We're not sure where Panasonic gets off calling its AG-AF100 a "professional" digital video camera. It's certainly not in the same class as
RED or
ARRI Alexa. It is, however, a very interesting video rig for shooting flicks on a budget with its
Micro Four Thirds sensor and collection of micro 4/3 lenses, filters, and adapters. The AF100 records native 1080/24p using the AVC/ H.264 Hi Profile AVCHD codec to a pair of SD slots supporting both SDHC and newer
SDXC removable media. The AVCCAM HD camcorder features a pair of XLR inputs, 48-kHz/16-bit two-channel digital audio recording, and supports LPCM/Dolby-AC3; it also packs USB 2.0,
HD-SDI out, HDMI, a built-in stereo mic, and time code recording. So yeah, it won't record the next Hollywood blockbuster but it'll probably do fine by indie filmmakers without breaking the film school budget. Perhaps we'll better understand all this professional talk when Panny reveals its price in time for a year-end launch.
posted April 12th 2010 3:17AM
This looks like something I may get... not sure yet.
@Jacinth Looks Photoshoped...
@n0ne
Well that's pretty obvious
@n0ne I meant the specs.
@Jacinth
I want to post to defend, clear up and extoll the virtues of this camera. I am at NAB as we speak and got some super great infomation on the camera. Expected price is $5995, it has a 10-bit HD-sdi out, ballanced xlr with phantom power, and hdmi out. The big excitement here is the sheer quantity of lenses you can put put on the front, most notably the fact that pl mount lenses fit nicely with only a 1.2x magnification. The folks at abelcine, who know more about "professional" cameras than the entire engadget ediorial staff put together, seemed to think this was the most imporant non 3D camera on the show floor. This camera, plus pl lenses, and a convergent designs nanoflash via the 10 bit hdsdi is a camera for $9000 plus lens rental that very likely will match the quality of behemoths such as the Sony f800 for 1/8 the price. This is the camera everyone hoped canon would release, but didn't. Also, this killed scarlet, and if ted cares to counter that, bring it on.
hope the end product won't look like this drawing, since it's more like a portable vacuum cleaner.
@SNP
Back to the future called...they want their video camera back
@SNP Gizmodo has this landing around $6k
This is an interesting camera actually -- if it comes at a price at around $3000. Otherwise, I'd still prefer to go with the $800 Canon T2i/550D dSLR, even if it won't have all these camcorder-specific abilities. The T2i is still a better bang for the buck, IMHO.
Regardless, I'm not hot about the Panasonic's industrial design here. Hmm...
@Eugenia If this is based on the GH1, then it'll have useful video abilities that most DSLRs don't have, like continuously-varying aperture and live autofocus. Add XLR mic inputs and HD-SDI out to a large m4/3 sensor and a good array of lenses & adapters, price it at or below $3-4K, and it will be very attractive to videographers.
Of course, if you don't need XLRs or HD-SDI or live autofocus, then a DSLR may well be better value.
@Namarrgon Why would you want continuously varying aperture and live autofocus? That would be horrible in a professional product.
You want manual control and a good focus puller.
@Eugenia The design looks very uhh fake, and will most likely look much hotter when we see a production model.
As far as price point... considering the price of the rest of the micro 4/3s equipment right now... wouldn't it be a safe bet to say that it'll come out closer to $2,000 with video kit lens?
@Andr
"Professionals" consist of more than artistic-type filmmakers. Consider one of these being used to record video for a news program in, say, Afghanistan. If I were a cameraman in that situation, I wouldn't want to be manually adjusting my aperture every time I run inside a building or cave, or every time a cloud blocks out the sun. That is just one instance I can think of off the top of my head but I'm sure there are others, maybe sports videos?
Also, if this is a true video camera, the faster motion should be much better than the typical dSLR "jelly" motion.
@Andr
You want to have the option for both, which it appears this will have. Most people using DSLRs and even midrange to higher end video cameras rarely are afforded the luxury of a full-time focus puller. When you need one it's nice to have, which should be the case with this camera. But where the GH1 shines (and this one should as well) is that it also allows you to autofocus (accurately and quietly I might add with the 14-140 Lumix lens) when needed. If you're shooting an event or even for some documentary work, this is a VERY helpful feature.
@st louis lookin dude Seriously? Never used autofocus not in 30 years of shooting, and sometimes used auto exposure only to switch it off real quick. Why would you ever need autofocus? It is never quicker then you and it wil never put the focus where you want it faster then you... well unless you suck at focusing I guess :P
A good mix of a FourThirds and a grenade launcher.
If it's more than a grand then it's not worth buying. After that point, just save up some more for a DSLR
@shoeshine And what, get less features?
It's basically a G1 in disguise :[
@cdf74dc9 G1 does not record video at all; you probably mean a GH1, only with features that pro videographers need, like XLR and HD-SDI outputs.
Tell me when it comes with an interline CCD so I don't have to put up with rolling shutter artifacts.
@spin cycle CMOS sensors that read all lines simultaneously do exist - it's not just a feature of CCD cameras.
@elithrar That'd be an interline CMOS. I'd take it too, but I've never heard of it.
Can't see why you mock this for not being professional. Looks pretty professional to me. It may not be a RED, but it has a decent sized sensor and will accordingly offer some play with depth of field.
It would be interesting to know what kind of sensor it has. A special sensor or one from the Photo 3/4 series.
Though 1080p doesn't sound all that impressive given the big sensor. Then again should be more than enough....
M.
@mschira
There's a big difference between "more than enough" and "professional". Like, you could call the Honda Accord a very nice car and certainly "more than enough" but that doesn't make it a luxury car.
@tonicboy
Yea, but I don't think resolution is the bit that makes it professional or not.
Other than luxury where there is always the desire for more, professional is professional when it does not stand in the way of doing the job, and more features don't necessarily make it better.
A crappy cap car is professional. All you need is it being big.
A small Lexus may be more luxurious expensive and better in pretty much any way, but not exactly a good car for a cab.
The Panasonic has a large sensor, so it will create that special professional look that no small sensor camcorder can.
M.
@mschira it's prosumer. i know it sounds cheesy, but this is the category between tiny camcorders and large TV/movie cameras (sony hdcam/red)
I'd say the fact it has removable lenses and HD-SDI makes it professional....then again I think my Canon XH-A1s is good for professional use (which doesn't only mean shooting hollywood movies) but what do I know?
@ajwoodhouse
Actually they shot Crank2 on A1s.
I don't know that the definition of professional is a hollywood blockbuster...
RED & ARRI = digital "film", 4K resolution and very different to 1080p cameras like this one (also 10x price). This is digital *video* - much more comparable to a Sony EX1 or Canon XL-H1, large-sensor HD pro camcorder with HD-SDI and interchangeable lenses.
If it's a GH1 with pro features like timecode, XLRs, HD-SDI etc and it's in the $5K range, it will be more than competitive with existing professional video cameras.
@Namarrgon
I don't think Canon XL-H1 is a fair comparison. The Canon is a nice piece, but it has a 1/3" sensor, but the Panasonic has a 4/3" sensor - 4 four times the diagonal or 16 times the area.
O.K, the canon has 3 sensors so make that only 3/16 times the area, but still.
Even more important the large sensor will behave much closer to the APSC sensor of the RED camera with respect to depth of field and all these things.
So the Canon is no real competition. It's a while ago, but I had a chat with a few film students not long ago they said that digital video is no option for real film to them, precisely because of the small sensors and the look that comes from them.
So for those folks the Panasonic is a real alternative.
M.
@Namarrgon the Arri is a 2K camera.
@sydcinema ARRI's announcement says 3.5K.
Unless you want to start arguing about Bayer-equivalent pixel counts, but that would just get messy...
Where's the buttons?
or is every thing done with multi-touch gestures?
ARR PEE GEE!!
What niche is this? Upskirts on the Tokyo Subway?
Nonono.. I kid the Japanese... they have a very... interesting culture...
Wait, $3000? You mean this isn't an iSight replacement???
*heartbreak
I actually quite like the look of this. It seems like an interesting concept, and it should be competitive if it come in under the price point of the high-end Canons. If they can bring it down to that of the high-end 4/3 cameras then it should defitnitely be competitive.
If it does higher frame rates at 1080p it will be much more awesome (say, 60p).
But just imagine how stupid it would look with one of the pancake lenses on it...
just because it doesn't cost the same as the RED or ARRI doesn't mean it can't be classified as professional. if it has full manual controls, 3 (relatively large) ccds, (or comparable cmos censor) and various inputs (like xlr) and shooting modes like 24p, then its professional. you think MTV or other networks shoot their reality shows or docudramas with $60,000 dollar camera rigs? a lot use cams like the hvx or the dvx. yeah some use some $20,000 models but mtv was at my station following a guy for their true life series and the camera guy was using a dvx.
You can bang on about sensor sizes and removable lenses till the cows come home, but the thing that makes this pretty unattractive to the pro is the AVCHD codec.
To be able to play nice in the edit, you're going to need to transcode all footage first, just as you do with DSLRs. But the DSLRs will have better sensors, and look like they'll be cheaper (but who knows for sure?)
@Bashthebox
How about uncompressed HD-SDI is that attractive to the pro? The codec on this camera is 24mb/s so don't be surprised if the codec is improved just like everything else.
This isn't a Red or Arri but this is one of the top cameras below those 2.
Rumored price is $6000, but will most likely be less when it does come out. here is an actual picture.
http://dvxuser.mikkowilson.com/NAB2010_WebPhotos/AG-AF100_2.jpg
credit to Mikko Wilson.
@Deny With a 24mb/s h.264 codec it's nowhere near the level of RED or Arri - it's not even close to Sony's EDCAM EX cameras. Yes, it's going to have a shallower DoF than them, but the dynamic range and detail it captures won't come close.
Same story when you compare it to the recently announced Canon XF range - bigger sensor, less color info captured.
The SDI out could be useful - i wonder if it does 4:2:2 over the SDI. If it does, then yes, it could be on a level closer to the big guns in certain situations.
This looks potentially more professional than all the DSLRs out there. Why come on so negative with this announcement? Red and Arri can be overkill for a lot of people, professionals included. It will be awhile before any valid criticism comes forth. But since when is engadget objective anyway.
Why so negative, another thing people should know is that micro four thirds can take a thousand different lenses with an adapter. A good DP will have a field day with a lot of different looks available. HD -SDI, lots of (cheap) lenses and professional ergononmics (vs DSLR) will make this a great camera for indies. If they can come in at that $3000 price point they probably have a winner.
I like the micro four thirds movement. It's like the open source of lenses.
This looks like something what misses a hotshoe..
Engadget seems to believe most professional cameras shoot at ridiculous resolutions like RED. This is hardly the case. Avatar was shot on Sony HDC-F950's which can only do 1080p/24. As well as Star Wars, iirc.
That is one uglydigital video camera.
Seriously, Thomas? Please fall more into the hype of "bigger is ALWAYS better". The equipment doesn't define a professional... rather, a professional defines the equipment. I shoot for clients and use minimalist lighting, using old Sunpak flash units. I also shoot with an Olympus E-3, 35-100 f/2, and 14-54 f/2.8~3.5. So please, if you don't really understand what constitutes being "professional" , you shouldn't make such statements. I guarantee that in the proper hands, this, as well as any other video cameras, is capable of great things.
Are authors in Engadget selected by their failed attempts in irony or the ignorance on subject gives bonus points too?
Since when equipment is judged by size to determine whether it's professional or not?!
"Professional" cameras are not about size and even not about resolution. It's about the quality of materials and craftsmanship, the ability to withstand heavy usage and compatibility with other equipment which is standard in the industry - like XLR inputs, TimeCode, Dolby, switchable 50/60Hz etc. etc.
And by the way mr. Ricker, HD /like in 1920 × 1080/ and 2K /which was an industry standard for years/ are not that different in terms of resolution.