OTHER: Swap AC90 for AC130?

D

dmwc

New member
I got the AC90 in December and now that I've used it a few times on both personal and paid shoots, I have come to the conclusion that I just am not terribly happy with it. I think it does have great image quality and I like a lot of the features, but I'm not terribly fond of the way it does certain things. Coming from the XH-A1, I am used to flipping a switch to add an ND filter or turn up the gain. From reading Barry's book, I understand why the AC90 is made the way it is, but I am finding I don't care for the automatic ND (or for having to screw on an ND filter in bright sunlight). I also don't like increasing the gain by turning the iris ring past wide open, or having to use the touch screen to change shutter speed or switch between A & B white balance settings. I read enough on this site and others to know it worked this way before I bought it, and at the time I thought I would be okay with it, but now...not so much. I'm stubborn and don't like to change my ways :)

So...with that said, would I be crazy if I sold my AC90 and purchased the AC130 instead? It looks like it has controls more like what I'm used to, and it has a longer zoom (going from the XH-A1's 20X to the AC90's 12X has also been slightly annoying in some situations), and from what I'm seeing in online comparison videos, it's more light sensitive, which would definitely be a plus, as that has been another annoyance. I would lose the 1080 60P mode, but I would rarely use that anyway. And of course, it's more expensive, but I'd rather make the switch now (while the AC90 still has fairly low hours on it) and get something I would be happier with.

Any thoughts?
 
When I made my decision it was between AC90 and the AC160a because I do action video and wanted 1080 60fps. But after looking at samples I couldn't justify the cost. If I was doing paid shoots I would have gone with the 160a or maybe even the PMW200. As it is it doesn't matter what camera I use, I'm getting great results with the AC90 and I am happy with the camera. Wish I had a longer zoom though.
 
Sounds like you'd be much happier with the AC130...
Click to expand...

At the moment, it seems like I would be, but I don't want to make a big mistake by switching. I originally looked at the AC130 as an option, but chose the AC90 because of the difference in price, thinking that I could get used to the differences in the way it works. I was a little disappointed with the first footage I shot with it, then I tweaked the scene file (using some of the very helpful scene file settings in "The AC90 Book" as a starting point), and the next shoot looked more the way I wanted it to look, so I thought I would grow to like it more. But each time I have used it, I've run into something that bothers me.

I've gotta say that with enough light and the right settings the image the AC90 records looks great, which is all that matters to anyone who will see the video. I would just like to not feel disappointed with my purchase every time I use it. If I hadn't been spoiled by the XH-A1's controls, I'm sure I would like the AC90 better, but right now it feels like a step down.

I have looked at some sample footage online from the AC130, but it's hard to tell on the computer screen if its footage looks as good as the AC90. I know it has more grain at higher gain levels than the AC90, but then the AC90 gets sort of smeary instead of grainy (from noise reduction I suppose), so it's either one or the other, I guess. And with the AC130 being more light sensitive, I shouldn't need to use as much gain in lower light situations anyway, right? For those who have worked with both, how does the image quality compare between the two? And are there any major issues on the AC130 that I should know about?
 
Last edited:
dmwc said:
At I would just like to not feel disappointed with my purchase every time I use it.
Click to expand...
Yep. The phrase is "buy the best and you only cry once, instead of every time you pull it out of the case.". The AC90 is a great little camera at a killer price, but it is, inherently, a low cost camera. And it sounds like you need one a class up.

If I hadn't been spoiled by the XH-A1's controls, I'm sure I would like the AC90 better, but right now it feels like a step down.
Click to expand...
Well, again, that's because it is a step down. You're used to a Honda Accord, but the AC90 is a Honda Civic. It is a class down in price and size from what you had. Now, it will still perform better than the Canon in many ways, just like a 2013 Civic can outperform a 2004 Accord... but what you really wanted is a 2013 Accord. In this scenario, that would be the AC130A.

I have looked at some sample footage online from the AC130, but it's hard to tell on the computer screen if its footage looks as good as the AC90.
Click to expand...
Well, now you're getting caught up in the trap that led you to a lesser camera in the first place. The AC90 looks REALLY good. Every bit as good as the AC130A when in bright light. So if you're expecting a big footage bump, it isn't there. The AC90 is exciting specifically because of how good it looks at such a low price point, combined with pro features like XLRs.

The AC130A will look about as good in bright light, and will produce better images in dimmer light. The AC90 has superb noise reduction but you could also use Neat Video on the AC130A if grain was a problem. But consider that the AC130A, with zero gain, is as sensitive as an AC90 at +18dB. You won't need to reach for the gain nearly as much.

In the end, the decision to upgrade should be made on functionality, not core image, as that is the main differentiator between them.
 
Hi DMWC,
I don't have a 90 but do have a 160A. This camera has a full array of professional controls that can be mixed in any combination with auto if you wish. It is capable of stunning quality and has a massive optical zoom lens. But to get the best out of it requires an understanding of its various capabilities- I had to learn some of these initially, as I was not achieving the results I expected. This was totally user error and I learned the hard way (the mantra is:Know Barry's book from cover to cover!)

However from what you say I feel you would be happier with the 130/160A. They both are capable of far better manual control and low light performance- and the scene files allow perfect tailoring to your desired style. The only obvious down sides are that both the 130/160A do not auto focus as quickly as the 90. and they are considerably bigger and heavier. (But they do have built in ND filters)
Rod
 
I have a 160A, spent one year looking at brochures, but have been thoroughly satisfied with what I selected.

The big deal for me was the 22x Zoom. (same across 130/160)

I actually like the weight of this camera. On a Gliders Grey rig, I am not aware of it being heavy.

I do everything manual and use a Studio 1 Productions remote from the tripod handle so I rarely have to touch the camera (on/off, focus, zoom, iris).

As Rod reports, the auto focus is "slow", but if you approach a target through a high contrast area, it locks in a lot faster. I would find it difficult enough to pan/tilt/zoom without having to worry about which arc I should use to approach a target.

I record audio in LPCM mode all of the time. Never took the time to compare this with Dolby Digital AC3.

I was attracted to the 160A for the SDI Out capability but aside from LPCM, have not used this camera yet for other 160A-only features that are not in the 130A.

Still hoping for a monitor/camera where I could lasso a screen area I want to go and have the camera do the heavy lifting.
 
Without a long winded post: I own both. I prefer the 130. Manual controls and a full-bodied looking picture. Much better display functions as well like Scene File names and ext. access to the menu rather than a touch screen.
 
Don't own an AC90, but I do have the AC160.

Shot 4 jobs with the 160 this last week, and every time I do I walk away being thoroughly impressed with what that cam can do.
Last week I had a client ask me to mod a video we shot in 2008 on "Thyroid Diseases" with a.....Canon XHA1, in Standard 4:3 def. Holy crap, I thought, why not just re-shoot.....but the client just wanted to add "a few" new clips. Turned out to be about 40 of 'em. Well the AC160 allowed me to shoot in 4:3 standard def. Worked just great. Matched the color in post without much effort, although we are talking charts and graphs not skin tones.

Then after that, we shot another in a series of lectures on Brain Health-preventing Alzheimer's. Followed up by a shoot of a local stage production of Legally Blonde. Capped off the week with a shoot for our church where I filmed the Sunday sermon.

In each case the result was the same: worked just great! If you liked the XHA1, you'll love the AC160.
 
I switched from the Canon XH-A1 to the AC130. Form factor you will love the AC130. Very similar to the A1.

See a video I made comparing the two:

The AC130 is better in low light and sharper.

What I do no like about the AC130.
- auto focus is below par
- more vidkeo looking then the Canon.
 
Barry_Green said:
The AC130A will look about as good in bright light, and will produce better images in dimmer light. The AC90 has superb noise reduction but you could also use Neat Video on the AC130A if grain was a problem. But consider that the AC130A, with zero gain, is as sensitive as an AC90 at +18dB. You won't need to reach for the gain nearly as much.

.
Click to expand...
Hi Barry, I have a 160A. I would be interested to know what the starting point at 0db in ISO equivalent might be for each of these as a reference (as 0db on each is only relevant to the particular camera).
Would you also know the ISO at 0db for the af100 with the kit lens ? this is shaping up to be my 2nd camera. Thanks in advance! (ISO I relate to-too many years with still cameras I guess!)
Rod
 
AC130/AC160 = 320 ISO at 0dB
AC90 = 40 ISO at 0dB
AF100 = 400 ISO at 0dB (or, obviously, you could put it in film cam mode and set the ISO directly, from 200 on up)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top