Good news about AF100 firmware

Honestly people arent seeing significant differences from the HDMI or HD SDI out, which can be much higher than 35mbit. Im just not seeing the great advantage there.
 
I agree with you Noel however 10bit would be amazing. Banding has been an issue. Also sound ON in VFR would be very welcome.
 
Sony is answering with the NX Cam. If the NX cam, which has the same sensor as the F3, has also the same lowlight performance, Pana has something to think about. My advise is to updrade de AF101 to an AF201 with a 1000 dollar higher price tag and with 10 bits from the SDI-out and a bitrate of at least 35mbs. Of course one expects the noiselevel (i.e. less noise)to drop in lowlight recordings.
The ergonomics of the AF101 and all the other whistles and bells looks much better than the Sony.
What we know from Pana is that they are listening to the customer; remember I once sad that the P2 adventure was only for the glory and pocket of Pana and that it serve no exceptional benifit to the customer. They came with a cheaper version of the P2.
IMO every pro-cam that comes now on the market, should also have a SSD drive of 120gb build in or at least give you the possibility to insert and remove a 2.5" drive at will. The SD-card slots are great of course, far better than the P2 nonsence (jan wont agree of course)
To tell you the truth, Iam done with Sony and there price policy. I have a defect EX3, that went to USA for repairs twice(still fefect),. I have a EX1 that went for repair once. I started with the VX2000, PC100, VX2100, PD150, PD170. I bought a Canon HDV 40 for underwater shots and location spotting and an Rebel T2i for use with an Octokopter(8 engine helicopter - payload about 4lbs). Now I have set my sights on the Pana AF101. This is the best camera for under 10.000 us$ that one can buy today. The performance and price tag of about 5000 is amazing, but of course one wants more.......................................
 
Kenny_G said:
Sony is answering with the NX Cam. If the NX cam, which has the same sensor as the F3, has also the same lowlight performance, Pana has something to think about. My advise is to updrade de AF101 to an AF201 with a 1000 dollar higher price tag and with 10 bits from the SDI-out and a bitrate of at least 35mbs. Of course one expects the noiselevel (i.e. less noise)to drop in lowlight recordings.
The ergonomics of the AF101 and all the other whistles and bells looks much better than the Sony.
What we know from Pana is that they are listening to the customer; remember I once sad that the P2 adventure was only for the glory and pocket of Pana and that it serve no exceptional benifit to the customer. They came with a cheaper version of the P2.
IMO every pro-cam that comes now on the market, should also have a SSD drive of 120gb build in or at least give you the possibility to insert and remove a 2.5" drive at will. The SD-card slots are great of course, far better than the P2 nonsence (jan wont agree of course)
To tell you the truth, Iam done with Sony and there price policy. I have a defect EX3, that went to for repairs twice(still fefect),. I have a EX1 that went for repair once. I started with the VX2000, PC100, VX2100, PD150, PD170. I bought a Canon HDV 40 for underwater shots and location spotting and an Rebel T2i for use with an Octokopter(8 engine helicopter - payload about 4lbs). Now I have set my sights on the Pana AF101. This is the best camera for under 10.000 us$ that one can buy today. The performance and price tag of about 5000 is amazing, but of course one wants more.......................................
Click to expand...

we will see how sony answers back. sony is well known for either overpricing or watering down a camera.

i disagree on your conspiracy theories regarding p2 and etc.
 
I know you said it's too early for wishlists, but here's what I would like to see anyway. Maybe Panasonic will see this and incorporate some things on their own so you can focus on other more interesting things.


- MODE DIAL on the back of the camera be used to change ISO and SCENE FILE in addition to the SHUTTER and FRAME RATE function it already does. Basically, press the DIAL SELECT button to toggle between SHUTTER, FRAME RATE, ISO, and SCENE FILE.

- Disable audio monitoring when in VFR mode.

- Zoom in focus assist with maybe multiple levels like with the GH1 and GH2.

- More frame rates over 60fps. I find slow motion (shoot > 24fps) more usable and desirable than fast motion (shoot < 24fps). Personally, I'd even be okay with having to drop the bit rate or resolution if necessary for certain frame rates.

- Ability to store more than just 6 scene files.

- Add WHITE BALANCE/BLACK BALANCE and RECORD/STOP to USER BUTTON selection options.

- Make "ND1" not show in display when ND wheel is set to ND1. Panasonic should have labeled these properly. ND1 should be nothing, ND2 should be "ND .3" or "ND 1/4", ND 3 should be "ND .6" or "ND 1/16", and ND4 should be "ND .9" or "ND 1/64". Also make the ND text in the LCD and EVF smaller. If that could be done I'd make my own stickers to relabel the wheel knob on the camera.

- Maybe make some other text in the LCD and EVF smaller as well. Seriously, does all that text need to be so big and take up so much room?

- Color balance control for LCD and EVF.


Those would solve pretty much any issues I have with the camera, personally.
 
The LCD is 1920x480 pixels?
Click to expand...
The LCD is 1920x480 "dots", just like the Sony EX1. Might even be the same panel as in the EX1 for all I know. But the way they count it, is red and green and blue separately. So what you end up with is a "real" resolution of 640x480, but a "marketing" resolution of 1920x480 (640 x 3 = 1920).
 
Barry_Green said:
The LCD is 1920x480 "dots", just like the Sony EX1. Might even be the same panel as in the EX1 for all I know. But the way they count it, is red and green and blue separately. So what you end up with is a "real" resolution of 640x480, but a "marketing" resolution of 1920x480 (640 x 3 = 1920).
Click to expand...

Should be illegal. Smells of false advertising to me, because it throws so many people off.
 
Mike@AF said:
Should be illegal. Smells of false advertising to me, because it throws so many people off.
Click to expand...

They all do it though. First time I saw it in a widespread use was the Sony brochure for the EX1, where they trumpeted "1920 x 480" resolution, although to be fair in their specifications table in the back in fine print they listed it as "640x480".

Panasonic doesn't say "1920x480" anywhere, do they? They do say "1.2 million dots" or "921k dots" or something like that, and people assume that means 1280x720, when in fact it's 864x480x3.

Even Redrock's own marketing team got caught by this, they introduced their Redrock EVF as having "higher resolution than the Red Bomb EVF", because they had 1.2 million pixels and the Red Bomb EVF is 1280x720, which = 920kpix. But of course Redrock was taking the LCD panel manufacturer's spec and assuming that it meant what it said, and you know what happens when you assume.

So who's doing the false advertising? Is Sony falsely advertising when they say it's 1920x480? By yours and my expectations of what "1920x480" should mean, then I can see us saying "yes, that's false." On the other hand, they're claiming that there are 1920 dots per line, and there are. The way the LCD works, there are individual red, green, and blue dots. So is it actually false? Only if you assume it means one thing or the other, I guess. But I thought it was definitely misleading.

It may be one of those things where someone's gotta stand up and define a specific definition, and that "pixels" means a complete RGB unit, and "dots" means an individual red, green, or blue image cell.

Then, it gets even more complex when you start talking about different types of display technology. LCD may have actually three different dots on the screen at all times. LCoS may have a sequential display where (I'm making this up) for 1/180th of a second it displays in red, then the next 1/180th it displays in green, then the next 1/180th it displays in blue. So you'd have a total spatial resolution of each color, but all cosited, so you'd never see a higher RGB resolution than you would of any individual color, so how do you sell that to the people who see a "1440x270" LCD and think "hey, this has a high-res screen!" and then you find out that it's actually 480x270 in terms of RGB detail...
 
Hey Barry.

Whats the real problem with accusal making a lcd 3,5" with full HD res?
They can put 20 million pixels on a corn flake (sensor) but not 2mpix in a 3,5" lcd?
 
Last edited:
I was actually half joking. Next time I'll add a smiley or something. :)

Igelkott Film said:
Hey Barry.

Whats the real problem with accusal making a lcd 3,5" with full HD res?
They can put 20 million pixels on a corn flake (sensor) but not 2mpix in a 3,5" lcd?
Click to expand...

Cost of production? I can imagine that screen would cost exorbitantly more money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top