Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!

Well, it will have the single-frame capability so you can do animation. But the function is also assignable to a user button, called "CAPTURE". I didn't test it out, so I don't know if it grabs a frame during recording, or if it works like a DSLR to capture a still frame when it's not recording. Don't know.
 
that's very cool.

how does long gop compression work with animation, seems a strange idea to me, the ex1 has a frame animation feature too.
i bet you can create all sorts of weird artifacts by changing locations for 1 frame at a time.
 
Well, yeah, that's a pretty good question, isn't it? I mean, the more each frame changes, the less efficient the compression will be...
 
Is the AF100 going to have a built-in intervalometer or able to do timelapses with long shutter & intervals?


Also,

Is it able to take a still-image bigger than 1920x1080? If so, how big? ..would be nice to be able to still capture good quality pics bigger than 3mp.
 
Mic mount, probably -- the 170, 200, and 150 all include a mic mount, so I would presume the AF100 will as well.

Mic? No. Well, yes in that there's a built-in mic, but no to an included external mic.
 
naive micro 4/3 question

naive micro 4/3 question

Sorry for my naive question but on the B+H site when one looks at micro four third lenses they always quote a 35mm equivalent.

So the GH1 standard 14-140mm is quoted as 28-280mm 35mm equivalent.

To me this is confusing. Zoomed out, is the final angle of view of the 14-140 on a GH1/AF100 that of a 14mm wide angle or a 28mm wide angle lens?

To be clear when shooting does it act like a super wide angle lens (14mm) or just a normal wide (28mm)?
 
Ah, the dreaded crop factor again.

If you're used to and familiar with shooting on a "full frame" DSLR or 35mm stills camera, the "equivalent" field of view would be 28mm.

If you're used to and familiar with shooting on a cinema 35mm camera, the equivalent field of view would be about 16.5mm.
 
Barry, how would this compare to the HMC150? On that camera the wide end is showed as 28mm.

Or theres no comparison? Why?

Thanks!
 
Barry_Green said:
Power zoom is a function of the lens, not the camera itself. There is no zoom on the camera because -- what would it zoom? The lens would have to be built with a zoom motor in it. If someone built a power-zoom lens (like an ENG lens) and supplied a way to power it, then you could have a power zoom. But there's nothing the camera can do to drive a zoom in a lens that doesn't have power zoom built into it.
Click to expand...

Hey Panasonic wake up and put a power zoom connector on the AF 100, you know like on every 2/3 camera you make.
 
Bucknfl said:
Hey Panasonic wake up and put a power zoom connector on the AF 100, you know like on every 2/3 camera you make.
Click to expand...

They might put it on the P2 version...thats gonna cost around 4k$ more....

I am more curious to see these other manufacturers 4/3 lenses doing the iris and AF thing with the face recognition!
I guess zooming the way were used to with the other video cameras is out of the question at this stage but it would be awesome if they add it.
 
Well, yeah, see, that's the point -- DSLR glass that would actually cover the sensor, doesn't have zoom motors in it. So ENG lenses maybe, but they won't cover the sensor (unless you use the doubler). And using the doubler costs you two stops of light, as well as doubling the focal length.

If someone makes an M43 lens with a zoom motor on it (or even a Canon or Nikon lens with a zoom motor on it) then I can see calling for a power output port. But until then, there's simply nothing practical to plug it into.
 
I have to say one of the things I love about this cam is it is not a hybrid. Panasonic did this part very right. They created a true digital cine cam.

I feel asking for a power zoom is frankly asking for a broadcast videocam and too much of a hybrid. I would never zoom on one of my shots power or hand pulled. It is just not a great cine aesthetic being used today.

(okay I know that Kubrick did in Barry Lyndon. I recently watched it again and frankly that LONG zoom looked very TV and not good at all - however the F0.7 lens was amazing. And I know that Hitchcock did it as well with his zoom-push trick. I know these are masters. Flame me if you wish. I don't care. It looks cheap to me. )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top