GH2 guy; rented an AF-100 for this weekend...

S

sparky33

Well-known member
Now I'm thinking of dumping the GH2 for the AF-100.
Reasons to off the top of my head:
1. I can adjust White balance, Gain/ISO, IRIS/aperture, and shutter speed WHILE recording. With the GH2 in manual mode I can adjust the aperture/shutter and that's it. If I film from one room to another I can hit the AWB button and keep on shooting, AND keep the "180 degree" rule in effect.

2. The built in ND filters are amazing. No more screw on step up rings and the hassle of ND filters for each lens.

3. I never realized how much I missed the video camera body.

4. I could never get the colors exactly how I wanted them with the GH2. Close, but never exactly right.

5. The blown out highlights are much more tame with the "knee" option in the menu.

6. Dual SD cards are very handy.

Reasons to not get the AF-100:

1. Cost.

2. Size. You can't be discreet with this big honking thing.

3. Have to get a different camera bag.

4. I don't shoot film for a living; just a hobbyist (nor do I plan on ever).

5. The biggest reason is I'm afraid Canon or Nikon is going to put out something similar very soon. Like if the 5DMarkIII but without the moire and aliasing problems, and the 12 minute limit removed.

Any "hobbyists" on here own an AF-100? Or is it just you guys who earn $$ shooting? Am I nuts like my wife says?

Shawn
 
Well my hobby is restoring 50's, 60's, & 70's Ferraris, so I know very well how your wife would think you are nuts.
If you were a working pro, my advice would be to keep the GH2 & get the AF100.
Only you, and of course your wife can decide if the AF100 and accessories are in your budget.

Good Luck!

Dave
 
I guess I am a hobbyist. My 9-5 job is working in broadcast post production. But I also like making my own films so I have the AF100. I don't make any money from the films I make although one day I would like to.

For me it is pretty much the perfect camera. The price is just about right (I wouldn't have wanted to go much higher) and as I already have an assortment of gear it wasn't too difficult to rig it up for cine-style shooting. I already had a bunch of Nikon lenses, a tripod and things like rails, shoulder support and grips.

Getting used to changing the lenses wasn't a massive problem because my last camera was a HVX200 with a Letus adaptor. The size isn't a problem - it's much smaller than a lot of the other cameras I've used.

We don't know what Red or Canon are about to announce next month. I personally am not too concerned. I have a feeling that whatever is announced is going to cost more than an AF100 (so out of my price range).
 
There is no question that the AF100 is superior in pretty much every way. All those features you listed are well known as nearly necessary for proper production work ('Nearly Necessary for Proper Production' is one of the Mary Poppins songs they cut out of the movie). Your list of cons only has one worth thinking about; cost. Everything else you said (except the last one) is a subsection of cost, and the last one is just not a good way to make decisions. It doesn't matter what someone else releases someday in the future.

You have to consider the value of the benefit versus the cost. Will you be making money off of having this? If it's just a hobbyist's toy for you, will your personal enjoyment and production ability be increased enough to justify the cost? It sounds like you may have already made that decision, but don't forget that you can always rent when needed.
 
As a hobbyist as well, and owner of a GH1 and AF100—the AF out of the box is perfect imo (it's onboard controls, focus assist, audio options, etc..). The GH often needs tweaking: hardware-wise (filters, support, rig...). The size & weight of the AF when compared to the GH is noticeable—but when compared to the 5D, or most any professional DSLR after rigging—the size & weight difference may be negligible. It is a leap in cost to the GH. Personally, that leap cuts my production, shoot and post time—and is worth it... to me personally. I'm glad you posted this thread because I'm in no way pro, but do love to geek out with this camera!
 
Every few minutes with the AF-100 I'm like "Oh, it does this too?" I agree I shouldn't be too worried about what the other guys are doing - I just always look at large purchases with the hope if something goes wrong (lose my job, major financial problem, etc.) that I can recover the bulk of the cost.
I always wonder why people say this thing isn't good for run and gun? In about 30 seconds I can dial in exposure and walk around with this handheld and the footage looks great. The lens I've used the most is the 14-50 F/2.8-F/3.5 with the adapter - it has OIS. I've literally walked around my house with this set to F/3.5 and it is very steady and beautiful.

I also did some comparison tests with the GH2 in manual mode last night - the AF100 seems to be far brighter at the same aperture with the same lens - I used the 14mm F/2.5, ISO 3200, 1/50 shutter and it wasn't even close. How is that possible?

*I just realized this thing takes 1920x1080 stills also. IT does Auto Black balances as well! On a tip I set the EVF to B&W mode and used the focus assist. HOLY CRAP.
 
Glad you're enjoying it! It really is a completely different world from the GH2. I love my GH2, but when folks try to argue that it's as good or better than an AF100, I just don't really understand where they're coming from. The GH2 is great for what it is, but there are so many things an AF100 does, that ... well, yeah, just like you said. :)

As for "not good for run 'n' gun", it all depends on your frame of reference. If you're used to working with traditional pro video cameras, you might find it restrictive, especially in terms of the servo zoom and iris control. But if you're coming from a DSLR or GH2, you would probably well feel like you said, that it's much better.
 
one thing my GH2 cant beat the af100 in is the color controls. GH2 is just too saturated for my taste. I would want to be able to lower the saturation a bit more.

5. The biggest reason is I'm afraid Canon or Nikon is going to put out something similar very soon. Like if the 5DMarkIII but without the moire and aliasing problems, and the 12 minute limit removed.
Click to expand...
the 12 minute limit is the 4GB file size limit. it cant be fixed unless they actually span the video recorded to a new file. also, if ti shoots stills it will always have moire and aliasing. ive shot a side by side of canon and gh2, although canon has the worst moire and aliasing ever, GH2 also has em albeit not as bad

also, the gh2 is too light for me. af100 is easier to handheld without shake :)
 
I'd encourage keeping the Gh2 and then getting the AF100 if you can swing it. Always better to have two cameras rolling on most things... Again, two different tools and I do really love the AF100 for it's completeness, but in all deference I have been quite happy to mostly shoot with the GH2. A nice monitor with peaking for 400 bucks, a decent shoulder rig and follow focus (300) and I"m off and running for the most part.

The other big thing I like about the GH2 is how much of a tourist i look like. Hard to do that with the Af100.. which hands down has the best audio I've ever heard from a camera like this. Simply the best audio... and not sure why.


There will always be new cameras, but the cameras don't mean bubkiss in the wrong hands. I do black out mine cause I like to just shoot without people coming up to fanboy... It seems to be a very insular and insecure thing and lots of the "young" kids are always comparing and contrasting... but meanwhile not one of them knows anything about lighting and most of their cameras are in full auto ... Ahhh, I'm getting old.
 
I am always amazed at the folks that say the AF10 is not suited for "run-'n-gun" work. I look at the divide as more of a "servo zoom" vs "digital cinema" question. I just got back from a four day shoot on two islands, shooting cinema verite, natural history stuff... no script. Chasing native Hawaiian crows in aviaries, and following a National Park ranger in the field, all with the AF100. I always think back to what it must have been like shooting 16mm film: no auto iris, no servo zoom, no image stabilization, no auto focus. When Iʻm trying to satisfy a paying client on an ENG shoot, Iʻll probably take my Canon XLH1 with 20x and 6x zooms and the nanoFlash recorder. When Iʻm trying for a digital cinema look, Iʻll take the AF100, and just make it work. It can be done!
 
I agree Jeff.. The AF100 is a great run and gun. When I've had to be very mobile then this is the rig that I have used. Poof, just pick it up and go... all nicely self contained.
 
One thing I would miss it the ability to touch focus on the screen - with the GH2 I can just tap the screen to focus on one subject and then the other. I do something like this with the joystick on the AF100, but I haven't figured out how to engage it unless I push down on the joystick itself, then it's much slower moving from one side of the frame to the next.

I am using the 25mm F/1.4 summilux now. Believe it or not, it works much better on the AF100 in autofocus mode (which I use rarely anyway). It hunts and "breathes" quite a bit on the GH2. Not so with the AF100.

Well I went to bed early and got up early to film some night shots of my neighborhood. I have to mail this back to Lensrentals.com by Monday.

I found what I think is a pretty good deal on a used AF100 + extra battery (and all boxes/accessories + the Green book) = $3700. Has 16 hours on it. What do you guys think? I have 2 GH2's - I would sell one of them and a few other things I won't need anymore, like the Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter.

Shooter - I'm trying! :)
 
I would also miss the small size of the GH2 as well as the ETC mode.

Guys/gals - There is nothing like walking into a room, changing the light source dramatically, hitting the WB button in the front and watch the colors magically come to life. The skin tones look very accurate to me. Who says this camera doesn't "POP"? It's bloody accurate and brilliant. I must be watching too much Philip Bloom and Top Gear - I'm an Ohioan saying "bloody" now.
 
sparky33 said:
...I am using the 25mm F/1.4 summilux now. Believe it or not, it works much better on the AF100 in autofocus mode (which I use rarely anyway). It hunts and "breathes" quite a bit on the GH2. Not so with the AF100....
Click to expand...

I see this as well when using the Lumix lenses (100-300 f4-5.6, and 45 f2.8 DG Macro) on the AF vs the GH1. The lenses do behave differently on the AF. I've seen no documentation as to why this is. But I suppose since it's a "real" video cam—that the lens firmware behaves differently/appropriately. I dunno?
 
Yeah I've had both in my hands for a good amount of time. The AF100 is clearly a real-deal camcorder ready to roll on pro stuff without a compromise. The GH2 though for the size and price is a surprising shooter that gives me 'non-pro' footage that still makes me smile because it looks sweet. You can't go wrong with either one- the real difference is how often you'll be shooting with it and can you swing the costs.

-Noah
 
I hate that I cannot get the GH2 colors correct. On a scene with grass, people, bright objects (all within the frame) one of the three look correct. Either the skin tones are off and the grass looks ok, or the skin tones are right and everything else is washed out.

I sent back the AF100 and I thought about getting a Canon XA100 - 305 (or HF-G10) but I just cannot stand the live, amateur (to me) looking everything in focus look. I immediately say "that's handycam footage right there".

I lie in bed at night and think about the auto WB and the scene WB options with the AF-100.

I know I can grade my footage, but I would rather have it right to begin with. One last thing - I've been looking at FS100 and F3 footage, and while it looks great, it just seems too vivid or something for me. I think the AF100 just looks spot on color-wise, and that's HUGE to me.
 
Yeah I wouldn't see deep focus always screams amateur- good composition is good composition. That said, to a certain aesthetic it's much easier to get a 'cinematic' looking shot with shallow depth of field than without it.

-Noah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top