the nikon to m4/3 adapter is, you don't need to buy one for every lens. its very easy to mount and unmount a lens.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have been clearer...sorry.... I meant that I don't have to deal with my Red Rock 35mm adapter (M2) and loss of light...and size.

...and again, yes just a simple Nikon to m4/3's adapter...easy lens changes.
 
Getting this thread back on track from the evil thread-hijackers, I would ask what precisely do you mean by "hype?"

If you mean does the AF100 overcome every flaw in DSLR cameras, the ergonomic nightmares, the deal-breaking, shot ruining moire & aliasing, and a host of other woes, at a price comparable to a fully tricked-out DSLR, the answer is, yes. The AF100 is superior to any DSLR in every way.

If you mean does the AF100 deliver image quality on par with a Red, Alexa, or film, the answer is no, and furthermore you're naive for even entertaining the idea that it might.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top