AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...
There are several station groups out there. And yes, as far as I know, when a group makes a decision, they make the decision for the entire group. NBC, ABC, and Fox each own a large group of stations in all the major markets, and when they decided to go P2, they all went P2. Individual affiliates are free to choose whatever they want. Of course, they've also rapidly gone P2.

As far as station groups and cable groups, yes there's a ton of content being produced by them. And most of the big ones have all gone P2. Raycom, Media General, Cox, etc.

Somewhere Panasonic posted a list of all the stations in the USA that had gone P2, it was like over 600, with the number of XDCAM stations at something like 130.
 
I wasn't saying the networks dictate the formats for the affiliates, but the affiliate's corporate owners (Cox, Belo, Tribune, etc...). We didn't decide what format we use, our owners did (and CBS had no say in it). And a lot of the larger corporations make these decisions at the corporate level, not the affiliate level.

[edit]... my response was directed at alaskacameradude.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I don't think there are 'corporate' policies about gear formats.
Click to expand...
For groups, there certainly are. For individual stations, there aren't.

When Raycom or Media General makes a decision, it applies across their entire station group. But individual affiliates are "groups" of one, so they can make their own decision.

The networks are consisting of their own "Owned & Operated" stations, plus a number of affiliate stations. CBS O&O stations are standardized on XDCAM-HD, for example, but there are plenty of individual CBS affiliate stations that are running P2. Whereas all NBC and Fox (and I think ABC) O&O stations are all standardized on P2, but there are some NBC, ABC or Fox individual affiliates that are running XDCAM.

But when taken as an aggregate, of counting the individual stations and what they're using... of all the stations (independent, network-owned, and group-owned, all combined) that have made the move to tapeless, about 80% of them have gone P2, as of the last figures I'd heard.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I wasn't saying the networks dictate the formats for the affiliates, but the affiliate's corporate owners (Cox, Belo, Tribune, etc...). We didn't decide what format we use, our owners did (and CBS had no say in it). And a lot of the larger corporations make these decisions at the corporate level, not the affiliate level.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Whoever owns the station, makes the decision. Some stations are individually owned. Some are owned by a big group. And some are owned by the networks themselves.
 
In any case, the "who's on P2" debate really doesn't apply to this thread. If this discussion is to continue, make it a different thread. This thread is about the AF100 wishlist and suggestions.
 
Barry_Green said:
In any case, the "who's on P2" debate really doesn't apply to this thread. If this discussion is to continue, make it a different thread. This thread is about the AF100 wishlist and suggestions.
Click to expand...

I think confusion is fueled by people, who want to have one camera for everything, including ENG. I think a wish for P2 instead of AVCHD would allow for wider altitude of use, including ENG.
 
Mike referred to the "Sony equivalent" and Alaska to the "upcoming Sony camera". If you guys are referring to the Sony camera introduced at NAB with a similar form factor to the AF100 that's due out at the end of the year, I believe that camera will be in the $19,000 price range - not really "equivalent".
 
BerkeleyBob said:
Mike referred to the "Sony equivalent" and Alaska to the "upcoming Sony camera". If you guys are referring to the Sony camera introduced at NAB with a similar form factor to the AF100 that's due out at the end of the year, I believe that camera will be in the $19,000 price range - not really "equivalent".
Click to expand...

I have read 'rumors' to that effect on the internet, but I did not know that it
was confirmed. If it has been confirmed, as you say, that is a whole different
ballgame there as far as costs and probably features too. It's probably likely
that to get what I want, I'd have to spend closer to 19 grand than 6 grand.
But, you know, when I first heard about the AF 100, I was hoping......
 
Alaska, the problem is that there is simply no such thing as a broadcast-style motorized zoom lens that covers larger than 2/3". Your beef isn't with Panasonic, it's with Fujinon and Canon. Those are the people that make ENG-style lenses.

And nobody makes them that big. Will they, eventually, someday? Maybe. But I wouldn't expect it to be $6,000, because you can't even buy a 2/3" lens for $6,000! I'd expect the lens to be more along the price bracket for cinema lenses, because that's the size you're talking about. And a lens like that, is $40k to $100k.

I think the GH1's lens is the closest we're going to get. If they could find a way to motorize the zoom, it'd be a pretty darn good lens at a very reasonable price.
 
Barry_Green said:
I think the GH1's lens is the closest we're going to get. If they could find a way to motorize the zoom, it'd be a pretty darn good lens at a very reasonable price.
Click to expand...

I think that would be fine with me. I wasn't saying that I wanted them to figure
out a way that I could put a broadcast lens from a 2/3 camera on the thing
(although that would be cool).

I was saying I hoped that they would figure out a way to include some sort of lens
with this camera that offers similar functionality to what you get on those cameras
.....and NOT be forced to only use still lenses or primes. As this is
the thread for those type of requests, I thought I'd throw in my opinion. As I said,
if it can't be done, I won't whine about it, I just won't buy this camera....no big deal.
If it can be done, then yay, Panasonic gets another customer.
 
They can't adapt 2/3" lenses to it, because those would only cover 1/4 of the chip. It'd be like using a 1/3" lens on a 2/3" camera. So that's what I'm saying -- there's no lens out there that covers anywhere near the size of the chip. So it means all new engineering for the lens manufacturers.

Hopefully they'll be on it. But, given the price difference of a 1/3" lens to a 2/3", I don't have a lot of hope for the difference between 2/3" and 4/3".

So, yeah, let's hope for a motorized zoom on the GH1 lens, it's already a 10:1 zoom with proper auto and manual focus, etc.
 
2/3" HD lenses are not a cheap solution and the adapter would be extremely expensive. A fast HD zoom is still $12,000 and that's for the affordable models. One with a good wide angle is more like $35,000.

The affordable 10x zoom can work fine in daylight and it will compete well with the 1/2" cameras in shallow DOF capability. That's the competition in the price range really. We could compare with exotic solutions but what's the point? For low light it could still work. There is always the option of getting something like an 20mm f1.7 and a 50mm f1.4 or f2.0. They can provide shallow DOF and low light performance at a relatively low cost.
 
I have no skin in the game, as we are shooting EX1/3/HM100 combo, (we invested in SxS), but if Panasonic ditched P2 version for this camera I would be rather pissed off after investing into P2 cards.
I find SDHC not that reliable (had 2 of the fail and a couple of other recording errors) and as a paying customer I would rather pay more for P2 workflow and reliability, rather then deal with unreliable media and problematic workflow.
Also one of the big selling points would be DOF, but as Ottis pointed out an F4 lens would give about the same DOF as 2/3" F1.8? Therefor the kit lens from GH1 is non starter imo.
 
robertrogoz said:
Also one of the big selling points would be DOF, but as Ottis pointed out an F4 lens would give about the same DOF as 2/3" F1.8? Therefor the kit lens from GH1 is non starter imo.
Click to expand...

It's way deeper than that.

The Panasonic 14-140 zoom is f4-f5.8 on 4/3 which is equivalent to
f1.6-1.9 on 1/2"
f2.1-2.6 on a typical 2/3"
f2.3-2.8 on a larger 2/3" sensor
f5.3-6.4 on super35/1.5x crop SLR
f8-9.6 on FF SLR
 
robertrogoz said:
Also one of the big selling points would be DOF, but as Ottis pointed out an F4 lens would give about the same DOF as 2/3" F1.8? Therefor the kit lens from GH1 is non starter imo.
Click to expand...

Know of any cameras with a 2/3 inch chip that you can get for 6 grand? I don't.
So if I have to 'make do' with a lens that 'only' gives me the DOF of a 2/3 but
gives me a motorized zoom lens......I can live with that. But this IS a camera
which you can switch lenses on right? So you can always switch the lens to what
YOU would rather have, which I am guessing is more shallow depth of field.....and
give up the motorized zoom. Then we are BOTH happy and Panasonic gets to sell
a camera to both of us instead of just one of us. I'm just one person, but to me,
if Panasonic can do that without too much trouble, it makes sense to make
the camera appeal to as many types of uses as possible. Maybe they can't do it,
and it will have to be still lenses or primes used on it. But I have a sneaking
suspicion.....Panasonic is a pro video company and seems to have this habit
of packing a lot of features in to appeal to everyone possible (remember how the
HVX 200 still had a tape transport?)
 
Btw, if you google DOF equivalents table for common sensors you will hit a dvxuser thread with a table that allows predicting/matching DOF when switching systems.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Know of any cameras with a 2/3 inch chip that you can get for 6 grand? I don't.
So if I have to 'make do' with a lens that 'only' gives me the DOF of a 2/3 but
gives me a motorized zoom lens......I can live with that. But this IS a camera
which you can switch lenses on right? So you can always switch the lens to what
YOU would rather have, which I am guessing is more shallow depth of field.....and
give up the motorized zoom. Then we are BOTH happy and Panasonic gets to sell
a camera to both of us instead of just one of us. I'm just one person, but to me,
if Panasonic can do that without too much trouble, it makes sense to make
the camera appeal to as many types of uses as possible. Maybe they can't do it,
and it will have to be still lenses or primes used on it. But I have a sneaking
suspicion.....Panasonic is a pro video company and seems to have this habit
of packing a lot of features in to appeal to everyone possible (remember how the
HVX 200 still had a tape transport?)
Click to expand...

It will not be 2/3" DOF but 1/2" DOF. But if you put things into perspective, the competition at this price is Sony EX1/3 with an aperture of f1.9 (at the wide end at least). The Panasonic with that 10x zoom will be slightly better than EX1/3 in shallow DOF and it will be cheaper than the EX3. An extra telephoto prime can provide some very shallow DOF, and the EX3 cannot do that.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
It will not be 2/3" DOF but 1/2" DOF. But if you put things into perspective, the competition at this price is Sony EX1/3 with an aperture of f1.9 (at the wide end at least). The Panasonic with that 10x zoom will be slightly better than EX1/3 in shallow DOF and it will be cheaper than the EX3. An extra telephoto prime can provide some very shallow DOF, and the EX3 cannot do that.
Click to expand...

Alright, but that still sounds good to me! Use the zoom lens for 'video' style shoots where
you are 'running and gunning' and switch lenses if you want very shallow DOF.
That flexibility and choice sounds like it would get a lot of customers.....and as
you say the only competition at that price point is the EX series, which are
nice cameras, but wouldn't be able to provide the very shallow DOF option,
making this a real hot seller of a cam.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top