Canon/Sony/JVC Responses?

[BowiesInSpace]

We know Sony has the $2,000 video/hdslr hybrid.

But do you think it's a good idea investing the 5k in the af100 when we have no idea what sony or canon could pop out with in the next 6 months?

I was praying for something at canon expo but all we got was the 4k hair dryer.

If they come out with something to compete with the AF-100, when/what would it be?

The AF seems so perfectly in tune for everything possible at such a small price range, I'm wondering if anything could persuade logic from picking up the AF.

[dmpsk8]

its hard to tell if anyone will come out with a competitor in the near future. Things are changing like crazy.

If they do, and it is more of what you need, you can always sell the AF for a mild loss. Consider it a long term rental fee.

[Joe Walker]

We know Sony has the $2,000 video/hdslr hybrid.

But do you think it's a good idea investing the 5k in the af100 when we have no idea what sony or canon could pop out with in the next 6 months?

I was praying for something at canon expo but all we got was the 4k hair dryer.

If they come out with something to compete with the AF-100, when/what would it be?

The AF seems so perfectly in tune for everything possible at such a small price range, I'm wondering if anything could persuade logic from picking up the AF.


If my Joe Walker crystal ball is working correctly here are my predictions:

1. Probably by NAB, Sony will release their 35mm sized sensor palmcorder. It will have an APS-C or Super 35mm sized sensor, recording in MPEG2 Long GOP, with optional 10 bit uncompressed out the back end through the HD-SDI connection, it will offer variable frame rates with the caveat that anything above 30fps will record at half res (i.e. 1920x540), and it will no doubt use some proprietary media like Sony Memory Stick to record to. It will also have the option for interchangeable lenses and such.

2. Probably by January of 2012, Canon will release their version which will exist in the XLH1 body, it will have a Full Frame sensor, recording in their mpeg2 50mb/s 4:2:2 codec with optional 10 bit uncompressed out the back end through HD-SDI (so long as you get the model that comes with the HD-SDI connection, they'll no doubt have a slightly cheaper version minus this connection), it will also offer variable frame rates, probably even have 60fps @ 1080 at full res, and it will probably record to Compact Flash cards. Later they'll release their palmcorder versions with identical sensors and features for slightly cheaper.

3. Probably JVC will release another iteration of the HD100.

4. Probably, at some (I don't have a clue when) point RED will release the Scarlet. It will have 18 of the 20 features they promised with the other two features coming "later" in firmware upgrades. Personally, I have zero interest in any of the 2/3" models, which means I'll be waiting EXTRA long for the Super 35 sized Scarlet. If the HDR mode on this camera is what they say it is, then it'll be a hot seller.

In all honesty, you can wait and wait and wait for something better, and yes at some point something better will come along. For me and my immediate needs the AF100 suits me. Sure it has its weak points but they are more than outweighed by the positive points the camera has. I'm actually more waiting for the competitors cameras to come out so I can watch all the "Pixel Counters" come out of the wood work and trash Panasonic's camera for the same reasons they always do. It'll be history repeating itself, with horrifically funny statements like, "I need a Canon XL3000H1.5 so that my indie film will look better than Ned's over there that was shot on the AF100."

Just thoughts to ponder, I guess.... :bath:

[dcloud]

any other companies could release a version of their own, but if history serves me right, they'll all be much expensive and overpriced.

[alaskacameradude]

any other companies could release a version of their own, but if history serves me right, they'll all be much expensive and overpriced.

To be fair to the other companies, I thought the EX-1 was very fairly priced.....I think
if they want to stay in business, they have to be at least 'competitive'.

[robertrogoz]

I also think NX5 is fairly well priced for what you are getting- HD-SDI and LCPM sound.

[erdiaz]

I bought a DVX100 7 years ago, never see nothing better (under $6.000) until HVX200, wich I have for almost 5 years now (the first in my country), again never see nothig better (under $6.000), untill (not seen but read) AF100. Way wait untill something better comes? I have shooted several TV spots, TV Programs, institutional videos, 5 Video clips, 5 short films and 2 full features with my cams. To say "Wait untill..." means "I wont film nothing untill..."

[TheDingo]

We know Sony has the $2,000 video/hdslr hybrid.

Personally I expect this camera to be a market flop because consumers won`t want the hassle of shooting with a large sensor camera, and the prosumers won`t touch it because it lacks most of the features we are looking for. Lame duck.


But do you think it's a good idea investing the 5k in the af100 when we have no idea what sony or canon could pop out with in the next 6 months?

I think we are going to see a repeat of the HVX200 launch, where Canon and Sony get caught with their pants down and take far too long to respond.

My prediction is that the AF100 will own this market segment for at least the first 6 months, maybe the first year. ( The Sony "affordable" large sensor camera will be in the $10K+ range )

[morgan_moore]

The amazing thing about the AF100 is that french bloke on the PR puff video for the AF100, he seems really tuned in and talking basic indy film language

I just never seen such a well communicating video (from a manufactuer), I actually fee the guy has met a film maker, or even maybe made a film since 1985,

Im sure the other companies have the technology, but apart from Mr Jannard (who doesnt have the tech yet) , they to distant and politically entangled to understand how to release it, it could be quite a wait, .. or of course could not be

of course the oppo probably wont be a quntum leap from this anyway

BUY

S

[robertrogoz]

Personally The Sony "affordable" large sensor camera will be in the $10K+ range
Lets be real, the total cost of AF100 will be in 10-12k range if you don't have the glass and other extras. I am not saying AF100 is a bad camera, but I am just saying the total cost is much higher. If Sony includes the lens and XDCAM 422 codec in it it will be a very competitive product for the price.

[Lyris]

$12k? What other extras were you thinking about there?

[dcloud]

Lets be real, the total cost of AF100 will be in 10-12k range if you don't have the glass and other extras. I am not saying AF100 is a bad camera, but I am just saying the total cost is much higher. If Sony includes the lens and XDCAM 422 codec in it it will be a very competitive product for the price.
if we were to use your logic, if the sony is 10k plus lenses and accesories.. it would be 13k.

i already have pre existing materials from other cams and rigs. plus ki pro mini is 2k. thats the most expensive part.

[AGMedia]

Sony has a rather substantial history of releasing a cheap "pro" camcorder in the exact same body as a "consumer" model. I think the only sure bet at this point is that Sony will release a "pro" version of whatever that consumer interchangeable lens camcorder is they just released, and it'll have a few extra features (probably 24p), and it'll probably come in slightly cheaper than the AF-100 (roughly double the cost of their consumer version).

[Michael Olsen]

We know Sony has the $2,000 video/hdslr hybrid.

That they do. But it is pretty limiting for most people's needs and, in my opinion, isn't really a competitor to the AF-100.


But do you think it's a good idea investing the 5k in the af100 when we have no idea what sony or canon could pop out with in the next 6 months?

Well, unless I've really missed something, there is no other video camera at a similar price that has a confirmed delivery window and offers a large sensor along with the usual prosumer video essentials.



I was praying for something at canon expo but all we got was the 4k hair dryer.

I know...I was at least hoping for free handouts of those cool lens mugs. But at least 4K is making a splash. Though, given that, I wish their hair dryer was 5K...


If they come out with something to compete with the AF-100, when/what would it be?

Who knows? It's all pure speculation and creativity. Thing is, they haven't announced anything and, given the state of the market, I think they'd be idiots to announce something later rather than sooner. They are just going to lose sales to someone.


The AF seems so perfectly in tune for everything possible at such a small price range, I'm wondering if anything could persuade logic from picking up the AF.

Cameras from companies like Panasonic, Sony, and Canon are regularly improved and new versions with better abilities come to market rather frequently. While the AF-100 is a promising camera, it stands to reason that 1) it is the first large sensor camera Panasonic has built in this area of price range and 2) it essentially opens up a whole different "range" of cameras that they offer.

So, if you have been able to shoot the kinds of projects you'd like to shoot on your current camera, you have a workflow together, and your clients have been happy, then I'd say you don't need the AF-100 right now. And you may be better off waiting to see if an AF-200 with 10-bit P2 recording comes down the pike. Or if Canon/Sony offer some alternatives in the first quarter of 2011. Or if RED meets their words and has Scarlets for sale by the end of the year.

A note on DOF that made me think for a minute: "Handled properly 2/3" is capable of a very useful range of creative DOF control and can deliver shallow DOF. The effective difference between Scarlet 2/3" and 4/3 in DOF is about 1-1/4f-stops." - David Rasberry

[erdiaz]

Lets be real, the total cost of AF100 will be in 10-12k range if you don't have the glass and other extras. I am not saying AF100 is a bad camera, but I am just saying the total cost is much higher. If Sony includes the lens and XDCAM 422 codec in it it will be a very competitive product for the price.

I think this camera won't need extras, unless you count as extras, the things you put in any camera in order to work comfortably. Extras like follow focus, external monitor, Sunshade, filters etc. No one camera comes with them. As I understand, the AF100 comes with a zoom lens. So, I think the AF100 is a camera ready to work as soon as it arrives to you. Isn't XDCAM the same AVCCAM codec?

[alaskacameradude]

I think this camera won't need extras, unless you count as extras, the things you put in any camera in order to work comfortably. Extras like follow focus, external monitor, Sunshade, filters etc. No one camera comes with them. As I understand, the AF100 comes with a zoom lens. So, I think the AF100 is a camera ready to work as soon as it arrives to you. Isn't XDCAM the same AVCCAM codec?

Well....first of all, the AF 100 does NOT come with a lens, as Jan has said on here several
times. Second of all, XDCAM is NOT the same as AVCCAM......they are probably roughly
equal if all other things are equal but they are NOT the same.

[Michael Olsen]

I think this camera won't need extras, unless you count as extras

Extra - n - an item in addition to what is usual or strictly necessary .

So, I think a lot of people would consider everything you listed as "extra" since it doesn't contribute to the most fundamental operation of the camera. Likewise, additional lens mounts, additional batteries, additional SD cards, tripods, etc.


As I understand, the AF100 comes with a zoom lens. So, I think the AF100 is a camera ready to work as soon as it arrives to you. Isn't XDCAM the same AVCCAM codec?

Nope. AF100 (at least so far) is sold body only. AND XDCAM isn't the same as AVCCAM.

[robertrogoz]

I think this camera won't need extras, unless you count as extras, the things you put in any camera in order to work comfortably. Extras like follow focus, external monitor, Sunshade, filters etc. No one camera comes with them. As I understand, the AF100 comes with a zoom lens. So, I think the AF100 is a camera ready to work as soon as it arrives to you. Isn't XDCAM the same AVCCAM codec?
No, no lens with this camera. So on the top you'll have to spend quite a bit of cash on decent lenses. Birger intends on making a lens mount for this camera, however it the pricing is on par with their RED ONE model it will cost you roughly $1500 to buy one. Say you buy 2 Canon lenses 2.8 and you are looking at about 3K plus the adopter, so roughly $4500 on top of the camera. Now add also a cost of any standard 12V battery. Unfortunately Panasonic batteries will not provide you with D-tap. Dionic 90 is $450 for smaller one plus the plate- add another $400-$500 for the Goldmount (if AB decides to make one for AF100). IDX are in the same ballpark. And I even did not mention a decent monitor, matte box, 4x4 filters, or any of the real extras.
AVCAM (mpeg4) is not XDCAM (mper2, long GOP), particularly not XDCAM 422, which gives you 50Mb/s 422 color space, which is far superior to any AVCHD out there.
So if Sony makes their camera and sell it with servo style lens, plus puts XDCAM 422 codec the price will be on par for what Panasonic charges for the bare camera body.

[Barry_Green]

Not sure where this comparison is coming from... An AF100 needs a lens to be a complete shooting kit. You can get the 14-140 zoom, or you can buy some Nikons off ebay. Either way, you're in and done for $5,200-$5,500.

Sony is producing a camera for release around April, and they initially said it would be $19,000 but at IBC they started saying $50,000.

Sony is making a competitor to the Red One/Epic, not to the AF100.

[robertrogoz]

Not sure where this comparison is coming from... An AF100 needs a lens to be a complete shooting kit. You can get the 14-140 zoom, or you can buy some Nikons off ebay. Either way, you're in and done for $5,200-$5,500.
Barry, your numbers are incorrect. AF body on B&H is 4795.00, 14-140 F4-5.8 lens is $763.95. So this setup alone gives you grand total of $5558.95. Now I went and checked ebay (as you suggested). Granted, you can get a 50mm manual focus Nikon for about 100 bucks, but if you want to buy any decent zoom 17-55mm F2.8 Nikon was (3 hours to closing) $900 and 80-200mm F2.8 (6 hours till closing) $850. Now I don't know what the cost of adopter is, but it also adds to the cost, hence $5200 number is off and highly inaccurate.

[Camera Expert]

All I know is that an equivalent Sony camera with a big chip and similar features with the XDCAM 422 codec won't be anywhere near the price of the AF100.

[Barry_Green]

$5200 for an AF100 body with a couple of used Nikon primes and an adapter.
$5500 for an AF100 with the 14-140 lens.

So I may have been off by $59, but ... I think the point stands. You definitely don't need to go shelling out $12k to make a workable AF100 kit.

[Razz16mm]

$5200 for an AF100 body with a couple of used Nikon primes and an adapter.
$5500 for an AF100 with the 14-140 lens.

So I may have been off by $59, but ... I think the point stands. You definitely don't need to go shelling out $12k to make a workable AF100 kit.


Sounds like about the same price as the fixed zoom Scarlet basic kit will be, give or take a few hundred.

[Michael Olsen]

Sounds like about the same price as the fixed zoom Scarlet basic kit will be, give or take a few hundred.

...you just had to go and say it... :)

[dmpsk8]

Sounds like about the same price as the fixed zoom Scarlet basic kit will be, give or take a few hundred.

A workable scarlet fixed lens kit will easily be over $7k. The $6000 fixed kit is really, really bare bones, and unlike the af100 basic accessories for scarlet (XLR module, additional batteries, etc) won't be cheap. "...count on it."

[Jim Brennan]

And if I remember right (been awhile since I checked the specs), the fixed lens scarlet will have the smaller chip, effectively negating much of the shallow DOF that the AF100 is going after.

Not to mention the interchangeable lens option is one of the big draws of the AF100 for lots of folks.

[Razz16mm]

And if I remember right (been awhile since I checked the specs), the fixed lens scarlet will have the smaller chip, effectively negating much of the shallow DOF that the AF100 is going after.

Not to mention the interchangeable lens option is one of the big draws of the AF100 for lots of folks.

Not true. With just the F3.5-f5.6 kit lens on the AF100, Scarlet fixed will pretty closely match for DOF at f2.4. There is not a radical difference in DOF between 2/3" and 4/3, about 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 f stops for the same FOV. 4/3 is about half way plus a little between 2/3" and S35 sensor widths for 16:9 HD. There is approx. 2-1/2 stops difference in DOF from 2/3" to S35. While it is not as easy to achieve shallow DOF at wider coverage angles for 2/3", it is worlds apart from your typical 1/3" camera in this respect. Just because most videographers don't typically shoot for shallow DOF with 2/3" cameras doesn't mean you can't get it at all.

Scarlet comes in two 2/3" models, fixed and interchangeable. Interchangeable (Cinema) model uses the same range of lens mounts that will be available for the S35 and Epic models, so full electronic control of Canon and Nikon lenses via their mounts will be included. For the price of a decent entry level B4 HD zoom lens or a current generation used S16mm manual zoom, about $8k, you will be able to buy both the fixed and interchangeable brains.

[Razz16mm]

A workable scarlet fixed lens kit will easily be over $7k. The $6000 fixed kit is really, really bare bones, and unlike the af100 basic accessories for scarlet (XLR module, additional batteries, etc) won't be cheap. "...count on it."

Ah yes, there are trade offs. Then if you want a decent intra-frame codec for the AF100 you will spend at least $2k for an external recorder too. For P2 AVC-Intra the price tag will be $4k.

Realistically they are both going to be $8k+ cameras for practical field packages. The AF-100 is a bit cheaper, with more typical video camera features and workflows but more limited in its imaging capabilites since it is still an 8-bit capture HD video camera. It really will depend on what is most important to you.

I like the 4/3 format a lot and the AF-100 is an excellent value no doubt. But having the creative flexibility to work with high resolution raw footage in ways that go beyond even my Nikon DSLR is by far the more attractive alternative to me.

[Michael Olsen]

A workable scarlet fixed lens kit will easily be over $7k. The $6000 fixed kit is really, really bare bones, and unlike the af100 basic accessories for scarlet (XLR module, additional batteries, etc) won't be cheap. "...count on it."

Well, one could argue that the Scarlet brain comes with two powered and balanced 12v audio connectors, one simply needs to buy an XLR converter to use them - a modest cost increase over the base package.

One could also argue that RED batteries aren't *so* expensive. In fact, I don't think we've seen pricing on the new REDVOLT batteries. The other battery module (not the sidehandle module included in the price), which allows for hot-swappable power, includes two batteries for a total price of $1250. Which makes me think the cost of each battery is somewhere between $300 and $500 dollars. And, unless I'm mistaken, the camera also supports d-tap power from all the usual purveyors.

And, one could even argue that, should one choose the Scarlet 2/3" Cinema, one may purchase a Canon or Nikon lens adapter which supports full metadata, as well as electronic focus and aperture control for $500 (do we have a firm price on the Birger solution for AF-100 yet?). RED can provide a T1.5 6mm or 8mm mini-prime (cinema quality glass and housing) to round out the set for $950.

And the DOF loss is really not that significant between any 2/3" camera and the m4/3 sensor. 1 and 1/4 or so stops is all it is - the difference between being at f/1.4 and f/2.2 on the shallow end.

And, really, one could also argue that a "workable" AF-100 will be more than Barry's estimates as many people will be wanting more than one battery, SD cards, and it seems like everyone is wanting a Ki Pro or other recorder.

There is no doubt - the Scarlet will end up being modestly more expensive, even on the "bare" end. The biggest price difference between the two, I think, will be in media. RED CF cards are not cheap compared to commercially available SD cards. And that, I think, is where some serious saving can happen.

Really, they are two very different cameras. After all, one's a video camera and the other is a digital cinema camera. To each his own, and rightfully so. I'm just glad the options will be out there soon enough and people can stop compromising.

[dmpsk8]

I shouldn't have derailed us by feeding into the never-ending RED cost debate; the new prices aren't even concrete yet.

Lets get back on topic.

[Michael Olsen]

I shouldn't have derailed us by feeding into the never-ending RED cost debate; the new prices aren't even concrete yet.

Lets get back on topic.

Well...that's pretty much all the topic can lead to - speculation! After all, there's not really anything firm from any company about what's coming out next and when aside from the AF-100 from Panasonic. I'm sure they are enjoying that to no end.

[Razz16mm]

I shouldn't have derailed us by feeding into the never-ending RED cost debate; the new prices aren't even concrete yet.

Lets get back on topic.

I don't think the camera cost difference will much of an issue vis-a-vis the AF-100 anyway. The main choice will be between HD video or digital cinema acquisition and work flows. The latter will be significantly more expensive and demanding in ways that go well beyond the differences in camera price.

[Steve Kahn]

one's a video camera and the other is a digital cinema camera.
Please explain this statement. Does 3k mean cinema where 2k means video???

When will the 2/3" cinema (non-fixed lens) Scarlet be finally released? Are we certain by NAB?

[erdiaz]

Please explain this statement. Does 3k mean cinema where 2k means video???

I took this from an article in What's on HDTV? blog (2005):

"In the highest-definition digital TV format available over the air, 1080i, the width of the 16:9-aspect-ratio image holds fully 1,920 pixels. This number is accordingly the upper limit on "horizontal spatial resolution," which in turn means that no detail whose width is tinier than 1/1920 the screen's width — a single pixel — can be seen.

In a 2K scan, the number of pixels across the width of the scanned film frame goes up to at most 211, or 2,048. In a 4K scan, that upper limit is doubled, to 4,096.

The actual count of pixels produced horizontally in a 2K or 4K scan can be less than the stated upper limit — for example, when the aperture used by the film camera to enclose the film frame doesn't allow the image to span the whole 35-mm frame from "perforation to perforation," or when room is left along one edge of the film for a soundtrack. Furthermore, a lesser number of pixels will be generated vertically than horizontally, since the image is wider than it is tall.

Even so, 2K and 4K scans generally betoken levels of visual detail higher (though, in the case of 2K, only somewhat higher) than a so-called "HD scan" at 1920 x 1080. "

So 2k (2048) is just 128 pixels wider than Full HD (1920).

We made full features (transferred to 35mm) in HD. Well in dv also as a matter of fact.

I think that "Digital Cinema" is a way to work with Digital Cameras in order to produce a Movie with all the visual, aesthetic and artistic characteristics of a movie.

[Michael Olsen]

Please explain this statement. Does 3k mean cinema where 2k means video???

Well, asked to define the two in terms of differences, I'd say that a digital cinema camera is generally built to create images which strive to equal to or surpass film at even the most critical level. Right now, that usually involves a pretty major difference in acquisition format - AVCHD v. REDCODE RAW or ARRIRAW or straight up uncompressed RAW for example. It also involves imaging differences - digital cinema cameras pretty much all resolve at least a very clean 1080p image and many are displaying a lot of dynamic range (13-14 for M-X, 15 for Alexa, ~18 for M-X with HDRx).

I believe that Digital Cinema Cameras are also built assuming a nominal degree of production support, meaning that these cameras are built for use in a traditional narrative production environment - they have PL mounts, require more frequent magazine changes, store footage in relatively large file-sizes...they are heavier, larger, and generally more capable in terms of I/O and remote operation.


RED isn't the only one with a "Digital Cinema Camera". Arri has the D20, D21, and ALEXA. Many consider the F35 a digital cinema camera. There's the SI-2K. The Phantom cameras (though I'd say these are "Specialist Digital Cinema Cameras"). And the Ikonoskop and the Drama would also qualify, I believe.

There's nothing inherently good or bad about any camera being a video camera, a digital cinema camera, an ENG camera, or an industrial camera. They all have their niche, which is great. Specialization, in my opinion, allows people to do what they want to do better.


When will the 2/3" cinema (non-fixed lens) Scarlet be finally released? Are we certain by NAB?

All we can know now is that RED said that a Scarlet would probably be out by the end of the year (presumably the 2/3" Fixed). Now, we know there is to be a slight delay as HDRx is added to the Scarlet line. No certainty at all.

[Jim Brennan]

Not true. With just the F3.5-f5.6 kit lens on the AF100, Scarlet fixed will pretty closely match for DOF at f2.4. There is not a radical difference in DOF between 2/3" and 4/3, about 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 f stops for the same FOV. 4/3 is about half way plus a little between 2/3" and S35 sensor widths for 16:9 HD. There is approx. 2-1/2 stops difference in DOF from 2/3" to S35. While it is not as easy to achieve shallow DOF at wider coverage angles for 2/3", it is worlds apart from your typical 1/3" camera in this respect. Just because most videographers don't typically shoot for shallow DOF with 2/3" cameras doesn't mean you can't get it at all.

Scarlet comes in two 2/3" models, fixed and interchangeable. Interchangeable (Cinema) model uses the same range of lens mounts that will be available for the S35 and Epic models, so full electronic control of Canon and Nikon lenses via their mounts will be included. For the price of a decent entry level B4 HD zoom lens or a current generation used S16mm manual zoom, about $8k, you will be able to buy both the fixed and interchangeable brains.

Thanks for the info :thumbsup: The differences may be enough to sway someone one way or another, but it's good to know they aren't as big as I suspected.

[Razz16mm]

Well, asked to define the two in terms of differences, I'd say that a digital cinema camera is generally built to create images which strive to equal to or surpass film at even the most critical level. Right now, that usually involves a pretty major difference in acquisition format - AVCHD v. REDCODE RAW or ARRIRAW or straight up uncompressed RAW for example. It also involves imaging differences - digital cinema cameras pretty much all resolve at least a very clean 1080p image and many are displaying a lot of dynamic range (13-14 for M-X, 15 for Alexa, ~18 for M-X with HDRx).

I believe that Digital Cinema Cameras are also built assuming a nominal degree of production support, meaning that these cameras are built for use in a traditional narrative production environment - they have PL mounts, require more frequent magazine changes, store footage in relatively large file-sizes...they are heavier, larger, and generally more capable in terms of I/O and remote operation.


RED isn't the only one with a "Digital Cinema Camera". Arri has the D20, D21, and ALEXA. Many consider the F35 a digital cinema camera. There's the SI-2K. The Phantom cameras (though I'd say these are "Specialist Digital Cinema Cameras"). And the Ikonoskop and the Drama would also qualify, I believe.

There's nothing inherently good or bad about any camera being a video camera, a digital cinema camera, an ENG camera, or an industrial camera. They all have their niche, which is great. Specialization, in my opinion, allows people to do what they want to do better.



Well said. You covered the ground pretty well. Raw acquisition is a significant difference to me, but high end HD acquisition in native Prores HQ 4:4:4 like Alexa, or the HDcam SR 4:4:4 codec certainly offer much more creative flexibility in post than your typical under $10k video codec.
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of camera form factor or added gear so much as in the potential differences in DR, color information and resolution of the original footage. Over sampling for HD or 2k cinema resolutions as the Alexa and Red do produces a smoother more film like quality with fewer artifacts at lower finish resolutions.

[robertrogoz]

Ah yes, there are trade offs. Then if you want a decent intra-frame codec for the AF100 you will spend at least $2k for an external recorder too. For P2 AVC-Intra the price tag will be $4k.

Realistically they are both going to be $8k+ cameras for practical field packages. The AF-100 is a bit cheaper, with more typical video camera features and workflows but more limited in its imaging capabilites since it is still an 8-bit capture HD video camera. It really will depend on what is most important to you.

I like the 4/3 format a lot and the AF-100 is an excellent value no doubt. But having the creative flexibility to work with high resolution raw footage in ways that go beyond even my Nikon DSLR is by far the more attractive alternative to me.

I was not dissing AF100, which looks like a good product, but I am just voicing a word of caution to budget things right. This statement pretty sums it up.
Contrary to what Berry says all lenses are not equal. There are hundreds of lens reviews and some of them (both Canon and Nikon) stand out of the crowd as far as picture quality goes. And like I stated earlier they will cost quite a bit, even used. I mean what is a point of buying a large sensor camera and use mediocre glass?And F4-5.6 doesn't really cut it imo.

[Michael Olsen]

I was not dissing AF100, which looks like a good product, but I am just voicing a word of caution to budget things right. This statement pretty sums it up.

Another good statement - "You get what you pay for."


Contrary to what Barry says all lenses are not equal.

Well, I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but I really very sincerely doubt that Barry believes all lenses are equal. In fact, I know he doesn't think that.

Fact of the matter is, if a lens costs $300, chances are it's not going to match a $3000 lens in some way - f-stop, mechanics, sharpness, color representation, contrast, breathing, flaring, distortion...the list goes on. The fact of the matter remains: the objectively best things are usually amongst the most expensive.

But things which are objectively the best aren't always subjectively the best. And, frankly, a lot of people don't need really nice lenses.

[dmpsk8]

But things which are objectively the best aren't always subjectively the best. And, frankly, a lot of people don't need really nice lenses.

Once you remove the need for still level sharpness (we're only shooting 1080), you realize you can get a lot out of cheaper lenses. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a set to CP.2's, but I also know that its a bit overkill for af100.

[Michael Olsen]

Once you remove the need for still level sharpness (we're only shooting 1080), you realize you can get a lot out of cheaper lenses. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a set to CP.2's, but I also know that its a bit overkill for af100.

My favourite lens is a Nikon 55mm f/1.2 from 1966 or 67. In todays terms, its probably a pretty terrible lens - the mechanics are in need of repair, the coatings are weak, it probably doesn't resolve the world. But I love the pictures it makes.

[Razz16mm]

To me a lens is the photographer's equivalent of an artist's paint brush. There are many characteristics other than sharpness that contribute to the subtle qualities of one lens over another. Does the iris/aperture design produce pleasing bokeh? How does the lens render subtle textures and colors? How does it flare and under what conditions? Is it mechanically good enough for precise smooth repeatable focus and zoom ? Does it breathe excessively? I love the way Cooke lenses render skin tones for instance. Leica lenses have subtle and unique spatial qualities and render fine textures nicely. Zeiss has a justifiable reputation for almost clinical sharpness and a slightly cool color rendition. Canon L series to me have really good color contrast but are perhaps not quite so sharp.

[Jim Brennan]

Contrary to what Berry says all lenses are not equal. .

Where exactly did Barry say that..or even imply that?

Not sure where you are getting that from, since it doesn't sound like something he would say. And after reading most of the threads in this forum, I never saw that.

[robertrogoz]

Another good statement - "You get what you pay for."
Well, I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but I really very sincerely doubt that Barry believes all lenses are equal. In fact, I know he doesn't think that.
Fact of the matter is, if a lens costs $300, chances are it's not going to match a $3000 lens in some way - f-stop, mechanics, sharpness, color representation, contrast, breathing, flaring, distortion...the list goes on. The fact of the matter remains: the objectively best things are usually amongst the most expensive.
But things which are objectively the best aren't always subjectively the best. And, frankly, a lot of people don't need really nice lenses.
Michael, I just want to point out that as a whole "field shooting package" you'll have to spend quite a lot more then just for the body and people should realize this. Recording units aside (AJA, Nano and such) the glass will be the single most important purchase, also the most expensive one. Frankly I don't see the point in buying a large sensor camera, just to put F4-5.8 lens. It most likely works OK on amateur SLR, but the usability ends there.

[robertrogoz]

Where exactly did Barry say that..or even imply that?

Not sure where you are getting that from, since it doesn't sound like something he would say. And after reading most of the threads in this forum, I never saw that.
Barry recommended Panasonic 14-140 F4.5 as one of the lenses to get. Imo it's like buying a race car and then filling it up with regular unleaded because you can't afford real racing fuel. He also advocated to get some used Nikons off Ebay. And there are plenty of cheaper Nikons, but like I said, not all lenses are equal in aspects of reproducing light onto imager. And the one that do it well you have to pay a lot more, even used.

[Michael Olsen]

Michael, I just want to point out that as a whole "field shooting package" you'll have to spend quite a lot more then just for the body and people should realize this. Recording units aside (AJA, Nano and such) the glass will be the single most important purchase, also the most expensive one. Frankly I don't see the point in buying a large sensor camera, just to put F4-5.8 lens. It most likely works OK on amateur SLR, but the usability ends there.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I can also see Barry's point. All that people need to get the camera working in a bare bones configuration is a decent zoom lens. It won't be fast and it won't be the best. But it'll work. If someone can use it on a couple of jobs, they've more than paid for it again and can sell it off and buy some nicer lenses.

Personally, I think someone could get a lot more for their money buying some used Nikon primes, but then again, those are just the kind of lenses I like. Of course, you have to know what you are buying, but many make some great pictures. I don't care about autofocus or metadata and I don't like zooms. Just more options.

[Steve Kahn]

All we can know now is that RED said that a Scarlet would probably be out by the end of the year (presumably the 2/3" Fixed). Now, we know there is to be a slight delay as HDRx is added to the Scarlet line. No certainty at all.
That is what worries me Michael.

While the idea of the Scarlet Cinema 2/3" or (perhaps especially) the S35 sounds brilliantly intriguing I wonder when these products will finally come to market. I even wonder if. I remember when Red announced their amazing over ambitious product line up - less than two years ago but lets face it: tech years are like dog years. It seems like eons ago.

Where Red gets an A for ingenuity (and Panasonic deserve maybe a C- or even D) Red lacks the size and history of the Panasonic. Panasonic can pass down parts and codecs from previous product lines - Red is forced to create from scratch, thus our extended delays.

It also worries me that the S35 and Cinema 2/3" will be new, untested chips using all this new technology (like HDRx) while Panasonic is more methodical. The AF100 chip is already a second generation chip with proven software, codec and supporting hardware.

Of course Scarlet has Redcode but I'm sure it could be possible for Panasonic or a third party to create HD-sdi recorders with whatever codec the user may want.

8bit for the AF100 seems to be a stumbling block for extensinve color grading, though. Is the Scarlet 12bit? Do we know?

[Jim Brennan]

Barry recommended Panasonic 14-140 F4.5 as one of the lenses to get. Imo it's like buying a race car and then filling it up with regular unleaded because you can't afford real racing fuel. He also advocated to get some used Nikons off Ebay. And there are plenty of cheaper Nikons, but like I said, not all lenses are equal in aspects of reproducing light onto imager. And the one that do it well you have to pay a lot more, even used.

I don't see that as saying all lenses are equal. I see it as letting people know there are options. All other things being equal, we would all want the best glass. But all things aren't equal. This camera seems to be geared (primarily) to the indie film maker. People like that (including myself) have to make hard choices sometimes. We work inside extremely restrictive budgets. For some of us that might mean choosing this camera with slightly inferior lenses because of the other benefits the camera provides (as opposed to going with an HPX170 with an adapter for example). I am confident that Barry isn't suggesting those lenses are the best lenses, or even equal to some of the better ones out there. It seems like he is saying that they might be a viable choice for some people, depending on their goals and budget.

Big difference.

[Michael Olsen]

That is what worries me Michael.

While the idea of the Scarlet Cinema 2/3" or (perhaps especially) the S35 sounds brilliantly intriguing I wonder when these products will finally come to market. I even wonder if. I remember when Red announced their amazing over ambitious product line up - less than two years ago but lets face it: tech years are like dog years. It seems like eons ago.

When you think about it, it really does seem like quite a while. But I really do believe we will be seeing the cameras rather soon. The S35 EPICs are out and about now - Soderbergh is supposed to be rolling on them in Chicago pretty soon. And I believe Fincher will be shooting with them on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as well. Features are being enabled, tested, and bugs are being fixed. Scarlet is supposedly being developed in tandem, lagging behind slightly, but benefitting in development time because of the experiences with Epic.


Where Red gets an A for ingenuity (and Panasonic deserve maybe a C- or even D) Red lacks the size and history of the Panasonic. Panasonic can pass down parts and codecs from previous product lines - Red is forced to create from scratch, thus our extended delays.

This is something that Jim keeps coming back to, and I think it is an important point. RED really is having to work from scratch, which makes their delays much more understandable.


It also worries me that the S35 and Cinema 2/3" will be new, untested chips using all this new technology (like HDRx) while Panasonic is more methodical. The AF100 chip is already a second generation chip with proven software, codec and supporting hardware.

Well, all the chips in the current generation of Epic and Scarlet will be Mysterium-X - chips which are currently in use in over a thousand RED ONEs that have been upgraded. So technically, an S35 Scarlet would be second gen chip with second gen hardware and...well, REDCINE-X just keeps evolving.


Of course Scarlet has Redcode but I'm sure it could be possible for Panasonic or a third party to create HD-sdi recorders with whatever codec the user may want.

Of course. It's only a matter of time, I'm sure, before there is some sort of wavelet compressed HD-SDI recorder available. There may already be...I don't pay much attention to those items.


8bit for the AF100 seems to be a stumbling block for extensinve color grading, though. Is the Scarlet 12bit? Do we know?

12 bit? No. Last I read Scarlets and Epics will be 16 bit. The 2/3" (and I think the S35) will also do an in-camera debayer (even with EasyHDR from the sound of it) up to either 720p/60 or 1080p/60 RGB .r3d.

The whole thing kind of makes you wonder what RED will end up doing with MONSTRO (their FF35 third gen sensors). And, of course, it'll all matter once I can put money down and actually buy one.

[morgan_moore]

Some thoughts on lenses

Still lenses are designed for a medium that is around 5k, even a cheap lens that fails to resolve half of what it needs to resolve for its initial purpose will still outresolve the sensor

Backlash and flex in adapters put jitter into your image, this will damage you shot far more than any visual characteristic of the lens

Lenses designed for a small format will be designed to resolve higher LPI than lenses designed to cover larger formats

Any mis focus will soften a shot, a lens that can accurately focussed with an aid will be sharper (static shots)

The AF may work for your shot even if it is a moving one

Lenses designed to cover larger formats and clear mirrors you are paying in design compromises, mass and cost

Coating technology has moved on since the 1980s

The list of reasons that old primes are not the be all and end all is endless

I look for,
barrel distortion CA (avoidance of) in the main and pysical appropriatness to motion aquisition (chunky wheel, solid lens mount) little else translates to the 1080 image

I would imagine therefore that the 'kit' lens is a must have

S

[Lyris]

That seems like very practical advice to me.
I've always felt that people get too easily carried away with lenses.

[Barry_Green]

I don't see that as saying all lenses are equal. I see it as letting people know there are options. All other things being equal, we would all want the best glass. But all things aren't equal. This camera seems to be geared (primarily) to the indie film maker. People like that (including myself) have to make hard choices sometimes. We work inside extremely restrictive budgets. For some of us that might mean choosing this camera with slightly inferior lenses because of the other benefits the camera provides (as opposed to going with an HPX170 with an adapter for example). I am confident that Barry isn't suggesting those lenses are the best lenses, or even equal to some of the better ones out there. It seems like he is saying that they might be a viable choice for some people, depending on their goals and budget.

Big difference.
You understand well. That's exactly what I was saying. I was pointing out that you can be up and shooting for $5200 to $5500, and I gave two example packages. And frankly, in terms of the vast majority of DVXUsers, I expect they will be operating with packages such as what I listed, rather than spending $12,000 on the camera.

Obviously not all lenses are equal -- if they were, I wouldn't have spent $8,000+ on a set of Zeiss ZFs. But I did.

Not everyone needs to do that. And not everyone will want to do that -- the additional value I get from the exquisite manual focusing, may not be worth it to many other people. Even so, how can you attribute lens cost to the camera cost? I spent that $8,000 when I didn't even have an AF100 (obviously, as I still don't have one). I spent that dough to get those lenses when all I had was a GH1 and a 7D. Point being, lens cost is a separate expense when you're talking about a body-only camcorder, whether it's a GH1, a 7D, a 5D, an HPX3700, a PDW800, or an AF100.

I mentioned the 14-140 because I think the benefits of that lens are substantial. It lets the AF100 act like a "video" camera in addition to as a cine camera. It has a great range and it's pretty cheap. It has excellent image stabilization. And it is electronically optimized to reduce chromatic aberration and barrel distortion. It's not fast, and it doesn't focus like a ZF, but if anyone intends on ever doing any run 'n' gun type zoom-lens stuff, it's a steal for all that it does.

My point is there's a big difference between what someone will need, and what they may want. I want a Ki Pro Mini or an HPG20, and a full set of Duclos-cine-ized ZFs, and the 14-140. To me that's a pretty decent set of gear. But it's extremely beyond what someone would NEED. An AF100 with a 14-140 and a couple of used prime lenses will be plenty enough for people to be able to create excellent footage.

[cgold]

I think People forget that Canon already has a similar camera that is cheaper and shoots uncompressed... Because its analog. But you have to Re-encode avchd anyway, so workflow wise it's about the same, right?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1XI/AAAAAAAAASs/wE28O200iRs/s400/CRW_5751+l2+side+view+300mm.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1WI/AAAAAAAAASk/9XEstpzanBo/s400/Canon+L2+normal+lens+detached.jpg
http://www.cinema4d.co.kr/files/attach/images/131/991/314/Canon%20L2%2035-350.jpg

The Canon L2!

[agcohn]

I think People forget that Canon already has a similar camera that is cheaper and shoots uncompressed... Because its analog. But you have to Re-encode avchd anyway, so workflow wise it's about the same, right?

The Canon L2!
You're really comparing a Hi-8 camcorder to the AF100?

[cgold]

Some people still prefer vinyl....

But I'm not one of them.
(it was supposed to be a humorous post)

[dcloud]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1XI/AAAAAAAAASs/wE28O200iRs/s400/CRW_5751+l2+side+view+300mm.jpg

The Canon L2!


looks like what a stormstrooper would shoot with

[Michael Olsen]

These are not the cameras you are looking for.

[Steve Kahn]

Obviously not all lenses are equal -- if they were, I wouldn't have spent $8,000+ on a set of Zeiss ZFs. But I did.
Any word on if Zeiss will be making lenses with m4/3 mounts? (that is so there will be no associated crop factor)

Also, aside from sharpness you mentioned ease of focus on the ZF lenses. Was that the main selling point for you? I played around with a Zeiss Compact Prime Pl which was amazing. Does the ZF have a similar silky smooth focus?

[Yak]

I think People forget that Canon already has a similar camera that is cheaper and shoots uncompressed... Because its analog. But you have to Re-encode avchd anyway, so workflow wise it's about the same, right?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1XI/AAAAAAAAASs/wE28O200iRs/s400/CRW_5751+l2+side+view+300mm.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1WI/AAAAAAAAASk/9XEstpzanBo/s400/Canon+L2+normal+lens+detached.jpg
http://www.cinema4d.co.kr/files/attach/images/131/991/314/Canon%20L2%2035-350.jpg

The Canon L2!

Well it also did not have a 4/3 chip and let us not forget that even though it was analog it recored in NTSC which is a form of compression

[Dan_Kanes]

Any word on if Zeiss will be making lenses with m4/3 mounts? (that is so there will be no associated crop factor)


I'm 95% certain that Zeiss will be releasing M4/3 backs for their CP.2 series of Lenses.

I'm also 95% certain there will be ZERO optical designs from zeiss specifically made for the M4/3 imaging area. This means that your wide is an 18mm 3.5

Buuuut I am also willing to bet some enterprising SOB out there will make an adapter that accomodates Zeiss Digi-Primes, and perhaps MAYBE, MAAAAYBE some of the Digi-primes will cover the M4/3 area...

of course, you could also use some 16mm PL mounted Primes for your wide end...but again no guarantee of coverage.

I you want fast wides, and you want zeiss, and you want cheap - your best bet is to use a PL adapter like the hotrod and rent a set of zeiss superspeeds. 18mm/1.3 is not bad for wide and fast!

[Barry_Green]

Zeiss is making m4/3 mounts for the Compact Primes. They brought one over to the IBC booth.

The lenses won't be redesigned for m4/3, just like they weren't redesigned for the Red One or the 5D or the 7D. The lens just is what it is.

DigiPrimes won't come anywhere near covering the AF100's sensor; it's 4x larger than the DigiPrimes were designed to cover. DigiPrimes are for 2/3" chips. The only possible ones that might cover the 4/3 chip would be the longer focal lengths.


I played around with a Zeiss Compact Prime Pl which was amazing. Does the ZF have a similar silky smooth focus?
The ZFs have luxurious manual focus with extremely long throws, for stills lenses. Far and away the best stills lens focus throw and smoothness of any stills lens I've used. But not quite like the Compact Primes, which offer several usability benefits, including that they're all the same diameter and have all the same focus throw (and, not the least of which, is that they focus the right way, instead of the Nikon backwards way!) Of course, CP's cost about 3x as much as the ZFs, and they're the same basic glass, so the choice of going with the ZFs is if you want the best stills lenses, or the budget version of the CPs. I may yet get a set of CPs though; if I do, I'll have a very mint set of ZFs available for sale... :)

[benniles]

I think People forget that Canon already has a similar camera that is cheaper and shoots uncompressed... Because its analog. But you have to Re-encode avchd anyway, so workflow wise it's about the same, right?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1XI/AAAAAAAAASs/wE28O200iRs/s400/CRW_5751+l2+side+view+300mm.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IUvr-4o_5w8/R3WtKkxc1WI/AAAAAAAAASk/9XEstpzanBo/s400/Canon+L2+normal+lens+detached.jpg
http://www.cinema4d.co.kr/files/attach/images/131/991/314/Canon%20L2%2035-350.jpg

The Canon L2!

The Canon L cameras were dope back when I started shooting video in the early 90's
My high school was rocking an L1 with a Newteck Video Toaster and a pair of SVHS decks for editing.

Brings me back.

[thekreative]

my favourite camera design..... yah L2!

Great post hijack!

[erdiaz]

I loved Hi 8s as I loved My old betacams... or as I loved some of my ex wives. But now I prefer my actual HVX200 and my next AF100 as I prefer my actual fiancee. jejeje

(Humorous comment!!!)

[danielc]

ill be looking for ZFs barry, keep me in mind =]!

[NextWaveG]

I read somewhere that the Sony will be around $50k competing with the Alexa and Red Epic....so forget about that.

As for Canon, I would bet money that we would see a HDSLR with more video features before we would see a camcorder with a full frame sensor. Just look at the 60D....they keep marketing to the lower end user.

The AF100 will hold it's own ground for at least 6 months to a year before we see the next big "thing". Whether it will be better, who knows. People have testified that they've owned their HVX200s for years...even though other cameras have come out since then.

And you don't need $10K to get started with the AF100. You can get a good micro 4/3" lens for under $1k that will cover most of your bases. If you want more glass, you can certainly buy it, but I would say $7-$8K would get you a great kit.

[danielc]

after having an xha1 for awhile, i never saw myself going to panasonic due to what they offered for prosumer cameras. we use the hvx200 at school and in todays imagers it just doesnt work for my eye. the af100 changed everything for me. it is very revamped for todays level of cameras (aesthetics and technology). after the xf300 release, and hd sdi costing 1000 more, canon hasnt been my top choice. really like what panasonic is doing and how they treat customers.