@danyyyel "How this little 2 bit from 8 to 10 bit make a world of difference?"

Clearly you understand how bit depth works.
It's a HUGE difference in data recorded and visual quality.

@bannedindv

Yes and that is where the problem is. Those company's just don't want from my perspective the minimum image quality an enthusiast or a pro would need at $ 5000. I do understand that it might not be implemented in $ 1000 consumer base camera, but in today's world in pro and semi pro market. Today every software etc are using 32 bit floating point and we are still in 8 bit world.

I really hope that the hacked gh2 kick them hard and that more and more people on forums, shows etc. start to question them, " hey how this $ 800 camera is kicking my $ 5000 one that much. You are giving me 24 mbit while they are using 3, 5 times more". Another accident like limited video 2k raw ( time, buffer,) , on the next Canon or Nikon would really make this industry shake.

I don't have one cent of this gripe in the photography world. I see the product, the competition etc. as normal. You do have product segmentation but even with a small aps c camera you can do exceptional photos. You might get a smaller viewfinder, slower auto focus, les rugged body etc... but it is ok. It is progressing at a good rate not like the dinosaur technology we are seeing in the video world. Imagine this video world without the dslr revolution 3 years ago. Everybody would be drooling on the 1/3 inch camera for above $ 5000.

@Aria I have hope that they will have addressed the mpire/aliasing issue. But I have no hope for the 24p.

@danyyyel

Big camera companies like Panasonic make their money by charging as much as they can for as long as they can for the best results. Competitors like RED have forced them to improve the offerings and lower the price a little, but they are always holding things back to entice the big buyers to spend the bigger bucks.

You are right that Panny could release a 10-bit, 100Mbps AF200 for a lower price point, but it would kill off their Varicam business at $20k-$30k a pop. So they give prosumer just enough goodness to compete with the current trendy camera -- the 5DmII right now.

This is why I hope some of the GH2 hack trickles over to the AF100. Because there's no way Panasonic is going to amp up the bitrate or shorten the GOP on that camera anytime soon.

We just took possession of the Sony F3, all pimped up with s-log and (on its way) a PIX240 10bit 4:2:2 recorder. Tests we have done are nothing short of breathtaking, with an amazing DR of nearly 14 stops.

AF100 that clips the highlights like any other digicam of yesteryear, with an IQ not far from the GH1.

I am wondering if it is possible, with a hack, to 'liberate' the internal processing of the AF100 and provide a 10 bit log gamma output, similar to Sony's (rapacious and overpriced) approach?

For me the FS100 is a no go zone. 8 bit, 420, no inbuilt ND filters and a sensor exposed to the elements when changing lenses.
:((
The lack of a ND filter wheel, negates the smaller form factor - just add a matte box....

Sony should include the s-log on every camera.

We have to wait and see what Canon (totally left in the dust for now) comes up with, at the end of the month and on November 3. They have to bring something serious to the market, more so as Sony has announced the F65 (4k, log gamma, RAW, 4:4:4, including the SRS recorder) - available early next year - in the price range of RED EPIC and Alexa.

@Brian202020 As you have both, I think everyone here would be grateful if you could show us the far superior image you get in terms of resolution and dynamic range you get with the af100.

I have access to both of them too and dare to disagree. I tested the latest by Driftwood.

It would seem to me that working within the AF100's sweet spot, anyone should be able to make a great looking film. I think most of the time there's a tendency to overstate the negatives since the AF100 is supposed to be a "DSLR Killer". I don't look at it like that. The AF100 is far from perfect but it has it's positives for a real work environment that may present conditions where it's needed to have Dedicated buttons, ND filter, XLR and SDI outputs. Plus having low Moire/Aliasing and Rolling Shutter and a clean 4:2:2 output may be desirable for many.

I have yet to see an direct comparison of the best that the AF100 can do and the best of the GH2, so as to really determine the amount of difference we're talking about visually. I have a feeling that the differences are not as great as it is often stated to be.

But again for a working situation where things are happening live or time is limited and you've got to get things happening quickly the AF100 has it's strengths:

(1) Built-in ND’s (a first for a single chip camera)

(2) Time code/external time code (not available in HDSLRs)

(3) XLR audio with manual control, phantom power, headphones, speaker, uncompressed audio recording

(4) Waveform/vectorscope, zebras

(5) False color focus assist

(6) HD-SDI, HDMI and composite video monitoring

(7) Wide variety of lens mounts, allowing for the use of a wide variety of lenses (including PL mount) without modifying the camera

(8) Half the rolling shutter skew of an HDSLR

(9) No aliasing/moire worth noting

(10) The ability to undercrank & overcrank at 1080/60p over 24p or 30p

(11) Extensive menu control of camera parameters (not offered in HDSLRs)

I think the discussion started comparing sensors. The AF100 has very useful features, but for quite a price compared to the GH2.
Let's compare:
– 1) ND's can be replaced by a var ND, the best one is around 150,- €
– 2) Admitted, ext. TC can't be done with GH2
– 3) Audio features can be replaced with separate recorders like the H2/H4 and synced with DualEyes (less than 500,- €)
– 4) Waveform/vectorscope? Ok, on GH2 we just have histogram
– 5) False color assist? GH2 has enlarger
– 6) True, GH2 has only crappy HDMI (until now?)
- 7) GH2 has the same
- 8) Same for GH2
- 9) Same here
- 10) Only 60i plus de-interlace – less quality, but possible
- 11) Wait and see

@Aria - "All of those additional things in one package makes it more acceptable at a price that's gonna be about $2,700.00 more than a GH2"

Yeah, it's all good, it's just too bad the AF100 isn't hackable as well...

Sure, horses for courses! If you are into documentaries with a small crew, the AF100 is a good tool.

But if you are shooting a feature, I'd use separate audio pre-mixing/recording by a specialist anyway (which is easier having TC again).

But why, oh why didn't put Panny the sensor of the Lumix into the AF100?

I think AF100 is a reasonable deal. Nicely designed, XLR, headphones, overcrank, external recording, and very important ND filter built in (why FS100 doesn't is beyond me). Yes GH2 is good, but AF100 offers total package. FS100 has nice sensor, but total package is less nice. If you compare AF100 with other camcorders it's a good deal for the image you get. If you compare what you get a few years ago, it is mind blowing what you can get today as a filmmaker in this price range.