Archives

GX1: Panasonic’s Back in the (MILC) Game

Panasonic GX1 ... look familiar?

Two years ago, with everyone still deciding what this new breed of mirrorless camera should be called (have we decided?), the Panasonic GF1 took a startling early lead among enthusiast and pro photographers looking for a small, rangefinder-style, carry-everywhere camera with a large sensor and full manual controls. I almost bought one myself, but decided to opt for the second generation, which I hoped would address the slightly laggy AF speed and poor low-light performance. As we now know, that camera never showed up. The GF2 was a consumery confection which, while considerably smaller, had been stripped of it’s external body controls and was driven by a touchscreen-centered experience (which has since evolved to be well-respected in subsequent models). The GF3 continued this ‘soccer-momization’ trend. Panasonic moved the focus of its high-end Micro Four Thirds cameras to the relatively bulky but spec-impressive DSLR-inspired bodies (GH2). Pros and enthusiasts looking for a pocketable second camera, meanwhile, directed their attention elsewhere, as Olympus (E-P2, E-P3), Samsung (NX100, NX200), Fujifilm (X100) and Sony (NEX-5, NEX-5N, NEX-7) courted them with offerings aimed at more demanding photographers.

What was Panasonic thinking, abandoning it’s early devotees and forfeiting this obvious market niche? Surely the importance of this demographic in this rapidly growing market-segment couldn’t have been lost on them. Rumblings of a serious GF1 heir began in earnest in late summer and now, Panasonic has announced its spiritual successor, the GX1. It’s physical controls restored (plus two new function buttons and touch screen), AF-speed improved, and low-light capabilities enhanced (supposedly it inherits its 16MP sensor from the G3), this looks to be the camera I was so eagerly waiting for…two years ago.

Panasonic is in a much less enviable position today. The GF1 had only one major competitor in its class at the time of release, Olympus’ E-P1. Sony’s NEX series, arguably the MILCs to beat, were just a twinkle in some Sony engineer’s eye. The GX1 enters a vastly-more crowded marketplace with fierce adversaries on every side. At $700 for the body, it sits somewhere around the Olympus E-P3, both incredibly well-spec’d cameras, with the polish of multiple generations of refinement. The Sony NEX-5N, though, is $100 less for body only, and has higher specs in many key areas: higher ISO range, full 1080p 60fps AVCHD 2.0 video recording, peaking (extremely helpful for critical focus with other lens families added with mount adaptors), higher resolution (and tiltable) rear display and optional EVF resolution as well, and of course, one of the best APS-C sensors out there. The Micro Four Thirds standard comes with its own set of advantages (better sensor coverage, smaller lenses, more developed lens family) and disadvantages (image quality, DOF, low-light performance) that factor in, but from a cutting-edge technology standpoint, Sony is in the lead.

But the GX1 has a modern spec sheet, a diminutive form-factor and a nice price point. So with the GX1, Panasonic has entered the high-end, rangefinder-styled, MILC fray…again. But it’s a shame to have watched it hand over its early lead in this space. Only time will tell if it can wrestle back marketshare from its many challengers.

The press release is below:

(more…)

Panasonic AF100 vs. Sony FS100

In a previous post, I extolled the virtues of the Panasonic AF100, hailing it as a gift to independent filmmaking and the DPs who work so hard to make art with as little as possible. At the time, I  hadn’t shot anything with the since-released Sony FS100, their answer to Panasonic’s AF100. While the Sony F3 inhabits the tier above the AF100, boasting higher recording bitrates and the S-Log upgrade option, the FS100 meets the AF100 eye-to-eye on price, codec, recording media, and size. So it seems only natural that when I spend two weeks shooting a TV show with the FS100, I would have to write another post comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the two “DSLR killers” against each other.

The Image

Sony FS100 rig

Sony FS100 rig

The FS100′s image is less noisy than the AF100′s. There, I said it. We usually shot at 0db gain (ISO 500), with an expanded dynamic range picture profile, but when we bumped to 6db (ISO 1000), there was no visible change in the image; it remained very clean. Conversely, pushing the AF100 past ISO 640 introduces definite noise. It’s not terrible looking, but it’s there. Oddly enough, a lot of this noise isn’t visible when the AF100 is projected from Blu-Ray.

While the FS100 excels in lower light, the AF100 is the king in daylight. Its three levels of internal ND (plus clear) mean that exteriors have never been easier to shoot with a camera this small. Futzing around with filters and screwing fader NDs onto the FS100′s lenses brought me to muttering back to the DSLR days. If you’re going to be outside and you have to adjust exposure quickly, the AF100 is a better choice.

Sony FS100 shoulder rig

Sony FS100 shoulder rig

I’m sure we’re all sick of having “crop factor” beaten like a dead horse, but it’s something to consider. The FS100 sees about 10% wider than the AF100, and gives a little shallower depth of field as a result. The DOF isn’t noticeably different to the eye; the field of view is. After two weeks with the FS100, I had to re-adjust to the AF100′s smaller sensor size. We used Nikon AF lenses with a Novoflex adapter on the FS100, which yielded some really nice clean results (although the tiny iris barrel range of the adapter and the inability to determine or lock off actual F-stop was somewhat frustrating). When the Birger Canon EF adapter is released for both cameras, it will make this issue a bit easier to deal with.

The FS100, true to Sony form, renders skin tones well, but tends to give most images a somewhat sterile cast, compared to the AF100. It cannot match the vibrancy of Panasonic’s in-camera image processing. But it handled highlights well, and was overall detailed and well-rounded. I’d say that if there’s an area where the FS100 has an edge, it’s the image in many situations.

The Form Factor

Panasonic AF100 steadicam rig

Panasonic AF100 steadicam rig

Fortunately for the sake of my comparison, both my AF100 rig and the production company’s FS100 rig used the same gear: Zacuto universal baseplate and follow focus, 15mm rods, and a rods-mounted Anton Bauer gold mount plate on the back. Couldn’t have asked for a more level playing field.

These cameras were released on the bleeding edge of the prosumer market, and as a result, both feel a little off. For the AF100, it’s the viewfinder; there’s no real reason for it to be there. I almost never use it, preferring to use an onboard monitor or Cineroid EVF. Obviously it’s a leftover from the HVX200, used to help support the top handle and the menu buttons. On the bright side, the AF100′s top handle is very sturdy and I have no qualms about picking up my rig and throwing its weight around. Sony tried something new with their topside LCD with loupe viewfinder, but didn’t quite hit the mark. I used the LCD when it was convenient or absolutely necessary (two or three times over the course of two weeks), and never even took the loupe out of the case, sticking mostly to the onboard monitor. Unfortunately for the FS100, the LCD’s position makes it difficult to place a top handle in a useful spot…and the Sony top handle is a pitiful, vestigial piece of plastic. We supplemented with Letus articulating handgrips, but the FS100′s 1/4-20 tapped screwholes actually loosened themselves from the camera body, so we resorted to a Redrock handle mounted directly to the rods (which had to be on the back of the rig, making it an impractical solution for balanced carrying). Zacuto has just released an FS100 handgrip, which looks like a decent solution, but the loose screwholes are still worrisome.

The upside of the FS100′s design is that it can build very small and flat if necessary. With no top handle and no EVF, the Sony stands roughly 2/3 as high as the Panasonic, which means a slightly lower center of gravity and less hitting of overhead obstacles (useful for me, at 6’4″). The button placement on the AF100 and FS100 is about the same, and while Sony lacks the easy frame rate dial of the Panasonic, the rest of its functions are easily accessible. The one downside is that the Sony’s buttons are easier to press with your cheek or ear, and the front Record button is a little hard to find with your finger. After two weeks, there was still a bit of fumbling, and the button itself seems slightly too small.

The two cameras are based on the same concept (larger chip and interchangeable lenses), but ended up very different, physically; the AF100 would be better on its own, with the removable handgrip on the side; the FS100 requires a rig, so be sure to budget for accessories. And with the same support gear, the AF100 can build smaller than the FS100, for a more compact profile. But ultimately, both need another generation of tweaking before they feel totally comfortable.

Video Signal

Panasonic AF100 rig on tripod

Panasonic AF100 rig on tripod

Both cameras record 8-bit 4:2:0 AVCHD 1080p to SD cards. However, the AF100 provides many more options for transmitting and viewing that signal, as well as having two SD card slots compared to the FS100′s one. The FS100′s only output is HDMI, and although it’s a full-size port (not the Mini-HDMI of DSLR infamy), it’s still not as secure as a locking BNC port for SDI. The AF100, on the other hand, offers HD-SDI, HDMI, and Composite SD video, simultaneously. The combinations of outputs is numerous, and allow flexibility while managing signals on steadicam, jib, dolly, handheld, whatever. No matter what the situation, there’s going to be a video output for everyone with the AF100.

Of course, anyone migrating from DSLR to the FS100 would be likely to have the converter boxes necessary to make the video signal work…but these cameras are supposed to be a step forward. No one wants to continue the days of mounting, powering, and managing dicey ports on a BlackMagic or AJA box. Our saving grace for the TV show was the TVLogic VFM-056WP monitor. It’s lightweight, takes powertap or battery power, and best of all, converts HDMI to SDI inside the monitor (as well as accepting, and passing through, an SDI signal). The 720p image is nice and sharp too, and its peaking and waveform are well-realized. I wish it had a false color filter, but I learned to live without it. The only downside of the TVLogic was its $1400 price tag, but if I had to buy a monitor to cover all my needs, this would be the one.

Conclusion

To sum up, the FS100′s chip is a nice piece of work, taken straight out of its big brother, the F3. The rest of the camera leaves something to be desired. The outputs, build quality, and form factor are inferior to that of the AF100. So choosing between these two cameras boils down to what you’re shooting. Day exterior? AF100 is quicker. Night exterior? FS100 is cleaner. Run and gun? Use the AF100 by itself, or FS100 with a few accessories. As always, you pick the right tool for the job. I’m still happy I chose the Panasonic AF100, and I’d make the same choice again…but for someone else, FS100 may be a better fit. I’d love to hear your stories about which camera you chose, and why. Leave them in the comments below!

——

Clayton Combe is a cinematographer based in New York City. For more on the AF100 and the work he does with it, visit his website and follow him on Twitter.

Shooting a Feature Film on the Panasonic AF100

For the first two weeks of April, I had the pleasure of working as DP for “Starla,” a narrative feature by director Rik Cordero. From the film’s conception, it was designed to be shot quickly and on a minimal budget; most of the scenes required only two actors at a time, and locations (while visually diverse) centered around only two geographical places. Our speedy eleven-day schedule and small crew meant that we had to use as much available light as possible, and we rarely did more than two takes except for action- or effects-oriented shots. Prior to “Starla,” I’d shot several music videos and commercials on my AF100, and it seemed like a good fit for the feature. Little did I know just how perfect it would be.

My basic rig is built around the Zacuto universal baseplate, with 15mm rods supporting matte box, follow focus, and a 90-degree-offset Anton Bauer mount on the back (like an ENG camera). I monitor with a 7″ Marshall with SDI pass-through to video village. This rig can be switched between tripod build and shoulder-mount in about twenty seconds, and is light, comfortable, compact, and well-balanced. However, by removing the Bauer plate, switching to the 5″ Marshall (incredibly lightweight), and adding the camera’s removable ergonomic handgrip to the side, I can build the AF100 more like an HPX170, allowing much more flexibility in small spaces. With my 7D rig this would have meant I couldn’t monitor, since my SDI converter needed battery power, but the AF100′s many video outputs mean this small build works great for jib, steadicam, and car rigging as well. This small configuration was the element that made possible several shots that move through spaces in unpredictable ways, which was an aesthetic choice Rik made very early on in pre-production. The best thing a camera can do is allow you to make your director’s vision a reality, and the AF100 had my back at every turn.

A large part of the film takes place outside in bright sunlight, and because we didn’t have the time or manpower to fly large diffusion frames or fight sunlight levels with big lights, I frequently had to use the sun as a key light. Paired with a polarizer, the AF100′s built-in ND wheel made exposing for the sun simple. I also used varying strengths of Tiffen Black Pro Mist in front of the lens, to soften the highlights and give the image a little more filmic look. I rated the camera at 200 ISO for most exteriors and 400 ISO (its native speed) for most interiors, pushing one stop to 800 ISO for a few shots. Even at 800, the image was fairly clean, and what noise was there wasn’t too bad-looking.

I shot the film using my Canon FD prime lenses, mounting them on the AF100 with a Micro 4/3rds to FD adapter. With the optical adapter I used for these lenses on the 7D, I’d have to stop down a bit to avoid blooming, so I’d almost forgotten how gorgeous this glass is wide open. I’d recommend Canon FDs to anyone for AF100 work; adapters are cheap and the image quality is fantastic, very similar to a cine lens.

Because of the low budget and short post-production schedule, I chose to achieve the film’s look in-camera, rather than rely on color grading. My beloved Panasonic painting tools made this process quick and painless, and I was able to fine-tune the image as we shot, as well as avoid the problem of heavily grading footage that’s been compressed. If you get the picture close to what you want before it’s encoded onto the cards, you’ll end up with less work trying to hide compression artifacts in the graded image. It leaves less room for post-production changes, but Rik knew what he wanted it to look like beforehand. The film, which has been picture-locked, “needs no grading,” according to Rik. Here is the teaser trailer for the film.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without a phenomenal crew. First AC Thomas Chalifour quickly picked up the nuances of the camera, and came up with a couple new configurations for particularly tricky shots. Key Grip Christopher Fisher did fantastic dolly and jib work and operated parts of shots that required camera handoffs, as well as devising rigs on the fly for some unconventional situations. Gaffers Al Roberts, Russell Burger, Blaise Miller, and Justyn Davis (who traded off days) lit the film beautifully. And steadicam operators Brandon Sumner and James Leonzio rocked their moves in all conditions. I also have to mention producer Ryan Biazon, whose flexibility and preparedness rescued several scenes from last-minute disaster. “Starla” is a diverse mix of aesthetic styles, but the AF100 handled all conditions beautifully and allowed us to create images that exceeded the director’s expectations. They say out of the trio of money, time, and quality, you can choose two; but the AF100 (along with a few talented, passionate people and a lot of planning) got us as close to achieving all three as I’ve ever been.

——

Clayton Combe is an award-winning cinematographer based in NYC. Check out his work at tonmanproductions.com, and follow him on Twitte @tonmanprod. ”Starla” premiers on June 25th at the NYIT Auditorium. Check out the teaser at starlamovie.com, and follow the link to buy a ticket!