AF100A price reduction?

yohenk said:
Speaking for myself: no. It is only good if you expose it right and give it plenty of light. But if you do just that (ok, focus and frame right help too), the camera offers good/great pictures. In a very complete package. For a decent price. Just get to know the camera and its limitations and it can be a very valuable tool.
Click to expand...

Thinking of cameras in approx. the same price range - all right, I mean fs100 specifially - can someone tell me how and why it is that the af100 is more demanding as far as nailing exposure goes? Is it harder to achieve? Is the fs100 more tolerant of sub-par exposure? How can that be? I mean, they are using the same codec and have the same DR (more or less), how is it that you need to nail exposure more exactly for the af100 footage to be acceptable? And speaking of needing "tons" of light, didn't Barry run some tests that show only marginal advantage of the fs100 in low-light... how often do you shoot in extreme low light to where that difference between af100 and fs100 will be key?

I'm asking sincerely, not arguing - I just want to understand. Thanks!
 
Well it is crucial not to blow out big highlights and skintones. Highlights here and there can be ok. But if you overexpose a face I do believe it goes more radically wrong than with other cameras I have worked with. People turn into aliens and there is no proper undo. Skin can look ok on the LCD, and alien like on a screen. So you need to monitor that with zebra and waveform available on the camera.

However I feel there is nothing wrong with shooting conciously :)
 
Last edited:
The AF100 exposes skin tones beautifully, if you keep them under 82 IRE. The only way to blow out the skintones is to grossly overexpose -- so, as the old saying goes, don't do that. Use your zebras. Don't let skin go hotter than 82 IRE, and it will look fanstastic.
 
dhart1949 said:
Took me about 5 seconds to find this on google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cffMtcSUnc and then there's this https://vimeo.com/65205271
Click to expand...

Neither video seems to have been recorded with an outboard recording device.... which makes it essentially useless for anyone wanting to compare the already well known qualities of the original AF100 with the A model.

If anyone can find a link to the A using a recorder (thus some measure of whether or not the enhanced bit rate makes any difference), please post it. Better yet, a comparison video shooting the same scene with both internal recording and external recorder.
 
Sounds more like a controlled environment (ie movie, lit sit down interview, etc)-suited cam more than a "running around in any kind of environment including low light getting b-roll" kinda cam. I would be more likely to find myself in the latter than the former.
 
OldCorpse said:
Thinking of cameras in approx. the same price range - all right, I mean fs100 specifially - can someone tell me how and why it is that the af100 is more demanding as far as nailing exposure goes? Is it harder to achieve? Is the fs100 more tolerant of sub-par exposure? How can that be? I mean, they are using the same codec and have the same DR (more or less), how is it that you need to nail exposure more exactly for the af100 footage to be acceptable? And speaking of needing "tons" of light, didn't Barry run some tests that show only marginal advantage of the fs100 in low-light... how often do you shoot in extreme low light to where that difference between af100 and fs100 will be key?

I'm asking sincerely, not arguing - I just want to understand. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I respect Barry, but my personal tests showed significant
(to me) advantages in image quality and low light for the FS100 when compared to the AF100.
And I'm not the only one that found this, you can read Adam Wilte's very extensive review complete
with test charts and all kinds of info here:
http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/review_sony_nex-fs100_super35_lss_avchd_camcorder/P4
Read the last page (page 4) for his conclusions on the two cameras.

However the missing ND is the Achilles heel of the FS100. I have the Xume system which is
really nice, but its another added expense. The AF100 is ready to go pretty much.
So you make your choice hey, either one is nice. Of course if you have more money
you can get the FS700 which has the nice features of both, but costs twice as much.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I respect Barry, but my personal tests showed significant
(to me) advantages in image quality and low light for the FS100 when compared to the AF100.

However the missing ND is the Achilles heel of the FS100.
Click to expand...

Of course, you wouldn't need an ND wheel when shooting in low light. A ND wheel would be nice on the FS100 (or for that matter the VG series), but for anyone shooting primarily at night or doing interviews, it's a complete non-factor.

For those that shoot during the day, I've always thought the difference was overblown - there's literally dozens of low cost ways to get an ND filter in front of a lens. A ND wheel is a nice feature to be sure, but hardly a deal breaker for most shooters I'm guessing.

Heck, if it was, no one would ever use a DSLR. Of course, some might find is an absolutely needed feature, no doubt about it.
 
Last edited:
jdv said:
Neither video seems to have been recorded with an outboard recording device.... which makes it essentially useless for anyone wanting to compare the already well known qualities of the original AF100 with the A model.

If anyone can find a link to the A using a recorder (thus some measure of whether or not the enhanced bit rate makes any difference), please post it. Better yet, a comparison video shooting the same scene with both internal recording and external recorder.
Click to expand...

I doubt if you're going to be able to judge the efficacy of a 10 bit external recorder watching a flash codec streamed over the public internet. But maybe you have better eyes than I :-)
 
dhart1949 said:
I doubt if you're going to be able to judge the efficacy of a 10 bit external recorder watching a flash codec streamed over the public internet. But maybe you have better eyes than I :-)
Click to expand...

One thing's for sure, you can't judge footage that doesn't exist. Or download it for that matter. In any case, if you have those links, please share 'em and I'll suffer through.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I respect Barry, but my personal tests showed significant
(to me) advantages in image quality and low light for the FS100 when compared to the AF100.
Click to expand...

I have both the AF105A and the FS700 (along with a GH2). I can tell you that it isn't necessarily easier to "nail exposure" on the Sony than it is on the Panasonic. In fact, I really miss the waveform monitor on the FS -- a fairly major oversight in my estimation. You can blow highlights on the FS just as easily if you're not conscientious. I like both cameras very much and have tested both extensively using the same lenses on both. As it perhaps is to be expected, the dynamic range and image quality is better on the Sony and it's marginally less noisy. For instance, to my eye I can extend the settings to ISO 1250 on the FS before the same type of noise begins to appear that is on the AF at ISO 400. That said, I think the AF is pretty darned good and more than capable in nearly any shooting environment. Also, the form factor (especially the LCD placement) is more pleasing to me as well. I bought the AF with the idea of using it on more "dirty" industrial factory shoots where I didn't want to take the more expensive equipment. However, I've unexpectedly found myself using it on interviews and some candid setups as well. I've been very pleased with the results I've achieved by pairing the Lumix 12-35 with the AF in those situations.

As everyone will readily admit, the glass makes a significant difference. If we're honest, in very high contrast situations, EVERY video camera is going to struggle to some degree. Point ANY video camera at a daylight window and try to hold foreground room detail without blowing the highlights! Pretty challenging, even for the FS700.

To summarize, in my humble opinion, you can't go wrong with the Panasonic AF100/AF100A -- particularly at its price point. I should also say that the expanded focus and 1080/60p of the "A" series is really nice to have onboard, too. I can easily see myself using it for the next two to three years for certain projects.
 
Last edited:
dreallen said:
Here are two examples of AF100 with Convergent Design NANO Flash. The Showdown video to me is AMAZINGLY cinematic and it has caused me to buy the CDN myself. I am shooting my feature with it soon. But keep in mind I have the AF100 and not the "A" model. Like this was shot on. http://vimeo.com/18734699 Showdown: http://vimeo.com/26944314
Click to expand...

Neither of those videos were shot with an A model. And again, I don't think anyone is saying the standard AF100 can't produce lovely images - it clearly can. But the $64,000 question (well, at least a $1,500 question) is whether or not the A model produces images better in any respect then the standard model when using a recorder.

Certainly focus assist is nice feature - one more essential in many ways then a built-in ND filter - but is it worth $1,500? Given the apparent lack of interest in the A, the answer seems to be "no" for new camera buyers. All of which leads to my suggestion that Panny lowers the MSRP price even further.
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
............. my personal tests showed significant (to me) advantages in image quality and low light for the FS100 when compared to the AF100. And I'm not the only one that found this, ..........
Click to expand...
Camera comparisons used to be relatively easy - then manufacturers started using all sorts of electronic processing "tricks" to try to squeeze every last ounce out of them, and it all got very difficult..... :)

As far as low light goes, it's in-camera noise reduction that makes life so difficult. At first sight a given camera can superficially appear very clean - but is that because of outstanding front end performance or electronic noise reduction? You may ask "does it matter?" if in either case the result is a noise free picture?

A lot may depend on what subsequently happens with the images. The problem with electronic noise reduction is that in reducing the noise, a lot of the subtlety of the image is lost. May not matter too much with simple viewing, but as with too much compression, it can limit severely subsequent post work, and may be at the expense of other factors like resolution.

And the evidence is that the AF100 DOES use quite aggressive noise reduction, even compared to something like the FS100. Best evidence comes from seeing what happens to apparent noise when the gain is increased. Quite simply, it doesn't increase in line with what should be expected - and by far the most likely explanation is that up the gain and you up the noise reduction.

In a camera at this price level it's probably a sensible design compromise, but in no way should it be seen as a substitute for a camera with intrinsically better front end performance.

And that is why there seem to be two schools of thought. At first sight the FS100 and AF100 may appear to have similar low light performances, but go a bit more deeply into it and it becomes clear the FS100 is far less reliant on in-camera noise reduction - and that can only be seen as a good thing.

It's worth mentioning that noise reduction is something that once done, that's it. It's burnt in. Record a less treated signal and far more noise reduction can be done in post compared to one treated in camera. And that's one reason why a far more expensive camera may not look that much better than a far cheaper one on simple viewing of the output. It's superiority may only really truly come into it's own when the images start getting post work done to them.
 
jdv said:
Of course, you wouldn't need an ND wheel when shooting in low light. A ND wheel would be nice on the FS100 (or for that matter the VG series), but for anyone shooting primarily at night or doing interviews, it's a complete non-factor.

For those that shoot during the day, I've always thought the difference was overblown - there's literally dozens of low cost ways to get an ND filter in front of a lens. A ND wheel is a nice feature to be sure, but hardly a deal breaker for most shooters I'm guessing.

Heck, if it was, no one would ever use a DSLR. Of course, some might find is an absolutely needed feature, no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are doing interviews outside in the day it would be nice. But I get what you are saying. Of course I'm in
the minority that never did use a DSLR for video, so I like to have the video camera things on the video cameras.....
and that's where the AF100 shines in my opinion, it has pretty much everything you'd expect.
 
Firstbase said:
I have both the AF105A and the FS700 (along with a GH2). I can tell you that it isn't necessarily easier to "nail exposure" on the Sony than it is on the Panasonic. In fact, I really miss the waveform monitor on the FS -- a fairly major oversight in my estimation. You can blow highlights on the FS just as easily if you're not conscientious. I like both cameras very much and have tested both extensively using the same lenses on both. As it perhaps is to be expected, the dynamic range and image quality is better on the Sony and it's marginally less noisy. For instance, to my eye I can extend the settings to ISO 1250 on the FS before the same type of noise begins to appear that is on the AF at ISO 400. That said, I think the AF is pretty darned good and more than capable in nearly any shooting environment. Also, the form factor (especially the LCD placement) is more pleasing to me as well. I bought the AF with the idea of using it on more "dirty" industrial factory shoots where I didn't want to take the more expensive equipment. However, I've unexpectedly found myself using it on interviews and some candid setups as well. I've been very pleased with the results I've achieved by pairing the Lumix 12-35 with the AF in those situations.

As everyone will readily admit, the glass makes a significant difference. If we're honest, in very high contrast situations, EVERY video camera is going to struggle to some degree. Point ANY video camera at a daylight window and try to hold foreground room detail without blowing the highlights! Pretty challenging, even for the FS700.

To summarize, in my humble opinion, you can't go wrong with the Panasonic AF100/AF100A -- particularly at its price point. I should also say that the expanded focus and 1080/60p of the "A" series is really nice to have onboard, too. I can easily see myself using it for the next two to three years for certain projects.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think the AF100 IS a great deal, it has everything on it that you'd expect on a video
camera. I was just saying it actually DOES have some disadvantages vs. the FS100 (why would people buy
the FS100 if it didn't?) and some seem to think the image quality and low light is 'basically the same' and the AF100
has more features so it's a clear AF100 win. I was saying, from my tests (and Adam Wilte's) the FS100 has
better highlight handling, dynamic range, and resolution. Then I linked to his article where he says
what I just did on his last page. But I mean, to be honest, these days just about every camera puts out pretty
decent images. So it's kind of up to each individual as to what is 'noticeably better'. Opinions being what
they are, some people prefer the look of the GH2 to the Alexa so I guess it's kind of in the eye of the
beholder. Maybe I should have said 'many people feel that the FS100 has better highlight handling,
dynamic range and resolution'.
 
Last edited:
jdv said:
Neither of those videos were shot with an A model. And again, I don't think anyone is saying the standard AF100 can't produce lovely images - it clearly can. But the $64,000 question (well, at least a $1,500 question) is whether or not the A model produces images better in any respect then the standard model when using a recorder.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I too would like to see this question answered. Does this 'pseudo 10 bit' give any image improvement for
the A model of the AF100?
 
alaskacameradude said:
Very good point. I too would like to see this question answered. Does this 'pseudo 10 bit' give any image improvement for
the A model of the AF100?
Click to expand...

It for sure doesn't when recorded to the internal card. Still trying to find some sort of head to head comparison using an outboard recorder.
 
jdv said:
It for sure doesn't when recorded to the internal card. Still trying to find some sort of head to head comparison using an outboard recorder.
Click to expand...

I just ordered a HyperDeck Shuttle 2 to use with my cams. I'll try to do some before and after tests with both the AF105A and FS700 and post results when I can. I would imagine low-light and high-contrast would be good for comparative purposes.
 
Firstbase said:
I would imagine low-light and high-contrast would be good for comparative purposes.
Click to expand...
If you're trying to test the validity of a 10-bit output, the test is really simple -- just go in a dark room and shine a single light on a wall, and then film it from the bright spot out to the dark. For the AF105A, record internally and externally, and then post the pics to compare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top