Was giving up on a AF100 but decided to reconsider.

[SJX]

If you go looking, you'll be able to find plenty of people whining about any given camera and pixel peeping it to death.

This is true. But some cameras get more complains than others.

Evidence: http://vimeo.com/23283557

(Shot on Af100 using AVCHD internal codec)

Yes, they used Zeiss glass and obviously had production value, but that's the point isn't it? The camera is easily capable of stunning images. At this level and up, the camera is rarely the bottleneck. It's usually the people behind it!

Yeah, I had seen it. Looks good. But it has that somewhat murky look. Not too much, but still. Not bad looking footage at all but I'm just not impressed with the picture quality. I think what impresses most is what you have already mentioned, the production value. I have seen way better AF100 footage on Vimeo at this point. I know this can also be subjective of course. But thanks for the link just the same.

 

[SJX]

I like the book to reference specific questions quickly. The dvd is a master class. Both were indispensable to my investment. Some might say the information is the same.
But personally I learned and understood more having the camera in my hands going thru the myriad menus with the dvd. To each his own.

I also prefer learning from video than from books. But the book is an easier reference on the set. I will probably get the DVD first and then see. Thanks.

 

[SJX]

This remark (with regards to the D800) is a little confusing to me. Have you tested the D800 side by side with any of the other cameras you mentioned or is this based on something you read or perhaps the Philip Bloom stuff?

What's confusing to you? I'm not sure I understand what in my remarks have got you confused? That I said the AF100 is the better camera? Well, if so, it is. No doubt about it. A camera is not only the image it puts out. It's the overall package. Shooting with any DSLR and shooting with a real video camera such as the AF100 is a totally different experience and makes it much easier to get good images.

Really, there are some very practical advantages to something like an AF100,

I would say there are a LOT of practical advantages to the AF100 in comparison to any DSLR.

but if I'm allowed to speak in generalities a lot of people coming from Canon HDSLRs don't like the AF100 "look".

That's funny. I have a 7D and have shot several times with a 5D and I have grown to hate the murky low rez and plastered skin look of these cameras. Not to mention the crazy moire and aliasing. The thing about a camera such as the AF100 is that you are not really stuck with the standard look. But with the DSLRs you are.

I know you are asking about the AF100 specifically, but for the budget you have mentioned I would go with a GH2 and spend the difference on a sound-person with a smart slate.

If the GH2 had a clean 4:2:2 HDMI output I might. It is sharper than the Canons and more practical to use. But I have heard conflicting reports about the HDMI. Some say is just 4:2:0, some say it's 4:2:2 but after compression and others say it's indeed 4:2:2 uncompressed. But I think if it was uncomopressed it would have been widely known by now.

Oh yes, I already have a sound guy.

 

[SJX]

So, just some VERY discouraging info I have come across today in my research on the AF100. I'm sure this has been already talked here to death. But I thought I would add it to the discussion anyway since it concerns the topic at hand.


I was pretty much 90% set in giving the AF100 a shot. But now this has brought me back to ground zero! Specially that these are hard facts and not just opinions, plus it's by one of the highest end professionals, not hobbyist shooters.


Yes, I read the BBC white paper on the AF100 and I have to say I was petrified! rogar-Shock(DBG):

According to them the AF100 is not even a real 720p camera! :crybaby:

Alan Roberts had this to say: "This camera does not perform particularly well at HD. Clean resolution is limited to about 1210x680 by the
presence of high-amplitude spatial aliasing. This is a little disappointing from a camera with a large-format
sensor, and indicates that optical low-pass filtering is either absent or inadequate, and that the scaling from
the resolution of the sensor down to 1920x1080 has not been done in the best way."

Outch!


Adam Wilt agreed with Mr. Roberts and said this: "It hardly exceeds the 540 TVl/ph resolution of the HVX200 and its successors."


I was right about the D800 being sharper by the way. Even if just a little. Mr. Roberts says about the Nikon D800: "The clean resolution does not substantially exceed 1,355x762". At least it puts out more than 720p.

I was also wrong in assuming the AF100 was at least as sensitive as the 7D, which although has a larger chip has also more pixels. It seems the AF100 is just as sensitive as the EX cameras, which quite frankly barely cut the mustard for low light.

"Noise levels are rather high, even though the pixel size is that of a conventional 3 sensor ½” camera.
Sensitivity is also similar to that of a ½” camera."

Bugger!

One of the things I liked about the 7D compared to the EX1 or EX3 was how much less light it needed. I was hoping the AF100 would be at least as good.

Then another eye opener smacked me up the head when he said:

"If this camera is to be used for HDTV shooting, then it should be clearly understood that it’s only advantage
over smaller-format cameras is the smaller depth of field. However, to achieve a smaller depth of field in
this camera, relative to, say, a ½” camera, then the lens must be opened by at least 1.5 stops; using an F/2.8
lens on this camera, wide open, will give the same depth of field as on a ½” camera with a lens opened to F/1.6. This camera will not necessarily always deliver short depth of field, large aperture lenses must be
used to achieve that."

So basically the only advantage of large sensor cameras over the EX cameras (which I own by the way) is supposedly the shallow DOF and better sensitivity. BUT, the AF100 is not more sensitive than the EX cameras, has about half the resolution and to get any shallower DOF I have to basically shoot wide open with my lenses? My lenses are T2 (F2) and I normally shoot at T2.8 because most lenses are softer when wide open and specially that the AF100 is already soft, this would make it even worse. But if I'm to shoot at T2.8 it will basically give me the same DOF as my EX camera wide open. The EX wide open would still resolve more than the AF100 and it looks pretty good wide open. So the bottom line is that there are not ANY advantages to the AF100 over an EX camera? Same sensitivity, same DOF, with my lenses anyway unless I want it even more soft, and all that at half the resolution?

Shocking! :furious3:

I need some time to recover from this and think it over now. Maybe I should just breakout my Letus adapter and use my EX camera! Yes, very bad low light, but for external day is not problem at all and it's all paid for.

I need a break...

 

[Jon Hout]

Having shot on an EX3 with a Letus adapter, I can definitely say that the AF100 is better in low light. Someone else will have to speak to the resolution statistics, but like Barry said, noise is simply not an issue with this camera if you're making the right choices with your settings. I actually shot a short film where part of a scene was only lit with a single match and was able to get zebras on the subject's face with little-to-no noise (ISO 1600, B-Press). I'll even go so far as to say that, with the AF100's out-of-the-box settings, the image looks like crap, but then that's why I love this camera so much more than a DSLR - I can change the look however I want! I'm not sure what tests the BBC were doing, but I definitely disagree with their results in the noise category, and I think a multitude of projects support my position.

Like all the others said, you're never going to get peace of mind unless you get one in your hands, so see if you can find somewhere online to rent and put it through its paces. However it turns out, I wish you the best of luck!

Happy Shooting!

- Jon

 

[Lpowell]

Alan Roberts had this to say: "This camera does not perform particularly well at HD. Clean resolution is limited to about 1210x680 by the presence of high-amplitude spatial aliasing."

It's important to understand what Roberts means by "clean" resolution. He's not saying that the AF100 fails to produce any details above 1210x680 resolution - if you examine his resolution charts carefully, you'll see that there are plenty of details all the way to 1080p. What he's complaining about is the presence of aliasing artifacts in addition to the genuine details present above 1210x680. These artifacts are present in varying degrees in all digital cameras - eliminating them completely with a strong OLPF would eliminate the genuine details as well.

What distinguishes the AF100 (and the GH2) from DSLR's like the Canon 5DMkII is the absence of multi-colored moire patterns in its aliased artifacts. While the AF100's aliases can produce artificially-enhanced edge sharpness, I've never seen them generate the ugly moire patterns that plague Canon and Nikon DSLR video.

I found Roberts' claims about small-sensor depth of field to be rather pedantic. In practice, the Four Thirds sensor used in the AF100 and GH2 can readily produce as narrow a DOF as you want. All you need is an f1.4-2.8 prime lens anywhere from 28-85mm. Producing a comparably narrow DOF on a 1/2" CCD sensor would require a Letus DOF adapter, and it would cut your light levels by two or more stops.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't think the FS700 really resolves more than the FS100.

I haven't used one, I don't know if it does or not, but it certainly should.

They are pretty much the same camera and same chip right.

No, not according to their published specs; the FS100 is supposed to use a low-pixel-count chip and the FS700 is supposed to be a 4K chip.

Yes, the EX cameras are great cameras. I wonder what happened? Did it slip through or something for Sony to put out such a great camera in that price point. Great resolution, 10 bit 4:2:2 and all the features.

The EX cameras are neither 10-bit nor 4:2:2, at least when it comes to their recording. They record 8-bit 4:2:0. You would have to use an external recorder to get either 10-bit or 4:2:2 from them.

But do you mean the fact it resolves more than the large sensor cameras has to do with sensor size? Because it also resolves more than pretty much any other camera apart from the high end. At least any other sub $10K camera.

Doesn't resolve any more than a $5,000 HPX250 or HPX370, but yes they do resolve more than basically all the large-sensor cameras from the F3 on down. Don't know exactly why that is, but it just is.

Just a quick question Barry, as I know you have probably used the old Varicam C27F/H. How does the AF100 compares to that in terms of resolution? I shot with one once and the softness was driving me crazy at the time, even though the image looked gorgeous, specially at a time most things were still pretty much 4:1:1.

The VariCam put out a great image for its time, but its time was a long time ago. I don't know how they would compare side by side, as I haven't tried, but I would think the AF100 in 1080 mode would certainly hold up well against a Varicam in 720, as far as resolution goes.

Well, as a camera I think the AF100 is still much better.

I agree, as far as operational at least -- but the FS700 has closed the gap in many ways where the FS100 really lacked.

Isn't the FS700 basically a FS100 on steroids? Bigger, fatter, ND filters and super slomo.

Pretty much, yes.

Is there anything else it does better?

Yes, it has new cinema gammas, and it has a future upgradeability option that should turn it into a 4K raw camera. But that will be at additional expense, and we don't know what that expense will be.

It still has the basically useless LCD placement, the uncomfortable shape form factor but with the disadvantage of being larger, which is the only other big plus going for the FS100 over the AF100 besides the resolution in my opinion.

I basically agree with this, yes.

But not at expense of noise I hope?

The AF100 in cine-D is very clean.

How do you think Cine-D compares to Marvel's flat cine style for the AF100? They seem to be made for the same reason.

That flat cine style uses cine-D. I looked through that profile and it looks like it would result in a very flat, soft image. Probably quite close to the Panasonic flat scene file.

In the video you mentioned that you don't need a Zacuto Z-finder since the camera has one. Does it really compare to the Z-finder? I never used the Z-finder but hear great things about it. But I read several bad reviews about the AF100 EFV.

I find something like a Z-finder just a silly, silly thing. Of course, hey, that's just me, but sticking a magnifying glass over a low-res LCD just so you can see outside, is -- wacky. Now, I know people couldn't shoot with a DSLR outside AT ALL without one, so yeah, they became popular. But having been used to working with real video cameras for decades, the notion of sticking a magnifying glass over the LCD and permanently gluing the camera to your face at one and only one angle, just seems... well, I dunno, desperate? Reaching? It's like "hallelujah, I can actually see an image now" -- should that really be something to be celebrating? Shouldn't you ALWAYS have been able to see an image?

I've heard grumbling about the AF100's EVF for quite a while too, and I don't really get it. Yes it's smaller than a big ol' magnified 640x480 Canon LCD. But it's a 1.2 million pixel LCOS, much higher res, cleaner image, no discernible pixel structure, it's rotateable, it can be put in B&W mode for use with the red colored peaking, and it's always there and it just works and you can see it from any angle. I really have no complaints with it. It's the same basic viewable image size as a 2/3" camera's viewfinder. I think when the EX3 came out it changed people's demands for what they want a viewfinder to be, and I'm still comfortable using what has always worked...

Last question is, is it possible to record 1080 60p slowmotion from the HDMI 4:2:2? Or it only sends 60i and 24psf?

HDMI does not output 60p. You can only record 60p internally.

 

[Barry_Green]

According to them the AF100 is not even a real 720p camera! :crybaby:

And yet, the BBC approved the AF100 for unlimited acquisition on the "HD Specialty" list, the same list that includes the F3, the Red One, and several other top-end cameras. As long as you use an external recorder to get 4:2:2, you can use it for BBC productions -- and that same requirement applies to the F3 and all other 4:2:0 cameras too.

Adam Wilt agreed with Mr. Roberts and said this: "It hardly exceeds the 540 TVl/ph resolution of the HVX200 and its successors."

It handily exceeds the resolution of the HVX200 and its predecessors. It exceeds the resolution of the Canon XLH1. It doesn't quite match up to an EX1 or HPX250 though.

I was also wrong in assuming the AF100 was at least as sensitive as the 7D, which although has a larger chip has also more pixels. It seems the AF100 is just as sensitive as the EX cameras, which quite frankly barely cut the mustard for low light.

I read that portion of Roberts review, and frankly it just makes no sense. Look at my noise comparison video again. 3200 ISO is totally usable, 1600 ISO is completely usable. It does way better, noise and sensitivity-wise, than 1/2" cameras.

One of the things I liked about the 7D compared to the EX1 or EX3 was how much less light it needed. I was hoping the AF100 would be at least as good.

It's been a while since I had a 7D, but I would be very surprised if the 7D performed any better in low light at all than the AF100. The 7D gets really noisy at higher ISOs, and the AF100 can stay very clean, making higher ISOs more usable than on the 7D.

"

If this camera is to be used for HDTV shooting, then it should be clearly understood that it’s only advantage
over smaller-format cameras is the smaller depth of field. However, to achieve a smaller depth of field in
this camera, relative to, say, a ½” camera, then the lens must be opened by at least 1.5 stops; using an F/2.8
lens on this camera, wide open, will give the same depth of field as on a ½” camera with a lens opened to F/1.6. This camera will not necessarily always deliver short depth of field, large aperture lenses must be
used to achieve that."

See, this here is just silly. He just screwed up his math. The AF100's sensor is drastically larger than a 1/2" camera. It's almost the same size as the 7D's. Do you think there's only a 1.5-stop difference between an EX1 and a 7D? I sure don't. I'm not afraid to say it, Alan Roberts got this part totally wrong.

So basically the only advantage of large sensor cameras over the EX cameras (which I own by the way) is supposedly the shallow DOF and better sensitivity.

Of course. What other advantage would there be?

BUT, the AF100 is not more sensitive than the EX cameras

Wrong. Just try them. 800 ISO on the AF100 is lower noise than 400 ISO on the EX cameras.

, has about half the resolution

That's a huge stretch. It's lower res, but to say it's half is inaccurate. The AF100 is rated at 800 TVL by the manufacturer, and the EX cameras are rated at about 1000 TVL.

and to get any shallower DOF I have to basically shoot wide open with my lenses?

Of course not. At the same f-stop, the AF100 will have drastically shallower DOF. Just use any DOF calculator and compare a 1/2" chip against a 4/3" chip. I mean, fer cryin' out loud, the AF100's chip is about six and a half times larger than the EX1's.

But if I'm to shoot at T2.8 it will basically give me the same DOF as my EX camera wide open.

Nonsense. Example -- at 10 feet, using a 50mm lens at f/2.8, the AF100's DOF is 1 foot. To get the same field of view you'd use the EX1 at 20mm, and by 20mm it's probably ramped the lens to at least f/2.0, so wide open at f/2 the EX1's DOF would be five feet. Does that sound the same to you?

The EX wide open would still resolve more than the AF100

Yes it would.

So the bottom line is that there are not ANY advantages to the AF100 over an EX camera?

Nonsense. Massively shallower DOF, cleaner noise performance, interchangeable lenses and half the cost.

 

[Barry_Green]

According to them the AF100 is not even a real 720p camera! :crybaby:

And yet, the BBC approved the AF100 for unlimited acquisition on the "HD Specialty" list, the same list that includes the F3, the Red One, and several other top-end cameras. As long as you use an external recorder to get 4:2:2, you can use it for BBC productions -- and that same requirement applies to the F3 and all other 4:2:0 cameras too.

Adam Wilt agreed with Mr. Roberts and said this: "It hardly exceeds the 540 TVl/ph resolution of the HVX200 and its successors."

It handily exceeds the resolution of the HVX200 and its predecessors. It exceeds the resolution of the Canon XLH1. It doesn't quite match up to an EX1 or HPX250 though.

I was also wrong in assuming the AF100 was at least as sensitive as the 7D, which although has a larger chip has also more pixels. It seems the AF100 is just as sensitive as the EX cameras, which quite frankly barely cut the mustard for low light.

I read that portion of Roberts review, and frankly it just makes no sense. Look at my noise comparison video again. 3200 ISO is totally usable, 1600 ISO is completely usable. It does way better, noise and sensitivity-wise, than 1/2" cameras.

One of the things I liked about the 7D compared to the EX1 or EX3 was how much less light it needed. I was hoping the AF100 would be at least as good.

It's been a while since I had a 7D, but I would be very surprised if the 7D performed any better in low light at all than the AF100. The 7D gets really noisy at higher ISOs, and the AF100 can stay very clean, making higher ISOs more usable than on the 7D.

"

If this camera is to be used for HDTV shooting, then it should be clearly understood that it’s only advantage
over smaller-format cameras is the smaller depth of field. However, to achieve a smaller depth of field in
this camera, relative to, say, a ½” camera, then the lens must be opened by at least 1.5 stops; using an F/2.8
lens on this camera, wide open, will give the same depth of field as on a ½” camera with a lens opened to F/1.6. This camera will not necessarily always deliver short depth of field, large aperture lenses must be
used to achieve that."

See, this here is just silly. He just screwed up his math. The AF100's sensor is drastically larger than a 1/2" camera. It's almost the same size as the 7D's. Do you think there's only a 1.5-stop difference between an EX1 and a 7D? I sure don't. I'm not afraid to say it, Alan Roberts got this part totally wrong.

So basically the only advantage of large sensor cameras over the EX cameras (which I own by the way) is supposedly the shallow DOF and better sensitivity.

Of course. What other advantage would there be?

BUT, the AF100 is not more sensitive than the EX cameras

Wrong. Just try them. 800 ISO on the AF100 is lower noise than 400 ISO on the EX cameras.

, has about half the resolution

That's a huge stretch. It's lower res, but to say it's half is inaccurate. The AF100 is rated at 800 TVL by the manufacturer, and the EX cameras are rated at about 1000 TVL.

and to get any shallower DOF I have to basically shoot wide open with my lenses?

Of course not. At the same f-stop, the AF100 will have drastically shallower DOF. Just use any DOF calculator and compare a 1/2" chip against a 4/3" chip. I mean, fer cryin' out loud, the AF100's chip is about six and a half times larger than the EX1's.

But if I'm to shoot at T2.8 it will basically give me the same DOF as my EX camera wide open.

Nonsense. Example -- at 10 feet, using a 50mm lens at f/2.8, the AF100's DOF is 1 foot. To get the same field of view you'd use the EX1 at 20mm, and by 20mm it's probably ramped the lens to at least f/2.0, so wide open at f/2 the EX1's DOF would be five feet. Does that sound the same to you?

The EX wide open would still resolve more than the AF100

Yes it would.

So the bottom line is that there are not ANY advantages to the AF100 over an EX camera?

Nonsense. Massively shallower DOF, cleaner noise performance, interchangeable lenses and half the cost.

 

[Letzring]

What's confusing to you? I'm not sure I understand what in my remarks have got you confused? That I said the AF100 is the better camera? Well, if so, it is. No doubt about it. A camera is not only the image it puts out. It's the overall package. Shooting with any DSLR and shooting with a real video camera such as the AF100 is a totally different experience and makes it much easier to get good images.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm definitely an AF100 fan. I'm not so sure what a "real video" camera is anymore but I believe an AF100 is far more versatile that any of the current HDSLR's. I'm just confused about the D800 part, in July I tested a D800 against my AF100 and GH2 and the D800 has some serious issues (at least out of the box).

I would say there are a LOT of practical advantages to the AF100 in comparison to any DSLR.

Agreed.

That's funny. I have a 7D and have shot several times with a 5D and I have grown to hate the murky low rez and plastered skin look of these cameras. Not to mention the crazy moire and aliasing. The thing about a camera such as the AF100 is that you are not really stuck with the standard look. But with the DSLRs you are.

Again, I agree with most of what you are saying. I owned a 60d a while back that I had acquired specifically for some time lapse work, I used it a few times for some aerial shooting and I really didn't like it. The point that I was trying to make is that there is, inescapably, a "full frame look" that is difficult to achieve with smaller sensor cameras and that "look" has somewhat become a commercial commodity that clients ask for.

If the GH2 had a clean 4:2:2 HDMI output I might. It is sharper than the Canons and more practical to use. But I have heard conflicting reports about the HDMI. Some say is just 4:2:0, some say it's 4:2:2 but after compression and others say it's indeed 4:2:2 uncompressed. But I think if it was uncomopressed it would have been widely known by now.

There are some people here who could reassure your concerns over the color sampling issue between the cameras. I for one, would be very surprised if you found very much practical difference between GH2 and AF100 in this regard in any post situation.

Oh yes, I already have a sound guy.

Congratulations, you are in the 95th percentile of "indie's" , in-sync dialogue is a rare beast in the 21st century.

 

[SJX]

I read that portion of Roberts review, and frankly it just makes no sense. Look at my noise comparison video again. 3200 ISO is totally usable, 1600 ISO is completely usable. It does way better, noise and sensitivity-wise, than 1/2" cameras.

That's good to hear. I can only go by what he said and by tests I see online for now. In this test, although the AF100 is cleaner, the EX1 "sees" more in the dark. I know it's a casual test though:

<font size="3"><font size="2">

It's been a while since I had a 7D, but I would be very surprised if the 7D performed any better in low light at all than the AF100. The 7D gets really noisy at higher ISOs, and the AF100 can stay very clean, making higher ISOs more usable than on the 7D.

The 7D is definitely more sensitive than the EX cameras. I have both and I have shot with EX and 7D together and the 7D needs much less light. If the AF100 would be as sensitive as the EX cameras then it would definitely be less sensitive than the 7D.

See, this here is just silly. He just screwed up his math. The AF100's sensor is drastically larger than a 1/2" camera. It's almost the same size as the 7D's. Do you think there's only a 1.5-stop difference between an EX1 and a 7D? I sure don't. I'm not afraid to say it, Alan Roberts got this part totally wrong.

To be honest I also found it strange. Specially when you look at how little a 1/2" chip is next to a micro 4/3. It probably is a typo then.

Of course. What other advantage would there be?

I wasn't asking there, just stating, and I wasn't expecting any others. I was just starting to make my point.

Wrong. Just try them. 800 ISO on the AF100 is lower noise than 400 ISO on the EX cameras.

Sure. Then the usable sensitivity may be better even if the EX1 may see more in the dark.

That's a huge stretch. It's lower res, but to say it's half is inaccurate. The AF100 is rated at 800 TVL by the manufacturer, and the EX cameras are rated at about 1000 TVL.

Yeah sorry. It was a generalization based on the AF100 having "less" than 720p resolution and 720p being known as "Half HD". But technically 680lp is not half of 1000lp and HD is a frame size I know.

Nonsense. Massively shallower DOF, cleaner noise performance, interchangeable lenses and half the cost.

Yeah. I think I just got a bit frustrated with Alan's report and didn't really looked at it deep enough. The DOF is obviously much shallower, it just has to be just by looking at the sensor size difference.
Based on the low light candle light test above the AF100 indeed looks to be cleaner. Interchangeable lens can be subjective. Great to have it, but as long as the fixed lens is great and the EX lens is, then is fine. It's an ENG type of camera anyway. Yes, the cost.

 

[SJX]

The EX cameras are neither 10-bit nor 4:2:2, at least when it comes to their recording. They record 8-bit 4:2:0. You would have to use an external recorder to get either 10-bit or 4:2:2 from them.

This is what I meant. The 10 bit 4:2:2 SDI out. None of the other Sony cameras bellow the F3 have it as far as I know. It's funny they gave us that for the price point of a EX1 but the FS700 for example doesn't have it.

Doesn't resolve any more than a $5,000 HPX250 or HPX370, but yes they do resolve more than basically all the large-sensor cameras from the F3 on down. Don't know exactly why that is, but it just is.

Yes I know but those cameras have 1/3" sensors. What makes the EX camera such a great deal is that besides being very sharp, putting out 10bit 4:2:2 from the SDI they also have a 1/2" sensor.

The VariCam put out a great image for its time, but its time was a long time ago. I don't know how they would compare side by side, as I haven't tried, but I would think the AF100 in 1080 mode would certainly hold up well against a Varicam in 720, as far as resolution goes.

I was hoping you would say the AF100 betters the Varicam in resolution at least. That was the worst part of the Varicams. They sucked at resolution and badly. A movie called Soldier of God which was shot on it looked out of focus in the widest shots and the one time I used it I was not impressed at all with the resolution, even back then.

I agree, as far as operational at least -- but the FS700 has closed the gap in many ways where the FS100 really lacked.

Maybe it closed the gap a bit but it still lacks quite a bit next to the AF100 IMO. The 4K promise and the super slomo are the only attractive features to me.

The AF100 in cine-D is very clean.

Awesome!

That flat cine style uses cine-D. I looked through that profile and it looks like it would result in a very flat, soft image. Probably quite close to the Panasonic flat scene file.

Looking forward to compare all the scene files floating online.

I find something like a Z-finder just a silly, silly thing.

I thought the Z-finder was actually a complete unit rather than just a loop on a LCD. Maybe I'm thinking of another product.

HDMI does not output 60p. You can only record 60p internally.

Not happy to hear that. I heard it doesn't even output 4:2:2 25p or 30p either right?
But oh well can't have everything.

 

[SJX]

Having shot on an EX3 with a Letus adapter, I can definitely say that the AF100 is better in low light.

Oh yes. The Letus eats light and inside it's a hindrance.

 

[Barry_Green]

There are some people here who could reassure your concerns over the color sampling issue between the cameras. I for one, would be very surprised if you found very much practical difference between GH2 and AF100 in this regard in any post situation.

If you're talking about a hacked GH2, versus recording on-board to the AF100's codec, I could go along with that. But if you're talking about external recording, no way -- the AF100 is far superior for that. It outputs a real, true 4:2:2, and the GH2 just doesn't. Also, the AF100's SDI output is color-accurate to what gets recorded internally, whereas the GH2 has a substantial color shift between its onboard recording and its external HDMI monitoring/recording. Plus, there's a huge gamma shift that goes on with the GH2, between when you press "record" and when it's in standby mode, and the signal is only vaguely accurate in standby mode, it's much closer to accurate in recording mode, so you'd have to be doubly careful to always be recording on the GH2 even when using an external recorder. I find an external recorder more trouble than it's worth with the GH2.

 

[SJX]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm definitely an AF100 fan. I'm not so sure what a "real video" camera is anymore but I believe an AF100 is far more versatile that any of the current HDSLR's. I'm just confused about the D800 part, in July I tested a D800 against my AF100 and GH2 and the D800 has some serious issues (at least out of the box).

It has serious issues like any DSLR. But I really like the way the D800 image looks. Just personal preference and it's also sharper than the AF100 according to Alan Roberts who says the D800 resolves 1,355x762 vs the AF100's 1,210x680. When I say I like the D800 images better, I say from an aesthetic point of view, not technically. Technically the AF100 looks better.

 

[Barry_Green]

I heard it doesn't even output 4:2:2 25p or 30p either right?

Of course it does. But you wouldn't want to bother with HDMI anyway, when you have HD-SDI available, and that outputs 4:2:2 at 24PsF, or 25-within-50i, or 30-within-60i.

 

[SJX]

Of course it does. But you wouldn't want to bother with HDMI anyway, when you have HD-SDI available, and that outputs 4:2:2 at 24PsF, or 25-within-50i, or 30-within-60i.

Barry, I just realized I made a mistake. I have no idea why I wrote HDMI in my original question, but what I meant to ask was if the AF100 outputs 4:2:2 60p slomo out of it's HD-SDI?
Then again I'm not sure a Hyperdeck records 1080 60p or even the Ninja.

 

[Letzring]

If you're talking about a hacked GH2, versus recording on-board to the AF100's codec, I could go along with that. But if you're talking about external recording, no way -- the AF100 is far superior for that. It outputs a real, true 4:2:2, and the GH2 just doesn't. Also, the AF100's SDI output is color-accurate to what gets recorded internally, whereas the GH2 has a substantial color shift between its onboard recording and its external HDMI monitoring/recording. Plus, there's a huge gamma shift that goes on with the GH2, between when you press "record" and when it's in standby mode, and the signal is only vaguely accurate in standby mode, it's much closer to accurate in recording mode, so you'd have to be doubly careful to always be recording on the GH2 even when using an external recorder. I find an external recorder more trouble than it's worth with the GH2.

Yes, well, I've never used an external recorder on the GH2, in fact I've never used a recorder through HDMI on any camera, and about 95% of the time I'm using in-cam codec on the AF100. When I shoot with AF100 and GH2 as a "B" cam (although I think lpowell would refer to the af100 as the "B" cam :grin I always shoot in-cam codec on both.

I was under the impression that BBC's "approval" on the af100 was conditional on using an external recorder though?

 

[Letzring]

It has serious issues like any DSLR. But I really like the way the D800 image looks. Just personal preference and it's also sharper than the AF100 according to Alan Roberts who says the D800 resolves 1,355x762 vs the AF100's 1,210x680. When I say I like the D800 images better, I say from an aesthetic point of view, not technically. Technically the AF100 looks better.

The Roberts report requires a little interpretation in that he draws a "line in the sand" at any evidence of moire and aliasing, in other-words he ignores any information that may be in the image once moire and aliasing raise their ugly head. FWIW he wasn't to happy with the F3 either.

Send me a PM if you are interested in seeing my samples of how the D800 looks compared to a hacked GH2. I think the D800 makes likeable video of skin tones, and the FF DOF thing is definitely happening, nice build quality, great stills, I was evaluating it to use on my steadicam and after testing I stuck with the GH2.

 

[Lpowell]

When I shoot with AF100 and GH2 as a "B" cam (although I think lpowell would refer to the af100 as the "B" cam :grin I always shoot in-cam codec on both.

Actually, I'm on the same page with you there. The AF100 makes a much better A-cam, mounted on a well-damped tripod and wired up to XLR boom mics. The AF100's built-in waveform and audio monitors provide far more assurance of correct recording levels than the GH2's viewfinder. The AF100 also supports remote control of focus and aperture via Manfrotto 521PFI, with real-time display of aperture, focal length, and focus distance. These features work splendidly with the new motorized zoom lenses, the Lumix 45-175mm and the Olympus 12-50mm.

The GH2, OTOH, is a great B-cam for mobile shooting with a shoulder rig. Its auto-focus and OIS features work with a much broader variety of lenses than the AF100, and the GH2's tiny size and weight let you take it anywhere. The GH2 is also one of the few DSLR's with a built-in viewfinder that is fully functional in video mode. Not to mention the hacked GH2's ability to track rapid motion more reliably than virtually any camera under $10K.