whats the big deal

R

Richter Video Equipment

Well-known member
Hi guys,
I don't know to much about the Af100 other then whats on paney's website, but every one has been waiting for it as if its the best thing since sliced bread. What is so great about it? What can it do that a 200a or a 170 can't do? It looks shorter and smaller. It also apears to not come wiht a lens. I know that how pro stuff is, but i kinda like buying the camera with the lens.

-Cody
 
Large sensor = Depth of Field resembling 35mm film. That's the short of it.

It's a professional video camera that is built around the same coolness as what created the video DSLR revolution - but it does away with all the drawbacks of shooting video on a DSLR.
 
It's more like shooting on a DSLR than a video cam. Unlike the 200 or 170, the AF-100 is true 1080p (1920x1080p square pixels) and uses a large 4/3rds sensor whereas the 200 and 170 are psudo 1080 (lower res) and use 1/3" CCD. The result is footage that looks far more like film than what many people are able to accomplish with the previously stated models. not to mention the SDI out allows you to capture a high bit rate at 4:2:2 color...

And that's just for starters...

(dillont - you beat me to the post)
 
Last edited:
For those of us using 3 CCD cameras with lens adapters for 35 mm lenses, it also provides for less light loss.
 
yup, control of depth of field, interchangable lenses, extremely better low light. More like a film camera than what previous camcorders were. Also, keeps dslrs where they belong, out and away from film making.
 
Thanks for the input. So for events taping...lectures, theater, dance, which I tape in 30 or 60p...is there a huge advantage? For most of what i tape i'm so far back the DOF is not normally a problem. The large sensor would be nice, but why not just make a hvx with bigger sensor? I could see the advantage if i was making an indi film, but for event shooting, I've never needed a dslr look.
-Cody
 
Richter Video Equipment said:
Thanks for the input. So for events taping...lectures, theater, dance, which I tape in 30 or 60p...is there a huge advantage? For most of what i tape i'm so far back the DOF is not normally a problem. The large sensor would be nice, but why not just make a hvx with bigger sensor? I could see the advantage if i was making an indi film, but for event shooting, I've never needed a dslr look.
-Cody
Click to expand...
why not make an hvx with a big sensor? Well isn't that what the AF100 is? Basically a large brother to HVX
 
There's no file-size limit. (well, there is at 12 hours). If you don't care about the look, save your $$ and stick with the 200 or 170. Just because it's new, doesn't mean that you NEED it. ;-)
 
Preliminary tests and comparisons between AVCHD and HDSI uncompressed footage do not show a dramatic increase of quality in term of resolution, noise suppression, elimination of artifacts, immediately visible improvements of colour resolution etc.

For two possible reasons:
1. noise and other trouble is coming from the raw sensor signal
2. the AVCHD codec in the AF100 is damned good.

1 + 2 ==> little difference

Other opinions?
 
Last edited:
I agree that getting an AF100 because it's new doesn't make sense. If you do event work, under uncontrolled lighting you'd do well with the 200 but for digital cinema, commercials, web series or anything where you expect to make use of film technique, this camera would prove a better choice. It just depends on what your doing.
 
Richter Video Equipment said:
now that something...2 hours in 32 gigs? Is that like supper compressed or something?
Click to expand...
No, rather "modern-compressed"

If you don´t need the DSLR look, then forget it.
if you need zoom and ENG-style.....pretty much forget it. It is like an old film-cam with modern capture technology. Harder to focus, mainly fixed lenses or zoomable-lenses but without the zoom-rocker on videocameras.
 
I've tried out the AF100 for a short while now, and I still find my HMC and Sgblade combo to give a much nicer dof, IMO the AF100 looks bit to much video. But shure, the AF100 is much smaller and lighter, takes in much more light than my sgblade combo does, so the weight and increased light would be the only things that beat my current setup, at least in my opinion. And then, by taking of my adapter I get a great camera for interviews and reports where run n gun is the only way you work, doing that with the AF100 isn't quite that easy!
 
If you don't care about shallower DOF then this isn't the camera for you. You need lenses with the AF-100 and that can get pricey fast. Its a tool but not the only one in the bag. The 170 is a great camera but under performs in low light or even ambient lighting situations. Now a days we have so many choices. I for one am really happy that I do. In one week I shot with a AF-100, SDX900 and a HPX370. Each camera did the job it was meant to do and did it well. Except I don't really care for the HPX370.
 
Erik Naso said:
If you don't care about shallower DOF then this isn't the camera for you. You need lenses with the AF-100 and that can get pricey fast. Its a tool but not the only one in the bag.
Click to expand...
Agreed 1,000%.

As for what Richter said he does, I agree that a 200/170 is the better choice.
 
Thanks for all the info. Sorry i was a bit slow to keep reading this post. I might get one if there still popular in a year or 2. That's when i can pick one up used for half of the price. Its not somthing I need but since I rent cameras as well Its something i think renters will want. for now I'll stay with the smaller cheaper cameras. As least now i know what all the fuss is all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top