alaskacameradude
Veteran
Or buy an AF 100, use it and make money the whole time you are waiting, then when the AF-200 comes out sell it and immediately have a good
chunk of money to put towards the AF 200.
Little venting and frustration
- Thread starter Brian@202020
- Start date
Or buy an AF 100, use it and make money the whole time you are waiting, then when the AF-200 comes out sell it and immediately have a good
chunk of money to put towards the AF 200.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
jdesignhi
Well-known member
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
It compresses, even at its highest 280Mbps setting. Their Gemini and Blackmagic's HyperDeck, however, record uncompressed.
thats my plan. although itll still be expensive with all the things i need to buy... p2 cards & p2 card reader etc.
jdesignhi
Well-known member
That is to say, when recording out the HD-SDI port to the nanoFlash, the video is not compressed by the AF100's AVCHD codec.
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
This thread is jokes..... All this P2 talk and nano flash means nothing when news stations are dying and the world of the internet is expanding. In the future cellphone footage and these expensive camera footage will be very similar once youtube.com compresses your files.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Yeah, okay.
Brian@202020
Veteran
This is exactly what I'm doing, and exactly the issue.
Theses are estimated numbers for camera body profits only:
HVX200: Paid itself off roughly 6-7 times the 3 or so years I had it, and then sold it for roughly $.60 on the dollar
$33,500 - $39,000 profit. Good investment.
AF100: So far it's paid itself off roughly 1.5 - 2 times in 10 months. It'll probably be good for another 6-8 months before selling, with maybe .5 to 1 more pay off, and get roughly $.60 on the dollar.
Estimated $8,500 - $13,500 profit. OK investment.
All I'm saying is Panasonic could have had a game changer like the HVX200 was, and made their loyal customers, like me, a lot more money if they released a P2 version. It would more than likely last longer and be a more viable option and not need to be replaced sooner. Like I've said several times, they had the market for the AF100, they just should have released 2 models like Sony did and like they are finally doing with their new 1/3 inch cameras. I'm not disputing that the AF100 shouldn't have been released.
Last edited:
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Brian, You compare 10 months of use with 3 years of use and saying that the AF100 isn't as profitable as the HVX200? I think you may be a little premature in your judgement call.
As far as whether we should have released two cameras instead just one, please know that we are still trying to determine the size of the large imager market, it doesn't seem to be large enough to warrant but we are still in survey mode. As an interim, you can add 280Mbs recording to the AF100 for less than what the P2 version would cost up from the AF100. If you need higher bit rates, then look at one of the many different off board recorders that are out there.
And I think we have made a game changer. Note that we were the first to the market with a Video camera with a large imager, and it is only because we announced at NAB 2010, that the competition had an opportunity to react because they only had the F3 on their docket at that time. It wasn't until November of 2010 that they alluded to a new little version of the F3. However what they delivered is a fairly under featured large imager camera. I think that we did establish a leadership position here by delivering a fully functional camera that is fairly comparable to the F3, at least until you add the SLog and external recording to it.
Best,
Jan
As far as whether we should have released two cameras instead just one, please know that we are still trying to determine the size of the large imager market, it doesn't seem to be large enough to warrant but we are still in survey mode. As an interim, you can add 280Mbs recording to the AF100 for less than what the P2 version would cost up from the AF100. If you need higher bit rates, then look at one of the many different off board recorders that are out there.
And I think we have made a game changer. Note that we were the first to the market with a Video camera with a large imager, and it is only because we announced at NAB 2010, that the competition had an opportunity to react because they only had the F3 on their docket at that time. It wasn't until November of 2010 that they alluded to a new little version of the F3. However what they delivered is a fairly under featured large imager camera. I think that we did establish a leadership position here by delivering a fully functional camera that is fairly comparable to the F3, at least until you add the SLog and external recording to it.
Best,
Jan
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
We all want something better, regardless of what it is, but the AF101 is here now and puts money in my pocket.
Dino
Veteran
Yes, Sony delivered two large sensor cameras, not at the same time, and with very different price points. Problem is, despite the $9K difference, the codec is the same low bit rate, MPEG 2, Long GOP, 4:2:0 spec. Can you imagine the outcry if Panasonic offered two different large sensor cameras, one at $5K, the other at $14K, and both used AVCCAM?
I fully anticipate Panasonic will offer a P2, AVC-I, large sensor camera in 2012. I also anticipate that it will sell in much lower numbers than an AF100.
As a small rental house, I'm actually surprised by how well our smaller sensor cameras are doing. We've got an HPX250 on order because it should be a great green screen camera, especially for traveling. But, for every client that appreciates AVC-I, there are scores that don't give codecs a second thought or won't pay more for them via internal or external recording.
So far I've yet to have a client complain about AVCCAM in any way or lose any footage. One client who uses our AF100's did a project on a Canon 7D recently and lost nine shots. I'm guessing they'll be sticking with the AF100 going forward.
I fully anticipate Panasonic will offer a P2, AVC-I, large sensor camera in 2012. I also anticipate that it will sell in much lower numbers than an AF100.
As a small rental house, I'm actually surprised by how well our smaller sensor cameras are doing. We've got an HPX250 on order because it should be a great green screen camera, especially for traveling. But, for every client that appreciates AVC-I, there are scores that don't give codecs a second thought or won't pay more for them via internal or external recording.
So far I've yet to have a client complain about AVCCAM in any way or lose any footage. One client who uses our AF100's did a project on a Canon 7D recently and lost nine shots. I'm guessing they'll be sticking with the AF100 going forward.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Sony's FS 100 (which I own) does NOT use MPEG 2. It uses AVCHD.......which is the same codec the AF 100 uses. Sony's
implementation of it may be different (not sure how those things work), but it uses the newer, MPEG 4/H.264 codec and NOT the MPEG 2 that the
F3 uses.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I don't think I'd go this far. Of course the AF100 has some features I wish the FS 100 had. But the FS 100 has others I wish the
AF 100 has...they are both good. And further, I wish we could just focus on the fine camera the AF 100 is, without having to resort
to talking bad about the FS 100......just my opinion.
Last edited:
Dino
Veteran
You're right, FS100 is h.264, my mistake. One could argue that the FS100 has the newer, more efficient codec of the two Sony cameras. However, the fact remains that both codecs are 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP, despite the $9K difference in price. My point is that F3 has been given a bit of a pass on this, whereas, if Panasonic came out with a $14K camera that had those specs, there would be a lot of screaming.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
There are a lot of reasons other than the codec as to why the F3 costs $9k more, and you probably know this. I think if Panasonic
had made a camera like the F3, with all of it's features, they would have gotten the same reaction.....well maybe not on this board
but with most industry pro's. In a strange way, the big 'fanboys' of Panasonic seem to expect miracles from Panasonic and get mad
at them when they can't deliver a camera like the Alexa for the price of the AF 100. Most people I know, who work in video, don't
really care about brands....Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Canon, whatever, they often own one of each. I mean, just look at the AF 100,
good camera and VERY fair price in my opinion. If anything, you are getting MORE than you pay for! And you pretty much have to know,
that Panasonic will just be building on the AF100 as technology advances. Problem is, with the internet and forums like these,
people get information about what is coming (or is rumored to be coming) and get so impatient and want the new, better version of
the AF 100 NOW! Shoot, we should just relax and enjoy what the AF 100 IS. If you need a better codec, get an external recorder.
Use the heck out of the camera and make money. When something new comes out, sell what you have and buy the new one if you need
to. I for one, am amazed that we can own cameras for this price that can put out images like they do......it's just AWESOME!
Last edited:
Dino
Veteran
I agree that the AF100 is great bang for the buck, that's my point--you bought an FS100, do you believe the F3 is 3X better? I like the F3, shoot with it, not a big fan of the Ki Pro mini and have held off putting the F3 in our inventory due to the crippled codec. Panasonic provides good value for the money, Sony, that's a bit more questionable(F3, PMW-350).
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Well, I think the F3 is actually GREAT. I would have LOVED to buy it, my problem is budget. My market has almost no 'higher end' work in it
to justify the extra cost of the F3. I don't view it as a 'crippled codec'. The XDcam EX codec looks great to me. That being said, if I had
an F3, I'd almost certainly buy an external recorder and Slog at some point, so that I could take advantage of everything it had to offer.
Shoot, if I was spending $13k on a camera, I might as well spend another $5k to get everything possible out of it. As for the Panasonic/Sony
thing, I obviously have a different opinion than you
But let me say this. Every camera has a feature set that appeals to someone. Our local PBS bought a bunch of 350's, precisely because they thought
they were very GOOD value for money. Their previous cameras were Panasonic DVC Pro cameras, so they were not Sony 'fanboys'. To some people the
F3 or 350 might seem bad value....I think they are great. I think the AF 100 is great. I think the FS 100 is great, and great value for the money.
But I have run across many on this site that don't like Sony. Guess I can't be surprised, but I don't look at it that way.
Erik Naso
Veteran
David W. Jones
Veteran
Absolutely! I can't recall ever getting this toolset in a camera at such a low price. Remember how expensive it was to acquire at a broadcast quality level 40, 30, 20, even 10 years ago? Remember shooting film, the Sony 1 inch portable field recorder, 3 CCD betacam? Remember when you needed a Director sitting at the switcher, a Chyron operator to take care of fonts, a graphics person to get the logo into the 3rd plane for cleaning, Audio person for sound, and a tape engineer to put a TV commercial together? I am really excited to see where audio video technology will go in the next 8 years.
Last edited: