Cory Braun
Well-known member
Yea I agree. He posts some valid points, and people are attacking him for no reason.
I sold my AF100 and I feel fine
- Thread starter DustBowl
- Start date
Yea I agree. He posts some valid points, and people are attacking him for no reason.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
That's because it made them question why they bought it themselves. People like to feel good about the decisions they have made, and want others to validate and confirm their "correct" decision. People post and say things for different reasons, some to gain knowledge because they don't know, others are to boast about what they know and attempt to pursuade you to think the way they do. And someone will always play devil's advocate for sake of control. Nobody wants to be told that the way they think is wrong, nor do they want to believe that the decision to purchase a camera was wrong. The AF100 is a nice camera, but it's not for everyone and obviously not right for the OP. Maybe he should have done more research, maybe not, but sometimes you just have to see for yourselves. He bought into the hype, took the plunge and it didn't work out. People post glowing "reviews" all the time, but a "not your opinion" review is posted and people don't like that. I know I don't like to hear negative things about the cameras I have purchased. Makes me second guess if it's "the right camera for me". From my perspective, he wasn't attacking anything, simply making a case for what he didn't like and what didn't work for him. And that's ok.
Well, that's partly true but if you've invested time and money in a particular technology you don't want your potential customers raising unfounded objections based on what they've come across on the internet. Note I say unfounded objections, not that the issues raised were unfounded. They may be perfectly valid, but still not relevant to a particular situation or job. So highlight handling may be important when the camera is used where the light cannot be controlled, but of no consequence in the studio.
Shooter
Veteran
I am totally o.k with the O.Ps decision and reasons to sell his camera.
It simply didnt suit him and his needs and expectations. ( It is his to sell by right of course)
Not exactly sure why he posted that he was doing so though.
(It was bound to be a bit inflammatory and provoking)
But...if it makes a potential AF100 buyer make careful consideration of what they are getting into...then thats a good thing.
It simply didnt suit him and his needs and expectations. ( It is his to sell by right of course)
Not exactly sure why he posted that he was doing so though.
(It was bound to be a bit inflammatory and provoking)
But...if it makes a potential AF100 buyer make careful consideration of what they are getting into...then thats a good thing.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Definitely a valid point. And people do tend to gravitate towards the negative stuff... Just watch the news! LOL. If they only showed positive things, like cute puppies and heart-warming stories, few would watch. I think there are negative reviews of just about every camera out there. But there needs to be.... If the AF100 was the perfect camera, everyone would have it. There would be no need for anything else. For the OP's needs, it is obviously not and this review could answer questions for someone else making a camera buying decision and prevent them from making the wrong decision.
filmguy123
Veteran
LOL, all I said was it sounded like most of the complaints revolved around ENG type work (quality zoom lenses, fast gain switches and auto gain, etc.) No one is jumping on anyone. They are all valid ponts that would make the camera better and I agree with the majority (though a few I disagree with; Panny has been good about batteries, and I prefer the camera to be plastic and "feel" cheaper since it's not ACTUALLY cheaper and the light weight is ideal). If it doesn't work for someone, they should sell it! It was just a statement/thought. But yes, deep down in my subconscious I am really trying to validate my feelings of regret and insecurity, fearing I perhaps made a bad purchase. This is why I viciously attack people in the form of sharing absurd observations, such as the AF100 not being designed as an ENG camera. Yes, that's it.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
The first step is admitting it
Nahh, we all do it. You don't want anyone to say anything negative about your camera. I don't want anybody to say anything bad about mine 
It was just a general observation in the world, not in any way directed at you buddy kevin baggott
Well-known member
I agree Kegan - i was glad to read it as well
I've been thinking of selling my AF100 because of certain negatives that I could solve with another camera. However, my focus is not with documentaries, but with more narrative content. I could understand a lot of the issues the OP brings up and even agree with a lot of them, though I think it's important to understand what the AF100 is meant for and its price point. The AF100 is meant as a digital cinema camera, and shooting cinema-style is different than ENG-style typically. You spend more time refining your lighting and your shot. It sounds like with what you're shooting you need to move faster and don't have time for lighting, controlling your exposure, and focusing. So clearly the AF100 probably wasn't the right camera to begin with.
I personally have seen the highlight problem, but not in any of my own shots. There's definitely something weird happening when the highlights are overexposed a certain amount and it would be nice if Panasonic did something to fix that when it does happen. But as a cinematographer it's important to know the limitations of the camera you're shooting with and how to handle those limitations and compensate for them. If you know something weird is going to happen with the highlights, then don't overexpose. Stop down, throw in some ND, or even lower your ISO, then light your shadows better so you don't underexpose.
On the zoom lens part, there's plenty of decent zoom lens cameras on the market that can be used with the AF100 with adapters. Will you be able to use AF? No, but again, it's a digital cinema camera and I don't know any cinematographers outside of docs and reality shows that actually use autofocus. So again, not the right camera to begin with.
I don't think the AF100 feels cheap or that Panasonic should have done something better. It's a $4200 camera! I really think we're getting a lot for only $4200. Are there things I wish were there that aren't? Of course. I'd like 4:2:2, 10bit out of the SDI, magnify for zooming instead or in addition to the existing focus assists, a dial for ISO, the EVF towards the front instead of the back, redundant recording to the SD cards as an option, smaller text in the LCD so I can see more of my image, and some other minor changes. Some of that is unrealistic at this price range and I might be willing to pay more for. Others are things I think Panasonic absolutely should have done and it baffles me how and why they have things the way they are.
There are 3 main, big things that recently made me consider selling my AF100 and GH2 to get a Scarlet.
1. Sensor size. It's a real bummer knowing my 21mm lens, which is my widest at the moment, has the FOV of around a 30 (26-31 depending on the camera you compare it to). I just know it's a smaller sensor and more of it is getting cropped. However, it's really not that big of a difference and I can get an Olympus 12mm f/2 lens that pretty must solves that and the crop will show less of the distortion at the edge of the lens. Not perfect, but usable when a FOV that wide is needed.
2. Resolution. The AF100 is a 1080p camera, and what I had read is that it resolves about only 800 lines. The Scarlet is 4k. I don't know what it actually resolves, but it's a lot more than 800 or 1080. The Red One resolved about 3700. Today I watched the Great Camera Shootout 2011 (somehow I missed this was even done before) and they measured 1018 lines of resolution on the AF100 (509 per 540 pairs). That's a lot closer to 1080 than had been previously measured or reported. Since what we typically watch right now is at most 1080p and many times 720p, I'm satisfied with that for now. Eventually I absolutely do want to get 4k or more.
3. Color. The AF100 is 4:2:0. The Scarlet is 4:4:4 RAW. That's a huge difference. Even the SDI and HDMI out on the AF100 is still 8-bit, but at least 4:2:2. The problem is that it costs another couple thousand or so in additional equipment to be able to record it. I would rather be able to pay $2000 more for the camera for the ability to record at least 8-bit 4:2:2 but preferably 10bit with less compression in camera.
Today I've pretty much come up with the conclusion to keep my AF100 and hold off on the Scarlet, though I'll keep my Scarlet order going to retain the lower pricing just in case I change my mind again. Why did I change my mind? I watched that SCCE Great Camera Shootout 2011. What I saw was that the higher-end cameras (Alexa, F35, Red, F3, etc) are absolutely better cameras producing better images in almost every test. I totally expected that. However, I was surprised by 2 things. 1) how much better the AF100 was than the DSLRs, and 2) how close the image quality of the AF100 was to the higher-end cameras under the same conditions. Sure there were problems with the AF100 image on many of the tests, but like I said above, if you know what those limitations are you can compensate for them. You wouldn't shoot a scene with 14 stops of dynamic range or underexpose something by 7 or 8 stops or overexpose by 6 or 7, because the AF100 doesn't have that capability. What I learned is you can go at best 10 stops total, 5.9 under, or 4.3 over... probably 8 total, 5 or less under, or 3 or less over to be safe.
So knowing and learning all that today, I'm happier with my AF100 than I've ever been, even the first day I got it. A Scarlet may still be in my future, but for now I'm going to happily shoot with my $4200 AF100 and save myself many thousands of dollars I'd spend getting the Scarlet.
The AF100 certainly isn't the right camera for everyone or every job. No camera is right for everyone or every job. And no camera has, is, or ever will be perfect. I hope you find the right camera for what you're shooting.
I personally have seen the highlight problem, but not in any of my own shots. There's definitely something weird happening when the highlights are overexposed a certain amount and it would be nice if Panasonic did something to fix that when it does happen. But as a cinematographer it's important to know the limitations of the camera you're shooting with and how to handle those limitations and compensate for them. If you know something weird is going to happen with the highlights, then don't overexpose. Stop down, throw in some ND, or even lower your ISO, then light your shadows better so you don't underexpose.
On the zoom lens part, there's plenty of decent zoom lens cameras on the market that can be used with the AF100 with adapters. Will you be able to use AF? No, but again, it's a digital cinema camera and I don't know any cinematographers outside of docs and reality shows that actually use autofocus. So again, not the right camera to begin with.
I don't think the AF100 feels cheap or that Panasonic should have done something better. It's a $4200 camera! I really think we're getting a lot for only $4200. Are there things I wish were there that aren't? Of course. I'd like 4:2:2, 10bit out of the SDI, magnify for zooming instead or in addition to the existing focus assists, a dial for ISO, the EVF towards the front instead of the back, redundant recording to the SD cards as an option, smaller text in the LCD so I can see more of my image, and some other minor changes. Some of that is unrealistic at this price range and I might be willing to pay more for. Others are things I think Panasonic absolutely should have done and it baffles me how and why they have things the way they are.
There are 3 main, big things that recently made me consider selling my AF100 and GH2 to get a Scarlet.
1. Sensor size. It's a real bummer knowing my 21mm lens, which is my widest at the moment, has the FOV of around a 30 (26-31 depending on the camera you compare it to). I just know it's a smaller sensor and more of it is getting cropped. However, it's really not that big of a difference and I can get an Olympus 12mm f/2 lens that pretty must solves that and the crop will show less of the distortion at the edge of the lens. Not perfect, but usable when a FOV that wide is needed.
2. Resolution. The AF100 is a 1080p camera, and what I had read is that it resolves about only 800 lines. The Scarlet is 4k. I don't know what it actually resolves, but it's a lot more than 800 or 1080. The Red One resolved about 3700. Today I watched the Great Camera Shootout 2011 (somehow I missed this was even done before) and they measured 1018 lines of resolution on the AF100 (509 per 540 pairs). That's a lot closer to 1080 than had been previously measured or reported. Since what we typically watch right now is at most 1080p and many times 720p, I'm satisfied with that for now. Eventually I absolutely do want to get 4k or more.
3. Color. The AF100 is 4:2:0. The Scarlet is 4:4:4 RAW. That's a huge difference. Even the SDI and HDMI out on the AF100 is still 8-bit, but at least 4:2:2. The problem is that it costs another couple thousand or so in additional equipment to be able to record it. I would rather be able to pay $2000 more for the camera for the ability to record at least 8-bit 4:2:2 but preferably 10bit with less compression in camera.
Today I've pretty much come up with the conclusion to keep my AF100 and hold off on the Scarlet, though I'll keep my Scarlet order going to retain the lower pricing just in case I change my mind again. Why did I change my mind? I watched that SCCE Great Camera Shootout 2011. What I saw was that the higher-end cameras (Alexa, F35, Red, F3, etc) are absolutely better cameras producing better images in almost every test. I totally expected that. However, I was surprised by 2 things. 1) how much better the AF100 was than the DSLRs, and 2) how close the image quality of the AF100 was to the higher-end cameras under the same conditions. Sure there were problems with the AF100 image on many of the tests, but like I said above, if you know what those limitations are you can compensate for them. You wouldn't shoot a scene with 14 stops of dynamic range or underexpose something by 7 or 8 stops or overexpose by 6 or 7, because the AF100 doesn't have that capability. What I learned is you can go at best 10 stops total, 5.9 under, or 4.3 over... probably 8 total, 5 or less under, or 3 or less over to be safe.
So knowing and learning all that today, I'm happier with my AF100 than I've ever been, even the first day I got it. A Scarlet may still be in my future, but for now I'm going to happily shoot with my $4200 AF100 and save myself many thousands of dollars I'd spend getting the Scarlet.
The AF100 certainly isn't the right camera for everyone or every job. No camera is right for everyone or every job. And no camera has, is, or ever will be perfect. I hope you find the right camera for what you're shooting.
Are you needing the large-format sensor (DOF) look? It's possible the HPX370 might be a good choice for
you to consider if you don't require the LFS/DOF look. Good zoom lens choices and the AVC100 codec is
excellent.
Many of the things you don't like about the AF100 are addressed by the HPX370.
jeff
you to consider if you don't require the LFS/DOF look. Good zoom lens choices and the AVC100 codec is
excellent.
Many of the things you don't like about the AF100 are addressed by the HPX370.
jeff
Last edited:
filmguy123
Veteran
The first step is admitting it
Haha often true. But I don't mind. Facts are facts! It's just an object
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
Here is my deal. I have no problem admitting the faults of any tool. And yes, a camera is a tool...that's all. Maybe this camera did not fit the OP's needs and that is fine but to say Inflammatory things is asking for trouble. You picked the wrong tool. No problem. Move on.
As for me, I can find far more negative things to say about my RED One than the AF. So, at least for me it is not about admitting I made a poor choice. I am perfectly willing to proclaim all the warts of a camera system that cost me more than five times as much, and don't even get me started on the Epic.
As for me, I can find far more negative things to say about my RED One than the AF. So, at least for me it is not about admitting I made a poor choice. I am perfectly willing to proclaim all the warts of a camera system that cost me more than five times as much, and don't even get me started on the Epic.
I also wish for 1:1 focus assist, a better EVF and LCD, and the return on the scene wheel.
Don't much mind the gain, as it's exactly the same as most other cameras of this ilk, and I always avoided auto gain anyway. The relative noiselessness lets me set gain for indoors and flip in some ND when outside. I can also compensate with gain for relatively slow lenses, stopping far down for deep focus - thus the 14-140 fills most lens needs except smooth zooming. A fast smooth par focal would be ideal, though.
As to the SD issues, none have surfaced for me, although I do wish we had the ac160's dual record mode. As to switching cards... well, I shot through four straight football games on a single 64gb card, so the need to switch while recording isn't there.
Still being bitten by the occasional blown highlight, though. I have to remind myself constantly to underexpose.
Don't much mind the gain, as it's exactly the same as most other cameras of this ilk, and I always avoided auto gain anyway. The relative noiselessness lets me set gain for indoors and flip in some ND when outside. I can also compensate with gain for relatively slow lenses, stopping far down for deep focus - thus the 14-140 fills most lens needs except smooth zooming. A fast smooth par focal would be ideal, though.
As to the SD issues, none have surfaced for me, although I do wish we had the ac160's dual record mode. As to switching cards... well, I shot through four straight football games on a single 64gb card, so the need to switch while recording isn't there.
Still being bitten by the occasional blown highlight, though. I have to remind myself constantly to underexpose.
+1 to that. I think this is useful information.
Chris Johnston
Veteran
Maybe the OP changed his post but I went back and read it. Didn't see anything "Inflammatory" per say. (unless, anything negative is considered "Inflammatory" nowadays.)
I'm not in the market for a camera anymore but if I was, and I was doing "research" I would certainly want to know what other users DIDN'T like about it.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
It's just a perspective for an owner of an AF100 and why it didn't work for them, and I personally think it's VERY valuable for those that might find those limitations very important. If people only talk about what they love about a camera, typically, the negatives fall though the cracks and it can be hard to find out every little detail about using a camera. When I bought a Nikon D90, NOWHERE did I see that I couldn't manually adjust the exposure at the time. Yet, once I got the camera, I found that out the hard way. Everyone was gushing over the shallow DoF and yet, a VERY important tool for me, was missing.
I get TONS of questions from people who know I had an AF100 and I got rid of it. There are lots of people, even after reading thread after thread of information, are still just not sure what to do. Which is why I tell every one of them, rent the camera and spend some time with it, that's the only way you'll know. I miss features of the AF100 EVERY time I shoot with the FS100. On the other hand, there are other features or performance I'm glad I have now (like zoom focus assist). Or that 4x and 8x zoom is on the way for the FS100 with a firmware update, and other features.
It doesn't take a $90k camera to blow out highlights more aesthetically pleasing, as my 7D does a fine job blowing out highlights. Sometimes I have shots that require a blown highlight for what I want. It's harder (but not impossible) to get the shots I want on the AF100 or the FS100 (which I now own) with a blown highlight. Sure, I can add light to the scene, I can block light coming into a window, or a reflection off of a surface, but I'm not doing this for artistic reasons, I'm doing this because I know the camera does something I don't like. It's an implementation limitation. Whoever wrote the code in both the AF100 and FS100 for dealing with the highlights just didn't do as good a job as Canon's engineers. It's that simple. I've studied the blown highlights on the 7D, AF100 and FS100 in detail so I see what is happening. It's an aesthetic difference. There is no reason the AF100 or FS100 couldn't blow highlights like the 7D, but, both Panasonic and Sony chose to retain more detail, even if that detail is ugly. In post, you can get rid of it once you understand what it is doing. For some people who shoot more controlled situations, or want to take the time to bring that scene within a controlled situation, there is nothing wrong with that, but not everyone shoots that way. I prefer more natural lighting and using light where I need it artistically, not to bring my scene into a usable range for a camera.
But back to the OP, I think this is a good example of someone trying to use the AF100 in a more ENG style situation and someone showing that it just didn't work for them. This is not the first person here who has tried this. Hopefully, this will save someone the disappointment of going down that route.
I get TONS of questions from people who know I had an AF100 and I got rid of it. There are lots of people, even after reading thread after thread of information, are still just not sure what to do. Which is why I tell every one of them, rent the camera and spend some time with it, that's the only way you'll know. I miss features of the AF100 EVERY time I shoot with the FS100. On the other hand, there are other features or performance I'm glad I have now (like zoom focus assist). Or that 4x and 8x zoom is on the way for the FS100 with a firmware update, and other features.
It doesn't take a $90k camera to blow out highlights more aesthetically pleasing, as my 7D does a fine job blowing out highlights. Sometimes I have shots that require a blown highlight for what I want. It's harder (but not impossible) to get the shots I want on the AF100 or the FS100 (which I now own) with a blown highlight. Sure, I can add light to the scene, I can block light coming into a window, or a reflection off of a surface, but I'm not doing this for artistic reasons, I'm doing this because I know the camera does something I don't like. It's an implementation limitation. Whoever wrote the code in both the AF100 and FS100 for dealing with the highlights just didn't do as good a job as Canon's engineers. It's that simple. I've studied the blown highlights on the 7D, AF100 and FS100 in detail so I see what is happening. It's an aesthetic difference. There is no reason the AF100 or FS100 couldn't blow highlights like the 7D, but, both Panasonic and Sony chose to retain more detail, even if that detail is ugly. In post, you can get rid of it once you understand what it is doing. For some people who shoot more controlled situations, or want to take the time to bring that scene within a controlled situation, there is nothing wrong with that, but not everyone shoots that way. I prefer more natural lighting and using light where I need it artistically, not to bring my scene into a usable range for a camera.
But back to the OP, I think this is a good example of someone trying to use the AF100 in a more ENG style situation and someone showing that it just didn't work for them. This is not the first person here who has tried this. Hopefully, this will save someone the disappointment of going down that route.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
In truth, I am working on a plugin to do it, so I don't have to do it by hand. That said, the issue is, the magic is in blowing out all the channels when one channel blows out. How that curve works is really the magic. With the AF100/FS100, it let's a single, or even two channels blow out alone while allowing the third (or two other channels) to not be affected. This is why you see primary blowouts in the color AND secondary blowouts. (Yellow, Cyan).
When I looked at the 7D and the FS100 pointed at the same blue light, the FS100 never blew out to white. Instead, it blew out to Cyan. Whereas the 7D goes white, and sooner. So what I did is look at all 3 channels, and when one or more approach a blowout, I ramp up the other colors as well so they all blow out if any one of them blows out. This produces a very nice highlight.
HOWEVER!
The biggest problem with this is when a blowout is abrupt against a very dark surface. Like, an LED in a dark room. With 4:2:0 you get color contamination at the boundaries of high spatial difference (like a shadow and highlight touching) where other colors are generated because of the color sampling. This is hard to fix. This is a valid reason to really want the highlight handling BEFORE the color downsample. This is the part I am exploring to see how I can offer an ability to fix this. It's something that would have to be tuned based on how bad the color contamination is. It also removes detail at the top end (basically uses something similar to glow) to mask out the contamination colors.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Its hard to fix if it goes yellow. All the information is gone.
Best practice is to use the built in waveform and don't clip.