Barry_Green
Moderator
And actually, that's not even true either. They're different sizes.
The only thing the GH2 and the AF100 have in common is that they use the same lens mount.
what could af100 do that gh2 couldn't?
- Thread starter ghosttv
- Start date
The only thing the GH2 and the AF100 have in common is that they use the same lens mount.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No it doesn't.
It uses the same lens mount, but it's not the same sensor.
Since I have both, I think I can answer this -- and no, there is no way on earth I would want to shoot on the GH2 instead of the AF100, for cinema usage. Ever.
You asked for a list, pulpfiction007 started it, but here's a bit more (adapted from my "things the AF100 does, that a DSLR doesn't" list...
Clean HDMI output at full resolution even during recording, suitable for recording, with no 60i/59.94i complications
Professional HD-SDI output
1080/24pSf output
A composite video output jack
SMPTE timecode
LTC timecode synchronizing, for multiple-camera shoots or for using an external audio recorder or timecode slate
A headphone jack for monitoring audio
RCA audio outputs
Professional XLR audio inputs
Line/Mic selectable
Can supply phantom power for microphones
Manual audio level control with no AGC
Option of engaging an automatic limiter to prevent against sudden overmodulation
High-quality audio pre-amps
NTSC/PAL switchable recording modes
Variable frame rates in 20 steps, from 1080/12p up to 1080/60p, for various levels of slow-motion and fast-motion
720/24p and 720/25p and 720/30p and 1080/25p recording modes
P2/AVCCAM Metadata
Two card slots
Professional image controls
Filmlike Cinegamma gamma curves
Selectable color matrices
Adjustable knee point and master pedestal controls right in camera
Color-matched with other Panasonic professional cameras, such as the VariCams
Pre-record, for catching events occurring even before you press the record button
Colored Focus Assist that can be used >while recording<
Peaking/EVF DTL for easier manual focus
Two sets of zebras, which can be set from anywhere from 50 to 105 IRE in 5-IRE steps
A built-in Waveform Monitor(!)
A built-in Vectorscope
A built-in Spotmeter (the "Marker" which tells you the IRE brightness of what's in the center of the screen)
Different aspect ratio markings in the LCD, including 16:9, 4:3, 14:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1
A 90% "safety zone" for making sure your framing will be visible on all TVs
Film-style variable shutter angles from 1 to 360 degrees, which track automatically with the variable frame rates to always provide consistent motion blur
Syncro-Scan shutter in video mode, giving you nearly infinitely-settable shutter speeds from 1/24.0 to 1/250.0
Built-in optical neutral density filters, including ND .6, ND 1.2, and ND 1.8
SMPTE color bar generator
Cleaner/sharper images with a substantial reduction in aliasing
A more robust recording format (AVCCAM PH mode) which is more resilient and better than the AVCHD on the GH2
Greatly improved rolling shutter performance
Ability to assign index points within clips, so you can mark a subsection of a clip and easily jump from spot to spot within that clip
Ability to mark clips "Good" or "No Good" at the press of a button, and that marker will show up in your NLE (depending, of course, on your NLE)
Ability to delete the last clip you just shot, at a button press
Ability to assign custom user names to clips as they get recorded, automatically
Ability to save and exchange "scene files" with other users, for easy matching between multiple cameras
Ability to take much larger batteries, including 6000mah batteries
Wireless infrared remote controller
Remote iris/focus/start/stop controller sockets
Can perform a manual black balance, with a dedicated physical iris
And, to top it all off, a three-year warranty
Don't get me wrong -- I love my GH2. But it is not in any way or by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing as the AF100. Not even close. The difference in price is well worth it, for some people. But hey, if all you need is what the GH2 does, get the GH2 and be happy.And yes, there are things the GH2 can do, that the AF100 can't, including:1) magnified focus assist (although no focus assist during recording)2) ETC mode3) Stills photography at other-than-1920x1080 size4) It has a built-in flashI like having them both, there's definitely reasons to have each. The AF100 can capture single frames, but that doesn't make it a GH2. And the GH2 can shoot video footage, but that doesn't make it an AF100.
stonebat
Veteran
Didn't Cineroid EVF close the gap on video monitoring? It could be better than AF100's LCD and EVF.
How's AF100's preamp? Is it better than SD or JL preamps? If not, audio gap between GH2 and AF100 isn't much issue... except the AGC in GH2.
Battery? Upcoming battery grip... one day.
AF100's built-in ND filters r nice, but it still needs a matte box or a hood. Shoot35's Cinebox with 360 filter rotation closed the gap.
Ergonomics... we are seeing more innovative rigs for vdslr. Cineroid EVF can be easily attached to a rig for ENG style.
I'm not saying GH2 is as good as AF100 though. Although the gaps seems getting narrower, the gaps are too huge.
How's AF100's preamp? Is it better than SD or JL preamps? If not, audio gap between GH2 and AF100 isn't much issue... except the AGC in GH2.
Battery? Upcoming battery grip... one day.
AF100's built-in ND filters r nice, but it still needs a matte box or a hood. Shoot35's Cinebox with 360 filter rotation closed the gap.
Ergonomics... we are seeing more innovative rigs for vdslr. Cineroid EVF can be easily attached to a rig for ENG style.
I'm not saying GH2 is as good as AF100 though. Although the gaps seems getting narrower, the gaps are too huge.
Right. The AF100 sensor is a little bigger.
stonebat
Veteran
It would be nice if they release stripped-down version of AF100.
No built-in EVF. Very basic fixed LCD just for configuring menu. Just line-in audio record without AGC. No other audio feature (headphones monitoring is indirectly implemented over HDMI out). No built-in filter. No handle.
A small cubicle block shape with lots of controls and M43 mount and multiple tripod mount points.
Then replace GH2 in a rig with it.
No built-in EVF. Very basic fixed LCD just for configuring menu. Just line-in audio record without AGC. No other audio feature (headphones monitoring is indirectly implemented over HDMI out). No built-in filter. No handle.
A small cubicle block shape with lots of controls and M43 mount and multiple tripod mount points.
Then replace GH2 in a rig with it.
Last edited:
stonebat
Veteran
Hmmm... that would lower crop factor in anamorphic aspect ratio. 1.7x?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Actually, it's the other way around. AF100's sensor is 17.8 x 10mm. The GH2's is about 18.9 x 10.7. The field of view is slightly different between them.
Omg gh2 got bigger senser? That awesome!!! Anyone make side to side comparison? I like to know truth about picture quality for video of both of it. For many of the stuffs you list is cancel if you Use Tascom DR100 and more cancel with Cineroid. List will get short. But if picture quality much better in AF100 then its worth of it.
nyvz
Veteran
Just curious, besides your FOV tests, which certainly verify the active area of each sensor, what evidence are you referring to that shows the sensors are actually different in size? When looking through the lens mount, can you clearly see that the sensors are different sizes and different aspect ratios?
Vitaliy Kiselev
Carbonite Member
I really don't know how you can judge sensor size according to FOV in 16:9 mode.
They could change jew code lines and make FOV smaller
It'll be reallty strange for Panasonic to produce large sensors in such low amounts as AF100.
They could change jew code lines and make FOV smaller
It'll be reallty strange for Panasonic to produce large sensors in such low amounts as AF100.
nyvz
Veteran
I really don't know how you can judge sensor size according to FOV in 16:9 mode.
They could change jew code lines and make FOV smaller
It'll be reallty strange for Panasonic to produce large sensors in such low amounts as AF100.
Yeah this is why I'm confused that Barry and Noel seem absolutely positive that the AF100 is a completely different sensor. I have never seen anyone provide evidence about this, except for saying that a Panasonic representative said so, the same representative that says that this camera also is capable of scanning the sensor at 720MP/s with an internal bandwidth of at least 1GB/s which is what would be required to deal with 12MP at 60fps since they say there is no line-skipping.
It seems fishy to me that Panasonic would create a new special sensor for their new camera "designed for 1080p HD video" (~2MP) yet they would specially design that brand new sensor to be 12+MP with exactly the same pixel size as all of Panasonic's m43 digital still cameras, only to have to put a very strong OLPF on it that throws away information from as many as 10Million of those photosites... or maybe they dont need the OLPF because the camera does not line skip and is designed an internal scaler that downscales every frame by 600% since the camera has incredible amounts of internal bandwidth and cooling for only $4k and the same power consumption as cameras that process only 1080p internally.
Just seems to me if I were Panasonic and I already had designed my latest m43 sensor (actually is the sensor in all of Panasonic's m43 still cameras known to be the same or different?) , that is already intended for "hybrid" video/stills camera, and I wanted to also make an affordable video camera for another, much smaller, prosumer camcorder market but the still sensor had too much aliasing when line-skipped enough to scan fast enough for video, I would take the sensor I already had and put my money into designing a new video-oriented body, put a stronger OLPF on my old sensor and put it in this new body with video features and sell it for a relatively affordable price I would not have been able to had I built this camera from the ground up with a 2-3MP sensor designed only for video.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
You know, there was a famous study done that said that people researching things on the internet, are not, in fact, looking for information or to discover the truth. Instead, they are looking for evidence to validate what they already believe.
The GH2 has a slightly larger sensor. And the AF100 makes better video images. Period.
Do you really believe this? If you do, get a GH2, and buy all those additional things. Of course you may want to ignore that in buying all this additional stuff, the price gap is narrowing quite a bit too, but ... to each his own. Get whichever product you prefer -- that's why they're both on the market.
There is nothing the GH2 can do better than the AF100 (except stills). A bigger sensor does not make better pictures -- if that was true, the 60D, 550D, 7D and 5D would all make better images than the GH2, and I think you know that's not the case.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Published specifications. The AF100 is published as 17.8 x 10mm, with 12.4 megapixels. The GH2 has been published as an oversize sensor, and using the pixel density and aspect ratios we've calculated it out at 18.9 x 10.6, and it is published at 16 megapixels.
I then put the exact same lens on each camera, on the same tripod, at the same distance (as measured by the film plane marker on each camera) and verified that the field of view is about as much wider as one would expect, given the slight difference in size (we're talking about a very slight difference in size, the GH2's is about six percent wider).
Eyeballing them, they look similar.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No it wouldn't. They have always produced custom sensor blocks for their cameras. What would be really strange, would be for them to be sharing sensor blocks with anything from the consumer division. That would be quite unusual. The HMC40 is an example, but ... that's about it. The HVX200 doesn't share a sensor with any consumer product. The HPX370 doesn't either. Neither did the DVX100. Or the HPX500. Or the HPX2700 or HPX3700 or HPX3100 or any of those.
I'm not saying there might not be some common ancestry between the AF100 and GH2 at some root level, we don't know that, maybe they started out life in the same silicon-pressing plant, I don't know. But the AF100 has a different sized sensor, with different image processing, different pixel count, different aspect ratio, different OLPF, and very probably a different color filter array. That all adds up to ... well, to me, it sounds like it's "different."
Barry_Green
Moderator
See my prior post. If that sounds the same to you, then hey, it's the same. But it sounds different to me. Not to mention that Jan has confirmed that it's different.
There's lots of evidence. What there is ZERO evidence of, however, is the claim that they're the same sensor. Nothing points to that.
Alan Roberts has confirmed that there is no line skipping. Alan did extensive testing, and the quote he gave is:
And after deciphering exactly what the AF100 does, and submitting his report to the BBC, creativevideo tweeted that the BBC has accepted the AF100 for unlimited acquisition for the BBC (provided you use a Nano at 50mbps). I don't know exactly what the AF100 does or how it does it. But Alan says he does, and he put it in his report, and the BBC approved it, so ... it sounds like whatever it does, it does it pretty well.
Or maybe you're making assumptions and you don't really know what it is or isn't doing? And, frankly, I'd ask why it matters all that much? Look at the images, and decide whether you like it or not.
Maybe that's what they did. I don't know, I'm not in the factory. But what I do know is that they've released the specifications, and many of the specifications are different -- which would imply that at some level, it's ... different.
Wouldn't it have to actually be the same, in order for you to say that it's the same?
Last edited:
GrahamH
Well-known member
Because there will be people who will buy a GH2 and sooner or later, once they have built up their lens collection somewhat, will start wondering about the benefits vs. cost of moving those lenses across to a AF100.
nyvz
Veteran
Seems like this effect could be significantly exacerbated by knowledgeable people stating subjective observations as fact and by stating facts without citing sources. You end up with a bunch of people saying nothing substantive to each other, as those who are biased will gladly accept subjective observations from knowledgeable sources as fact, and those who look for evidence or citations from which to form their ideas will find no useful information.
"Better period" in what way? Have you found AF100 has both less aliasing and more detail than the GH2? Or does the lack of aliasing reduce visible detail comparatively but in your opinion that is preferable to any aliasing?
So you would take issue, for example, with the conclusion of this article by Emil Martinec?
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html
He states in his conclusion, "Rather than having strong dependence on the pixel size, the noise performance instead depends quite strongly on sensor size -- bigger sensors yield higher quality images, by capturing more signal (photons). "
Or with DXO's test results for the cameras in question?
You feel that the GH2 (and even more so the AF100 which you have stated is better than the GH2) creates images with more latitude and less noise than Canon's APSC and even FF35 cameras despite their having ~4x the sensor area? Or is it some other aspect you are referring to that equates to "better images"?
The AF100 does these things better or includes these features:
7. 1080 slow motion
The GH2 can do 1080p @ 30 FPS slow motion with 80% playback speed
8. Better manual controls overall
What is better than having full manual control of aperture, ISO, shutter speed, ETC zoom ratio, sound level, frame rate, and resolution? The GH2 can do all of those things.
14. More HD framerates and resoltutions
What frame rates and resolutions? The GH2 can output 1080p @ 24 FPS, 1080i @ 30 FPS, 720p @ 60 FPS, and 1080p @ 24 FPS with 80% playback. The only "one" extra format the AF100 offers is 1080p @ 25 FPS. That is important for a few people but other than that they are very similar.
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.
For $4000 more it should do a lot more. It definitely does more. I just don't think it does $4000 more.
7. 1080 slow motion
The GH2 can do 1080p @ 30 FPS slow motion with 80% playback speed
8. Better manual controls overall
What is better than having full manual control of aperture, ISO, shutter speed, ETC zoom ratio, sound level, frame rate, and resolution? The GH2 can do all of those things.
14. More HD framerates and resoltutions
What frame rates and resolutions? The GH2 can output 1080p @ 24 FPS, 1080i @ 30 FPS, 720p @ 60 FPS, and 1080p @ 24 FPS with 80% playback. The only "one" extra format the AF100 offers is 1080p @ 25 FPS. That is important for a few people but other than that they are very similar.
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.
For $4000 more it should do a lot more. It definitely does more. I just don't think it does $4000 more.