Switch from GH3 to AF100, a wise decision?

A

Admir

Well-known member
So A friend of mine is willing to sell his AF100 for 1200 dollars to me. Currently I have an Hmc150 and a GH3. Love my GH3 but hate that its missing features such as nd filters, vectorscope, xlr, more image control (scene file settings) and better ergonomics... On the other hand it has poor highlight handling, and lower bitrates.

I know many people here prefer this camera to the to the GH3, so would I take a step back in quality of the image if I would go for the AF? Im not a fan of the hassle with recorders and simply want to put in a card and shoot.

What would you do? I cant have both of them, if I buy the AF the GH3 has to go.
 
Admir said:
So A friend of mine is willing to sell his AF100 for 1200 dollars to me. Currently I have an Hmc150 and a GH3. Love my GH3 but hate that its missing features such as nd filters, vectorscope, xlr, more image control (scene file settings) and better ergonomics... On the other hand it has poor highlight handling, and lower bitrates.

I know many people here prefer this camera to the to the GH3, so would I take a step back in quality of the image if I would go for the AF? Im not a fan of the hassle with recorders and simply want to put in a card and shoot.

What would you do? I cant have both of them, if I buy the AF the GH3 has to go.
Click to expand...

I don't have a GH3, but I have owned a hacked GH2 alongside an AF100A. For me, the AF is just so much more user-friendly to shoot with -- especially if you use the Lumix 12-35 and 35-100 lenses. Yes, the dynamic range may not be quite as robust, but if you watch your levels (and you need to do this regardless of the camera you use), then I've found the IQ of the AF very good for the vast majority of my applications. I suspect you would find the same thing. I must admit that getting the AF100A adds nice features over the standard AF100 -- enhanced focus and 1080p 60 -- which made my decision to defer to the AF easier.

I no longer own the hacked GH2.
 
Firstbase said:
I don't have a GH3, but I have owned a hacked GH2 alongside an AF100A. For me, the AF is just so much more user-friendly to shoot with -- especially if you use the Lumix 12-35 and 35-100 lenses. Yes, the dynamic range may not be quite as robust, but if you watch your levels (and you need to do this regardless of the camera you use), then I've found the IQ of the AF very good for the vast majority of my applications. I suspect you would find the same thing. I must admit that getting the AF100A adds nice features over the standard AF100 -- enhanced focus and 1080p 60 -- which made my decision to defer to the AF easier.

I no longer own the hacked GH2.
Click to expand...

Well the thing is that I love that the gh3 has really robust codecs and high bitrates internally, plus 60p in 1080... Thats what I love about my GH3 that the AF lacks.. Besides the 1080 60p bit that update costs.
 
That's a lot of camera for $1200. I have a GH2 and I use it very sparsely for video. I understand that GH3 is vastly improved, but I don't like the aliasing. With experience, you can get great footage with the AF100. You get the OLPF, enjoy "already synch'd" audio with balanced inputs, WFM to get your exposure, the NDs are invaluable. I like the EVF in B&W with focus assist in red. It's a great little camera. I'd grab it up if I were you. You won't be sorry.
 
Last edited:
That's a great price, and your friend is nuts! See if you can find a Ninja 2 (now discontinued) and go ProRes! It will be good for another 3 years too.
 
Yikes, that's a hell of a price. I'd jump on that if I could afford it.

And what I would do if I were you is keep the GH3 if you can afford to at all. Having two main workhorse cameras plus a small and easily portable 3rd camera could come in handy. Especially since it'll share all the same cards/lenses with the AF100.
 
Yeah the price is great! I really love the image I get with my GH3, but the AF gives me all the things I really miss, just the ND and XLR's makes me want it really bad. But then again we all know how AVCHD specially at a low bitrate tends to work out when trying to push it in post... That's what scares me with it. Also, generally I prefer the image I get with my GH3 to what I have seen come out of the AF100... Oh boy if I just could get the GH3 image in the AF100 body... :)
 
I've got HMC151 and AF101, they match really, really close out the cameras with same settings, cut together easily
 
Well, here's a thought. Get the AF100, sell the GH3. You can still get reasonable $ for the GH3. However, the price of the GH3 is dropping fast. We've already seen it at $800 new (uniquephoto.com, briefly), and $900 at B&H, and I suspect we'll see lower prices soon, perhaps as soon as January. Live with the AF for awhile, and if you really start missing the GH3, you should be able to re-buy it later for less money than you sold for today (if you sell soon, you might sell for a decent chunk). Plus, at some point the GH4 will be out (maybe next year?), and then you have another chance with lower GH3 prices or interesting GH4. Seems to me, you can't lose, if you can just manage to sell the GH3 for a decent amount... which means sooner than later, as time goes by, the GH3 will be cheaper and cheaper. Meanwhile you have an excellent price on the AF. If it was me - I'd jump on it.
 
We used a couple of GH2s alongside an AF100 and 12-35, 35-100 and Leica primes etc.

Our principle reasons for buying the AF100 were the audio and ND benefits. I spent a year trying to eke an image out of the AF100 that pleased me. Whenever I was running it alongside the GH2 in an interview, I ended up favouring the GH2 shot in the edit (often exclusively), because it was so tangibly better than the AF100. I wanted the AF100 to be better, dammit, it had to be better, having spent thousands on it.

We spent way too much time trying to pimp that AF100 into something that would work for us.

Finally, we knocked it on the head, sold it at a very low price (kinda like your friend...) and bought a couple of Canon C100s and a set of L Lenses.

We now just don't think about it. They just work, produce consistently fab pictures and are ergonomically much easier to live with. I don't think about buying new cameras and these paid for themselves within a month.

You've got plenty of others saying go for it and that you can't lose. Personally, I think it would be $1200 down the tube. I haven't used a GH3, but I'm sure it's at least as good as the GH2. Yes, you've got the ND and audio issues, but the significantly inferior image quality of the AF100 just didn't work out for us as a trade off.

Ben.
 
bengiles said:
We used a couple of GH2s alongside an AF100 and 12-35, 35-100 and Leica primes etc.

Our principle reasons for buying the AF100 were the audio and ND benefits. I spent a year trying to eke an image out of the AF100 that pleased me. Whenever I was running it alongside the GH2 in an interview, I ended up favouring the GH2 shot in the edit (often exclusively), because it was so tangibly better than the AF100. I wanted the AF100 to be better, dammit, it had to be better, having spent thousands on it.

We spent way too much time trying to pimp that AF100 into something that would work for us.

Finally, we knocked it on the head, sold it at a very low price (kinda like your friend...) and bought a couple of Canon C100s and a set of L Lenses.

We now just don't think about it. They just work, produce consistently fab pictures and are ergonomically much easier to live with. I don't think about buying new cameras and these paid for themselves within a month.

You've got plenty of others saying go for it and that you can't lose. Personally, I think it would be $1200 down the tube. I haven't used a GH3, but I'm sure it's at least as good as the GH2. Yes, you've got the ND and audio issues, but the significantly inferior image quality of the AF100 just didn't work out for us as a trade off.

Ben.
Click to expand...

Yeah and thats what makes me hesitate. Sure its not a fortune to spend on a camera but I still dont want to regret buying it. My main work are music videos, corporate work and weddings (thats why my HMC comes so in handy).
I guess that with an external recorder things would be better when talking about image quality.
 
Admir said:
Yeah and thats what makes me hesitate. Sure its not a fortune to spend on a camera but I still dont want to regret buying it. My main work are music videos, corporate work and weddings (thats why my HMC comes so in handy).
I guess that with an external recorder things would be better when talking about image quality.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference most if not all of the time between the native AVCHD and a higher bitrate codec. The hobbyists will scream in horror at that statement, but my point is that an external recorder will not resolve the fundamental image quality issues I'm referring to above.

Ben.
 
bengiles said:
Actually, no, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference most if not all of the time between the native AVCHD and a higher bitrate codec. The hobbyists will scream in horror at that statement, but my point is that an external recorder will not resolve the fundamental image quality issues I'm referring to above.

Ben.
Click to expand...

what exactly made the image worse than the gh2? Was it the colors, noise or the lower DR? I myself arent a big fan of the AF image (generally) but I hope that its something I can handle with a nice scene file setting and Color correction in post.
 
The AF has less resolution and sharpness and the highlights aren't handled as well - no, those aren't resolved with external recording. It is a touch less noisy and better in the shadows than the stock GH2 - hacked GH2 can make up for the deficiency. Can't speak for the GH3 with my limited experience.

Working with the AF is remarkably like working with the HMC-150 (I own that, too), AF has a bit better detail and DR than the HMC. I use the AF with a 14-140 zoom for quick-shoot HMC-type jobs all the time.

A ProRes recorder with the AF will gain you grading flexibility, and that's about it (though it may be all you need).

After 2 years of ownership of both, I've used more AF shots in my reel and gotten more complements on AF-100-shot projects, but that's largely due to the power of the moment, not any strength or weakness of either camera. Doing mostly doc work, the AF gives me greater freedom to capture moments as they happen... shotgun, wireless receiver, lens, and go... no rigs, extraneous cabling, or other futzing necessary.

If I were shooting mostly commercials or narrative... no, I wouldn't choose the AF100... but then I probably wouldn't select the GH series, either.
 
Interesting how many of the responses are comparing it to a GH2.

I know the GH2 shook up the market when it was hacked and impressed even Francis Coppola, blah blah blah.... but its discontinued hardware already. They've moved on, people! Newer Panasonic mirrorless cams are offering focus peaking, 60P at full 1080, headphone monitoring, and even some stuff that the AF hadn't dreamed of, like remote control of the camera via WiFi app (remote live video monitor while recording included). Heck, folks are already discussing the leaked specs rumors for the GH4, which includes the first 4K recording in this class of camera.

Point is, the difference between the GH3's features and the AF100 are quite a bit more blurred than the GH2's was. I don't feel like its a fair comparison to make. Don't get me wrong, I love the AF100 and its ergonomics / feature set (NDs for the win!). If you are coming from the world of Pro-camcorders, it is a much more familiar tool with less workarounds. But if you are already coming from shooting with a GH3, I'm not sure how much I'd recommend it.
 
I have had a hacked GH2 since Dec 2010, and recently had the opportunity to buy DustyLense's AF100 at good price. Despite the negative press I thought "what the heck" and gave it a try. I like it a lot more than I expected, and for any purpose that requires NDs and/or XLRs I won't ever be going back to my GH2 plus Beachtek.

The thing is though, unless you have some uber-rig on your GH3 the form-factors and handling are very different - for that reason I would never chose to have just the AF100. Having both is great!

The comments above about GH2 vs. GH3 are fair enough, but the GH4K is going to be a whole other price bracket.
 
You know your business and clients better than we do. Bottom line, $1200 is not a huge investment in gear if it will pay itself off in a short time. Is the Canon C100 a better camera than the AF100? Probably, but being 4 1/2 times more expensive than that used AF100 means a likely longer payoff time. Again, your business decision. Why not ask your friend if you can use the AF100 over the weekend so you can get a feel for it, and see if it's really something you want to invest in?

Good Luck!

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top