Do You Want to be a Grown Up?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 8:29PM 
It’s kinda fun doing things the wrong way.
You can buy a fancy slider (I did, I love my Glidetrack HD), or you can feel so much more clever and agile turning any tripod into a jib arm.
We’ve been having a lot of fun shooting with DSLRs, complaining the entire time about all the obstacles they present. Won’t someone come along and make a camera with a huge sensor, interchangeable lenses, and proper video features?
I’ve been a part of this complaining, but I don’t share the opinion of some that the challenge is easy, if only Canon or Nikon or whomever cared to rise to it. The line-skipping or binning issue is not simply a question of will or understanding — it’s an actual limitation of how fast data can be streamed off the back of the sensor itself. To pull a full 5616x3160 image off the 5D Mark II’s sensor every 24th of a second would likely require a much more expensive sensor and a method of dealing with the resultant heat. We can complain all we want, but we’re the beneficiaries of a glorious happy accident of “good enough” coupled with Canon’s years of experience hacking OK-looking movies off point-and-shoot sensors. The result is that we’re making sexy-looking video (just don’t look too close) with cameras that costs only a grand or two — and most of that cost is due to features we’re not even using.
Still, it seems to be obvious that what I predicted two years ago is true: It’s no longer OK for video camera manufacturers, whether they be Sony or Canon or RED, to make a video camera that doesn’t excite us emotionally. I added: Buttons and features and resolution charts just had their ass handed to them by sex appeal.
But can we have both? Panasonic says yes.
This is the AF100. A proper video camera that will presumably ace its test charts, and also sports a 4/3” sensor like the GH1 and GH2. Interchangeable lenses. XLR mic inputs. HDMI and SDI outputs. No aliasing. Waveform monitor and focus-assist peaking in the viewfinder. A viewfinder. Watch this video and/or read his detailed write-up — Barry Green does a much better job than I ever could of pimping this thing.
It’s easy to understand his enthusiasm — this is everything we’ve been wanting. Or is it?
When I tweeted about the availability of the AF100 for pre-order from B&H Photo, I got a couple of replies to the general effect of “but will the images hold up to those of the 5D?” Now, why would a person ask that? Obviously Panasonic has gone to great pains to emphasize that this is a camera for grown-ups, with no pixel binning or line skipping. They have repeatedly stated that their target is zero aliasing artifacts. Between this an all the other pro features of this camera, such as its focus and exposure aides and various gamma modes, there’s no reason to doubt that this camera will make superior images to the current crop of HDSLRs.
No reason? Oops, I meant to say three reasons. One artistic, one technical, and one marketplace reason.
First, the technical reason to doubt the AF100: its codec. The AF100 is an AVCHD camera. We’ve discussed this codec here before, and while opinions vary, few would argue that it is a professional codec. At 17mbps it cripples the GH1. At 24mbps, the maximum allowed by the format, will the images from the AF100 be “good enough?” That strikes me as a sad question to be asking about a $5,000 camera body with a mission statement of quality.
The marketplace reason has to do with the availability, cost and quality of lenses for the AF100, and how those issues meld with the camera’s unique features. A big part of the cost and advantage of a camera like the AF100 is sophisticated autofocus. Even with my Redrock Micro EyeSpy Deluxe rig and my Zacuto Z-Finder, I find shooting with my 5D and 7D to be laborious for the simple reason of focus. The idea that I could enjoy shallow depth of field with (occasionally, mind you) reliable, fingertip-on/off face-tracking autofocus is actually quite revolutionary. You might save enough money in follow-focus add-ons and blown takes that the AF100 could start looking less expensive than a kitted-out 7D.
But if you want to take advantage of this revolution, you must chose from Panasonic’s small selection of continuous-AF, video-optimized glass. Most of these lenses are zooms, and rather slow:
You can see where I’m going with this. The top reasons for a big sensor are light sensitivity and control over depth of field. But with these lenses, you’ll be hard-pressed to create a sumptuous, DSLR-like narrow-focus world.
Panasonic does offer a 14mm prime that’s F2.5, and an awesome 20mm pancake at F1.7. Here’s a shot made with the latter.
Panasonic GF1, 20mm at F1.7. Photo by Josh Locker
Clearly with the right lens, Micro four-thirds is plenty big to create a shallow-focus look. But so far there’s only one or maybe two video-optimized lenses that offer this. Which might be fine for many users, who look at the Micro Four-Thirds format as an opportunity to collect abundant, adorable little speedy primes, or to use a PL adapter to mount gloriously fast cine lenses. But in doing so, you’re not only making an investment in glass that might start to feel out of proportion to the camera, you’re also back to manual focus, which means an abundance of expensive support gear.
This rambling point I’m making about lenses has one last nuance, and its a personal one that you may or may not share. One advantage of shooting video with the same DSLR that I use for stills is that I only ever have to buy one kind of lens. As a result, I buy them more freely, and I buy really nice ones. If I suddenly had to collect completely different lenses for stills and video, the sad fact is that I’d buy fewer of each — even though these adorable little Panasonic lenses are quite reasonably priced.
The last reason to doubt that the AF100 will impress us more than the 5D Mark II, the artistic one, is the biggest, and it relates directly to the lens issue.
Quite simply, we have tasted full-retard DOF, and it is good.
Canon 5D Mark II, 50mm at F1.2
With a 5D Mark II, its sensor double the size of a motion picture film frame, we can achieve cinematic focus at F4. We can get fetishistically shallow depth of field at F2.8. At F1.2, we can create abstract art in a Burger King. The insanely shallow DOF afforded by the 5D Mark II is the artistic solution to the camera’s numerous technical problems.
Buttons and features and resolution charts just had their ass handed to them by sex appeal.
So the question becomes, if you have a little sex appeal and you nail the buttons and features and charts, do you defeat the less expensive, double-duty camera with its wealth of gloriously speedy lenses and sex appeal dripping down its glistening magnesium-alloy body?
Not with an F4 lens you don’t.
So at long last, here’s the thing about the AF100. It’s the sensible solution. But we might not want to grow up and use it. It’s a compromise. Its sensor is slightly smaller than that of the 7D, which you may recall I also weighed in this sex appeal equation, and determined that it just barely passed. Meanwhile, in this corner, the AF100 — smaller sensor, slower lenses, a $5,000 invite to the “buy a bunch of new lenses” club.
At this point, you must be thinking, “Man, I thought Stu liked Panasonic, and here they built exactly what he’s been asking for. Why so grumpy?”
The truth is, I am thrilled that Panasonic made this thing. They do get it. And by all indications, this camera rocks. Did I mention that it shoots at arbitrary frame rates up to 60fps at 1080p? Including funky frame rates like 22fps, for those post-lasagna-lunch Kung Fu fight scenes? It’s a true filmmaker’s camera.
What it needs is a better codec and some sexier continuous-AF lenses.
That’s all, and it ain’t much. I mean think about it — if this thing shot to ProRes, it and a PL Mount would be a ghetto Alexa for a tenth the price.
Now if I don’t buy an AF100, you can’t take that as a poor review from me. I’m not a pro shooter. Not even a responsible adult. I like doing things the wrong way, especially when I’m trading technical accuracy for images that make me want to lick the screen.
But that’s just me. You’re rockin’ it Panasonic. You’ve begun the flow of sex appeal into the world of proper video cameras. Please don’t stop though, you’re not quite done.
Stu
Here’s some footage from a pre-production model. This is shot using an external recorder and Zeiss PL-mount lenses, so it represets a very expensive best-case scenario for this camera. Looks great, and how funny that it features someone using a Canon DSLR — to shoot stills.
Panasonic AG AF-100 01/02 evaluation footage by CREWS.TV from Yves Simard on Vimeo.
Reader Comments (41)
Reposting my twitter diatribe
The 5/7D is the penultimate gorilla filmaker camera, It works based off a FW hack, it's tool for X made to do Y, it's why it works well; and thats why you love it so much, it's why we all do, it's why I want one more than anything, more than a new car, or a better job. Iit's wrong, and dangerous and sexy all at the same time, it's the boyfriend you don't want your daughter to date. -Fin
I don't think I'd really use autofocus with this cam. It would strictly be a filmmaking cam and I already have the support gear and follow focus, etc from my Canon 7D. Supposedly, you can connect one of those fancy AJA boxes (KI Pro Mini?) and record to ProRes or a Nano Flash or other Panny box to record to AVCIntra. That's actually not bad then. I would definitely be interested in doing that and although I think AVCHD is good enough to start shooting with, having the ability to shoot to ProRes or even AVCIntra is pretty damn amazing.
This cam is supposedly sharper than the DSLRs as well. Not sure if I'm going to have the $5000-$7000 laying around to buy this cam and an extra box to record to AVCIntra though. That's a steep price, considering I have a 7D that's "good enough."
What it comes down to is that I'm excited about this cam, but it's not going to make me a better filmmaker and it's not going to give me any more creative freedom than my 7D. Sure, it will technically make my images prettier, but only if someone looks real close... and that right there makes me wonder if I'm willing to drop $5000-$7000 on a complete package with this cam... I don't think I am.
Stu, you think that AF is truely useful once you have proper peaking/focus assist in the viewfinder/LCD screen?
You should mention that this thing could shoot straight to ProRes with a KiPro Mini via it's SDI output.
Also, there are rumors of an EOS to u4/3 mount with electronic control in the works from Birger... so you might not have to get a new batch of lenses if you're a Canon shooter. (I expect the mount to give aperture control and power to the IS system... not holding my breath for autofocus though it might be possible).
Lastly, 2 four thirds lenses (not *micro* four thirds) that should get some attention:
Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 (same FOV as 24-70mm on 5DII)
Olympus 35-100 f/2.0 (same FOV as 70-200mm on 5DII)
-Xavier
"At F1.2, we can create abstract art in a Burger King."
That line is 24 carat gold.
- the beauty of interchangeable lenses is time would give you the chance to have faster lenses. panny is developing more faster lumix zooms and primes
- adapting lenses is a short term problem. nikon g lenses are easily adaptable.
- if xdcam codec or even the 7D codec is good enough, then the avccam codec is certainly, acceptable.
- if it really isnt enough, theres always an hd-sdi output to a ki pro mini.
-like you said, grown ups dont need FF DOF
Just one note Dustin — although this is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, both AVCHD and the 7D codec are H.264-based, but the 7D's data rate (at 24p) is roughly double that of AVCHD's max.
well, if they're using a good implementation of AVCHD, 24mbps should deliver nice images with a decent level of visual artifacts, totally comparable to the higher-bitrate-but-crappy-implementation that canon uses; so "good enough" but still not a pro-level codec
which leads me to ask...
I'm pretty sure you're already using CS5, and have tested it's native H.264 editing capabilities (even on the non-GPU-accelerated AE side); do you still think transcoding is necessary?
because, if AE does a good enough job at decoding the original H.264 stream and converting it to 32-bit-floating-point on the fly, then image quality out of the camera is all that matters for me (a better codec could make things run a bit faster, but it won't provide better image quality)
in any case, I'll keep saving for a hopefully non-line-skipping 5Dmk3...
I'm just curious, why would Pro Res (which only works on OSX as far as I know) be a good codec for a camera like this? Cineform would surely be a much better option, especially with their First Light software that provides a nice RAW workflow. Even more so now that it enables you to work in 3D with convergence settings, multiple stereoscopic formats etc.
ProRes works on Windows (decode-only), and is free. But there's nothing wrong with Cineform, it's perfectly lovely. I was merely drawing a comparison to the Alexa, which uses ProRes.
For sure it would be easier to make a full sized 35mm sensor with 1920x1080 pixels than with 18MP. The Pana still uses the same sensor as the GH1, so it still produces too many pixels that will need to be thrown out.
Part of the problem is the MegaPixel race that manufacturers are having, just like in the old days of the Pentium / Athlon gigahertz race. It is like car manufacturers telling how much RPMs the engine can do instead of horsepower or torque.
Until a brave company ( Fuji? RED? ) works on a sensor that will blow away higher megapixels sensor, the race will go on.
... and what a stupid place to put a viewfinder, never hear or "moveable"?
It's true that the megapixel race has gotten way out of control, but it's quite a good thing to start with more than 1920x1080 resolution when building an HD image from a bayer-sampled chip. Stills from even the best bayer-based SLRs don't look very good at 1:1 pixels.
7D's 45mbps bitrate is simply for compensating on 7D's lack of B-frames of h.264 which an AVCCAM has.
h.264 has many implementations including the crappy gh1 (where hacked to 45mbps equals the 7d in quality) but a properly implemented 24mbps of avchd can beat an incomplete h.264 even at high bitrate.
of course its still 8 bit and 4:2:0 :D
nothings beats 4:2:2 10 bit
OBTW does windows decode prores HQ, LT and all the new ones?
For an extra $1,000 you've got your codec sorted:
http://atomos.com/
10 years ago, you couldn't touch a 2/3" chip HD camera for less than $100,000.
3.5 years ago, I paid $10,000 for a 1/3" HDV camera (Sony S270U) that I've barely used since buying the 5D2.
The fact that the 35mm video revolution is starting at a price point under $5K is unbelievable.
Sure, I was also a little nonplussed to discover that I wouldn't be able to use my EOS glass with the AF-100 I just pre-ordered. So, I got on eBay and bought a small set of lovely Canon FD primes for a couple hundred bucks, plus two adapters (at $49 each) that will allow me to use said primes, plus the lenses from my antique Leica cameras, on the micro four-thirds system.
If Sony includes their much-hyped EVIL autofocus technology on their answer to the AF-100, it'll be awesome. But in this industry, you can either be first or best. Panasonic is the first to market with a 35mm video camera, and I can't wait to get my hands on it.
When the dust settles in a few years, I'll go shopping again. In the meantime, give me XLR inputs and proper monitoring, and give them to me now!
I'm definitely going to test-drive an AF100. For the shoots I have coming up next year, we can shoot with 2 x HVX200's (which have been languishing almost unused since we got Canons) or a 5D2/7D pair... or get an AF100, or maybe even hire a RED ONE for the couple of weeks we're likely to be shooting, and see how much fun we have with that!
I think the lens adaptor issue is going to be the make or break one for this camera. The Panasonic reps talk about Canon lens mount adaptors- if there's really a proper one, with electronic aperture control (and ideally autofocus) I'm sold. Ditto if they release a good f/2.8 fixed zoom comparable to an L-series Canon. (Adaptors for my Hasselblad lenses would really kick ass too...). We're going to need f/2.8 and really a few more options around f/1.4 would be a big help to offset that smaller sensor.
I don't understand the codec choice, though. I'm a bit concerned that next year they'll release a version with a better codec. Sure, I could buy an expensive Nano and use that, but the point of the AF100 is supposed to be that it doesn't need the accessories that the dSLRs do just to become vaguely usable. Does anyone have any idea why they've chosen to hobble the camera with this technology choice? I can see why they're not chosen to launch a P2 powered version, so they can use cheaper flash cards, but if Nano can record at these huge bitrates onto CF why can't Panasonic? Odd. I'd probably pay the price of AF100+Nano for the camera if it did this built in, I'd really rather have it all in a compact unit than add a second box with cables and separate power and add the fiddle.
I find the camera intriguing, but I'm disappointed that HD-SDI and HDMI are only 8-bit. I understand that's typical of most under-$10,000 video cameras, but I think Panasonic are being a little disingenuous when they suggest that those wanting 4:2:2 encoding and GOP-less recording should record to an AG-HPG20. Doing so can't fully exploit all the 10-bit goodness of AVC-Intra.
Ilya of Hot Rod Cameras is already making PL-Mount adapters for the AF100, and I think he's going to make EF mounts for it as well.
http://www.hotrodcameras.com/2010/09/hot-rod-cameras-on-panasonic-digital-cinema-camera/
The 24mbps codec is a bummer, no doubt (it couldn't have been that difficult to use CF cards instead and use a better codec), but you could use a NanoFlash or KiPro and get footage that's much less compressed. I just wish they had made the camera that way from the start.
I suspect Sony will have an answer when they release the "pro" version of the NEX-VG10.
At this point, any camcorder or DSLR priced under $10K (or for that matter, even well over $10K) is a compromise. It's got a great image and professional video features but it's got a fixed lens. Or, there are no manual video controls, or there's autofocus in video mode but it's too slow and hunts for focus too much to be usable, or there's a limited supply of compatible lenses and the ones that are available are too slow, or the codec sucks, or it can only record a maximum shot length of 12 minutes, etc., etc. No matter what you buy at the AG-AF100's price point or even well above, you'll have to make (and accept) compromises.
We're probably two years away from getting everything you want in an under-$10,000 camcorder or DSLR. We may get lucky and see something demonstrated as early as next year's NAB, but I think a more reasonable timetable is two years.
"I'm just curious, why would Pro Res (which only works on OSX as far as I know) be a good codec for a camera like this? Cineform would surely be a much better option, especially with their First Light software that provides a nice RAW workflow. Even more so now that it enables you to work in 3D with convergence settings, multiple stereoscopic formats etc."
I use ProRes to great success in Sony Vegas 9 (now 10, actually) and wish that every camera would record to that format. I'm praying that's the format of choice for the 5D Mk3 or whatever HDSLR Canon gives us next. I honestly would rather work with ProRes than RedCode. Ultimately,R3Ds are mostly getting transcoded straight to ProRes anyway.
I got the 5D II in nov 2008 and had still a lot of respect for this tool. It's the most cheaper / quality stuff i have never seen and got.
Getting it so early didn't make me a director or involve in the HDSLR market.
I still work in the TV broadcast as a video engineer passionated by technology, lighting and images.
Getting in hand this Panasonic at the IBC & Photokina i was really disappointed about the product finishing : The crapy VF is unusable and the LCD is worst quality than HDSL screen ! That doesn't have any sense for a tool who want to be what HDSLR are not made for : a movie camera. I won't say about the plastic body.
YES! Everything is not on the dark side, AF100 gets a lot of qualities : No aliasing, no 5 lines skipping, no artifact, focus & exposure assistances, gamma modes, TC, HD-SDI ...
But i've never seen a face-tracking autofocus neither in movie as in a video camera !
The other negative stuff i noticed is the H264 codec. I had always thought that this codec was a cast codec more than a post-production one. Please tell me if i am wrong or if it has changed! Your feedback can be helpful for me as all of us.
(@ Mark Avid implement the Pro Res since the IBC)
I won't let you say that frenches are just ( only ;-) complainers and strikers by sharing what i do believe in. A RAW CMOS movie camera. As Stu start the next challenge will NOT be easy and we know that the Scarlet pro-consumer RAW camera is over or not expected yet. But instead the next Panasonic would it be more accurate to invest in this HD 12 Bits RAW camera with Interchangeable lenses mount ? Raw let you know to get more possibilities in high contrast picture. DNG is not dependent of a trademark format.
OK Guys it's twice expensive +/- 12 K$ with accessories and it would need a giant Mac Pro for post-production but what is your opinion ?
Well as i said i m not involve enough in the business to jump and buy such a camera, but let me know you through and argue.
shoot @ :
http://www.ikonoskop.com/dii/footage
Serge
Stu, you've mentioned in the past that it's not the bit-depth but rather the compression that's the problem with 5D/7D footage. With that in mind, what are your thoughts on using an AJA Ki Pro or Atomos Ninja to record ProRes 4:2:2 or ProResHQ from the AF-100? Realizing that the HDMI and SDI out on the camera "only" outputs 8-bit signals, is there something to be gained from using an external recorder and bypassing 24mbps AVCHD?
This will of course, raise the overall cost of the camcorder by around $1000-$2000 depending on what you get, so now we're dealing with a $7000 camcorder BEFORE lenses. Add about $4000 in lenses (the Olympus 14-35mm f2.0 and 35-100mm f2.0, and Panasonic's 14-140mm) for a total of around $11,000 for an 8-bit, 4/3" camcorder.... before accessories. Not that appealing depending on who you are.
Interesting side note: apparently, one of the limitations of the GH1 was that the SD card writer was limited via software to cater to the lowest common denominator of SD specs, and that you could get MUCH higher bit rate once you remove this limitation via firmware hack. Not that I'm counting on someone to hack the camera after it's been released, but wouldn't it be cool to get 50mbps 4:2:2 AVCHD out of the AF-100 ?
Hi Art, the Ki Pro Mini and the Ninja are both intriguing options, but I am concerned about their compatibility will all the possible frame rates of the AF100.
Serge, I admire the Ikonoskop guys for what they've done, but it's not the camera for me. Smart compression at capture time is a good thing, and as I mentioned above, I'm not a fan of a native 1920x1080 resolution bayer sensor. A RED One records a higher-resolution image at a lower data rate for only a little more cost.
Well spoken Stu!
If Panasonic wants to stand proud about their offering, why don't they release footage of this Camera body with shots using their existing 14-140 lens recording to 24mbps yet?
Unless, they are not happy (embarrased) about what that looks like so far... Call it pre-production or whatever, but it seems they are trying to get as many pre-orders possible before that becomes footage becomes available... so my wallet is still sealed... To be fair, they did announce the bright zooms and maybe that will truly show off the encoding capabilities that they are willing to stand behind... we'll see...
Ultimately, this is not encouraging that you still need to dangle a $2000-4000 encoder on it and a $2000+ prime lens from a 3rd party to get great results...
I've believe I've seen this camera before... It was made by Fisher Price and it was called the PXL-2000.
(just a joke folks...)
Great post--well written, informative, and funny. Not sure about this though:
"With a 5D Mark II, its sensor double the size of a 35mm film frame..."
Isn't the 5DM2's sensor approx. the same size as a 35mm film frame?
Good point Jim, I worded that in an unclear way. The sensor on the 5D Mark II is the same size as a 35mm SLR film frame, but double the area of a 35mm motion picture frame. It's the motion picture image plane size that I was meaning to compare.
In fact, I decided to edit the post to reflect this, thanks.
I for one one am looking forward to this new AF-100, or the forthcoming 'affordable' 35mm Sony.
Where some people have seen 'difficulties and compromises' with DSLRs, I can only see them as unusable for my work.
For the last two years or so I've had my very flawed Letus extreme attached to an EX-1, and am quite happy to have bypassed the whole DSLR thing. (some work... http://vimeo.com/8822891) What it gives me is a nice look, but much more importantly is xlr sound, and a very tough body which doesn't overheat when shooting in places like South Sudan. I can throw it in the back seat of a jeep an be sure it works at the other end. I'd expect the new cameras to also work like this. Horses for courses I suppose...
Let's hope one day Canon will be able to create a stills camera that can shoot 24/25fps in RAW with a stereo-track or two.
I am tempted by this camera, but am shying away from the fact that I'll have to shell out another $8-10k for the body ($5k) plus a couple of lenses to get it working. Come on, who can use such slow zooms with a variable aperture!?
So unless someone comes up with a working solution for my existing Canon EF glass, I am going to wait this one out and see what either Sony or Canon is coming out with next year. However, I still have to see the day that Sony actually creates a camera with a larger chip than their professional 2/3", so the best bet is still on Canon.
Nonetheless, for certain assignments, especially those ones which involve lots of interviews / vox pops, I crave for properly balanced XLR inputs.
For what it's worth I've seen some of the AVCHD from that NZ test shoot. It's impressive - or more specifically it was better than I'd expected. In places I'd thought I might see compression artifact I didn't spot any (fine hair detail, high contrast movement).
The Crews.TV guys were asked not to release the raw AVCHD footage because Panasonic are still tweaking the implementation - but I was very happy with what I saw. And others reported being unable to decern a difference in split screen with the AVC-Intra on a broadcast monitor.
But then again nothing they shot was designed to stress the codec that much. Others will do that.
Certainly I've been very unimpressed with the Canon video - H.264 at those bitrates should be spectacular, and it really isn't. My speculation has been that it's a poor implementation of the encoder. And presumably sometimes made worse by false detail which stresses the codec further.
I've heard it suggested (probably by Panasonic though) that AVCHD at 24Mb/s should equal or exceed XDCAM EX at 35Mb/s. It's a newer and more advanced codec.
The problem for Panasonic is that they don't have an intermediate option. They have AVCHD up to 24Mb/s and then their next codec option would be DVCPRO HD or AVC-Intra at 100Mb/s. Otherwise they'd have to create or license something else. Sony has a broader range of codecs to choose from with their product when it arrives, most likely being XDCAM EX or HD422 at 35 and 50Mb/s respectively.
ProRes or DNxHD (which is actually a SMPTE standard) seem like they'd be good production codecs to me, but at 115-220Mb/s they are less practical. XDCAM HD422 at 50Mb/s or AVC-Intra at 100Mb/s offer a better balance of bitrate for quality.
I like Stu's rebel approach. Nail hit right on the head.
6 months ago Canon almost released a firmware that allowed for a clean HDMI signal in Live View, without hitting the start button.
But they did not release it. They have not made their mind up if they should charge for that release. Here and there it floats around in some Canon offices. Extremely difficult to get hold of it.
It is also difficult to find out what the specs are of that signal. It will be definitely down sampled, but uncompressed and will it be 4:2:2 and 8 bit? I dont think it will get any better then what I mentioned. If Canon decides to release that firmware soon anyway. I am curious though if you connect that let's say to an Atomos Ninja and record to Prores 422 HQ, what the result will be. Ninja is only around 900 US. If the results are OK it saves you a 5K body. So Canon how about it, or do you have anything even better to beat Panna. Like Stu I don't want to be a grownup so be the rebel uncle with a nice Christmas present.
This would be a great indie camera or even B cam on a RED or Alexa shoot - if only the SDI output was 10 bit!
H264 or AVC Intra is not and should not be a capture format for pro video, if they give us the 10 bit option for SDI output then the Ki Pro Mini would be an excellent option to capture in prores.
Let's hope they can address this oversight, because otherwise I'm afraid it will be so close, yet so far...
Whats up with the canon kool aid? the only thing they've done right so far is adding 24p to 5d mk II. so far they've never really innovated on anything.
Not trying to be a panny fanboy but if you shoot the EX1 or EOS dslrs, the codec for avccam is definitely good enough. otherwise, go get a red mx or alexa if you want full post control.
only camera below 10k that has hd sdi with 4:2:2 10 bit is a Sony EX3.
And the children followed the Pied Piper from the town of Hamlin, with their 5D and 7Ds in hand. For the Pied Piper had convinced them these were insufficient tools of the trade. To the bluff they followed where upon the children threw their 5Ds and 7Ds to the crashing sea below. Gone were the insufficient codec, line skipping, rolling shutter, moire, 8 bit color space, and aliasing problems that had plagued the village. "We must all join hands and sing kumbaya as a sign of our technical savvy," said the Pied Piper.
And technical savvy they were, for one and all shot at 24p as a sign of their allegiance.
"Don't worry my children, for the AF100 is our destiny," said the Pied Piper. "Cast stones upon those 5Ds and 7Ds below, for they shall never return." The children sang and danced with delight, for their new AF 100's were here at last. Little did the children know that the Piped Piper had fooled them all. Little did they know the AF100 had an AVCHD codec with a max bit rate of 24mbps. For this camera could never ever produce a picture quality worthy of the village peoples clients, for they would never accept such specifications.
Back to the bluff they ran only to see the crashing waves upon the rocks below .For the sea had swallowed all of their technically insufficient DSLR's. In the distant, the Pied Piper could be seen approaching the children. "Hey, I thought you said the AF100 was our destiny, I don't see any better picture quality from this over my lost 5D," said the child. Bowing his head down low, " I was wrong my child, for I did not know this had an AVCHD Codec, or that it only shot 24mbps, or that the village people would want to stone it for it is rather ugly." A groan could be heard amongst the children, "wait," said the Pied Piper, " We shall wait for the AF10,000 surely that will be the technically correct camera we've all waited for." let's all join hands and sing, for we can still shoot 720p with our iPhones, it's not at 24fps, but perhaps we can fool our village clients."
And so, the mumbo jumbo tale continues.
Your writing is great Steve! But in reality the 24Mb/s AVCHD from the AF100 is immediately better quality than anything I've seen from the 5D or 7D. And if it's not good enough then the HD-SDI provides the opportunity to record a better quality - something than no DSLR can offer.
AVCHD at 24Mb/s will not satisfy the technical requirements of Discovery or the BBC, but neither will a poor H.264 implementation at 46Mb/s. In fact no Long-GOP codec under 50Mb/s is acceptable on paper many big broadcaster - but if that's an issue you can use a Ki Pro Mini, NanoFlash, Ninja or Cinedeck with the AF100.
Thanks Dylan! Basically, I'm just being a wise-guy to show how ridiculous this all has become, and ridiculous it is. The quality of the AF100 being better than any 5D or 7D is subject to interpretation as is anything else when it comes to comparing any of these cameras. Would you be wiling to bet big money you can tell the difference between these two cameras in a blind test? To get something on the Discovery channel is more of who you know than an Mbps of ones camera.
These channels deal with established production companies that provide programming and trust me, if it was shot on a 5D, 7D, AF100, by one of these companies it would air. I've seen stuff on the Discovery channel that was clearly not up to spec, but that's for the Discovery channel, personally, I don't provide a lot for that channel. As far as a Ki Pro, is it really needed, Shane Hurlbut has done some incredible work with the 5D for some heavy duty clients and his work speaks for itself. My point, throw the numbers, the Mbps, and all this technical specific numbers game and throw it as far as you can. Just my opinion!
In almost any possible scenario I believe I could tell the difference between 5D/7D and AVCHD from an AF100.
It is ridiculious in many ways - the level of passion around these things is amazing (and not something I've really seen before with other cameras).
As for technical specs - at some level they do matter. From the perspective of a network, for example, it's impossible to write a spec that mandates subjective aesthetic quality, and they can't require a certain level of experience or skill, so they set technical standards that, ideally, help establish a minimum standard. If Discovery are paying you to make a TV show then you have to do what they tell you to. If you can convince them that you need to shoot on HDV (Deadliest Catch) or 5D then they'll make an exception, but otherwise the specs do matter.
Technically, objectively, I think it will become clear that the AF100 is better than the 5D. There is still a lot of other factors that are subjective and personal, but overall I think Panasonic have delivered a camera that is essentially better.
But even in the non-technical measures the AF100 will be a better camera for many people for it's connectivity and pro features if nothing else. A smaller sensor may put some people off, but I'm not sure it'll be a deal breaker for many. It's more expensive than a 5D, but not much and doesn't require as much extra stuff to work well.
The offboard recorder is a bonus, and good if available to you, but for most situation I'm confident that the AVCHD will be more than satisfactory.
No camera is right for every person, or every situation, but I think this one is probably right for more people and situations (at least is a professional context) than a DSLR.
For a 'Sexy' camera... Its bloody ugly! ;)
Allright, to make one thing sure: Technology over Design, right? O.K.
This camera won't make it trough.
It's 80% finished and there won't be any major changes made to till shipping.
This camera is what it is. Not pro, not consumer, not prosumer, it's somewhere inbetween the non existing middle of nowhere.
This camera is an expensive battery-operated vacuum cleaner.
And the message to you Stu: You should be more severe with Panasonic, at least in the same way you showed balls to the Canon Prototype (Concept) Camera, because you know that the Panasonic isn't a Prototype anymore. So get your satin gloves off from that glassbowl and show em the axe.
Seriously, otherwise they'll never learn on how to spend their Millions in development wisely.
cheers
Another way I would like to use this camera is to mount it on a jib/crane. Now with DSLRs you're required to invest in external motors to control focus remotely. With traditional camcorders they have pretty inexpensive LANC connectors for that.
It's a shame that Panasonic has not included a LANC port on this camera (yet). I know that the camera sells without any stocklenses, but being able to remotely control focus/zoom with Panasonic's own glass is a bloody good reason for people to join the buy-this-camera-and-some-new-glass-too club. But then it better be fast glass as well...