Video Quality on AF100/GH2

T

Thomas Church

Active member
What real difference will there be?

As a future AF100 buyer I sort of expect the AF100 image quality to show some substancial improvement over the GH2.

I don't wanna start losing jobs because other guy shows up with two or three GH2s since they produce pretty much the same image.

And forget about moire and aliasing, I'm talking about real image superiority.
 
Thomas Church said:
What real difference will there be?

As a future AF100 buyer I sort of expect the AF100 image quality to show some substancial improvement over the GH2.

I don't wanna start losing jobs because other guy shows up with two or three GH2s since they produce pretty much the same image.

And forget about moire and aliasing, I'm talking about real image superiority.
Click to expand...

Lack of moire and aliasing ARE part of the image superiority. Also being able to have quality sound recorded directly to the camera saves time in post syncing as well as maybe having one less person on set and/or one less device to record the sound. Also saving time and effort lighting with the use of all the standard video came feature of the AF100 like the histogram. All these things make a more user friendly and efficient camera.
 
I'm usually not in favor of "locking" features, but at the very least the AF100 should be able to have a higher bitrate for video, do different framerates, while the GH2 can't.

If not, the near 3K price difference doesn't seem worth it just to reduce moire, have quality sound and exposure tools.
 
I forgot the built it ND filters. That will save time. A turn of the knob is far quicker and more efficient than screwing on a filter.
 
Thomas Church said:
I'm usually not in favor of "locking" features, but at the very least the AF100 should be able to have a higher bitrate for video, do different framerates, while the GH2 can't.

If not, the near 3K price difference doesn't seem worth it just to reduce moire, have quality sound and exposure tools.
Click to expand...

It does for me.
 
Thomas Church said:
I'm usually not in favor of "locking" features, but at the very least the AF100 should be able to have a higher bitrate for video, do different framerates, while the GH2 can't.

If not, the near 3K price difference doesn't seem worth it just to reduce moire, have quality sound and exposure tools.
Click to expand...

I would say the 3K price difference is justifiable just in those few reasons, in my book. Also as posted above, the reduced post production time will be greatly decreased. If you shoot 50 gigs a year, at a minimum of 5 hrs of footage per job, that's a LOT of post work that will be decreased throughout the year. How much will that be worth to you? Maybe with that time savings you'll be able to pick up 1 extra job a year. With that one single aspect alone it will pay for it's price difference.
 
But with the money for an AF100 you can buy three GH2s and shoot multicam.

I think it's pretty crazy that a 800 dollar camera produces the same image that a 4.7 K camera does.

You can buy two GH2s, a Sound Devices field mixer (600), two affordable lenses and it's still cheaper than an AF100.

Please Barry, tell me I'm wrong and the AF100 has a noticeably superior image over the GH2.
 
Showing a broadcast client a clip with moire is a good way to get fired, and the 3k difference is more than worth it.

if it isn't worth it to you on your projects, then go ahead and get the GH2.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Showing a broadcast client a clip with moire is a good way to get fired, and the 3k difference is more than worth it.

if it isn't worth it to you on your projects, then go ahead and get the GH2.
Click to expand...

The moire on the GH2 is practically gone, so I read.

I'm just asking this because I plan to shoot some narrative stuff in which having two cameras would be perfect.

I don't like working with DSLRs in general, but if I can get two cameras and lenses for half the price of an AF100, it seems like the right choice.
 
Last edited:
mcgeedigital said:
Showing a broadcast client a clip with moire is a good way to get fired, and the 3k difference is more than worth it.

if it isn't worth it to you on your projects, then go ahead and get the GH2.
Click to expand...

I thought I read that the GH2 had seriously reduced moire/aliasing. Am I wrong? Bloom also mentioned that 3200 ISO was very clean. I'm hoping that 3200 ISO is just as clean on the AF100. I'm glad that Canon and Panasonic have photo divisions. I think they help keep their video divisions honest. :-)
 
Thomas Church said:
But with the money for an AF100 you can buy three GH2s and shoot multicam.

I think it's pretty crazy that a 800 dollar camera produces the same image that a 4.7 K camera does.

You can buy two GH2s, a Sound Devices field mixer (600), two affordable lenses and it's still cheaper than an AF100.

Please Barry, tell me I'm wrong and the AF100 has a noticeably superior image over the GH2.
Click to expand...

Much of this depends on if you are editing the shows you are shooting. I do a lot of work
for one producer who also shoots plenty of day shoots where he hands off a data drive
of P2 footage when he is done shooting. I could not imagine producers wanting double sound hassles
in post to save a few hundred on a shoot. That reason alone will get most producers
to think reallly hard before hiring some young lad with some GH2's and a ZOOM H4N....
Not saying it won't happen. I take my 7D on shoots all the time as a B-cam
and I do have an H4N but trying to do a whole production that involves
sound on camera gives you a few seconds of pause.
It's the post......I think about the most.
 
Don't forget about the gamma controls, color adjustments, better lcd screen, better and adjustable evf, better build quality, Barry's book, etc, etc
 
You guys have got to remember that we don't even know if the AF100 and the GH2 have the same sensor. They very well might not. And they certainly don't use the same image processing chipset.
 
Well in PAL land the GH2 doesnt have 25p @ 24mbps. That alone kills it for me.

But heres my take. And lets say for the sake of my point the GH2 image is exactly the same as the AF100.

Heres why I am happy to pay the difference.
- HD-SDI out. Long cable runs. Ability to record and passthrough signal on devices that allow it such as ki pro mini. Ability to record 4:2:2. Ability to connect to broadcast standard monitors / waveform monitors (go find me a CRT monitor with HDMI).
- TC Sync. Need I say more?
- Waveform and Vector scope. Yes, vectorscope doesnt seem to get much of a mention here, but it has it.
- Better lens mount (than a gh1 anyway, though due to size limitations on the GH2 I suspect same would be true).
- Built in 2 channel balanced XLRs, with phantom power. Line and mic switchable.
- Body audio switches (only need to go into menu on some functions and Im not just talking about record level here)
- Flexible body set-up. Removable top handle and side handle for different mounting options and set ups.
- 3 user assignable buttons for quick access to regular functions.
- Rear access to cards and batteries.
- More record modes with overcrank.
- Video relatable scene file functions (things that relate to what you see on vectorscopes and waveforms and being able to adjust easily what you see there)
- High res EVF.

Well theres more, but they are the ones that mean more to me.
 
I'm on board with Noel. I've been using 2 gh1's for awhile and I'll be more than happy if the image is the same as that. I'm just excited to have a video camera back. I always get anxious when I am using the gh1's. I'm afraid that they will lock up or take a dive on me on a shoot. Plus I actually had a client ask me If I got that camera (GH1) at Best Buy or something because he was looking for a gift for her daughter. She thought it was "cute" that it could do photos and video. I was a little embarrassed. Not to say that size or perception is everything but I like to think of myself as a professional and I should be bringing professional equipment.
 
811productions said:
I'm on board with Noel. I've been using 2 gh1's for awhile and I'll be more than happy if the image is the same as that. I'm just excited to have a video camera back. I always get anxious when I am using the gh1's. I'm afraid that they will lock up or take a dive on me on a shoot. Plus I actually had a client ask me If I got that camera (GH1) at Best Buy or something because he was looking for a gift for her daughter. She thought it was "cute" that it could do photos and video. I was a little embarrassed. Not to say that size or perception is everything but I like to think of myself as a professional and I should be bringing professional equipment.
Click to expand...

Ouch, never fun when a woman says your camera is "cute".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top