AF100 with 14-140 review from b&h site

Okay, so here's another question... I've reserved my AF100 order for late Feb/Early March. I am researching these lenses by reading opinions from people who've used them, but primarily I intend to use Leica R lenses because I've got a bunch.

But for a documentary-suitable zoom, I need something in the interim...

What is the optical quality of the 14-140? For the price I can live with f4 and clunky controls until something better comes along. But not if the picture suffers.
 
It's a solid performer. I'd buy it used and sell it for almost the same amount when you upgrade. It's still a sought after lens.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/Field-Test-Panasonic-Lumix-G-Vario-14-140mm-f4-59-ASPH-lens

Mac said:
Okay, so here's another question... I've reserved my AF100 order for late Feb/Early March. I am researching these lenses by reading opinions from people who've used them, but primarily I intend to use Leica R lenses because I've got a bunch.

But for a documentary-suitable zoom, I need something in the interim...

What is the optical quality of the 14-140? For the price I can live with f4 and clunky controls until something better comes along. But not if the picture suffers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Joshbalti said:
whatever happened to you know, just focusing you're camera manually? auto iris can be usefull in run and gun situations, but letting the camera decide what should and shouldn't be in focus always seemed a step to far; how to manually focus a camera properly should be the first thing you learn and is pretty much the basis of all videography/cinematography. why buy a 4-5 grand pro camera if you're incapable of using it properly?
Click to expand...
Since when is the AF100 a run-and-gun camera?
 
Even the earliest literature on the camera said it was designed for operation from a stable platform. If you're on the shoulder and expect to hold focus in most lighting situations, it's best to have a qualified 2nd AC just off to your left somewhere. The AF100 is an economy-priced digital cinema alternative that bridges the somewhat wide gap between DSLRs and Alexa, EPIC, F3, S12k and the others.

It has never been advertised as an EFP / ENG / event camera and the AF100 is going to let most operators down who benchmark it against a typical 2/3 shoulder or 1/3 handheld device.

Obviously, Warren Miller and NFL Films operators (and many celluloid-trained documentary film filmmakers) will have no trouble getting unbelievable results from the AF100 in over-the-top run-and-gun situations that would have news and reality operators riding the momentary auto-iris switch or dumping into auto-focus. Experience comes through doing and, in narrative applications, that means every "A" feature should be disabled.
 
Mac said:
What is the optical quality of the 14-140? For the price I can live with f4 and clunky controls until something better comes along. But not if the picture suffers.
Click to expand...
Here's the dpreview.com review of it.

Then, consider that it's designed to handle a 14-16 megapixel still image, but the AF100 only needs it to handle a 2.2-megapixel image... I think it looks fine. It's not up there with a fifty-thousand-dollar Cooke zoom, but it does an awful lot of stuff, and does it pretty inexpensively.
 
Erik Olson said:
Obviously, Warren Miller and NFL Films operators (and many celluloid-trained documentary film filmmakers) will have no trouble getting the AF100 to perform in over-the-top run-and-gun situations.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, I know of someone at NFL Films who's using the AF100. Don't know exactly what for, but -- yeah, I figure film guys will adapt easily to it.
 
Seeing Arri SR cameras (with no video taps, yet) still swarming the field after every NFL game is a testament to the format and the talent of individuals willing to practice the craft of filmmaking. If anything, DSLRs have forced a new generation to learn the basics of photography or produce results that fall flat. The DSLRs are especially unforgiving, actually. The recent Alexa vs DSLR ISO bracketing test really drives home how little room there is for improper exposure.
 
What about some of the better event/wedding pro's out there shooting 100% DSLR. I think the AF100 will be a step up from those in terms of usability. I think if you primarily shoot in a run and gun format, it get's easier for you to shoot with such camera's. Most of the higher payed wedding cinematographers are being forced to change over to SDOF type cams to be competitive. It's a bit harder, but certainly not out of the question. In fact you can actually gain a bit, since these cams can be used in lower light than most 1/2" cams out there. It may not be ideal, for some not used to run and gun shooting, but nowadays it's almost a necessity if you want to stay on top of our field of work to use one. It may sound strange to a lot of film guys, but for us event shooters, it's the reality we face or lose work to the guys using DSLR's.

Just my thoughts as an event shooter.
 
Last edited:
I know of someone at NFL Films who's using the AF100. Don't know exactly what for, but -- yeah, I figure film guys will adapt easily to it.
Click to expand...

This is actually perfect for the camera. As a long-time admirer of NFL films, I know that their use of slow motion, selective focus and color grading is right in keeping with the capabilities of the AF100.
 
Barry_Green said:
Interestingly enough, I know of someone at NFL Films who's using the AF100. Don't know exactly what for, but -- yeah, I figure film guys will adapt easily to it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't NFL film shooters use 2/3 video lenses on their Super 16's so they have powered zooms? I heard that somewhere.
 
Doesn't NFL film shooters use 2/3 video lenses on their Super 16's so they have powered zooms? I heard that somewhere.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. There's probably at least one person who shoots for NFL on this forum, so maybe he/she could answer that one. I did had a Fujinon modified by Century to use on my Aaton 10 years ago (for a longer zoom range), but part of the modification was to get rid of the motor. Most film guys don't like using the lens as a handle. There are very nice light-weight motors made for cine zooms too, so the cost of modifying a lens would be prohibitive if that was the goal. Also you'd have to rig a power source for the motor - not impossible, but again, more costly than off-the-shelf motors.
 
I read a few years back in one of those dozen of film making magazines (millimeter maybe?) that NFL Films had leveraged their super 16 bodies with the eng fujinon lenses that were coming out to produce great results. There was an NFL film series I caught, one of the guys they followed was shooting with an SR or Aaton with a eng lens...
 
Don't know about the ENG Lenses, but the one NFL Films guy I met was working the end zone with a high speed 16mm camera. He had a 2x power rifle scope that he used to find the football, and then switched over to the eye piece to grab the ball coming into the end zone.

Pretty much any highlight reel you see where the ball is in focus THE WHOLE WAY IN....that was him.

He was a rock star.

Oh, and no AF on that lens either.
 
I read a few years back in one of those dozen of film making magazines (millimeter maybe?) that NFL Films had leveraged their super 16 bodies with the eng fujinon lenses t
Click to expand...

yeah, that was the same lens I had, modified from Century... no motor though... The modification was lens mount, coverage, focusing and aperture ring (smoother, and large numerals). Completely rehoused in a new lens barrel. Good lens for the price (10 grand), but not as good as the super16 Canons which cost twice as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top