Cool. Thanks man.
AC130: Panasonic ag ac130
- Thread starter pulpfiction007
- Start date
Cool. Thanks man.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Do a Google search for XF100 low light tests and a handful of videos should pop up. They'll give you at least a decent idea of how the camera performs so you can see for yourself.
scapsinger
Well-known member
I think the 130/160 is a better all around option for a couple of scenarios:
- If you're already using Panasonic cameras, you will get a similar "look"
- Of course you will have familiarity with the way menus and buttons are arranged on a Panasonic if you already use one now. There's a shorter learning curve, as opposed to learning the way Canon lays out their camcorders. Not a big deal, but it's time you have to invest either way.
- Low light on the 160/130 is phenomenal even with a significant amount of gain applied. The Canon is not quite as good when put side to side. Both are quite good, as many online low light tests will show you.
- Massive zoom. If you need it, the 160/130 has it, and the digital zoom function is actually somewhat usable at 2x. Gives you an unbelievably long zoom range, great for sports or wildlife (for me, that makes the 160/130 the press box camera for football games).
Just some of my thoughts. I guess I'm a bit of a Panasonic homer, even though I did most of my early video work on Canon cameras (L2, GH1, GH2, XL2) and loved the Canon look. Nowadays though, I've found I appreciate the Panasonic approach to video cameras, just the way everything is laid out and accessible and the quality of the AVCHD codec with such tiny file sizes.
PS - I want to apologize for suggesting that a professional video producer would EVER use a digital zoom function. I realize this is one of the unforgivable sins of our craft and for that reason, I suppose I will self-impose a 1 day suspension (with pay). But Panny really made this feature "usable" on these cams (interpret the word "usable" however you choose, but it does look nice enough to me).
philiplipetz
Veteran
The Canon XF series is 4:2:2, and you have to decide if that is important to you. To get 4:2:2 in Pannie you have to spend double to get a 250. Also the XF series is uncompressed audio, which is available in the AC160 but not the 130. The XF100 is highly portable but only has a 10x lens, whereas the AC series has a 20x but is much larger. Really different cams. Many people report moving down from the XF300/305 to the XF100/105 to get the portability.
From what I read, the ac130/160 would be better in low light then the XF100. That's a BIG deal to me for event shooting. Most rooms have low lights to see power points or the speaker. And if you film wildlife in the evening.
I do own a canon vixia and Panasonic HMC150. For doing some video work that will be on the web, they both will do the job perfect. I like both of the cameras. One is smaller so I can take out hunting or in my car. But when you show up at a job, sometimes size matters. People just assume a bigger camera is more professional. And of course the 150 is better, and I assume the XF100 is way better then the Vixia.
If I had the money, I would get both the XF100 and ac130. But for paid jobs, I feel the AC130/160 series is the best for me.
But please keep me informed on XF100.
I do own a canon vixia and Panasonic HMC150. For doing some video work that will be on the web, they both will do the job perfect. I like both of the cameras. One is smaller so I can take out hunting or in my car. But when you show up at a job, sometimes size matters. People just assume a bigger camera is more professional. And of course the 150 is better, and I assume the XF100 is way better then the Vixia.
If I had the money, I would get both the XF100 and ac130. But for paid jobs, I feel the AC130/160 series is the best for me.
But please keep me informed on XF100.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Low light XF100 test video
http://vimeo.com/21145262
Basically, the XF100 low light was muddy but the 4:2:2 held up well in post so it worked out. I would love to test this against an AC130/160, I am currently in Ohio. Based on statements that they are roughly equivalent to an EX1 I would suspect that they are a stop to a stop and a half better than a XF100. But do not forget the post processing latitude of 4:2:2. In my experience the XF is definitely better than an HMC150 for low light.
http://vimeo.com/21145262
Basically, the XF100 low light was muddy but the 4:2:2 held up well in post so it worked out. I would love to test this against an AC130/160, I am currently in Ohio. Based on statements that they are roughly equivalent to an EX1 I would suspect that they are a stop to a stop and a half better than a XF100. But do not forget the post processing latitude of 4:2:2. In my experience the XF is definitely better than an HMC150 for low light.
ullanta
Veteran
I'm interested in the XF100 also… when you say better in low light than the HMC, do you mean the raw footage, or are you taking into account what you can do in post with the 4:2:2? I'm curious about the lower bitrate modes and how they would compare.
Also, since you use the xf100, can you tell me:
1) if you use a lower framerate (say, 720p30), is the data rate halved, or does the image quality get better?
2) do you know if Canon's FCP Plugin properly and seamlessly stitches long clips together?
Thanks!
Also, since you use the xf100, can you tell me:
1) if you use a lower framerate (say, 720p30), is the data rate halved, or does the image quality get better?
2) do you know if Canon's FCP Plugin properly and seamlessly stitches long clips together?
Thanks!
philiplipetz
Veteran
The XF plugin does a good job of joining sub clips into a single stream, BUT it does not work currently with FCPX. Perhaps with the recent release of the FCPX SDK that will change. On the XF300/5 720p does give you a little bit more sensitivity. I almost never shoot 720p but did not see an increase in sensitivity in my single experience on the XF100; however, the 720p on the XF100 is not down sampled so might be sharper.
I did not do a head to head test against an HMC150, so my impression is very subjective, but I felt that it was more sensitive before post processing. BTW with the XF series it is important to manually reset the builtin calibration parameters, the Alan Roberts BBC test is a good place to start, although I would decrease sharpness more and increase fine facial detail more. The low light test I posted was with factory presets.
The data rate can be lowered to 35mbs, but I have never done it. The image quality at 720p is the same but you can do 60p.
I did not do a head to head test against an HMC150, so my impression is very subjective, but I felt that it was more sensitive before post processing. BTW with the XF series it is important to manually reset the builtin calibration parameters, the Alan Roberts BBC test is a good place to start, although I would decrease sharpness more and increase fine facial detail more. The low light test I posted was with factory presets.
The data rate can be lowered to 35mbs, but I have never done it. The image quality at 720p is the same but you can do 60p.
Last edited:
scapsinger
Well-known member
4:2:2 is only differentiated from 4:2:0 by chrominance sampling...luminance sampling is the same, so in terms of post processing latitude, the XF only has an advantage in chrominance (I say "only" but of course, chrominance is massively important). Point being, whichever of the cameras - the AC series or the XF series - delivers the best low light performance ends up being the winner, since post processing on the luminance for both would be virtually identical.
The only place you are likely to see a difference is in the original handling of noise in the dark areas of an image. Panasonic's implementation of AVCHD on the AVCCAM line has shown to be quite adept at handling noise in the dark areas when compared to MPEG-2 variants.
The XF series may or may not be better at low light, but my point was that there is no additional latitude for post processing of luminance values between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0.
philiplipetz
Veteran
I would doubt that the XF is better at low light. However, if the noise is in the chrominance channels, as it frequently is, then 4:2:2 has more potential to be cleaned up in post.
I am glad you are talking about the XF100 and comparing it to the Ac130/160. It is good to see what other options I have. The XF100 is around 3000$ The Ac130 is 3500 to 3800$ The Xf100 is small and offers some cool features. But I do like the Zoom of 616mm on the AC130 compared to 304mm of the canon. I hope to read more up on all your thoughts about these 2 cameras. It will either make me more positive of my purchase to be or stress me out wondering what to choose.
Panasonic
[h=2]AG-AC130 AVCCAM HD Handheld Camcorder[/h]
XF100
[h=4]Product Highlights[/h]
Panasonic
[h=2]AG-AC130 AVCCAM HD Handheld Camcorder[/h]
- 1/3"-Type 2.2 Mp 3MOS Sensor
- Integrated 22x (28-616mm Equiv) Lens
- 3.45" 1920 x 480 LCD Screen
- AVCHD Professional PH Recording
- 1080i60/p30/p24 & 720p60 Formats
- Dual SD/SDHC/SDXC Card Slots
- DV Recording (SD) Mode
- Manual Zoom, Focus & Iris Rings
- HDMI, FireWire & USB 2.0 Outputs
- Two-Channel XLR Inputs
- B&H # PAAGAC130
- Mfr # AG-AC130PJ
XF100
[h=4]Product Highlights[/h]
- 1/3" CMOS Sensor
- 50Mbps MPEG-2 Recording
- 4:2:2 Color Sampling
- 60p/60i, 30p, 24p
- MXF File Format
- Dual CF Card Slots
- 10x HD Zoom Lens
- Multiple Bit Rates & Resolutions
- Dual XLR Inputs
- HDMI, Component, Composite Outputs
ullanta
Veteran
First, thanks for all the info! What I meant about the data rates was whether the data rate varies with the frame rate (like the Panny P2 camsd... where native modes use less data at lower framerates (e.g., DVCProHD or AVC-I-100 720pN30 is effectively 50mbps while 720p60 is effectively 100 mbps)), or whether it's like the Panny AVCHD cams where the data rate stays the same regardless of framerate (PH mode is always 21/24) and presumably has a better compression ratio (better image) for lower framerates)...
philiplipetz
Veteran
Like the Panny, data rate says the same. You can toggle between 1080p and 720p in50mbps 4:2:2 and 1080p and 720p 35mbps 4:2:0 but data rate does not increase with lower frame size.
Last edited:
Vaughan Wood
Well-known member
I played with the 160 and recorded the footage. Pre-ordered the 130 before I even got out of the shop. Footage was stunning!
Cheers,
Vaughan
Cheers,
Vaughan
C Walker
Well-known member
I'll most likely pre-order it, unless I find a compelling reason to get the 160. Still on the fence.
scapsinger
Well-known member
You can use the red outline focus assist which will draw red lines around the focal object in the frame. There's also a manual focus assist that will "fine tune" your focus automatically after you make an adjustment with the focus ring (makes a single immediate adjustment, not constant focusing like with auto focus turned on).
There does appear to be a face detection feature but I don't really know how it works. Might involve a combination of auto focus and auto iris adjustments, which may or may not be independently selectable. But it is listed in the user manual.
It does have face detection. I haven't used it yet. The new focus assist is awesome. It makes rack focusing and run & gun focusing simple. Basically, whatever has red edges on the LCD or viewfinder is in focus. The little amount of footage I have shot with the camera I have left the focus assist on. I see no reason not to if you are using manual focus. I don't think it does anything to the image quality.