But she was thinking that.....
I thought it was bad when I went from a BetaCam to an HVX200, heh, heh....
Now I just walk around with my 7D and a Nikon 300MM as my "backup".
Video Quality on AF100/GH2
- Thread starter Thomas Church
- Start date
But she was thinking that.....
I thought it was bad when I went from a BetaCam to an HVX200, heh, heh....
Now I just walk around with my 7D and a Nikon 300MM as my "backup".
See, for me, that's what killed the AF-100 for me. I"m absolutely am hooked on the DSLR form factor now. I had to use a regular "proper" video camera the other day for a shoot and it disgusted me. It just felt archaic and obtrusive after using a 5D and 7D for over a year now. I love how the controls are right there... literally at my thumbs. I love how light they are on steady cams and rigs. I'm never going back to video camera unless the frame-rate is at 120fp and/or RAW video. There is no such thing as a "proper" video camera anymore. That is just FUD talk by older guys in the industry pissed off that their $20,000 "proper" video cameras are being stomped on by $1000 still cams that shoot video. But that's technology for you... look at the printing and recording industries.
The AF-100 and GH2 are both impressive cameras... but the size of the GH2 is just that much more impressive. Not to mention the 60i on the GH2 can be converted to progressive (with some after effects magic) and slowed down for some nice 1080p slo-mo.
And like what was mentioned earlier in this thread, the biggest selling point is price and the ability to buy 2 or 3 of these for the price of one AF-100. Multi-caming is amazing for narrative film-making and anyone who would sacrifice 2 cams for one with 5% better IQ is missing the point.
Oh well, rant over. Again, AF-100 and GH2 are both very impressive. But DSLR is the future...
But what do you do when the client wants to play back the last take and listen to audio? I don't want to deal with a mickey mouse setup when my butt relies on getting it right in the camera. If the client needs more than one camera, you charge them for another camera and rent it and hire another shooter, and pass along the cost. I can't see showing up with a camera that has all those limitations and trying to convince the guy from the agency paying me that I know what the heck I'm doing. You can make that $3 grand difference in three shoot-days, so it's best not to nickle and dime. I think you have a difference of people who come from a video eng/shooters background, who've done this for their whole careers, and people coming from a stills background learning video, or just getting into it, or just shooting indies or something.
maranfilms
Veteran
Why do you need Barry to tell you your wrong? If you dont trust your own eyes , then what difference does it make what cam you use?
mrmoonay Great post. Your 3rd post here and heres how you described some things I felt important. I hope this isnt indicative of how you might react to what is other forum members opinions. Whilst youre free to state your own why try to invalidate someone else's?
So allow me to retort without making any connection to you personally.
Im yet to come across someone in the industry who is good at what they do who thought this. In fact I know a lot of people (older guys as you call them) that have GH1's or like myself who has a 5DMKII in the kit, but it usually isnt the only tool they use. As many of these older guys realise its only one tool of many options. AF100 doesnt have the same form factor of any previous "video" type camera Ive ever used - you'll note I said non DSLR form factor as to me personally DSLR's are poorly balanced for "video" use.
Yes, you know us "older guys" often miss the point. We are older and therefor like me usually bitter and set in their ways. Like using proper exposure tools who really needs that right?
So allow me to retort without making any connection to you personally.
Im yet to come across someone in the industry who is good at what they do who thought this. In fact I know a lot of people (older guys as you call them) that have GH1's or like myself who has a 5DMKII in the kit, but it usually isnt the only tool they use. As many of these older guys realise its only one tool of many options. AF100 doesnt have the same form factor of any previous "video" type camera Ive ever used - you'll note I said non DSLR form factor as to me personally DSLR's are poorly balanced for "video" use.
Yes, you know us "older guys" often miss the point. We are older and therefor like me usually bitter and set in their ways. Like using proper exposure tools who really needs that right?
I'd still buy the AF100 over the GH2 even if the image was the same, too. It isn't just about the footage you get, it is about how easily and how reliably you can get it. Now if the image of the dSLR was markedly superior, there is a dilemma. Do you take the better looking footage and pucker up for the limitations? Or do you go with the more robust shooting tool and take the hit on quality?
Over the last year, we started shooting on 5D2/7D combo as well as our two HVX200's. It was hard to argue with the look of the Canon footage, despite the desperately awful handling. We still use the HVX's for anything "shot as live" but use the Canons for our more filmic episodes (we produce one video clip a week, 4-10 minutes usually).
For us, with a production schedule like that, any camera inside our price range that delivers footage as good as or better than the Canons, with the video cam features of the HVX200, is an absolute no-brainer. The number of hours of post I will save even just waiting for Pluraleyes to sync my H4N sound with my two Canons will probably pay for itself in a year- let alone all the time I will save by having got the exposure and lighting spot on on set with scopes and (hallelujah!) Zebras to warn when something's gone wrong and clipped.
I absolutely will pay $3000 to have the usability features of the video cam rather than the dSLR. Of course, everyone's shooting needs are different. If you shoot all your footage run and gun handheld, in snippets, you might well find the form factor of the dSLR attractive. For us, with controlled studio/location/set shooting in a filmic style, the video cam controls are well worth the money and will pay for themselves within the year in saved time in post, hassle on shoot days, more efficient shoots, and better footage- better because we got everything right on set, because we have the monitoring tools to do so. Oh, and unlike the 7D, the AF100 will not shut itself off from overheating every 30 minutes and need a rest. (I'm not suggesting the GH2 would need that, but it is a big difference from where my shoots are today!)
Going to the Creative Video presentation about the AF100 tomorrow, hoping to be blown away
Cheers, Hywel.
Over the last year, we started shooting on 5D2/7D combo as well as our two HVX200's. It was hard to argue with the look of the Canon footage, despite the desperately awful handling. We still use the HVX's for anything "shot as live" but use the Canons for our more filmic episodes (we produce one video clip a week, 4-10 minutes usually).
For us, with a production schedule like that, any camera inside our price range that delivers footage as good as or better than the Canons, with the video cam features of the HVX200, is an absolute no-brainer. The number of hours of post I will save even just waiting for Pluraleyes to sync my H4N sound with my two Canons will probably pay for itself in a year- let alone all the time I will save by having got the exposure and lighting spot on on set with scopes and (hallelujah!) Zebras to warn when something's gone wrong and clipped.
I absolutely will pay $3000 to have the usability features of the video cam rather than the dSLR. Of course, everyone's shooting needs are different. If you shoot all your footage run and gun handheld, in snippets, you might well find the form factor of the dSLR attractive. For us, with controlled studio/location/set shooting in a filmic style, the video cam controls are well worth the money and will pay for themselves within the year in saved time in post, hassle on shoot days, more efficient shoots, and better footage- better because we got everything right on set, because we have the monitoring tools to do so. Oh, and unlike the 7D, the AF100 will not shut itself off from overheating every 30 minutes and need a rest. (I'm not suggesting the GH2 would need that, but it is a big difference from where my shoots are today!)
Going to the Creative Video presentation about the AF100 tomorrow, hoping to be blown away
Cheers, Hywel.
Then buy a GH2 with the 14-140. Use it and see if it works for you. In a few months you could probably rent an AF100 somewhere.
You can slap the 14-140 on that and do some testing for yourself. Only you can decide if you need an AF100.
If you decide you need to step up you can always sell the GH2 body - or keep it as a 2nd cam.
This is waht I am going to do. I still have an HVX200 and use it all the time for a few clients.
They are happy with the results but I know it can be much better. I have used my 7D on some of their
shoots for some B-roll. For example - cramped interiors. I was using a wide angle adapter with the HVX
and it never looked that great. Now I use the 7D with a Tamron 10-24 - even shooting at ISO 1600
it is cleaner and sharper than the HVX. If I did not have to log & transfer all the 7D footage I would
consider shooting more of the B-roll with this set-up. But P2 is too easy with Raylight.
30 secs with Raylight and I am ready to edit the 200 clips or so I shoot on everyvideo.....
Just logging & Transfering 200 clips would take all day and eat up 30-40 gigs of space.
I am hoping the Raylight guys can make something like Raylight for the AF100.
cowpunk52
Veteran
I don't even know where to begin on this one... so I'll just say, please be careful about speaking beyond your experience & technical expertise.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
I dunno if I've ever heard of a camera company simultaneously releasing two cameras with the same image quality but with a 6+ fold difference in price.
That doesn't make much sense.
That doesn't make much sense.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
I can see moire right in your "proof"! Look at the roof on the right, next to the young family.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
It is NOT the same image quality - moire is a serious problem unless you have really, really low standards.
Likewise. You have no idea who I am or what my experience is. In fact, how do you know I'm not an older guy myself speaking of experience with my my colleagues?
Thanks for the personal attack.
As I recall, although my post was harsh in general... I did not call anyone ignorant or cut anyone down personally. There really are allot of older (or experienced) people in the industry who meat this new technology with hostility. It happens in every field. And that statement was based purely on observation of many forums and encounters, public and electronic. I could not have just made it up with no basis for accusation since, in general, thoughts and ideas are just the sum of observations.
And just because you don't agree with my opinion it makes it an ignorant post? You must think very highly of yourself.
Last edited:
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
No, DSLR is the future of no budget low-end production. I hope for your sake that such productions are not YOUR only future.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
+1
Does the GH2 have an OLPF? I doubt it. What happens to it when you want to shoot 16MP stills?
Aliasing is a HUGE problem. Moire is a HUGE problem. That is enough of an image deficit to say there are VAST very tangible quality differences.
Image processing is also a huge step up from dSLRs. They are just not build with the same "horsepower" if you will to compress images for AVCHD. As it has been stated by Jan and Barry many times on this forum the implementation of the codec is vastly different for these two cameras.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
One can make assumptions about you based on the content of your posts. There is no way you are an experienced, high caliber pro. Sorry, but...
groveChuck
U-matic Member
Thoughts on several posts
#1 You don't want it? Don't buy it.
#2 Waveform and zebras? Worth $1000 to me. Each.
#3 XLR audio- worth $1000 (to me. Not to you? Again, it's simple- don't buy it).
#4 HD-SDI out, worth $1000 to me, maybe $2000.
I'm at $5000 of "bonus features" that I consider essential (and just getting started). So I'm satisfied. You're not? Don't (you know)... buy it.
#5 Didn't Barry say both the sensor and the codec are far removed from the ones on the GH1? So vastly improved that they barely resemble the originals?
Barry?
Is it a perfect camera? No, there is no such thing. But will I make it work, and wring every bit of quality out of I can? You bet.
I'm off my soapbox, and #12 in line at Full Compass. I am a happy camper. :beer:
#1 You don't want it? Don't buy it.
#2 Waveform and zebras? Worth $1000 to me. Each.
#3 XLR audio- worth $1000 (to me. Not to you? Again, it's simple- don't buy it).
#4 HD-SDI out, worth $1000 to me, maybe $2000.
I'm at $5000 of "bonus features" that I consider essential (and just getting started). So I'm satisfied. You're not? Don't (you know)... buy it.
#5 Didn't Barry say both the sensor and the codec are far removed from the ones on the GH1? So vastly improved that they barely resemble the originals?
Barry?
Is it a perfect camera? No, there is no such thing. But will I make it work, and wring every bit of quality out of I can? You bet.
I'm off my soapbox, and #12 in line at Full Compass. I am a happy camper. :beer:
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
I'm #4! :tongue:
awelgraven
Well-known member
This is getting feisty quickly
GH2 will probably be a great camera, and if it works for you, you should use it. I'm going to, since I can't afford an AF-100. But the AF-100 is a better camera for almost any situation... obviously, there might be some situations where it's not, and that's why I said "almost."
The AF-100 vs. GH2 comes down to way more than image quality (even though on a technical, pixel peeping level, the AF-100 is superior because is DESIGNED for video, not photos, unlike the GH2.)
If you can live without all the "video camera-esque" features the AF-100 comes with (that have been documented numerous times for you), then don't get it. If you don't need a vector-scope or built in audio or built in ND filters or anything else the AF-100 comes with, then by all means, buy a GH2 and shoot everything you want.
The problem is, you're saying "the af-100 had better be better in this area or it's a waste of money," when really, that's only true for you.
GH2 will probably be a great camera, and if it works for you, you should use it. I'm going to, since I can't afford an AF-100. But the AF-100 is a better camera for almost any situation... obviously, there might be some situations where it's not, and that's why I said "almost."
The AF-100 vs. GH2 comes down to way more than image quality (even though on a technical, pixel peeping level, the AF-100 is superior because is DESIGNED for video, not photos, unlike the GH2.)
If you can live without all the "video camera-esque" features the AF-100 comes with (that have been documented numerous times for you), then don't get it. If you don't need a vector-scope or built in audio or built in ND filters or anything else the AF-100 comes with, then by all means, buy a GH2 and shoot everything you want.
The problem is, you're saying "the af-100 had better be better in this area or it's a waste of money," when really, that's only true for you.
Ok folks. Please back off on the personal statements. Keep the posts relevant and OT.
As to the GH2 video I can clearly see moire on that house where pointed out and it appears again for a second time in the video with the same result. I also notice neither of these shots are moving.
Bottom line is AF100 doesnt have this. I shot with it for almost an entire day. Its not there.
As to the GH2 video I can clearly see moire on that house where pointed out and it appears again for a second time in the video with the same result. I also notice neither of these shots are moving.
Bottom line is AF100 doesnt have this. I shot with it for almost an entire day. Its not there.