Why are folks selling their AF100s?

I honestly feel that this highlight issue is overblown (pun intended). More than anything, the footage with terrible clipping are ones with bad white balancing. Here is a video I worked on that had lots of blown out backgrounds:http://vimeo.com/23735869 Without proper balancing these would look pretty bad.

Grug said:
Except I've just stumbled across the matter of highlight rolloff this afternoon... :(

Because so many of my shoots are so limited in terms of time, equipment and assistance (the three keys to good lighting IMO) having the sort of smooth highlight handling that keeps images looking filmic, is really important for me - it's one of the things that keeps blowing me away about the 5DMkII when I use it, how smoothly the highlights spill into the image. The AF100 turns out a beautiful image when you don't have extremes of exposure, but when you do... it seems to be the camera's biggest stumbling block (far more so than the image characteristics of the slightly smaller sensor IMO).

Argh! Now I'm torn between the incredible value of the Pannie, and the notably better highlights of the Sony.

Cue restless nights' sleeping...
Click to expand...
 
Argh! Now I'm torn between the incredible value of the Pannie, and the notably better highlights of the Sony.

Cue restless nights' sleeping...
Click to expand...

Go with the FS100. Its a no brainer if thats what you want and love so much! Why save money and be unhappy? ( You will only be back here complaining that you made a bad decision)

BTW: I dont understand anyone buying any item of this value without doing a test-drive for comparison.
 
Hmmm... I wouldn't think folks coming to this camera would be foreign to manual focus and exposure. And instead of suggesting it's normal to have to know the camera inside and out to get a desirable image, maybe Panny needs to dial things in a bit more out of the box.
 
Gweilo66 said:
Hmmm... I wouldn't think folks coming to this camera would be foreign to manual focus and exposure. And instead of suggesting it's normal to have to know the camera inside and out to get a desirable image, maybe Panny needs to dial things in a bit more out of the box.
Click to expand...

What are your experiences that let you to believe that the camera can not deliver a desirable picture "out of the box"?

And can you see that the "tweakability" of a camera could be a sign of it's versatility and not a deficiency?

We have used an AG-AF 101E for special shots alongside an ALEXA for a 1.3 million € prime-time TV-Movie ..... and we are very happy with the results.
 
Gweilo66 said:
Hmmm... I wouldn't think folks coming to this camera would be foreign to manual focus and exposure. And instead of suggesting it's normal to have to know the camera inside and out to get a desirable image, maybe Panny needs to dial things in a bit more out of the box.
Click to expand...

I think that some of the problems people experience is that they read forums like this and they see people fiddling with the menus and they think they have to do that. Then they do and they don't know what they are doing and work themselves into an unsatisfactory experience. Out of the box it can make great pictures. The things i was referring to is not having a motorized zoom and not fully understanding what a variable focal length lens is all about. Or having to figure out what size lens you need to get a certain image. When you have worked with a point and shoot camera like the HVX or the HPX, this camera is very different. They won't have a different experience on any other large imager camera, the issues remain the same just called something different. It is really about the tolerance level for change and challenge.

Best,

Jan
 
Tweakability is great. So is having some presets that get the image to where 80% are happy with it. Make a preset that simulates a popular DSLR. Why not? I imagine many are moving to AF100 less for a defined AF100 image and more for form factor, onboard audio and long record times.
Jan, regarding focus and exposure, I was referring to the comment by Aguia suggesting those coming to the AF100 wouldn't be familiar with those concepts. I just can't imagine that.
A well matched zoom would be a good idea...especially after working a film short with DP changing out lenses constantly when time was of the essence.
A motorized zoom would be great for those having the audacity to want to use shallow DOF in combination with online zoom for events that unfold unexpectedly. I suppose that would be too pricey a lens.
 
Gweilo66 said:
I imagine many are moving to AF100 less for a defined AF100 image and more for form factor, onboard audio and long record times.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. Honestly I personally wouldn't want a defined AF 100 image. And I think about the "out of box" settings just as starting points (good ones though, me thinks).

Form factor was indeed what convinced me after it was clear that the camera delivers a good to very good picture for the price. I doubt not that other people may prefer another camera for other - valid - reasons. I just do not see where the AG-AF does not deliver what can be realistically expected in the price range.

Another question - especially with the lenses - is in which way the MFT system as a whole may develop in the future. There is the real strategic question for Panasonic. I hope they give this system another push and that lens manufacturers step in like Voigtlaender did with the extremely nice 25 mm f. 0.95.
 
I'll be honest I have thought about it many times. I've dialed in the settings as best I can and still get inconsistent results in various areas. Lots of explanations for things like that, and it's not necessarily the camera...but there's those times when something just isn't a good fit for whatever reason. I keep hanging onto it because of the reasons stated above like form factor and the fact it has some great features, but I'm having issues in the "image" department. Even so, I keep on fighting to try and figure out what it is I'm not liking, because I don't want to get rid of it LOL. At the end of the day I just gotta make whatever decision is proper for my needs, my time, and how quickly I need to work.

I don't blame a lot of folks for going with a DSLR to get a 'quick n dirty' good image, because sometimes you don't have time for anything else.
 
Wait people are selling off their AF100's? At record low prices?

Where? I mean I already have 2, but I'm in the market for (and have enough jobs / right type of jobs) 2 more… So point me in the direction of the ppl looking to get rid of this 'stinker' of a camera...
 
The way I see it is this. My AF-100 has already been paid off on the work I've done with it. If a better camera comes out that offers me a better image with the features I don't want to live without from the AF like HD-SDI, ND filters, Dual Card Slots, waveform monitor and form factor then I'll sell it and get this new camera, but it has served me well and probably will for a while to come. I could use a little more resolution, but hey can't have everything at this price ;) at least yet.

Great cam, perfect no, great yes.

Cheers
 
Grug said:
Except I've just stumbled across the matter of highlight rolloff this afternoon... :(

Because so many of my shoots are so limited in terms of time, equipment and assistance (the three keys to good lighting IMO) having the sort of smooth highlight handling that keeps images looking filmic, is really important for me - it's one of the things that keeps blowing me away about the 5DMkII when I use it, how smoothly the highlights spill into the image. The AF100 turns out a beautiful image when you don't have extremes of exposure, but when you do... it seems to be the camera's biggest stumbling block (far more so than the image characteristics of the slightly smaller sensor IMO).

Argh! Now I'm torn between the incredible value of the Pannie, and the notably better highlights of the Sony.

Cue restless nights' sleeping...
Click to expand...

I hear you, and that is one of the reasons I bought an FS100......BUT..... what you have to realize is that the FS100 may have advantages in a couple areas,
but then there disadvantages....like the fact that there is no built in ND. Do you want to screw in ND filters on every lens, or put on a matte box and
rails for everything? Even when you do what I did and get a Heliopan (which is a FANTASTIC variable ND screw in filter for run and gun) you STILL have the
issue that it goes from 0.3ND to 2.0ND. So 1 - 6.6 stops of ND (really smooth exposure changes which is nice) but there is NO '0' setting. So what this
means, is if you are shooting inside, you will likely have to unscrew the ND filter, and then screw it back on when you go outside. No way around it, if
you use the FS100 you are going to have to deal with ND. Do you need HD-SDI or is HDMI ok for your purposes? Waveform? Low light shooting?
I really don't think there is an easy choice between these two cameras, they are both better than the other at certain things. I live in a place where
I cannot try them out before I buy. So basically, I had to finally make a choice, and just roll with it. Do I sometimes wish I had chosen differently? Yup.
But other times I am happy with my choice. You just do the best you can with what you have. And to be honest, while I don't think there is any 'clear winner'
between these two, I also don't think there are any 'losers' in this race. Either camera is going to look so good, that you will just love it! Pick one and
just go with it!! Good luck.
 
It's like I mentioned way back on the first page of this thread... and I think everyone that has experience with these cameras agrees, both have strengths and weaknesses... but the differences are not 'that' major... 5% one way or the other maybe?

It depends on what you want... how you need to use it... what your shooting style is... and a million other things to long to list (LOL).

We've seen some great AF100 clips posted.... and some bad ones... same for the FS100... good and bad.

The debate goes on and on... and ends up always coming down to what the OP really wants to do with the camera. Will the FS100 or AF100 give an F3 style result? Probably similar, but not the same... if you want F3 and log... go that route. if you want really nice rolloff, go for (god forbid!) film!!! - or stay with DSLR's (and their limitations) or look at the Epic/Alexa route... the rolloff on the Epic is really (really) nice... it should be, considering the price difference... but that's sort of my point... don't expect F3/log stle performance from a $5K camcorder (AF or FS)... and don't expect Red-Raw style quality from an F3/Log... get an Epic or Alexa.

5 years ago... imagine if something was out there with the quality of the AF100 or FS100... we're so jaded that we forget the 'olde dark days' - anyone remember using BVU or BetaSP 25 years ago??? People with longer memories (like me - LOL) look at the new cameras and just smile... even the nature of post production is so much better now. There just wouldn't be this type of conversation going on - everyone would be shocked to have a HD camcorder with a large chip in their hands :) - (quick - let's invent a time machine and buy up all the camera stock we can!).

And therein lies the point... we always want the 'tool' we're using to be as near perfect fro all occasions... and they never are. It's all about compromise - and accepting limitations. Alaskacameradude's post (#36) sums this up in a level headed way... it really depends what the OP wants - and how close to perfection $5K will get you!
 
MadMonkFish said:
- anyone remember using BVU or BetaSP 25 years ago???!
Click to expand...

25 years ago! HAHA, I shot my last BetaSP production in 2004.

Actually I used to caution people on the side of prudence with regards to camera purchases. These days things go obsolete so quickly and there are so many easy ways to resell gear that I tell people they are wasting time if they need a camera, can afford a camera and don't live in a market with rental resources. Take your chance on whatever floats your boat and if it doesn't work out flip it. I was a Sony guy for 20 years, when the HDSLR thing came along I tried Canon and ended up dumping it for the GH1, I took the AF100 route almost entirely based on the good results I enjoyed with the GH1 (using it as a B camera against my Sony A camera).

I don't understand how anyone can be dissatisfied with the results from either of these cameras, I think the dissatisfaction stems from the feature-depth of each that requires more time investment than your previous generation run-and-gun prosumer cameras and to some extent the DSLRS.
 
aguia said:
25 years ago! HAHA, I shot my last BetaSP production in 2004.

Actually I used to caution people on the side of prudence with regards to camera purchases. These days things go obsolete so quickly and there are so many easy ways to resell gear that I tell people they are wasting time if they need a camera, can afford a camera and don't live in a market with rental resources. Take your chance on whatever floats your boat and if it doesn't work out flip it. I was a Sony guy for 20 years, when the HDSLR thing came along I tried Canon and ended up dumping it for the GH1, I took the AF100 route almost entirely based on the good results I enjoyed with the GH1 (using it as a B camera against my Sony A camera).

I don't understand how anyone can be dissatisfied with the results from either of these cameras, I think the dissatisfaction stems from the feature-depth of each that requires more time investment than your previous generation run-and-gun prosumer cameras and to some extent the DSLRS.
Click to expand...

LOL - back in the late 80's I worked in film (16/35) and always hated having to do stuff on BVU or SP, but then learned to love tape... then came Digibeta in the mid 90's... and that sort of became de-facto for ages. Then HDCam arrived and now look where we are... we should all be celebrating the fact that even DSLR's can produce stunning HD images!

We'd have been burnt at the stake as evil Witches if we'd have been able to see this crazy future we now live in... so aguia - 100% agree with what you're saying and this echoes my view too.

It's just so much easier to create amazing images now... when I was a student in the mid 80's, you couldn't even edit 'at home'... computers, as we know them now, didn't exist... I even remember seeing an 'Edit-Droid' in operation (look it up guys :) - and was wowed by that... but it was so 'Heath Robinson' in comparison to the stuff we have now.
 
Well..the highlight issue is intriguing. If 5D has more pleasing/forgoving handling of that (according to comments) than a newer dedicated video cam/DSLR killer, gotta think something went askew. Hopefully, newer cams try to keep what was good about predecessors and address the deficiencies. An "old" Sony D30 I logged a lot of footage on had pretty nice highlight control/dynamic range circuitry that could be switched in via side panel toggles. It also had some distinct presets to start with that demonstrated the range of looks possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top