Asleep At The Wheel

[ScottNelson]

I shot with the AF100 for 18 months and have no complaints at all. Great image, look, workflow and results, not to mention a great return on investment.

I wish I could say the same about Panasonic in general (edit) though I have no complaints about Jan - she's continues to support all of us and I appreciate her efforts.

They were innovative beyond words with the DVX100, Varicam, HVX200 and AF100 and were an industry leader in innovation.

Then the marketing department took over and they rewarded later purchasers of the AF100 with a free 14-140 lens, insulting the early adoptees who supported them from the start.

Panasonic then began the price drops and rebates for the AF100, lowering the value of the camera and most recently the ridiculous charge of $250 for 60p after devaluing the camera so much.

(edit) Canon, on the other hand is in the process of implementing free firmware upgrade 2.0 that will add, 'user requested innovations' to my 7D and extend the life of the camera and increase future continued sales of the camera.

Panasonic claims the AF100 is not being discontinued and nearly two years after it’s introduction, I see a thread asking what we would like in a follow-up model that may be available sometime in 2013 or later when we've been telling them for 18 months what we'd like to see.

How can a company with such great insight in the past, drop the ball and let Sony, Canon, Blackmagic and others leave them in the dust?

(edit) As much as I liked everything in the AF100, it will be a long time before I trust Panasonic again, a company which has proved to be asleep at the wheel.

JMHO,
Scott

 

[Mac]

Boy, are you going to draw some heat - I wish I could totally disagree with you, but much of what you say is correct - I have been complaining about the marketing focus (of all the manufacturers to be fair) for over a year....

But I well remember it was only two years ago when everyone was wishing for a real video camera to replace the DSLR, it seemed inconceivable that the manufacturers could be unaware of the fervor for large sensor cameras... So Panasonic jumped the gun and was first to deliver, albeit without the support of things like a decent proprietary lenses system, particularly zooms, I've bitched about that here and got the heat you're about to get.

Sony and Canon were more cautious, and spent a little more time on R&D and delivered a better image - for a lot more money - then Sony jumped on the AF100 "price point" with the FS100, really only a boxier DSLR with XLR inputs. However they quickly responded to the demand for a more professional camera and introduced the FS700, which you apparently now have and which I had originally ordered.

Sadly Panasonic hasn't responded - yet - to the much duplicated "wish lists" here and elsewhere - maybe they never will, they've got a lot of other cameras - but who knows, perhaps they want the next version to output 10 bit AVC-U - then the marketing game starts again... but it's clear that now they will be playing catch-up.

I cancelled my FS700 order because I'm going to wait one more generation and see what happens, and I really do like the AF100 - it's really not a bad camera, and its very light.

And at less than 5 grand it's a hell of a backup camera to have on your shelf.

 

[hscully]

I know you like the AF100 and I'm glad it's been good to you. I'm still liking mine. I'm not sure that Panasonic is that far behind the others, and I wonder what you find the other biggies are offering, at their price points that show they're leading. I like the F3 but that's in Scarlet range price-wise. I think the FS700 is a cool camera, great images, very cool overcranking if you need that and some promise of 4k with add ons yet unknown, so pretty good at that price point. The Canon C300 is really expensive for what it is. For me the FS100 and AF100 are equal given the givens.

What would you like to see from Panasonic? Something to replace one of the ones I mentioned? What price point? S35? 4:2:2 or better? It seems there are a lot of options out there. It just depends on what you can pay. What would you have Panasonic do?

 

[Cinesota]

+1 on the "ridiculous charge" by Panasonic for adding an additional framerate and correcting the 'Scope framelines.

I was at NAB this year and the BMD caught everyone by surprise. Canon and Sony had huge booths and a ton of new products to fill them. Panasonic had a huge booth as well but other than a prototype S35 camera (that was under glass) they had little else new to show. I went through it in about 5 mins.

 

[mcbob]

I'm curious how much effect the quadruple whammy of global recession, absorption of Sanyo, tsunami, and record losing financial quarter set them back last year. Sony may have simply been better positioned due to wider-spread tentacles and slightly less abysmal losses to react.

Large chip cams are also a strange, fluctuating, and (IMO) niche market. They got out the first hybrid, it does work, and before catering to the next stylish whim with 3d ultrasecretslowmo or built-in automatic lens whacking or smellovision, they've concentrated R&D on more lucrative broadcast bread & butter cameras. They're profitable again, so it seems their decisions haven't been completely backwards.

Not to make excuses, though... I still desperately want a well-integrated P2 recorder and 1:1 FA for this thing, like, last year.

 

[Mac]

I hope, but I am often wrong, that Panasonic is beginning to understand that people don't want to have to buy a new camera every 1 1/2 years and that's why it's taking so long (the 300-370 debacle hurt them on these boards)... The current crop of everything in this category is 8 bit SDHC (or 8 bit out to whatever), but Panasonic makes the 1/3" HPX250 (which I also have) that is 10 bit 4.2.2 and records to P2 and is also in the $5000 range...

It would make sense to wait until they have a design that can incorporate that technology in an AF100 replacement, possibly modular, packaged with the new zoom lenses they're producing... I could be dreaming, but the new small P2 cards, the slow rising interest in the HPX250 and the anticipation of as-yet-unproved Black Magic signal that something fierce is going on out there in the prosumer market - and we are talking about the prosumer market - those with all the cash they want - the "pro" market people - don't worry about dropping 30+ grand for a C-500 - 15 year ago a Betacam (hated that camera) was 60+.

But, as the original posts states, it's really all about marketing - I don't trust much of what I read anymore because a lot of the derogatory comments made about the image from the AF100 frankly sound like the parroting of other peoples very biased comments - I still believe in conspiracy theories.

 

[dregenthal]

I was an early adopter of this camera and a few of the others that preceded it -- never got in on any of the deals that came later down the pike. Didn't care either because the experience and money I received in that period of time more than made up for the cost of a 14-140 lens (or P2 card as in previous cameras). I'm not arguing with the original poster . . . My local Chevy dealer does the same thing . . . (I think it has something to do with supply & demand).

Regarding the prowess of other manufacturers . . . There's a lot of good choices out there. When the AF-100 first hit the street what else was there? I guess if you sit back and wait instead of delivering the goods you can always improve on the other guys product which, in my view is exactly what happens . . . and is pretty much a good thing, for us.

I can't (won't is more accurate) talk bad sbout other manufacturers service after he sale . . . Some of which seems non-existent at times, but I will say I have nothing but good things to say about Panasonic Repair folks up in the Meadowlands (and Jan).

 

[Mac]

I am as surprised as anyone that I am so adamantly defending this camera, since I was a huge critic when I first received mine, however...

When it was first released many compared the AF100 to the old 16mm Bolex, and the analogy still applies... The Bolex was s very good camera that was looked down on by the film elite - the Arriflex crowd mainly - because it lacked pin registration and had a terrible reflex finder (pelicle mirror instead of rotating shutter).

But many good films, especially documentaries, were shot on the Bolex and blown up to 35 - Disney's LIVING DESERT and VANISHING PRAIRIE, Brown's ENDLESS SUMMER and my own ACAPULCO GOLD. In an interview I once did with Ansel Adams he said "It's not the equipment, it's what you do with it".

 

[OldCorpse]

So the complaint is that Pana dropped the price of the cam? Is that it? And this is bad because...? In my world, I like price drops, but I'm crazy like that. As to early adopters paying more than those who came later to a changed market - how else would it work, and why is that not the very essence of fairness? Early adopters pay more, but they get more - they get to have a product ahead of the latecomers, they can already enjoy the product or make money, while the late comers are looking on enviously. You pay for the privilege of being early and having the opportunity to enjoy the product while others don't. But I guess some would like to have their cake and eat it too - get the benefits of early adoption but pay no price for that benefit. And that's fair? No, it isn't. It's how economics of product development and marketing work - the laws of the market, which you can't violate and stay in business. Early on, costs of R&D and marketing must be returned, so a product costs what it costs. Later, when the product is mature, and production kinks have been worked out and greater efficiency has kicked in, the cost of production drops and the price reflects that in the market - that's when late comers buy... late comers thus always buy the last iteration of the mature technology because the price drops in competition to the new camera which the early adopters buy again - it's a cycle.

And as to competition. To each his/her own. People are praising Canon or Sony for coming later to the market? Since when is coming later to the market a good thing? Not in my book. Sure they get to improve on the product compared to the pioneer - but if it were not for the pioneer, the competitors would not have come in at all... so how's that a great feature of the competitors? See, Panasonic, you should do like Canon - wait until the market is developed by someone else before you come to market yourself. That way, you can wait on Canon, and Canon can wait on you, and Sony can wait on everybody and nothing ever comes out and the consumer has no product - but hey, it meets with approval from various internet marketing gurus! Apple came out with the iPhone and iPad - now android phones are better and people scream "SEE! Apple are jerks for charging so much while Samsung has much better phones!" except for the part that if Apple didn't come out with the iPhone there would be no android Samsung phones.

As to BMD - kudos for the innovative product, but it's a bit odd to criticize Panasonic here, since you know, ahem, BMD cameras are not out as yet. Let's compare what is out right now, instead of comparing a mature product that's been on the market for years with a future product that's not even out yet. Who cares about "Godfather" - my film, which is coming out one day in the future is gonna be 1000 times better, promise! Compare like with like. Compare what you can buy today, with what you can buy today. When BMD comes out - THEN you are welcome to slag off Panasonic. Except I suspect that BMD, like any new camera will have a run of flaws - that's just the nature of new products. It's easy to be perfect when it's just a plan and not an actual production unit. Wait for it to come out, then we'll talk.

Bottom line - Panasonic may not be a perfect company... no company is perfect. I'm sure Panasonic marketing makes mistakes. Everyone does. But what they are accused of here, just makes no sense at all. None.

 

[Barry_Green]

The AF100 was the first of its type out. Talking about its "competition" is still a strange notion to me, because I still don't think there's a camera that's out today that actually competes with it. The only one from any manufacturer that's within a mile of it would be the FS100, and that's solely on price; I don't think it's really a competitor though because the FS100 still doesn't have basic fundamental features that were, really, what the AF100 was all about -- bringing together a large sensor with videocamera functionality, abandoning the limitations of the DSLR.

Are there "better" cameras on the market? Sure. Lots of 'em. C300, C500, F3, FS700, all sorts. And there are even those who would argue that the FS100 is their preferred choice, although it certainly wouldn't be mine. But against all those I still say they aren't "competition" -- the AF100 can be bought for $3500. Not the $16,000 or $30,000 or $14,000 or $8,000 or even $5,000 of all the others. $3,500. I think it's a hell of a deal at that price. Heck, that's the same price as a 5D Mark III DSLR!

So -- I'm with OldCorpse on this one (and I'm sure it's no surprise to anybody, since I've made it pretty clear the AF100 is about my favorite camera on the market right now). They came out first, they were cheapest, and it's even cheaper now, it does a great job, it's flexible, it has all the features people wanted (including 1080/60p overcranking and true variable frame rates, real neutral density filters, a real SDI port, and on and on) and it's inexpensive. I can't figure out what there is to complain about.

Has it been a perfect ride? Obviously not. The lack of magnified focus assist was a bonehead move on the factory's part, no argument at all. The first-firmware lack of warning that it wasn't recording audio in VFR was a complete fail, but they updated that very quickly. The price drop? Seriously, that's a complaint? If you have a problem with the price of equipment dropping after you buy it, I strongly recommend you never, ever buy a computer. I mean, come on, that's what happens. Especially when you go from a monopoly marketplace situation to a situation where there are lots of choices (even if all but one of them are at least twice the price).

Could the AF100 be "better"? Of course it could. But if it was, it'd likely cost as much as its "competitors", so what would the point be in that? There are already products out there at those price points. Why do we need more at those price points? Why not celebrate the existence of another option, a much lower cost option, which also just so happens to do a whole lot more than its nearest-priced competitors?

As for the BMC -- let's not be silly here. I mean, look -- I'm a fully-paid first-owner of the BMC, and I will tell you right now it doesn't do a tenth of the things the AF100 does. It does some things the AF100 doesn't (specifically, well, pretty much exclusively, it does raw 12-bit capture). Other than that, what does it do? Not much of anything. No variable frame rates, no gamma curves or image paintability, no interval mode, no XLRs and not even any way to adjust the incoming audio level, last I heard. A touchscreen interface where you change the iris on the lens with a "+" and "-" button, and not even an indication of what the f-stop is? A form factor that pretty much prevents conventional handheld work... and on and on. The BMC has some unique selling points that make it a must-have in my book, but I honestly expect that 75% or more of my work, I'll reach for the AF100 instead of the BMC. And that's before we even get to the practicality of lenses, since the BMC's ill-thought-out lens mount basically prevents it ever having a usable focal range zoom, something that the AF100 has finally gotten after a year and a half of waiting. Am I complaining about the BMC? Of course not, I think it's a brilliant idea, at about the right price point. It's even less expensive than the AF100, which makes sense considering it does a lot less in terms of features and user operability, but it does something nobody else does -- raw 12-bit capture -- so that's why I got one. But I'd tell anyone looking to do conventional production, the AF100 is probably the better choice in terms of usability and practicality, hands down.

 

[Lpowell]

Could the AF100 be "better"? Of course it could. But if it was, it'd likely cost as much as its "competitors", so what would the point be in that?

I heartily agree with everything in your post except for this one point. The AF100's out in the field could be significantly improved, as Panasonic themselves have demonstrated with their recent 1080p60 firmware update. As the costs to do so would be limited to firmware development and testing, I can't imagine it would be that expensive. If Panasonic chose to do so, they could at any time revitalize the AF100 with upgraded firmware that would narrow the quality gap between it and its higher-priced competitors.

In my view, the saddest shortcomings of the AF100 are the limited capabilities of its AVCHD recording format. In scenes with limited motion and well-controlled lighting, the AF100 can produce excellent image quality, comparable to a well-hacked GH2:

AF100 @ 1080p30, 200% crop:


GH2 @ 1080p30, Flow Motion v2.02, 200% crop:


With rapid motion, however, the AF100's AVCHD encoding flaws can become painfully visible:

AF100 @ 1080p24, 200% crop:


GH2 @ 1080p24, Flow Motion v2.02, 200% crop:


The rectangular macroblock distortion in the AF100 flowing water shot above is due to inadequate encoding bitrate and suboptimal adjustment of the deblocking filter used in the AVCHD encoder. These are shortcomings that Panasonic could significantly improve by upgrading to one of the higher profiles standardized for the type of H.264 encoder used in the AF100. Aside from firmware development costs, the only significant drawback to doing so would be to increase video file size. I think most AF100 shooters would consider the potential improvement in motion picture quality to be well worth any reasonable upgrade cost.

For unedited, downloadable video footage of the frame grabs above, check out my Vimeo page:

https://vimeo.com/lpowell/videos

For more information on the GH2 Flow Motion v2 Patch, check out the following thread:

GH2 100Mbps Flow Motion v2 Patch

 

[Barry_Green]

In my view, the saddest shortcomings of the AF100 are the limited capabilities of its AVCHD recording format.

But AVCHD is AVCHD. If they were to modify the recorder, and exceed the bitrates, it would no longer be AVCHD. And in their eyes, complying with a standard is important. Hence why even with the new 1080/60p mode, it's only 28mbps even though the VFR 60p goes up to 35mbps -- because in standardized AVCHD, 28mbps is the max allowable for 1080/60p.

With rapid motion, however, the AF100's AVCHD encoding flaws can become painfully visible:

This has always been an issue with every long-GoP codec on the market. The exact same (or worse) degradation happens with XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX, and it will happen on every AVCHD camera. It was truly horrific during the HDV days, HDV could destroy shots in unbelievable ways. The AVCHD implementation on the AF100 is as good as AVCHD gets; I've tested Panasonic's implementation against the Sony implementation and they are absolutely comparable, usually looking identical, occasionally one will degrade more than the other but in all the torture tests I put it through, they performed extremely comparably.

After being the #1 long-GoP hater on the planet for years, I came to terms with AVCHD because, in general, it does fine. There are situations where it gets taxed too much, yes. But we went through whole rounds of tests back when the AF first hit the market, with people comparing different recorders and codecs, and pretty much everyone came to the conclusion that, meh, the AVCHD looks as good, in general, as the external recorders do. And, as an owner and user of the NanoFlash, I can testify that I really don't bother using it very much because, again, in general, the AF100 does just fine. One nice thing about the AF100 is that you can easily take advantage of its SDI and HDMI ports to add something as inexpensive as a Hyperdeck Shuttle for those times when you think the native codec might not be up to the task -- and you'll gain the bonus of true 4:2:2 while you're at it.

Aside from firmware development costs, the only significant drawback to doing so would be to increase video file size.

In your perspective, yes. In their perspective, no! There are many things that would become problematical for them if they did that. Not the least of which is, AF100 footage would then not be guaranteed playable in any other AVCHD device. As a manufacturer of a broad range of pro and consumer products that use AVCHD, from the HPM200 mobile editor on down to the Viera televisions and the consumer camcorders, that is not a small consideration! Making your footage incompatible with your chosen standard is a move fraught with tech support hell. Also, their existing footage is blu-ray compatible, and they have software that lets you directly export footage to a blu-ray drive for archiving. Heck, the AF100 may even do that natively, if you have one of the appropriate blu-ray writers. If they change the codec, that goes out the window. Then there's the whole cross-compatibility thing with other manufacturers, seeing as they all use AVCHD now, going nonstandard would be an iffy thing to do, from their perspective.

I think most AF100 shooters would consider the potential improvement in motion picture quality to be well worth any reasonable upgrade cost.

I totally agree. I'm not downtalking the idea at all, but I'm just pointing out that there are definitely other considerations that they will weigh in their decision. I would love to have a higher-performance codec onboard, at my option -- i.e., I can use AVCHD for those times when compatibility is desired, or pop it over into "turbo" mode for times when I truly don't care about compatibility. To me that's the ideal solution. But I don't expect it to happen, at least not as a modification to an existing product. I hope they will see the wisdom in allowing such capability in future products.

 

[Lpowell]

But AVCHD is AVCHD. If they were to modify the recorder, and exceed the bitrates, it would no longer be AVCHD. And in their eyes, complying with a standard is important. Hence why even with the new 1080/60p mode, it's only 28mbps even though the VFR 60p goes up to 35mbps -- because in standardized AVCHD, 28mbps is the max allowable for 1080/60p.

Yes, AVCHD is a standard that Panasonic has chosen to impose on its products. However, it's a consumer standard mutually defined by Sony and Panasonic for consumer marketing purposes. Even in those cases, Panasonic has several times chosen to step outside the confines of AVCHD to provide enhanced video capabilities. For example, the Panasonic FZ200 features MPEG-4/H.264 recording modes in addition to its AVCHD video modes:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200/2

In the case of the AF100, which is marketed as a professional camcorder rather than a consumer item, I really don't understand the justification for confining it to unprofessional consumer standards. While I think it's a good idea to offer consumer-oriented video modes for those who find them useful, I don't think most working professionals would want to be restricted to such lowest common denominator choices. Compared to the professional video recording formats provided in Panasonic's P2-based video cameras, AVCHD was a serious downgrade. I see no technical reason why Panasonic could not implement ISO-standard H.264 video formats of comparable professional quality on the AF100 in addition to AVCHD, using its existing SD card recording mechanisms.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, AVCHD is a standard that Panasonic has chosen to impose on its products. However, it's a consumer standard mutually defined by Sony and Panasonic for consumer marketing purposes.

Well, no, where did it become defined as or limited to "consumer" gear? Both Sony and Panasonic offer professional implementations of AVCHD; Sony calls theirs NXCAM and Panasonic calls theirs AVCCAM. When HDV was introduced to the marketplace it had the label "consumer" attached to it in its initial press release, but nothing about AVCHD has ever said that it would be a "consumer" format.

Even in those cases, Panasonic has several times chosen to step outside the confines of AVCHD to provide enhanced video capabilities. For example, the Panasonic FZ200 features MPEG-4/H.264 recording modes in addition to its AVCHD video modes:

It does, yes, but two key differentiations -- one, that's coming from the consumer factory, not the pro factory, and that does make a difference, and two: isn't that a case of they added an h.264 mode to handle what didn't exist at the time, which was an AVCHD-codified 1080/60p? I know the TM900 (I think it was) did that; AVCHD 2.0 didn't exist, so they made a dual-format camcorder, one that recorded AVCHD and that also had an additional 1080/60p mode in h.264.

Obviously there's no need for that now, as AVCHD 2.0 covers both.

In any case, I am totally in agreement with you that what would be desirable for us, the users, is to have an unthrottled codec experience. I want that, and I hope they deliver that. I'm not arguing against it. I'm just pointing out that I've spent spent lots of time in discussions (or arguments, if you want to call them that) with the various product managers, designers, engineers, and everyone else I could grab at NAB, and -- this is my understanding of the situation and how they see it.

In the case of the AF100, which is marketed as a professional camcorder rather than a consumer item, I really don't understand the justification for confining it to unprofessional consumer standards.

Well, it's easy to understand -- AVCCAM is a professional standard. It was based on AVCHD, which was never intended to be limited to consumers, and it added professional features such as LPCM and timecode and such. It is a professional version of AVCHD, in the same way that DVCPRO is a professional version of DV. And Sony has taken a similar tactic with making their professional h.264 standard, NXCAM.

Compared to the professional video recording formats provided in Panasonic's P2-based video cameras, AVCHD was a serious downgrade.

AVCHD came about because they wanted to create a high-quality recording medium that could use the cheapest SD cards on the market. It's all about efficient recording to tiny bitrates. And remember, AVCHD is 4 years old now. Or more. The first AVCCAM product came out in 2008. Back then, a 64GB P2 card was maybe $2,000, and all the other manufacturers were making crappy HDV tape cameras, so an alternative to pricey memory recording and a VAST increase in quality over HDV was needed, and that's where AVCCAM came into play.

I see no technical reason why Panasonic could not implement ISO-standard H.264 video formats of comparable professional quality on the AF100 in addition to AVCHD, using its existing SD card recording mechanisms.

Neither do I. And I hope they do.

 

[Mac]

Whatever Panasonic does I've got the cash socked away and it will go to Abels the minute it's announced... I want to repeat - the AF100 is very light, especially when using lenses like the 12-35 or Voigtlander 17.5.. That means a lot to me, it's not only easier to handhold, but it means you can use a light tripod... long days are much easier, and you still have NDs and XLRs.

 

[Adamsenoj]

I heartily agree with everything in your post except for this one point. The AF100's out in the field could be significantly improved, as Panasonic themselves have demonstrated with their recent 1080p60 firmware update. As the costs to do so would be limited to firmware development and testing, I can't imagine it would be that expensive. If Panasonic chose to do so, they could at any time revitalize the AF100 with upgraded firmware that would narrow the quality gap between it and its higher-priced competitors.

In my view, the saddest shortcomings of the AF100 are the limited capabilities of its AVCHD recording format. In scenes with limited motion and well-controlled lighting, the AF100 can produce excellent image quality, comparable to a well-hacked GH2:

AF100 @ 1080p30, 200% crop:
View attachment 58214

GH2 @ 1080p30, Flow Motion v2.02, 200% crop:
View attachment 58216

With rapid motion, however, the AF100's AVCHD encoding flaws can become painfully visible:

AF100 @ 1080p24, 200% crop:
View attachment 58217

GH2 @ 1080p24, Flow Motion v2.02, 200% crop:
View attachment 58220

The rectangular macroblock distortion in the AF100 flowing water shot above is due to inadequate encoding bitrate and suboptimal adjustment of the deblocking filter used in the AVCHD encoder. These are shortcomings that Panasonic could significantly improve by upgrading to one of the higher profiles standardized for the type of H.264 encoder used in the AF100. Aside from firmware development costs, the only significant drawback to doing so would be to increase video file size. I think most AF100 shooters would consider the potential improvement in motion picture quality to be well worth any reasonable upgrade cost.

For unedited, downloadable video footage of the frame grabs above, check out my Vimeo page:

https://vimeo.com/lpowell/videos

For more information on the GH2 Flow Motion v2 Patch, check out the following thread:

GH2 100Mbps Flow Motion v2 Patch

lpowell, although this is a very interesting comparison and I appreciate you taking the time to do it, I feel that it's a bit unfair. Isn't the whole point and advantage of the hacks for the GH2 that they allow you to record footage in higher Mbps/s? Or do they also bypass compression? Because it seems to me that the AF100 recording to something like a Hyperdeck Shuttle to uncompressed or even DNxHD would eliminated the macro blocking and all the things causing you to complain in these tests, no? I think this would be a more fair comparison because the GH2 used is not recording to it's stock format either.

 

[Lpowell]

Because it seems to me that the AF100 recording to something like a Hyperdeck Shuttle to uncompressed or even DNxHD would eliminated the macro blocking and all the things causing you to complain in these tests, no? I think this would be a more fair comparison because the GH2 used is not recording to it's stock format either.

This must be the first time I've heard anyone complain that hacking the GH2 gives it an "unfair advantage". Had I compared the motion picture quality of the AF100 to an unhacked GH2, I think most folks would consider it a clueless comparison, since GH2 patches are readily available. I likewise prepared the AF100 with the best settings I could determine, and tested both cameras in the most demanding real-life conditions I could find. I think the results speak for themself.

From what I've read, the Hyperdeck Shuttle produces high-quality video that would likely perform better than the AF100's built-in AVCHD encoder. However, Panasonic does not bundle an external video recorder with the AF100 and I don't have one myself. For me, a major part of the AF100's value lies in its self-contained operation, providing numerous built-in professional features that the GH2 lacks. Bolting an external recorder and power supply to a rig along with the AF100 (and wiring up video and audio cables between them) would undermine many of the AF100's advantages. If I have to add on extra components to make the AF100 usable, I might as well stick with a well-hacked rails-mounted GH2 which requires no external recorder to produce excellent motion pictures.

 

[tommygdawg]

This must be the first time I've heard anyone complain that hacking the GH2 gives it an "unfair advantage". Had I compared the motion picture quality of the AF100 to an unhacked GH2, I think most folks would consider it a clueless comparison, since GH2 patches are readily available. I likewise prepared the AF100 with the best settings I could determine, and tested both cameras in the most demanding real-life conditions I could find. I think the results speak for themself.

From what I've read, the Hyperdeck Shuttle produces high-quality video that would likely perform better than the AF100's built-in AVCHD encoder. However, Panasonic does not bundle an external video recorder with the AF100 and I don't have one myself. For me, a major part of the AF100's value lies in its self-contained operation, providing numerous built-in professional features that the GH2 lacks. Bolting an external recorder and power supply to a rig along with the AF100 (and wiring up video and audio cables between them) would undermine many of the AF100's advantages. If I have to add on extra components to make the AF100 usable, I might as well stick with a well-hacked rails-mounted GH2 which requires no external recorder to produce excellent motion pictures.

I think the other issue is that you were trying to break the codec, don't get me wrong pushing the envelope is a good thing. However, there are obviously going to be flaws with any camera, and I've never encountered a flaw with the AF100 that I couldn't shoot around when the rare opportunity arose. Just saying, I don't think (IMO, for what it's worth) that the encoder in the AF100 is that big of a deal. 9 times out of 10 it's going to do exactly what you need, and for that other time, you can probably find a work-around. I challenge anyone to find a camera that does exactly what you need 100% of the time.

 

[Adamsenoj]

This must be the first time I've heard anyone complain that hacking the GH2 gives it an "unfair advantage". Had I compared the motion picture quality of the AF100 to an unhacked GH2, I think most folks would consider it a clueless comparison, since GH2 patches are readily available. I likewise prepared the AF100 with the best settings I could determine, and tested both cameras in the most demanding real-life conditions I could find. I think the results speak for themself.

From what I've read, the Hyperdeck Shuttle produces high-quality video that would likely perform better than the AF100's built-in AVCHD encoder. However, Panasonic does not bundle an external video recorder with the AF100 and I don't have one myself. For me, a major part of the AF100's value lies in its self-contained operation, providing numerous built-in professional features that the GH2 lacks. Bolting an external recorder and power supply to a rig along with the AF100 (and wiring up video and audio cables between them) would undermine many of the AF100's advantages. If I have to add on extra components to make the AF100 usable, I might as well stick with a well-hacked rails-mounted GH2 which requires no external recorder to produce excellent motion pictures.

lpowell, I didn't mean it as an attack on you or anything. Somehow from the tone of your post I have the impression that this is how you took it. I can see your point and where you're coming from. But my reasoning was that if you are going to compare, it should be out of the box vs out of the box. If you are going to do something to improve the GH2, even if it's for free, you're still not using the camera as it came from the factory. If you are going to do something to improve the GH2's results, there are also things you can do to improve the AF100 results, like the Hyperdeck. Yes, it's not free, but at 350 it's barely of any concern. The SD cards needed to record most high quality hacks in the GH2 don't seem to cost much less if at all than SSDs of similar size. This was my point of view and where I was coming from.
Of course you can start considering size and extra weight of adding a recorder, but to use the GH2 seriously one pretty much needs a rig anyway and at that point it becomes a moot one.

 

[David W. Jones]

??? Why do I need a rig to shoot with a GH2, I use the camera stripped down, that's my whole point in using it???

??? Are you seriously going to compare the cost of a class 10 card against the cost of the Hyperdeck shuttle/cable/mount/SSD/and SD card which you will still need???