Successor the AF100

[ripupthehwy]

Looking at the Canon C100. It seems more like what the AF100 could have been. Similar features but in a 35mm size sensor instead of the micro 4/3. (And sharper image as a result). It's amusing to me to see people complain about at C100's $6500 price when the Af100 was about $5500 when it came out. Anyway. I'm a huge fan of Panasonic cameras and shot with an HVX200 for several years before selling it off last year. Panasonic, you need to step up to the plate. Nobody cares about your insistent need to be faithful to the micro 4/3 product line. GIVE US LARGER FRAME! You can always make it backward compatible to existing 4/3 lenses, but if you (Panasonic) come out with another micor 4/3 "cinema" camera and expect people to snatch it up you're crazy. Just my opinion. I just hope my holding out on the C100 in hopes Panasonic will launch something compatible next year isn't in vain. For now I'll use my Nikon D800 cause to me it's the sharpest most filmic DSLR without a big jump up in price. Just curious as to what others think. Will you continue to buy micro 4/3 cameras from panasonic while everyone else offers full frame or 35mm size?...oh wait there's blackmagic doing it too, but at least its raw and maybe their next product will be larger sensor too. Panasonic usually listens to what the customers want but we'll see i guess. Gimme an AF100 type camera with a larger/better/more filmic sensor, uncompressed output and same features and I promise not to give the C100 another look. lol Oh, and i won't ***** about the price as long as it's competitive.

 

[XSVpro]

I think you need to buy the right camera for your intended shoots. A larger sensor will just make my lenses more expensive and larger. I do a fair amount of sports and corporate video and i appreciate getting a 400mm field of view from the long end of a 70-200 zoom, f2.8 is shallow enough DOF for most of my applications on long lenses and f1.4-f2 has been cinematic enough for the little narrative work have done

The C100 has a nice image but please this is after 2 years of the AF being the first of its kind, it should be better in all areas now to a compromise to the AF and a couple of $Ks less. After 2 years the c100 is still missing 1080 60p, SDI out, has a terrible evf and has an eos mount.

dont know about you but any upgrade I do will be for a 10 bit capable camera that gives me all and more than the feature set of the AF but with better DR and sharpness, until that camera is available for no more than $10K I'm happy owning my AF and renting when it can't step up to the intended shoot which is not often to be honest.

 

[Nate Haustein]

This year's answer is here and it's called the GH3. Everything you asked for in M4/3 format besides the AF100 form factor and at a fraction of the price.

I love the AF100, but there are certain things the C100 does better - specifically normal-speed video using EF lenses in lower light. That's why I made the switch to the C100 this month. There are things the C100 doesn't do, however, things that can be done better with the AF100 (or the GH2/GH3).

For the specific times when one needs slow motion, small form factor, maximum telephoto functionality, or a B-camera, the GH3 seems like a good standby. I've never thought M4/3 didn't have shallow enough DOF and the sensitivity of the GH3 sensor is looking to be an improvement over even the AF100.

As far as something beyond M4/3, there was that new modular Varicam they showed off last year, but that seems above and beyond the price bracket we're talking about here. I think that the GH3 is not only a great stopgap for consumers, but also for Panasonic as a whole with the financial issues so many big companies are dealing with today. It's all moving too fast - we want the next thing before the money is even recouped from the first product. Perhaps with a mass-consumer item like cell phones this works out well enough with the demand, but it has to hit the professional R&D departments pretty hard. Just thinking aloud...

 

[Barry_Green]

Looking at the Canon C100. It seems more like what the AF100 could have been.

Keep in mind that the AF100 does several things the C100 doesn't -- such as 60p, and variable frame rates, and SDI, and can take PL lenses, and all sorts of things, and does so at a substantially lower price. The Canon has a bigger sensor, better sharpness & sensitivity, and the LOG gamma... but it also costs more. What you gain with one, you lose with the other, in a variety of ways.

It's amusing to me to see people complain about at C100's $6500 price when the Af100 was about $5500 when it came out.

The AF100 was never $5500. It was $4795 MSRP, as compared to the Canon's $7999 MSRP. Street price it was about $4200 to start, vs. Canon's $6500.

Will you continue to buy micro 4/3 cameras from panasonic while everyone else offers full frame or 35mm size?...

Depends on what they offer and what they cost. I personally find the C100 entirely unsuitable to how I work; I can't stand its lens mount or its lack of SDI or 60p, so to me, it's a non-starter even though it's got a bigger sensor, less noise, and sharper image.

Same thing with the GH2, which I have -- hacked, it can deliver a sharper image, but it's missing so many of the fundamental features that I rely on and have built my workflow around, that it could never be an "A" camera for me. Even if it costs 1/4 what the AF100 does.

I have no inherent desire to see them definitely restrict themselves to only m43 mount. I think it's a good solid sensor size with a very adaptable mount, but I'd be happy to have a larger sensor with all its attendant benefits too, just so long as workability and functionality aren't compromised, and so long as the price doesn't skyrocket.

Gimme an AF100 type camera with a larger/better/more filmic sensor, uncompressed output and same features and I promise not to give the C100 another look. lol Oh, and i won't ***** about the price as long as it's competitive.

Totally agree on that. Give me the functionality, and I'll gladly take (and pay more for) a larger sensor with better core imaging, sure. But I'm not going to sacrifice functionality to chase a few pixels here and there.