what could af100 do that gh2 couldn't?
- Thread starter ghosttv
- Start date
pulpfiction007
Veteran
The AF100 does these things better or includes these features:
1. Record professional audio- with built in XLRs
2. The Sensor is OPTIMIZED for video - not stills...therefore the video image is free of aliasing (although the GH2 does well in this area)
3. Professional image parameter adjustments - black press, gamma curves, knee, detail levels and coring etc. etc.
4. Much better LCD for focusing/framing
5. Professional focusing aids
6. High bit rate on all recording modes and a better implementation of the AVCHD codec
7. 1080 slow motion
8. Better manual controls overall
9. Better outputs
10. Audio monitoring
11. ND filters
12. More rugged build/better warranty
13. Longer battery life and the ability to buy extended batteries
14. More HD framerates and resoltutions
15. The list could go on and on.... it's a camera designed for film making so it should do all these things and more that a hybrid stills/video cam at 1/5 the price can't do.
Last edited:
BigBearDoinThangs
Active member
where did you hear this? I didn't know af100 has same sensor as gh2
I fully agree with your points, just wanted to mention the things the GH2 can do the AF100 can't do,
-2.6x (1080p) and 3.9X(720p) crop mode - awesome feature
-very very smaller, can fit into places the AF100 can't
-can take high resolution still images
-it's 4300$ less expensive
-2.6x (1080p) and 3.9X(720p) crop mode - awesome feature
-very very smaller, can fit into places the AF100 can't
-can take high resolution still images
-it's 4300$ less expensive
I agree with the list, but most of the things are provided by external help. Juicedlink, Cineroid or Marshall, Fader ND and the best thing is that they move from camera to camera. Altough it´s not a pro video camera, i reached the conclusion that I won´t pay big moneys for a pro cam until the rolling shutter goes through the window and brings instead a global shutter.
Thinking about it, probably the next cameras will be differenciated this, pro-video global, prosumer-hdslr rolling; it will be a very good point for upping the budget.
Ben_B
Veteran
To use an analogy of transportation:
The difference between the GH2 and AF100 isn't simply a matter of say, trim difference or engine difference in the same model of car, or even comparing different models of cars. The GH2 is more like public transportation to the AF-100's car. They'll both get you to the exact same place (in terms of the quality of your final result,) and can theoretically go anywhere the other can. The GH2 will get you there a little slower, and it will take a lot more work, planning, and effort...but it's cheaper and more accessible. The AF-100 can get you their quicker, with theoretically less effort (but you have to know how to drive), and in style...but it's more expensive.
They both can get you to the same place...it's just a matter of how you get there. If you don't know how to drive an AF-100 you won't be able to get there, and if you aren't a good enough trip planner with the GH2 you won't be able to get there.
Anyway that's my analogy. Yes it ignores some of the overall IQ differences in the cameras, but most of the potential pitfalls are avoidable with planning...the better you plan your trip on public transit, the faster and closer you'll get to your destination, but sometimes you'll be limited by what's available. You might not be able to get exactly where you would in a car. And of course you'll have to find more room in your bag to park the AF-100.
The difference between the GH2 and AF100 isn't simply a matter of say, trim difference or engine difference in the same model of car, or even comparing different models of cars. The GH2 is more like public transportation to the AF-100's car. They'll both get you to the exact same place (in terms of the quality of your final result,) and can theoretically go anywhere the other can. The GH2 will get you there a little slower, and it will take a lot more work, planning, and effort...but it's cheaper and more accessible. The AF-100 can get you their quicker, with theoretically less effort (but you have to know how to drive), and in style...but it's more expensive.
They both can get you to the same place...it's just a matter of how you get there. If you don't know how to drive an AF-100 you won't be able to get there, and if you aren't a good enough trip planner with the GH2 you won't be able to get there.
Anyway that's my analogy. Yes it ignores some of the overall IQ differences in the cameras, but most of the potential pitfalls are avoidable with planning...the better you plan your trip on public transit, the faster and closer you'll get to your destination, but sometimes you'll be limited by what's available. You might not be able to get exactly where you would in a car. And of course you'll have to find more room in your bag to park the AF-100.
Incorrect - they have the same size sensor.
These are very good and very valid points.
Some might even say - we already have all these things no matter what camera we have i.e. double system sound recorder, monitor, ND filters (mattebox). I have.
The shutter implementation in the AF100 is right up there with red in terms of read / reset, utter lack of jello. But Im not sure I get your point, are you saying that you dont like rolling shutter therefor wont get a cmos camera but will stick with a gh2? I do get that overall, in the early days rolling shutter issues scared me a little as well. But I think we're stuck with it for awhile yet. There seems to be time spent on improving it rather than replacing it at the moment.
But the major difference between these two products one is designed for still images one is designed for motion images and I work primarily with motion images.
Let me ask it this way, which is better for stills and why? Once you answer that with all the valid points you could make, the fact remains I can still take a still with the AF100 and if done properly Im sure I could take some beautiful stills with the AF100. Id go as far to say I might be able to take some stills with the AF100 that would rival a professional photographer using a stills camera. Would you recommend then the AF100 as a stills camera?
I do understand all of the advantages of the AF100, xlr input, built in ND filters and so on, but having come to terms working within the limitations of dslrs, the only real factor for me is the picture quality. If two people that both know what they are doing (one on an AF100 and one on a GH2) are fillming a bride cutting a cake, straight out of the camera recording AVCHD, will the AF100 give me a substantially better picture? Still a very subjective call, I know, but would an end client (the bride in this case) be able to tell the difference?
I was considering upgrading my GH13 to an AF100 but went with the GH2 to save money simpy because I wasn't blown away by anything I had seen on the AF100.
g.
I was considering upgrading my GH13 to an AF100 but went with the GH2 to save money simpy because I wasn't blown away by anything I had seen on the AF100.
g.
lbigdogg, that was kind of my point - theres a price to pay for the AF100. And if what you have is the GH13 or GH2, go shoot something well and at the end of the day who will complain? No one.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Maybe. It does depend on the operator. The thing is, the AF100 gives you two level of zebras, and a waveform monitor. This gives the AF100 operator the tools to use in real-time to make really good exposures. And nailing the exposure is half the battle IMHO.
If you have the time, you can get there with the GH2, using histograms as your primary tool. But if you are shooting in a fluid situation you may not have time.
But really what this leads to is more important maybe -- time in post. With the AF100 you've got better on-camera tools to get it right at capture time, so you have less work to do in post. With the GH2, maybe you spend more time trying to match clips -- contrast, brightness, color, etc.
All that said, I don't own or use either of these cameras. But I'm researching the fool out of them to see if I'm going to become an owner of either of them this spring. And right now I'm leaning toward cameras with good exposure tools.
Well the AF100 isnt short on exposure tools.
Sorry if that was what it looked. I was trying to say that knowing our rolling shutter problem will still be there; although very mildly on the AF100 and high end; I'm willing to work with HDslrs and their drawbacks (and advantages) until the big solution comes. They´re a great compromise between price and performance and I have the feeling that global shutter will be here sooner than we think and that our little reflex cameras are part of the push.
I think it´s not completely true that you need more careful planning with HDSLRs (at least at Run n´Gun; shootings are a different story) as reporters all around the world are shooting with them without thinking. I't just my humble opinion. A nice example I found on the DSLR news shooter blog.
GrahamH
Well-known member
> 5. Professional focusing aids
I may be wrong, as I have not used an AF100, but I read somewhere that it lacks the 1-click viewfinder magnification
that the GH2 provides for focusing with manual lenses. If so, I would really miss that if/when I move from GH2 to AF100....
I may be wrong, as I have not used an AF100, but I read somewhere that it lacks the 1-click viewfinder magnification
that the GH2 provides for focusing with manual lenses. If so, I would really miss that if/when I move from GH2 to AF100....
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Ivan, thanks for linking to Dan Chung's site. He's amazing to me and the reason I bought the 5dii now over two years ago.
There won't be a huge difference in picture quality between the two cameras, especially when both are shot by people who know what they're doing. The real price difference comes from the professional features of the AF. In a professional environment shooting every day, the time saved by not having to deal with dual system sound and nailing exposure with built in waveform monitor, or not having batteries fail on a DSLR add-on, is worth the extra cost. I for one, am tired of the constant DSLR work-a-rounds for every day work and saw the price of the AF as entirely justified.