So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

So what's the word folks? I started this thread, but haven't checked in for a while. I got the OK from the boss to look into a new camera, but he wants to keep our M43 lenses. He really doesn't want a DSLM or DSLR. He wants a full-body video camera. Are the only (good options) the GH4 with interface unit and the LS300. Are we facing the end of M43. It's so unnerving that's there's no replacement for the AF100. The DVX200 is not an option due to it's fixed lens.

I considered going Blackmagic Ursa Mini but it's not setup for M43 lenses.

What to do....? Should we throw in the towel and sell off our M43 lenses, GH3s, GH4s, and AF100; all of which are still good and useful and in use?
 
I would say that MFT is at the end of its interchangeable lens pro tier era. Sensor sizes go up. Prices fall down. Sony wants an affordable full frame cameras and are well on the way there.
 
Take a serious look at the modestly priced JVC-GY-LS300, I don't think it's time to start dumping our MFT lenses or calling this format dead just because some prefer full frame. Personally I think new technology will force us to replace the camera we use every 2 years and the less we spend the better.

JVC has a winner with this one. http://www.moviemachine.tv/article/j...-histogram-lo/

Some really nice footage shot with the GY-LS300 and MFT Lenses. https://vimeo.com/136733903

Specifications from JVC . http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL102318
 
I never invested in M4/3 lenses. The only one I own is the 14-140 which came with my GH1. I always felt that lenses which covered S35 or FF a better investment.
 
I've been in and out of m4/3 lenses and finally decided to dump all of them. For years I've had a full set of Canon L lenses and they have several advantages. First they are much better built with real focus rings instead of focus by wire. Second most of them are weathersealed. Thirdly they fit on almost any camera these days with the right adapter. I would sell all m4/3 lenses and go Canon. This is an investment that'll last!
 
I think your going to need to go to the GH4 or try that JVC. I switched to a Scarlet Dragon. I love the AF100 and I'm still hanging onto it. It's worth a lot more to me than the $1k used prices just to have it for return clients, etc. I sold all my m4/3 glass switched over to Zeiss ZFs and other Nikon lenses a while ago. I did love that Voigtlander 25, I must admit and the M4/3 was great for pulling focus yourself on the shoulder or on sticks.

I've seen a lot of nice stuff shot on the GH4. I had a GH2 for a while. I'd think about it.
 
Despite the assertions made here, there is plenty of life for MFT left - it really depends on the kind of work you do. I make documentaries, mostly handheld, and have "hotrodded" two Pocket Cameras with cages, EVFs, pre-amps and custom rigs for my work. I also just bought an LS300, mainly for quick, one battery jobs. I've also pre-ordered the BM Micro.

Even though I do occasionally use an EF speedbooster on the Pockets with my C100 lenses (the 24-105 is a great combination, it becomes a 14-60 f2.4), when I want to be as small and light as possible, I use the smallest of my Pockets with the Olympus 12-40 Pro.

The advantage of the MFT mount - as JVC seems to be the only manufacturer besides BM to realize - is that you can use virtually any lens from C mount to PL. That isn't possible with native PL or EF mounts. For instance, I love my old Leica-R lenses and they've found new life because of MFT (I do have a Leica-R to EF adapter for my C100, but it's a pain to use).

As for cameras, a well tricked-out Pocket is hard to beat. The image is on par with cameras costing 20 times as much or more, and they're so cheap they're expendable. The jury's out on the JVC - it remains under the radar, and I haven't had the chance to use mine on a job yet - at first glance it appears kind of fragile and cheaply made, but if it's reliable it'll be the only real successor to the AF100.
 
Last edited:
Vardalos said:
Take a serious look at the modestly priced JVC-GY-LS300, I don't think it's time to start dumping our MFT lenses or calling this format dead just because some prefer full frame...
Click to expand...

Mac said:
Despite the assertions made here, there is plenty of life for MFT left - it really depends on the kind of work you do....
Click to expand...
Here's the point I was making (perhaps too subtly). The format will stick around for a while but, much like all technology, is going to get lower and lower priced, quickly entering the "affordable for the masses" category even with 4K video (if you price G7 as body only, it'll run around $600). That gives the customers far less incentive to splurge much larger amounts on the product with similar image quality. In other words, there's next to no reason to invest $4,000-$5,000 into an AF-100 sequel since G7 or GX8 will do the job, especially if one already has the external rigging for the DSLR style unit. The manufacturers clearly see that and are increasing the sensor sizes in order to create a greater value for their current and future customers. This doesn't mean that the MFT mounting will disappear or that the image quality will cease to improve. However, more likely than not, from now on MFT models with the interchangeable lenses will no longer be marketed as "pro" gear. The "pro" lines will be in the fixed lens "run&gun" camcorders, such as DVX200, and whatever Sony and Canon will release in full frame. The economic logic here is simple - MFT sensors can still perform very well and give companies like Panasonic an ability to deliver a product with a lot of features to the market where features are just as important as the sensor size. The FF companies, such as Sony, Canon and Nikon, attain the product differentiation goal. They will market APS-C/s35 as a superior alternative to MFT but will try to make their money on the premium full frame and medium format models, which then will become the "pro" market almost by default. The drive toward 8K, even in stills, likewise trends negatively for the MFT. One can have a 42-50 MPX sensor in full frame but having that many pixels in a MFT will negatively effect its low light performance (this doesn't mean one won't see MFT with 50 MPX sensors delivering 8K stills and video, given that there are 1/2.3" sensors with 20 MPX already, but that a 50 MPX MFT won't be the pro part market). So, to sum it up, looking a year or two forward, an interchangeable lens MFT pro camera market is on the outs and the fixed lens MFT is in, with DVX200 being only the opening salvo.
 
DLD said:
The "pro" lines will be in the fixed lens "run&gun" camcorders, such as DVX200, and whatever Sony and Canon will release in full frame.
Click to expand...

I honestly think Super35 will always be "the" production format, and will never be superseded by Full Frame anything.

Yes there will be the low-light folks using FF sensors, along with ultra shallow DOF fanatics, but for general production work Super35 is always going to be the main format to shoot with.

Micro 4/3 will hang around as long as it's affordable and produces good results.
 
TheDingo said:
I honestly think Super35 will always be "the" production format, and will never be superseded by Full Frame anything...
Click to expand...
IMO, the high end pro is going medium format, both in video and stills. Pentax 645Z and Alexa65 are just the opening move (using the chess analogy). The level slightly below that will be in FF, for both the 8K target and the aesthetics of FF. The run&gun/ENG will use fixed lens MFT and APS-C with the myriad of crop and aspect ratios, when required. MFT and One Inch will be the entry level, with Sony driving the FF lower and lower (the original A7 can be found for $1,000-$1,200, depending on time and place) and bringing that down to $700 range in a year or two. The small sensor 1/2.3 and alike will be the loss leaders or the exclusive domain of the smartphones, which will continue to displace the entry level point&shoots with their 1.4-1.5 billion units shipped annually.

That's my free - and not quite professional - market analysis. When you see one expert on CNBC projecting oil at $100 and the next expert at $30, I feel I have attained the required level of expertise to chime in with my two cents.
 
DLD said:
IMO, the high end pro is going medium format, both in video and stills.
Click to expand...

I am curious to see how the RED Weapon 8K does over the next 1-2 years, and if people will be ALWAYS shooting full resolution with this new camera, because there's going to be a lot of cine glass that's not going to cover this larger sensor, so will professionals switch over to using a new line of lenses made for this format ? ( and will rental houses stock these new lenses ? )
 
TheDingo said:
I am curious to see how the RED Weapon 8K does over the next 1-2 years, and if people will be ALWAYS shooting full resolution with this new camera, because there's going to be a lot of cine glass that's not going to cover this larger sensor, so will professionals switch over to using a new line of lenses made for this format ? ( and will rental houses stock these new lenses ? )
Click to expand...
A manufacturer of glass will look at it as an opportunity to make a lot of money (even if the bulk of that money will be made on the consumer/enthusiast tier) as the formats drift toward the larger size sensors.

PS. Obviously, the industry is quickly approaching the "good enough" area but the top pros will want whatever is closest to the best of the best (that's within their respective budgets). ARRI is re-housing the Hasselblad 65mm lenses for Alexa65 but, with only 28 Alexa65's out there, there's not much demand for the MF lenses yet but you have to figure what is top of the line today is the middle of the line tomorrow. There's a trend and, with that, I assume there'll be other MF and FF/Vista Vision cameras out there soon.
 
All of this is fine for the bigger is better crowd... As a 40+ year veteran documentary filmmaker (not just someone passing through to get to "real filmmaking"), I think of MFT as 16, or S16 compared to 35.

I don't much care for the look from the little handycams, and was extremely excited when the AF100 was first introduced - a bigger sensor, but not so big it precludes the use of relatively light-weight f2.8 zoom lenses. As I've said above somewhere, I'm currently using Pockets (which I prefer to the G4), and use my lenses there - but I do miss NDs and XLRs.
 
Mac said:
... As a 40+ year veteran documentary filmmaker (not just someone passing through to get to "real filmmaking"), I think of MFT as 16, or S16 compared to 35...
Click to expand...
Would you distinguish a "documentarian" from the ENG/event/run&gun crowd? I am asking because C100 MK II is pretty much made for the former while DVX200 seems to lean toward the latter. IMO, the manufacturers will break this general market into the smaller niches where some people would have (a kitted out) GH4/GH5 DSLR type, some the all-in-one DVX 2000 and the last group with the higher end C100 (and its replacement). Price-wise, you're looking from the $2,000-$,3000 for the DSLR in the ready-to-shoot form, ~ $4,000-$4,500 for the all-in-one and ~ $7,000-$8,000 for the relatively affordable top of the line model (of course, one could also shoot docs on Amira and the NFL does just that .. but the NFL has a bigger budget) in C100 MKII.

This is how it seems to be breaking down across all fronts for the near future and the interchangeable lens MFT in the $5,000 range doesn't fit into any of these categories.
 
DLD said:
Would you distinguish a "documentarian" from the ENG/event/run&gun crowd? I am asking because C100 MK II is pretty much made for the former while DVX200 seems to lean toward the latter. IMO, the manufacturers will break this general market into the smaller niches where some people would have (a kitted out) GH4/GH5 DSLR type, some the all-in-one DVX 2000 and the last group with the higher end C100 (and its replacement). Price-wise, you're looking from the $2,000-$,3000 for the DSLR in the ready-to-shoot form, ~ $4,000-$4,500 for the all-in-one and ~ $7,000-$8,000 for the relatively affordable top of the line model (of course, one could also shoot docs on Amira and the NFL does just that .. but the NFL has a bigger budget) in C100 MKII.


This is how it seems to be breaking down across all fronts for the near future and the interchangeable lens MFT in the $5,000 range doesn't fit into any of these categories.
Click to expand...

I customize all my cameras, have since my Bolex days - I'm currently doing that with an LS300 - I've been shooting for 2 years with two Pockets that you wouldn't recognize, and a tricked out C100. In my opinion no camera comes the way I want it, and no off-the-shelf "rig" is anywhere near right. I don't shoot events or weddings or corporate - I only shoot documentaries, mostly handheld, verite style tied together with interviews, either sit down or moving, no crew, only a soundman, sometimes alone. Clients hire me because they want the look I deliver, or else they go somewhere else.

All this is to say there is no way any manufacturer can make a camera that's perfect for me - only one came close, Aaton. I often run (but never gun) so I need a camera to be ready to go out of the case with no rigging, it has to be easy to set down on the floor or a table, it has to be able to go off my shoulder right onto a tripod and back again, I have to be able to lean back against a wall without marring the woodwork, I need to be able to walk through doors without banging - but I still want a picture that's better than I can get from a "handicam"...

Thus my desire to keep things as small as possible yet create a filmic image - and why I like MFT lenses.

I shot an award-winning documentary with a modified Canon HV40 in 2009, I shot one with a radically modified Auricon Cinevoice in 1967. There's a wide range of cameras between those two clunkers.

My point is, I don't care who the manufacturer thinks they're designing for, if I like the picture a camera produces, I'll do what I have to to make that box fit my style. And it's not that complicated. Everything I do I do with a hacksaw, hand drill, files and hardware store aluminum - I'm lucky because I had metal shop in high school and have a machinist friend who offers advice, but anyone can do it.

As for price, these days I always use lower end cameras because they become obsolete before you get the battery charged. There's no way I'm going to spend big bucks on a camera and be forced to take jobs I don't want to pay for it... The Pocket Cameras were an amazing break through... and I'm really impressed with the images I'm getting from the LS300 too.
 
Last edited:
Mac said:
... My point is, I don't care who the manufacturer thinks they're designing for, if I like the picture a camera produces, I'll do what I have to to make that box fit my style. And it's not that complicated. Everything I do I do with a hacksaw, hand drill, files and hardware store aluminum - I'm lucky because I had metal shop in high school and have a machinist friend who offers advice, but anyone can do it...
Click to expand...
As did I ... but I was one of the worst students in the shop class. I should have probably taken cooking instead but that was strictly for girls in my neck of the woods.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation. IMO, the next GH5 or even Olympus OMD1 with 4K will have a superior performance to the current generation ... more so, if Sony sells either a BSI sensor (Sony generally has severe caveats on new products but is then open to making deals once the "innovation" period expires). And it's likely to be very affordable too.
 
The Fuji-Panasonic organic sensor seems like an OLED (but worse) - by the time it's ready to market, the traditional technologies long in place - LCD panels in the TV manufacturing business - get roughly to the same point of performance and for a lot less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top