The official "I got my AF100" thread

I'm no expert by any means - but given what they're complaining about, it seems to me that many of these "experts" giving the AF100 an unfavourable review would have many similar "negative" things to say about the RED, the Alexa, the F35, the Phantom... etc. etc.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion - but it seems some of these people (buyers even) just don't understand what the camera is targeted at or suitable for. They seem naive to a degree in some of their comments and "tests".

I was actually cringing watching that Youtube video at the way-off-target comments being made. I had to turn it off.

I think people need to understand going in that the AF100 needs proper lenses, proper (physical) support, a certain amount of experience, the right attitide, and the right application. Then this thing just SINGS.

Let's be clear: The AF100 is NOT "The best all-purpose video camera EVER!!".

It's more like: "When paired with the right complementary gear - it's the best full-featured camera for truly cinematic digital filmmaking, in its price rage, ever".

That's what's so exciting about it. I wish people would stop trying to compare it to ENG cameras, cameras costing four times as much, DSLRs, vacation cameras, etc.
 
I don't think that one should compare it to an ENG camera, but one should get sharp images in wide shots and CU and not only in CU.
And there should not be any work arround to get a job done. What I mean is that if I use a good sharp lens of say 12mm, I should get a HD 1920x1080 quality sharp picture and not a 720 picture. And one must be able to get that picture just by switching on the camera, setting the right aperture and focus from 10m to infinity to get that sharp wide shot. Otherwise I have to do all my wide shots with a ENG-camera and do the MCU and CU with the AF100. I wonder what Barry has to say about this.
 
Kenny_G said:
I don't think that one should compare it to an ENG camera, but one should get sharp images in wide shots and CU and not only in CU.
And there should not be any work arround to get a job done. What I mean is that if I use a good sharp lens of say 12mm, I should get a HD 1920x1080 quality sharp picture and not a 720 picture. And one must be able to get that picture just by switching on the camera, setting the right aperture and focus from 10m to infinity to get that sharp wide shot. Otherwise I have to do all my wide shots with a ENG-camera and do the MCU and CU with the AF100. I wonder what Barry has to say about this.
Click to expand...

Well -- I mean, hey, it's up to you as to what you want to do. The AF100's picture is hellaciously sharper than any DSLR and I think it looks plenty good on wide shots. Like I said, look at "Verse" -- do you think it looks soft? I think it looks great.

It's not going to be quite as hyper-razor-crisp as an EX3, that we already know, because Panasonic rates the AF100 at 800 TV Lines. So how much does that matter to you -- if you're counting pixels, you won't see quite as many. Then again, "Planet Earth" was shot on a 960x720 camera, and the AF100 is definitely sharper than that. Will you make out a few more details on an EX3? Yes, you may be able to see a little difference. Is that really that important? If so, then the AF100 isn't for you. If you want a very sharp, crisp, clear, gorgeous HD picture, then the AF100 does that very, very well. If you want the absolute maximum ultimate finest super-sharpest highest-def image imaginable, there are other cameras that can go a little sharper. But like we've been saying for years, there's more to images than just resolution. It's a factor, but it's only one factor. According to creativevideo, the BBC has already approved the AF100 when used with the Nano -- and they're a very stringent organization that doesn't even allow S16 film to qualify as "HD".
 
Kenny_G said:
I don't think that one should compare it to an ENG camera, but one should get sharp images in wide shots and CU and not only in CU.
And there should not be any work arround to get a job done. What I mean is that if I use a good sharp lens of say 12mm, I should get a HD 1920x1080 quality sharp picture and not a 720 picture. And one must be able to get that picture just by switching on the camera, setting the right aperture and focus from 10m to infinity to get that sharp wide shot. Otherwise I have to do all my wide shots with a ENG-camera and do the MCU and CU with the AF100. I wonder what Barry has to say about this.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a "quality sharp picture" to the naked eye - or "measured"? Because the AF100 definitely has the former (and isn't that what's key, really?).
 
I like sharp images but after using the AF101 for two months I can say it sometimes is to sharp and toning down detail looks so much better. I never feel the need for higher resolution images from this camera. It just looks gorgeous on a decent display. Just as any other camera this one has it's own unique look and feel and each day I learn a bit more how this camera works and how to make the most out of it. I think it's a great camera. It won't look like a DSLR or a RED. It will look like an AF101 and darn good.

If my clients want a DSLR look I'll let them use my 5DmkII and if I have to choose I would go for the AF101 in many situations. I do think if someone is trying this camera and uses it just like they would use a DSLR the result will be inferior. Then it's the wrong tool for them. I've watched tests with exposure and settings blown to kingdom Kong and no wonder it looks bad then.
 
I agree with that guy that the lumix lens iris response is too slow, that's my main complaint with the Lumix lenses. They've got a lot to offer, but quick iris response isn't it. And the pancake will autofocus, you just have to hold down the "push auto" button.

In general I don't think it's all that valuable to hand a camera to someone who's never seen it or even turned it on and say "what do you think?" I think you get much, much more useful information from someone who's used it for a couple of weeks. First impressions are just that, but real impressions are formed by those who've worked with it and put it to the test.
 
Kenny_G said:
I don't think that one should compare it to an ENG camera, but one should get sharp images in wide shots and CU and not only in CU.
And there should not be any work arround to get a job done. What I mean is that if I use a good sharp lens of say 12mm, I should get a HD 1920x1080 quality sharp picture and not a 720 picture. And one must be able to get that picture just by switching on the camera, setting the right aperture and focus from 10m to infinity to get that sharp wide shot. Otherwise I have to do all my wide shots with a ENG-camera and do the MCU and CU with the AF100. I wonder what Barry has to say about this.
Click to expand...

The Af100 is sharp on the wide shots.

http://vimeo.com/17336993

Download the source file.
 
Received the camera last week and had the maiden shoot on tuesday using a set of red prime lenses and the hotrod mount...everything worked great...seemed very sharp to me even at -4 detail...also recorded to a ki pro mini in addition to the sd cards. Red detail for focusing worked great but I will probably add a small ob monitor for better positioning and pixel to pixel, false color etc. The flip out monitor worked fine but would like to be able to use the eyepiece AND an ob monitor at the same time. I had two issues that were operator error. I was using a v-mount battery to power the camera and ki pro mini...and the mini lost power and I didn't notice it until after the take, I'm not sure if the battery was low enough that the mini lost power before the af100 or if the power button was inadvertantly pressed. the other was that I switched scene files before we started shooting and didn't notice that I went from 24 to 30...oops...but that is the way of the road.
 
Finally saved enough, and got my Af-100. Thanks Jerry at EAR Professional Audio/Video. Now got to update firmware and read.
 
Last edited:
Got mine today, but still have to wait for the new Lumix lens and nikon adapter as both are out of stock here...huh, this will be some hard days now :) anyway, i am happy like a kid.
 
Barry_Green said:
The AF100's picture is hellaciously sharper than any DSLR and I think it looks plenty good on wide shots.
Click to expand...

I just don't find this to be true comparing the AF100 and 7D. The 7D resolved maybe 20-40 lines less. "Hellaciously sharper" is an exagerration IMO.

This was posted on dvdoctor -

To recap, my tests indicated a significance via aliasing to about 1150x650, to the extent that it behaves similar to a 3 chip design with each sensor of those dimensions. If I could measure exactly, I think the precise vaues would be 1152x648 since those figures are a quarter of what I think the read sensor area is. (4608x2592) It’s likely that it reads the chip by binning together 16 photosites ( 4x4 block) at a time, so 12 megapixels get reduced to about .75 megapisels each of red, green and blue. So each frame starts off as a 1152x648 image. That then has to be upscaled to 1920x1080.
 
I have no idea of who "dvdoctor" is, but that sounds like a bunch of malarkey, and yes the AF-100 IS sharper than the 7d with the same lens.
 
ASG said:
I just don't find this to be true comparing the AF100 and 7D. The 7D resolved maybe 20-40 lines less. "Hellaciously sharper" is an exagerration IMO.
Click to expand...
Shoot a wide shot on each, and then come back and discuss whether it was an exaggeration or not. I can assure you, it was not. Go shoot a wide shot of some trees. You may very well not believe your eyes, as to how much sharper the AF100 (and GH2 and hacked GH1) are, as compared to the 7D.
 
Well I am finding that wides at 11mm stopped down on my Tokina 11-16 leave me disappointed with the res on the AF-100. Which is what lead me to comparing it to the 7D on the chart. Which then lead to my disappointment at how close the performance on the chart was between the 7D and the AF100 :) Sure it's better on moire, but not much better in res, probably worse in posterisation/banding. Motion and the effect of codec will further separate the performance, but I am still disappointed with the AF100.
 
Having owned a 7D, I can tell you that the AF100 is embarrassingly sharper on wides.

I'm not telling you you have to like it, hey, camera choice is all about personal preference. But when you point the two products at the same scene, you'll see a massive difference.
 
ive done tests with a 550d vs af100.
while af100 had more details resolved, 550d did fairly well and can be comparable in terms of resolution.
now moire, aliasing... we're talking about miles of dfference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top