what could af100 do that gh2 couldn't?

I'm working on it. I ordered some stuff from B&H to assist with it. I was planning on combining it with an examination of some LED lights I picked up, but in order to test them I wanted to have all shades of minusgreen gels available, and for low light purposes I wanted to explore with the candles a bit further, and to do so I ordered a parabolic reflector that I plan on rigging with a candle, to see if I can get some serious punch out of it. And when I get this stuff, I'll put the GH2 and the AF100 in the same scenarios and see what happens...
 
OldCorpse said:
Clearly, there is a crying need for a shootout between the GH2 and the AF100. Barry, quit stalling and do what the crowd demands :) Back in the Roman days, even the Emperors did not dare defy the Coliseum crowd, once the crowd got it in their heads that particular gladiators need to fight it out. I think the crowd has got to a fever pitch, and there is no going back. So, from the left gate, it is the GH2 with the lions against - from the right gate, the AF100 with the bears. Barry, let us have the spectacle, we will be denied no longer!!!
Click to expand...

Personally, as someone considering a 5DMKII dump for a GH2 as a lightweight / small space accompanier to the AF100, Id rather look at from how well the GH2 works together with the AF.
 
nyvz said:
Oh I never thought they were the same. I just felt it would be jumping to conclusions to say one way or the other.
Click to expand...
This is what seems so odd to me. There are people all over the place saying "they are the same", even though there's not a single stitch of evidence to support such a conclusion. And then when I say "they're not the same", I get called on the carpet for it, even though I think there's plenty of evidence to show that they are indeed different.

And I still don't understand -- why does it matter? Really, truly -- what difference does it make? If the GH2 offered the exact same sensor as the AF100, there's still a list of fifty items that the AF100 does that the GH2 doesn't. They're so different that really, there shouldn't be a question -- it should be obvious which one is the right one, for any given purchaser.

Even if the sensor is identical -- I mean, that's like GM putting the Corvette engine in the Cadillac CTS-V coupe. Does that make them the same car? Clearly not. The engine is only one component of what makes a car a car. And the sensor is only one component of what makes a camera, a camera.

So -- why would it matter, if the sensor is the same, or different, or similar?
 
I'm pretty amazed by the amount of energy and emotional energy spent arguing the toss about this, whilst waiting for a report that will give difinitive answers to most of the isssues being considered.

Barry, I'd like to feel that you don't need to justify anything you've said. You have given evidence based opinion, and expressed it as such, and you are to all purposes an expert in the field, so perhpas your opinion is valid.

It is clear that the sensor, in isolation, is nobody's business - who cares if they're the same? The video quality is all that can be compared regarding sensors and their implementation, as none of us are building a m43 camera.
 
And when I get this stuff, I'll put the GH2 and the AF100 in the same scenarios and see what happens...[/QUOTE]

This is what would be important to me. Thanks for taking this on.
 
As much as I like the GH-2 I think a lot of you will be humbled by the potential results. But this discussion is certainly making me more and more curious.
 
I do intend to do a test with the AF100 and GH2 (probably alongside 7D and EX1) if my GH2 ever shows up. I have access to an AF100 now at a company I work for occasionally (hopefully they got a lens by now...). Anyway, if anyone in NYC is interested, let me know.

I'm not sure I would necessarily like to call it a shootout, as I don't think that "there can be only one", but I would like to collect data on the cameras capabilities and probably would end up coming up with a couple of comparative observations.
 
ghosttv said:
Yes please make shootout! Let's see if af100 is all its capped up to be! Omg!
Click to expand...
See, this is the thing I don't get -- what are you expecting to see? The differences in the footage aren't going to be all that dramatic, I can tell you that from having used them both. It's not like the AF100 is magically going to have five more stops of dynamic range or something.

The differences are going to be in the aliasing patterns, and I think the noise on the AF100 is cleaner, but until I put them in the exact same scenario I don't know that for sure.

But ... even if the GH2 footage ends up looking exactly as good as the AF100's footage... so? There's still a list of fifty things that the AF100 does that the GH2 doesn't do. So I don't understand what you're expecting to see from a shootout.

Someone made the comment that they'd like to know if they can intercut well, and that request makes sense, but ... other than that, I guess I'm trying to understand what people are expecting to see here...
 
I'd like to go back to my analogy. AF-100 is like driving a car, and GH2 is like taking the bus :D
 
Barry_Green said:
But ... even if the GH2 footage ends up looking exactly as good as the AF100's footage... so? ...
Click to expand...

But for me, poor guy on a budget that has no aspirations of shooting for the BBC and who already has a dual sound setup, if the GH2 footage ends up looking exactly as good as the AF100 (and I'm not expecting that it does) that is huge! Even if it is fairly close, that is huge! For the price difference, I am willing to put up with the limitations and workarounds. For what I do, weddings mainly, all the benefits of the AF100 that have been discussed in this thread don't justify the price difference, especially if the picture quality is comprable. I mean, I sold my HMC150 and went with all DSLRS because my work centers around a lot of low light footage and for all its benefits as a videocamera, I don't miss the HMC at all. Well not true, the one thing I miss is the smooth zooms, but the AF100 doesn't have that anyway.

g.
 
People.. isn't it great to just have options. I for one was all about the AF100 and the same for the GH2. Since I bought the Gh2 I'm not in a rush for the 100 cause I'm happy with the Gh2 but also don't have the work to justify the expense, especially since I've been putting the money into getting my steadicam up and running, and in buying additional gear and getting post done.... I probably will get the AF100, but I don't feel so compelled to get it now that I once did... Maybe I'm a DSLR koolaid but, but it makes some really pretty and awesome images and right now I'm trying to go more bang for the buck.

That 4K allows me to get a really nice 4 track audio recorder, a DSLR rig, a monitor, some Faders, and a couple of really nice lenses... I'm just looking at spreading it around and when I need some of the AF100 options I still have my 150...

i wouldn't applaud one or the other, but just that we have good choices... I'm also shooting something this weekend that would be impossible with the 100.. i'd get kicked out of the place, but with the Gh2 I look like such a tourist... I will wear sandals with black socks and a Disney shirt and viola.. i'm golden... Being able to shoot a crowd of people at night with a .95 lens and having them not even know what's up, or that they are even really visible cause they are just blobs of color and shape, is Priceless.... Ya wipe out a pro looking camera and they'll kick you out... Gorilla shooting is fun
 
I wouldn't be too hard on the Scarlet and or wait for it... When it comes out, if it comes out, it's also going to be a lot more money than the Af100 and who knows what issues it might have from the onset. It's probably, what? 2 years behind schedule with major price increases and yet no real dates for shipping and such... I think they'll just abandon the whole consumer/prodsumer end and keep it all high end...

Besides there are rumors abound about the next version of the 5D and what that will offer. I wouldn't put too much stock in a delivery by even this time next year, but if they do.. wouldn't that be a nice surpise.. I for one was looking at that Super 35 version, but if it's 15k I wouldn't consider that cause I need 3 of them. 3 Gh2's.. or even 3 x the 5D mark 3 might be quite the ticket.
 
I'm a current GH2 owner, and I plan to get an AF100 at some point in the near future. But I think some of the skepticism toward the AF100 DOES center on image quality. I have been waiting and waiting for that ONE AF100 video that looks equal to or better than the best GH2 videos I have seen. And I'm still waiting. In my opinion, a good amount of GH2 videos just look better than things shot with the AF100. It could just be that the AF100 owners are still tweaking their settings, but there is some truth to the perception that the AF100 looks more like video, doesn't seem to have the Panasonic skin tone mojo, etc. I've witnessed it with my own eyes. These are inflammatory words, I know, but it is my opinion.
I really want to see that ONE video which makes me say "OK, that clearly looks as good as or better than footage I've shot with my GH2", because I want to have confidence that my $4,000 to $5,000 purchase will have the skin tones and highlight handling of the GH2. Actually, it should be BETTER than the GH2. But I'm still waiting for that video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top