[shoplink 16841]AF 100 / 101[/shoplink] Testscenes by CINEMATICZ
Field Review (Day 5): [shoplink 17163]Olympus E-5[/shoplink] at ThePhoBlographer.
Leica D-Lux 5 vs. Panasonic LX 5 image comparison (Leicarumors)
GH2-EPL-E620-Comparison (Flickr)
Lumix TZ22 • Hands on (Flickr).
[shoplink 18844]Olympus E-PL2[/shoplink] test at mobile01 and yesky (Both google translated).
Penpal module test at DC.watch.
LUMIX GH2 vs. Leica M8 at Systemkameraforum (but you have to be a registered member to download the test!).
[shoplink 16254]Panasonic GH2[/shoplink] sensor data analysis at chipworks (Attention: You have to pay to download the data).
Why Panasonic want to block hacked firmware (EosHD).
4 Responses
I also got my af-101 four days ago. I only have the 14-140 lens, and that is rather slow. I don’t suppose this lens is to be blamed for the somewhat lack of detail I see in the camera. compared to ex1 the image is softer. compared to a canon 550d it is more detailed and has fewer aliasing problems, but not by a large margin. I say fewer aliasing problems because I can also see in a 1:1 pixel peep that pixel sized details suffer from aliasing; there are also stepped edges in diagonal lines (electrical lines seem like stairways to heaven). all this is aggravated by noise in higher asa settings.
in f-stops the camera has 3+ above and 4.5 under mid gray, at 400asa (0db), in Cine-like D gamma, that is the lowest contrast one. using cine gamma curves brings back highlights and underexposure to a certain degree. there is a DRS function (dynamic range stretch I guess), graded in three steps, that really works like HDR tone mapping, by masking areas; that works in real time but could result in some halos in high contrast situations. when grading for the lowest contrast setting the Cine-like D gamma and DRS at the highest level (3), it also brings up a lot of noise in underexposed areas, even at base sensitivity.
the noise is quite obvious in higher sensitivity and has an unpleasant pattern, in horizontal and vertical bands. depending on the gamma setting the there are different levels of acceptance for the nose. that means that I wouldn’t use the low contrast setting at more than 400asa but I would push the camera up to 2000asa in a high contrast setting (crushing the blacks). in dark enviroments, with open sources of light in the shot (backlit windows, street lamps, undeground, etc) you can really see colored noise in the form of bands, mostly horizontal, surrounding the light source.
as for usability, the bare camera is not good for handheld work using the lcd panel, but the viewfinder is quite good. in auto iris mode the exposure will change in abrupt steps, as the iris is not made for continuous operation. this is annoying. also the af is very fast, but tends to hunt, and the ois is poor. anyway, considering the noise problems, I would not use this lens, except for bright exterior shots.
I am very surprised that no resolution chart, latitude test, noise test or whatever has been published.
imo the camera is behind ex1 in terms of image quality, and usability, but it’s larger sensor makes it attractive.
has anyone used the camera and has opinions about it?
I got the impression admin has a af-101. would you share some info?
Hi misu,
Here was my initial reaction to the AF100 (US). I haven’t had time to shoot much with it since. I hope to post more this weekend. http://jameswebbtv.wordpress.com/
I belive the EX1 has a sharper image, due to the fact that it is not intended for professional postprocessing in the same manner as the 101. The 101 is a superior camera from what I can see on -processed- material. Far fewer problems than for example ex1.