Some footage...please!

[pathfinder]

To me, I'm already sold on the price, the 4/3 chip, and the ability to use still photography lenses. Not to mention many other improvements and advances. I'm not ignroant of the fact that, just like any other cameras that had come along, it's lifespan will be short. But, until the next better one with the same affordable price comes along, I'll take what it has and run with it. So glad affordable cinema technology are within reach for aspiring filmmakers and lower end production companies such as mine. Now, filmmaking is not limited to the exclusive club of the big boys of Hollywood who has the big bucks but anyone who has the passion to tell a story can afford to do so. That's how it should be.

 

[David G. Smith]

Thanks Barry. Let me ask, even though you aren't a "Run 'n' Gun" shooter, how was the camera to work with like that? Does the design and control features work well for "Run 'n' Gun". I am doing more and more of that kind of production and was kind of wondering about how the AF-100 would work for that. The boxy design is kind of a departure from the standard "Handy-Cam" and shoulder mount designs. What do you think?

 

[Barry_Green]

It worked about like an HPX170, minus the ability to power-zoom. It's wide, but nowhere near as heavy as an HVX200, so I found it a lot more comfortable than the HVX200. The 170/150 are really kind of ideal handheld cameras IMO, the width of the camera made it a little clumsier but not a lot. However, you do have to get used to differing button placements; the record button on the right side isn't where the thumb goes, it's up by the index finger, so ... as long as you make the mental adjustment, it's surprisingly good. But Emmanuel struggled because he really, really, really wanted a front-mounted record button to be there, and instead it was the white-balance button, so he hit that numerous times...

Other than it being wider than a traditional handycam HMC150, and the record button on the right not being at instant thumb height, everything else was in the right place. All the same switches and things were right where they belonged.

Run 'n' gun zooming was not ideal however, of course, as you actually have to reach over and twist the lens barrel, so you gotta be aware of that.

Overall, I found it about 80% as functional as an HPX170 for that purpose, and about forty-six thousand times more usable than a DSLR. There are tons of readouts and displays that let you spot-check that you're in the butter zone; they even added a little DSLR-style "iris gauge" for over/underexposure which sits off in the corner and takes up no space at all, which is nice for just checking to see if you're where you need to be, and then there's all the zebras and WF and whatnot...

If I was getting paid to do it, I'd reach for the HPX170 first over the AF100 for that job. But if it was a choice between a DSLR and an AF100, the AF100 is so infinitely superior that it brings a tear to the eye.