Thinking about buying an AF100

K

Kuato_Lives87

New member
Hey guys,

Love this site and find it extremely informative. I put a lot of stock in what most of the folks have to say here. I've been lurking around debating on a camera to get and was hoping if people thought an AF100 is an appropriate investment.

For sake of budget I was thinking about getting an HDSLR camera but I was turned towards the AF100 for it's ability to do much of what the HDSLRs out there can do while still offering you the options and image control of a video camera.

For my purposes I mainly want to use this for short films, freelance work, commercials and what not. For the most part all of what I have heard about the AF100 has been overwhelmingly positive. The few cons I have come across have my thinking about and I wanted to hear some of the more experienced of you give me some advice as to how this will affect me.

The first thing that comes to mine is the native ACVHD codec. Most any review of this camera dings it for this. I know most broadcasters won't accept it and while it's not automatically that concerning I am curious as to how this has frustrated other people. I've heard that if you aren't using a nanoflash or other external recorder you really aren't getting the best out of this camera. If I'm going to take on the extra money to snag an external recorder I wanna make sure that's a logical step to take as opposed to looking into another camera of that nature.

Interchangeable lens capabilities are a must for me and from what I can tell this camera gives you a lot of options for that but may give you some grief with certain lenses. I don't know how much truth there is to this but I was also wondering if anyone has had any issues with lenses.

At the end of the day this is a really good looking and affordable camera for me. I just want to make sure I'm getting the most bang for my buck with it. I'm gonna need to buy a lens kit and audio eqiuipment so thats already gonna bump up the final price. I'm wondering how vital it is that I invest in an external recorder as well.

Thanks for the help in advance. The short and skinny of it is this: should I go ahead and buy this camera or is there something out there better for me?

Look forward to hearing from you guys.
 
I think for bang for the buck you can't really do any better. I just got off 2 days shooting and can tell you that this camera just plain chugs. It's reliable as you could possibly want and great to work with. It's extremely flexible and delivers really great images. Check the screen grabs and footage on that thread.

The lens choices are endless since you can use just about anything with a decent adapter. I have m4/3 lenses for my wides including and 11-22 Oly, 12mm SlrMagic. I have a 25mm Voigtlander which is just a dream, and my 35, 50 and 85 are Nikon mounts, Zeiss ZFs. You may want something in the 12 - 25 range. Really good shooters are liking the new Lumix 12-35.

I can't comment from experience about the recorder. I don't have one. I've never really needed it.
 
Ill touch on few of your questions.

I wouldn't buy a new one today. Wait for the AF-100a to be available and see if anything new comes from it. I dont think it will have a image update but it does have 10bit out of sdi and focus magnification. These have been stated by Panasonic.

As for the internal codec it's pretty good and if your shooting TVC for most markets all you need to do is delivery the spot in the format they can air. In the United States they aren't as picky about what camera or codec you shoot with. Just deliver in the format they air and your good. Check with your clients and local broadcast stations to make sure. External recorder isn't a must purchase and maybe if you do lots of green screen but even then I pulled keys with the AVCHD codec.

Lenses are a big plus with MFT cameras. You can use so many different lenses and mounts its crazy! Stay away from EOS lenses. They need an electronic mount. Added expense. Search around the forum. Lots of info on lenses.

So if you want one today buy a used one and save a few bucks for lenses.

Good luck!
 
Kuato_Lives87 said:
The first thing that comes to mine is the native ACVHD codec. Most any review of this camera dings it for this. I know most broadcasters won't accept it and while it's not automatically that concerning I am curious as to how this has frustrated other people.
Click to expand...
AVCHD is what cameras in this price bracket use. It's on par with the NXCAM that Sony uses in its FS100/FS700, and on par with the XDCAM that the EX1/3 and F3 use. It's pretty much fine. Lots and lots of people have been worried about it, thinking they'd "need" and external recorder, and then once they try out the AVCHD, they find that it's good enough for their uses.

I've heard that if you aren't using a nanoflash or other external recorder you really aren't getting the best out of this camera.
Click to expand...
Well, that's true, but -- I mean, I have a Nanoflash, and I'd say I use it about 5% of the time. 95% of the time, I just record straight to the internal codec. For greenscreen work, the Nano does help, but people have pulled perfectly good keys off of the internal codec too.

Lots of people have done side-by-side comparisons between the internal codec and external recorders, and the net upshot is: in most scenarios, it's very difficult to see a difference. Maybe if you're shooting a bright daylight forest with a rippling river running through it while using the camera handheld to film a chase scene, well, in that case, yes -- an external will probably provide a significantly better image. But for interviews or normal shots, I think it's pretty difficult to tell.

The AF100A may offer a bigger benefit to going to an external recorder, in that it has a 10-bit output, and therefore if you used a 10-bit recorder you'd get more out of the image than from the native recorder.

But -- is an external recorder a necessity? I think if you did a poll of AF100 users, my guess is that probably 80%, or more, don't even have an external recorder at all. And of those of us who do, I suspect that you'd find that most of us don't use it for every shot.

from what I can tell this camera gives you a lot of options for that but may give you some grief with certain lenses.
Click to expand...
The only lenses that are problematical is the Canon EF lenses, because they don't have aperture rings. You need an electronic adapter to use those; specifically the Redrock LiveLens. For pretty much any other lens made, it's an easy fit and no problem.

I'm wondering how vital it is that I invest in an external recorder as well.
Click to expand...
Like I tell everyone, try it out first. You may find that you're completely satisfied with the internal recording.

Thanks for the help in advance. The short and skinny of it is this: should I go ahead and buy this camera or is there something out there better for me?
Click to expand...
There's nothing else out there at its price point that does what the AF100 does. You can get a better camera if you spend more, but for the combination of features and price that you mentioned was appealing to you, the AF100 is about the only one. The other camera to consider would be if you wanted to wait for the AF100A. As far as I know that's only been discussed on Japanese sites as the AF105A, I haven't heard any firm commitments from the USA office about bringing it here. I expect that they will, but what I'm saying is that I don't think we have any idea as to when that will arrive on the market.
 
Kuato_Lives87 said:
The first thing that comes to mine is the native ACVHD codec. Most any review of this camera dings it for this. I know most broadcasters won't accept it and while it's not automatically that concerning I am curious as to how this has frustrated other people. I've heard that if you aren't using a nanoflash or other external recorder you really aren't getting the best out of this camera. If I'm going to take on the extra money to snag an external recorder I wanna make sure that's a logical step to take as opposed to looking into another camera of that nature.
Click to expand...

Just to piggyback on what the other guys say, I use a Hyperdeck Shuttle when I need it, but I'd say that's only for about 15% of the shots on any given shoot. I usually have it hanging around for stuff that I'm going to do heavy After Effects work to, or for really low-light stuff (gives me slightly more information to play with when grading). That said, I survived with the AVCHD codec alone for about a year after I got my camera (long enough for it to pay for itself and more), and honestly don't see why people don't like it - other than they expect $13k performance out of a $5k (now $3.5k) camera. ;)

Anyway, I'd say you'll be fine with AVCHD as long as you make it a point to learn how to set your scene files up properly early on. Happy shooting!

- Jon
 
Kuato_Lives87 said:
Hey guys,

For sake of budget I was thinking about getting an HDSLR camera but I was turned towards the AF100 for it's ability to do much of what the HDSLRs out there can do while still offering you the options and image control of a video camera.
Click to expand...

It can't just do much of what DSLRs do. It can do all that they do and more. There may be a thing or two it wont do as well but it definitely can do all of it.

Kuato_Lives87 said:
For my purposes I mainly want to use this for short films, freelance work, commercials and what not. For the most part all of what I have heard about the AF100 has been overwhelmingly positive. The few cons I have come across have my thinking about and I wanted to hear some of the more experienced of you give me some advice as to how this will affect me.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are always cons to anything at any price range. As nobody has touched upon the cons yet in the replies, and I wonder why not since you asked, I will do the (dis)honors.

The AF100 has some issues with highlight handling in some people's opinions. For some it's not an issue.

It also has some banding issues and it needs to be set up properly to try to avoid banding. But it's hard to avoid it 100% of the time.

Because it doesn't have a focus expanding feature (the new AF100A will have this) some complain it's hard to nail focus with it.

Some also complain it's not sharp enough, although for me this has never been a issue. I find it sharp enough.

My advice to you is to rent one before you buy. Do not buy one before renting or using one for a couple of days. Specially try the camera out under harsh sunlight and also low light to see if you like the camera. Again, do not buy before using one and I don't mean trying it out for 5 minutes inside a store. Renting or borrowing one will make sure you will not be disappointed later.

Kuato_Lives87 said:
The first thing that comes to mine is the native ACVHD codec. Most any review of this camera dings it for this. I know most broadcasters won't accept it and while it's not automatically that concerning I am curious as to how this has frustrated other people. I've heard that if you aren't using a nanoflash or other external recorder you really aren't getting the best out of this camera. If I'm going to take on the extra money to snag an external recorder I wanna make sure that's a logical step to take as opposed to looking into another camera of that nature.
Click to expand...

If you are in the U.S. it may not be a problem as already said. If you are in Europe then it may be a problem for broadcast. Most European broadcasters have more strict standards than American ones. Is the AVCHD good enough? Honestly I don't know as I have never shot anything serious with it. I did some tests and once I found that there were advantages with an external recorder I never looked back. I use a Hyperdeck Shuttle 100% of the time. It's quite light weight and it's so cheap that it just doesn't make sense to shoot to the SD cards for my needs. Also, at least IMO you absolutely can see a difference. Colors are visibly better to the naked eye and the noise is more pure instead of macro blocking. So it's easier to denoise and looks overall better. Also, apart from fully uncompressed, the Hyperdeck also gives you the option of Avid DNxHD and ProRes, which are both much easier to edit than AVCHD in most NLEs besides also being higher quality.

Kuato_Lives87 said:
Interchangeable lens capabilities are a must for me and from what I can tell this camera gives you a lot of options for that but may give you some grief with certain lenses. I don't know how much truth there is to this but I was also wondering if anyone has had any issues with lenses.
Click to expand...

This is one if not the best part of the AF100 and other M4/3 cameras. It will take pretty much any lens. Canon EF as mentioned are more problematic than others because of the electronic iris, but they can still be used to shoot wide open or if you get an electronic adapter. As long as the lens will cover the sensor size you can probably find an adapter for them.

Kuato_Lives87 said:
At the end of the day this is a really good looking and affordable camera for me. I just want to make sure I'm getting the most bang for my buck with it. I'm gonna need to buy a lens kit and audio eqiuipment so thats already gonna bump up the final price. I'm wondering how vital it is that I invest in an external recorder as well.
Click to expand...

A Hyperdeck is so cheap and it can be used with any camera with a SDI out. So for me it was a non brainer.
If you want the best bang for the buck, buy used. You can find very low use AF100 cameras for great prices if you look. But again, make sure you rent or borrow one for a few days before buying. This is essential. You will be glad you did.

Kuato_Lives87 said:
Thanks for the help in advance. The short and skinny of it is this: should I go ahead and buy this camera or is there something out there better for me?
Click to expand...

There is always something better. It just depends on how much you want to pay or the workflow you are interested. The AF100 has some great features that make your life easier as a shooter. But if you are willing to put up with a different type of workflow, there are other options in the same price bracket or cheaper that will give you comparable images. It really just depends on your needs. What is more important for you? The final image? The whole package? Feature set? Easy of use? In what order?

Should you go ahead and buy an AF100? No. You should go ahead and rent/borrow one first. Then come back here for a second round of discussions and questions once you have the camera in hand (the rented one).

Good luck!
 
Adamsenoj said:
Should you go ahead and buy an AF100? No. You should go ahead and rent/borrow one first. Then come back here for a second round of discussions and questions once you have the camera in hand (the rented one).
Click to expand...

Adam hit the nail on the head. It's definitely something you'll want to rent first, especially if you've might have been shooting on DSLRs in the past. It's a whole different animal from a DSLR (more menus, image control options, etc.). You should be able to find a rental pretty cheap these days as well.

- Jon
 
Adamsenoj said:
It also has some banding issues and it needs to be set up properly to try to avoid banding. But it's hard to avoid it 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Except the new AF100A, with it's 10-bit SDI out, coupled with a Blackmagic Shuttle 2 recorder, should eliminate this issue entirely.
 
Hi Kuato,
You could get Barry Green's AF100 DVD before buying. It's a great introduction to what the camcorder can do. It's also a good introduction to setting up a professional camcorder. If you thoroughly go through that 2-DVD set, you'll be able to set up the AF100 to do what you want.
 
Barry_Green said:
...Lots and lots of people have been worried about it, thinking they'd "need" and external recorder, and then once they try out the AVCHD, they find that it's good enough for their uses...95% of the time, I just record straight to the internal codec...Lots of people have done side-by-side comparisons between the internal codec and external recorders, and the net upshot is: in most scenarios, it's very difficult to see a difference...for...normal shots, I think it's pretty difficult to tell....The AF100A may offer a bigger benefit to going to an external recorder, in that it has a 10-bit output, and therefore if you used a 10-bit recorder you'd get more out of the image than from the native recorder....But -- is an external recorder a necessity? I think if you did a poll of AF100 users, my guess is that probably 80%, or more, don't even have an external recorder at all. And of those of us who do, I suspect that you'd find that most of us don't use it for every shot....
Click to expand...

I'd just like to add that I'm one of the few AF100 owners that has a great external recorder and prefers to use it to its fullest (10-bit capture). But like Barry is saying above, most people don't bother or care. So, if you're one of those numerous people that's content with recording with the internal AVCHD codec, then the AF100 might be an excellent choice for you.

If the AF100A does indeed come to the U.S., and you are interested in buying mine (very gently used and with the 1080/60P installed), just PM me. I'm looking to upgrade to the AF100A asap. But I don't mean to hijack this thread, so again, just PM me if you're interested.
 
Gary Huff said:
Except the new AF100A, with it's 10-bit SDI out, coupled with a Blackmagic Shuttle 2 recorder, should eliminate this issue entirely.
Click to expand...

Can't really say till tested. The camera is not out yet. On paper the GH2 also should never even come close to the AF100, but we all know the truth. But given the 10 bit specs the chances are very good indeed.
 
DC said:
If the AF100A does indeed come to the U.S., and you are interested in buying mine (very gently used and with the 1080/60P installed), just PM me. I'm looking to upgrade to the AF100A asap. But I don't mean to hijack this thread, so again, just PM me if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Thanks man I'll definitely keep that in mind.
 
Thanks for all the helpful advice guys. I really appreciate it. I'd be an idiot not to take the advice I asked for so I think I'm gonna go out and rent an AF100 and see how it feels. I'll let you know how it works for me.

Thanks again for all the information.
 
"Raid: The Redemption" behind the scenes: (will start at the camera package part)

1 AF100 + a fig rig + a nanoflash. I'm told it looked great on the 55 foot screen at it's premiere at Ryerson Theatre in Toronto. I helped setup the room, but didn't go see it myself...duh!

Also check out DVX User Eric Naso's AF100 projects:
http://eriknaso.com/portfolio/1497/

My point is that when dialed in and used within its performance envelope this camera is amazing.

Cheers,
Craig
 
Pickthorne said:
"Raid: The Redemption" behind the scenes: (will start at the camera package part)

1 AF100 + a fig rig + a nanoflash. I'm told it looked great on the 55 foot screen at it's premiere at Ryerson Theatre in Toronto. I helped setup the room, but didn't go see it myself...duh!
Click to expand...

Honestly I have no idea why people keep bringing up the Raid as example of what the AF100 can do. Is it because it's the only commercially released film known to have been shot on the AF100? It's a fun movie but it looks absolutely like crap. Washed out colors, murky skin tones, soft and low def all around, noise and just not good at all. Even film reviewers complain about the image quality. It has to be one of the worst examples of AF100 material out there. This very forum is full of stuff that looks better than The Raid. I think even the D.P. came in here and said they didn't use the camera to it's full potential. They don't seem to have chosen the camera for what it can do. It's a bit like saying how awesome the Canon XL1 is because Soderbergh shot Full Frontal with it and Boyle shot 28 Days later with it, when the very reason they chose the camera was because it looked like crap and they were after that look and thought it was easier, cheaper and better to do that way than to degrade 35mm. Also for the practicability of the format, which I think was also the reason they chose the AF100 for The Raid. For it being practical. So this is probably why it seems like nobody worried about getting the best out of it. I know it was a creative decision, but it still a very bad example of image quality from the AF100. It can do way better than that, easily.
 
I got one about six weeks ago. Just shot some interviews for an AIDS awareness documentary. If you keep from over-exposing, and light the subject properly, the images will astound you. I was taken back by the use of just one LED light and a reflector making a huge impact, that I went out and got the full kit!

Shoot with it. Shoot a lot, and analyze what you get, find it's strengths and weaknesses; then you will start to get the best out of any camera.
 
One thing to be aware of when renting to try out an AF100, is if you only use the presets as they come from the factory, you won't really see what the camera can do. Before renting, take a look at the "AF100 Scene File Recipe List" Topic. It has a sticky so it's easy to find. There you'll learn some of the adjustments that will help you get the most from the camera.

Come up with tweaks of your own, also. The combination of lighting, camera adjustments, shooting style, and post production treatment are what will give you the most satisfactory (excellent for many users) results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top