Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Panasonic AG AF100 / AF101
  • 141 Replies sorted by
  • You just cannot compare the Gh2 to the AF100. I have owned both, and I just sold both my GH2's (and yes, I tried all different hacks on the GH2).

    For starters, even in manual video mode on the GH2, I cannot adjust either ISO nor white balance while recording. This matters a great deal - lighting conditions change. No matter what on the GH2, tweaking the custom WB, adjusting Kelvin, trying extensively all the film modes, the color was just not right. The AF-100 has a dedicated autoWB mode, a physical WB button that if depressed also sets the black balance!

    The Af100 has a shutter you can set so it's always using the 180 degree shutter rule.

    The AF100 has "focus peaking" which tremendously assists manual focusing mode - whatever is in focus is highlighted in red, and it works while recording (not just before you hit the button like in the Sony NEX-5N). Gh2 does not have this.

    There are exposure meters on screen. When it's too dark, there are bars on the left; overexposed it's on the right.
    I can mount ANY lens with adapters without taking a hacksaw to them first.
    I can adjust audio input levels for each input channel whether I'm using the built in 384k audio or the XLR inputs on the fly. This a BIG deal.
    Dual SDHC/SXDC card slots.
    Stock battery lasts over 4 hours.
    PUSH AUTO FOCUS! I can't believe you AF100 users aren't talking about this. While in MF mode I can push a button QUIETLY and refocus. I have to go "clickity-clack" on the GH2 and toggle back to AFC/AFS to do this on the GH2.
    Nice big quiet IRIS wheel in the front, instead of a noisy click wheel that you'll hear back in the recording.
    At the end of the day I found I was never happy with the colors/white balance with the GH2. There was something wrong with all of them to a certain degree. This has been resolved with the Af100.
    The AF100 does have face tracking for lenses that support auto-focus. It does work.
    Form factor is better in many situations and worse when you're trying to be discrete; I will give that either way to the Gh2.

    Watch this video in 1080p mode and you'll see what the Af100 is capable of.

    By the way, I bought a very low use (14 hours) AF100 with an extra battery and all original boxes and documentation for $3400. So the prices have come down somewhat, and I've found that I really just love shooting with the Af100. It's a considerable upgrade in every way to the GH2 with the exception of no more ETC mode and the size. That's it.

  • Also forgot to mention the focus peaking works with all lenses; I have it on an ancient Nikon 50mm F/1.4 and it works perfectly. Notice (until now) I didn't mention how badly the colors/aperture change on the GH2 once you press "record", nor tout how great the overcrank/undercrank mode was, nor the XLR inputs, nor the HD-SDI out, or the adjustable far superior viewfinder, or the .... :)

    If you like a GH2 you'll LOVE an AF100. There, I've said my piece.
  • Sorry, forgot to post the video link (watch in 1080p!)



  • I keep thinking of other things. For me, the added size and handle of the AF100 gives me better looking handheld shots. I can rest this on my should and shoot.
    Also, and this is very key - lenses work differently on the AF100. For example, in AF mode on the GH2 the 25mm Summilux F/1.4 hunts and breathes quite a bit on the GH2. It just...does not on the AF100; it performs much better. On the Panny four thirds 14-50mm F/2.8-3.5, the OIS motor is much louder and more pronounced on the GH2. This could be due to the location of their respective microphones. Anyway, just thought I'd share. I still love the GH2 and think this site is great; just got tired of the nonsensical AF100 bashing by people who have never picked one up.
  • @Shield: I agree. There are some things with that camera I love... And I actually like the picture of it, there's just something of it that's clean. But I'm myself is a GH2 owner and I don't know what camera I might get next. If I get one now that is...

    But on to the AF100. Here's a music video I DP'd. We used both an AF100 for the majority of the video, a 5D on the scenes in the car and my GH2 for the shot of the car driving at 0:40 and the tunnel lights. What I wanted to show was that they all work very well together, but also that the AF100 can look amazing depending on what you put infront! We used mostly Canon L lenses and all the close-ups is a Zeiss ZF 50, all lenses which really brought out the camera. For example, compare to the ultra-wide shot of the guy shooting, done with the 7-14 which looks a lot more "video-y" I feel (but still good) compared to the 5D's wide-angle.



  • @Shield
    Thanks for pitching the AF100's features in its most favorable light. I've really wanted to find a worthwhile use case for this camera in case a bargain shows up for one in good condition.

    I have to say, though, that very few of the advantages you pointed out fit my shooting style. I never change ISO, iris, white balance, or use auto-focus or face-tracking while recording, nor do I want a 180-degree shutter setting. Haven't yet had a need for a hacksaw with my GH2 and I can make do without dual SD cards and the 4-hour battery.

    What does sound valuable are the AF100's exposure waveform displays and XLR inputs. While it's still only 24Mbps AVCHD and 16-bit audio, the AF100's ability to record video-synced audio tracks makes it an attractive, though expensive, alternative to a Zoom H4n. I can definitely picture using it as a tripod-mounted A-cam for master shots on a well-lit sound stage.
  • Time is to early really. Especially considering how far the GH2 has come to draw any sort of comparison.
    I agree with VK here- these topics just create angry discussions.
  • @LPowell - What about focus peaking? It's the jam. :)
  • Anyone watch the Youtube video I posted? I don't see any mud in that video, and it looks unbelievable. Raw Af100 ungraded footage with albeit high end glass.
  • @Shield
    The AF100's focus peaking is nice but on a GH2 a cheap Ruige monitor can fake it simply by oversharpening the edges. For precise focus pulling, however, the AF100 probably has the advantage. But again, that doesn't fit my shooting style - I use a compact shoulder rig just for focus pulls that the lightweight GH2 is ideally suited for.

    Other great AF100 features I should mention are its variable-frame-rate 1080p slow-motion capabilities and flexible NTSC/PAL support.
  • Why not wait for AF200? 2012?

    If one can make good money off GH2 shooting, he could award himself with AF200 or something... I guess. Still cheaper than M3 beamer :)
  • Brian202020 i se manys test and gh2 kick AF100 ass in high quality,did you see the test vr red epic gh2?
  • problem, is AF isnt hacked by DRIFTWOOD!!!!
  • @nomad
    The AF100 actually doesn't use the the same sensor. If I'm not mistaken, it's not quite as good/new as the GH's. I believe the size is different too -- slightly.
    @Shield
    I've got two GH2's, I'd love to have a AF100 -- it's just the price thing. GH2's are kind of annoying with all the bars and brackets and cages and devices you need to attach to make it a functioning video camera. And it's still kind of dorky looking, no matter how you pimp it out. No matter what you do to them, first thing I think is "Stills camera". I'd love to able to just grab a camera and not have to worry about bringing the right ND filters or my Tascam and all the other crap.
  • You're right...they don't have the same sensor. The GH-1/2's sensor is actually slightly bigger. The AF is an overall better camera hands down but when it comes to IQ the image on the GH-2 (unhacked) was always better looking. I was excited about the AF when it came out. But image wise...like someone already suggested...why didn't Panasonic put the GH-2's sensor in the AF100.
  • @Shield

    Who cares if it doesn't have any mud... it's looked more video-like than an camcorder. Do you see how bad the skin looks? And how blown-out the sweatshirts are? The worst part is... is that despite everything looking blow-washed out, it looks like it WAS exposed correctly for the blacks. Meaning that this camera just straight-up has mediocre sensor latitude.

    I've seen some good stuff on the AF-100, but it just honestly looks like a video-camera image with shallow DOF. I bet it's a kick-ass run-and-gun documentary/interview cam... but I would never shoot a music video or anything narrative on it.
  • The GH2's sensor is slightly bigger and newer. The AF100's sensor is geared towards a 1080 resolution and nothing more, so aliasing and morie are virtually nonexistent. Also the AF100's sensor was made and developed by the Panasonic's professional devision and not the consumer devision like the GH2's sensor was. Now all that said, they both have there pluses and minuses, hence why I own both. I prefer the AF100's image over the GH2's, and I use both daily. The only thing I think that could potentially change my opinion would be if Chris can get some sort of s-log color profile with his research.
  • I beg to differ about the aliasing part of it. AF100 has shown aliasing in a lot of video samples I've seen. Never paid attention to moire however.
  • Here's what you hackers have been missing out on:
    P1040947.jpg
    1000 x 667 - 87K
  • @LPowell

    WOAH! That guy is t3h PRO!!! ... ;)

    Here's my rig:
    troook.jpg
    440 x 330 - 35K
  • Here is a picture of my rig the set photographer shot on a shoot a few months back on a city bus.
    IMG_0070.jpg
    720 x 480 - 98K
  • Well, to each his own. I far prefer the image on the AF100, and I've owned both. The Gh2 months longer in fact.
  • @bwhitz - I guarantee you the AF100's skin tones are far more accurate out of the box than any amount of tweaking that can be done with the GH2. With the GH2 I can adjust kelvin scale or rely on "auto white balance" and randomly tick the color shift, and it still doesn't ever look right. That was one of my biggest problems with the GH2. Hell even with a Sony NEX5N I can "manually" pull white balance. There's a reason there's so much discussion and debate over which film mode and custom white balance to use with the GH2. Any sort of "pop" in the colors kills the skin tones, and correct skin tones makes very dull/washed out colors. Believe me I wish I could've gotten the colors right; I just couldn't.
  • @Shield
    I'm sure they are more tweak-able... with all the knee/pedestal settings and stuff. I just don't think the sensor is capable of delivering "film-like" skin. It always looks like video. It lacks the tonality.

    Look at the skin here... then look at the skin in the video you posted. This is what I'm talking about. I've never seen skin "pop" on the AF-100, like I can get it to on the GH2. See how nice the high-lights are? Such great tonality. Very film-like.
    GH2 sample.png
    959 x 411 - 504K
  • Look, we all want to put one over on "the man" and get the same footage out of a $800 body as a $5k camera. With a little grading you pretty much can with the GH2. You just won't get the colors as accurate out of the box nor have as many tools to assist you along the way.
    But make no mistake - the AF100's sensor isn't the same as the GH1/2. It's been designed from the ground up for 1920x1080 and there is no downsampling for any "picture" mode.

    The Af100 compares much more like the Sony FS100; check out some of Barry Green's test footage he shot with both cameras.
    Many people couldn't tell the difference between each one.


    Can you get the GH2's footage to look like that? Absolutely. There's a reason for post.