GH4 GH4 vs AF100 image quality

F

filmguy123

Veteran
Any comparisons (footage/stills)?
In terms of low-light, white roll-off, dynamic range, sharpness/detail, etc.?

Wondering how far this new sensor exceeds what I've got on the AF100, and hoping now that the camera has been out a while that there are some good comparisons out...?

And/or subjective anecdotes from those here.

Thanks!
 
I don't have any side by side examples but the GH4 image will exceed the AF100 in every category some by a mile. I haven't shot with an AF100 in over a year but in my opinion the GH4 is lightyears ahead. With all the in camera video features one could argue the GH4 is the successor to the AF100.
 
I'm using both, and the GH4 has the potential for the better footage, no doubt. But like everything, it's a trade off. For my medical work, I'm going to continue to use my AF100 (which is nearly half of what I shoot), as it's still "good enough", but more importantly it's easier and more intuitive to use. I move faster with it than my GH4, and that's important as my medical work tends to be more run and gun (especially when I shoot surgeries).
 
Love my AF, but on sheer IQ it has a hard enough time keeping up with my hacked GH2 (unhacked as well, for that matter). I do plenty of 2-shot interviews with AF100 and GH2 using similar lenses, I wind up kicking the AF's detail up 30% in Premiere to match the GH2 sharpness. Used a GH3 as well, does as well or better.

The AF MIGHT do slightly better on noise, as I don't really have a problem until >1600 ISO, I've heard noise complaints on the GH4 varying from 800-1600

They all could do better on highlight rolloff, but all the GH cams are better than the AF


Give me another 2 months or so after some invoices pay to give them a thorough head to head.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I'm using both, and the GH4 has the potential for the better footage, no doubt. But like everything, it's a trade off. For my medical work, I'm going to continue to use my AF100 (which is nearly half of what I shoot), as it's still "good enough", but more importantly it's easier and more intuitive to use. I move faster with it than my GH4, and that's important as my medical work tends to be more run and gun (especially when I shoot surgeries).
Click to expand...

Heh, me too:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-Heart-Transplant&p=1986468053#post1986468053
 
Last edited:
I own both. The GH4 image is much more forgiving in terms of highlights and dynamics, but the AF100 has a lot of built in features that I really miss:
ND filters
Scopes
AUDIO
Dual SD slots

Hopefully after huge success of the GH4 Panasonic will design a new machine with GH4 inside, and AF100 outside.
 
I'm in the same boat as most of you. Love(d) my AF100, but in the end switched to the GH4. The factor that did it for me was the highlight handling and other IQ factors.
I took deliberate steps to make the gh4 as AF100 Like as possible. I modified a honu cage to remove the right hand side so I could grip the camera. I added a Juicedlink xlr box to pipe very clean xlr audio into the camera. I added Xume magnetic filter adapters to all my lenses and I keep a belt pouch with ND's on for very quick ND changes. I added a top handle to the cage. So functionally, it's pretty close to the AF100. I do miss the big orientable viewfinder of the Af100 and some of the physical switches and buttons, but the GH4 is pretty customizable for all the functions I use. And the 3 custom spots on the function dial of the gh4 allow much faster changing of frame rates than the AF100.

The only area that does not feel like an improvement over the AF100 is iso performance, to me it feels about the same as the af100 in that regard.
 
I'm using both. The image quality is vastly better on the GH4 but for one man band ENG shooting the audio system is much better with the AF100. Love the AF100 scopes and the built in ND. Where I'm currently working there is a prohibition on 4K footage. I'm not going to get into all that... Since everything is still HD 1080 there just hasn't been much call for the GH4 over the AF100.
 
The GH3/4 do not suffer from the chroma clipping that plagues the AF100. That factor alone was reason enough for me to switch.
 
In terms of image quality, the GH3 and especially the GH4 win hands down. Not to say the AF100 doesn't have a pretty good image, but I was often just a bit underwhelmed and frustrated. (granted I bought an AF100 on the cheap 4 years after it came out and I'd already been using the hacked GH2 and was on the cusp of buying the GH4.) The form factor, the built in NDs, XLR inputs were all fantastic though. For certain jobs, it's tough to beat all the features it had, plus you look more legit. Some downplay this, but I'm often having to fight a small battle when I first pull out my tiny little DSLR, especially til I get it rigged up (assuming the shoot requires a rig). I've had to tell new clients, that yes, we're doing video and not just stills for their commercial. Then I just tell people it's my secret weapon, a 4K cinema camera in a DSLR body. They usually believe it, and they always believe it after they see the footage. But there is just something nice about having a big solid movie camera sitting on top of the sticks. Of course, run and gun... it'd just be nice to have a nice AF100 successor with the GH5 tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top