Almost, but not quite, pleased

At the risk of asking a stupid question:

I don't know if the AF100 in particular has all this, but if you have a flip-out LCD screen that:

1. is sharp
2. has a focus helper like "false color"
3. is bright enough to see in daylight

why do you want to use a viewfinder at all?

The LCD screen is easier to see when you go for different angles by holding the camera low to the ground or high above your head.
You can hold the camera at your chest instead of your head for greater stability, less fatigue.
Click to expand...



I do not think that is a stupid question at all, I think it is what you have used and feel comfortable with.
I have been an Aaton, Arri SR, Betacam (ENG style) DP my entire career.
I like viewing my subject in a "dark" environment with a screen or monitor as my primary focus point.
I find it is easier to focus, frame and expose with a viewfinder. For me it is no distractions.
I can also open my left eye to see other things around me.
What I find interesting is how other operators and DP's can focus, frame and expose with a LCD screen, my hat's off to you!!!
As far a stability, I like a camera that is a straight line, lens follows body. having a camera on the shoulder providing that it is balanced properly, can be very stable as well as less fatigue. I can generally put my HDX900 with a Dionic 160 and a Panasonic 8.4" monitor on my shoulder with minimum grip on the lens.
I have had a shoots with the EX1,EX3 ,HVX200's and found it to be more of a struggle, I guess I like the "mass" of the larger cameras and find the viewfinder to help with that.
Just my 2 cents.

www.typeamedia.com
 
Barry,
According to my old American Cinematographer manual (ca.1980) 35mm full aperture motion picture film is .980"x .735". At 25mm/inch, that would be 24.5mm x 18.38mm.
Your figures are closer to the usable 1:85 masked projection area, which is accurately comparing usable film area to usable chip area.
The 1:85 cropped projection ap is .825" x .446" or 20.6mm x 11.5mm, pretty close to the AF100 sensor area.
Now, if only someone would make an adaptor to use my old Arri mount 35mm primes on this body....(the cost of converting them to a PL mount is prohibitive).

Ken
 
James Bridges said:
I like viewing my subject in a "dark" environment with a screen or monitor as my primary focus point.
I find it is easier to focus, frame and expose with a viewfinder. For me it is no distractions.
I can also open my left eye to see other things around me.
What I find interesting is how other operators and DP's can focus, frame and expose with a LCD screen, my hat's off to you!!!
As far a stability, I like a camera that is a straight line, lens follows body. having a camera on the shoulder providing that it is balanced properly, can be very stable as well as less fatigue. I can generally put my HDX900 with a Dionic 160 and a Panasonic 8.4" monitor on my shoulder with minimum grip on the lens.
I have had a shoots with the EX1,EX3 ,HVX200's and found it to be more of a struggle, I guess I like the "mass" of the larger cameras and find the viewfinder to help with that.
Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I read this story of a wedding videographer who was hit by a car and killed as he backed up into a street while filming the couple. Horrible story, and I always think about it when I think about buying a viewfinder-only camera. At least the newer shoulder-mount cameras have a lower profile, so you can see over it to check the right side.

I used to use a camera with a viewfinder. It's easy to focus but harder to frame for me. The picture was so big that I missed the "big picture."

Then I got mentored by this videographer who used a camera with a flip-out screen and did all these crazy moves across tables, around flowers, etc. (weddings).

Finally, in the case of shooting non-actors, I feel like the flip-out screen is less intimidating. The viewfinder posture has an eerie resemblance to someone pointing a rifle at you. The flip-out screen cameras lead you to sort of bow to your subject --- guests may feel a little more at ease, I think.

Just my half cent's worth!
 
James Bridges said:
I do not think that is a stupid question at all, I think it is what you have used and feel comfortable with.
I have been an Aaton, Arri SR, Betacam (ENG style) DP my entire career.
I like viewing my subject in a "dark" environment with a screen or monitor as my primary focus point.
I find it is easier to focus, frame and expose with a viewfinder. For me it is no distractions.
I can also open my left eye to see other things around me.
What I find interesting is how other operators and DP's can focus, frame and expose with a LCD screen, my hat's off to you!!!
As far a stability, I like a camera that is a straight line, lens follows body. having a camera on the shoulder providing that it is balanced properly, can be very stable as well as less fatigue. I can generally put my HDX900 with a Dionic 160 and a Panasonic 8.4" monitor on my shoulder with minimum grip on the lens.
I have had a shoots with the EX1,EX3 ,HVX200's and found it to be more of a struggle, I guess I like the "mass" of the larger cameras and find the viewfinder to help with that.
Just my 2 cents.

www.typeamedia.com
Click to expand...

Totally agree plus I need to use the diopter on the viewfinder to adust for us that use reading glasses.
 
alaskacameradude said:
To be fair, some of us 'video' guys are trying to figure out exactly what the AF100 is.
When you have a video camera, which uses still lenses, and you have only shot
with various video cameras, you really don't know anything about all the
lens options discussed, how a SLR lens translates into the video world, does it
have an iris ring like a 2/3 video lens? How do you zoom with it when it doesn't
have a zoom rocker? How do you focus with it? I am figuring those things out,
because the lenses used on this camera are not the typical video lenses I've
used on things like a Sony HDW 750 or a Panasonic 370 or an old Beta SP
cam or any other video camera I've ever used. So it's not necessarily trying to rip on the AF 100,
but more, to try to figure out exactly what you can and can't do with it.
I did not even KNOW if I would like it or not, I mean I knew I'd like the
shallow depth of field, but I needed (and probably still need) to learn more
information about it before I decide if I want to buy it or not. I am picking
up a lot of info on this board though.....people like Barry do a great job of
explaining it all.
Click to expand...

Understood, but let us please keep all the speculation and criticism in check until we actually have the product in our hands to make those judgments in an educated manner. I'm in the same boat with the lens discussion, which way do I go for them. But I am going to hold off until the camera drops so I can make that choice when the camera is 100% complete. Right now, no one can do anything with it outside of the Panasonic engineers :thumbsup:
 
Lowlypawn said:
Why do you guys want P2 cards?
A 16 gig cost almost $400, ouch!
Click to expand...

-Rock solid
-Already built a workflow around them
-$400 over 100's of paying jobs is a no-brainer for the peace of mind that I will *never* have a read write error.

*When compared to commodity media.
 
I prefer CF cards just because they are more robust than SDHC cards but way cheaper than P2 cards. CF/SDHC card readers are also much cheaper.

But Panasonic will never use CF cards so that's out of the equation.
 
editman said:
I prefer CF cards just because they are more robust than SDHC cards but way cheaper than P2 cards. CF/SDHC card readers are also much cheaper.

But Panasonic will never use CF cards so that's out of the equation.
Click to expand...

The advantage I almost never hear people discuss (about SD/SDHC/SDXC) is that they're locking. I'd take careful treatment of lockable media over CF's "robustness" any day.

Always have. P2 is lockable. SD is lockable. Great choice.

But, it's just like, my opinion, man.
 
I started this thread to summarize and confirm what I've heard about this camera, not to complain.

I could be perfectly happy with the new cards, I'm just surprised, from a corporate point of view, that Panasonic would pull away from P2 after all of it's assertions over the last few years.

As for the finder - I am a documentary filmmaker and have been for over 40 years since graduating from UCLA. I am also a DP and have shot hundreds of national and regional commercials, second unit and shorts in 35 and super16.

I don't like LCDs - period. I use a viewfinder for a lot of reasons that I won't elaborate on. And pro finders have diopters. And pro finders are designed so that the camera is versatile.

As a documentary filmmaker I sometimes shoot 7-10 hours a day with the camera handheld, preferably on my shoulder. That requires a side mount. And for a skilled operator, a side mount finder makes for more tactile moves on a tripod too. Someone here commented "where would you put it?". Ever see an Aaton minima? The new Arri?

I appreciate Barry's recommendation of the Redrock, I didn't know about it, thank you. But it does point out how easily Panasonic could have incorporated something like that into the AF100.

I commend Panasonic for taking a lead on this technology while making an effort to keep the price reasonable. I just wish I had a hacksaw to cut that lump off the top.
 
While there are many points users here have made about viewfinders, storage, codec that make sense, I think it's important to remember that Panasonic announced this camera at NAB when it was but a drawing and/or empty shell and will be selling it in December. That roughly a 9-month gestation period, say just over a year maybe if they were really listening to the trends. Impressive, especially for a corporation of Panasonic's size.

They got the important (core) bits right, and built the rest around an already existing set of designs and knowledge. The AF-200 or AF-150 (or whatever comes next) can take it the next step but after this one it's incremental.

In the end, I won't be buying one right away but I think there are some fast-growing (cancerous) unreasonable expectations. (I should add I'm not responding to the post above... some good points and a balanced opinion there.)

For those currently using HPX170s wishing for some of the DSLR aesthetic without the franken-camera drawbacks, the AF100 is the clear next step.

It's not the end all and be all of cameras. It's not even close to perfect. But at under $5k, people are free to spend the extra $1000 they were planning on to spend on a bunch of stuff to make it "their" camera.

Rods and shoulder mount $1000. Additional viewfinder, $650.

near S35mm depth of field on a sub $5k camera with HD-SDI and LTC I/O... well the ad writes itself.
 
heavyG said:
-Rock solid
-Already built a workflow around them
-$400 over 100's of paying jobs is a no-brainer for the peace of mind that I will *never* have a read write error.

*When compared to commodity media.
Click to expand...

Add to that: Already have them.
 
James Bridges said:
Hey Panasonic,
I will be purchasing this one, I am on several wait lists.
I have an idea- next time make a AF100N ("N" stands for naked)
Make just the box, no viewfinder, no LCD, no handle, keep the SD card slots to record lower rez proxies.Put in (2) HDSDI ports. Make plenty of screw holes for accessories.
My reasoning is this, I would like to use my BW viewfinder from my HDX900, NanoFlash and configure the "box" the way I want too.
Kudos for putting this out ,I believe you will have a real winner on your hands.
I cannot wait to receive mine.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...


I have to say, that is a great idea, and that would completely bring on a new market and compete against RED and other camera systems. I could see a ton of people if not a whole new market of people wanting that type of camera. Just offer parts as options, or leave it up to 3rd party, just like RED.

I personally hate that VF it has, and the handle as well... just really in the way for what could be a great place to mount other usable things. Its also ugly/cheap looking.

If they came up with a "BOX" with mounts and ports for whatever we wanted and kept it even at the same price, I might actually like the camera more. The fact that I can't take off that vf really annoys me, its just so consumer looking I could never bring that thing on a set without a client thinking... is he just shooting with an hvx200?

You have to keep in mind, my clients are used to seeing a massive beautiful camera on set (varicam and HPX500's) fully loaded... so to go from that to a camera that looks like someone took an hvx200 and broke off the lens... well thats a no no. There is a mental thing that goes along with cameras and the way they look. Clients DO care about that. Its why so many people run out to buy matte boxes... lets be real, a lot of us like to just keep it on there because it looks better, even if we're not using it to put a filter in, or really control much light. For the client, big nice matte box = professional look on their set/shoot.

I think if Panasonic would go that way at some point in the near future with their camera models they could take the lead that market of "modular 35mm sensor cameras".
 
I like the box idea, and forgot to mention it above. Maybe, hopefully, the next version will be available as a box, like the SI camera. It's a great win-win-win for Panasonic, users and aftermarket manufacturers.

The competition for SLR rigs is a perfect example of how the market could go.

Panasonic couldn't keep enough boxes in stock (and they could be a little cheaper too, increasing the appeal).

Places like Zacutto and Redrock would be rubbing their palms in delight.

And cinematographers would be able to make the camera what they want it to be for the job, not what one-size-fits-all designers create on their drafting boards. (By the way, the brochure describes it as a stable support camera or something like that, so they are aware of the limitations).

Again, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great start. I don't know much about AVC, or 8 bit vs 10 bit etc, I still shoot DVCPRO HD. But I'll wait a little while too and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so worried about the AF100's sensor size; compared to the Red camera's sensor it is a bit smaller, but most people shooting Red do not use the 16x9 window, but the 16x9 HD window which is smaller. The 16x9 HD is preferred because it produces superior results when down-converting to SD, which accounts for most of the work. The 4/3 sensor compares very favorably to the 16x9 HD window, close enough to call it almost even.

In short, the AF100 should yield a DOF and angle of view very similar to a Red One.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
I personally hate that VF it has, and the handle as well... just really in the way for what could be a great place to mount other usable things. Its also ugly/cheap looking.
Click to expand...

It's an oddly designed camera. To me it looks like a Russian cold war era geiger counter or something. The handle could be a bit more utilitarian and if that VF is the same as the HVX200A VF, they should just stick a jack there for a real VF instead and lose it completely.

And yeah, it's real plasticy looking too. Why not at least use some rubber and aluminum here and there or mold it to look less like a cheap knockoff of the HVX200?

I wish they'd have used CF cards in this thing and designed a zoom motor/control into it for at least one lens because unless it produces footage that blows the 5D MKII footage away, I can't imagine a use for it. I'm itchy to replace my HVX200A, but not with a camera that has no zoom control and looks like some kind of retro vacuum tube camera.

.
 
Chris Santucci said:
I wish they'd have used CF cards in this thing and designed a zoom motor/control into it for at least one lens because unless it produces footage that blows the 5D MKII footage away, I can't imagine a use for it. I'm itchy to replace my HVX200A, but not with a camera that has no zoom control and looks like some kind of retro vacuum tube camera.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the quality of the footage will blow away that of the 5D, except that the 5D can achieve shallower depth of field due to the full frame sensor. But in every other respect the AF100 image quality should be superior.

As for me, I couldn't care less what the camera looks like, as long as it performs well. Though a removable viewfinder would have been great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top