My two-day assessment of the AF100

Own It and Love It

Own It and Love It

For the record, I spent the money, own the camera and believe the AF100 is the best digital filmmaker's camera ever made under 5k, under 10k, too. This camera is innovative and pushes the marketplace to the next generation. That's my honest opinion.
 
Well, there's two things here that I have a problem with.

1) the poster says that the 5D+Nano = better than the AF100, but that's just not possible. The 5D's HDMI output is awful, and even Convergent will tell you, even Canon will tell you, don't bother recording the HDMI output of the 5D, it's not worth it, which is what Olof confirms.

2) Many of us have run tests on the AF100 using external recorders. We have testimony from people who have used the Nano, and the HPG20 recording to AVC-Intra. And while there are differences, you can look up those reports from those folks (being Philip Bloom, Stephen Mick, Filippo Chiesa, the crews.tv group, and me) and you'll find a consistent report that runs through every one of them -- there ain't much difference. It's a little better, but not substantially so, and it's certainly not a difference that is gonna make you look at one vs. the other and say "wow, what an incredible difference."

3) Many folks have asked in this thread for examples from the OP to show what it is that he's disappointed in, or a comparison as to why the Canon with a Nano would be better, and no examples have been given, whereas crews.tv showed side-by-sides between onboard AVCCAM and the best codec in the business, AVC-Intra.

Look, I'm a Nano user with the AF100. I like it. It can result in better-looking images, and I love the redundancy. But I also say that I think 95% of users will be perfectly happy with the onboard codec and never need to go outside of it. For those who do need to, options exist. I wish the AF100 could have been an AVC-Intra camera, but it isn't. Even so, there's nothing wrong with AVCCAM, and I found it to be even more robust than XDCAM-EX, which is used on cameras from Sony's professional division ranging from the $6,000 EX1R to the $13,300 F3 on up to the $22,000 PMW350.

If the OP would like to demonstrate some actual shortcomings in the codec, and how an outboard codec would overcome them, then let's see them. Otherwise, I would advise people to view all the reports collectively and remember that stuff like "A Verse Before Dying" was shot on the native codec and the conclusion that most AF100 shooters appear to have reached is that the codec is absolutely satisfactory for most shooting scenarios.
 
iHartVideo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, the responses are coming from other folks who have spent the money, own the camera, and find the claims by the OP to be inconsistent with their own findings.

I don't want fanboyism here, or attacking. All we want here is actual information. Which is why, if you look at the responses, over and over the requests were -- "really? proof, please, because that's not been our experience."

Seriously, the camera's been on the market for over three months, there are thousands of them in user hands around the world, and I can count on one finger the number of complaints that have said that the codec is unacceptable and that a DSLR would provide better results. We all acknowledge that the codec could be better -- of course it could be better, we know that such things as the Nano and AVC-Intra exist. But the question is one of quality in context with the overall package, and if you search through the reviews, you will rarely find complaints saying that the codec doesn't live up to the rest of the package.

Instead, you will typically find quite the opposite. I invite anyone who is wondering, to go do some research on what was being said before the camera delivered, versus now. Before the camera was delivered, there was substantial, almost extreme, concern over the viability of the codec. Over and over and over people said "well, yeah, it's affordable, but you're going to need an external recorder..." And, having been using one of the cameras, I repeatedly had to say "well, hold your judgement until you've actually tried it."

Now people have tried it. And now, the talk of the "necessity" of getting an external recorder has largely evaporated. Sure there will be some scenarios where an external recorder would be desired or preferable, such as greenscreen work. But when the thousands of actual owners discuss the camcorder, I really don't see much if any complaining about the codec itself, or excessive focus on "needing" an external recorder.

I think the hornets swarmed because this was such an unusual post, and its indictment of the codec was really quite severe, and requests for evidence of what the shortcomings are have so far fallen on deaf ears, and the testimony of other users has been ignored.

We're asking what the problem is because it simply doesn't jive with our experience. Could it be something as simple as that the OP is viewing the footage in Premiere Pro, and has his monitor set to "draft" quality? Maybe, because his report is so diametrically opposed to pretty much everyone else's, that it raises serious doubts in our minds that he's seeing the same thing we are.
 
discostock said:
For the record, I spent the money, own the camera and believe the AF100 is the best digital filmmaker's camera ever made under 5k, under 10k, too. This camera is innovative and pushes the marketplace to the next generation. That's my honest opinion.
Click to expand...
And I spent the money, own the camera, and believe the exact same thing discostock said. I wouldn't argue that the AF100 is "perfect" or that there isn't room for improvement, because of course things could be improved. But for the price, it is (in my opinion) a major breakthrough.
 
Barry_Green said:
Which is why, if you look at the responses, over and over the requests were -- "really? proof, please, because that's not been our experience."
Click to expand...

Sure, a few responses were that.

Most are more along the lines of "Oh yeah? well its the best thing at the price" and "it would've cost $100,000 5 years ago".
Not exactly encouraging anything other than towing the party line.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I think the issue is that he was calling AVCHD unacceptable. Period.
Click to expand...
And hey, that would be his right to do so -- everyone has their own standards that they can hold to. If one's standard is that only 4:2:2 is acceptable, then they would find that AVCHD would indeed be not acceptable (as the BBC will undoubtedly rule, just like they said that XDCAM-EX was not acceptable). Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's put in the context of what is acceptable and what isn't. I just think it's surprising that an argument could be made that a 5D with Nano would be viewed as being preferable.

In fact, I may have the opportunity to test that exact combination next week, someone's loaning me a 5D, so I'll try some scenarios of 5D with Nano vs. AF100 native.
 
iHartVideo said:
Not exactly encouraging anything other than towing the party line.
Click to expand...
Granted -- but what does unsubstantiated allegations encourage? Fighting, arguing, complaining, and threads getting shut down. So let's not have that.

I think we're at the point where some demonstrated proof of these claims is necessary. Reasonable people who have owned and used both have stated that the OP's declarations are ... well ... diametrically opposed to their own findings. So now, isn't it incumbent upon the person making the allegations to provide evidence to back them up?

We have asked for what the difference is and where the perceived shortcomings are, so that we could see if they match our experience, and if he's doing something wrong, or if there's some other problem. So far we have only heard statements that contradict what we have experienced on our own.

To get back to the baseline, it is my and (I dare say) most other AF100 owners' contention that the AVCCAM codec is perfectly adequate for many and dare I say most shooting scenarios.
Would an AF100 + nano be better? Yes, it would. The question is whether $2900 for a Nano is the best usage of money for any particular shooter, or whether that shooter would find it necessary.
Would a 5D+nano be better? I think the answer to this is obviously no. The 5D is not made to output a recordable-quality signal, and Olof has already verified it just isn't up to the task.

So I guess we're saying: if you're asserting that the AVCHD codec is that bad, please show us what you find objectionable, so we can reconcile it against our own findings which basically are the opposite of what you're asserting.
 
If the camera was a P2 camera, I wouldn't have bought it. I would prefer 4:2:2, but I am not interested in investing in proprietary media. I am shooting Panasonic this year. What about next year?

I am looking at the atomos option, and I am still thinking about a nano recorder.
 
jmarkham said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree. Personally, I think there should have been two models. The current AF100 and the AF100X. If Atmos Ninja was able to produce something so light and so inexpensive at $1000 that theoretically solves these 4:2:0 et al issues, I think panasonic should be able to produce an AF100X at $5795 if similar technology is placed behind the superb sensor.

If you had to mortgage your house and sell your farm to get the AF100X, and that wasn't acceptable, then you'd still have the option of purchasing the still wonderful and magnificent AF100 and rent a nano if you had a demanding client or discriminating taste.

I bought mine, I have no regrets, even though it's still sitting on a chair while I build a shrine around it so I can worship it. But I'm most positive that, Panasonic will remedy this with the next generation or a later model when the sales trickle to drops and all the issues have been exhausted. So far, the main problem seems to be the 422, 10 bit, et al. Let's just hope our purchases have paid for themselves when the next seismic model comes along.

Jan, I had this conversation with you - you said panasonic would only be able to produce that at 10K for the P2 route. So maybe we don't want to go the P2 route?

Atmos has proven (is about to prove) with the Ninja and forthcoming Samurai, that the light weight touch-screen technology exists at $1000. Maybe you want to buy out that company and incorporate them into panasonic or reverse engineer the ninja or outsource the production of something similar, because truly, if the AF100X recorded 4:2:2 50mbs onboard to inexpensive media, that would be the unicorn and the Holy Grail at a $6K price point and complainers would be shot on sight.

Get it, shot on sight? Man, I'm so smart! Hey, the X was all my idea, I want credit for that. LOL
 
Yea. I would pay more than $4,700 for a camera with 4:2:2 for sure. I just don't want to put money into media that I can't use later. For now, I will just look at some external recorder.
 
Barry_Green said:
And hey, that would be his right to do so -- everyone has their own standards that they can hold to. If one's standard is that only 4:2:2 is acceptable, then they would find that AVCHD would indeed be not acceptable (as the BBC will undoubtedly rule, just like they said that XDCAM-EX was not acceptable). Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's put in the context of what is acceptable and what isn't. I just think it's surprising that an argument could be made that a 5D with Nano would be viewed as being preferable.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree one bit, but he came across (at least to me) as making more of a blanket statement that AVCHD is unacceptable for any reason for anyone. If he said that it was unacceptable for his own uses for X,Y,and Z reasons, I don't think he would have gotten this sort of response. But instead it was the blanket statement about AVCHD being universally a piece of crap codec that struck me as being a bit hostile. It basically came across as his standards were the only standards by which anyone else should judge the camera.
 
I totally agree that there should be two models, just like there's an HMC150 and HPX170. I think the price difference is down to them wanting to do AVC-Intra on any future P2 model, whereas I'd be perfectly happy with DVCPRO-HD. At least, I think I would... I should try to do a side-by-side recording of AF100 native vs. HPG20 in DVCPRO-HD, to see how it'd look...

Anyway -- the Ninja is not something to be held over other companies' heads yet. It hasn't shipped and nobody can verify what the actual quality of the unit is. If it truly delivers on all cylinders it would be a massive, unprecedented shift in price/performance in the external recorder world, and I think that skepticism is warranted until it shows its performance and proves that the optimism was justified.

If they DO succeed in that, then ... yeah, hey, what would be wrong with that -- putting ProRes or CineForm or DNxHD onboard, in addition to AVCCAM. Because, don't forget, Ninja files are going to be 10x bigger than AVCCAM files, so a 32GB card is only going to deliver about 13 minutes of footage, so there would still be plenty of reason for people to use AVCCAM still...

As far as "compromising to hit a price point" -- that's the very essence of engineering. That's where engineering meets marketing. You target a price point, and then cram in everything you possibly can to make it be the best it can be for what you plan on charging for it. And yes, in context of its price point, I think AVCCAM is a good choice that fits well with the rest of the hardware. Panasonic's already said that if they were to do an AVC-Intra version it would cost $8K to $10K. While there are some of us who would pay that, I think that they probably did thorough research and determined that the place they wanted to be was in the under-$5k price bracket, and so the AF100 is what it is.

For those who absolutely must have a different codec, the Nano and Ki Pro Mini are available now, and the Ninja is due soon, and the Samurai will follow shortly.
 
iHartVideo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Bingo! Bin-A-go!
 
Mike Harvey said:
I don't disagree one bit, but he came across (at least to me) as making more of a blanket statement that AVCHD is unacceptable for any reason for anyone.
Click to expand...
I agree that that's how the initial post came across, and I am not surprised that it caused the reactions that it did.

If he said that it was unacceptable for his own uses for X,Y,and Z reasons, I don't think he would have gotten this sort of response.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

But instead it was the blanket statement about AVCHD being universally a piece of crap codec that struck me as being a bit hostile.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I think there's enough reviews out there and firsthand testimonials that say the opposite, that it really does put the onus on the OP to show proof as to what the problems are. I can't tell you how many times we've had someone come on our forum and say how awful h.264/avc or whatever other codec is, and we ask 'em why, and they say "because on the Premiere timeline it's just so low-res and blocky and nasty" and we end up saying "er, have you put the playback in "highest quality mode?" and ... oops. I mean, I'm sure that's happened half a dozen times here. So when someone comes on and says they've only used it for two days and then delivers stinging indictments, those of us who have been working with it consistently for three months now are going to be inclined to ask them to demonstrate just what it is that is causing such a polarly-opposite reaction.
 
jmarkham said:
My contention is that the Canon MkII with a Nanoflash looks better than an AF100 native (e.g., on camera .. no external devices).
It is also my contention that an AF100 to a Nanoflash looks better than a Canon MkII to a Nanoflash.. but the difference in image quality between the 5D and the AF100 (both) using the Nanoflash doesn't justify the AF100's price point.
Click to expand...
In the absence of footage to back up your claims, we can resort to examining independent tests of sensor resolution and aliasing artifacts of both Canon 5D Mark II and Panasonic AF100 video frames. The BBC recently commissioned Alan Roberts to conduct standardized tests of both cameras, and his reports are available here:

5D Mark II: http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD39_Canon_5D_DSLR.pdf
AF100: http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD66_rev_2_Panasonic_AF101.pdf

If we compare the 1080p luma Zone Plates of the two cameras (5D: page 2;AF100: page 9), distinctive patterns emerge that characterize each camera's image quality. The 5D's Zone Plate exhibits pronounced color-fringed aliasing artifacts that correspond to widespread reports of its color moire problems. The AF100's Zone Plate exhibits relatively less prominent, non-colored aliasing artifacts that limit its artifact-free resolution, consistent with a variety of user reports.

Although Roberts did not make any direct comparisons between the two cameras, I found it notable that he dismissed the Canon 5D Mark II as unworthy of further tests, effectively disqualifying it from serious consideration. And while he found the AF100's HD resolution disappointing, Roberts did not rule out its use in BBC broadcasts.

In light of evidence that both cameras produce visible high-resolution aliasing artifacts, it would appear that your claims boil down to a preference for a high-quality NanoFlash rendition of the 5D's color-fringed aliasing artifacts over a low-bitrate AVCHD rendition of the AF100's alias-limited image resolution. I think it's also clear why others may not share that opinion.
 
I went into buying the AF100 with full intention on buying an external recorder and bypassing the internal codec. Once I finally got my AF100 and used it a few time I quickly realized the codec far exceeded my expectations and I find it hard that anyone with any AF100 experience would "find that the encoding and data rate reduction entirely unacceptable".
 
Last edited:
Okay, look -- to those who have expressed that "oh boy, here comes another closed thread" -- here's the deal. This forum is not a place to argue minute technical details until one's face turns blue. This forum is for users of these products to exchange information, support, advice, and otherwise enable and help people to accomplish their goals with their chosen product.

An unsupported/undemonstrated declaration of "this is totally unacceptable" does not align with that goal, especially when there are thousands and thousands of people worldwide who currently are using the product.

The focus in this thread should be upon what it is that the OP finds unacceptable, and if the combined knowledge base of users here can assist the OP to get better results. And that can only happen if the OP wants to cooperate and gain such assistance.

If, on the other hand, the thread is meant to just hang out there as an unsubstantiated accusation, then yes, it will be closed.

This forum doesn't need, and doesn't want, any flame-baiting or any such activity, we don't need or want fanbois and we don't need or want detractors. That's not what we're about.

But the simple fact is that there are thousands and thousands of these cameras being used worldwide, and we are here to support those users and to receive support from them. That's the whole point of DVXUser.

So, I repeat -- to the OP, please describe what it is that you're having trouble with, and please show examples so that we can assist you to hopefully get the better results that we are getting. And, if it's a case of that you simply have much higher standards than we do, then perhaps you would be best served by moving to a different product. Either way, help us get to the bottom of it, because we're not going to just have allegations and hornets and all that, because that serves nobody, improves nothing, and is nothing but unpleasant noise in the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top