Is anyone else perturbed by the lens situation on the AF100?

Isn't the varying lens options from cinema to sub 100 dollar still lenses what makes the af such a great camera for pro's and amateurs alike. Of course it leaves room for uninformed complaints but that's going to happen, heck I've made them, though that is no excuse to look down on others lens choices or options, to each their own.

have a good one!
 
You can use your Canon EF lenses on the AG-Af100 right now with the Adaptimax Canon to Micro 4/3 adapter. Its completely manual and aperture has to be changed by using the EOS but it works fine and we have sold hundreds of Canon EF adapters to very satisfied customers.

And don't forget until the end of this month we are giving a 10% discount for DVXuser members. Just add the promo code "10percentdvx" and the discount will automatically be deducted from the price.
http://www.adaptimax.com/adaptimax_canonef_to_micro.html

Best regards
Steve
 
S. Matthews said:
Isn't the varying lens options from cinema to sub 100 dollar still lenses what makes the af such a great camera for pro's and amateurs alike. Of course it leaves room for uninformed complaints but that's going to happen, heck I've made them, though that is no excuse to look down on others lens choices or options, to each their own.

have a good one!
Click to expand...

Exactly .. the MFT format is breathing new life into some wonderful old glass that was (largely) sitting idle. You can
pick up some wicked fast glass for a great deal. We do have some adapters for our Zeiss's .. but (cropping etc.) I'm
having more "fun" harvesting from the C-mount world. There are several good references discussing MFT -> C-mount
issues (things to watch out for). Barry's AF100 book is one such resource.

So .. "perturbed" isn't a word I would use .. "pleasantly surprised" is a phrase I would.

jeff
 
dop16mm said:
There needs to be a roadmap from panasonic that they will stick with this chip size and mount for the foreseeable future in a range of products from consumer camcorders to avc - intra varicam. The format is small enough that they should be able to produce purpose built zooms that are smaller lighter faster cheaper than s35.
Click to expand...
The roadmap definitely needs to come from Panasonic - their $80B yearly revenue and 400,000 employees dwarf Olympus' $12.5B revenue with 3000 employees. Olympus' original Four Thirds line has stagnated with both companies' transition to Micro Four Thirds, but Olympus has been far overshadowed by Panasonic's recent M4/3 success. Olympus has obviously been struggling to find a unifying vision for its still camera line and its video capabilities remain limited.

IMHO, the best thing Panasonic could do for its Micro Four Thirds divisions is to buy Olympus Corporation outright. That would enable Panasonic to re-engineer Olympus' superb high-end Four Thirds lenses into a new line of M4/3 lenses with full auto-focus support and remote control operation on the AF100. In addition to reinvigorating the best products of both companies, it would unify the Micro Four Thirds platform under a single corporate banner, enabling Panasonic to unambiguously chart a course for its future development.
 
I'm not at all negative about the m4/3 mount. The fact that anything can be adapted to it is important to the success of the camera. I have a few Nikons that would be the start of my collection and am glad of the option.

I think the frustration lies in the budget user that wants to utilize relatively inexpensive zooms that have been popular in the dslr movement, that don't have manual aperture, and whose manufacturers do not yet make a version in 4/3 or m4/3. If money was tight you could probably sell the canon mount tokina 11 - 16 for most of what it is worth, but you can't yet buy a version native to this camera. That is the fundamental issue today. Lens makers may well be on board, and my announce at NAB, but they don't have product today and that is directly attributable to the sales numbers of cameras that have come before.
 
S. Matthews said:
Isn't the varying lens options from cinema to sub 100 dollar still lenses what makes the af such a great camera for pro's and amateurs alike. Of course it leaves room for uninformed complaints but that's going to happen, heck I've made them, though that is no excuse to look down on others lens choices or options, to each their own.

have a good one!
Click to expand...

Love the m4/3 format for it's wide range of lenses to use. The most versatile mount ever in a video camera.
 
Barry, I am right on with your response, agree 100%. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to the tone of his comment.

I only have myself to blame for opting to use still glass, and I understand all the shortcomings. It's currently the only reasonable choice for me in this price-range, and (since I really need/prefer zooms) don't see any comparable quality (or incomparable quality) cinema lenses that will do what the lenses I use do, in a price that I can stomach or would be a prudent investment at this point.

And I definitely agree with the last part of your statement, because this is a pretty cheap camera in the scheme of things, so not a lot of people will take that and invest 30-50K in lenses.
 
how is this a 'situation.' These are Canon lenses, not Panasonic one's. Shouldn't the topic be more- I've invested in Canon glass, how can I best use the AF100? No one is forcing you to buy this camera...

Noah
 
Barry_Green said:
Shooter's comment may have come off harsh, but there is certainly some truth in it. Let me see if I can rephrase it in a way that wouldn't be deemed inappropriate.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of truth in the assertion that the use of still lenses for video entails inherent limitations and compromises, I would think that's a given. Your post is spot on, but it's not addressing the real question here. Re-read Shooters post and you'll see in his first sentence that what perturbs him are not the limitations of using said lenses, but that people are doing it at all on "motion picture work".

In another thread where people were trashing the AF for not meeting unrealistic expectations, you eloquently pointed out that this is a place where people come to exchange helpful information and offer each other support and shared resources. Why would that same standard not apply to Shooter's post? The person who started a thread reached out as someone new to this type of shooting, and asked for suggestions. The very next poster pointed him to other threads discussing said topic; helpful. Telling him that his post perturbed you; not helpful.

This the AF100 forum on DVXuser, not the BSC forum or the CML. It's not an elitist forum exclusively for those doing "motion picture work". There's great diversity and a wide range of experience here, from beginner to pro. Many of the posters here can't afford all the gear they'd like, and not everyone is working professionally. If that perturbs you, then maybe this isn't the best place for you. And as the old saying goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything.
 
DrHST said:
There's plenty of truth in the assertion that the use of still lenses for video entails inherent limitations and compromises, I would think that's a given. Your post is spot on, but it's not addressing the real question here. Re-read Shooters post and you'll see in his first sentence that what perturbs him are not the limitations of using said lenses, but that people are doing it at all on "motion picture work".

In another thread where people were trashing the AF for not meeting unrealistic expectations, you eloquently pointed out that this is a place where people come to exchange helpful information and offer each other support and shared resources. Why would that same standard not apply to Shooter's post? The person who started a thread reached out as someone new to this type of shooting, and asked for suggestions. The very next poster pointed him to other threads discussing said topic; helpful. Telling him that his post perturbed you; not helpful.

This the AF100 forum on DVXuser, not the BSC forum or the CML. It's not an elitist forum exclusively for those doing "motion picture work". There's great diversity and a wide range of experience here, from beginner to pro. Many of the posters here can't afford all the gear they'd like, and not everyone is working professionally. If that perturbs you, then maybe this isn't the best place for you. And as the old saying goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
If you haven't figured it out yet, Shooter can be a bit of a curmudgeon - but a very knowledgable, very experienced one with a lot of sound advice to offer.

I think the reason he cares about what others use is that those same "others" post messages complaining about the results they're getting, and/or looking for solutions to variable aperture movement, zooms not holding focus, breathing etc...

I'm all for letting people know up front that they're honestly not going to get a lot of the cinematic results they're looking for if they're choosing the wrong lenses. Ditto for letting them know the AF-100 is not the best ENG run-and-gunner etc.
 
Benjamin Eckstein said:
I don't think this comment is really that appropriate. Certainly I can understand YOU being perturbed by using still lenses YOURSELF, but why should you care what other people use? My hunch is that the majority of people purchasing this camera (at least from pictures I've seen of people's rigs on this forum) are using lenses designed originally for stills cameras. I guess, what's it to you if it's a pain in the butt for us? I've been working with still lenses with this camera (the wonderful Olympus 14-35 and 35-100) and feel that the cost/function/image trade-offs are worth it for what I do/deliver/create. Many are creating great things with this camera using lenses that aren't designed with motion picture in mind.
Click to expand...

Hey Ben. If I may quote one of your own posts ( a thread you started) you may understand me a little better.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ens-problem-users-please-chime-in!&highlight=

Thanx to Barry G. Your post exactly ( more succinctly and less harshly ) stated what I meant to impart.

BTW : I am quite comfortable with "curmudgeon"

Def: " A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. ..."


(Barry understood what I meant ..despite what I said.)
 
Shooter, I in no way am saying that these lenses don't have their short comings. I completely understand that. They are not without their issues, and hopefully those that go this route, understand where there are problems with the cameras and problems with the lenses. I did understand the gist of what you said, but in light of Barry, specifically, recently trying to tackle cases of inappropriate posting, I was sort of taken aback by the tone of your post.

We can chalk it up to being a curmudgeon, if you're cool with that.
 
On that note of breathing, I went to try a nikon 24-70 f/2.8 for use with my af100. Well at 24mm it breaths a fair amount, but zoomed in to 70mm, I didn't notice any breathing when rack focusing. I'd love to get cine lenses but for my needs and budget, they're out for now...so I must compromise.
 
M4/3 makes a great motion format IMO. But it is in its infancy. With the quantities of all of these new large sensor digital cams coming to market, you can bet there will be new glass on the horizon to meet the demand, hopefully at reasonably affordable prices. Lenses that can be easily modified to different mounting systems seem to be an emerging part of new designs for this market, like the Zeiss CP-2's. That should help keep costs more reasonable.

I know people have budget limits, but it is better to invest money in really good lenses that can serve with different cameras over time. Good glass is always good glass and a better investment than any camera body. Buying a cheaper camera like the AF-100 potentially leaves more money for lenses and the camera responds well to top quality cine glass. The idea that you shouldn't put expensive glass on a cheap camera makes no sense to me at all. The lens is what makes the image. It is unfortunate that older cine glass was produced in such limited quantities, but there are still some very good values out there in top quality older lenses if one hunts a bit.
 
I'm perturbed by how often and easily people are perturbed... :undecided

But I'm also delighted at how a thread that, perhaps, might have headed toward a precipice, was pulled back in the nick of time!

Well done, gents!

Oh, and as for lenses, buy the best you can afford?
And as with anything, be aware of inherent limitations, and try not be limited by limitations?

End of my perturbation... :happy:
 
groveChuck said:
I'm perturbed by how often and easily people are perturbed... :undecided

But I'm also delighted at how a thread that, perhaps, might have headed toward a precipice, was pulled back in the nick of time!

Well done, gents!

Oh, and as for lenses, buy the best you can afford?
And as with anything, be aware of inherent limitations, and try not be limited by limitations?

End of my perturbation... :happy:
Click to expand...

He He, reminds me of a poster at the Stewart/Colbert rally last fall: " I'm mildly perturbed and I'm not going to take it anymore!" :cheesy:
 
I've got the Lumix 20mm 1.7 and the 14-140 zoom. I managed to get good second hand deals with those.

I'm now awaiting a Nikon adapter so I can use my collection of Nikon still lenses. The 50mm 1.8 looks especially nice paired up with the AF. I think it's going to make a great "interview" lens.

When I make a little extra I will look into a faster zoom and a very wide lens option. But for now it's a kit I can work with.

I would of course love a cine zoom but I try not to get ahead of myself.
 
Razz16mm said:
Good glass is always good glass and a better investment than any camera body. Buying a cheaper camera like the AF-100 potentially leaves more money for lenses and the camera responds well to top quality cine glass. The idea that you shouldn't put expensive glass on a cheap camera makes no sense to me at all. The lens is what makes the image. It is unfortunate that older cine glass was produced in such limited quantities, but there are still some very good values out there in top quality older lenses if one hunts a bit.
Click to expand...

I agree that cameras will change faster than lenses so it makes sense to put more money towards that. That said, the only issue is whether or not to invest in lenses that will work with the largest sensor you see on your camera horizon. There are some nice offerings for 4/3 and m4/3, some cheaper, and some more expensive, but who knows if that will be the sensor size we'll continue with for a long time. I guess the only way to fully protect is for FF35 or S35 lenses, but those are typically larger and pricier. Any way, it's something to consider.
 
It will be interesting to see just how lenses that have circuitry and firmware go the distance.

No matter what quality the optics in them maybe...I would predict that over time, they may develop electronic issues, be unreparable and the firmware becomes unsupported.

I have drawers full of devices that have become "paperweights" because of such progress. (aka. feature creep)

Just saying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top