AF100 or HVX?

mainstreetprod

mainstreetprod

Veteran
I bought an original HVX200 5 years ago and have enjoyed the ride of making myself a better filmmaker by learning to use it. The 200a looks like it has enough advantages to justify an upgrade- BUT - if I looked at footage of the same subject from a 200a and an AF100 side by side, on say a Vimeo quality web video, what differences would I see (DOF aside)? How about on a large pro monitor? Is it worth the extra couple thousand? My uses would be commercials, documentary, web video and stock video.
 
The af-100's sensor is exponentially larger, so you will have much greater latitude. The only thing, IMO that you give up is the reliability of p2 and servo zoom.
 
The AF100 would be much cleaner than the HVX, and a true 1920x1080 picture as opposed to the HVX's lower resolution "fake" 1080 image. The HVX would afford you 4:2:2 over the AF100, but also the larger sensor, removable lens options, etc. I would also consider the HD-SDI / HDMI out.

I think the AF100 is a much smarter choice but that's me.
 
Personally, I wouldn't consider an upgrade from a 200 to a 200a .. it's better, but not significantly better.
I would consider a 200 to 170 before the 200 to 200a ... and that's mostly for the SDI output from the 170.

What I'm trying to get to is how much of an investment he as in his 200. For many commercials and some documentaries,
720p is fine for them. For web video, 720p is fine. Stock video varies depending on how "high-end" they want
the stock.

The AF100 is clearly a better camera .. but until we know more about his usage, it may be overkill.

jeff
 
I own both. With the AF100, you have much better control over DOF, much more sensitive sensor, much higher resolving power, not to mention the fact that you can slap almost any glass on it and it acts like a proper film camera (which is a big thing for me as I learned shooting 16mm). The HVX has P2, which is nice (but frankly a bit overkill on a camera like the HVX, IMHO, and not a reason to pick the HVX over the AF100), a servo zoom, easier to keep it in focus for ENG, run and gun, and concert work due to smaller sensor and larger DOF, and CCDs which are great for concerts and events where there is ALOT of flash photography and strobe lighting.

So, I perfer the AF100 for most things, it is a better camera in most cases (which it should be as it costs more and is newer than the HVX), but the HVX has its strengths and its place still... that said, I am looking to sell my HPX now that I have my AF100 when I originally planned to keep both, so yea...
 
"The AF100 is clearly a better camera .. but until we know more about his usage, it may be overkill...."

Usage as I mentioned would be commercials, (mainly web), docs and stock. Some of the stock is sold on typical websites like Istock and Revo, but some is sold by a high end stock house (Thought Equity Motion). Also, last year I shot a feature (DVD distribution and streaming only). I bought an HVX500 and shot the feature with it and my 200. The footage looked nearly identical with the 500 being able to achieve DOF easier. I love the look of Panasonic footage in general, but have sometimes been disappointed in the HVX resolution, especially when wide. Maybe it's just progressive vs interlaced, but it seems like my old VX1000 had sharper footage sometimes. I would love to have the Panny look with what I consider true 1080P high resolution. I do like the option of a power zoom though, as ENG cameras and the HVX and HPX have.

Any A-B tests where I can see frame grabs from HVX (or HPX) and AF100 side by side?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top