AF100 or AC90 for instructional videos?

D

dolphinstreet

Member
I had posted this question in a DLSR thread, but I should have asked in this forum. So here goes.

I do instructional videos by myself. I always use manual focus, but I need good audio, and using an external monitor for viewing is also necessary.

I am wondering what is a better buy for me - AC-90 or AF100?

I have a lead on a used AF100 (with Lumix 14-140 included) for $2,500 and the AC-90 is under $2,000. Not sure what is a better buy for my needs.
 
I'm currently doing some sort-of-instructional videos (well, reviews, mainly) and I've got both, and I use the AF100 90% of the time, maybe more. It's got more features, it's got uncompressed audio, it's way more sensitive, and with some cheap Nikon glass you can get superb sensitivity. The AC90 is a great all-in-one, I use it for outdoors stuff and when I need a second angle, but it struggles indoors. AC90 has a much better auto mode so if you need to leave a camera running unattended, the AC90 would be the preferable of the two for that purpose.
 
Thanks Barry.

I'm still thinking about how to make a good decision here. I have successfully been using the HVX200, but mine has a mechanical noise issue that I don't think is worth fixing. I do like the camera a lot otherwise, and i've even considered getting another one. It has all the features I need, except I haven't figured out how to use "live view" on an external monitor.

Although the picture could be sharper I think. Footage from more modern cameras seem sharper. Since I do instructional videos, a sharp picture quality is desirable.

In your opinion, will I get superior picture quality with the AF100? Is there some other camera you would recommend in my situation? I mostly just need manual focus, quality HD picture, uncompressed audio tracks (2) and ability to hook up an external monitor so I can easier see what I'm doing on camera.
 
Last edited:
The AF will be sharper, but not tremendously night-and-day sharper. The AC160A might be the ideal upgrade for you, unless you need shallow DOF; in that case I'd still go with the AF.

the AC90 is great for the price, but I don't know if the sensitivity would be good enough for what you do.
 
Sensitivity to light. AC90 is about 40 ISO, AC160A is about 320 ISO. AC160 could deliver the same brightness in 1/8 as much light as the AC90 would need.
 
I produce instructional/ training videos also. I use the 160A as well as the AF100. The AF100 gives me greater light sensivity (ref Barry) and options of shallow DOF. These are the options I have and I make my judgement on the task in hand. The 90 has its own strengths and you should really assess what camera you need based on the range of work you wish to do.
Personally , I have found the flexibility of the AF100 (102) drives me to want to use it more, purely because of the range of possibilities it offers over a small chip camera.

However, I have also used the 160A many times professionally and it is also a great camera. Horses for courses I think. All three are good tools, just consider the range of work you may be picking up in the future- IE talking heads interview definitely benefits from BCU and shallow DOF- it involves and engages the viewer more.
Cheers!
Rod
 
Due to Barry's praise of the AC90 I went with an AC90 for interviews and instructional videos. However It does depend on how much light you have for interior videos. I do have some lights and a large south facing window down one side of the room that is evocatively a soft box.
 
Well, seeing as I can get a used AF100 for 2,500 (only 21 hours) and the AC90 is only a few hundred less, the AF100 seems like a great buy.

I was looking at the Sony NX-30 as well, it looks awesome. But then it doesn't have complete manual controls for focus, iris and shutter speed.

So the AF100 it will be.
 
Dang, the deal fell through. Back to square one.

Not sure where to go to now. I can stretch to $2,500 max.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top