I'd start saving up for a Scarlet.

lol yeah I guess there will always be a better camera. But Im not aiming to have any of my stuff on the big screen so a scarlet would be bit of over kill.

Since the gh2 already trumps the af100 in image quality, maybe hold off until you can get a cam that really improves upon the gh2. Just not worth it atm, especially new... you'd be throwing your money away.

I agree @Grue on all your points.

If you're making the next financial step up into that territory, then it would have to be the FS100. The other option is wait for the AF200, which has some serious expectations if it's to compete.

I'll probably invest more in lenses, lights, and microphones. I haven't even hacked my Gh2 yet, I think I will buy some 64gig extreme cards and give Vitality's his much deserved donation instead.

@Chaos123x

You did say, "Convince me not to." ...

1) Do a TCO (total Cost of Ownership) calculation. Include insurance for dropping it into sea-water;

2) Do a risk analysis. Templates are downloadable online. Include risks such as new models reducing resale value of your purchase to zero. Also wife giving you nasty looks for a year;

or:

If the rental you'll be paying for your next shoot is greater than the cost of the camera, buy it.

I think it's funny that people act like having a waveform and vectorscope is something that all pro cameras have to have. I used to shoot 3/4 Umatic, Betacam SP, and DVCPRO, I don't remember any of those cameras having a waveform or vectorscop unless that were connected to a CCU that was hooked into a entire control room.

But yeah, I think I will stick to the GH2. I actaully prefer recording my audio seperatly now.

@Chaos123x

Being far from AF100 lover I want to say that if you think that it'll be useful for you, if you have big amount of good m43 glass it is best to not ask and just go and buy it. As far as I know they have some discount now.

But I really hate all this Barry Green hutzpa with lectures how no one must longer use HDSLRs and that their time is up.

Also, if you haven't seen yet... GH2 cuts pretty well with Scarlet with Epic footage at 2k. I've seen the AF-100 next to Red MX footage at the same res and I can't say the same...

But like others have said, if you need the FEATURES... to save time, or make a production easier, ect... get the AF-100. If you just want maximum quality, get two GH2's and a proper external-recorder/mics.

I just haven't seen anything shot on the AF-100 that has "wowed" me. Besides a music video that used Ziess CP's and an external recorder to an all-I frame codec. The motion is just to "mushy" otherwise. Then on top of that, it's only a 24mb/s codec. 24mbps for $4k? That's just a bad deal. That's what most sub-$1000 DSRLs record. If you want something better... you're going to need an external recorder... which will be more expensive and make the rig bigger/less mobile. At this point, I'd say vote with your wallet and get some GH2's and hold off on the "proper video cameras" untill they actually decide to start selling "proper video cameras" again... aka, something like 2k 100mbps Intra native recording with 60fps for $5000.

Canon is also developing a RAW codec... so I might just wait a year. It's true that there's always going to be "the next best thing"... but I think a MAJOR leap forward in quality/price is coming soon.

It comes down to what you need really. The image you can get from your gh2 is good enough for most things. The FS100 seems to add a tiny bit more in terms of flat picture profiles, inputs/outputs, low light performance and other stuff (way more than an af100), but then you might want to add an external recorder as well - so that increases the price tag slightly, and potentially changes your work-flow. Also, the FS100 does'nt seem overly handy for recording on the fly, so that might be a deterrent.. I'm guessing the form-factor is part of the reason why you are even considering the af100, so then it's down to - can you do the work you do with the gh2?

Is it worth it? Who knows. What do you want to do with the camera and what kind of work-flow do you want? What makes good financial sense?

Investments in lenses, lights e.t.c. will be of more use over time than a specific camera box, but you might also want to keep part of that money for production, or save up to be able to invest in something that really matters / spend when it matters.

I went the FS-100 route, and I'm very happy with that purchase. The form factor was not as big of an issue for me since I already had alot of camera support (rails, shoulder system, grips etc).

But very happy with my purchase. Although I invested money in lenses, which I expect to outlast all the camera bodies I own. Maybe keep the GH2, and buy some nice glass?

FS 100 PROS: Bigger sensor, better low light CONS: Form factor, No HD-SDI, More expensive

I was quite close to ordering a scarlet day one as well. The fact that there is an expected backlog, and the 4k competition is going to be heating up this year are all reasons, I think, it might be best just to wait it out for a while. I mean, by waiting a year, you could easily get a scarlet at a reduced price used and in mint condition. Who knows what other goodies lie around the corner from Panasonic, Canon and the like. With the gh2 as good as it is right now... this seems the like the best time to play the waiting game.

@lin3arx First generation 4K from JVC and others will likely suffer from same problems as current DSLR: non-broadcast codecs, 8 bit, etc ... I wish they'd surprise us with 12 bit, 4K RAW for 10K or less, but I suspect that territory will be reserved for $10-20K for another couple years. Funny enough, 2 years ago many would kill for the AF100 features, now it's "last year's model." The market is however heating up in 1080p FF land certainly...