My two-day assessment of the AF100
- Thread starter jmarkham
- Start date
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
And frankly to compare the two cameras, 5D to the AF100 use the native codec from each. To compare the AF100 4:2:0 at 24Mbs to 4:2:2 at higher bit rate doesn't seem like a contest, it seems well of course. In Panasonic, there is no way we would have used an MPEG2 to raise the bit rate, it would have been AVC-Intra and that is to a $1000 more that is closer to $5000. Much of the DSP circuitry would have to have changed. But put a nano to nano comparison up or a camera to camera and you will see what most are experiencing here.
Best,
Jan
Best,
Jan
I am not detracting from what Panasonic has done to package this sensor into the price point ... my sole point is that i would have paid more to not have to replace what's happening behind
the sensor. The AF100 has a great imaging unit Panasonic has chosen to compromise to hit a price-point ... . personally .. I dont' get it.
jeff
Well Jan . you've hit the nail on the head .. 4:2:0 at a lower bit rate just doesn't cut it from this camera if it's intended to be a DSLR "killler" .. my knock on this camera is that the encoding behind the sensor
disappoints. If I have to justify a 5D MKII with a NanoFlash vs. an AF100 with a Nanoflash ... will my clients be willing to pay the 2.5k difference? .. that is the question. Videographers may notice the difference ..
paying clients probably not. I like the camera .. but until you improve the back end .. I'm not going to buy another... I want a system that competes with the 5D MKII but eliminates the troubles of
DSLR shooting .. i'm willing to pay more for it .. and I did with the AF100 .. I don't feel i got what i wanted.
jeff
AF100 serial : A1TDA108
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Well Jeff, since you didn't pay any attention to the part of my post that discussed what the difference in cost would be if we were to add a codec that is a higher bit rate, which is more than the $1000 you are willing to spend for better, it is probably likely that you will not be purchasing another camera. The AF100 clearly outperforms the 5D on a one to one relationship. And the difference is in the audio handling, the codec, the evlauation during the recording process, the tools built in for focuusing, judging the exposure , variable frame rates etc, you should be able to sell that if only to yourself, as your kit just got easier to work with. The camera on its own will not be doing 4:2:2 anytime soon. Sorry. We put the best we could into this camera and felt to make the sales numbers we did we had to use AVCCAM. Take a look at all the videos that have been done with it on the clips section. I think many are very impressive. Can it get better with a higher bit rate and 4:2:2? Sure. but you can do that for less than what it would cost in camera were it 4:2:2.
The 5D codec is nothing like the AF100 codec other than being heavy duty playback h.264 version and the AF100 is a distant relative over on the production side. I do hear what you say you want and that isn't possible for $6000, $10,000 with P2 Cards, but not $6,000.
Best regards,
Jan
I did pay attention. In fact I got some very interesting information from your reply.
What I want from the AF100 is only possible with external recorders .. I'm sure
you're aware that I'm not alone in this assessment. Perhaps my desires for this
camera were unrealistic .. but hey .. Moore's Law will bear me out eventually
Best regards to you as well,
jeff
What I want from the AF100 is only possible with external recorders .. I'm sure
you're aware that I'm not alone in this assessment. Perhaps my desires for this
camera were unrealistic .. but hey .. Moore's Law will bear me out eventually
Best regards to you as well,
jeff
Benjamin Eckstein
Well-known member
I did pay attention. In fact I got some very interesting information from your reply.
What I want from the AF100 is only possible with external recorders .. I'm sure
you're aware that I'm not alone in this assessment. Perhaps my desires for this
camera were unrealistic .. but hey .. Moore's Law will bear me out eventually
Best regards to you as well,
jeff
While we appreciate your 2 day assessment, what's fantastic is that you don't have to keep or use this camera anymore if it is not suiting your needs. If your clients (and you) prefer what comes from a cheaper package like the 5DMk2/Nano, then everyone wins, right?
If you ARE willing to pay more for something better than the AF100, you are also in luck, because there are several camera manufacturers (including Panasonic) that will happily sell you higher end cameras. They obviously cost more money, but you will surely get what you are looking for.
Best,
Benjamin
olof
DVXuser Sponsor
I have the 5DmkII and I can confirm there is no way to record clean 1080 with the NF from the Canon.
But the AF100 works very well with the NF. That is one of the main reasons I got the AF100.
Now I don't use the 7D for video at all. And only rarely use the 5DmkII, the AF100 is superior to the Canons SLRs in every way as a video camera in my opinion. And as far as native codecs go (and this is the only way to record 1080 in the Canon) the AF100 is truly superior.
What you do have to do with the AF100 is find the settings you like and this does take a while. But the Canon needs to have its video settings tweaked as well, and it has nowhere near as many setting possibilities as the AF100.
So I really don't quite understand a lot of the OP's statements here.
Mark Smith
Veteran
Hmm. And did we forget that the Canons have less resolution, more compression artifacts and and can be wild aliasing machines....
Last year when I saw the AF for the first time at a show, I said to Jan then I would have paid the premium for for a 4:2:2- 10 bit AF 100, I probably would have bought 2 on the spot if they were available.
I've had my AF since the first week of Jan 2011 and while I don't love the AVC HD codec as much as I would love AVC I 100, which seems to me unbreakable, I continue to be amazed by the AF 100 and the in camera codec. With AVCHD you must have your in camera image close to what you want as a final result because of its 8 bitness, much more so than AVC I. Lets face it AVCHD is not a "digital negative" by any stretch of the imagination, but within its boundaries it does hold up far better than I ever expected.. It makes me wonder what 35 or 50mbs AVC hd could look like...
Last year when I saw the AF for the first time at a show, I said to Jan then I would have paid the premium for for a 4:2:2- 10 bit AF 100, I probably would have bought 2 on the spot if they were available.
I've had my AF since the first week of Jan 2011 and while I don't love the AVC HD codec as much as I would love AVC I 100, which seems to me unbreakable, I continue to be amazed by the AF 100 and the in camera codec. With AVCHD you must have your in camera image close to what you want as a final result because of its 8 bitness, much more so than AVC I. Lets face it AVCHD is not a "digital negative" by any stretch of the imagination, but within its boundaries it does hold up far better than I ever expected.. It makes me wonder what 35 or 50mbs AVC hd could look like...
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Jan, I think your team has put together a very good camera. In two days time it's hard to squeeze the juice out of it since there are many options. I don't think the camera needs a better codec or higher bitrate but what I would like to see is better highlight handling. Noise and banding are such small issues and can be tweaked to almost non existing but when it clips it does so without grace to put it gently. I'm having a hard time to think it's the sensor, could there be a way to tweak how the DSP handles clipping to get it smoother?
I know I must use zebras to avoid any clipping but sometimes you want to blow it out and it would be nice to get a smooth blow instead of the yellow or blue fringes around highlights as it is know and colour skew. Barry concluded Panasonics m4/3 still cameras uses compression to avoid taxing out the chroma channel(s), which seams to be one cause. What if software could be modified and update FW would allow to adjust compression? Maybe another gamma profile added?
I know I must use zebras to avoid any clipping but sometimes you want to blow it out and it would be nice to get a smooth blow instead of the yellow or blue fringes around highlights as it is know and colour skew. Barry concluded Panasonics m4/3 still cameras uses compression to avoid taxing out the chroma channel(s), which seams to be one cause. What if software could be modified and update FW would allow to adjust compression? Maybe another gamma profile added?
NoahK
Hottie Mod
Yeah personally I wouldn't be surprised to see a camera sporting AVC-Intra and the AF100's sensor at NAB- it will be closer to $10K for sure but will definitely satisfy these sorts of rants. I'm sure folks will still find something to complain about then though.... Go back in time ten years of cameras to see what we had to work with for a price, then you'll have something to really be annoyed for.
Noah
Noah
if you can afford an extra money for a better "media" why not just buy a external recorder?
if the onboard media was p2 it would prbably cost the same as buying a nanoflash
@Noahk
im expecting more 3d. lfmao
but im guessing that p2 af100 version would be an f3 competitor with a new kind of sensor.
if the onboard media was p2 it would prbably cost the same as buying a nanoflash
@Noahk
im expecting more 3d. lfmao
but im guessing that p2 af100 version would be an f3 competitor with a new kind of sensor.
Mark Smith
Veteran
Go back in time ten years of cameras to see what we had to work with for a price, then you'll have something to really be annoyed for.
Noah
Oh so very very true. F900 , PD 150. Standard def 2/3rds inch interlace cameras that cost 45 grand. I'm longing for the good old days.
It seems people have a hard time separating observation, opinion, suggestion, from some kind of malice. This guy intended none, and his opinion should have no direct bearing on how you feel about your camera. Panasonic made decisions on the design of this model based on a number of factors. It's one of the first of it's kind, certainly in its price range. So it reaches many different kinds of buyers. Many, like me, love the camera, and demanded more of the onboard codec for our use than it can deliver, so we sought an additional recording device. I think it's safe to say that Panasonic would have a market for a camera like the AF with a better internal recording device, at a higher price point, maybe double, and it's safe to say I would have purchased it over the AF+Nano that I have now. Maybe you wouldn't. So what? It's a great camera and I'm glad Panasonic made it.
I wonder sometimes if Panasonic is worried about competing with itself. If Panasonic can do this with a $4,700 camera, what would it mean to their own market with what they could do with a $10-$15K camera. They still want to sell Varicams.
I wonder sometimes if Panasonic is worried about competing with itself. If Panasonic can do this with a $4,700 camera, what would it mean to their own market with what they could do with a $10-$15K camera. They still want to sell Varicams.
im mostly disappointed on the af100 solely on the resolution.
from what i see the sensor is like a cousin of gh1's sensor. I wish it was a close brother of gh2's sensor.
but nonetheless its still a kicks ass camera. its not perfect for everyone.
if you prefer a better onboard codec, then you just have to wait a bit more time. it may be announced this april or maybe never
from what i see the sensor is like a cousin of gh1's sensor. I wish it was a close brother of gh2's sensor.
but nonetheless its still a kicks ass camera. its not perfect for everyone.
if you prefer a better onboard codec, then you just have to wait a bit more time. it may be announced this april or maybe never
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I think the issue is that he was calling AVCHD unacceptable. Period. And that he was complaining he had to get an external recorder to get a better image. He may not have intended it, but his post did come across as hostile, at least to me. I get that for a lot of folks something like AVC-Intra is far more suitable. But for those of us who don't need to pixel peep everything, AVCHD is superb. I've been shooting on my HMC150 since it was first released, and am blown away by how nice an image I can get out of it. I've been thoroughly impressed with the codec, and am seriously thinking of trying to get a friend to plunk down for the AF100 for a project I'm going to be working on for him. For those of us who don't need something comparable to 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes, AVCHD is more than enough... and if we need more, there is the HD-SDI output. The OP seemed to not realize that, and came across as his particular set of criteria for what he wanted and needed were the only acceptable set of criteria for everyone, which seemed to get under a lot of folks collars.
iHartVideo
Well-known member
It's unfortunate that the hornets are so blinded by loyalty that they can't admit that there may be some drawbacks to the AF100. Everyone only accepts one answer: "the af100 is the best possible thing you can get for under $5k"
Here we have someone who spent the money and owns the camera who has honest feedback comparing it to a VDSLR and all the hornets swarm at the slightest critisism.