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

dmpsk8 said:
My god, this thread is going around in circles. Who cares what ur shooting on, go do great work. Buy what you can and move on.
Click to expand...

Because people come here to try and learn the differences between different cameras at the same and different price points. Obviously someones ability to do great work cannot be answered here, but they can find out what limitations and/or technical deficiencies certain pieces of hardware have from those that have a lot of experience using said equipment. They can also see if other people think the cost difference is worth the differences in functionality

I come to dvxuser to get opinions on hardware all the time, especially from those who have a deeper knowledge base or a length of experience with certain specific pieces of gear.

Saying "Buy what you can and move on" is a really poor advice. I could afford a D90 when they came out. I thought it was going to be great. I bought it. It's one of the worst video capture cameras I have EVER used. Had I spent more time researching here, or elsewhere, I would have found that out. Now I know better.

Obviously some people think the AF100 is a DSLR killer and some people don't, which is the whole POINT of this thread. Which is why I am offering my opinion as a seasoned DSLR shooter on the 7D and why *I* am going to the AF100. I am sure there are *many* people trying to decide whether that extra $4k is necessary. Threads like this present many opinions. As some here feel comfortable staying with their DSLRs that they have now. There is nothing wrong with that, and it makes them no less professional. It's all personal opinion and I am offering up my experience that is negative, while others have not had such a negative experience. Also, certain characteristics are more important to some than others, which are all important points when deciding what is right for you.
 
grimepoch said:
I could afford a D90 when they came out. I thought it was going to be great. I bought it. It's one of the worst video capture cameras I have EVER used. Had I spent more time researching here, or elsewhere, I would have found that out. Now I know better.
Click to expand...

I think everyone who bought one for video, including myself, were just waiting for a quick firmware update to add manual controls. That never happened, but at least in retrospect it did have a very interesting and different image quality that worked well on youtube before youtube went HD.

Using the D90 under any real lighting scenarios caused the sensor to overheat before getting off one shot. fun times. :)
 
Hehe, well that was the first of the problems. I was shooting some footage of butterflies to use in a trailer and when I downloaded the videos, the aliasing on the wings of the butterfly were so bad, I couldn't believe it.

Then I tried using it moving around, the jello was the worst of the cameras! :)

I never did try to downrez anything below 720p, which probably would have looked good at 480!
 
grimepoch said:
Saying "Buy what you can and move on" is a really poor advice. I could afford a D90 when they came out. I thought it was going to be great. I bought it. It's one of the worst video capture cameras I have EVER used. Had I spent more time researching here, or elsewhere, I would have found that out. Now I know better..
Click to expand...

I'm not saying to buy gear with your eyes closed (what pro would do that?), but sometimes these technical debates become endless. Make an informed decision and do the best work you can, with the best cam you can afford. Let the end product speak for itself. Some of the best work I've seen has been done with less than ideal gear

Full disclosure, I'm keeping my 7D and adding an AF100.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Having much more color depth and resolution is useless and not worth the expense if the general public can't tell the difference between something shot on a 5D, film, and Red.
.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
It adds no value for straight-out-of-camera footage, but the extra latitude provides options that allow more flexibility around post-pro. For instance 'the public' may not be able to tell the difference it makes for Chromakey, but they sure can tell when it's done poorly. They may not know why, but they can see the difference.
If the AF-100 helps then it reduces the odds of the public noticing the flaws.
 
This thread's gotten as redundant and argumentative as any of late!

Me, I kinda like the idea of a real video form factor box that can produce a "look" somewhere in the DSLR video - to - film range... with none of the stuff that makes me pull my hair out with Canon's codec. If I can get one for under $5k and use existing glass as I obtain purpose-built lenses, so much the better.

4-2-2?? Hey, give me footage with the same latitude as my 550D without all the moire and mud, where I can pull a key without seven holdout masks (which still left me with hair that looks like ants are crawling on it)? I'm in. Give me the option to add an external recorder for more color depth when I want/can afford one? Aw, hell yeah. Give me really robust monitoring and remote control capabilities? Yeah, I can get reeeeeal excited about not waiting for Nikon or Canon to cram more and more stuff into a still camera - a wait with year-long intervals at the minimum, too.

But a DSLR killer? Gimme a break. SLRs have been around for longer than I have (and my daughter calls me "old as hell"). The "D" sure was a nice prefix. Video started as an afterthought ("Hey engineer-san, that's a lot of pixels going to the LCD, can we capture it"?) and every time this subject comes up around here, nobody seems to know what percentage of Nikon/Canon's profits come from buyers primarily buying for video - my guess is it ain't much on the year-end spreadsheet, yet we get a lot of "they'd better be listening to us filmmakers" - Nikon didn't seem that worried about a D90 firmware upgrade for "us", did they?

One thing I'd bet a few bucks on - if this camera's successful, we'll see more development in a market that could have been called "Scarletville". Exciting times, if ya ask me.
 
iHartVideo said:
I disagree.
It adds no value for straight-out-of-camera footage, but the extra latitude provides options that allow more flexibility around post-pro. For instance 'the public' may not be able to tell the difference it makes for Chromakey, but they sure can tell when it's done poorly. They may not know why, but they can see the difference.
If the AF-100 helps then it reduces the odds of the public noticing the flaws.
Click to expand...


Producers and creative directors at ad agencies are asking for the 5D and 7D and have been for many months now. IF the AF100 or any other camera comes to light that doesn't require 3 people to run it and people produce work with these cameras that rivals the 5D and 7D stuff, then things might change. As it is, these people know what to expect from the 5D & 7D and they like it - very much. As do I.

"Flaws?"

Show me the "flaws" in these:

http://www.vimeo.com/8100091
http://www.vimeo.com/7199178
http://www.vimeo.com/13159991
http://www.vimeo.com/14350274
http://www.vimeo.com/5000009
http://www.vimeo.com/8846157

.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Producers and creative directors at ad agencies are asking for the 5D and 7D and have been for many months now. IF the AF100 or any other camera comes to light that doesn't require 3 people to run it and people produce work with these cameras that rivals the 5D and 7D stuff, then things might change. As it is, these people know what to expect from the 5D & 7D and they like it - very much. As do I.

"Flaws?"

Show me the "flaws" in these:

.
Click to expand...

You missed my points.

Sure, you can make awsome stuff with a Canon.
If (note: IF) the AF-100 makes the aquisition and manipulation of footage easier or more consistent then many people will move to the AF-100. it's not a "useless" upgrade as your assertion I quoted in my post above. It's quite the opposite, in fact, and many may think its worth the additional expense.

Your point seems to be that the Canons are flawless and nobody will move from the 7D and mII. As soon as an mIII or 8D is released you know many filmakers will upgrade... why wouldn't you expect the same regardless of brand?
 
No one said you couldn't make good video on the 7D/5D, we do all the time, but it comes with a price on the freedom of what you are shooting and how much you can push your footage.

Sure, if I take a video of a static scene out of focus on the 7D or the Red One it will probably look the same.

But when I am dealing with complex deep DoF shots, multiple types of fabric and architectural features. Slanted lines in the FoV just off horizontal axis with the sensor, these become things that I need to check in my shots. ALL my shots.

If I want to pan a little quicker or use telephoto lenses without IS, rolling shutter can be a big problem.

What if I want to add some serious grade onto my footage in post, pushing the color? I've seen the codec fall apart. And ESPECIALLY when trying to do certain green screen work. Because of the codec method, it can be VERY hard with hair.

Maybe you are okay with wasting a lot of time trying to watch out for each and every one of these limitations of the camera, but I am tired of wasting time on shoots having to find different angles to fight rainbow moire. Reshooting a tricky greenscreen to try and get something better out of the encoder, or trying to fix a shot that was awesome except for a small camera bump that generates a huge amount of compression in the vertical due to the rolling shutter.

Why would anyone NOT want to get away from those limitations? I like using my time in my shoots for artistic considerations, not technical considerations. I'm sure most people would have the opportunity to focus on that.

Now, I don't know that the AF100 solves all my problems, I only have some testing by a few trusted users that have played with the prototype, we have yet to see if it will deliver. That said, I have NO QUESTION that if the moire/aliasing is as reduced as been reported, I KNOW that I will save time in my productions and can stop having to check SO MANY shots.

I do a lot of military action shots, and the amount of fine detail on vests, straps, holsters, uniforms is amazing.

I'm looking forward to more freedom :)
 
Chris Santucci said:
Producers and creative directors at ad agencies are asking for the 5D and 7D and have been for many months now. IF the AF100 or any other camera comes to light that doesn't require 3 people to run it and people produce work with these cameras that rivals the 5D and 7D stuff, then things might change. As it is, these people know what to expect from the 5D & 7D and they like it - very much. As do I.

"Flaws?"

Show me the "flaws" in these:

http://www.vimeo.com/8100091
http://www.vimeo.com/7199178
http://www.vimeo.com/13159991
http://www.vimeo.com/14350274
http://www.vimeo.com/5000009
http://www.vimeo.com/8846157

.
Click to expand...



Look, in the sky, on the roof! It was like an Easter Egg hunt. I guess it's like the flaw woven into any Persian rug...only Allah is perfect.
His stuff is so nice.


1285643655.jpg
 
I disagree that it's going to be "the work produced" that causes someone to shift over to an AF100 from a DSLR. I think all it's going to take is a few hours using one, and then going back to the DSLR. It is the sheer usability of the product that will cause people to re-examine their current path. And I say that the AF100 will be accepted even if its image quality was to be >worse< than the DSLRs, just because of the convenience and hassle factors. Of course, it won't be worse, it'll be on par in many ways, and much superior in others. But better quality is usually nowhere near the primary motivating factor. It's all a dance between good-enough quality, low-enough cost, and the hassles of using the product. And for my dollar, the AF100 wins the battle against the DSLR handily on quality, the low-enough cost is pretty much a wash, and the hassle factor is extremely minimized. So, to me, it looks like a no-brainer... when someone experiences both, it just seems obvious (to me) that most will prefer the AF100. Unless they have some specific need such as trying to steal a shot, or they simply can't afford it.

Chris, earlier you said something like that it was "ludicrous" to even imagine that people would replace their DSLRs. Let me make a different, equally ludicrous statement: "Someday people will quit shooting on Red Ones and 35mm film, and instead will shoot professional productions on a little digital still camera." Doesn't that statement sound preposterous? If I had told you that, three months prior to the 5D coming out, I'm pretty sure you would have thought that concept was "ludicrous." I know I sure did. But for many folks, that appears to be exactly what happened, no matter how unthinkable it seemed at the time. And so while the thought of the Canon DSLR being retired in favor of a professional video camcorder may sound "ludicrous" to you -- I don't find it in any way even a question. It's a total no-brainer. It's obvious.

Not everyone will move over, obviously -- just like there are folks out there who will only shoot on film, and there are folks out there who will only use a Red, and there are guys out there who would love to use either, but can only afford an HV40 or a t2i.

Nobody's taking anybody's DSLR away. You'll still have it, you can still buy one if you want. But who loses out when a better/more appropriate product comes out? Nobody, if you think about it. The palette gets a little wider, the brushes to choose from become more varied, and the customer wins.
 
This is what I was referring to, Barry, when I said "ludicrous":

"There is a whole notion here in this statement that you are not pro if you use a DSLR in the future..."

All I'm saying is, if a slightly better (than the 5D) camera is released and it has a sensor that's about 1/4 the size with image quality being about the same, regardless of the added features and absence of line skipping, I'm not convinced it will make much of a dent in the current preeminence of the 5DMKIIespecially when everyone and their brother in advertising wants "the look" of the 5DMKII.As per the question posed by the OP, these are my thoughts.

.
 
Let me offer a real world experience to reflect upon:

I recently shot a commercial with the 7D with a budget hi enough to have union grips, grip truck and 30' crane with motor controlled head. 1st, the crane was already pre-wired for HD/SDI, because it is an industry standard.
I could've and in hind-site using a Blackmagic HDMI to SDI converter would've made things simpler. I decided to go HDMI and HDMI splitters to run the video village. To bad because the crane guy had 3 HD/SDI monitors for us to use but someone never mentioned to him that we were going HDMI. Yes it was a bit confusing at times.
Now what was the problems that the AG-AF100 could've solved, ^^^HD/SDI outputs and 1 less battery to watch. HDMI splitters need a battery or run off the monitor quickly killing that battery. On a set like this with people standing around you don't want to keep them waiting. The more batteries you have the more of a pain in the ass it is.

A monitor goes down: Is it the camera battery? The monitor battery? The HDMI splitter battery? This wastes time just checking. It also makes you look unorganized and unprofessional.

To be the devils advocate the solution will be the same for the 7D and the AG-AF100 regarding batteries. Run all your devices, if you can, except in the crane scenario, to one V-mount or A-mount battery or hotswap setup. On the 7D I can run the camera, light, Zoom H4n and monitor off of a single V mount battery. Depending on what kind of weight you want to add will translate to how long or large your battery will be.

Shooting any kind of documentary's will be easier with on board sound with the AF100. Sure I could use dual sound but for long takes it becomes harder to sync up the Zoom's audio track. (for more info just use Google).

So if you never plan on doing a production that will involve industry people then you will never have to even consider the AF100. Go for the GL2 and whatever firmware upgrades that will probably come along with that.


To all you 12 year old's that somehow got registered with this forum and post just to piss people off by posting idiotic statements, and you know who you are, because you will be the only ones to retort to this statement, lol, go bug your little brothers or sisters, that's what they're there for...


I am not posting to offer insight or make a miraculous prediction..., but only to offer an experience. Believe me when I say this, after that shoot I would give my left..., hmmm, actually no I wouldn't do that, they stay put, but I would and do think the AF100 is worth every penny. Before that day I would be questioning it's value, but after that day..., well lets just say it made things a whole lot more clear. CRYSTAL CLEAR.


By the way, after owning a RED 1, I enjoy the small form factor and to me the AF100 is small.
 
Let's elaborate on your post a little more

1) What if you want to focus at the top of your 30 foot crane? While there are some solutions coming that attach to the USB port of the camera, they are not here yet. Also, none of the remote start and stop setups I have seen yet seem to work that well either. I will be dealing with this Sat/Sun this week shooting on a 12 foot crane.

2) What if you want to use both the back LCD and the HDMI out at the same time? So here I have a monitor attached to the back of my crane, if I want to go up and mess with the focus, I have to unplug the monitor so I can see, then plug it back in before continuing. Sure, I could always try and get something like the Imprezo (sp?) But after the cost of that whole setup, might as well get the AF100 it seems. (And none of the other untested system like Red Rock are out yet).

3) With the 5D/t2i/60D the resolution on the HDMI becomes standard def during record. That certainly makes focus more interesting if you are trying to use an external monitor. With the GH1 you get nothing!

Although I will add Chris, I agree with you about the 5D. The AF100 is not replacing what the 5D can give you in terms of sensor size. If you *need* that, you are going to use that hands down. For tight shots and wide angles, it is amazing. To me, it would be worth it to work within the limitations *IF* I needed that capability. Since I am coming from the 7D, I am looking already at something in the S35 range which I prefer to work with.

In my opinion, I think you will still see a lot of 5D and AF100s, but you are going to start seeing a lot less 7D/t2i/60D/GH1/GH2/etc being used.

I will of course keep my 7D for a still camera and for random video here and there.

And funny thing, I cannot wait to get the side grip off the AF100 and either fabricate my own DSLR like grip or hope a 3rd party does that for me.
 
Exactly right,
1. no control over focus. Ran with f/11 to f/14.
2. Solution, yelling back and forth from the d.o.p. at the back of the crane to me at the front of the crane, camera at ground level for focusing. You get real good at turning your lens real, real slow while listening to someone yelling at you, "nope back a bit, bit more, oop, the other way a bit, yep right there." This is after the 1st volley of exchanges for just setting your focus box, "left, left, little more, up a bit, yeah, right there".



grimepoch said:
Let's elaborate on your post a little more

1) What if you want to focus at the top of your 30 foot crane? While there are some solutions coming that attach to the USB port of the camera, they are not here yet. Also, none of the remote start and stop setups I have seen yet seem to work that well either. I will be dealing with this Sat/Sun this week shooting on a 12 foot crane.

2) What if you want to use both the back LCD and the HDMI out at the same time? So here I have a monitor attached to the back of my crane, if I want to go up and mess with the focus, I have to unplug the monitor so I can see, then plug it back in before continuing. Sure, I could always try and get something like the Imprezo (sp?) But after the cost of that whole setup, might as well get the AF100 it seems. (And none of the other untested system like Red Rock are out yet).

3) With the 5D/t2i/60D the resolution on the HDMI becomes standard def during record. That certainly makes focus more interesting if you are trying to use an external monitor. With the GH1 you get nothing!

Although I will add Chris, I agree with you about the 5D. The AF100 is not replacing what the 5D can give you in terms of sensor size. If you *need* that, you are going to use that hands down. For tight shots and wide angles, it is amazing. To me, it would be worth it to work within the limitations *IF* I needed that capability. Since I am coming from the 7D, I am looking already at something in the S35 range which I prefer to work with.

In my opinion, I think you will still see a lot of 5D and AF100s, but you are going to start seeing a lot less 7D/t2i/60D/GH1/GH2/etc being used.

I will of course keep my 7D for a still camera and for random video here and there.

And funny thing, I cannot wait to get the side grip off the AF100 and either fabricate my own DSLR like grip or hope a 3rd party does that for me.
Click to expand...
 
Haha :) Yes, it is amazing how many people don't know you can use the zoom and move the box around with the joystick!

We are shooting in a HUGE abandoned textile factory (with permission) so light is a bit of concern, so we won't be able to stop down and much. We are bringing a generator (no power) and some lights, but of course the 7D is such a NICE camera for low light.

Which of course does bring up a valid question people have, how will the low light performance of the AF100 be, which will also determine certain restrictions on those that like to shoot found light (as we try to when we can).
 
1dog Studios said:
Let me offer a real world experience to reflect upon:


To all you 12 year old's that somehow got registered with this forum and post just to piss people off by posting idiotic statements, and you know who you are, because you will be the only ones to retort to this statement, lol, go bug your little brothers or sisters, that's what they're there for...
Click to expand...


Someone had a bad day... . I think we are all able to write without adding a coating of aggression.

I couldn't resist. :)
 
Actually I just borrowed other peoples words and turned it into a kind of comical retort. Make no mistake though, I did not coat my words with aggression, I was not aggressive, just irritated at some of the statements people are making. Nothing wrong with being uninformed, but nothing wrong with reading. There ought to be required reading before posting.

Barry, I'm sure you could recommend some reading........;)

But I know what it's like, sometimes I can't resist either, LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top