Jan, is there an AF200 in the pipeline or not? - Wait or buy a C300, fs700 ...?

When shooting I hear people say "Looking good" so the AF100 gets the job done. I'm also satisfied with how footage turns out when going back and I think pixel peeping is what causes all the let down in the footage. Better stop pixel peeping ;)
 
I know it might be more complicated than what I am saying, but why does Pana not just use either a tweaked version of the gh2 chip or the more than probable gh3 (September launch) in an af100 body. They could be in for some super tech in 2 years, but by then they would have to fight a very saturated market. More so that with lens compatibility as in photography people will be less incline to change brands.

I know there has been a lot of bad talks between gh2 users and af100 ones. But the gh2 is grabbing a lot of the headlines and a bigger and bigger followings. For those that do not know look at the reports coming out of the zacuto camera shootout screening. A tweaked gh2 (faster readout for less jello for example) with a log profile to capture most of the 11.5 stop DR of the gh2 sensor with a 10 bit output at the current Af100 price would be a very very good stopgap. Even better lets say a gh3 sensor with a stop better DR and low light, at least before some super tech in two years. I am saying super tech because it will have to be with the competition that it will have to face. Many are talking of the FS700 or C300, has everyone forgot this years show stopper at NAB. The Blackmagic camera will surely be in its second version with perhaps a little bigger sensor (4/3 to apsc size) and 60p and... the rest RAW recording, 10 bit prores/dnxhd, 13 stop DR, etc.

The last thing is the analogy to film making and how much of film from the lower end dslr and camera that have made it on the big screen. But this is only a very very small part of the large sensor camera market. Even if they don't make it to the big screen, a lot of the footage is being done on advertising, reportage, corporate videos and even wedding videography. The big screen is by no mean the driving force/revenue for large sensor camera as a whole. Now the cine/large sensor look has migrated to all the above market and Panasonic is loosing a lot of these market. Sincerely with the tech they already have in the gh2 and hopefully soon to come out gh3, I don't understand how thy don't capitalize on it.
 
Mac said:
I'm happy with my AF100, as I said above - But the problem is that all the internet kvetching about this camera isn't only read by users, it's seen by other people on the periphery who now think the AF100 is sub-standard. I've already been asked pointed questions by people who I wouldn't have thought knew anything at all about video cameras. I myself was a victim of this when the noise, highlight handling and banding issues were proclaimed intolerable. But, when I go back through my footage, I'm just not seeing anything that disturbing - It looks pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

+1

My AF100 had never delivered anything but stellar footage for clients, but every once in a while I get some DSLR guy (DSLRs seem to be the preferred tool in my area) say something like "I used the AF100 once and didn't like how it handled highlights," but when I ask them what they didn't like about it or how it affected them, they've got nothing to say.

"It doesn't do so well in low light" is another one that's complete BS. I shot a scene in a dark studio lit by a match a few weeks ago at 1600 ISO and got VERY little noise in the image while still getting 70% zebras on the subject's face (lens was a f2/f2.8 split).

A lot of the guys around here think that if you turn on a camera it should look good without adjusting any settings at all or tweaking the image in any way in-camera. These people just parrot what they see online, but it makes producers wary of hiring my gear as a result. It does get rather frustrating, but of course, it's that much sweeter when I prove them wrong.

Anyway, rant over. The AF100 is the right tool for me at the perfect price point for the feature set, and that's what matters. The other guys can keep their DSLRs. :)
 
Yep. I remember when the AF100 first came out and everyone was freaking about noise. Now I see the same thing happening on a thread about the FS700. These first impressions, however overblown and under-educated, are echoed over and over again and become "wisdom." It's odd because evidence after the big scare is cheerily ignored. I think we were well served by "A Verse Before Dying, and Barry's fact based advocacy. It kinda kept us on track through that. I'm really pleased with the AF100 and have no intention of spending for another camera soon. I'm happy to have something great to shoot with now so I can wait it out.

I'm always surprised at how many people like DSLRs around my area also. I don't get it. It's is almost a religion or an event of speciation. But good for them, I reckon.
 
Last edited:
I had issues like that years back with what I called buzzword producers. "Do you edit with an Avid, we only like Avids, do you have Zeiss super speeds, we only like Zeiss Speer speeds, do you shoot with an Arri, we only like footage from an Arri." They had all the production houses in town jumping through hoops trying to one up each other with gear purchases. I ended up doubling my rate, got rid of all the buzzword producers, and now have a clientele which relies on my experience to choose the right gear for the job.
 
In 1972 I shot a feature documentary (Acapulco Gold) with a Bolex. When we went to blow it up to 35, the lab told us the Bolex isn't good enough because it doesn't have pin registration. There was one scene in the film I shot with a rental Arri BL. Without telling them which was which, I asked them to compare that scene with another similar scene and tell me which is better. They chose the scene shot with the Bolex... Point is, it's the picture that counts - everything else is BS.
 
I think in this modern digital era many people (including myself) often fall into the trap of viewing the progress that has been made in a very ironic way.... "Everything is obsolete so fast yet I have to get the newest/latest/greatest!"
When we should realize that in very many ways NOTHING is truly obsolete in this new world.....
I just saw video from a Canon 40D for crying out loud and the 40D doesn't do video!
The AF100 will be going strong for quite a while and if they do a 200 I really hope they just keep it in that same price bracket (AF100 price upon release of course) They are the only game in that $5000 town for a truly dedicated video form factor cam with a large sensor.
 
As far as noise on the AF100 goes...what projects are people shooting where they need to bump up to 3200 or greater ISO? This has always confused me. If the project has the budget to have an AF100 or FS100, etc...along for the ride can you not afford a couple of lights here and there? And if there's no budget for lighting, how is it reasonable for the client to complain about a little noise in the image?
 
Jon Hout said:
My AF100 had never delivered anything but stellar footage for clients, but every once in a while I get some DSLR guy (DSLRs seem to be the preferred tool in my area) say something like "I used the AF100 once and didn't like how it handled highlights," but when I ask them what they didn't like about it or how it affected them, they've got nothing to say.
Click to expand...

They probably don't even know what that means when they say it.
 
I have to agree the AF100 is fantastic for the money. I purchased one of the first one's available when they came out. I was happy with it, till the Sony F3 came out. I picked up an F3 and the Zeiss CP's. It has become my go to camera for high end productions. The AF100 is my web only video camera, or when I need extremely long record times, which is seldom. I paid for the AF100 after the first shoot. The F3 was paid for after a couple shoots. BOTH are great cameras, but for me the AF100 image and low light capability couldn't compare to the F3, especially now with S-Log, which is incredible to have.
 
D10S said:
I have to agree the AF100 is fantastic for the money. I purchased one of the first one's available when they came out. I was happy with it, till the Sony F3 came out. I picked up an F3 and the Zeiss CP's. It has become my go to camera for high end productions. The AF100 is my web only video camera, or when I need extremely long record times, which is seldom. I paid for the AF100 after the first shoot. The F3 was paid for after a couple shoots. BOTH are great cameras, but for me the AF100 image and low light capability couldn't compare to the F3, especially now with S-Log, which is incredible to have.
Click to expand...

And for 3 times the money it better.
 
mcgeedigital said:
And for 3 times the money it better.
Click to expand...

And that is the point. The AF100 is perfect as it fits your budget. But if you are doing projects with much bigger budgets and you can afford to step up to a better camera, why not do it? I bet everyone with an AF100 would trade it for an F3 if money was no object, same as any F3 owner would trade it for an Alexa. We always want the best we can get for what fits our budget.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually planning a TV pilot shoot right now and, to be honest, with all that's out there I couldn't even consider an AF100. The closest I'd get is actually one or two GH2s with hacks as my B-camera solution and that's only because I would need something small for car interiors. The competition for that spot goes to the Sony NEX-7 and Nikon D3200. Otherwise, for the actual look of the show, it's looking to be an Atomos Ninja 2 or similar solution with either a Nikon D800, an FS100/700, Sony F3, or a Canon C300. But then, of course, we could always opt for all RED for maximum quality. With all that, the AF100 wasn't even a thought. I like Panasonic and I don't mind the Micro 4/3 format, but they've got to make some killer cameras and, more importantly, some killer lenses to go with it. Much like Panasonic not making an HD+ quality version of the Anamorphic Adapter, there seems to be a lack of attention when it comes to market demand in the indie film sector. Look at the auction sites, there is a demand for alternative lenses for GH2 and Micro 4/3 cameras, even if it means using old TV lenses, and that anamorphic market is something else!
 
D10S said:
And that is the point. The AF100 is perfect as it fits your budget. But if you are doing projects with much bigger budgets and you can afford to step up to a better camera, why not do it? I bet everyone with an AF100 would trade it for an F3 if money was no object, same as any F3 owner would trade it for an Alexa. We always want the best we can get for what fits our budget.
Click to expand...
Agreed entirely. If you need what a more expensive camera can do, and can afford it, why not get it? The point was the AF100 at its price point is far and away the best deal going. But that does take into account its price point; of course the F3 delivers better imagery than the AF100 does. But it's nearly 4x the price, and as McGee said, obviously it had better perform better.

The earlier point was -- there's lots and lots of more-expensive cameras to choose from, including the F3, the Scarlet, the C300, the C500, the FS700, etc. Does the AF100 need to move up into that bracket? Or should it stay priced where it is, where it's the only game in town at its price point? I think that's what we were saying.
 
Barry_Green said:
Agreed entirely. If you need what a more expensive camera can do, and can afford it, why not get it? The point was the AF100 at its price point is far and away the best deal going. But that does take into account its price point; of course the F3 delivers better imagery than the AF100 does. But it's nearly 4x the price, and as McGee said, obviously it had better perform better.

The earlier point was -- there's lots and lots of more-expensive cameras to choose from, including the F3, the Scarlet, the C300, the C500, the FS700, etc. Does the AF100 need to move up into that bracket? Or should it stay priced where it is, where it's the only game in town at its price point? I think that's what we were saying.
Click to expand...

In my opinion it needs to stay right where it is. The people asking/begging for it to do more than it does may price themselves out of the AF200 market when it comes out and does everything they want it to do. The AF100 is needed for those that want a high quality camera under $10,000.
 
D10S said:
And that is the point. The AF100 is perfect as it fits your budget. But if you are doing projects with much bigger budgets and you can afford to step up to a better camera, why not do it? I bet everyone with an AF100 would trade it for an F3 if money was no object, same as any F3 owner would trade it for an Alexa. We always want the best we can get for what fits our budget.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm a little bassakwards then as I went from a Red One M to the AF100.
 
Ok everyone's getting so hung up on the names. Let's make it clear:

* people want an AF100 successor (a better AF100 w/MFT). Call it an AF100a or an AF150 or an AF200, whatever.
* people want panny to make an S35 camera that keeps what we love about the AF100 but designed with a bigger sensor & much higher bitrate/better recording format (raw/prores/10/12-bit 4:2:2/4:4:4). Call it the AF1000 or the AF3500 or whatever the heck you want, the BFC2200 will do.

Two different cameras, two different formats, two different price points.

The point is, people want Panasonic in the game in more places, not to fundamentally change the camera-line currently designated as an AF100. My spidey senses tell me there is room for both...
 
The AF-100 just needs improvements, not a revamp. I don't care about the codec because we have the new AVC-Ultra levels and MicroP2. So perhaps the next AF-100 camera will support MicroP2 and can shoot AVC-Intra to that and then AVCHD to regular SD cards. That would be pretty nifty.

Otherwise, better codecs can be had through the SDI out.

And calls for a larger sensor are just silly. Is Panasonic really going to dump current AF-100 owners who've invested in m4/3rds glass (which would be unusable on a Super 35-sized sensor)? I highly doubt it. And I highly doubt the people who are really calling for this do any productions that will receive any kind of obvious benefit from the increase in sensor size.
 
Gary Huff said:
The AF-100 just needs improvements, not a revamp. I don't care about the codec because we have the new AVC-Ultra levels and MicroP2. So perhaps the next AF-100 camera will support MicroP2 and can shoot AVC-Intra to that and then AVCHD to regular SD cards. That would be pretty nifty.

Otherwise, better codecs can be had through the SDI out.

And calls for a larger sensor are just silly. Is Panasonic really going to dump current AF-100 owners who've invested in m4/3rds glass (which would be unusable on a Super 35-sized sensor)? I highly doubt it. And I highly doubt the people who are really calling for this do any productions that will receive any kind of obvious benefit from the increase in sensor size.
Click to expand...

+1

What is the necessity for changing to s35? Really, what do we achieve? I honestly don't know. Would we really have better low light performance (btw something that disinterests me to sleep)? m4/3 is very close to it. We can still use all the great lenses for s35 now with m4/3 on the AF100 and the FOV is almost the same. So we choose a slightly wider lens. Many say "it's the industry standard." And...?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top