AC160 Panasonic Ag AC-90

bluesgeek said:
Please do. Very interesting observation, Tom. It must be that rarefied Denver altitude.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are right...

Below are the pics. I know what I saw before, but it seems to be NO ISSUE now. So straight away, make a RETRACTION...there is NO significant non-parfocal issue. As mentioned previously, the pics below exhibit the WORST CASE example of what I could find this afternoon (just 1 out of 5 tests, the others showed no difference), and so apparently, it's just no issue at all. I'm sorry. That said, there is still observable, a barely perceptable focus shift (for the worse) when zooming-in 100%, manual focus on the "Free Checking" sign, pull back to 0% wide, versus 0% wide to 10x digital zoom, push to focus button, pull back to 1x no-digital zoom. You can see a slightly better focus using the digital zoom method versus the optical zooming in, particularly on the bricks, the telephone poles, the distant stop sign etc.

In both cases, you may want to right-click on image, choose properties, copy the url and paste it into a new window to view the full size 1920x1080 (/p60) screen grab since the dvxuser browser down-resizes the image. All videos shot at f/6.4 1/120 sec.


Below is the screen grab from focusing with the Digital Zoom 10x method:
Image101a.jpg



And below is the Zoom optically to 100%, focus and pull back to 0% wide method
Image102a.jpg
 
Just to add one comment to the above, the digital zoom 10x methods returns MF58 number, while the optical zoom-in, manual focus then pull back wide 0% method returns a MF 94 number.
 
Thanks for your reply Lou. I am trying to decide between an XF300 XF105 combo vs an AC-160 AC-130/90 combo. I own an XF300 and an HMC-150. Selling the HMC-150 and going with an XF105 seems like the best route but I could get an AC-130 for about the same price. The XF300 has a nice lens servo, great codec and beautiful image. The XF105 seemed like a bit of a toy the one time I held it, but the small size would be a benefit for a lot of uses.

My concern with the AC-90 is all of that noise reduction. In my view, the latest round of cameras from Panasonic like the AF-100 have an overly noise reduced look. Like the noise reduction is always their stealing away detail. Spending time with these cameras is tough when you do not live by B&H.
 
Okay, I can see some softness in the telephone pole that the stop sign is mounted on and on the bricks on the building across the street, but I wouldn't know what to attribute that to... the position of the target in the circle of confusion, or something else.

Interestingly, the truck in the foreground is pretty sharp for being that far from the target.
 
bluesgeek said:
Okay, I can see some softness in the telephone pole that the stop sign is mounted on and on the bricks on the building across the street, but I wouldn't know what to attribute that to... the position of the target in the circle of confusion, or something else.

Interestingly, the truck in the foreground is pretty sharp for being that far from the target.
Click to expand...

I agree. I still have a nagging doubt that if I repeat the test with a target closer to the camera, that I can get it to behave as a non-parfocal going from tele to wide. These images seem inconclusive.
 
Barry, you mentioned that the AC90 was based on camcorder technology inherited from Panasonic's consumer division. Do you see an improvement in image quality or low light performance over Panasonic's recent top-of-the-line consumer camcorders (eg., X900, TM900, TM700)?
 
noirist said:
Barry, you mentioned that the AC90 was based on camcorder technology inherited from Panasonic's consumer division. Do you see an improvement in image quality or low light performance over Panasonic's recent top-of-the-line consumer camcorders (eg., X900, TM900, TM700)?
Click to expand...

I have the TM900. In the right conditions, it can be as good. In tougher situations, lighting, flare, field curvature, panning, shadow detail, highlights, contrast and noise the TM900 images will struggle while AC90 is in another class.

I think this AC90 technology is headed for the Panasonic top of the line consumer cams rather than the other way around. The TM900 et al do not share the back side illumination sensor or pixel shift tech, nor contain the options for gamma, color and dynamic range compression, knee, DRS etc.
 
Last edited:
Tom Roper said:
The TM900 et al do not share the back side illumination sensor or pixel shift tech, nor contain the options for gamma, color and dynamic range compression, knee, DRS etc.
Click to expand...

Tom, you're right, but there are some nice details to be mentioned: X900 uses pixel shift as well, same hybrid O.I.S, it owns the same lens system (nearly), you can use "intelligent contast control" doing a DRS job and sensors even seem to be bigger (1/4,1 vs. 1/4,7). But really no BSI -> some noise; I tested it.

X900 has features (12 scene modes vs. 6 custom scenes) similar to AC90, but of course there is no manual adjustment. Nevertheless, I'd like some of X900's features to have with my AC90 - e.g. deleting parts of a scene; sometimes I'm in front of the camera myself, creating footage that should be erased on SD-card immediately, avoiding any further waste of storage capacity :-)

And X900 offers some typical features for consumers like face recognition (not only detection): you can save 6 individual faces and name them; these faces will be preferred by the camera using AF. Could be a nice feature for AC90 as well when shooting weddings or some sport events (including X900's AF/AE tracking for moving objects/persons).

But you can't have all. I definitely prefer AC90s professionel audio inputs, its long lasting battery, two card slots (instead of one you can't reach while shooting with X900 on a tripod) and so on. And Barry found out, AC90 offers full 4:2:2 hdmi output while shooting. X900 doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top