AF100 vs. full sized camera

K

ken37

Member
I'm currently using a Panasonic HPX-2000. I'm interested in the AF-100 largely b/c after working in the industry for 30 years, I'm tired of shouldering a 20 lb. camera pkg.
I've never really understood why the HPX-2000, which lacks the weight of a tape transport, needs to be so bloody heavy.

I'm wondering if someone would chime in here as to the relative differences I could expect using the AF-100 vs. my current rig. I currently have 2 high-end Fuji zooms -- a standard and wide-angle. I've used smaller cameras before, so I'm well aware of the pluses and minuses there. I'm most interested in the AF-100s codec, the camera's ability to handle contrast, and the post-production end of things.

Thanks.
 
Hi Ken,

I can't speak to the reason the HPX-2000 weighs what it does, but I can outline a couple basic differences you may see between the cameras.

First, it is important to understand that the AF-100 is - in my opinion - essentially a low cost digital cinema camera. It is catering toward users who wish to use it more for narrative/art/cine-documentary work and less (if at all) for ENG/EFP work.

Perhaps most important in terms of hardware is the appreciable increase in sensor size and sensor type. The AF-100 uses a single 4/3" CMOS sensor, as opposed to the 3 CCD 2/3" design in the HPX you have. This change in size, unfortunately, means that the lenses that you own will probably be useless because of excessive vignetting throughout most of their range (they may work on the telephoto end).

The camera uses the AVCHD codec, and features various quality levels from HE (6Mbps average) to PH (21Mbps average). An HD-SDI out on the camera will allow up to 8-bit 4:2:2 capture. So, speaking in purely in terms of hypothetical capability, I'd say that the HPX has the upper hand.

That being said, until people have an opportunity to really put the camera through its paces in the public realm, it's hard to say how much the codec will help or hinder the cameras performance on things like resolution, artifacting, or, as you mentioned, contrast.

Post depends on what NLE you are using. FCP users generally transcode to an intermediary codec like ProRes 422 LT before rendering out the deliverable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ken

Theres some really major differences going on.

First of all, your HPX2000 is a superior camera. And I am going to assume here that your 2000 has the AVCIntra board.

Whilst technology has improved things very quickly, your still not going to get out of a $6000 cam what you will from a $27000 camera.

For starters you have 10 bit 4:2:2 recording directly to P2, the max you can get from the AF100 is 8 bit 4:2:2 from the HD-SDI out.

The 2000 is CCD, no mos skew, flash banding or any of the inherent issued with CMOS - but it seems these things are improving. The 2000 is going to be applicable to a much greater range of applications with the pro outs to support things like genlock etc - it can do ENG / EFP, plus everything the AF100 can. Now youll notice I said applicable and didnt use terms such as CANT for the AF100, because as you know any camera can be used for anything, but how applicable is it to that application? I can tell you unreservedly, if I were a harsh environment, Id never not choose an HPX2000 over an AF100, well we dont know what the 100 is going to be capable of there, but the 2000 and p2 is proven. HPX2000 - pro zoom lenses the list goes on and on.

The AF100 has a much bigger chip, that allows the use of many still and cinema lenses when a mount adapter is purchased (readily available and more becoming available), so very flexible with lens choice.

And the obvious one which pertains to you - its much lighter than a 2000.

Workflow - there are options.

Record AVCHD to SD card @ 4:2:0 long gop.

Transcode to an I frame codec such as prores. Many users of premiere pro are preferring to work directly in AVCHD as premiere pro cs5 with the mercury engine enabled to a cuda capable card whips through it.

Personally I would never edit in long gop codec - again.

Record directly to prores via HD-SDI to something like the new ki pro mini - 8bit 4:2:2

I Frame prores files ready for immediate edit.

Ken we all have great hopes that the AF100 will be a solid performer - as yet no one has seen the final 100% complete version, so with the final product - nothings 100%.
 
One more thing to consider is your 2000 is very well built for stability on the shoulder. The smaller cameras require some sort of shoulder rig to give you the stability you are familiar with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top