I use AF101 (with Canon FD primes) for corporate/wedding work and me and my clients are happy with the stuff I shoot (but they aren't pixel peepers, worried about film like grain etc etc) I can't comment on narrative/film making but for my area it has worked really well

Sidestepping a bit, but in regards to camera cost / time for development – one has to ask oneself how much work you can do / how much you can make in the year or two until quality will be seriously cheaper? And compare then between for instance the gh2 and af100. Will that af100 bring you more money to justify the cost (take your work to another level, enable you to do more work)? Or will it bring you less money? It's a bit complicated but that is roughly the equation to consider, unless you are just shooting for fun.

The same would go for any major camera investment, the difference with for instance lenses is that it is an investment that is unlikely to loose much value and lasts much longer than a camera box.

@Alex you have to be much more specific than that. If an AF100 is a good option (to even consider) for you, it is very unlikely that cp.2's would make any sense as an investment because you are most likely doing work where it would be a complete overkill..

There is so much to choose from when it comes to lenses and gear. Some gear will no doubt loose value (I doubt high quality panasonic m43-lenses will bring as much as quality canon ef lenses - second hand) and some gear might perhaps be out of use for you at some point and some investments can stay with you for years, and years (a high quality tripod, a high quality rig)..

Sizzle Reels for proposed TV shows.

FS100 is off the table. All my glass is for micro four thirds. If I'm going to switch mounts I will go to Canon when they have something better than the 5D Mark II and cheaper than the C300.

"For the money of 1 AF100 you could get 1 Zeiss Cp.2 Lens, maybe 2. Would this make any sens? For a workflow improofment you would need the howl set. For a pure image quality improofment it would not be a very big bang for buck. What would be a wise glass investment for the future?"

The CP2's are ok lenses, but I ended up investing in some nice Lomo glass, it took me awhile to put together a nice set, but for $3-4 grand I was able to put together a nearly complete set, that IMO has a superior look to the CP2's. At some point I'll spend the cash to get these changed into a PL mount (once I get a PL camera).

I think the Lomo's are probably the cheapest cinema glass you can get, and have a comparable look to older Cooke lenses. They take a big of the edge off the digital look for sure. I've used them on a 7D, then a GH2, and now an FS100...I hope they last me through many more camera bodies, until I can throw down some serious cash on K35 lenses or better.

I do miss my GH2 though, I wish I kept it and didn't need the cash, would be a great Bcam to use with the FS100. Still was worth it to upgrade the camera though.

my .02 cents

I recently rented an af100 because I needed 60p at 1080 for a few clips. It's image quality was AWFUL when compared to Quantum 9b.

Be prepared for a HUGE drop in picture quality - you are paying for audio and 60p. Thats it.

If you want picture quality rent Red Scarlets for your productions. If you want audio - do it off camera.

Cheers!

XLR makes no difference in sound, and for good sound record to a flash recorder. Still, can be handy. Ummm headphone jack? How about keeping the GH2 and adding a nice juicy Vixia G10. HDMI out, touch tracking, touch exposure, HP Jack, rock solid IS, full manual and you can buy a handle for it that has XLRs which will not sound any better but will look very cool. AND it has less aliasing than the GH2.

AF100 image quality is underwhelming, but ergonomically it is great. What I mean is it behaves like a traditional video camera. I use it at work, but the image has never ever wowed me, and it isn't half as good as a hacked GH2 when you view it purely on image quality. Just go to vimeo and look at the clips between both cameras. At the end of the day the image is more important to me and I see no sense in spending a few thousand dollars on a camera only to be unsatisfied with the image created. The FS100 is hands down and easily a more robust/resolute and pleasing image. But that's just my opinion. I think it's a bad time to buy a brand new camera, especially this close to NAB in April.

" I think it's a bad time to buy a brand new camera, especially this close to NAB in April."

Isacc_B nailed it here. Well put.

Send that link to B. G.

I bought an AF100 and sold it a couple of weeks later. I just couldn't get the image to not be video-y and kind of ugly despite lots of preset tweaking. I also didn't feel like I could confidently focus the AF100 with a fast prime and the built-in LCD. There's no LCD-zoom function to help with focus, and the red-outline focus assist is spotty. I'm much happier with my GH2 and external HD monitor (TV Logic), though I miss the built-in ND filters and onboard sound recording... I'll be really happy if the AF200 (or whatever they call it) has a sensor as good as the GH2 and better focus assist.

"I used to shoot 3/4 Umatic, Betacam SP, and DVCPRO" if u aren t after small dof and filmlook, have look at Panasonic AG-HPX250 you at least get avc intra in 422 and 10bit and has 3 sensors as well

Also tomororow it seems that AF100 will be replaced with new camera