GH2 vs Af100

S

swanny

Well-known member
Are many people considering purchasing the GH2 over the AF100? I couldn't believe how many people were viewing the GH1 forum today, and couldn't help but think they are considering the GH2.
 
I'm not. I would get the GH2 for a b crash/cam to the AF100. Funny how all the camera makers have a lil brother now just for that reason.

AF100 / GH2
Sony F3 / NEX-VG20
Red Epic / Scarlet
 
I think a bunch of people will end up with both the GH2 and AF100. I have both on pre-order. Aside from being a nice B cam for the AF100, the big attraction for me with the GH2 is the new Extra Tele Conversion function which does a 1:1 crop of the middle of the sensor giving a 2.6 zoom factor without any distortion normally found in a digital zoom. From what I've seen so far, this feature looks very promising - especially if you have sharp glass.
 
I think the Tele Conversion is hilarious. People have been railing against small sensor sizes for a while now. And then the GH2 makes using a crop portion of the sensor a "feature" and people go nuts about it.

I think a GH2 to augment an AF-100 is probably a good buy. I think a GH2 to replace an AF-100 is probably not.
 
Exactly, I'd say they are considering it in addition to an AF100. I know that when I am doing web or anything that will be downressed to 720p for distro I'll be using my 7D right alongside the AF100 as a b-cam.
 
I plan on getting both. Purchasing the GH2 with 14-140 seems like a prudent financial purchase too. I think it's like saving a couple of hundred off just the lens alone. I often shoot 2 camera interviews so this makes a completely decent 2nd camera option.
 
Michael Olsen said:
I think the Tele Conversion is hilarious. People have been railing against small sensor sizes for a while now. And then the GH2 makes using a crop portion of the sensor a "feature" and people go nuts about it.

I think a GH2 to augment an AF-100 is probably a good buy. I think a GH2 to replace an AF-100 is probably not.
Click to expand...

Guess you don't shoot much wildlife footage, eh?
 
Gh2 = non-25p camera

Gh2 = non-25p camera

How could one combine GH2 with af-101 when gh2 doesn't have 25p framerate?
 
I plan on buying both. I bought the GH1 to shoot video, but it caused me to get interested in shooting stills again (back in the day I had a 35mm SLR...before it got stolen). So a GH2 is good as a b-cam to the AF100, and is much better suited to photography excursions where I may shoot both stills and video. I imagine that wedding videographers will want a GH2 because of its dual stills/video nature. Come to think of it, the AF100's lack of full-res still capability may be seen as a distinct drawback.
 
Compared to GH1 - key differences

The GH2 might look very similar to a casual glance but there are some major differences between the two models.

New sensor - multi-aspect Live MOS with 18.3 million total pixels
ISO range 160 - 12800 (vs 100-3200)
Sensor capable of 1080p at 60 or 50 fps (rather than 24 or 25 fps), still output as 60i/50i
Faster sensor read-out promises faster AF and smoother viewfinder image (less tearing)
Larger EVF coverage to match multi-aspect shooting (852 x 600 rather than 800 x 600 pixels)
Touch-sensitive LCD screen (same as G2)
New, more modern looking menu screens
G2-style combined AF mode/pattern control on top plate
Direct movie shooting button moved to top plate from rear of camera
Control dial moved from front of handgrip to rear of camera
Dedicated metering and 'film mode' buttons replaced by highly customizable Fn buttons
Q menu button moved from top plate to rear of camera
New battery (DMW-BLC12E) with fractionally smaller capacity (1200mAh vs 1250mAh)
Slightly heavier (394g compared to 385g body only)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgh2/
 
davidje said:
How could one combine GH2 with af-101 when gh2 doesn't have 25p framerate?
Click to expand...

x-actly. The day Panasonic finally comes around and implements (okay, put it somewhere in the sub-menu, but do it...) the 25 p option for us prisoners of PAListan, I will have one as sidekick to my AG-AF and sent my GH13 to sleep.

There is no real competition between the two, imho. The tele conversion of the GH2 is a nice option for certain shots to have and the camera is less conspicuous in cases one needs to shoot a bit concealed. Time lapse function is much better because you can use the complete sensor size for a photo sequence plus you can shoot such a sequence in raw format and have more options for grading & cropping the sequence later.

But, for now, I stay with my nice GH13 and only start behaving like a Tasmanian Devil when it ruins another shot through the good, old banding it produces so exquisitely.....
 
The only footage I have seen from the GH2 showed a very narrow range - crushed blacks and blown-out whites. This may not mate well with the AF100 as a B camera. I think it is safe to assume that Panasonic will tame down the image quality of the GH2 do as not to impede sales of the AF100.
 
HVXguy said:
GH2 Footage

[url]http://vimeo.com/16464227
Click to expand...
[/URL]

I was wondering what you guys though about the overexposure of the GH2 vs the AF100 with respect to saturation and roll off. One of the main reasons i am pitting these cameras against each other because both are in a pre production state. I found a shot at 2:28 where the where the woman has the umbrella, where it is over exposed. Her sleeve, hat and the boxes in the background are blooming, but the blooming sections seem to have lower saturation and roll of softer than what we have seen on the Af100. I know from color correction as you increase the levels toward clipping you also decrease in saturation.

I am aware that the cine gamma - does not have knee protection, so roll off in to clipping is going to be harsh, but the saturation of the chroma seems to be something that is concerning me. However i do understand that like the dvx there are settings to change most things hopefully there is a setting to change the chroma.

Second when pitting these two cameras together, which do you guys think gives a better ascetically pleasing image. And i understand the largest variable is the person shooting and their idea of ascetics, but if you put the two images side by side which do you guys prefer.

As it stands to me the GH2 is looking more photographic as the af100 is looking a bit less photographic and more videoish. ( and i am not talking about shutter speed ) I hesitate to use the term filmic, because in my estimation i simply want the video to look like a sequence of still images from a DSLR.

Sorry i rambled, and moderately strayed off topic, but hopefully this will get the GH2 Af100 debate back on track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top