Anyone considered an AC 160a or similar camcorder to add to their AF100/101?

B

bengiles

Well-known member
I'm on the lookout for a self-contained camcorder to use alongside my AF101. I often shoot actuality/obs doc-style and find multiple lens changes a bit of a faff. I'm quite happy to keep using the 101 for more considered stuff alongside it.

Have any of you bought the AC160a or something similar? I was considering the HPX250 - but the cost of P2 media is putting me off and I don't think I really need AVC Intra for my web-based projects. Stupid?

My mental jottings are so far along the lines of:

AC160a - it's a Panasonic, so I'm hoping it might match my 101 when I need it to. It's got VFR, 22x lens, punch-in focus (probably the biggest selling point for me at the mo) and uses cheap SDHC media.

Sony PMW200 - i/2 inch chip, more expensive, pricier SxS media, might hold on to it's value better, though.

JVC HM 600 - no punch-in focus, no VFR, slightly cheaper than the 160a, EBU approved Tier J codec might give me slightly more robust codec than Panasonic's 24 Meg AVCHD - not sure if there's much in it.

Any thoughts welcome.

Thanks,

Ben.
 
I'm thinking about it for making some documentaries and maybe a few other things. It has a lot going for it. I know the DOF is a issue for some people but you can get some out of it and really to shallow of DOF can look bad or over used. The 22x lens, the variable frame rates, the SDI, low light looks good etc.

I have been tossing around the GH3 or 5DMarkIII, but the audio and form factor are issues for me. I like the Canon C100 but it is out of my budget. The AC160a in the cart at B&H shows $3,999.

I think the max frame rate is 28 Mb/s and I thought I read Barry said you can go 4:2:2 out of the camera too.

For me it will be a easy move from my DVX100b and should do just about everything I need to do right now and not take a bunch of extra lens and auto improvements or some massive storage issue from some Blackmagic type camera.

My other idea was the AC130a and getting the GH3 or just the GH3 because it really looks good. There are a lot of good cameras out there right now. Good luck
 
Last edited:
I just bought a Canon XF100, mainly because it's consumer-camera small, very descreet, has XLRs and records 50mbps 4.2.2 to CF cards. It's not a perfect solution (it's niosy in low light, has a horrible viewfinder and supposedly isn't true 1080, although to my eye it's looks very good), and the model will probably be updated soon (it was introduced 3 years ago so it's due). It only has a 10x1 lens (which I personally think is perfect) and the lens is typical Canon - excellent. For qucik shooting the automatic functions are way superior to any of the Panasonics (perticulary auto-focus in 24p, which makes me forgive the poor finder). I also have an HPX250, but in good light I find I can match the Canon better to the AF100. I reserve the 250 for AVC-I projects.

However, I don't use the XF100 in a two camera situation. I make documentaries, and often need a tool that doesn't attract attention - in airports or public buildings for instance. It does take a while to dial in, in my case nearly a week of testing, but I find that I can shoot that sort of B roll with the little Canon and the rest of the footage with the AF100 and cut them together seamlessly.

Check out Phillip Bloom's video review, it's what influenced me.
 
Last edited:
I have a Sony V1U that I have barely used since I got my GH2 when it came out. I'm selling it before the bottom drops out on miniDV cameras. And besides having to capture video, I hate the macroblocking from HDV.

I've made some bids recently on reality show pilots. So I know that if I were to get one, I would need a 3 chip zoom type of camera. I'd probably just hire someone with one, but still having one would be wise if that kind of work was going to come in. So either of those would definitely be good cameras if the budget called for it. But considering that I can get $1100 to $1200 for my V1U, I have looked at the Panasonic AC90, which only costs a little more. It doesn't have any ND, so that's it biggest downside. The video looks pretty good from what Jan posted on Vimeo, though. So I have no current plans to buy it, but it's a good fall back since I'm selling the one. Since I just can't afford another $4k to $5k camera right now unless I had a specific budget that required and allocated for it.

https://vimeo.com/60018261

Just a quick follow up, Barry seems to think pretty highly of the AC90 for its price point.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?292975-First-Look-Panasonic-AG-AC90-at-DVExpo-West
 
Last edited:
bengiles said:
Have any of you bought the AC160a or something similar? I was considering the HPX250 - but the cost of P2 media is putting me off and I don't think I really need AVC Intra for my web-based projects. Stupid?

Ben.
Click to expand...
Hi Ben,
Funnily enough I am thinking of doing the reverse- I have a 160A and am considering adding a AF102.

The advantages for you would be that the 160A is almost identical operationally to the AF100 so the learning curve would be flat. And the 160A can also output HDSDI 4.2.2 to match the AF100.

Personally I see no advantage in the 250 and reckon that the 160A would be a great match. I can't comment on the colour reproduction/balance as I don't yet have an AF, however they have the same scene file setups and both are veratile enough to tweak together I have no doubt.
Cheers!
Rod
 
I already have an HMC80 which gets a lot of use on the shoulder for run'n'gun type work. Probably more actual hours on it than my AF100 at this point. The AF is strong for interviews and for more carefully staged and lit work, but the lack of a long-ratio variable speed servo zoom is a killer in ENG/live event coverage type work. The HMC80 ticks all the right boxes in terms of form factor and features, but its performance in indoor low-light settings is poor.

I'm strongly considering the AC160A to replace the HMC80. I mainly hate to give up the shoulder mount form factor, although I do have a rig with external EVF that will make using it practical, if a little heavier and bulkier than I'd like. It's actually between the AC160A and HPX370 for my small-chip camera, but I'm not thrilled with the expense of shooting on P2, and the stock lens on the 370 has a poor reputation. If they'd put the AC160A in a shoulder-mount box, I'd be all over it in a second.

I'm also looking at the Sony NEX-EA50 -- a slightly offbeat and intriguing design for some of the things I do. I may have a documentary shoot in Mississippi in a year from now where I'll be working with a crew of high school students (although I'll be doing most of the actual shooting). If I can afford it, it would be neat to have one or two AC90s that I could hand to the students (probably in full auto mode for the most part) to get some B-roll for me. My old bones aren't as good for running around and climbing on things to get all the interesting angles as they used to be!

- Greg
 
I own two AF100s and an AG160.


I love the versatility which owning both types of cameras gives me. The AF100s and the 12 lenses I have for them are my cameras of choice when time and circumstances allow for the corporate and documentary work I do.


When the situation is otherwise, between 35 or 40% of the time, the AG160 is perfect.
I do a fair amount of three camera shoots and while the results from the factory scene file settings differ between the two models, I can always make them look virtually the same in post.


If I were limited to having only one camera, between the two models, I would go with the AG160.
 
djmfoxtrot said:
I own two AF100s and an AG160.


I love the versatility which owning both types of cameras gives me...
Click to expand...

This is why I kept my HMC150 when I bought my AF100. I have too many things (mostly sports) that I shoot where using a large sensor camera would be a nightmare.
 
The form factor has baffled me - it seems Panasonic and Sony have identified a sector who want really cheap 1/4 or 1/3 shoulder mounts (eg AG-HMC81) - and I can only guess that's for customers on a budget who want a camera that looks like a "proper" ENG camera. And then, as soon as the specs become interesting, you're limited to something you've got to hunch over like a medium format box camera.

I'll take a closer look at the NEX50. I had written it off as being neither one or the other, but another quick look suggests it might work for me as a shoulder mount. EVF looks a little vulnerable - will have a look.

If I have a concern, it's that I'll then hardly use the AF101, with it's brand new 12-35, 35-100, Leica 25 and 45 lenses...

Thanks,

Ben.
 
Hmmm. Quick look at the NEX50 suggests that, while it's trying to be a practical grab and go camera, it's hobbled by having no built-in ND - so what you gain in shoulder mount ergonomics, you lose in having to put a colour-casting fader ND on the front, which you then have to fiddle around with inside the lens hood. The lens is quite slow too and I'm then into buying alternative lenses - which defeats the object of finding a camera that is self contained and just works. They don't like you having your cake and eating it, do they?

Ben.
 
The AC160 is an ideal companion to an AF100. The menu structures are exactly the same, the shooting choices are the same, the colorimetry can match very very close. They're almost the same camera on the back end, with a different lens/sensor on the front.
 
I'll pile on.
We do a lot of corporate work, and the combination of the AF100 and AC160 are great for us. On most jobs, we consider the AF100 to be the "interview" camera, with the AC160 handling most of the B-Roll. Having a long, servo zoom saves the bacon when shooting the occasional meeting presentation, then the AC becomes the "A" camera while the AF holds the wide shot.
Panasonic released some scene files a while back that get you really close to matching the two.
Something not mentioned yet, its great having the two main cameras' batteries match, a small thing yes, until you forget one or the other charger.
 
I went with the 250 to replace my 200A instead of the 160 to compliment my 100 (now that's a mouthful) because of AVC Intra, 4:2:2 and the "prestige" & reliabiltiy of P2. I never get calls for AVCHD (but the 100 works quite a bit for customers wanting shallow DOF), but regularly get calls for P2 as it is more "professional". If I were you I'd consider the fact that the 250 will match your 100 as well as the 160 AND give you more capabilities, while the 160 merely gives you the smaller chip for deeper DOF.
 
Thanks for the all of replies so far. I'm leaning towards the 160, because I can get the same functionality of the 250 by adding a Ninja, Samurai or similar if I need a 100 meg codec. The thing that puts me off the 250 is the cost of P2 media.

Ben.
 
Is it possible to get the scene files close between the AF100 and the AG160? What is Cine D like on each camera? Are they close or is there another scene file that works better?
 
If you go on the Panasonic website, there are a lot of scene files that are downloadable that are very closely matched between the 160 and the 100. Yes you can match the two very very well, but you'll also need to do a manual white balance to make them match as best as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top