Specs

• 4/3” MOS sensor
• Fixed 13x zoom, 28mm-365.3mm, F2.8-F4.5
• V-Log
• 1080p120
• 4Kp60
• H.264 encoder

Not too long after the HDSLR revolution started, the companies started bringing out accessibly priced large sensor video cameras with interchangeable lenses. Such as the AF100, then later the FS100, then a bit later the C100.

Since then the C100 has been replaced with the (very disappointingly small update) C100mk2, the FS100's big brother the FS700 has been "replaced" (unofficially) with the FS7 (so surely the FS1 or FS200 is coming along next? Perhaps a topic for another thread...). Thus where is the AF200? One which has been waiting for an update for years and years longer than any of the others (and no, the AF100A hardly counts! Though I guess that is what Canon did with their "C100mk2"....).

Perhaps with the success of the GH4 (surely the most successful of the entire GH line so far), and the mainstreaming of 4K, those two factors will be sufficient to propel Panasonic to update the ageing AF100??

On a somewhat related point, how relevant is the AF100 still in 2015 and beyond? Some would think it still is: http://www.anycamerawilldo.com/old-but-not-out/

Am somewhat considering an AF100 myself, as planning on doing the next upcoming wedding season with one GH4 body and perhaps five or so GH1 bodies (maybe swapping out one GH1 for a GH2 with a monitor instead, for my second shooter to use). Thus I'll have a GH4 for single camera shoots (corporate ads / music videos / etc) and I'll have a heap of GH1 bodies to cheaply (only US$150 each!) cover the multiple angles needed for filming live events such as weddings. And I should be able to easily edit between them (making life an awful lot easier for me than this wedding season when I used: Nikon D5200 / Sony A5100 / Panasonic GH1 / G3 / GF3 / BMPCC).

However, half considering if it is worthwhile getting an AF100 as well if I see one cheap enough (say perhaps getting close to US$1,000-ish). As for appearances sake it could be reassuring for clients/brides to see my show up with an AF100, and not just a bunch of tiny GH1 bodies. Additionally I could have it handle some of the sound needs with its XLR inputs (additional to my usage of a Tascam DR-60D). And it is a camera which should cut in fairly easily enough with the bulk of the GH1 footage I'd hope?

We have received 4 email requests from members of this forum on the possibility of designing an Anamorphic lens. We had this thought for the past year and did a lot of research. There is one common request which is to have horizontal flares. The others requests did not have any common grounds. We came up with an idea for a 25mm f/3.2 1.35x or 35mm f/3.2 1.35x Anamorphic lens for micro four thirds. Shooting at 16:9 would give a 2.40:1 anamorphic output. Just before we decided to go ahead with the project we had a second thought. 2 Years ago we asked openly on dpreview.com forum for what photographers wanted and the general consensus was our SLR Magic HyperPrime 12mm T1.6 lens.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=36104678

It did not fulfill the needs and wants of everyone but we made what most people agreed on by means of a discussion. It ended up being a popular lens that we still are having problems meeting demand and we think it had a big part to do with asking photographers. If we did not ask around we probably made a 12mm f/2.8 lens. As it turned out quite well last time we want to make our next lens an open discussion again.

Here are some of the possible options we received and please feel free to throw in extra ideas. I hope people experienced with shooting in Anamorphic can also throw in ideas.

Anamorphic Adapter (1.33x, 1.5x, 1.75x, 2x) Dedicated mFT Anamorphic adapter for reasonable size Anamorphic adapter compatible with FF lenses 50mm f/2.8 Anamorphic lens (FF, APS-C, or mFT) Expected MSRP (Sad fact but it as direct correlation to IQ)

Kind rgds., SLR Magic Team

P.S. We will be at Photokina 2012 and would like to welcome any cinematographers with Anamorphic lens ideas to drop by our booth for idea exchange! We will be in Hall 3.1 B059

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1072752-REG/sony_pxw_x70_professional_xdcam_compact.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/758895-REG/Sony_PMW_EX1R_2_PMW_EX1R_XDCAM_EX_Full.html

To also throw in a third one for comparison with these two, the Sony NEX-EA50 or even the Sony FS100 as a fourth consideration to be included (if only either one had built in ND filters, then I reckon this would be the strongest choice here perhaps?) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1076767-REG/sony_nex_ea50m_nxcam_camcorder.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761580-REG/Sony_NEX_FS100UK_NEX_FS100U_Super_35mm_Sensor.html (included the links so it is easy and handy for people to also see the specs at a glance)

The big question is : Do I need to upgrade to a 4k system to be able to compete next year and the following 3?

If so do I go the Big Ursa route? Or the Ursa Mini 4.6 k. (I may be able to acquire a Big Ursa V1 for $3800)

Either way I'm looking at pairing with an A7s as lowlight isn't a huge muscle with these cameras.

If 4k isn't necessary than I'm looking at an FS700 as over crank is a big component of my work and I maintain low light capabilities.

My main concerns about the Big Ursa are flying it (gimbal, crane, slider, hand held, tripod for that matter)

Really interested in dynamic range between the two. I would assume the FS100 would still have the edge in lowlight performance (i.e. grain/noise) but what about other aspects like actual resolution tests/comparisons (lines resolved), Dynamic Range, Rolling Shutter, Moire, Slow-Mo, Codec, Grading Capability.

I would assume the GH3's 50Mbps would be far superior in color grading latitude and for Green screen compositing than the 24Mbps AVCHD of the Sony? Just be interesting to see if anyone knows of any video comparisons between the two. I've got a GH3 (and a GH2) just curious if the Sony's worth the extra few $K if you don't need XLR and Super 35mm DOF and extreme low light performance. I'd apreciate anyone who could share some insight on their observed differences between these two! Thanks!

I'm not a professional, just an amateur/enthusiast obsessed with great video quality. I'm primarily looking for something that has a large sensor and can produce sharp, detailed images with minimal noise. I'd like something good for narrative with the bonus of having something I can run and gun with if I want to. I can hold my own with basic color grading, but I'm by no means highly skilled at it, so I feel I wouldn't lose too much if I no longer had RAW.

I've narrowed my options to either selling the BMCC and buying a C100 or FS100, or sucking it up and keeping the BMCC. As for price I feel they are all somewhat similar. If I keep the BMCC I need to still buy ND's, a battery solution, a better rig for handheld, a wider lens, and probably some type of storage array for all this footage I'm amassing. For the FS100 I'd need to add the Speed Booster and ND's to get it up to the C100 configuration.

For the C100, I'd probably pick up an Atomos recorder at some point in the future. For the FS100 I'd be shooting only with the Speed Booster as I have only EF glass.

From what I've read it seems like the C100 should be an easy choice over the FS100, but I feel like the FS100 looks much more cinematic (maybe it's just that I've stumbled upon videos made by FS100 users with better skills than the C100 users? Or maybe it's just because the FS100 has been out longer?). Honestly all of these very cinematic pieces shot with the FS100 are pretty much the only reason it's on my radar as otherwise I believe the C100 to be superior.

Any advice from people who have shot with either camera would be much appreciated. Is the C100 just as good or better than the FS100 when it comes to image quality?

C100 Concerns: -Possibly not as cinematic as the FS100

FS100 Concerns: -Would only be shooting with the Speed Booster (bugs/issues/etc. with this?) -It's a couple year old camera, so I'd probably be disappointed if Sony released a replacement shortly after I bought one -No ND's -Form factor not as much to my liking as the C100

-Hard stops on zoom and focus, most likely a manual lens. I'd be afraid of breaking an AF lens even if it has hard stops.

-Zoom and focus rings can't change position while zooming or focusing

-Must be in the "normal" to wide range on the wide end, so anything with a 17 or 24 or 28 or 35 on the wide end. I don't care much about the long end.

-Constant aperture, is a major plus.

I do not need constant volume on the lens, or anything very fast.

Any help would be appreciated.

Edit: they've disabled embedding. It is on this page, and is called "The Star". http://www.bestsemester.com/lafsc/