Panasonic AF-100 being called the "DSLR killer". Any thoughts?

[Paul Hudson]

The logic Barry presented about chasing technology is very valid. I didn't have one client asking for a DSLR yet I went out and bought one with all the bells and whistles. I shot with a few times and then found myself returning to the HPX-500. The clients couldn't tell the difference or didn't care and it is a whole lot easier to work with.

 

[yoclay]

It might be a killer for those who own a 7D and the like at 1.6X, but no it is not a DSLR killer to the rest of us.

The AF100 might have all the bells and whistles of a traditional camcorder and that is a good thing, but the one thing it does not have is a large enough sensor. Close, but not quite good enough. As long as these companies continue to release sensor sizes that multiply a standard photographic lens by 2x or more, there will be a place for HDSLR's. People do not want all of their lenses turned into telephoto's.

Further, let's be realistic here folks, an AF100 will not be better than a REDONE in terms of image quality (certainly it will be in terms of ease of use - but not in terms of image quality), and it is arguable that even the REDONE loses out in lowlight to the 5DMII, mostly because of it's sensor size. Heck, the 5DMII is better than even conventional 35mm film in lowlight.

The day a camcorder gives a 5D size sensor in a camcorder body at a reasonable price (in the same range as the AF100) is the day when DSLR's will be dead. And not until then.

 

[TimurCivan]

Inflateable shouldermount........ hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............

Barry makes a good point.

I bought my 7D about 5 months ago for still photography and video. I'm a junior film student, so the camera is used primarily for shooting video - short docs, narratives, and experiments - but I've put it to use here doing small jobs; and I'm using it as a still camera primarily as a way to make money - I'd minor in photography if I could.

The point is, this will be my signature weapon through grad school, but my target career is screenwriting - I'm just using the camera now to learn, make films, and enter them in festivals to help boost my resume. Once school's over, I'm off to the writing world.

By that time, this camera will be obsolete, replaced by a 9DII or something with an equally ridiculous name, a built-in Zoom H4N, zebras, histograms, a 15" fold-out LCD, and an inflatable shouldermount for the same price as a 7D. But that's my POV: I expect DSLR's to be replaced by DSLR's. Some may graduate to bigger and badder more holistic camcorders, but I think there will be a market for them for a long time, especially as the key problems are addressed (moire/aliasing, 4gb file limits, codec, compression, audio, stability, etc.), and like Barry said, those who cannot afford $8,000+ cameras will do backflips when they see they can get an amazing shot with a tiny DSLR.

If I were to continue in the video business, I would find the tools that work for me and use them to their max, then replace when it is economically feasible, in regards to both cost of the new equipment and payoff from their new groundbreaking features. The AF-100 is a great camera; it all just depends on what is a smarter choice financially, IMO, because there's no point in breaking the bank over the newest toy when the antique works well enough.

 

[TimurCivan]

The AF100 might have all the bells and whistles of a traditional camcorder and that is a good thing, but the one thing it does not have is a large sensor. As long as these companies continue to release sensor sizes that multiply a standard photographic lens by 2x or more, there will be a place for HDSLR's. People do not want all of their lenses turned into telephoto's.

Further, let's be realistic here folks, an AF100 will not be better than a REDONE, and it is arguable that even the REDONE loses out in lowlight to the 5DMII, mostly because of it's sensor size. Heck, the 5DMII is better than even conventional 35mm film in lowlight.

The day a camcorder gives a 5D size sensor in a camcorder body at a reasonable price (in the same range as the AF100) is the day when DSLR's will be dead. And not until then.

Well, at least s35 sized, with a slightly more robust codex built in.

 

[Chris Santucci]

Further, let's be realistic here folks, an AF100 will not be better than a REDONE, and it is arguable that even the REDONE loses out in lowlight to the 5DMII, mostly because of it's sensor size. Heck, the 5DMII is better than even conventional 35mm film in lowlight.

The day a camcorder gives a 5D size sensor in a camcorder body at a reasonable price (in the same range as the AF100) is the day when DSLR's will be dead. And not until then.

Exactly.

.

 

[Chris Santucci]

DSLRs will have their niche, and obviously among no-budget folks who couldn't possibly afford an AF100, they will still use the DSLR.

And yet for the past few years (or so), even many of those who can afford "better" cameras (to rent or buy) are still shooting on 5D/7D.

But for those of us who don't want to faff around with 12-minute time limits and overheating and fiddly mini-HDMI connectors and post-sync'ing sound and the inability to get a decent wide-angle shot without crawling aliasing and rainbow moire everywhere and guessing about exposure and ... well, for those folks, I do confidently predict that the DSLR craze is going to experience a pretty big reality check.

I have yet to experience any of these issues. When you balance cost against apparent quality, the 5D/7D cameras are going to be hard to "kill" in my opinion. When I was on the fence about the 5D, it was all these supposed shortcomings that kept me there. Then I went ahead and got into it and found out it's nowhere near as bad as people were saying.

DSLR: It's not a perfect video camera, but people are working out ways to use them that make them much closer to perfect and the image quality is still the image quality which really in the end is what matters most.

.

 

[Barry_Green]

And yet for the past few years (or so), even many of those who can afford "better" cameras (to rent or buy) are still shooting on 5D/7D.

Some are, yes. And why? Because the 5D/7D gives them a look that the other cameras can't. And that look is very much in demand. But hey, if you want to continue soldiering on with a DSLR when there are conventional professional camcorders out there that deliver the same look, that's fine -- I just don't expect that many pros will take that route.

I have yet to experience any of these issues. When you balance cost against apparent quality, the 5D/7D cameras are going to be hard to "kill" in my opinion.

You've never experienced overheating, or having to record double-system sound and sync in post?

I already said that for cost, the 5D/7D are going to remain popular.

DSLR: It's not a perfect video camera, but people are working out ways to use them that make them much closer to perfect and the image quality is still the image quality which really in the end is what matters most.

Well, see, there again, I disagree. It really isn't all about image quality mattering most -- if it was, why would you ever shoot on anything other than 65mm film? Obviously there are many factors that matter as much as, or more than, final image quality. Those factors include cost, availability, reliability, and hassle factor.

For me, and for many that I know, the hassle factor is enough to push the DSLR off the set and put something like the AF100 in its place.

To each his own.

 

[Chris Santucci]

You've never experienced overheating, or having to record double-system sound and sync in post?

Nope. I don't do double system sound. And I haven't had any overheating issues, but then, I'm in the Northeast.

It really isn't all about image quality mattering most -- if it was, why would you ever shoot on anything other than 65mm film? Obviously there are many factors that matter as much as, or more than, final image quality. Those factors include cost, availability, reliability, and hassle factor.

Rephrasing: Image quality divided by cost. Or is it cost divided by image quality? Probably both. I think it's rare that cost isn't a factor and even then, people are using 5D/7D over other options when they have more than enough in a budget to pay for "better" cameras.

I think it's a profound testament to the image quality of 5D/7D when people are willing to deal with the gaps in functionality of the DSLR cameras on commercial jobs where budgets aren't lean.

.

 

[Lee Wilson]

Rephrasing: Image quality divided by cost.

Agreed ! That would be my summation / criticism of Barry's (otherwise very valid) point, what he says is not wrong but it turns a blind eye to the issue of cost and very quickly arrives at the idea that if quality was everything then we would all be shooting 65mm film.

All things said, all opinions expressed, all ideas shared should be seen as coming with the - unsaid but understood - caveat of 'within reason'.

Quality is the goal, presenting the distant and - for most - unachievable idea of 65mm film and putting forward the idea that if you are not using this then your claim that quality is the goal is wrong - is just silly.

 

[GRENCH]

I don't see what all of the either or conversation is about. I'll use both cameras. I am most definitely purchasing an AF-100. I've been around long enough to know what it offers is huge. My 7d is an awesome camera with it's light weight and small compact size I can actually use well built less expensive rigs to create great shots on a relatively low budget project. Coupled with a camera like the AF-100 with no moire or aliasing it should make for a great partnership. My 85mm Zeiss is breath taking with my 7d. Simply put my 7D will fit where my AF-100 won't and vice versa. But they are both still going to the ball.

High End and Lo End: I paid close to $5,000.00 for my HVX200 and around $3600.00 for my Canon HXA1. AF-100 does not have a high end price tag what so ever! Before DSLRs came about 5 grand was a steal for a far less camera. We need to respect the fact that Panasonic is offering this camera for such a reasonable price. Lets face it. The 7D and GH1 were a steal for what they offer, but don't fool yourselves into believing that a price tag of $5000.00 equates to high end just because some DSLRs low pricing. Just wait until Canon announces their answer to the AF-100. That will be boarder lining High End.

 

[dcloud]

It might be a killer for those who own a 7D and the like at 1.6X, but no it is not a DSLR killer to the rest of us.

The AF100 might have all the bells and whistles of a traditional camcorder and that is a good thing, but the one thing it does not have is a large enough sensor. Close, but not quite good enough. As long as these companies continue to release sensor sizes that multiply a standard photographic lens by 2x or more, there will be a place for HDSLR's. People do not want all of their lenses turned into telephoto's.

Further, let's be realistic here folks, an AF100 will not be better than a REDONE in terms of image quality (certainly it will be in terms of ease of use - but not in terms of image quality), and it is arguable that even the REDONE loses out in lowlight to the 5DMII, mostly because of it's sensor size. Heck, the 5DMII is better than even conventional 35mm film in lowlight.

The day a camcorder gives a 5D size sensor in a camcorder body at a reasonable price (in the same range as the AF100) is the day when DSLR's will be dead. And not until then.

Sensor size isnt the main reason ddlrs wouldnt be killed. Slthough id love a ff sensor, m43 is adequate enough. Low light is great but i still light my scenes

 

[dcloud]

I don't see what all of the either or conversation is about. I'll use both cameras. I am most definitely purchasing an AF-100. I've been around long enough to know what it offers is huge. My 7d is an awesome camera with it's light weight and small compact size I can actually use well built less expensive rigs to create great shots on a relatively low budget project. Coupled with a camera like the AF-100 with no moire or aliasing it should make for a great partnership. My 85mm Zeiss is breath taking with my 7d. Simply put my 7D will fit where my AF-100 won't and vice versa. But they are both still going to the ball.

High End and Lo End: I paid close to $5,000.00 for my HVX200 and around $3600.00 for my Canon HXA1. AF-100 does not have a high end price tag what so ever! Before DSLRs came about 5 grand was a steal for a far less camera. We need to respect the fact that Panasonic is offering this camera for such a reasonable price. Lets face it. The 7D and GH1 were a steal for what they offer, but don't fool yourselves into believing that a price tag of $5000.00 equates to high end just because some DSLRs low pricing. Just wait until Canon announces their answer to the AF-100. That will be boarder lining High End.

agreed but canon would probably be late by 1-2 yrs and overpriced by 2-3 grand (which is fine by then youd have made a lot of money from 7d/5d/af100 combo)

 

[yoclay]

Equation is simple:

AF100 (bells & Whistles + pricepoint) + larger sensor = DSLR Killer

or

5DMII + (bells & whistles + artifact elimination) = AF100 killer


Formula 1 + Formula 2 + Time = Convergence


The last formula is the only one that matters.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

I could really see myself using an AF101 and a 5D mk II/III alternating which ever camera I can utilise best.

Yesterday I worked with a gaffer that didn't like DSLR cameras because they demand more of a gaffer getting it right in camera on set. I mentioned something like 10-11 stops dr from a 5DmkII but he just looked at me and was rather sceptical. Some people like these cameras and some don't.

 

[greymog]

I could really see myself using an AF101 and a 5D mk II/III alternating which ever camera I can utilise best.

Yesterday I worked with a gaffer that didn't like DSLR cameras because they demand more of a gaffer getting it right in camera on set. I mentioned something like 10-11 stops dr from a 5DmkII but he just looked at me and was rather sceptical. Some people like these cameras and some don't.

+1 I can also say it goes down to a personal choice. the closest person I relate to at work here likes them, but would prefer less work on set, he's an off the set kinda guy. And he's real good at it. Me? I love em cause they demand that you get it right on camera.

I can see a broadcast person hate them for that reason, and a teacher lovin them for the same reason. I think they will still be around. And despite the fact that on the 5DII aren't as many features as say a GHx, the fact that it's full frame means it's here to stay, as it gives you aesthetic options that were not there/expensive before.

This is after an art where the limits of technology have heavily contributed to if not defined the aesthetic traditions we're holding on to.

I don't like the canon DSLR's personally, I am not shooting full frame, I'm matching s35. But I love that FF is around, cause I can say I'm old school har har.

But seriously, just cause FF is a very accessible visual difference in the picture, I mean it's two words that start with the same letter even that have been pushed to the layman that connote a 'bigger' and consequently 'better' picture. It is in a sense marketing, but it could work cause some people are realizing (maybe don't have to) that the aesthetic characteristics could stand as something on their own.

Couple a new horizon like that with a small size, and you're set.

I like my features. I won't say it's too clean, I still need to conform and make my rig look cool to sell and rent and all, but the most painful realization i keep making is that people don't pay as much attention to that.

I think they can stay, if anything, pro-cameras like the AF-100 have defined the DSLR'S application even more clearly. Give the pros what they need, so that we can find out who's sticking to these things and why'. My guess is the odd indy filmmaker who's sick of super8 but still wants to control his motion images photographically, along with 3 other graphic designers, and 5 tv-show style episodes for the web would be the sample. It's inevitably gonna get to attaining an image for 500 dollars.

I've said this before, can't remember where, but these things remind me of Reason when it came out.

All you need to get an idea down in 48/24 is a laptop/interface/mic or midi board. And it's over.

Sure you can get better, but when fit hits the shan I just wanna hear what the three guitar parts sound like on top of each other. I have learned to leave it to the pros at sound, just so I can have some headache free happiness.

My 2 lira.

 

[Razz16mm]

Compared to true HD video cameras, like the Canon XF300/305, Sony EX1/3 and the upcoming AF100, DLSR hybrids will continue to produce inferior quality HD video. Why? Because they are first and foremost still cameras and their image processing will continue to be optimized for that function first and compromised for video. The AF-100 even though it is 4/3 format, has a sensor, OLPF, and processing optimized for 1080p HD 2.2 megapixel image quality instead of 10-14 megapixel still frames. The AF-100 will not be as good a still camera as a DSLR, but it will be a far superior HD video camera.

 

[Barry_Green]

Compared to true HD video cameras, like the Canon XF300/305, Sony EX1/3 and the upcoming AF100, DLSR hybrids will continue to produce inferior quality HD video. Why? Because they are first and foremost still cameras and their image processing will continue to be optimized for that function first and compromised for video. The AF-100 even though it is 4/3 format, has a sensor, OLPF, and processing optimized for 1080p HD 2.2 megapixel image quality instead of 10-14 megapixel still frames. The AF-100 will not be as good a still camera as a DSLR, but it will be a far superior HD video camera.

And this is exactly what I see happening here -- it's better because it's designed to be better, and therefore those who can afford it, will use it.

And those who can't afford it, will stick with what they can afford. There will be a clarification of markets after the AF100 comes out. Right now there's blurred lines, but I think those are going to be cleared up.

Pros are using DSLRs because there's no other practical way to get the look that they deliver, and they're willing to put up with the hassles to get that look. Soon there will be an alternative that delivers the look of the DSLR, with none of the hassle. To me that sounds like a winning combination and an obvious choice, in fact there really isn't a choice to be made - it's obvious.

DSLRs will continue to be the first choice for the no-budget guys or the guys whose shooting demands stealth/guerilla style. But again, that goes with the territory - if you're shooting the kind of production where you're having to steal shots, then you probably don't have a permit, you don't have insurance, and if your whole production is banking on the idea of not getting thrown out of your location, then you're probably not an AF100 customer anyway. I'm sure there are many low/no-budget shooters who will gravitate towards the AF100 for what it offers, and there are many who will not be able to justify the additional expense (even though the cost difference is a whole lot less than we were originally thinking; we're hearing street price of $4699 for the AF100 already, and the 5D costs $2479, and with a mandatory audio recorder for the 5D you're at $3,000 minimum, so ... it really isn't all that much more for all that it does.

As life4eva said, we can just wait and see how it plays out. But I think that among pros, the days of reaching for a stills camera to do a video job, are coming to a close now that there's a viable video camera that does the same job better.

 

[yoclay]

And this is exactly what I see happening here -- it's better because it's designed to be better, and therefore those who can afford it, will use it.

And those who can't afford it, will stick with what they can afford. There will be a clarification of markets after the AF100 comes out. Right now there's blurred lines, but I think those are going to be cleared up.

Pros are using DSLRs because there's no other practical way to get the look that they deliver, and they're willing to put up with the hassles to get that look. Soon there will be an alternative that delivers the look of the DSLR, with none of the hassle. To me that sounds like a winning combination and an obvious choice, in fact there really isn't a choice to be made - it's obvious.

DSLRs will continue to be the first choice for the no-budget guys or the guys whose shooting demands stealth/guerilla style. But again, that goes with the territory - if you're shooting the kind of production where you're having to steal shots, then you probably don't have a permit, you don't have insurance, and if your whole production is banking on the idea of not getting thrown out of your location, then you're probably not an AF100 customer anyway. I'm sure there are many low/no-budget shooters who will gravitate towards the AF100 for what it offers, and there are many who will not be able to justify the additional expense (even though the cost difference is a whole lot less than we were originally thinking; we're hearing street price of $4699 for the AF100 already, and the 5D costs $2479, and with a mandatory audio recorder for the 5D you're at $3,000 minimum, so ... it really isn't all that much more for all that it does.

As life4eva said, we can just wait and see how it plays out. But I think that among pros, the days of reaching for a stills camera to do a video job, are coming to a close now that there's a viable video camera that does the same job better.

There is a whole notion here in this statement that you are not pro if you use a DSLR in the future, that I find entirely disagreeable. It is first and foremost an aesthetic choice. It does not necessarily signify that one does not have the means to conduct a proper production. It does not mean that you probably don't have a permit, you don't have insurance, and your whole production is banking on the idea of not getting thrown out of your location. Those are gross assumptions, that don't have anything to do with myself or any of the people I know when it comes to choosing the tools they desire for a specific purpose.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

But again, that goes with the territory - if you're shooting the kind of production where you're having to steal shots, then you probably don't have a permit, you don't have insurance, and if your whole production is banking on the idea of not getting thrown out of your location, then you're probably not an AF100 customer anyway.

Or you're Anthony Dod Mantle running through the slums of Mumbai with a 1DIII tucked in your jacket.

 

[dtjohns1]

Yea I'm confused about this whole use of the word "pro" IMO a "pro" would be shooting on a red one or film? Then again my definition of pro are people like Michael Mann, tony scott, christopher Nolan, etc