AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Otis Grapsas said:
If video style production with a long zoom is important, I would go for a 2/3" camera instead, like the HPX500 or the new Sony. The sensor size advantage in DOF will be lost if the zoom lens has an aperture smaller than f2.8, and that aperture will never appear in a 10x or 16x zoom at 4/3. A 3x f2.8 zoom at $2,000 is easy, those probably already exist, but things get extremely expensive and hard to design after that point.
Click to expand...

Except that the cheapest 2/3" camera (HPX500) is going to cost 3-4 times as much once set up, plus P2 media. I totally get what you're saying, but if you're shooting a wedding a full size P2 camera is going to be a bit large and obtrusive, and nice primes will not always be workable. And honestly, looking at GH1+kit lens footage on Vimeo, I'm more than happy to "settle" for the longer depth of field, because it still looks a lot nicer than what I get now. If I do end up buying this thing, the first thing I'm getting to go along with it is a nice set of primes. But for the market that this will most likely attract and be used for, primes simply aren't always feasible to use.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Except that the cheapest 2/3" camera (HPX500) is going to cost 3-4 times as much once set up, plus P2 media. I totally get what you're saying, but if you're shooting a wedding a full size P2 camera is going to be a bit large and obtrusive, and nice primes will not always be workable. And honestly, looking at GH1+kit lens footage on Vimeo, I'm more than happy to "settle" for the longer depth of field, because it still looks a lot nicer than what I get now. If I do end up buying this thing, the first thing I'm getting to go along with it is a nice set of primes. But for the market that this will most likely attract and be used for, primes simply aren't always feasible to use.
Click to expand...

I agree. 4/3 is a happy medium between 2/3" and super35/full frame for DOF vs ISO. In any case, lens availability will affect shallow dof and ISO requirements, so it should be considered.
 
naavt said:
I was also under the impression that the AF100 would have the ability to record RAW footage :( So it's only the AVCCAM codec?
Click to expand...
No camera on the market records raw (that anyone could afford!) Nothing that uses redcode, or cineform, or any other codec, records raw. As far as reasonably affordable (under $50,000) cameras goes, raw is fictional. It doesn't exist.

The closest you'll get is the Red One's RedCode Raw, which is still a highly compressed codec; it just encodes raw sensor data instead of converting it to a video format first.

There is nothing wrong with the AF100 or anything else not recording raw, because nothing records raw!
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think the lens option will make or break this camera's acceptance to the video crowd. If it does not come with a motor driven servo based video lens, many will be challenged to make it a main camera (including myself).

SLR only lenses basically make it a "cinema style" production workflow. Prime lenses have great image quality, but are not always convenient for "video" type shooting.

I think Panasonic knows this and will offer a kit video lens that can be removed to use other types of lenses. If they do not then they are losing potential customers because a body only AF-100 is just a $6,000 vDSLR with audio inputs imho.
Click to expand...

X100

I am looking at buying this camera, but I am NOT the typical 'indie' film type guy
that seems to be prevalent these days. I need a good 'run and gun' type camera
that I can use for a ton of different things (TV spots, events, sports, news)
and I do NOT have a 'cinema style' production workflow usually (my clients
don't usually give me the time for one....)
I am NOT going to be using prime lenses most of the time and I need a good, broadcast style lens....
you know, like the HDCam or Varicam has. I know this is a different style of camera, and it may be
aimed more at the 'indie film' crowd, so it may just not be for me if it doesn't have a good, video
zoom lens. I hope it does, because I like everything else about it and I will
almost certainly be buying one if it DOES have a good video zoom lens,
but if does not, I will not be buying one, and will instead be looking at other
options (like the EX series or whatever new cam has come out).
I agree totally with Bassman, and I hope that Panasonic will want the
business of us 'video' guys too. But hey, I understand that they can't
satisfy everyone, and if it doesn't have what I want, no biggie, I can
spend my money other places, and I'm sure they will make plenty
of sales without me.
 
And for those purposes, there's the HPX370, HPX170, HMC150, HMC40, HMC80, HPX500, HPX2000, HPX2700, HPX3000, and HPX3700. The broadcast/ENG segment is pretty well covered. :)
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
I need a good 'run and gun' type camera
that I can use for a ton of different things (TV spots, events, sports, news)...
Click to expand...

I don't know that I would be using this for sports... the nice thing about the smaller chip cameras is it's easier to shoot sports with the deeper DoF. But if you can pull it off, more power to you...

I know this is a different style of camera, and it may be
aimed more at the 'indie film' crowd, so it may just not be for me if it doesn't have a good, video zoom lens.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's aimed at one "crowd" over the other, per se. This camera really is going to be in a class unto itself until the Sony equivalent is released. I think a lot of "crowds" are looking at this and seeing everything they can get for the incredible cost. Us smaller budget guys can get a much higher end look for our smaller budget clients and much more of a cinema look for our weddings without having to deal with oddball vDSLR or 35mm adapter rigs; the higher end guys are looking at this as a cheaper alternative for situations where RED or a Varicam might be overkill (or just a lot more expensive), and the indie film guys doing... ummm... whatever indie film guys do :) Most of the heated discussions in this thread have revolved around one crowd not taking another's needs into account, which I honestly think says a lot about the potential this camera has.
 
Barry_Green said:
And for those purposes, there's the HPX370, HPX170, HMC150, HMC40, HMC80, HPX2000, HPX2700, HPX3000, and HPX3700. The broadcast/ENG segment is pretty well covered. :)
Click to expand...

Exactly. ENG is designed for that sort of thing.

Think of a 16x f1.4 zoom for 4/3. That could easily cost a large multiple of the 2/3" equivalents, at least $200,000. Lower than $50,000 is improbable regardless of the production quantity. Even an f2.8 16x should cost about 2x the cost of an f1.6 zoom for 2/3". The absolute aperture would be about the same and the area of coverage far greater, that's a lot of glass and a design nightmare. $50,000 at least.
 
Barry_Green said:
No camera on the market records raw (that anyone could afford!) Nothing that uses redcode, or cineform, or any other codec, records raw. As far as reasonably affordable (under $50,000) cameras goes, raw is fictional. It doesn't exist.

The closest you'll get is the Red One's RedCode Raw, which is still a highly compressed codec; it just encodes raw sensor data instead of converting it to a video format first.

There is nothing wrong with the AF100 or anything else not recording raw, because nothing records raw!
Click to expand...

Yes, Today is the key word. But 1080p bayer uncompressed is a practical reality and for 2/3" it will not be very expensive when it appears from multiple vendors.
 
Barry_Green said:
And for those purposes, there's the HPX370, HPX170, HMC150, HMC40, HMC80, HPX500, HPX2000, HPX2700, HPX3000, and HPX3700. The broadcast/ENG segment is pretty well covered. :)
Click to expand...

I think this is sort of true and sort of not true. If these camera truly had the market covered for "video" purposes then the need or want for the AF-100 would not exist.

Sure if you are shooting for CNN, the exisiting cameras have most everything covered. Since the AF-100 sensor will be 4X the size of a 2/3" chip camera, one can say it is a different animal. The desire for some kind of motorized servo lens is born out of what Alaska alluded to. In normal work situations, cinema style production is not always possible. I see this camera as a tool in my toolbox for certain situations. If they make the AF-100 for use with SLR lenses only, that list of possible uses goes way down and would force me to evaluate the purchase.

As far as zoom amount. 8X would be enough just to have some adjustment. I don't know a ton about lens design but I thought the larger the sensor, the less demanding on the lens? And since this camera will only need to resolve a 2 megapixel final output, it would seem to me a wide aperature lens could be made within costs.

It seems kind of out of character to talk about glass that would be $50,000 or $200,000 in the ballpark of a $6,000 camera. This camera will have nice image quality, but it does have its limits.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think this is sort of true and sort of not true. If these camera truly had the market covered for "video" purposes then the need or want for the AF-100 would not exist.

Sure if you are shooting for CNN, the exisiting cameras have most everything covered. Since the AF-100 sensor will be 4X the size of a 2/3" chip camera, one can say it is a different animal. The desire for some kind of motorized servo lens is born out of what Alaska alluded to. In normal work situations, cinema style production is not always possible. I see this camera as a tool in my toolbox for certain situations. If they make the AF-100 for use with SLR lenses only, that list of possible uses goes way down and would force me to evaluate the purchase.

As far as zoom amount. 8X would be enough just to have some adjustment. I don't know a ton about lens design but I thought the larger the sensor, the less demanding on the lens? And since this camera will only need to resolve a 2 megapixel final output, it would seem to me a wide aperature lens could be made within costs.

It seems kind of out of character to talk about glass that would be $50,000 or $200,000 in the ballpark of a $6,000 camera. This camera will have nice image quality, but it does have its limits.
Click to expand...

You got exactly what I'm talking about. The cameras that Barry referred to are
not what I am looking for for various reasons (Depending on the camera, it is
cost with some, too small chip size with others). As you say, if the video market
was really 'covered', there wouldn't be so many video guys like me, looking at
this camera thinking 'Wow, this could be IT!'

And I agree, even a 8x zoom lens would be something I think I could live with.
But I need a motorized servo lens for me to buy this cam.

Hey, if it's not possible, than it's not possible. I tend to think it IS possible,
but I could totally be wrong. Or maybe it's not possible at the $6 grand price
tag. All the information about this camera has NOT been released yet, so none
of us really know, and it all seems like speculation at this point.
Either way, I was just agreeing that this is a 'feature' that will cause
me to buy, or not buy. And if the upcoming Sony camera has a zoom lens,
maybe I'll look that way and wait for it to come out. I don't really care
WHO makes the camera as long as it has the features I want on it.

I was talking about this very issue last week with Mikko (after we got done with
a late night shoot). He sounded like he was going to do some research/emailing
and find out a little more info on this possibility.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because it's the most solid, robust, stable, perfect recording media ever devised, which is why it's taken over 80% of the world's broadcast market.
Click to expand...

Actually that would leave only 20% for Canon, JVC and Sony, which is not the case. As the matter of fact EX1 is outselling any other model on the market for now. It's not that Panasonic puts out sub-standard product, but I am just pointing out the fact your numbers are incorrect.

Barry_Green said:
No. Let's just leave it at that. The Firestore is an awful alternative, a horrible alternative, to P2. And the nanoflash doesn't record RAW, it records MPEG-2. And how is a $400 P2 card "overpriced" and a $3,000 MPEG-2 recorder isn't?
Click to expand...
A 16GB card costs $389 plus shipping at B&H, 64GB card will set you back 900 bucks, I don't call it cheap. On several occasions I was shooting in situations, where offload is impossible and in those situations Nanoflash with CF cards is way cheaper than any P2 or SxS.
 
robertrogoz said:
On several occasions I was shooting in situations, where offload is impossible and in those situations Nanoflash with CF cards is way cheaper than any P2 or SxS.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a laptop + a p2/universal (like the qio) reader for offload be cheaper then a nanoflash in those situations? And a good investment in the long run anyhow?
 
robertrogoz said:
Actually that would leave only 20% for Canon, JVC and Sony, which is not the case. As the matter of fact EX1 is outselling any other model on the market for now. It's not that Panasonic puts out sub-standard product, but I am just pointing out the fact your numbers are incorrect.
Click to expand...
My numbers are not incorrect. 80% of the world's major broadcasters that have gone tapeless, using the P2 format. I'm not talking about freelancers or stringers, I'm talking about major broadcasters who have selected and standardized on a format, such as NBC/Universal, ABC, CNBC, Univision, Telemundo, Fox (incl. Fox News, Fox Business, etc.) Sky, etc. In the world of the major broadcasters, JVC and Canon are complete non-entities; they may have some presence in local TV stations but not in the big leagues. And Sony has CNN and some others, but yeah, 80/20 is where it's at today.

I'm not talking about market share among individual camcorder owners. I'm talking about broadcast networks.
 
Barry_Green said:
My numbers are not incorrect. 80% of the world's major broadcasters that have gone tapeless, using the P2 format. I'm not talking about freelancers or stringers, I'm talking about major broadcasters who have selected and standardized on a format, such as NBC/Universal, ABC, CNBC, Univision, Telemundo, Fox (incl. Fox News, Fox Business, etc.) Sky, etc. In the world of the major broadcasters, JVC and Canon are complete non-entities; they may have some presence in local TV stations but not in the big leagues. And Sony has CNN and some others, but yeah, 80/20 is where it's at today.
I'm not talking about market share among individual camcorder owners. I'm talking about broadcast networks.
Click to expand...
Pretty much there is nothing like broadcast networks anymore. The stations, like KOMO4 in Seattle (ABC) are network affiliates. That means they have their own budget and they buy their own equipment and that is how a vast majority is organized.
Even Discovery really doesn't have it's own crew, production is done by accredited production houses, which in reality have nothing to do with the network itself, except for selling contracted content.
What KATU in Portland buys as a camera system has nothing to do with what KOMO buys in Seattle, even though they are both ABC.
However I agree that JVC and Canon are pretty much non-starter as far as the broadcast goes. I just wanted to point out what you wrote about "networks" was describing situation from about 15-20 years ago. I also wanted to point out that a big chunk of cable/satellite television content is done by independent houses and stringers.
Really- if we are talking about broadcasters we should be talking Comcast, DishNetwork and such.
 
Last edited:
robertrogoz said:
Pretty much there is nothing like broadcast networks anymore. The stations, like KOMO4 in Seattle (ABC) are network affiliates. That means they have their own budget and they buy their own equipment and that is how a vast majority is organized.
Even Discovery really doesn't have it's own crew, production is done by accredited production houses, which in reality have nothing to do with the network itself, except for selling contracted content.
What KATU in Portland buys as a camera system has nothing to do with what KOMO buys in Seattle, even though they are both ABC.
However I agree that JVC and Canon are pretty much non-starter as far as the broadcast goes. However I just wanted to point out what you wrote about "networks" was describing situation from about 15-20 years ago. I also wanted to point out that a big chunk of cable/satellite television content is done by independent houses and stringers.
Click to expand...

Wait... KATU and KOMO are both Fisher properties. You mean to tell me there is no corporate policy about gear formats and every station in Fisher Broadcasting can do what it wants independently of everyone else? Wow, that's... amazingly inefficient. It's always been my experience that when a station moves to a new format, it's generally a corporate wide decision. The Cox station I work for didn't go to either P2 or Ignite independently, it was a corporate wide decision for all of our properties. I'm 90% sure it was the same for when we went to Avid too. I know when KOIN went to Ignite, their parent company was phasing it in corporate wide (or so I was told by one of the people laid off because of it).
 
It should be noted that just because they're employing a 4/3" sensor does NOT necessarily mean we'll be getting traditional 4/3" or 2x Crop AOV or FOV.

We've long-since discovered that the GH-1 records a bit more in Video Mode than what 4/3" Dictates.

Panasonic can surely tap as much of the sensor as they want since it's over-sized to begin with. I would be pleasantly surprised if we get APS-C sized images out of the larger 4/3" GH-1 sensor.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Wait... KATU and KOMO are both Fisher properties. You mean to tell me there is no corporate policy about gear formats and every station in Fisher Broadcasting can do what it wants independently of everyone else? Wow, that's... amazingly inefficient. It's always been my experience that when a station moves to a new format, it's generally a corporate wide decision. The Cox station I work for didn't go to either P2 or Ignite independently, it was a corporate wide decision for all of our properties. I'm 90% sure it was the same for when we went to Avid too. I know when KOIN went to Ignite, their parent company was phasing it in corporate wide (or so I was told by one of the people laid off because of it).
Click to expand...

I don't think there are 'corporate' policies about gear formats. For
example, KTUU which is an NBC station uses Sony gear and if I'm reading
Barry's earlier statement correct, national NBC uses P2/Panasonic. KTUU was
using Sony Beta SX as their format and they recently purchased Sony XDcam
gear. KIMO which is an ABC affiliate also uses Sony gear (or did just a couple years ago, they may have upgraded since then). KTVA a CBS affiliate used Panasonic....those are just the TV station I know of in the Anchorage market.
Each affiliate pretty much decides that for themselves.....they all have their own workflow, needs, and budget, and so they pretty much decide for themselves what they want to use. Think of it, if the national broadcasters dictated to the affiliates
that they all needed to have a certain format, I am betting that there are some
affiliates in small markets, who would 'go under'. They don't all have the money
to upgrade to what the national networks use. And some of them like different
kinds of gear. I know an engineer for example, who SWEARS that Sony gear
is the way to go.....not surprisingly, his station uses Sony gear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top