what could af100 do that gh2 couldn't?

The colors in the snow video are just amazing. However, I agree with others that the AF100 has been hugely underwhelming and in some ways inferior to its HVX200a predecessor.
 
David W. Jones said:
In my opinion, judging a camera's ability by viewing some random footage posted online is a mistake.
Any camera can shoot great footage in the right hands, the same way any camera can shoot crappy footage in the wrong hands.

As far as the GH2 vs the AF100? Well I tend to liken it to an amateur vs professional choice.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the conundrum. Why is it that the amount of kickass GH2 footage dwarfs the amount of kickass AF100 footage?
Rationally, I suppose it's because the best cinematographers are already putting the AF100 to use professionally and not wasting their time posting clips on Vimeo. Hmm. That's a very real possibility now that I think about it.

Anyway, that "Snow" AF100 clip does look good, even though it's heavily tinted blue.

Perhaps I'll figure out a way to get my hands on one and test it out before I buy.
 
Yeah I thought the Snow video was fabulous, especially that opening shot and the one near (or at) the end with the bokeh.


dvbrother said:
And therein lies the conundrum. Why is it that the amount of kickass GH2 footage dwarfs the amount of kickass AF100 footage?
Click to expand...

Cause more people have the GH2?
 
I just finally saw the AF100 today in person... .or should I say it arrived at a friend's house and I'll be thankfully able to use it for some projects, rent it out, etc.


One thing that the AF100 can do is look like an absolute beauty. It's completely awesome looking and a lot beefier and rugged than anything the GH2 or a DSLR looks like. IT's built like a TANK.. just like the HVX and the DVX.. I do worry about the durability of the Gh2, but the AF100 could hammer nails from how it's built..


I got to play with it for a bit and here's my initial feelings. The LCD on the 100 is 1000 times better than the GH2 and same for the EVF. Love the built in ND and the form factor is ready to shoot handheld, albeit it's kind of heavy after shooting with the 150 and the GH2... I also really just like how it handles light and shadows and MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to pull focus...


It's definitely something to say that the process of filmmaking is more easier with the 100, with a few other exceptions, but maybe the final results will be idential.. or very similar... I'll do some tests soon and post them up...
 
sometimes that page works, sometimes it doesn't.

I've had the GH2 for a while, using it mostly for industry work (science), and recently bought a used AF100. I prefer the AF100 in most situations simply because of its flexibility, customizability, lower noise at high ISO, and ease-of-use. That said, the GH2's ETC mode, and the ability to easily mount it to things like telescopes, microscopes, and into tight spaces, and easily cover or wipe down/disinfect make it an absolute joy of a B-cam that can do certain things the AF can't.
 
Has anyone compared the image quality of the GH2 hacked and a af100? I would be curious to know the difference...
Let's just say that the people who own a af100 have good reasons to and the ones who are happy with the GH2 probably don't need it.
 
Thinking of hacking my GH2 soon to get better 60i and 720p performance. If I do so, I'll certainly give the comparo a try.

Phenix, I'd agree with your assessment... only reason I sprung for the AF was that sometimes I wasn't happy just using the GH2 and "making do." The two work wonderfully well together, though.
 
I have both. gh2 cant compare to the af100 in terms of video usability.
what i love about the gh2 is its handy. really small to carry it around and takes stills.

does gh2 shoot great video? yes. IQ wise its great and comparable the af100. but the price im paying for the af100 covers a lot more than just IQ
 
Barry_Green said:
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...
Click to expand...

I think a test is in order. I see threads like this pop up fairly regularly, so there's alot of curious people out there. It's rare to have two cameras like this, with similar image quality and wildly different feature sets/price points. People want to objectively know what they are getting image-quality wise, so they can know which price/feature set is most worth it to them. Comparing unrelated vimeo videos hasen't proven much so far.

So I definitely vote for a proper test.

Frankly though, I don't understand why so many people make it a passionate 'this vs that' angry debate. I'm glad they have both, so that different people with different needs and shooting styles/tolerances have a choice.
 
DBP said:
I think a test is in order. I see threads like this pop up fairly regularly, so there's alot of curious people out there. It's rare to have two cameras like this, with similar image quality and wildly different feature sets/price points. People want to objectively know what they are getting image-quality wise, so they can know which price/feature set is most worth it to them. Comparing unrelated vimeo videos hasen't proven much so far.

So I definitely vote for a proper test.

Frankly though, I don't understand why so many people make it a passionate 'this vs that' angry debate. I'm glad they have both, so that different people with different needs and shooting styles/tolerances have a choice.
Click to expand...

The problem is, there will never be a "proper" test because EVERY time someone does one, everyone picks it apart at the seams to show why they think it is invalid. And truth be told, I've learned that tests give you a metric about cameras, but certainly not the whole story, and one that can be misleading.

I shot with both a GH2 and an AF100 many months ago. I compared the footage from the same exact location, same lenses, and clearly saw that the aliasing performance on the AF100 was superior. There was NO question to me. I post this information and of course get a ton of "Well I've never seen aliasing on my GH2" and maybe they haven't, but the thing is, it was a simple test. Shooting bricks, shingles on roofs and an AC condensor on the side of a house. The AC condensor had HORRIBLE aliasing that I really didn't like. However, it did handle the roof and bricks very well.

The only way to REALLY know which camera is better for you is to get ahold of both and shoot them yourself. There is no substitute for this. I've read enough professional testing of cameras that *I* have personally used to realize how much personal opinions differ in what is acceptable and what isn't. What you want to focus on or how you shoot makes a HUGE difference.

People just shy away from doing proper tests because no one can decide what is proper and everyone thinks they are an expert! :)
 
Even the most thorough tests run by the most thorough, professional people (a la Zacuto) will inevitably be dismissed, because at the heart of it, it attempts to apply a scientific method to a subjective preference. Quite simply, this never works.

Now, I compared by newly-hacked GH2 to my Af100. I was happy that the GH2 appears to show less noise at high ISO, indeed on par with the AF100. However, the GH still showed a touch of aliasing and a lot more CMOS skew at slight telephoto, and also adds a notable green cast in the lows at high ISO.

I'm still keeping and using both, and it's good to have the info to know which I can use in which situation to maximum effect.
 
I own both, and for me the AF100 is the A Cam, and my hacked GH2 is the B Cam which can also fit in area's the AF100 can't. It's a great combination. Which one is better? like Rick said, only you can decide that. I made my decision.
 
I echo Rick, mcbob, and Brian. I have both. The AF100 is the A-camera every single time. The GH2 is loved because of its size and its cost, but not because of its functionality. Its image is amazing for the price. It's way more skewy, it shows more aliasing, and it just doesn't have nearly the usability of the AF100. It isn't and could never be a replacement or substitute for an AF100. But I think it's the one accessory every AF100 owner shouldl have.
 
From what I've seen, I'd agree with Rick and Barry about the image quality of the GH2, out of the box, compared to the AF100. I've also compared the GH2 to the Nikon D5100, which produced significantly better 1080p shadow detail at comparable bitrates. However, the hacked GH2 leaves them both in the dust, and is completely free of the reliability issues that plagued the hacked GH1. It demonstrates how shortchanged these cameras are by the arbitrary limitations of their stock consumer-grade codecs. I also agree with the BBC's conclusions about the advisability of using an external recorder with the AF100, since its firmware currently cannot be hacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top