AF100 successor?
 

Hi all,

I'm very seriously in the market for an AF100 (well, an AF101 as I am in the UK). This will be my first foray into interchangeable lenses (although I was an XL2 user for some years - but just with the stock lens). I've looked at the Sony offerings and the NEX-FS700 appeals as well.

Before I leap in, is there any word on a successor from Panasonic? Having read a few comparative reviews between the AF100 and the NEX-FS100 I think the Panasonic is the right choice for me, but the FS700 seems to raise the bar. Is Panasonic expected to match or exceed Sony any time soon?

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Not that anyone knows. Like most Japanese manufacturers, Panasonic is pretty tight lipped until they're ready. However...There is something of an expectation that Panasonic will release a GH3 in the Fall. Whenever that happens, I would expect the AF100 to be either replaced or get a bigger brother, like the FS100 & FS700. The GH line sets a high enough bar I just can't see Panasonic doing an upgrade to the consumer line without a corresponding upgrade to the pro line.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

My thoughts (without any inside knowledge at all):

AF-200:
AVC-100 Intra internal recording
10bit sdi output
s35 sensor with a micro 4/3rd sensor crop in order to use existing glass.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Ian - have you seen this thread - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...7-new-nab.html ? Which dealt with much of the same issues?

My first contribution to it was:
Subsequent to that it was confirmed that the AF100 did in fact use the GH2 chip - but uses processing that dosn't make the most of it. (See post 14 of that thread if you want to know why.) Hence why so many people are reporting the GH2 giving better results than the AF100, at least in terms of sharpness. Have you seen Philip Blooms report?

I'm also interested as to why you think the AF100 is better than the FS100? Pretty well every report I've read comes to the opposite conclusion, overall at any rate. The one undeniable advantage the AF100 does have is inbuilt ND filters, but in terms of image quality the FS100 is a clear winner. Ergonomically, it seems to be a draw (neither is very good :-) ) and the s35 sensor of the FS100 is seen as a winner over 4/3.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Thanks all. Very interesting.

David, I'm not saying the Panasonic is the better camera - just that it seems like the right camera for me. I hadn't seen the thread you referred to (I hang out in the Canon and Vegas forums and have never had the need to browse the Panasonic forums until now), but your comments in it look sound (if a little over my head at times!). So far I have read a number of reviews which all point out good and bad features of both cameras.

My reasoning for leaning towards the AF100 is:

- price. This was really related to whether or not I went up to the FS700, which would really limit my choice of lenses. I think the FS100 and AF100 are roughly equivalent price-wise.
- I really hate the position of the LCD on the Sony! Also having a vf and the lcd is useful to me because of a vision defect.
- no NDs on the Sony.
- no HD-SDI on the Sony.
- the AF100 is NTSC/PAL switchable and I don't believe the Sony is (happy to be corrected)
- AF100 has a three year warranty compared to Sony's one year.
- AF100 has two card slots for continuous shooting (I hate them, but to pay the bills I have to shoot a lot of business events). Sony has one slot.

There are numerous other lesser reasons but those are the key ones for me. I absolutely agree that the FS100 is a fine camera, and the larger chip in the Sony is tempting, but it just has those other niggling points that lead me away from it. Really, I guess my decision is whether to get the AF100 and a selection of quality lenses or the FS700 with just one decent all round lens. I didn't want to buy the AF100 and discover that it was about to be succeeded by something significantly better, hence the original question. If what you say is true then it looks like that isn't the case.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

There's also this informative article written using the AF100 on a shoot: ProVideo Coalition.com: Stunning Good Looks by Art Adams

Re: AF100 successor?
 

I have a Scarlet, AF-100, HPX-250 and a Nikon D800.

The AF-100 is the one that most clients ask for the most.

It is a fantastic camera and it is a steal at the current price.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Ah! That review was the subject of a thread on this forum about a year ago - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-nxc...00-review.html . Personally, I think it's one of the worst camera reviews I've ever read, and if you look at that thread you'll see others have similar views. Opinion is one thing, but Nigel's review is riddled with inaccuracies and strange omissions.

The biggest single omission must be any mention of sensitivity, where the FS100 seems to outperform the AF100 by a massive 3 stops!! At the time I wrote:
The problem there is that with the AF100 you are committing to 4/3 in terms of buying glass, and the general feeling is that if you want a large sensor camera, s35 has a distinct advantage. It's twice the area of 4/3, which means a stop in terms of sensitivity and depth of field. (All else equal.)
No, that's not what I'm saying. It's generally now seen that the AF100 is well behind the large sensor pack in terms of IQ, and is even outperformed by the GH2 - in spite of having the same sensor (!!) It therefore seems highly likely that it will be succeeded as soon as possible if Panasonic want to stay in the game - the questions then become (1) When? and (2) by how big an improvement?

As regards (2) then a big question must be 4/3 or s35? There must be an obvious business case for Panasonic to go for 4/3 - but that would inevitably be seen as "second best" compared to the s35 competitors. Yet going for s35 won't go down well with AF100 owners with 4/3 glass.....

If you can afford it, I'd definitely go for the FS700 over either the FS100 or the AF100. It's about £1,800 more than the AF100, but answers most of the points on your wish list - and gives the amazing slo-mo ability and is 4k future-proofed into the bargain. (As well as considerably better IQ and sensitivity than the AF100.) I agree that 2 slots is better than 1, but it's far less of an issue nowadays than it used to be - with 64GB cards it's possible to get about 4 hours of continuous running on a single card, I think!?

Re: AF100 successor?
 

That was written before the FS100 (let alone the FS700) became available. Worth reading (also from ProVideo Coalition) what Adam Wilt subsequently had to say about the FS100 compared to the AF100: ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews

Re: AF100 successor?
 

All interesting, but perhaps in fairness to the reviewer it should be pointed out that both the reviews were on pre-production models. For the FS100 review he did point out that there were issues that might be resolved in full production models. Likewise re the pricing - at the time of the review presumably he would have been quoting the manufacturer's list price.

One point you raise is being committed to 4/3 'in terms of buying glass'. Not sure I understand that. I thought that it was possible to buy a wide range of adaptors that would allow me to use pretty much any lens I wanted. Have I misunderstood this? If so then yes, I really do need to rethink my strategy!

Like I said, this is my first foray into interchangeable lenses on a large sensor camera so my knowledge is limited and quite probably misinformed in places - easily done when you unwittingly read biased reviews, critiques and forum posts.

I produce documentaries and business to business videos. Most of my output ends up on a standard DVD or on the web. I'm not creating anything for broadcast or cinema and even if I did I would hire the camera and a decent operator/DoP. I'm looking for something that will give me some more creative choice when it comes to interviews, product/process demos, training videos etc. No surprises that this means I'm primarily after better control over depth of field than I get with my current cameras. My clients, who include companies like IBM, T-Mobile, HP, Dell and some of Europe's leading high street retailers, are very happy with the quality of my productions using even just an HDV camera. I'm still not totally convinced that I won't get what I (and they) want, quality-wise, with the Panasonic, even if the IQ is not as good as the Sony offerings. I do like the FS700 - except for that damned silly placement of the LCD!

Thanks David, and others, for taking the time to respond. It's given me much to think about.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

At stock maximum bitrate, a 64 GB card should handle just under six hours. Three cards covers an 18 hour day. Even at a meeting/presentation, people have to eat or go to the bathroom sometime.

I know this because with 32 GB cards, I can get almost three hours of continuous footage.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Should be enough, Bill!

Actually, the only reason I raised the single v double card slot issue is because I have a stack of fast 16GB cards that I could utilise without having to buy new (bigger) cards.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

You're being too generous. The wording used in the review is "The cost of the FS100E will have a street price of approximately £5,000 for the body only" - no "expected", "list price" or any other caveats. He specifically says "street price" and he got it badly wrong. Same in his final conclusions - ".....the AF101 is about £1,500 cheaper ...." - no caveats, no "expected to be", but rather put as a statement of fact. And this actual £3,850 figure soon after the FS100 became available in the shops, not months later.

The pre-production issue likewise doesn't make any difference to other things he got wrong or omitted. It didn't change the relative sensor sizes. Didn't really affect sensitivity.

Nigel Cooper also says in his review :
From what I hear from a user, it appears that Nigel omitted a washer when assembling the handgrip.....! Hence why it felt loose to him. (It is certainly not the case on my friends unit.) Obviously Nigel did need an instruction manual...... :-)
Barry Green is firmly allied to the Panasonic camp, and consequently has a vested interest in promoting the AF100 above other manufacturers products. Nothing wrong with that as long as the interest is declared - but I would treat any comparison by him or anyone else with a vested interest with a lot of suspicion.

For example, all the independent reports I've seen say the FS100 is FAR better in low light than the AF100 - which is not what Barry Green says. I do note that for his candlelight test he uses the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens and max ISO. Fine if you've got that lens, which AFAIK is expensive and only available in 25mm.....

(In the review linked below, Adam Wilt says: "Most critically, the signal processing differs markedly between the two cameras: the AF100 appears to be using substantial 3D noise reduction, such that its apparent noise level doesn’t change at all with gain boost—only its character changes. " I suspect this is what is confusing Barry Green. The FS100 is naturally less noisy, the AF100 relies on noise reduction - but that compromises the image in other ways, especially in post.)

Barry also makes the same error as Nigel as regards sensor sizes (he compares the full area of the 4/3 sensor rather than the used section).

I strongly recommend Adams Wilts review for being probably as impartial as you'll get. I previously linked to the page with his conclusions on - worth also looking at the page with comparative charts at ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews It's pretty clear that the FS100 is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the AF100 for resolution and aliasing. The FS100 seems to max out around 1000lpph for horizontal lines, and 750lpph for vertical - the AF100 seems to manage no better than about 650lpph on either axis before aliasing. (Where the lines start to diverge rather than converge, as on the real chart.)

Note Adam does give figures for the USED area of the chip in each case:
OK. If you get lenses designed for 4/3 cameras they will have a coverage area corresponding to a 4/3 sensor. Use them via an adaptor on a s35 camera and they won't cover the entire sensor area without very severe vignetting. Go the other way round (s35 lenses via an adaptor on 4/3) and that won't be a problem - but there will be a magnification effect. A lens that's a decent w/a for s35 will be more like a standard lens when used on 4/3. For similar reasons, DSLR etc lenses are far better suited to s35 than 4/3.

Personally, if you're starting from scratch I feel you are far better going down the s35 route from a lens point of view.
Yes, it's the whole question of "good enough". To which I'd say, if you can get a superior product for not much more money, then why go for the one that is inferior?

It's not just simply image quality either. If the reason for purchase is large format dof, S35 will give a whole stop more advantage than 4/3. And sometimes the opposite may apply, you may want GREATER depth of field. And that's where the superior sensitivity of the FS100/700 may be most useful, even if you don't shoot in low light. It will allow you to shoot at a smaller aperture without compromise. And don't forget the high quality slo-mo of the FS700, let alone the option of 4k in the future.

As far as not liking the viewfinder placement - dare I say "external monitor"?

Best of luck with whatever you decide!

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Let's be honest, the AF100 seems to take great footage and like any camera, the more skilled you are the better footage you can get. A more expensive camera that comes out later and is declared better doesn't negate the AF100 reviews that preceded it.

Who cares if a more expensive camera is "declared better"? There is no standard distribution. More than one camera can be great even if a more expensive one comes along and is "declared better". The "inferior" camera can still be a great camera as well as the right camera for the OP. The AF-100 is $700 less expensive at B&H right now and has built-in ND filters. Add $300 for a decent quality vari ND filter on every lens on the FS-100 to have the equivalent function of always on ND and the FS-100 is now $1000 more expensive... almost 25% more.... every lens has that $300 "tax" and widens the gap.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Hopefully any successor to the AF100 (and given the near total silence from Panny on that front, I wouldn't hold your breath) will simply look better. Very nearly every bit of footage from the AF100 looks smackingly like video. Just screams "video" at the top of it's MFT lungs.

Canon and Sony camera both seem far more film-like to me, whatever other measurement you want to use, and that's strange as Panny had the mojo going for the DVX and HVX cams.

Far as the glass goes, MFT is a format that can accept anything via an adapter - a big plus. However that plus is fairly well negated by the effective halving of the lens's focal length. Meaning that $2,151.69 Canon 14mm lens you just bought from Amazon is now effectively a 28 mm lens. Ouch.

So while the format may accept every piece of glass, the reality is that shooters on that format invariably goto very fast, very wide glass - all very expensive and a lot of which won't fit on other mounts.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

I WANT the footage to look like video! I gave up wasting time trying to make video look like something it isn't long ago. That obsession ate into my profits.

The focal length issue is a different matter - unless you shoot a lot of telephoto I guess, in which case presumably you win ;-)

Re: AF100 successor?
 

True to a point, but you seem to be assuming that all the advantages of such of the FS100 are solely related to straightforward image quality.

That's not the case. Think of what's been said about sensitivity for example. (About 3 whole stops.) That doesn't just mean better quality in low light, it can mean being able to use smaller apertures for MORE dof when circumstances demand it. You may buy such a camera primarily for shallow depth of field, but a less sensitive camera like the AF100 may force that (via a wide aperture} even on occasions when a small aperture may be more suitable. Higher sensitivity gives flexibility - not just better performance in low light.

Then there are the lens issues. Also fantastic slow motion in the case of the FS700, and 4k "future-proofing" should help it hold a resale value better even if no personal interest.

I would also expect to get a matte box for any camera of this type, and even the FS700/AF100 are likely to need extra NDs to fine tune aperture control. That makes it totally unnecessary to buy separate NDs for every lens. One FS100 owner I know has a vari-ND to use with the zoom lens, and matte box and fixed NDs to use with primes. Most of the latter he'd have got even with an AF100 or FS700.

"Film look" and "video look" can mean a lot of different things, but I suspect what John may be referring to is an "edginess" or artificial sharpening (detail correction). In extreme cases it can look like lines drawn to outline objects. Point is that the more intrinsic resolution the camera has, the less artificial enhancement it needs. A camera with good resolution and low detail level just looks "natural" - lower native resolution means the detail level needs to be turned up with resulting "edginess". Or dare I say "video look"?

And that's why the lower resolution of the AF100 matters. It needs higher levels of detail enhancement ("video-look") or just looks soft.

And I fully agree with Johns comments about lenses, focal lengths, etc.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

I thought that this argument would be clarified by now.

Sure, if you compare (still) full frame glassas your benchmark. But there isn't any video camera that shoots video as it's primary function that uses this glass with out cropping the FOV as well.

Your S35 sensor cameras also crop their FOV when using still glass.

AbelCine - Field of View Calculator

Re: AF100 successor?
 

"Your S35 sensor cameras also crop their FOV when using still glass."

Yup, but by a factor of 50% less then MFT.

That $2,000 14mm wide angle is a 28mm on a AF100, and 21mm on a Sony NEX mount. That 50% means a lot, both in DoF and light sensitivity. That largely accounts for the need (generally speaking) for faster, wider lens on MFT cameras.

Note I'm not saying one is inherently better then another (a lot of MFT uses choice the mount exactly because the larger DoF), but there are marked differences between sensor sizes....

And yes, even more of a difference between MFT and FF sensors.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

That's summarily untrue.

What is true is that I find built-in ND filters that take no storage space and require no assembly to be "better" than adding vari-NDs that can freeze onto lenses, can inadvertently strip threads or fumbling with matte boxes and filters and further increasing the cost and setup time. The argument that the AF100 is a poor camera because the more expensive FS100 is "better" is specious at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

IMHO, this thread is far off topic. I hope Panasonic's balanced appreciation for important functional capability from built-in ND filters to sturdy handles continues in whatever large sensor package they come up with next.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

And where did I ever say the FS100s lack of in-built NDs was not a disadvantage? If you read back in this thread you'll see I make exactly that point myself, right back at post no 4 - "The one undeniable advantage the AF100 does have is inbuilt ND filters, but in terms of image quality the FS100 is a clear winner". You'll also see I said the same a year ago in the thread about Nigel Coopers review.

What I don't think is that inbuilt NDs are the only thing that matters. Not when balanced against all the other factors.

You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. That the higher IQ of the FS100 (and 700) is not the only positive in it's favour - the lens factors and better sensitivity are also positives in the FS100s favour, contributing versatility rather than sheer quality.
Maybe that's best left to Ian to judge, it's his thread. It does seem there is a lot of confusion over lens issues and sensor size, I hope Ian is finding the discussion useful....?
John's pretty well answered it, but yes, use glass designed for full frame on a video camera and there will be a crop with s35. Do the same with 4/3 and there will be twice as much cropping! And what about glass designed for other DSLRs with APS-C size sensors? They match s35 pretty well - but crop about 1.4 when used on a 4/3 camera.

The focal length and aperture of a lens are physical attributes. What varies with sensor size is the angle of view. So if a given focal length gives an angle of view (say) of 90° with full frame it will give about 64° with s35, but only 45° with 4/3.

That's apart from the point that designed for 4/3 glass just can't be used with bigger sensors, the image won't then cover the entire sensor. That's why I'd be extremely reluctant to spend a lot of money on building a collection of 4/3 glass - if Panasonic do go down the s35 route and you decide to upgrade from the AF100, all the 4/3 glass becomes useless.
I'm happy to stick my neck out and say s35 is inherently better. At the same aperture it gives an f stops equivalent shallower dof - and it's always possible to increase dof (by stopping down), it's normally making it shallow enough that is the challenge. (Hence the whole current liking for DSLR video.) OK, stopping down as a dof control is only an option if the light levels are high enough relative to the sensitivity of the camera. That's why the 3 stop advantage of the FS100/700 is so significant. It's not just for low light capability, also for dof flexibility.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Well it's certainly useful in the sense that it has shown me that there is a lot more that I need to take into account before making a decision.

My plan now is to find somewhere to rent the AF100 and the FS100 for a day and borrow some lenses from a friend. I can then see for myself whether the issues raised here are going to affect my choice of camera based on my typical applications.

I have decided against the FS700 on the basis of price. It's clear from what I've read here and elsewhere that the FS700 is the best of the three cameras by a long way, but that extra couple of grand will, for me, be better spent on a decent lens and accessories, which I'd need for the FS700 as well, of course. (I am taking into account things like a new hard case, batteries, remote controller etc, maybe even another matte box). I don't actually have a hard budget limit on this as the business is doing very well and is cash rich, but I might struggle to justify that level of expenditure over and above the base price for the FS700 for the kind of work I typically do.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Get the camera that will work for the work you do now. Buying cameras with thoughts of "growing into" or "resale value" is always - ALWAYS a losing game.

No AF100 successor has been announced or will arrive at any time convenient to any projects you currently have in the pipe.

The FS700 is not in the same league as the AF100 because the FS700 costs 3x as much.

The FS100 is barely in the same league because is costs 2x as much.

If you plan to shoot a lot of 120-240fps slo-mo, then the FS700 is the most cost-effective choice (because the next step up is mega-bucks REDs).

If you already have a lot of good stills lenses that you'd rather not have doubled in their equivalent field of view, the FS100 is a more sensible choice.

I chose the AF100 because I was upgrading from a GH2 and I like m43. The lenses are more compact, less expensive, great quality, and it's at a sweet spot (for me) of controllable DOF and exposure - you don't necessarily have to stop down to get useable focus depth. I also tried the FS100 and thought it was ergonomically retarded - the AF is perfectly useable handheld, rigless (although I do currently have a homemade simple ~$50 grip-and-shoulder improvement compact enough to keep on constantly), and is a more complete solution out-of-the-box. You can add a very compact HD-SDI recorder (a secure interface the FS100 doesn't even have) and have well-integrated high bitrate 4:2:2 recording, still for less total cost than the FS.

Imagewise, it's a wash. I've seen (and shot) lots of good and bad AF footage, and lots of good and bad FS footage. You can coax great stuff from either platform easily enough. I tend not to shoot in coal mines, so for the extra cost, the FS100 didn't hold many extra benefits.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

I don't know where you got those price comparisons, but they don't bear any resemblance to anything I've seen anywhere. At a main UK dealer (don't know if I'm allowed to mention names?), the prices of the AF101, FS100 and FS700 are respectively £3,495, £3,695, and £5,295. (All prices excl lens and VAT.)

The FS100 is NOT 2x the cost of the AF101 - it's less than 6% more!

The FS700 is NOT 3x the cost of the AF101- it's just 50% more!

The US B&H price differences are comparable - what makes you think the FS100/700 are so much more?

Re: AF100 successor?
 

From B&H

FS700 - $7999
FS100 - $4999
AF100 - $4295 w/ $500 rebate

So yep, guess I made a few mistakes, because my head was registering the prices of the FS700 and FS100 with kit lenses (~$1000 more each), and Texas Media Systems' ~$3195 price on the AF100.

Naturally, since the prospective buyer isn't in the US, these prices don't really matter - not sure what best buys in the UK will be. On a quick search, I see CVP has demo AF's available at a good discount.

...but of course it all comes down to personal preference. I decided the AF suited me better. You decided the FS suited you better. The OP's notion to rent and test each for his own needs is clearly wise and well considered.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

It was actually CVP I was referring to with the price of £3,495 - and they are saying that is discounted from £4,485. As far as I can see they don't have anything demo or cheaper? Interesting to note that the LIST price of FS100 is a lot CHEAPER than the AF101 (£4,105) - though it's discounted a lot less and hence ends up a bit dearer.
I've actually gone a completely different route and recently got a PMW320. Again, it's horses for courses, and a completely different type of horse - but it suits me far better than any of these large format cameras.

But I can well see maybe needing a "B" camera later, and can well see that one of the less expensive large format cameras may then have other benefits as well- hence my interest.

If I had to get one now, I think it would have to be the FS700. I have compared AF100 footage directly against my PMW320 and frankly there was no comparison in terms of resolution when seen on a 42" 1920x1080 TV - the PMW320 actually still looked more detailed in 720p mode than the AF100 did in 1080p! (Looking at Adam Wilts charts that shouldn't be a surprise.) Obviously if you want shallow depth of field the 320 loses out. The FS100s I've seen do seem far better technically than the AF100 but I do acknowledge they are not without fault - the lack of NDs being the most obvious.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Here's that demo model deal:
Ex-Demo Panasonic AG-AF101 Full HD solid state AVCHD camcorder with micro 4/3 inch sensor (body only) - 100% as new with full warranty

I bought my own AF used from a fellow that used to fly it around in remote helicopters in the Panamanian jungles, and it's holding together nicely, so a sample that was pawed slightly in the showroom of a camera shop shouldn't be too badly munged. It's an option if that's the road the OP decides to travel.

There's no need to argue that the AF isn't the sharpest tack of the bunch - my GH2 bests it, as of course any EXCAM would (I still love the EX1). The appeal to me was more the total package, that I could grab one sparsely rigged camera and a single small sling pouch and essentially have everything I needed to shoot a wide variety of situations without a lot of fumbling and futzing. Plenty of things I'd prefer to see improved or changed, but that camera doesn't exist and hasn't been announced.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

I tried both and to me ( like Adam Wilt) the image
quality was not 'a wash'. It was pretty clear which one
looked better. Of course as has been noted, no built
in ND really sucks.....but I wanted that better looking
image. So I went with the FS100. You do not need a
variable ND for each lens. You buy ONE good variable
ND like the Heliopan in the largest size you can, and
then buy step rings for each lens. Then you get the xume
adapters that allow you to just snap the variable ND on and
off each lens....put one on each lenses step adapter and
you can just snap the ND filter on and off lenses at will.
People who own the AF100 seem to play up the difficulty
in not having ND and play down the image quality difference.
I will not play down the fact that no built in ND DOES suck but
you can work around it if you want the absolute best in image
quality. To me, that's what it is all about.

That being said, the AF 100 is a good camera and has some nice
features like NDs, HD-SDI, and waveform. You can't really
lose either way in my opinion.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

I forgot about the lack of HD-SDI and Waveform on the FS-100. Good point.

Just to be clear, in context, the reference I made (see below) to a variable ND per lens was precisely worded that one per lens was needed in order to make an FS-100 functionally equivalent to a body that has "always on ND" (e.g built-in ND) such as the AF100 or FS700, F3, etc. In context, the discussion was about equalizing features in order to compare costs.

Additionally, no matter the mechanism, in addition to the operational issues, adding glass, on the lens brings IQ issues such as dust, vignetting and in some cases softening all of which works against the little extra IQ improvement you are buying in the FS100. And as much an improvement snap-ons may be over threaded, the alternatives (even one per lens) are not as nice operationally as built-in.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Even the concept of clipping on a ~$300 Vari-ND and hoping it doesn't get smacked, jarred, fumbled during a quick lens change, or otherwise surreptitiously plunked into the river or dashed upon rocks in a crackling shatter makes me slightly nervous.

I'll gladly take that internal ND in exchange for a few less lines resolved, thanks.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Well I was a little nervous about that as well. But I've been
all over Alaska, hiking up mountains and glaciers and
never, ever had my heliopan come off the front of the lens.
As for the supposed lack of sharpness, you do get
that with some Vari NDs but not with the Heliopan.
It IS an inconvienence no denying that but I see more
than 'a few lines resolution' difference....as did Adam
Wilt when he compared them with charts. And to be fair
although the AF 100 has waveform and HD-SDI
and ND's which the FS100 doesn't, the FS100 has
4x expanded focus and 60p with sound which the AF100
doesn't. They both have some features the other doesn't.
Too bad you can't combine them into the 'AFS-100'
Best thing is too try them both for yourself....obviously
different people can do that and come to different
conclusions as everyone has different ideas of
what is important, and what they are willing to
compromise on. Before I forget...an earlier poster
pointed out that the FS100 was not a 'world camera'.
This is no longer true as a FREE firmware upgrade
from Sony corrected that. Again to be fair, you
can upgrade firmware on the AF100 to get 60p with
sound like the FS100 has.....but Panasonic chose to
charge $250 for their firmware upgrade.
So try them out, they are both really good and you can
see which features you really need and which aren't as
big a deal to YOU.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

"Little" extra improvement!? Really!?!

For starters, the FS100/700 give you three stops better sensitivity than the AF100!

The FS100/700 give noticeably better highlight handling.

For resolution, the difference is far more than "a few extra lines" difference - it's virtually equivalent to the difference between 720p and 1080p!

(Please don't take my word for it. If you have a 1920x1080 display and an AF100, just try switching the camera between 720p mode and 1080p mode and compare the results on the monitor to see how much real difference it makes - I think you'll find it's very little. I take that as proof that the AF100s native resolution is below the 720p system standard. If you can, try the same test with a real 1920x1080 camera - such as an EX, an XF305, or an HPX250, and you'll find the difference night and day.)

Taken all together, it's a huge difference - I'd say far greater than between such as an FS100/700 and a Canon C300. And there we're taking about a far bigger price differential!

Re: AF100 successor?
 

...and the HVX200 comparatively sucked for HD resolution and light sensitivity vs. a whole mess of its contemporaries, yet it still made (and continues to make) plenty of money for plenty of people.

Tack-sharp resolution is great, but my clients are still impressed by "OK" resolution, and I'm more than willing to accept "OK" if other usability factors are spot on..

Re: AF100 successor?
 

The big difference is that when the HVX200 launched, "HD ready" TVs were a new thing and may typically have had a resolution of what, about 1350x768 at best? That wasn't much better than the HVX200, which peaked at about 1200x650 in 1080p mode. (Very similar to the AF101 now.) Even if you'd had a true 1920x1080 camera then, on such a monitor you wouldn't have seen much difference. Come to that, the luminance system resolution of DVCProHD in 720 mode was only 960x720. At that time, *ANY* HD just looked so much better than the SD everyone was used to.

The world is different now. "FullHD" - 1920x1080 - sets are the norm now in the consumer world, at least for screens of about 32" or more, and 1920x1080 cameras are likewise commonplace. In this case, the comparisons are more likely to be "it doesn't look as good as that other camera.........." than "that's a lot better than SD"!

Also, a key point is that a better resolving camera need not be set up to look pin sharp - but the natural definition may mean a far lower detail setting can be used, and that gives a far more "natural" (less edgy) look to the pictures. That was the main thing I found when seeing the PMW320 directly compared to the AF100. Leaving depth of field aside, it was the PMW320 that looked more the cinema camera, and I think a lot of that was down to (lower) detail settings.

The real question is why you should just accept "OK" when much better is available for little extra money? Many people are casting eyes towards 4k, and prepared to pay extra for it.

OK, the NDs issue has been thrashed to death and yes, I'll agree again that it's a valid point in the usability stakes. But there are things in the FS100s favour to counterbalance. I seem to recall it having a vastly better viewfinder than the AF100? And being able to stop down more (because of the better sensitivity) when deep depth of field is required?

Re: AF100 successor?
 

- To my clients' eyes, it's simply not "much better," at least not so much better that they'd pay me any extra.
- with all due respect the FS EVF is a nightmare of claptrappery. The AF's LCD isn't that great either, but in a pinch I can at least see it when the camera is overhead. Since a bulk of my work is surgeries and other fine overhead manipulations, this is a big deal in my eventual choice.
- In practically all shoots, I can stop down to ~F8 and have as deep focus as necessary (that 2x crop works in the AF's favor on this point)... I wouldn't want to have to stop down much further than that anyway because most lenses start to suffer beyond f8.
- I do envy the FS's sensitivity, but except during a doc I shot about three years ago, I've never really needed THAT much sensitivity. If I ever shoot in those conditions, then hell yes, I'll rent an FS100... otherwise, the AF is "sensitive enough."

...and while it may be cheating, when I REALLY need a hyper-detailed image of a landscape or whatnot, I drag out the hacked GH2. Usually those are just specialty shots, but since I have the GH with me on pretty much all shoots anyway it's a very handy alternative.

I get that you think the FS is better, and for some folks it is, but after working with it I didn't think, as a whole package, it was "better enough." All my personal opinion, of course.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Kevin, I've no issue with you or anyone else finding the AF100 a better package overall, certainly not in terms of "usability" etc, even if I may disagree. In that, there is a large element of opinion, yes. What I do disagree with is when statements are made which are demonstrably untrue - and I've already commented about the remark: "the little extra IQ improvement you are buying in the FS100."

In terms of IQ there's a big difference, and there really is no debate about that. It's provable by charts (such as Adam Wilts), it's widely acknowledged on side by side viewing, and the AF100 being sub 720p resolution is provable by comparing it's 720p and 1080p performances. Same with factors such as basic sensitiivity.

Whether those differences are relevant to any user is a different matter - you tend to think not, I disagree. Either way, the differences are there.

Far worse still is regarding reports such as that by Nigel Cooper. It's one thing to be critical, it's another thing entirely to be critical...... and wrong. At least in his case, the errors and omissions are so glaring and obvious that it's pretty easy to point them out and provide evidence. If I wanted to write a biased report, I'd like to think I'd be far more subtle about it! :-)
A bit of science. It's true that definition starts to drop off as a lens is stopped down, but that is a function of the wavelength of light (obviously fixed) and the physical size of the aperture - *NOT* the f stop itself. When the aperture size gets too small, light diffraction starts to become a problem.

Difficult to give a precise value, but that size tends to correspond to roughly f4 on a 1/3" chip camera for HD. Because it's the actual, physical size that matters, that same size aperture corresponds to about f8 for a 2/3" camera, and about f16 for 4/3, f22 for s35 with other factors equal.

Yes, the crop of 4/3 will give you an inherent stop more dof, the sensitivity advantage of the FS100 (3 stops) will mean that closing down the first stop will give dof parity with the 4/3 chip, but there's a further two stops in hand if desired. For all else equal, that factor should allow you to operate an FS100 with the equivalent of two stops greater dof than an AF101. (Or in lower lighting levels)

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Of course this is a never ending conversation. Choose what works best for you is the only point. Now how do we get back on topic of the "AF100 Successor? Personally, the AF100 has worked wonders for me and my clients. The "this camera is better than that camera" is a no win conversation. Hopefully I'll have the last word (LOL)!!!

As far as I'm concerned, we can get back on topic with Panasonic! I've owned many Sony, Panasonic and Canon camera's. What about suggestions for Panny and forget about what Canon, Sony, etc. can do....

Just my 3 cents.......

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Kevin,

I don't think one should 'forget' about what Sony and Canon do,
but instead take the advantages they may offer, and incorporate
those into an AF100 successor. That's what I would like to see.
Now this is just my list and others will not agree.

I'd say keep the ND's, HD-SDI and waveform. Add in a expanded focus,
and 60p with audio. I like the FS100 style of being able to
'build up' the camera, so make the side grip and mic removable,
but with better quality connections than the FS100. Also, have
a small built in mic for sync sound for when you remove the larger
XLR mic. LCD that is as good as the FS100 (or even better) but with
a better placement. Even the placement of the FS100 screen would
be OK, if it was hinged at the back instead of the middle, then you
could turn it to face down and see it when you are lower than the
camera. I'm ok with AVCHD 4:2:0 in camera, but give us 10 bit
4:2:2 out the HD-SDI so we can buy or rent an external recorder
for more exacting jobs. Finally, I'd like a S35 sensor that is
purpose built for video. Even disregarding the depth of field
and wider angle advantages, there is an undeniable fact about
chip size, If you are to compare a 4/3 chip and a Super 35,
there are basically two ways you can go. Either the larger chip
allows you the ability to have the same number of pixels as a
smaller chip camera, but each pixel is larger, which means you have
better low light capability and more dynamic range, or you have
the same size pixels so that you have just as good low light
ability and dynamic range, but more pixels/resolution. Just
simple physics in play here. So I'd like the bigger chip.
Of course, this is kind of an issue for Panasonic, because
they have an installed 'user base' that has invested in the
4/3 format. Do they really want to make all those customers
mad? I kind of doubt it. Some have advanced the idea of having
a Super 35 chip with a micro 4/3 crop so existing lenses can
be used. That might be a way for them to deal with this issue.
Again, those are just my opinions and I'm sure others would
have drastically different ideas.

Re: AF100 successor?
 

Gabe, very good job getting everything back on topic! That's my point. You answered the question regarding what the AF100 successor should be! OR your new AF100 wish list! Not the "my camera can do this and your camera can't" argument!

I would like to have everything on your wish list and a low price!

Re: AF100 successor?
 

That list sounds like the Sony F3. That should give you a hint as to what it costs. An exercise that would be more informative to the product managers that look here would be to define the features in something that can be done in the same price range. What's your MUST HAVE (and it can't be everything) for $4500?