The official "I got my AF100" thread

Got ours a week and a half ago .. and the glass has been trickling in this week .. so far, everbody's happy..

OTM_AF100.png
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is when someone with your influence declares a camera to be "the bomb" and uses terms like "hellaciously sharper" is affects people's decision to buy the camera. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the results I am seeing, and my feeling is that the camera is essentially an over priced, souped up DSLR that does not live up to the hype. Those are subjective things... so how about an objective measurement, the published 800 lines resolution. I have yet to see this demonstrated, and have seen lots of evidence that the resolving power is substantially lower.
 
ASG said:
The problem is when someone with your influence declares a camera to be "the bomb" and uses terms like "hellaciously sharper" is affects people's decision to buy the camera. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the results I am seeing, and my feeling is that the camera is essentially an over priced, souped up DSLR that does not live up to the hype. Those are subjective things... so how about an objective measurement, the published 800 lines resolution. I have yet to see this demonstrated, and have seen lots of evidence that the resolving power is substantially lower.
Click to expand...

Hellaciously sharper? no
Substantially lower? no
 
ASG said:
The problem is when someone with your influence declares a camera to be "the bomb" and uses terms like "hellaciously sharper" is affects people's decision to buy the camera. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the results I am seeing, and my feeling is that the camera is essentially an over priced, souped up DSLR that does not live up to the hype.
Click to expand...
Well, again, you are entitled to your opinion, hopefully I am also entitled to mine. I think the AF100 is the single most significant camera to hit the market since the original DVX100. Bold statement, yes. And I know some would argue that the DSLR itself was that significant breakthrough -- for me, it wasn't, because the usability and the ultimate picture quality just weren't up to snuff. The DSLR was the prototype, the AF100 is the fulfillment of the idea. It finally fulfills all the checkboxes for the digicine shooter on a budget. 24p, overcranking, HD, pro controls, shallow DOF, tapeless... it does it all. It provides a picture with substantially better image quality and none of the drawbacks of the DSLR, and usability that's far superior to what the DSLR offers, and in the shots I've seen, it does so with much sharper imagery than the SLRs do. I don't know of any side-by-side shots between the AF100 and the 7D on wides, but ... sheesh, it's just embarrassingly superior. Just try panning on a deep-focus 7D wide shot, it falls completely to crap, but the AF100 holds up just fine. Look at the GH2 vs. 7D/5D/T2i shots people have been showing... heck, look at the GH1 vs. 7D/5D shots, even those show the massive improvement.

The DSLR is littered with aliasing that shows up as "false detail" that makes a shot look sharper than it actually is, but when you make that shot move, the aliasing reveals itself as shimmering detail and stairsteppy lines. What you were seeing as "sharpness" is fake. The AF100 shows you all that same sharpness with none of the fake, none of the shimmering, none of the stairstepping. (well, not "none", but extremely reduced).

so how about an objective measurement, the published 800 lines resolution. I have yet to see this demonstrated, and have seen lots of evidence that the resolving power is substantially lower.
Click to expand...
The AF100 has a weird relationship with charts. It is a tad mind-boggling and I haven't been able to wrap my head around it. I have shots from "The Wringer" that clearly show 800 TV Lines resolved. Then I have shots from the black-and-white 4K chart that show all sorts of aliasing, that doesn't look all that different from a DSLR. But then there's the real-world shots which are night-and-day different from the DSLR -- I mean, ridiculously apparent as to that there's practically zero aliasing in most shots. I don't know how to explain it. I wish I did.

I can say this -- you can argue that a DSLR and an AF100 look similar on a black-and-white res chart (excepting, of course, the horrible purple/orange nasty moire that the DSLR does and the AF100 doesn't). But when you actually point the camera at some bricks, the AF100 holds together extremely robustly, and the DSLR turns to utter poo. There's something they're doing that makes actual shots work, when chart shots don't.

I don't know how they came up with the 800 TVL spec. I can show you 800 TVL cleanly resolved on the diagonal wedge of the 4K res chart, and 800 TVL cleanly resolved on the circular zone plate of The Wringer (when recorded in 4:2:2). But I cannot show you 800 TVL on a typical horizontal or vertical wedge; it doesn't do that. It seems to top out at about 650 on the standard horz/vert wedge.

I do not know what methodology Panasonic uses to determine their 800TVL spec. Perhaps they used a WFM, perhaps they used some other method of measuring.

But I can tell you this -- the actual resolved detail in a real shot is substantially higher on the AF100 (and on a GH2 and on a GH13) than the Canon DSLRs. The actual resolved detail in a real shot is not quite as high as an EX1/EX3 or HPX3700, but those cameras spec out at 1000 lines. It's not quite as high as my HMC40. But it's a darn sight better, substantially better, and while maybe I was a bit hyperbolic, I do feel that it's "hellaciously sharper" in terms of real, actual, visible image detail, than the Canon DSLR.
 
Last edited:
Being an AF100 owner myself, I'll admit I wouldn't use the term hellaciously sharper either, because to me, hellaciously sharper is a Red One brought down to 1080p. But then again, I wasn't looking for hellaciously sharper images. But comparing sharpness between a DSLR and the AF100 is not the defacto measurement of value, period.

I tell people this. If you cannot see the advantage to using an AF100 over say a 7D, then the AF100 is not for you. Plain and simple. I have a 7D, I've lost MANY MANY MANY shots to moire to the point I just couldn't take it anymore. No, the AF100 is NOT perfect, and there are plenty of things I think could be better, but for me, moire is a huge issue. Especially when I do VFX work and you've got red/blue contamination on falsely sharp edges, it is a pain to work with.

In addition, the rolling shutter is 2x as fast as the 5D. That's pretty significant. It really opens up the freedom on what you can shoot handheld at certain focal lengths. Again, if you don't need that, then this camera isn't for you.

Anyone can take any single aspect of the AF100 and say, wow, that's not that much better by itself than a DSLR, or worth that much in itself. However, it's the whole package. Let me see you do 1080p60 on the 7D, because I can tell you right now 720p60 on the 7D is probably THE WORST 720p I have ever seen. The aliasing/moire issues are just incredible. Not to mention, trying to shoot 60p on the 7D and you are looking at an overheating in no time.

But regardless, these are important things to me, not anyone else. I say again, if you cannot see the quality and usability enhancements in the AF100, then move on. I won't think any less of you, it's not for you. This is my first Panasonic camera and I don't even buy m4/3 lenses because I don't want to be locked into any one camera. Right now though, the AF100 is the best sub $10k for me.
 
All right, maybe I need to clarify -- on the AF100, I like to shoot wide. On the AF100, I CAN shoot wide. The 7-14 is one of my favorite lenses. You can do that on the AF100. It works. It provides a clean, crisp, sharp image that doesn't fall apart. On my 7D, I couldn't take a wide shot to save my life, because it all turned to blocky muddy stair-steppy purple/orange crap. To me, a good wide shot on the AF100 looks dramatically superior to anything I was able to get on the 7D. The jump in quality and image fidelity was so noticeable that I termed it "hellaciously" sharper.

I say again, if you cannot see the quality and usability enhancements in the AF100, then move on. I won't think any less of you, it's not for you. This is my first Panasonic camera and I don't even buy m4/3 lenses because I don't want to be locked into any one camera. Right now though, the AF100 is the best sub $10k for me.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent summation, and I have said the same thing to those wanting to compare the GH2 to the AF100. There are those who question whether it's worth the additional expense over a GH2. To me, and to many of us, the answer is "obviously". To others, the answer is "obviously not". Fine -- pick the one that works for you, and move along. As Rick said, nobody is going to think any less of someone, and if anyone DOES think any less of them for their camera choice, then why would you care about that person's opinion anyway?

There are simple, obvious, and clear distinctions between these cameras. Pick the one that suits your budget and your work style. My way of working is incompatible with using the workarounds of a DSLR, so to me it was never a feasible option. For me, the AF100 is the breakthrough -- all the benefit of the DSLR's shallow DOF, low noise and high sensitivity, plus the workflow, ease of use, integration with pro equipment, and reliability and performance that (my definition of) a working pro would expect and demand. Therefore, it is the breakthrough and the most significant new camera released since the original DVX100. It may not have the most pixels, but it delivers the goods in terms of actual shots and it does so at an easily affordable price point that is 1/3 the cost of the F3, 1/8 the cost of the Red One.
 
ASG said:
The problem is when someone with your influence declares a camera to be "the bomb" and uses terms like "hellaciously sharper" is affects people's decision to buy the camera. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the results I am seeing, and my feeling is that the camera is essentially an over priced, souped up DSLR that does not live up to the hype. Those are subjective things... so how about an objective measurement, the published 800 lines resolution. I have yet to see this demonstrated, and have seen lots of evidence that the resolving power is substantially lower.
Click to expand...

The fact is.. I'm addicted to shooting on this camera. The images are amazing. It performs wonderfully and I can't wait using it again. And, I've never said this about another camera but I literally can't wait to shoot.

Do I look or care or count lines? No. It is not an issue. On a 50" Panasonic plasma it is stunning. Very sharp. As good as Discovery channel images. Will it look better than dSLRs projected? Without a doubt.
 
Like most cameras, there are situations where they shine. I can attest that on really wide shots with lots of detail, like looking into a dense forest, the bitrate limitation on the 7D limits the detail you can have. It's pretty straightforward to see. I agree. And the sad part is, it's not that the sensor isn't resolving less at this point, it's the compressor. With the AF100, you really do get more detail. And hey, if you felt like you were pushing the AVCHD codec too hard, in really challenging scenarios, then you can always hook up an external recorder.

One of the areas of the GH2 I am not happy with is when you have a moving frame. With the AF100, I think the intermediate frames in large motion scenarios are MUCH MORE forgiving. On the GH2, you get more mudd than you would on the AF100, from the tests I have been involved with. Is it a deal breaker? No, not for most. Like I said, I do VFX and if you have to rotoscope moving objects, BELIEVE ME, you want less mudd.

Some people get the impression (probably because some people feel this way) that you cannot shoot amazing video with a DSLR, which is ENTIRELY untrue. You can under the right conditions. We have tons of amazing footage we shot that I still love just as much today that I did on the 7D. What our videos don't show is the lost footage from jello and moire, or show you all the time we spent matching up audio, or doing all the visual effects work and rotoscoping a couple hundred frames that were tough because of aliasing and color contamination. Let's put all those hours in perspective. Even if I said my hour was worth $20, believe me when I tell you, the time I have used to fix issues from the 7D SURPASSES the extra cost on the AF100. That's what I want to get rid of. I'd rather spend a little more to save more of my time, which is money :) (I say it in this way because I do a lot of independent work with friends that we don't have a client).

I've got my first real shoot in a week at night shooting fight scenes for an independent film. I'm excited to really push the camera in this as I am VERY familiar with shooting fight scenes with the 7D at night and day.
 
What lenses are you using? Because the truth is, on the S35/ M43 cameras glass is starting to become the performance deciding factor again, like the old days on film.

When shooting Verse before dying, I tested the AF100 with the 14-140 and then with Zeiss ZF's, then again with Zeiss CP1's.

The visual difference between the $500 lens, and the $2500 lens was significant
 
I'm not getting into a lens discussion :) I use a handful of SLR lenses and I really like them a lot. I've compared the IQ of my lens to much more expensive lens, including detail, and I was satisfied with the quality I was getting, on my AF100.

I look at it this way. Our mini-series that is shot with the 7D which even if we said is somewhat less real resolution, has over 2milliion combined views on YouTube. Not once, in any comment, from any person, did anyone say "Wow, too bad your videos aren't sharper!" And we do upload in 1080p. Nor when we've shown them like recently at a trade show for airsoft guns. Now with the AF100, we should be slightly sharper. In fact, most people when they find out we used a 7D stills camera are in shock. The response is typically "But it looks so hollywood".

In fact, the more I think about it, I don't ever remember people saying "Man, I cannot wait till the AF100 comes out, it's going to be so sharp" Why would anyone even have that expectation back then? It was always assumed that the CMOS sensor was somewhat related to the GH1 or later the GH2, and we knew that the OLPF would be tuned higher to reduce more aliasing which would reduce false detail in the image and make it look a bit softer. No one EVER said any differently, so if someone had a false expectation on what the camera could do, they shouldn't have gotten it here.

I NEVER NOT ONCE had put detail as my own reason to buy an AF100. I always assumed that detail wise it would be on par with the AF100, and from a non codec limiting perspective, it's exactly as I expected.
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't know how they came up with the 800 TVL spec. I can show you 800 TVL cleanly resolved on the diagonal wedge of the 4K res chart, and 800 TVL cleanly resolved on the circular zone plate of The Wringer (when recorded in 4:2:2). But I cannot show you 800 TVL on a typical horizontal or vertical wedge; it doesn't do that. It seems to top out at about 650 on the standard horz/vert wedge.
Click to expand...

Thank for the info Barry, it does confirm the discrepancy in reported resolution. The res looks a bit soft to me and it's not my lenses, I have compared to scaled down stills and there is over 900 lines. 650 lines is barely HD :) More disappointing than the res to me is the posterisation. But that's another story. Anyway yes it's much better than the 7D overall, just not much better res.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, I have mine for 1 week now and so far only with this basic 14-42 Lumix zoom lens, I can't wait to get a shipment of GH2 packed with 3 other Lumix lenses + ordered Voigtlander Nokton 25mm lens ! Cheers from Slovakia ;-)
 
Lovely camera. Much more solid than I thought it would be. Nicely designed. Looking forward to working with it.Waiting on a couple of lens adapters so I can use the many Nikkors collected over the years including a 50 f1.4 and 100mm f2.5. The Lumix 14-140 is nice , but oh so slow. Hoping there will be a faster Lumix on the horizon or announced at NAB.
 
this is a little silly but I really love this camera. have been shooting a ton with it and having a ball. she's even picked up a few battle scars here and there. will be (likely) embarking on my second feature this fall, a crime thriller, and look forward to using her on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top