October 11, 2012

Panasonic AF100 is *Not* Officially Discontinued, is the GH3 or the 4K VariCam Replacing It?

[UPDATE: Seems like a mistake on B&H's part about the listing, according to Jan Crittenden Livingston at Panasonic it has not been discontinued. So the rest of this post will just serve as a reminder of my mistake -- though some of the information is still relevant.] It's been rumored for a while now, but it looks like Panasonic has finally discontinued the AF100. Sluggish sales and better video quality from a cheaper camera (GH2), meant many low-budget filmmakers saved a few bucks and totally disregarded the more expensive sibling altogether. It's sad news for many who've bought into the Panasonic Micro 4/3 video camera system hoping for an upgrade someday, but this may be the end of the road for that product line. So what exactly does this mean for Panasonic?

Here is B&H showing the discontinued camera:

With the announcement of the improved (and more expensive) GH3, it's clear Panasonic understands that there is a far bigger market for a high-performing but less-featured camera among independent filmmakers. Since many people are recording dual-system sound as it is, the only thing missing (besides a better build) is ND filters, which you're not going to get on any mirrorless or DSLR camera anyway. It may have initially been embarrassing for the video division at Panasonic that a sub-$1,000 camera actually gave better image quality than a sub-$5,000 camera, but the success of the GH2 and the hack actually meant that the company stayed on the radar of filmmakers, as opposed to fading into obscurity thanks to Sony and Canon.

So is that it for the product line? It's looking that way, and I would be surprised if they release a new version, considering we didn't hear anything at NAB about an upgraded AF100. We did, however, hear a bit about a new camera they were calling the 4K VariCam. While details were limited, it will definitely sport a 4K Super 35mm sensor and feature a version of the newly developed AVC Ultra 4:4:4 codec. Though this isn't a direct replacement to the camera that just got axed, it's in the realm of possibility that we could see a version of this camera eventually finding its way down to the price of the AF100. Since details were limited on that camera, there's no reason to speculate too much, but Panasonic may not think they can compete in the $4-$8,000 range at this time, so they are attempting to make the best camera possible under $2,000 and over $10,000 (no word on final pricing for the 4K VariCam yet, since it was in prototype form).

Next year's NAB should clear up the situation immensely, as Panasonic is likely to show off a real, working version of this 4K camera (and maybe even lower-priced versions). Down the road, Panasonic would be wise to work out some sort of RAW format, or at least make it possible for a camera to output a RAW signal, just as Sony is doing with the FS700. The future may be 4K, but there's no question higher-end productions are looking for RAW output, and it would be very surprising if Panasonic did not make a camera at least giving filmmakers the option to go out to a 4K recorder like the AJA Ki Pro Quad.

If you're in the market for a used AF100, there are some decent deals from B&H below. You can also see a few more photos of the 4K VariCam from NAB. What do you guys think? What would you like to see from Panasonic over the next 1-2 years?

Links:

[Images courtesy of Adam Wilt at ProVideo Coalition]

Your Comment

48 Comments

Now you can get one used for cheap. It has a ton of input/output ports (hd-sdi, etc), 60i and ND filters, still not a bad camera

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
john jeffreys

it can actually do 60P at 1080P

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
David J. Fulde

even better lol

October 11, 2012

-3
Reply
john jeffreys

Yeah, until you see the images. We have 4 of these at work and we all unanimously hate the AF100. It is a pain to work with, and the image is nearly impossible to get a workable degree of latitude from. More often than not, we use an employee's hacked GH2 instead for the super-nice lenses we have for our AF100 kits.

October 11, 2012

1
Reply
David

I think Panasonic needs to hit this price point with an AVC-I codec camera. I'm less concerned with raw (as awesome as it can be), as long as you have nice a intraframe 10-bit codec. I'm tired of 8-bit interframe codecs being used for acquisition.

October 11, 2012

1
Reply
Gabe

Joe are you only going on B&H for this info?
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems Product Manager 3D, AVCCAM and P2 Handheld Camcorders has stated this is an error by B&H and that the AF-100 isn't discontinued.
Quote from Jan on DVXuser. "This is a mistake, Not sure why they posted this but it is not true."

October 11, 2012

0
Reply

Is B&H Photo your only source for this information? Might be worth checking with actual reps from Panasonic before posting this kind of news.

Shawn Miller

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
Shawn Miller

Reps from all of the companies don't seem to be in contact with us about anything, so yes, in this case, it would be my only source, but it seems like it is a mistake.

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Thanks Joe,

I just spoke to someone at AbelCine, their Panasonic rep says that the AF100 has not been discontinued. And as Eric Naso pointed out, the product manager for the AF100 (Jan Crittenden Livingston) also stated that the AF100 is still in production. Hopefully, this rumor will get squashed soon. Are you planning to publish a retraction? :-)

Shawn Miller

October 11, 2012

-2
Reply
Shawn Miller

Well, I'm not going to write a new post, but I've updated the title and have made my mistake clear at the top, I think that's shame enough. :)

October 11, 2012

-2
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Ha ha, fair enough. Now, if B&H will just correct their site... :-)

Shawn

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
Shawn Miller

come on! shame? where? it´s pure crystal clear honesty! :)

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
guto novo

I honestly don't know where panny's head is at with regard to the large sensor market. I think they really messed up committing to m43 format. It's great as an up and coming niche in the stills world, but for video, the format is a bit of a hassle. They need to make what the af100 should have been from the beginning:

An inter-changeable lens, S35 camera in a handheld, HPX170 form factor. P2 or SD media. AVC intra / ultra, 4:2:2, bult in NDs, XLR audio. The fact that this camera doesn't exist yet - from any manufacturer (under $8,000 anyway) - baffles me. It would absolutely SLAY in the prosumer market.

October 11, 2012

1
Reply
dave

C100 is pretty close to that lol

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
john jeffreys

yep. and its also $8,000. Goodie.

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
dave

Actually, the MSRP is 8k but it's supposed to be going for around 6400, if i heard correctly. Same with how the C300 was priced by Canon at 20k but stores sell it for 16.

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
john jeffreys

the sony NEX-ea50eh is actually the closest thing to perfect in my eyes. If it weren't for the lack of NDs and the shoulder mount bazooka form factor, i'd be all over that. 100%.

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
dave

On B&H for $6500 right now, probably $8k with all the trimmings though.

October 11, 2012

3
Reply
Tom

C100 doesn't even have HD-SDI.

At that price it baffles me that it's not included. We were talking about pro (-ish) prices but without pro features. Yet again Canon completely misunderstands the market.

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Canon misunderstands pricing with the c300 but they completely understand the market. Please tell me another large format camera where you can actually use the viewfinder and can shoot with absolutely no accessories with ease. It will be the only camera in the price range that doesnt suffer from rolling shutter and has built in nds. Both HDMI and HDSDI do uncompressed 4:2:2 so if a hdmi cable will bring down the price of the camera and they added a locking mechanism then so be it. I almost forgot that you get a log curve, and a lut that mantains the full dynamic range of the sensor, sensitivity more sensative than the eye and a stop mroe dynamic range than the fs700.

Canon is greedy and some of their cameras are overpriced, but the c100 is not. It goes toe to toe with the Fs700 on many levels. This camera should have been the one released on Nov 3rd

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
ryan

Pro monitors don't do HDMI. (the new smallHD that will be out in Dec will...and I think the last Marshall that came out probably does, but the local rental houses don't have them. I've already put down my deposit on that new smallHD, but it has nothing to do with the fact that it has HDMI, and I already have a Decimator if I now to downconvert to HDMI for when someone wants to hook up their home TV.) HDMI is too limiting both in gear (professional gear) that uses it, as well as pipeline limits. I guess they keep coming out with new HDMI specs and updates that improve it, but it gets kind of overwhelming to follow about it. Stick to HD-SDI and be done with it. HDMI is how you quickly hook up your PS3 or 360 to your TV.

The fact that a now (not) discontinued Panny cam from a couple years ago for 1/2 the price (the AF100) has HD-SDI leads me to reiterate that Canon doesn't get it, or are just way behind every other manufacturer with their product roll outs...especially when considering the trend of onboard recorders instead of just in-camera recording. Sony and Panasonic (who have both been making proper professional video cameras for years instead of just prosumer crap that was quickly shelved when their DSLR's hijacked their video division--like Canon) have had these features on cheaper cameras for years.

October 13, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

It has the best looking, most filmic image out of the cameras it goes up against (fs100 and 700, nex ea50, af100). And the ergonomics are on another level

October 12, 2012

2
Reply
john jeffreys

I haven't used the C100, but you think those ergonomics look good? That thing looks like its modeled on their old Canon Scoopic (their old 16mm camera). That thing was a torture device. Worst ergonomics on any camera I've ever used.

October 13, 2012

-1
Reply
Daniel Mimura

I feel like there are too many expectations for companies to compete. Sometimes the best move is to stay out of it. Especially when new cameras are coming as fast as they are going.

October 11, 2012

-3
Reply
ryan

Dont beat yourself up too much Joe, a prompt retraction is how we know this site really has filmmakers best interests at heart and not saving face. I love this site.

October 11, 2012

1
Reply
James

Thank you, I appreciate that. We work hard to get things right, but mistakes are an inevitability.

October 11, 2012

1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

They may have crippled the uncompressed video out on the GH3 to keep the AF-100 relevant.

October 11, 2012

1
Reply
moebius22

A side note. Jan has reached out to AF-100 users for input on a successor to the AF-100 so I don't see an EOL for MFT cinema cameras from Panasonic. The format is a good one and we see what BlackMagic has done with a sensor that is pretty much the same size.
I for one like the AF-100 and have produced spots for local broadcast that I'm happy with. The missing link is cinema style lenses and even that is getting better with the new Lumix 12-35 f2.8 and soon to be released 35-100 f2.8. makes a compact light weight kit.

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply

I think a 10-bit 4:2:2 internal codec would help to distance it from the GH3, with 10-bit 4:4:4 capable out of the HD-SDI.

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Joe Marineon 10.11.12 @ 4:36PM

"I think a 10-bit 4:2:2 internal codec would help to distance it from the GH3.."

I think built in ND filters, waveform monitor, phantom powered XLR connectors, uncompressed LPCM audio, removable handles, and a slew of other features already sets the AF100 miles apart from the GH3. Honestly, I think the biggest knock against the AF100 is that it's a lot more manual than DSLR shooters are used to. Since you can't just slap a lens on it and "make art". People just don't seem to want to learn the camera before they shoot, so they blame 'it' for making crappy images. Not saying this is you, Joe. But most of the grumbling I hear about the AF100 seems to come from folks who want a 'fire and forget' camera.

"with 10-bit 4:4:4 capable out of the HD-SDI"

But then it would be $20,000.00+ camera... what would be the point of that? :-)

Shawn

October 11, 2012

-2
Reply
Shawn Miller

I agree with you; the AF100 is a fantastic camera. I replaced my HVX200 with the AF100 and love it more every time I use it. Comparing it to a GH2 is silly, since it gives you maximum flexibility. Marry the camera with an Atomos or Hyperdeck and it just gets better.

October 12, 2012

0
Reply

Me three. It is a great camera in comparison to DSLRs. My big fault with it is the lack of latitude, but that can be said with all the DSLR's.

I do some freelance work for a company that does a lot big corporate clients...they have dozens of employees, are well funded and connected...and pay well. They have an AF100, but they prefer to me (and other operators, DP's to shoot on DSLR's...I'd much rather shoot on real proper video cameras! The AF100 is *meant* to shoot video...it doesn't "also" shoot video like DSLR's and cellphones.

When you shoot for hours and hours continuously, they don't overheat. they also have 22min, not 12 minute clip lengths.

October 13, 2012

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

So wait, it's harder to shoot on the GH2 than on the AF100, but people are getting better images on the GH2 because it's harder to shoot on the AF100 than the GH2...? Huh?

Having shot on both, the GH2 just plain has a better image. I've been a fan of Panasonic's cameras since the DVX100, but the AF100 just didn't have the special Panasonic color mojo.

Also, the Sony F3 has 10-bit 4:4:4 out HD-SDI, and costs $14,000...and it's a couple years old. The FS700 betters it by offering 4k raw out HD-SDI for $8000. Panasonic needs to get their act together.

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

The AF100 gets a bad rap because it's constantly being compared to the GH2. The AF100 is a pro camera with settings for pro users. It has several controls like knee and gamma to protect the highlights, with more latitude than the GH2.

If you want run-and-gun and ignore the science, go with a GH2.

To get a great image with the AF100: use the flattest picture profile, with "Detail" and "Coring" dialed down all the way (-6 or -7), expose with the built-in waveform, and use a great lens (like the Voigtlander 50mm).

October 12, 2012

-2
Reply

@Sathya Vijayendran

I've probably shot more on Panasonic cameras than any other brand...from the DVX, to the HVX, to the HPX170 to the HPX370, and then the AF100. All of those cameras have great color except for the AF100. I had gotten quite used to shooting with the CineD gamma, bumping the pedestal up and dialing detail all the way back (btw, if detail is set to -7, it doesn't matter what detail coring is set to because it only effects the image when there's detail enhancement). The AF100 on the CineD gamma is completely awful with disgusting color. The color on some of the other gammas and matrices are okay, but no comparison with Panasonic's other cameras. I had gotten used to the 370's great codec and being able to bump the pedestal to +20 and underexposing to get more highlight range. Honestly I think the 370 has more dynamic range than the AF100, if only because of the stronger 10-bit codec that lets you use all the dynamic range. (Another key for the 370 is turning off the aggressive noise reduction and instead do noise reduction in post)

Anyway, the GH2 doesn't really produce images quite like the older Panasonic video cameras, but I've gotten much better results than I did on the AF100. Why couldn't they have gotten it right in the AF100?

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

Its not such a bad camera..the AF101 that is..it just needs the Marvel profile to flatten it out and then it plays nice, I'd compare it to a faithful volvo estate, its pretty bullet proof compared to a dslr. All it really needs is 10 bit and a better monitor with focus punch....

October 11, 2012

-1
Reply
Jim

I think Panasonic has the opportunity to really come out on top here. The sensor in the af100 is a good size, it's a good balance between a large sensor cam and a usable eng style camera. With that sensor size it's also alot easier to bring out a good light weight zoom that is not 20k plus.

Things I would like to see are...
1. Better internal codec (avc intra to micro p2 would be great)
2. Better dynamic range, even if it matches hpx3000 with drs turned on I would be happy
3. Servo Zoom lens, partner with Fujinon to make this happen.
4. sdi out front, why you ask? external viewfinders are a must with new cameras without proper evf's.
5. Keep the form factor, I'm not a fan of reaching around my head to change exposure (Thank you very much Canon)
6. Better menu system, more robust body, i.e. Make a bit more Professional (use an ex1 then go to af100 it's like using a toy.

October 11, 2012

0
Reply
Troy

Personally, I think Panasonic is letting the other manufacturers release their products and 'play' in the market. Panasonic is waiting and/or watching the other manufacturers. I think they have some killer products waiting. Video (and cinema for that matter) is deeply rooted in Panasonic's history.

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
Cinephiles

I am quit surprised by some tough comments I am reading here against the AF100 compare to GH2 or other brands/system.
Thanks to the AF100 (AF103, here in China), I am making a very decent living in video production and teaching filmmaking in Shanghai.
AF100 was an amazing improvement replacing my HVX200 + Ultimate 35mm adapter which were costier (crazy P2 card price), not real full HD (960x720) and which needed lots of lighting (and therefore more assistant) for shooting.
AF100 replaced my HVX200 which was also not comparable to GH2.
GH1 and GH2 are amazing product, and I can use them as my main camera..., only for my personal project.
Due to its fame, 5D is the only DSLR accepted as a pro tool. I did many project with it (rented equipment).
For paid job, in front of picky clients, I needed something bigger and more practical than my GH2, to shoot documentary, film like project and interviews, by myself or with a single assistant.
Internal ND filter, monitoring out of a SDI cable (HDMI is not a pro connection), XLR plug for pro mic and PCM sound quality, sound level with dedicated switch and headphone output are features you can hardly live without for a paid job on a tight schedule.
I really dont know what kind of job people commenting about this cam are usually doing, and how they are setting their camera, but all my job done with the AF100 allowed me to pay back the camera, to invest in 2 x GH2 body, and to get a set of lens for it.
I am not only putting words in the air.
Go and check those links.
Making of VW polo TV commercial: http://vimeo.com/43865929
Short movie done with my students "Finger Up"; http://vimeo.com/43454069
You can navigate here: http://vimeo.com/imaginefocus/videos
And check what I had done before with the AF ("Oh Ma Cherie"), the GH1 ("Marlene", "Double detente", "Shanghai") or the HVX200 + Letus("Dysfunction", "hidden talent") to compare.
I dont have the feeling my production is turned down by the AF100.
The GH2 is an amazing camera (thanks to Vitaly's hack), but not a proper professional tool. The AF100 is right for me, even I hoped it could be even better and a bit cheaper.
Franc

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
eurocameraman

Ex AF101 owner here. I liked it, especially with a Samurai, but never got to grips with the lens crop.
That's what scares me about the BMDCC. I know, i know, every problem can be overcome but I was an old dog learning new tricks.
Replaced it with a D800, and until something hits at exactly the right price for S35 RAW, I rent a C300 or EPIC at a great price. My D800 works for 75% of my work.

Also, i'm sorry, but the FS100/700 both look like nasty, noisy video to me, even shot by people whose work i respect. I've watched every vid on Vimeo, and now shot with both. I'll be intrigued to see what the eventual 4K output will look like, but right now, those cams look like ordinary TV to me.

October 12, 2012

-1
Reply
marklondon

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
marklondon

"Gabe on 10.12.12 @ 10:56AM

So wait, it’s harder to shoot on the GH2 than on the AF100..".

Yes, because the GH2 has terrible ergonomics (for video), no traditional video features (XLR connectors, HDSDI, waveform monitor, etc), and is harder to use as a dedicated, professional video camera... because it isn't one. It's a stills camera that CAN be used for video, with the help of outboard gear.

"...but people are getting better images on the GH2 because it’s harder to shoot on the AF100 than the GH2…? Huh?"
"
Yes, because the AF100 has many menu options that allow you to 'paint' the picture in almost any way you want. The downside is that a LOT of people don't want to learn all of those options, or how they work together to produce a picture... so when they get bad images, they blame the camera. On the other hand, a hacked GH2 has fewer menu options and scene settings that look nice out of the box, so getting nice images is just easier.

"Having shot on both, the GH2 just plain has a better image. I’ve been a fan of Panasonic’s cameras since the DVX100, but the AF100 just didn’t have the special Panasonic color mojo."

I've also been shooting on Panasonic cameras since the DVX100... and frankly, the AF100 just takes more tweaking to get that same feel. I can completely understand why others may be less inclined to spend that extra time learning the AF100, but I just don't believe it's a shortcoming of the camera.

"Also, the Sony F3 has 10-bit 4:4:4 out HD-SDI, and costs $14,000…and it’s a couple years old."

Okay, I'll spot you the $6k, and I won't even get into how much more you have to pay for a recorder than can even capture 10-bit 4:4:4, or everything else that comes with dealing with that much data... but let's be fair here. That's still 3x the cost of the AF100. If you're after the features of a true video camera, but still want 4:4:4 4k RAW, it's NOT going to be a $5k venture.

"The FS700 betters it by offering 4k raw out HD-SDI for $8000."

The FS700 outputs an uncompressed 4:2:2, 8-bit signal in HD, we'll see what happens when and if Sony releases the 4k upgade.

Shawn

October 12, 2012

-1
Reply
Shawn Miller

Panasonic screwed up the color on the AF100. Using the CineD gamma like on the DVX/HVX/HPX cameras gave terrible results. I'm used to the HPX370 which has a *real* codec and produces an image that's actually usable. If they couldn't deliver in the AF100's price range, they should've priced it higher instead of producing a camera with bad color. I hand tweak the settings on all the cameras I use. The AF100 falls behind its predecessors, and indeed even the GH2.

Re: HD-SDI. Joe's comment was in relation to a possible future camera, not the AF100.

Look, the bottom line is all the XLR's, waveform monitors and removable handles won't excuse a camera for a crappy image. A camera can't fail at its primary function and expect to make it up with peripheral features.

October 12, 2012

1
Reply
Gabe

"Gabeon 10.12.12 @ 6:17PM

Panasonic screwed up the color on the AF100. Using the CineD gamma like on the DVX/HVX/HPX cameras gave terrible results. I’m used to the HPX370 which has a *real* codec and produces an image that’s actually usable. If they couldn’t deliver in the AF100′s price range, they should’ve priced it higher instead of producing a camera with bad color. I hand tweak the settings on all the cameras I use. The AF100 falls behind its predecessors, and indeed even the GH2"

Sorry, I've shot a lot on the same cameras you're describing, and I just have not had issues matching color. So, I'll just have to disagree on the point that Panasonic "screwed up" on the color.

"Re: HD-SDI. Joe’s comment was in relation to a possible future camera, not the AF100."

I wasn't responding to Joe's comment. I was responding to your comment that the FS700 outputs 4k raw over HD-SDI... it doesn't.

"Look, the bottom line is all the XLR’s, waveform monitors and removable handles won’t excuse a camera for a crappy image. A camera can’t fail at its primary function and expect to make it up with peripheral features."

I match HVX200, HPX500 and AF100 footage all of the time (sometimes with FS100 content), and I'm reasonably sure that I'm not the only one doing this, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

It seems that this camera dosen't fit your needs or your expectations... fair enough. I just don't think it means that it isn't fitting ANYONE'S needs, or that NO ONE is getting nice images from it (the AF100)... that would just be silly. I say, shoot with whatever fits your aesthetic, workflow, mood, expectations, etc., it's all good. Just don't assume that everyone shares your opinons or experiences.

Shawn

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
Shawn Miller

I totally agree on your comment Shawn
I am a Panasonic user since the HVX200, and AF103 is able to deliver the image I am still looking for.
Concerning GH2, everybody critisized its screen color shift when it came out, but it seems that everyone had forgotten it, and GH2 seems to be just plain perfect now. I dont think so.
I still prefer the color which came out of the box from the GH1
GH2 is more video look at start and need tweak to deliver nice results.
AF103 needed test and trial to deliver the continuity I was looking from my Panasonic camera line-up.
Recently, by accident I discovered a way to increase a lot the sharpness of the image without creating noise (all sharpness set up at -7). There was a trick also for the HVX200, a camera that many disliked due to video noise and lack of sharpness. You just needed to use Master ped at a minus value with B-Press Gamma setting and the magic of the 140 degree shutter angle: I got crisp image wihout noise.
To make it short, no camera deliver the same feel, and each of them need tweaks to reach your need.
Now, I am really curious to see the work of people so keen to demolish the reputation of the AF101.
I would just like to compare the great qualiy of their job vs the terrible weakness of this "bad" camera.

October 12, 2012

-1
Reply
eurocameraman

Shawn, let me quote you in your reply to Joe: "But then it would be $20,000.00+ camera… what would be the point of that? :-)"

I pointed out the 2 year old F3, and the future FS700 4k feature. Sure it doesn't do it *yet*, but it's a hell of a lot closer than Panasonic's next MFT video camera so the point stands...why should Panasonic's camera cost $20,000+ for 10-bit 4:4:4 out HD-SDI?

RE: Color. If you do TV work, the AF100 probably works just fine. The video gammas are far better than its cine gammas. But for film and music video work, it's simply impossible to reach the same versatility as the other Panasonic cameras, especially the HPX370 with its 10-bit 4:2:2 100mbs intraframe codec. You may "paint" your image in camera, but a lot prefer the control they get by grading in post.

I have no problem with the AF100 working for you and others...that's great! But let's look at it from the other side...all the things you cited against the GH2 and for the AF100 are irrelevant on a lot of other people's sets...XLR doesn't matter if you're recording to a separate recorder anyway. Ergonomics don't matter if the camera's built into a rig. Waveform doesn't matter if you're using an external monitor...you'd be using the monitor's waveform and peaking features. Consider that when you hear people comparing them...that doesn't illegitimize your use of the AF100, but your needs aren't everyone else's.

And honestly, your attack on GH2 users as wanting to "fire and forget" is ridiculous since a major reason for people's interest in the GH2 is its ability to adapt old manual lenses to its MFT mount, and the ability to use hacked firmware to maximize the abilities of the camera. The second is a particularly strong sentiment that started with the GH1...people like the GH2 because they can control it *more* than the AF100.

October 12, 2012

1
Reply
Gabe

"Shawn, let me quote you in your reply to Joe: “But then it would be $20,000.00+ camera… what would be the point of that? :-)

I pointed out the 2 year old F3, and the future FS700 4k feature."

And if you'll read the rest of my comment, I said "Okay, I’ll spot you the $6k, and I won’t even get into how much more you have to pay for a recorder than can even capture 10-bit 4:4:4, or everything else that comes with dealing with that much data… but let’s be fair here. That’s still 3x the cost of the AF100. If you’re after the features of a true video camera, but still want 4:4:4 4k RAW, it’s NOT going to be a $5k venture."

"Sure it doesn’t do it *yet*"

That's not what you said, Gabe. Your words exactly: "The FS700 betters it by offering 4k raw out HD-SDI for $8000." This states that the FS700 shoots 4k raw now, does it not? Further, I qualified that we would see what 4k out from the FS700 would look like in the future, did I not? "[Shawn Miller]...we’ll see what happens when and if Sony releases the 4k upgade.". See, I didn't even correct my typo when quoting myself. :-)

"[about the Sony FS700] ...but it’s a hell of a lot closer than Panasonic’s next MFT video camera so the point stands…"

Your point comparing a yet to be released feature of the FS700 against a Panasonic camera that hasn't been released yet stands... got it.

"RE: Color. If you do TV work, the AF100 probably works just fine. The video gammas are far better than its cine gammas. But for film and music video work, it’s simply impossible to reach the same versatility as the other Panasonic cameras"

Again, I think this is a matter of opinion. If the cine gamas don't work for you, fine. But that doesn't mean they aren't working for anyone at all. Unless you really are meaning to imply no one using the AF100 for IFP and music videos is getting the look they really want... if you are saying that, then I do think what you're saying is silly.

"You may “paint” your image in camera, but a lot prefer the control they get by grading in post."

For many of us needing a more robust CODEC in post, flat profiles with external recorders work just fine. I personally use the BlackMagic Shuttle, and I've come up with gradable images that I'm happy with... are you saying this can't be done?

"I have no problem with the AF100 working for you and others…that’s great! "

I don't know, you keep telling me how crappy and inflexible my images are. :-)

"all the things you cited against the GH2 and for the AF100 are irrelevant on a lot of other people’s sets..."

And?

"Consider that when you hear people comparing them…that doesn’t illegitimize your use of the AF100"

I never said or implied that it did. What I did say, was that these things put the AF100 ahead of the GH2 as a video camera. I think on board audio, waveform monitor, etc. are great features and they shouldn't be dismissed when comparing the value of one vs. the other.

"why should Panasonic’s camera cost $20,000+ for 10-bit 4:4:4 out HD-SDI?”

That was an off-handed remark 'I' made... I have no idea what Panasonic will charge for such a camera, my guess is that it will be WAY more than the cost of an AF100.

"And honestly, your attack on GH2 users as wanting to “fire and forget”…”

These are my exact words:

"[Shawn]...Honestly, I think the biggest knock against the AF100 is that it’s a lot more manual than DSLR shooters are used to. Since you can’t just slap a lens on it and “make art”. People just don’t seem to want to learn the camera before they shoot, so they blame ‘it’ for making crappy images. Not saying this is you, Joe. But most of the grumbling I hear about the AF100 seems to come from folks who want a ‘fire and forget’ camera."

Where in this paragraph did I attack GH2 shooters? AND, is it POSSIBLE that I'm telling the truth here.... that "most of the grumbling “I” [Shawn Miller] hear about the AF100 seems to come from folks who want a ‘fire and forget’ camera."

"people like the GH2 because they can control it *more* than the AF100."

You have more control over a hacked GH2 than an AF100... how?

Shawn

October 12, 2012

0
Reply
Shawn Miller

Gabe, can you post some examples of the horrible image quality you're talking about? It's one thing to keep saying the AF100 has "crappy colour," but let's see some proof. A picture is worth a thousand words.

January 23, 2013

0
Reply
Ron I