AF100a or Sony x70 for upgrade from HMC-150

M

Mountain Wolf Films

Member
It's finally time for me to upgrade from my HMC-150. I'm stuck between the AF-100A or the Sony x70...
Both are the same price on B&H ($1999),but I'm used to Panasonic cameras so I feel like I would be right at home with the AF100a. However, it is an aging camera, and the AVCHD 4:2:0 codec just doesn't do it for me anymore. However, the x70 has 4:2:2 internal recording and a more hefty codec. However, the AF100a offers interchangeable lenses (which I am willing live without). The x70 seems better in terms of bit rate and codec, however, I am concerned that the x70 is lacking the gamma curve settings that are available on the AF100a, and I don't know if it will provide that cinematic look that I loved so much about the HMC's cine-gammas. Also, the touch screen on the x70 seems like a bit of a consumer-ish feature, especially for the XD-CAM line. Both have their pros and conss, but I can't decide between the two...

Any suggestions would be appreciated!
 
Last edited:
*Facepalm* you're right, Don't know what I was thinking! In that case I may just go with the AF100 for familiarity's sake and a slightly shallower DOF. Thanks for your correction.
 
If you keep the highlights under control, the AF100a has the 'look' for cinematic type work....

Cheers....Tye
 
Criticism of the AF100 centers on four issues: (1) Highlight handling; (2) noise; (3) sharpness and (4) the AVCHD codec. The first two can be dealt with by lighting carefully and choosing an appropriate gamma setting (I like B.Press, but then I'm an old Kodachrome and video news shooter). The sharpness issue is due to the AF100's relatively strong anti-aliasing filter, which was put in there, I think, as a reaction to the first generation video-capable DSLRs that often had horrible alias problems. They may have gone too far, but it's part of the AF100 "look" and not a bad thing if you take advantage of it in your narrative and production design. There's not so much to be done about the codec, unless you use an external recorder, but again, if you can shoot so no really aggressive grading is necessary in post, it won't necessarily get in your way.

I've looked at several cameras recently to replace my AF100 and have come to the conclusion that it's still viable for some of the work I do and can produce lovely images when you understand it well and treat it within its capabilities and limitations. Especially considering that I already own it and a bunch of compatible lenses, and the features and convenience of the little box just have never been beat. The X70 looks great too -- especially its size and weight -- but I've invested a lot into learning how to get the best out of the AF100 and don't see that the Sony offers enough more for me to switch right now.

- Greg
 
I own the Sony and it also is weak on highlight handling, but is pretty good on noise and sharpness and has 10-bit 4:2:2. It's highly gradable, plus it just got an upgrade to 4K (although 8-bit 4:2:0). At $2000 for the camera and $500 more for the 4K upgrade, it's a lot of camera for the money.

However, I've got the budget to move up to a $4K - $5K level camera, and am really looking forward to seeing the new DVX200.
 
As much as I wish I could consider the DVX200, $4995 is going to be out of my budget, which is around $2500. Comparing the features of the AF100a, with it's interchangeable lenses and slightly larger sensor, and the x70, with 4:2:2 50mbps and 4k firmware (which appears to only be UHD 4K rather than DCI 4K), which camera provides the best value for the money today? I'm sure I could get a cinematic look out of the x70 if I set up the picture profiles properly, but as silly as it sounds, I don't want the x70's small, consumer-like appearance to scare away potential clients...I shoot a lot of cinematic spots but also like to do a lot of heavy color grading and Greenscreen work as well.
 
As much as I've been loath to deal with a DSLR, I've been very pleasantly surprised by the GH4. You may want to also take a look at that. My AF100 is still my workhorse, but that is largely because the bulk of what I shoot right now is largely run and gun-ish. Otherwise, I would have switched to the GH4 being my workhorse... and this is from someone who hates dealing with DSLR's. If you're shooting cinematic spots and doing heavy color grading and green screen, the 10bit 4:2:2 and 4k output of the GH4 coupled with an external recorder like an Atomos Ninja Star or Blackmagic's upcoming Video Assist might serve you better than the AF100a. And while not the fastest lens around, the 14-140 is still fairly good for relatively cheap, and is still faster than the HMC150. A GH4/14-140 combo is still under your budget, and has a better sensor and internal recording options than the AF100a.

[EDIT] The GH4 will also be getting VLog eventually (there are demo versions out in the wild, if you check out the GH4 forum).
 
I agree with all the AF100 users above. I still have my AF100. I've shot a lot with it and it has been a dream for me. I see you said you do a lot of heavy grading. I found that the best way to manage the AF100 (reiterating something above, I think) was to try to get the look I wanted, as close as possible, in camera. Sure, I could pull down the blacks and punch it up a little but push too hard and the 8 bit 4:2:0 falls apart.

I hadn't worked with the AF100A. Do you have a recorder for the HD/SDI output? It is 4:2:2 but still 8 bit, so you might want to arrange a test to make sure you can push it around as much as you might need too. If that combo works for you you'll be really happy with the AF100. I was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top