Red 17-50 on a 5D mkII

[Bryce O]

At the risk of censure for a non-Red comment, the supposition that the motion picture image quality of the GH2 is somehow the equal or superior to the AF100 is fantasy. Not to mention that to properly equip a DSLR for motion picture work requires quite an investment in accessories and it's still a kludge.

Wishful thinking is not reality.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

What? Have you done any research? They both use the same 24mb AVHD codec and from the test videos videos I've seen look almost identical in terms of image fidelity. We'll never know until proper side-by-side tests are done, but so far people are saying they're pretty close.

In you opinion... why do you think it's fantasy to assume the video would look equal? Because one camera is bigger and purpose built? Who cares, that's irrelevant these days. Besides Panasonic even stated that they put allot of work into the video on the GH2 to ensure a proper motion picture. If they are both shooting off of relatively similar chips with the exact same codec how will one look any better? The only advantage is the lack of aliasing in the AF-100 dues to a smaller pixel count... which would make sense that it has a more noisy image, since it's not being down-sampled as much as an SLR image.

This, of course, is all speculation on my part as well. But IMO, it's even more of a fantasy to think the image with the same codec from the same sized chips is going to look vastly better. The real fantasy I think people are holding onto these days is "only big cameras can make big images". Example? Epic vs. Sony F35. End of discussion.

And yes, bigger pixels do mean less noise... but so does many smaller pixels down-sampled. I think the latter also has the better picture in the long run.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Surely the Sony F3?

Keyword: budget

The fact that you think a $15000 camera is a budget item when compared to a $1000 camera tells me you probably aren't budget constrained.

I know the F3 is dirt cheap compared to an F35 or a fully Rigged Epic.

Let's just say that for many folks getting an F3 (or a RED) is just as pie in the sky as owning an F35.

The AF100 MSRP is $4995. Add a KiPro Mini for $1995. $5990

Take that as a hard ceiling for the camera body and you'll be thinking in the right terms.

What I do like about the F3 compared to the AF100 and GH2 is that it has an S35 sized sensor. That's it. When I mount a PL lens to it, it behaves exactly as I expect it to from years of RED, film and yes now APC-C shooting.

The GH2 is a neat little widget though. Its approximately equal to the AF100 as a sensor. Its missing a bunch of useful things like audio inputs though. Also, you can break the video quality on the GH2 more easily.

They may be the same sensor, but there is a lot to be said for the rest of the system design. Critically the OLPF and sensor readout/sampling scheme is huge.

Of course, piping any of these cameras into an external recorder (KiPro Mini is my favorite right now) is the great equalizer.

I don't really think of the F3 or any of these cameras as "the camera I want" but rather as "the camera that will suffice until I get an Epic."

Oh... someone said something about having to add accessories to make these DSLR's work for video. To them I say... have you ever used a RED or a film camera? Every cinema rig I have ever used has a lot more money invested in accesories to make it usable than in the camera itself.

On the first RED I used, the follow focus system cost more than the camera, so did each of the prime lenses in the kit. I worked briefly on a show that had more filters than I could shake a light meter at... and yeah they cost more than the camera too.

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The only advantage is the lack of aliasing in the AF-100 dues to a smaller pixel count... which would make sense that it has a more noisy image, since it's not being down-sampled as much as an SLR image.

It's the same sensor and it's not being downsampled- just binned.
Again please do not spread misinformation as this thread is coming to close....

[Bryce O]

It's the same sensor and it's not being downsampled- just binned.
Again please do not spread misinformation as this thread is coming to close....

I was under the impression that binning is a form of down-sampeling. As it's averaging the signal from 4x4 or more pixels to make 1.

As far as spreading miss-information... I can't find concrete numbers anywhere, but I was also under the impression from a few DVXuser threads that the AF-100 was a 4 megapixel chip binned to 2 megapixels vs. the GH2's 16 megapixel chip. If those numbers are true, than there's no reason to believe that the GH2 wouldn't have a cleaner image at high ISO's.

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I was under the impression that binning is a form of down-sampeling. As it's averaging the signal from 4x4 pixels to make 1.

As far as spreading miss-information... I can't find concrete numbers anywhere, but I was under the impression from a few DVXuser threads that the AF-100 was a 4 megapixel chip binned to 2 megapixels vs. the GH2's 16 megapixel chip.

Means scaling- in real time. As far as "form" I guess it's a common practice here...to make up definitions.
If anything larger single pixels would have less noise and better s/n ratio all other things being equal... There is larger capture area in them since the circuitry between the pixels is missing...
Same sensor BTW- different cropping for 16x9 frame. Diffrent OLFP with lower frequency cutoff..

[Leo Ticheli]

What? Have you done any research?

Obviously a lot more than you and someone hawking an adapter for the GH2.

I've actually shot with the AF100; have you?

The motion picture advantages of the AF100 fill a lengthy list, which is readily available.

Panasonic has repeatedly stated that the sensors are not the same.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Obviously a lot more than you and someone hawking an adapter for the GH2.

I've actually shot with the AF100; have you?

The motion picture advantages of the AF100 fill a lengthy list, which is readily available.

Panasonic has repeatedly stated that the sensors are not the same.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

To the new/different sensor official announcement? All I read was that it was cropped differently for mp-different firmware for sure but a sensor- too big of investment for such a small niche IMO

[JD Holloway]

unless you are in 1:1 mode..one of the wicked aspects of this camera!

[Jacek Zakowicz]

unless you are in 1:1 mode..one of the wicked aspects of this camera!

Rasberry when you need him
David here is your hybrid s16-4/3" dream camera!!!!!!

[Bryce O]

Obviously a lot more than you and someone hawking an adapter for the GH2.

I've actually shot with the AF100; have you?

The motion picture advantages of the AF100 fill a lengthy list, which is readily available.

Panasonic has repeatedly stated that the sensors are not the same.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

I understand the "advantages" of the AF-100. But I don't care about the features that help colorblind people expose an image properly. All I care about is solely the look of the final image. So besides, less aliasing... What exactly is the imaging advantage on the AF-100 that is going to make it that much better than the GH2? Same codec, same chip format... I just don't understand what is so much more special about the AF-100 image wise. Sound to me like Panasonic just added over-cranking, some industry standard connectors (for the old school elitists), threw it in a bigger box with XLR inputs, and priced it for a "more professional" market.

But since you've done more research than I... can you enlighten me as to the actual megapixel count on the AF-100? It seems to be nowhere.

unless you are in 1:1 mode..one of the wicked aspects of this camera!

Yes, this is indeed awesome. Does the AF-100 have this feature? I can't find info on that anywhere either. I'm on DVXuser daily, but I have a feeling that any posts that reveal any advantages/features of the GH2 over the AF-100 are quickly disposed of.