Cine style zooms for AF100

None of the Panasonic AG series has had automatic level control. Not for the DVX100, 100A, or 100B, not for the HVX200 or 200A, not for the HPX170, HMC150, or HMC40. They just don't have it. I don't know why. They finally added it to the HMC80. I've asked them to put it on the AF100 as well.

The limiter is not a joke; I think I speak for all cinematic shooters when I say the limiter is MUCH preferable to an automatic level control! Pumping audio between takes is horrible. However, for a one-man-band news shooter, automatic level control is preferable to a limiter. Which is why I think they should offer both. As a cinematic shooter, if I could only have one, I'd definitely prefer the limiter. But knowing that wedding shooters and event shooters are also going to be using these cameras, they should provide for both.
 
Why??
As a XDCAM hd cameraman there are times i prefer Audio AGC but then when i work with G. Lucas :-) i prefer Full Manual Audio- full stop. ! AGC i very Handy Leo. For me at least, Pana AF100 is good bang for money replacement for Canon 7D....might have to keep my XDCAM HD after all......
Leo what VF will You be using for Your Cinematic Shots? Another question : has anybody used RED 17-50mm t2.9 Zoom.? Is is built well? Any experience with Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 with Manual Iris?
 
avro said:
Why??
Click to expand...

Because the AF100 is a Cinema camera. Best uses? Commercials, better corporate videos, independent features and shorts; stuff like that. Yes, it can do other things, just as a skilled surgeon can remove your appendix with a can-opener, but it's not the tool of choice. There are much more suitable cameras for one-man-band run & gun shooting with audio. The AF100 has too shallow DOF, no rocker-zoom, etc.

In an uncontrolled environment with many changes in levels, AGC is sure to produce poor quality audio; perhaps acceptable for documentation, but awful for a program. On the other hand, if the background noise and voices are not radically changing, you don't even need AGC. To be honest, for virtually every shot I've ever done, the sound operator is not riding the levels. Set it. Shoot it. Problem? Fix it; reshoot it.

I'll be using the AF100's built-in view finder, although I rarely use the view finder on any HD camera now unless it's because the shooting situation calls for it, such as operating from a camera car.

I've heard nothing but good things about the Red 17-50; I don't own one, but I imagine it would be a near perfect all-around lens for the AF100. Wide enough for most realistic dramatic scenes and tight enough to do a decent head & shoulders shot. Maybe a little wide for that, depending on the subject, but usable. Certainly a lot lighter than something like an 18 - 100!

I have no experience with the Leica.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
mcgeedigital said:
AGC for audio = Autofocus for video.

Very limited use in a professional setting.
Click to expand...

But every so often it can save your arse and make a shot that wouldn't have otherwise been a viable proposition into an acceptable job. Like "Evil Dead" style cameras whizzing through haunted houses when you are a crew of one, the camera is on a Fig-rig and you have no remote focus or second crew person to pull focus, even if that were physically possible. Sometimes setting a single focal distance and running with it works, but sometimes trusting to the camera's auto settings might do a better job for that roving POV shot, or the improvised hand-held camera above the head Fig-Rig crane shot.

It is for that reason that I like having auto settings on my cameras- even though for 99%+ of what I shoot, I turn absolutely ALL the auto functions off. That's why there's always going to be a Lumix autofocus capable lens tucked away in my AF101 camera bag, even if I manage to afford my set of CP.2's next year.

I wouldn't buy a camera which didn't allow full manual control, of course! But I certainly appreciate the ability to fall back on auto functionality in some circumstances because we often shoot with very limited resources, very limited crew... and the camera doing a good enough job on auto makes shots possible.

Myself, I don't need AGC (or haven't done so yet) but autofocus and auto iris I've used in some situations and been very glad of them- and I've ended up sometimes using my HVX200 or GF1 to get a shot when the normally preferable 5D2/7D just doesn't provide the facility.

Cheers, Hywel.
 
Last edited:
This thread proves a very salient point about the AF100. It can't be everything, to everyone.
For those of us who are called upon to do a very wide variety of shooting, keeping a camera like the HVX/HPX on hand will still be very important.

Which is why I am still really disappointed that the AF100 is not a P2 camera. Having an HVX in tandem with an AF100 and a selection of primes would have been fantastic. But with two different card formats and workflows, not nearly as affordable and practical as it might have been.
 
<<<In an uncontrolled environment with many changes in levels, AGC is sure to produce poor quality audio; perhaps acceptable for documentation, but awful for a program.>>>
Just back from World Series Sprint cars......Have You ever done Audio in Pits? Or using 2nd Chanel as a BACKUP for Motor Racing,Concert???? etcetera and etcetera
As I said before, in Controlled environment with Sound Man manual controls are must but ....
I fully agree with Barry-it should have it ALL(manual,limiter and AGC), hope to see You again Down Under for SEMPTE again Barry.

regards
jiri
 
I have considered them but was scared of mechanics,had problem with one 18-50mm on one shoot.
Hope Your ones will last.
Now i will buy RED 17-50mm. I purchased voigtlander 25mm f0.95, 35mm f1.2, 50mm f1.1 and 75mm f1.8 as my cheap primes.
Once again all the best.
jiri
 
The duclos rehoused 11-16 seems like a lens to consider as well. I think a 11-16 duclos along a digioptics 18-50 (or a RED 17-50) could be a pretty nice combo.
 
AndrewSTB said:
Sorry if this was already posted on the forum previously (I`m kinda new here), but I think I`ve got a good theory about zooms and m4/3.What about using a super16 zoom along with a pl mount optical extender, say 1.4 or 2x? Say you use af100>m4/3-to-pl-adaptor>1.4x extender>Super16 zoom (say, zeis 10-100 T2). The extender should nicely extend the image circle of the lens to the 4/3 sensor size. Now I`ne done some research and here`s what I`ve got: I took my company`s b4 2/3 inch canon zoom (4.5x13 f 1.7) with integrated 2x extender on, and puted it aginst my nikon photo camery bayonet (simply holding the lens in one hand and a camera in the other) - good thing that b4 and nikor f mounts got similar ffd. And guess what - the 2/3 image circle with 2x extender was almost enough to cover the APS sized sensor of the photo camera (maybe I`ll post some pictures later). Of course, 2x extender "eats" 2 f-stops, so you end up with something like f3.5 instead of f1.7. But it was b4 aginst aps. I guess, if you pick super16 and a 4/3 sensor, you might get through with a 1.4 extender (wich is, i guess, even better quality optics then 2x) and loose only 1 f-stop, so if you start with zeiss t2.0, you might end up with t2.8, wich is preaty nice, considering 10x zoom and a lightweight of super16.If some one could give that a shot and write bout it here, I would be very pleased, as I live in former USSR country and all the stuff must be delivered from overseas, wich is a real paint in the butt, and that`s why I cant just go to the rentl house and try it myself. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering the same thing. These seems like a good idea.
Will this work? What are the problems with sharpness etc?
 
Nityananda_SCSMath said:
I'm wondering the same thing. These seems like a good idea.
Will this work? What are the problems with sharpness etc?
Click to expand...

I am considering this as well and plan to try it out. I just ordered a 9.5-57mm f1.6 t1.8 HEC 16mm zoom which is arriving tomorrow with a GH2, and I will try to see if I can get it to work. I've heard this zoom is quite good for an older cine zoom, and am hoping it will work with a 1.4x or 1.5x extender. Anyone know if there is likely to be a problem if I use this set of adapters: gh2->m4/3toEF->1.4xExtender->EFtoPL->PLtoArriB->9.5-57mmLens ?

all of these adapters seem readily available from multiple sellers on ebay, but is there a chance there will be a problem attaching an extender made for canon EF mount to a Arri Bayonet mounted lens? I could not seem to find any PL or ARRI-B mount extenders for sale other than various 2x ones. There are adapters to put this lens directly on m4/3 but I want to use readily-available Canon Mount extenders and I would like the option to use other PL or Arri-B or Canon or Nikon (easily adaptable to EF) lenses, so I'll need all the adapters I listed above. I imagine it is possible it will work as long as I be sure the FFD on the extender and on the lens is correct. I'm hoping a 1.4x will work but I'm pretty sure I'll end up needing a 1.5x for this lens since it doesnt cover S16.

Anyway, I'm hoping to end up with an 13-78mm f2.2-f3.2 lens that will have about the APS-C/S35 equivalent range of a 16-96. if it works out, itll be a rather fast cine zoom that only cost $350 about $300 in adapters (though the adapters will allow me to use any PL or B or EF lens on my GH2 including 16mm lenses).
 
Last edited:
another point for folks debating over speed vs size vs cost...

A Tstop is faster than an equivalent Fstop.

So if a lens is a T2.8, its more like an F2.1. That's pretty fast.
 
TimurCivan said:
another point for folks debating over speed vs size vs cost...

A Tstop is faster than an equivalent Fstop.

So if a lens is a T2.8, its more like an F2.1. That's pretty fast.
Click to expand...

yes the F stop will be faster than the T stop but I think it is quite unusual for it to be nearly a full stop faster. From what I've seen of lenses with modern coatings, its usually a difference of <1/3stop for primes with few elements and maybe 1/3-1/2stop for zooms with more elements, more so for older lenses with older coatings or no coatings at all.

For example, the 9.5-57mm Angenieux 16mm zoom I just bought ramps from f1.6-2.2 through its range, and is measured to be t1.8-2.6, only a 1/3 stop loss in transmission over the F-stop. Older versions without the HEC coating are t1.9-2.7, and this is a 6x zoom made several decades ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top