So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

I know some of the guys on here have upgraded from the AF100 to the LS300, I'm planning to do the same and wanted to know how the AF's intercut with the LS300, specifically matching skin tones for multi cam interviews etc, anyone tried it yet?
 
TubEfingers said:
I know some of the guys on here have upgraded from the AF100 to the LS300, I'm planning to do the same and wanted to know how the AF's intercut with the LS300, specifically matching skin tones for multi cam interviews etc, anyone tried it yet?
Click to expand...

In the past I've even had trouble intercutting two AF100s - one was a rental and I just never could get it to match. Although I no longer have one to test, I have intercut footage shot on my AF nearly 4 years ago with the current LS300 - and in that situation it matches pretty well - you do have to "dumb down" the LS300, it is considerably sharper with the same lenses (i.e., the Nokton 17.5, Olympus 12-40 or Lumix 35-100). But if you shoot J-Log1 (which I highly recommend) I think you'll be able to create a preset (FCPX in my case) that's pretty close, especially with flesh tones.

At the risk of ruffling some feathers, a common occurrence on the interweb, I think you'll be surprised at how bad AF footage (material that you were once happy with) looks after getting used to the picture from the LS300. Some have commented that the footage they've seen has an "HD video look"... But I often use FilmConvert, have been since the AF, and although I actually shot film for over 40 years I'm very pleased with the result.
 
Last edited:
Thanks @Mac,
I've shoot with 2 x AF100's, an HMC150 and the AC160, i find the AF's/160 lean towards green and the HMC toward magenta, (it might be the other way round, i don't remember offhand) but I've been lucky to always have good results intercutting with very little work in FCP,
looking forward to the improved image from the LS300, I've seen the usual bitching online that follows a new cam release (from people who probably had no intention of buying it anyway) if its an upgrade from the AF and I can still use my M43 lenses then its all good with me.
The only things that bothers me is a lack of waveform and the build quality not being up to scratch.
 
I use a Gratical that has the waveform and histogram. The last firmware on the JVC added the histogram, but it doesn't export via SDI or HDMI. A lot of people have dissed this camera, and in some respects with good reason. But once you get through the "Oh my God what have I done? blues" the picture is outstanding.
 
@mac

I'd love to see some LS300 footage with your Voigtlander/s! I have a set of Voigtlander primes myself and imagine they look nice in combo with this camera.
 
I read last night that the output over SDI isn't 10 bit either, is that correct?
i have a samurai blade I can use for waveforms, was hoping I could get a 10 bit image via that.
 
JVC europe told me SDI is 3G 10 bit. By the way the construction quality is fine. I had a pana AG ac 160 before, all the button were a lot more loose for example.
 
The SDI in 3G, SMTPE ST 424 that standard is 10bit.The HDMI is 8bit. TubEfingers I find the cam good except the usual complaint about the viewfinder. But it is usable anyway and have with very good peaking. If you use a screen or an external viewfinder its of course perfectly alright. It is very versatile thanks to the vfm. The quality of the picture is very good even before V2.0, with the good setting it was already great. So now it's very nice. The prime zoom is a very nice feature too. I use it with samyang, lumix and olympus lens, everything is alright. The OIS with compatible lens works but it's not like the best one, it's comparable to the pana AG ac160.
 
Tye said:
Do you really think a soccer Mom would be packing a $3000-$5000 cam?
Click to expand...
SAMUEL JACKSON VOICE: Say something about a soccer mom again, I dare you! I double dare you!! Say it again. You soccer mom basher!
LOL!


Glad to see I can still crack myself up but what's really irking me about the DVX200 is why didn't they just not attach a fixed lens? Can someone educate me on that? Because in all reality they have the AF200 right there! Let that lens come with the camera package if they want but make it detachable so we can still use our other MFT glass. Where are they getting their market research from? Who told them there's a need a for a DVX200? Is the AF100 camp really that small that they'd forsake us so?
 
dtzfilms said:
..........what's really irking me about the DVX200 is why didn't they just not attach a fixed lens? Can someone educate me on that? Because in all reality they have the AF200 right there!
Click to expand...
I suspect the answer is because it's cheaper to build the lens in. Not simply because they are saving the cost of the mounting, but because if you build camera/lens as one unit it makes a lot of the design far easier - hence cheaper.

Typically it means that it's far easier to use electronics to compensate for physical compromises in the structure of the lens. Quite simply, that means a level of performance which would cost a lot more with an interchangeable lens design. If the camera/lens were separate entities, the lens design would have to be better in itself to get the same performance.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with the decision. Fixing a single lens means it has to have a fair zoom range, and as such will limit it's maximum aperture - which part negates much of the reason for the larger sensor in the first place..... Go for interchangeable lenses and it's possible to have much faster lenses - even if short zooms or primes - but you're then getting the real advantage from the larger sensor. And if you want a fairly long inbuilt zoom, get a camera with something like a 1/2" chip with f1.8 lens.
 
dtzfilms said:
... Glad to see I can still crack myself up but what's really irking me about the DVX200 is why didn't they just not attach a fixed lens? Can someone educate me on that?
Click to expand...
No education but, in retrospect, it's pretty tough to sell a pro quality MFT camera when there are a lot of competing s35 and even full frame models in roughly the same ($4,000-$5,000) price range. To achieve a similar performance, Panasonic would have to have the latest sensor technology and Sony seems to be beating everyone in that game (A7SII, A7RII, FS5). Consequently, the decision was to make a compelling package that was ahead of the pack on the value scale. Which they have more or less attained (provided the early teething problems are eliminated with firmware upgrades and user experience).
 
DLD said:
No education but, in retrospect, it's pretty tough to sell a pro quality MFT camera when there are a lot of competing s35 and even full frame models in roughly the same ($4,000-$5,000) price range. To achieve a similar performance, Panasonic would have to have the latest sensor technology and Sony seems to be beating everyone in that game (A7SII, A7RII, FS5). Consequently, the decision was to make a compelling package that was ahead of the pack on the value scale. Which they have more or less attained (provided the early teething problems are eliminated with firmware upgrades and user experience).
Click to expand...

One other thing, 2-3 years ago Panasonic Pro said they were going to focus on just broadcast-ish type products and step away from cinema-ish stuff. With the exception of the Varicam 35, their entire product lineup reflects that. Even then, the Varicam S35 shares the same modular back end with the 2/3" Varicam, which is very much aimed at extreme high-end broadcast.

The DVX200 fits into that plan better than a proper AF100 successor. I still believe there should be an "HVX300" with P2 and a removable lens a la the EX3 for those folks who need 10bit 4:2:2 and more flexibility in lens options. But 10bit 4:2:2 arguments aside, I think Panasonic believes the DVX200 fills a market niche that aligns with their business focus far better than trying to compete with Sony, Canon, BMD, and Red with a m4/3 cinema style camera.
 
I get the impression that this market segment (the market an AF-200 would compete in) is viewed as soft by Panasonic. Or actually is soft in terms of sales. The DVX-200 is not a camera to win a market segment with, it is a niche product with so-so specs outside of 4k60p. The camera is fine, but nothing to make you excited. Which I just can not understand. Broadcast plan or not, wouldn't you want to kick some ass instead of just be one of the players? To me, that is the spirit of the original DVX200. Not the current "don't want to go to far" type of camera. They are so busy not wanting to put out a killer camera that they forget to realize many will avoid the product due to this very approach.

Frustrating that Panasonic can make a camera like the PX270 which has the kitchen sink thrown in and follow it up with the DVX200. Wouldn't the same people who like the 10it 4:2:2 in the PX270 be your target audience for a large sensor camera???

I like the fixed lens approach but given the sensor size it really needed to be f2.8 up to 100mm (FF eq.) to be taken seriously by me.

Sorry for the ranting but I am in the market for an AF-200 and it is killing me that the DVX200 is missing the mark. Fs5 or Ursa Mini are the front runners but I would prefer a PX430...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top