New af100 +lumix 12-35mm f2 -first look-surprised!

R

Rod Pike

Well-known member
Hi all,
well it is here and I am still finding my way around it. I ran a comparison against my 160a using the same scene files and settings and I was surprised that the AF100 was not noticeably better, if at all, on sharpness. So can anyone give me some feedback on these points:

I shot both at 720p (my AF100 (02) isn't yet upgraded to 1080p/50). Should I expect to see a difference- as 720 is 720 no matter how big the sensor? (other than the obvious advantages of better low light performace, shallow DOF etc and I guess less likelihood of fringe abberation, although I saw none in either case)

When pixel peeping on a 300%crop the 160 actually looks a bit better. Could someone post a 300% crop of a af100 to give me an idea on what it should look like regarding sharpness. I realise this will be a bit subjective but as one would never normally do this , but it will give me some assurance and a reference point for me.

My scene files in both cases were:
rec format: 720/50p
detail -4
v detail -4
detail coring -2
chroma level -2
master ped +2
gamma : bpress
knee: mid
Matrix: norm2

Everything else at zero or off.

Feedback will be very welcome.

Cheers!
Rod
 
Last edited:
Rod

You have 1080p (25) already in your camera (and dont need the optional upgrade to 50p)

Can I also respectfully suggest...that you learn your camera using Default Scene Files only.
 
FYI, the AC160 is a sharper camera than the AF100. The AF100 was engineered to deliver 800 lines of res; the AC160 delivers about 1000.

You shouldn't see much difference in 720p; you'd see the difference more in 1080p.
 
Thanks Barry, that is something I didn't know, thankyou.

Hi Shooter, thanks for the reply. yes I know I have 1080p (25) but as I work in mainly industrial environments I always shoot in 1080/50p on my 160a to catch motion and movement. (some of which can be unpredictable so 25fps is not the best choice for me.)

My scene file setting is the one I set up after extensive trialling on my 160a so I am quite familiar and comfortable with the af160A settings, and the images from it, although I am not sure about the correlation between the 160A and the AF102- that is, whether they yield the same results, so that is another field of discovery! My only disappointment is not being able to get Barry's book here in NZ. Cheers!
Rod
 
Barry_Green said:
FYI, the AC160 is a sharper camera than the AF100. The AF100 was engineered to deliver 800 lines of res; the AC160 delivers about 1000.
Click to expand...

Then Panasonic missed the mark. The BBC (and others) measured the AF100 as delivering closer to 680 lines of resolution, a far cry from the 800 line target, and well short of the full 1080 lines that more recently released cameras (costing far more than the AF100, but far less than the Varicam). If the AF100 really did deliver 800 lines of resolution, I'd be happy with it instead of so very ambivalent. And if it delivered a full 1080 lines, I'd be stoked! But it doesn't.
 
Thanks shooter , I did try DVT but no luck, so I will try A2Z-I bought my 160A from them with the BG book- don't know why I didn't try them- another senior moment! Cheers!
Rod
 
UPDATE. hi all, well my lumix 35-100mm 2.8 has turned up to go with the 12-35mm 2.8, so giving me a stonking lens kit! I am also using my Olympus 9-18mm 4/3 and the Panny adaptor. Barry's book on its way from USA(( SOD THE EXPENSE!!) I must say this outfit takes me back to my pentax s1a and Practicamat days of 45 years ago when you had to understand and really think about shutter speed, DOF asa etc. Does anyone remember force developing Kodak tri x ASA400 to 1600 in acuspeed? what fun it was ! Over the years I have come to rely on auto exposure and focus, and I must say that exploiting the full manual aspects of this rig is giving me something back that I have missed for a long time- the mechanics of creativity. Can't wait to use it on the next assignment ( although it will be a wrench leaving my 160A in its case.) Cheers!Rod
 
Rod Pike said:
Does anyone remember force developing Kodak tri x ASA400 to 1600 in acuspeed? what fun it was !
Click to expand...

Only because I took a few photography courses in high school that actually used tri-x film. I still have the prints I made and the negatives in a binder. When I look at them, all I can think of is how much my framing has improved and my ability to focus has gotten worse. I wish we had pentaprisms for focus again.
 
Yes! and maybe fresnel screens with split image centres? I wonder how well that could work?- and the centre split image magnifying--wow!!!

EDIT: I meant Ilford HP4 in acuspeed, not tri x- my memory fails me yet again!-
cheers!
Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top