So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

I think the answer to this thread is……… Get a couple of Panasonic GH4’s for your MFT lenses and sit tight, until something you can afford and makes better pictures comes along. That’s what I’ve done.
 
Lpowell said:
Not to belabor the obvious, but since it's a Sony it naturally uses an Alpha lens mount...
Click to expand...
It's an E-mount. Alpha seems to be dodo-ing out.

As to one's MFT collection and its disposal, I'd wait for GH5. If that doesn't do the trick, then E-Bay might be the road to go.
 
DLD said:
It's an E-mount. Alpha seems to be dodo-ing out.
Click to expand...
On the official Sony page, it definitely references an alpha mount, and then says that it has an E-mount. It says that the FS5 can take both E-mount and A-mount lenses. The picture on the FS5 camera body of the lens mount shows an alpha symbol.

Here's the quote:
[h=2]α mount flexibility
[/h] Sony’s α mount system offers unsurpassed compatibility with both Sony and third-party lenses. The FS5’s E-Mount can take cinema lenses and SLR lenses with a third party adaptor, as well as Sony’s E-mount and A-mount lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
On the official Sony page, it definitely references an alpha mount, and then says that it has an E-mount. It says that the FS5 can take both E-mount and A-mount lenses. The picture on the FS5 camera body of the lens mount shows an alpha symbol.

Here's the quote:
Click to expand...
Ya, I think I read that earlier today. (it gets hazy with a lot of news) IMO, it refers to Sony's own adapters, that retain full electronic controls. I don't think one can mount an A-mount lens directly to FS5 without them.

Now, Canon does the swappable mounts with C300 MKII (another announcement from today).
 
Lpowell said:
Not to belabor the obvious, but since it's a Sony it naturally uses an Alpha lens mount. Isn't the whole point of finding a successor to the AF100 to maintain your investment in MFT-compatible lenses?
Click to expand...
Well, it does have:
Center Scan mode captures the center of the image at Full HD (1920 x 1080) resolution. Not only does this provide an effective 2x zoom with 35mm glass, but it also enables you to mount 16mm PL lenses via third-party adapters
Click to expand...
Can MFT lenses be adapted to E mount? I seem to remember one past suggestion for an AF200 for it to have a s35 sensor, but able to operate in a centre crop mode for HD?

Or if not a simple adaptor, is there an optical MFT-E mount?
 
FWIW, The 12-35 F/2.8 lens is on sale now for $797 at B&H ($200 off). It could be nothing or it could be the slacking demand for the MFT lenses (especially since G7 has several very affordable kit packages). If it's caused by falling demand - and 20% discounts are rarely offered willy-nilly - the absence of the AF100 successor has surely played its part.
 
DLD said:
FWIW, The 12-35 F/2.8 lens is on sale now for $797 at B&H ($200 off). It could be nothing or it could be the slacking demand for the MFT lenses (especially since G7 has several very affordable kit packages). If it's caused by falling demand - and 20% discounts are rarely offered willy-nilly - the absence of the AF100 successor has surely played its part.
Click to expand...

It's a great lens and what I use 80% of the time on the AF100/GH3. Apologize if this has been answered before, but anyone using it with the LS-300 know if/how well the image stabilization works when it's on that camera?
 
Last edited:
Here's some of what I wrote on another forum...

I'd love to be able to use it (the sensor zoom feature) with my 17.5 Nokton, I could shoot almost all day with that one lens.

I also hope that the feature will work with external zoom controllers, I have an old cheapo one I bought with my XF100 that I've side mounted on the 15mm rod base in anticipation of the upgrade - which now they're apparently saying is October - I don't mind, just so it's bug-free when it's available.

I've shot a lot in the last week, all "tests", nothing for prime-time, but I'm really liking what I'm seeing. I've been shooting 1080 4.2.2. 50mbps and the images look great right out of the camera, very similar to the results I've gotten with the BM cameras shooting "film" mode and crunching with FilmConvert... I'm always amused by those who call for more dynamic range and then wipe it out applying FilmConvert (even after cranking down FC's gamma)... If I can get that look out of the box without having to dick with grading or DaVinci I'm a happy man.

BTW, I make documentaries exclusively, even my TV spots are docs - so I don't have, or want, the same standards that many narrative filmmakers have - but that doesn't mean I don't want good looking, effective images, and this camera - for me - is producing really good looking images.

Compared to cameras as short a time ago as 4-5 years, the highlight handling is pretty good on the LS300. At least it doesn't have that ugly chroma clipping the Panasonic cameras have suffered from - HPX500 and AF100 were the worst.

I've set my clipping level at 108%, and using Cine Gamma (not WDR because it clips at 100%) I'm getting pretty pleasing high ends - be aware that I'm a 40 year 16/S16 veteran, so I'm not put off by things like windows blowing out - in fact I like that look. I watched a BBC production a few weeks ago that held detail outside windows so well that it was distracting and pulled the eye away from the subjects in the room.

I set my at Black Level 0, Cine Color Subdued, Detail -5 (will go lower, probably around -10), Knee automatic. I haven't custom adjusted the knee because I'm waiting for the new firmware before I experiment more.

BTW, and this is totally my opinion which many don't share, nearly every camera I've owned recently looks better with the ETTR philosophy - But being from film and Panasonic cameras like the HPX500, I tend to ETTL slightly. Seems to work better with this camera too. It saves the highlights and there's actually still a lot of detail in the blacks that can be pulled up if needed (but, again, old 16 film guy, I like black blacks, that's why I use FilmConvert with my13 stop DR Pocket Cameras)..
 
Last edited:
I don't care what anybody says or thinks, I want this camera for the VSM and VSM-Z alone. A lot of the filmmakers I work with are obsessed with old glass and a good bit of them insist on shooting anamorphically whenever possible. VSM would do wonders correcting vignette on my 1.5x and 2x adapter setups for lenses wider than 45mm. I will probably wait another year to see if the price drops though. At this point its just a 'really want' not an 'actually need'.
 
I got mine for $3500 (B&H)... I also bought a Metabones EF adapter, an additional battery and a low end (good enough) two gang charger.. total about $4100... I don't think realistically you can shave much off of that... I just hope that more people jump on this underdog camera so JVC will keep improving it with Firmware updates - and maybe even a new and even better model. Panasonic certainly isn't doing that for it's customer base (the DVX200 is a joke, sorry, but it just is)... This truly is the only successor to the AF100... And its' way better than the AF ever was (and I really liked that little camera).
 
Why anyone would buy the JVC when the Sony FS7 is out on the market will never be clear to me. The Sony FS7 is the closest you can get to an AF100 successor when it comes to price vs preformance.
 
Admir said:
Why anyone would buy the JVC when the Sony FS7 is out on the market will never be clear to me. The Sony FS7 is the closest you can get to an AF100 successor when it comes to price vs preformance.
Click to expand...

LS300 = $4,000. FS7 = $8,000... I'm guessing the $4,000 price difference might be a driving factor. :)

Plus, if you already have a bunch of m4/3 glass, it makes a lot more sense as well.
 
Well, it's become a situation where I'm buying a camera every 2 years, or even more often (this after using the same Aaton LTR-7 for nearly 30 years), so I don't spend over $5,000 on the latest craze. The JVC is a good choice if you already have good lenses, and I've got a bunch - Two EFs, two MFTs, a dozen MFT converted Leica-R and Canon FD and three S16 zooms. I can use all these on the LS300 - And the image is what I want.

So three factors - The JVC's under 5 grand, it uses good lenses I already have - and most importantly, it produces images that I like and think are better than what I've seen from any Sony, or from my C100 for that matter - this is not based on what others say or write in these forums, but based on my own extensive tests, personal taste and opinion.

Look, I'm a 40 year documentary filmmaker with walls cluttered with awards who's had films I've shot and directed broadcast nationally on every major network. I don't listen to self-appointed "pundits". Admir's comment re: "Why anyone would buy...." is sophomoric and is sadly typical of the sort of knowledge-less bias flooding these forums.
 
I am baffled as to why Panasonic did not just use the GH4 sensor in an Af100 body? Even if it was just to a interim measure while they came up with another mid level solution. I have 2x AF102 cameras and remember the enthusiasm that not only did members have about the camera but there seemed to me to be a real loyalty to the Panasonic brand.
I am now looking at other options but sadly nothing from Panasonic even remotely interests me.
I set up my AF102 to be able to work on my shoulder as I have not so "compact: compact primes and Nikon glass
I like the form factor with a shoulder mount and EVF of BM Mini Urser, & Sony FS7. The Canon C100 & C300 don't seem to me to be very ergonomic.
I am interested to see more footage from with the JVC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top