Panasonic would have had a winner if they had made an AF100 with the GH2 sensor.

I've got AF-102s and a GH2 and I find that I hardly ever use the GH2 except for a locked off third angle. It's nice enough but I'm happier using the 102. For a third camera the GH2 is a cheap way too go.
Yes, I would like the AF102 to be better in some areas - I'm hoping that Panasonic come out with a competitor to Sony's FS-700 (slo mo please) that I can still use my Voigtlanders on.
 
I have both. I much prefer the look of the AF100 to the GH2. No comparison for me. If I could dial back the detail on the GH2 I'd like that. In fact if I could control anything about the GH2 I'd like that even more. The GH2 is great but I really like the look of the AF100. That razor edge on the GH2, especially in sharp highlights I find unappealing... and all the other stuff: audio, waveform, NDs, you know. Everybody likes what they like but for mojo, just intrinsic look, I think the AF100 kills. If the OLPF is lessening resolution on the edges of things, I say thank you! That looks great! It just saved me having to put up a Black Pro Mist filter. Now... I need another excuse for a matte box.

Years from now we'll be saying.. "Man, all this resolution... remember the AF100, that camera had a look... dreamy, rich.. damn, I hope my AC got enough sleep last night."
 
Last edited:
We have a Canon C300 PL now, and I have seen red/blue moire in a couple of tests. This is something I haven't seen in a year and a half of AF100 shooting, so clearly the OLPF is effective, but definitely rolls off high frequency detail. I have reduced detail all the way in the C300 and find it to be too sharp still. I bought a Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX filter to smooth out the C300 image. The AF100 can be very natural looking in controlled scenes, but the C300 resolution is really amazing, as is an F3, but not necessarily filmic in the latter case. I find the C300 to be pretty organic overall, with detail down, knee saturation down and a bit of diffusion, but the AF100 has never had any issues with moire or aliasing.
 
Dino said:
We have a Canon C300 PL now, and I have seen red/blue moire in a couple of tests. This is something I haven't seen in a year and a half of AF100 shooting, so clearly the OLPF is effective, but definitely rolls off high frequency detail. I have reduced detail all the way in the C300 and find it to be too sharp still. I bought a Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX filter to smooth out the C300 image. The AF100 can be very natural looking in controlled scenes, but the C300 resolution is really amazing, as is an F3, but not necessarily filmic in the latter case. I find the C300 to be pretty organic overall, with detail down, knee saturation down and a bit of diffusion, but the AF100 has never had any issues with moire or aliasing.
Click to expand...

Interesting comparison. It's amazing how important those thin-films are to the sensor's overall performance.
That's why reading posts of people who give DIY instructions on how to remove the OLPF (and
other thin film coatings) send cold chills down my spine.

Yet, the EOSHD'ers seem to fall prey.

jeff
 
hscully said:
Years from now we'll be saying.. "Man, all this resolution... remember the AF100, that camera had a look... dreamy, rich.. damn, I hope my AC got enough sleep last night."
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate how important resolution can be to overall image fidelity.
 
Gary Huff said:
Don't underestimate how important resolution can be to overall image fidelity.
Click to expand...
I think you may have missed his point. He was musing that we may look back fondly on the AF100 for its "look" without
regard to its resolution.

May well be so... who knows? the Sony EX's the 5DMKII .. they may come back as "vintage" gear people seek.

That's why I say, if you've got the shelf space .. and a long term view .. don't throw anything out :)

jeff
 
Last edited:
mcgeedigital said:
"...the C300 colors were poor (with a greenish cast) while the blacks on the RED Epic were crushed."

Then someone graded it wrong. Period. There is no reason for that.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I said in an earlier post that site is silly and exceptionally biased. I don't disagree that the gh2 produces a beautiful image, I have one, I use it almost daily. I really like it a lot. But if I were selling a video or book on how to use that cam, I would be praising it all that much more. Pretty much the same way Shane gets all gitty over Canons new cinema dslr and makes statements about it blowing away Alexa. You get the point.
 
jmarkham said:
I think you may have missed his point. He was musing that we may look back fondly on the AF100 for its "look" without regard to its resolution.
Click to expand...

People reminisce fondly over the DVX100 (and for good reason), but it doesn't exactly compare with what we have now.

The AF100 is a great camera, but, in my opinion, the OLPF is too aggressive in its calibration. Sure, it may not alias when using Zeiss Ulta Primes like the GH2, but if it takes that level of glass to demonstrate the problems, then how many AF100 customers are being affected? And the simple fact of the matter is that the AF100 is not coming out on top of the GH2 in these "Pepsi Challenge" tests.
 
Gary Huff said:
People reminisce fondly over the DVX100 (and for good reason), but it doesn't exactly compare with what we have now.

The AF100 is a great camera, but, in my opinion, the OLPF is too aggressive in its calibration. Sure, it may not alias when using Zeiss Ulta Primes like the GH2, but if it takes that level of glass to demonstrate the problems, then how many AF100 customers are being affected? And the simple fact of the matter is that the AF100 is not coming out on top of the GH2 in these "Pepsi Challenge" tests.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. I think that the AF100 is a bit of a sleeper myself. I read a thread over on the FS100 site where one guy said he is choosing if for a project over the FS100 because it's better with sensor reflections. It started quite a bru ha ha over there. Remember that demo with the restaurant scene, FS100, AF100 head to head? Really, I could not tell the difference between these two. I feel for them. It's tough to hear a lot of criticism about your camera. Not sure why. I think it's a sort of familial loyalty, "hey! That's my sister," type thing.

Anyway, I think that that AF100 looks great. I like it for narrative stuff. Maybe if I were shooting commercials I would miss that hard edge in the detail that I get from the GH2. There's an intrinsic softness to the AF100. I'll grant that and I think it's great, shootouts and challenges notwithstanding.

I though the AF100 kicked butt on the Zacuto challenge last year, especially compared to the DSLRs in color and detail, as in the table of spices shot, as I recall.
 
Last edited:
Cameras come and go.
I used to love shooting with my L.B. modified Eclair CM3 with PL mount & super 35 gate.
I also had a couple of Bronica medium format cameras with a boat load of backs that I would load with film before a shoot.
I couldn't imagine shooting with either of them in 2012. Modern digital cameras are just so darn convenient & inexpensive to shoot with now.
 
Saw Shane's "Ticket" short at NAB in 4K theater, shot with 4K Canon DSLR. Poor AC's, everything was wide open. It was so shallow I almost got sick. Full frame movie cameras are an answer to a question I never asked.
 
hscully said:
I though the AF100 kicked butt on the Zacuto challenge last year, especially compared to the DSLRs in color and detail, as in the table of spices shot, as I recall.
Click to expand...

You saw it streaming over the Internet, while the audience saw it showing on a big screen. That the GH2 (hacked) came in third place in that environment is telling.

I also agree that the AF100 image is pretty much on par with the FS100, and edges out in terms of form factor, usability (i.e. ND filters built-in) and price.
 
Dino said:
Saw Shane's "Ticket" short at NAB in 4K theater, shot with 4K Canon DSLR. Poor AC's, everything was wide open. It was so shallow I almost got sick. Full frame movie cameras are an answer to a question I never asked.
Click to expand...

Doesn't even have to be full frame as the culprit either. Take a look at the first season of the BBC's Sherlock. Shot on a Sony F35, but with fast lens that were usually wide open. Incredibly shallow DOF and a lot of shots looked really poor because of it (I forget which episode, but there was a medium close-up of Sherlock on a street corner and every single element of detail of a busy street scene was obliterated by the bokeh, and I thought it looked like crap).

Contrast that with a new DP for the second season (shooting on the Alexa) and a masterful use of both shallow (though not too much) DOF and very impressive deep DOF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top