Thinking about me, my AF100 and a lot of lenses...

I'm in the same boat, but I'm not going to jump overboard...yet. Since I do have such fine MFT glass, I picked up a BMCC MFT camera and started playing with it this week. On the imaging front: WOW. WOW! WOW!! WOW!!!

As anybody who has read anything about the BMCC knows, there are many features missing, such as audio meters, remaining recording time indicators, etc., etc. But for me, the big hangup is due to the fact that the BMCC has an audible fan, which kinda wrecks things for my primary application, which is recording video for audio recording sessions. I need my cameras to be silent, which actually rules out EVERY SINGLE 4K CAMERA CURRENTLY BEING SOLD. It also rules out the 4K-wannabes, including the 2.5K RAW BMCC.

Not everybody needs a silent camera, but everybody has their #1, their #2, and their #3 care-abouts. I could live with the prodigious amount of data that 2.5K RAW generates, kinda. (With 480GB consumed in 50 minutes, I cannot record a 90 minute concert without interruption, which is also a bug, but a bug in just one corner case I care about.) I can easily live with no audio at all (because my recording studio captures all that for me--all I need is to sync to the slate and timecode and I'm good). I can live with an internal, non-replaceable battery that goes only 40 minutes when disconnected from power...because my location is full of power I can tap. But I cannot live with a fan that can be heard over silence.

So now I have to learn to fall back in love with the AF100, after just a few nights of pure sex with the BMCC imaging capabilities. I do have BMD Shuttles recording 4:2:2 from my AF100s, but they don't make up for the fact that the sensor doesn't come *close* to the resolution and dynamic range of the BMCC. Or the C300. Or the C500. Or the F5. Or the F55. Or the Scarlett. Or the RED. Or the DRAGON. I want 10 real bits of dynamic range. I want > 1000 lines of resolution. I want a MFT imaging sensor. I want focus assist with at least 1:1 pixel mapping so I can really see what I'm focusing on. And I want it to stay quiet. An AF150 could do that. Heck, an AF130 or even an AF120 could do that. But the AF100A doesn't do it. Any nothing else does, either.

I'm miserable!
 
Last edited:
After using both AF100 and GH2 cameras for a couple years, my conclusions:

1. AF100: crappy highlights, detailed shadows. GH2: detailed highlights, crappy shadows.
2. AF100: minimal skew, terrible motion artifacts. GH2 (hacked): terrible skew, minimal artifacts
3. AF100: rich details with a very sharp lens. GH2: rich details with an uncorrected Leica lens.
4. AF100: pro audio connections and controls. GH2: consumer audio connections, no control.
5. AF100: big, but lightweight & self-contained. GH2: small & lightweight, but needs much support.
6. AF100: pricey underachiever, but worth it. GH2: cheap overachiever, but problematic in use.

Fave AF100 setup: Olympus 14-35mm f2, Tiffen Ultra Contrast 3, Manfrotto 521pfi remote.
Fave GH2 setup: Leicasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5, Rode VideoMic, CowboyStudio shoulder rig.
 
Thanks everyone for your opinions. Very valuable, as always.

So I decided to keep all my lenses and stick with MFT for another year. Let's see what Panasonic will have announced until the second half of 2014. Of course I hope there will be a successor on the horizon. I would buy something like the AF100A instantly if they just would update the sensor and give it two more stops of dynamic range. Everything else is just fine on this camera. At least for me.

If they are going to skip the whole idea of a prosumer MFT cinema camera then I hope they will develop a much more professional GHx camera with optional XLR connections. Let's see. And hope.
 
Barry_Green said:
Even if there were no AF successor, there's still a huge market to resell those lenses to. All the Olympus and Panasonic stills camera owners, plus the BMC pocket camera, the BMC MFT camera, and -- if it comes into existence -- the BMC 4K MFT camera that was rumored and has not a shred of evidence to support it but -- in any case, there is a huge market to resell to if you decided to get out of MFT.
Click to expand...

Yes, on ebay MFT lenses still command a premium.
 
freezeframereality said:
If they are going to skip the whole idea of a prosumer MFT cinema camera then I hope they will develop a much more professional GHx camera with optional XLR connections. Let's see. And hope.
Click to expand...
But bear in mind that first and foremost the GHx cameras are cameras primarily intended for taking STILL photographs. The video mode is there as more of an extra, not a prime feature. I'm not denying that it's capable of producing a standard of quality that is surprisingly good for the price (same as the Canon DSLRs) but it's not the equal of a camera designed specifically for video capture in the first place. (Likewise, don't expect the standard of still images from the latter to rival those from a DSLR! :) )

So, if the designers were to do such as putting XLR connections etc onto a GHx, they would be compromising it's primary role. Buyers who get it primarily to take photographs wouldn't appreciate the extra weight, size etc for something that's irrelevant to still photography.

And really, isn't the AF100 what you are referring to anyway? Panasonic took the heart of a GH1/2 and built it into a more video friendly design, with established video codec, gave XLRs and proper audio control/monitoring features, and other features more of use for video such as NDs and exposure metering.

4/3 and lenses are likely to stay around for a while - but the question is whether that will be on what are fundamentally stills cameras, or whether in a more dedicated video role. That question is much less to do with any image quality factors than feature set - what matters for stills usage is not the same as for video. Yes, a lot of people may be making use of lenses designed for stills as it is..... but it's not the same thing. (As example, video really needs true zoom lenses - not varifocal, where focus changes with angle of view - but for still photography varifocal is fine.)

And that comes back to the original points. Apart from Panasonic and the AF100, most manufacturers have gone heavily down the s35 route for large sensor video cameras of varying prices - and the new lenses, optimised for video, have largely followed along - also for s35. Panasonic announcing the 4K Varicam will be s35 just leaves me feeling that we are very unlikely to see any "AF200" being 4/3, both for marketing and technical reasons. (Though I can see an AF200 coming along in a few years, using the same (s35) sensor, but without many of the features of the Varicam.)

If you've already got 4/3 lenses, then they aren't going to stop working overnight. If their prime purpose is still photography, fine. But if you're starting now, thinking of now buying glass primarily for video use, on cameras primarily designed for video, then I'd still argue that s35 looks to have far more of a future than 4/3. It looks like BM are now going to s35 for the 4K, it's what Panasonic are going with for the Varicam, and I shall be very, very surprised if any "AF200" is anything other than s35 as well.
 
harddrive said:
But bear in mind that first and foremost the GHx cameras are cameras primarily intended for taking STILL photographs. The video mode is there as more of an extra, not a prime feature. I'm not denying that it's capable of producing a standard of quality that is surprisingly good for the price (same as the Canon DSLRs) but it's not the equal of a camera designed specifically for video capture in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, I have both cameras and I know why I prefer the AF100 over the GH3 most of the time.

harddrive said:
So, if the designers were to do such as putting XLR connections etc onto a GHx, they would be compromising it's primary role. Buyers who get it primarily to take photographs wouldn't appreciate the extra weight, size etc for something that's irrelevant to still photography.
Click to expand...

I thought of something like an optional XLR accessory, maybe a top handle or a something with the size of a battery grip. Users who don't need it will have no extra weight or cost.

---

harddrive said:
Apart from Panasonic and the AF100, most manufacturers have gone heavily down the s35 route for large sensor video cameras of varying prices - and the new lenses, optimised for video, have largely followed along - also for s35. Panasonic announcing the 4K Varicam will be s35 just leaves me feeling that we are very unlikely to see any "AF200" being 4/3, both for marketing and technical reasons. (Though I can see an AF200 coming along in a few years, using the same (s35) sensor, but without many of the features of the Varicam.)
Click to expand...

vs.

mcbob said:
MFT was chosen for the AF because Panasonic makes a whole mess of MFT and 4/3 lenses but no S35 or larger lenses. If the proposed 4K Varicam has a PL mount for professional S35 cinema glass, that makes sense because PL lenses aren't a huge market. Making their prosumer-level cinema camera for S35 lenses, on the other hand, makes no sense. Assuming they make another, it will use their established 4/3 and MFT lens line. There's been no lack of development of video-optimized MFT sensors... compare the GH3 to the just-released D70, for instance.

Canon and Sony similarly chose mounts and sensors that complemented their established lens offerings. Panasonic will not make a camera optimized for somebody else's lenses.
Click to expand...

---

These are both very good arguments...
 
freezeframereality said:
I thought of something like an optional XLR accessory, maybe a top handle or a something with the size of a battery grip. Users who don't need it will have no extra weight or cost....
Click to expand...
I see what you're thinking of, but I think it may not be as simple as it may appear. It's not just the aspects of size, mounting etc, but the connectivity needed, phantom powering and a host of other matters. I strongly suspect you're talking about some quite major redesign of some aspects of the camera, and that will involve an extra cost even if you only want stills mode.

And where do you draw the line? Other users may say what about codec options? Exposure control? At the end of the day, we're talking about a camera intended for taking still photographs. I can easily see the logic for Panasonic of bringing out a video friendly camera based on the GHx front end - that's the AF100 - but I'm much less sure about any half-way house such as you refer to. I think most users may still go either for a standard GHx for cost, size etc, or go the whole way for an AF100/C100/FS100.

As far as the comparison of arguments above, then whilst Panasonic may be more into 4/3 than s35 lenses, then they are largely lenses primarily intended for still cameras. For s35, you can often use lenses designed for larger format DSLRs - you're not restricted to PL mount - but there are increasingly starting to be more options in the way of lenses designed primarily for video. I'm thinking in terms of zooms (not just varifocal), and servo ones at that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top