Any 300 owners thinking of buying & mixing/matching with the AF100?

nedcam

nedcam

Well-known member
I'd like to communicate with freelance shooters like myself re: topic above, meaning NON-indie, music video, spots etc. I do mainly non-fiction TV shows, lots of corporate and documentaries, so I tend to have daily schedules where we must move fast, and shoot in the visual style requested by the client, rather than do any particular look we want. The non-fiction TV shows usually request a HDX900 but the lower tier (Animal Planet, etc.) I can use the 300. I've only lost a couple of shoot days by not having DSLR and I never got into lens adapters due to the speed we hustle. The 300 handles about 80% of my corporate work which is heavy with talking heads but I hate the 1/3" look and do work arounds to get a shallow DoF.

The reason I didn't buy into the DSLR movement is the form factor and crazy accessories to make it functional doesn't lend itself to shooting as fast as I need to, on most days. Also the expense of all these doo-dads and double system audio.

I love the DSLR look but have been waiting for the shoulder mounted progression we are now seeing BUT...I feel burned by Panasonic for having purchased the first model of a line (HPX300) so I am not feeling secure about getting the AF100, (perhaps the AF100A?). If first reports from buyers are glowing I will get one.

So, those of you on this board like myself, the AF100 will be great for talking heads and the 300 would be the b-roll camera where we have to move fast? Are they a good combo? That's my logic, am I mistaken? Or if they want the whole video stylized with a shallow DoF look the AF100 can do the whole job. My questions are:

Will it be possible to intercut the two or should I just sell the 300? Will I be able to have the same sequence settings in FCP for the 300's footage as I would with the AF100's?

Also, after the whole 300 vs 370's timing and lack of upgrade path, can I trust Panasonic not to come out with an improved model right away? Doubt it.

Thanks,
 
I'm curious about this too. I do similar type of work and the shoulder mount thing is paramount. P2 is a close second. The AF100 lacks both and the DSLR route is just a joke for run and gun where you need audio. I end up using a Letus adaptor on the 200 and am considering using an adaptor with the 370. I know its 'cheaper' to buy an AF100 and decent zoom lens, but the lack of shoulder mount / p2 support makes it seem like the wrong tool for the job. I am also aware that an adaptor on the 370 with handle grips means a lot of front heavy-ness. Mark and Henry have the 370 with Letus combo and have commented on their effectiveness. Can anyone else comment on their potential use of the AF100 with/instead of the HPX370?

Ned, as for your comments on the upgrade path, I feel for you but also can surmise that you have made tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on your 300 since you bought it. Obsolescence is kind of the name of the game, isn't it? I honestly wish it wasn't so and feel for you that you got burned, but the 300 paved way for the 370, just as the 200 / 200a did for the 170 and the 100 did for the 100a/b. Its only right that the AF100 is paving the way for other models.


Jason
 
I have a 300 and a 370, I might let the 300 go but the 370 is such a work horse camera that I doubt a AF100 could replace it. THe 370 does all video formats from DV through full raster HD , has AVC Intra 10 bit codec and is great to pick up and shoot with. The AF 100 for all its strengths is not going to be a great choice as a pick up and shoot (shoulder mount- that's a weird term) camera for doc situations no matter hpw many accessories you bolt to it.

The fact is that a shoulder mount camera has a lot going for it in the form factor department.... Wheels are round for a reason too.

So I think I'll have both cameras.

I also think the 300 has been beat upon relentlessly for rolling shutter issues, which BTW all the DSLR's have to an even greater degree than the 300.
Put a 300 mm on a 7 D and go shoot something where you have to pan the camera to follow a subject panning and tilting as you go. All the positives the 300 has as a camera get overlooked.
While may people might choose to have the AF 100 as their sole camera, that's not the way I'm going because I'm pretty sure the 100 isn't going to cover all the situations I need to cover.
 
I will be purchasing an AF100 to pair up with my HPX300. I will use the AF100 exclusively for sit-down interviews, product shots, and beauty shots. The HPX300 will be used for all of my run and gun footage, where a shallow depth of field is not desired.
 
I'm very interested in a shallow DOF camera as well, I'm just not sure that the AF-100 is going to be it- for the following reasons.

I had the best year yet last year- this year business has fallen off of the proverbial cliff. The economy has caught up with me. I'm looking at any purchase with a fine tooth comb, especially a purchase of this magnitude.

Like you Ned, I'm still feeling a bit burned by the rapid introduction of the 370 so close on the heels of the 300. "Burn me once...."as they say. On top of that, I'd really like this camera with P2 and that I suspect will one of the differences on the "AF110" when it's introduced.

In spite of not having P2 this camera is still compelling, but I'm thinking the GH2 may be the better choice for now. That is of course, if the GH2 does not have any glaring handicaps or codec issues. It gets me shallow DOF, I can run monitor out and I can run in camera audio, albeit with not the same ease as a real video camera. I'm not too concerned with the impaired run and gun ability of the DSLR, as that's not what I'm buying it for. For all intents and purposes it will be on camera support, with a matte box and follow focus for my purposes.

If I land a job that can pay the AF100 off in one lump sum, or a major part of it- then I'll be enticed to take the plunge. For now, the GH2 seems like the more prudent way to go. We'll see, that position is subject to change given the right criteria.

I do know this, I will not be purchasing any more 1/3 inch cameras. I'm still rocking my 200 as it approaches 600 hours of usage. Oddly enough I'm shooting VNR's for a client that still wants DV tape....glad I didn't sell the 200. I did sell my 170 recently, it was a redundant camera in my quiver. I had purchased it largely for use with a Brevis, which I have sold as well in advance of getting a DSLR/ AF100.

In spite of it's flaws, I'm smitten with my 300 and have no intention of selling it. After shooting with it, it's hard to pick up the small HVX/HPX cams.... ;-). Both it and the 200 serve in day to day corporate EFP and ENG applications.

They are the work horses, the GH2 or AF100 will be the thoroughbred when the time comes. I have a Pelican full of Nikkor/Zeiss primes and a Nikkor 17-55mm that I'd like to use.

On a side note: Does anyone know what the latest is on the purported Nikkor G to M3 lens adapter?
 
I personally can't afford to purchase any new equipment right now. If I sold or traded my HPX 300 today I may get a bag of candy for it. However I'm happy with both my cameras, HPX 300 and Canon 5DM2. I use them both when ever I have a budget for 2 cameras or 1 cam and a sound man. Anything short of that I stick with the 300. I worry about sound more when I use the 5D than anything else. As far as picture quality I can tell them appart but most clients have a hard time noticing the difference.

The AF100 sounds like a nice camera but I would need to buy as it stands now new lenses.
Its my understanding the Canon L-series lenses won't work on it. Its not capable of avc intra unless you purchase or rent the external recorder panasonic sells. As far as I can see its a variation of the DSLR's but with sound, skewing and aliasing issues solved. That's a big deal but I haven't had problems with those issue yet. Just like the 300, if you know what to look for you just avoid the issues.

You still need some sort of rig to comfortably get hand held shots. Its to be expected in the price range but I personally would wait and see even if I had the money.
 
Seems like one could purchase a P+S Telknik Mini35c with different mounts and get shallow depth of field while retaining P2/10bit 4:2:2 color. And only have one camera to deal with.
IMHO.
 
Why mess with a lens adapter?

Why mess with a lens adapter?

zeke said:
Seems like one could purchase a P+S Telknik Mini35c with different mounts and get shallow depth of field while retaining P2/10bit 4:2:2 color. And only have one camera to deal with.
IMHO.
Click to expand...

I sold my Brevis earlier this year. While it was an adequate stop gap tool for shallow DOF, I'm glad to be done with it. Although the Tecknik is admittedly in another category for quality ( and certainly in regrds to price), using a 35mm adapter at this point is going backwards IMO. Not to mention the hassle of putting in on and off- depending on the shoot at hand.

I'd rather spend the money on the Panasonic HPG20 ( or whatever it's called), get 4:2:2 color with that (among other features), use my P2 cards, and have another several thousand $'s left over. Not to mention the improved skew of the AF100 compared to the 300/370. The AF100 is enough a differentiated camera from the 300, that adding it to the inventory seems to me, to be justified.

My two cents.
 
I was thinking of 370 owners. I wouldn't spend that type of money on a 300 for any reason.
The reason I brought up the Mini35c is you also get the full viewing width of the lenses, no 2 to 1 crop factor, and getting 10bit 4:2:2 in camera is better than using external equipment.
For a movie shoot, I imagine you would keep the adaptor on the camera the whole time.
Just food for thought, though you make some great points.
 
zeke said:
For a movie shoot, I imagine you would keep the adaptor on the camera the whole time.
Just food for thought, though you make some great points.
Click to expand...

Important distinction- In that context, the argument makes more sense.

For me, I shoot commercials, ENG, corporate stuff and other genres from day to day. My preference is for a dedicated Cine (shallow DOF) camera and one for the rest. For the latter purposes, the 1/3 inch chip cams still work fine. Besides.... they are paid for and I'm watching my shekels. ;-) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top