AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

The JVC is pretty close to the ideal size and outward features, like XLRs, NDs, etc. It's what the other companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Blackmagic could and should have done from the beginning, instead of inventing weird and bloated body styles like the FS700, AF100, and Ursa. However, instead of needlessly botching the outside, JVC has needlessly botched the inside:

- only 50 mbps .mov files, instead of ProRes?

- only 10.5 stops, while still being rolling shutter? Last I heard, they're using the AL41410C sensor from AltaSens, a company they now own. Meanwhile, a 12-stop global-shutter sensor from CMOSIS has been out for years, for $1,800. Even if this made the camcorder another $1,800 --- bringing it to over $6,000 --- they would have sold many more.
 
Last edited:
Why are you upset with companies for not giving you ProRes and global shutter in a small camcorder? No one has that out there and there plus ND, XLR etc. ProRes costs big money to license from apple. You can't just toss it into a camera.

Its like being upset with Honda because they didn't throw a 300hp engine and full entertainment package, AWD in base model. Lets be a little realistic here. Canon's top seller has 50mps codec and no ProRes, no HD overcrank and sells still for $12,000.

If the image looks good this camera will sell for JVC. That is what people care about most as Canon has proved with their C series.
 
The Blackmagic Pocket and many external recorders sport ProRes, so it can't be too much for a $4,500 camera.

The CMV12000 is $1,800, and the CMV8000 is $760, in low-number orders. In bulk they could be cheaper. The Blackmagic 4K uses the CMV12000 and is $3,000.
 
combatentropy said:
The Blackmagic Pocket and many external recorders sport ProRes, so it can't be too much for a $4,500 camera.

The CMV12000 is $1,800, and the CMV8000 is $760, in low-number orders. In bulk they could be cheaper. The Blackmagic 4K uses the CMV12000 and is $3,000.
Click to expand...

There is more to a camera than the cost of its parts. Just as your day rate should not be solely depending on the cost of your camera.

The pocket is S16 sensor which most will and do complain about and the 4K sensor are terrible in low light conditions which would end up being the next complaint from most people. Has BM fixed the black sun spots on all cams? The BM4K also doesn't have ND, XLR, EVF etc. Don't get me wrong the BM cameras have amazing colour and produce a great image under the right conditions. I really do like the image they produce.

There is no perfect camera and there will never be one. Its an exercise in frustration to convince yourself that the everything cam 1000 is just around the corner.

I'm more and more convinced people will never be happy until they have the best for hardly any $$. I'm sure your clients would also like longer days for 1/4 the cost out of you but that doesn't mean they should get it or do you think you should cut your rates because they really would like that from you?

There are so many amazing cameras out there but people are still not happy until they have it all and then they will still find flaws because it doesn't have X or Y or Z.


Your asking for a unicorn camera. All of the features of $10-$50 cameras but for $5K. I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think anyone is undercutting BM on how much they pack in for minimum dollar.
 
I would never buy a camera with a CMV1000 sensor. I don't care the specs but I would never buy a run'n'gun camcorder with maximum 400 ISO and horrible fixed pattern noise in the shadows and quite a few aliasing artefacts. It might be a good sensor for a cinema camera that will work in a studio with tons of lights and power but not in that JVC.

The JVC looks lovely, almost what everyone was hoping for. A very worthy rival for the C100 mk II and FS7.

Now we just need to see the image, I bet it's going to be very good as it's a 4K s35 image. But knowing JVC, it might have something stupid like hedious rolling shutter, terrible aliasing, horrible baked in profiles, or anything of some sort to ruin it.
 
About the codec, the 50mbps 4:2:2 codec in the C300 looks stunning, just as good as Prores even in extreme grading. In fact, I find the C300 50mpbs codec more gradable than the 12bit raw BMP4K one which can't be pushed at all without showing hedious fixed noise and artefacts. so it's about the implementation rather than the specs, let's wait and see how the image looks. 50mbps 8bit 4:2:2 can look very very good for all uses apart from heavy CGI features.
 
I don't see Panasonic putting ProRes in one of their lower tier cameras. I'm a little surprised they did it as an option for the Varicam recorder, but at that price point it does make some sense. But a sub $5k, or even sub $10k camera? Between AVCHD, their 4:2:0 recording options that they included in the GH4 and X1000, and the AVC-Ultra family... licensing ProRes doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when there are plenty of in house, industry standard options for them to use.
 
combatentropy said:
The JVC is pretty close to the ideal size and outward features, like XLRs, NDs, etc. It's what the other companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Blackmagic could and should have done from the beginning, instead of inventing weird and bloated body styles like the FS700, AF100, and Ursa. However, instead of needlessly botching the outside, JVC has needlessly botched the inside...
Click to expand...

I completely agree (well, except about the bloated body styles, but to each his own :) ).
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
I find the C300 50mpbs codec more gradable than the 12bit raw BMP4K one which can't be pushed at all without showing hedious fixed noise and artefacts.
Click to expand...

The noise is from the sensor has little to do with codec. Just look at the raw from the 2.5K BMCC it doesn't have the same noise. 12bit raw is far superior to Canon MXF 8 bit for colour grading. 8 bits is 8 bits there is no way to get around it. You are the first person I have ever heard make a statement like this. Don't get me wrong the 50mb mxf is a great codec but doesn't hold up to 12 bit raw under heavy grading.
 
The codec has to be the reason for the JVC $4,500 price tag. And it also gives AF-200 some wiggle room in terms of own pricing (should it have AVC-Ultra, as it ought to) ... say, about $500 worth.

PS. It makes no sense for JVC to outsource its image sensors, now that they had purchased the company. Their per unit costs must be a fraction of what they would have paid to their competitors. Which is another reason for this $4,500 MSRP.
 
I wouldn't call the AF100 all that bloated, but it is a 'little' bloated... that bulky empty plastic side handle was the first thing I got rid of (replacing it with a home-cobbled articulated FS7-like side handle) and I would have preferred a less bulbous EVF/audio hump on top back, but it's better than the stock C-cam audio handles.

Hope the JVC doesn't suck or the new Panasonic specs better, because right now (aside from unknown IQ) that JVC ticks all the boxes for my next camera... 4:2:2 HD internal, XLR, SDI out, $5K or under. Wouldn't even need new lenses or adapters.
 
mcbob said:
Hope the JVC doesn't suck or the new Panasonic specs better, because right now (aside from unknown IQ) that JVC ticks all the boxes for my next camera... 4:2:2 HD internal, XLR, SDI out, $5K or under. Wouldn't even need new lenses or adapters.
Click to expand...

Never really been a fan of JVC's. Not thrilled with the codec choice, nor the dynamic range. But dang, it checks most of the boxes for me as well. This is on paper the camera most of us would want. Considering that Panasonic is sticking the internals and DSP of the $30,000 HPX5000 into the PX270, a PX270 backend with a front end like the JVC plus AVC-Ultra would kick some serious rear end. If Panasonic doesn't produce it, I'm going to have to go with the JVC (assuming IQ doesn't suck). I have the luxury of not needing to replace my AF100 for a little while, but my HMC150 is getting long in the tooth and I'm finding myself more and more wanting to replace it with something that does better in low light and has a longer lens. Whether or not it's with a PX270 is going to be directly related by what Panasonic announces at NAB regarding an AF200.
 
RatLabProductions said:
The noise is from the sensor has little to do with codec. Just look at the raw from the 2.5K BMCC it doesn't have the same noise. 12bit raw is far superior to Canon MXF 8 bit for colour grading. 8 bits is 8 bits there is no way to get around it. You are the first person I have ever heard make a statement like this. Don't get me wrong the 50mb mxf is a great codec but doesn't hold up to 12 bit raw under heavy grading.
Click to expand...

Yes with all things being equal, a 12bit raw codec will grade better than 8bit 4:2:2 under heavy conditions, but the thing is that most of the times all things are not equal, and the produced image is about a package of elements that each have an effect. What I mean is that a well implemented 8bit 50mbps 4:2:2 can grade very well and better than a badly implemented 12bit raw one, because of many other issues like the sensor performance, noise levels, dynamic range and exposure latitude, image processing and colour interpolation and fidetlity. All of these for example the C300 gets right and therefore it produces an excellent image. My point was that the JVC 50mbps 4:2:2 can be an excellent codec like on the C300. We'll have to see the image before putting the camera down. JVC is new to this market and the potential of them making a great camera is very good for us and will drive competetion, as well as Samsung and Blackmagic and all the new makers. The LS300 looks like what we all wanted from the AF200 or C100/300 mk II. But everything will be determined by the image. If it's a good s35 4K image it will be a very serious contender to the FS7 and C100 mk II.
 
So in 3 years time we can expect to see the AF200 going on ebay for $850 too? Might hang around then. Depreciation with cameras is alarming. :Drogar-Mad(DBG):
 
In 3 years? I expect it to be around 1000-1200$ on ebay as soon as the AF200 comes out, so in a year or less. Digital cameras are the worst investment in existence if it doesn't pay for itself quickly! The 6999$ FS100 is selling new for 2499$ with a free Metabones EF adapter, imagine how it will sell used now, a professional high-end 1080p camcorder for 1000-1500$. Great times!
 
This may be nothing, but when I checked my feed this morning, I saw an article from RedShark News:

ScreenShot2014-11-26at85809AM_zpsee98f47e.png


I noticed "AF 305" in the meta tagging and I clicked on the article. However, it looks like the article has been removed from the site. Could this have been a leak?

EDIT: I heard back from the author of the article and it was just a typo.
 
Last edited:
So I looked at the FS7 for a job we have but they are unavailable due to back orders and all that. A new AF100 would be perfect but does not exist yet so we picked up a GH4 today for this particular job. It got me thinking that its Murphy law that the AF100 replacement will turn up just after I buy the GH4 :) So it has to be just around the corner.
 
EndCredits said:
So I looked at the FS7 for a job we have but they are unavailable due to back orders and all that. A new AF100 would be perfect but does not exist yet so we picked up a GH4 today for this particular job. It got me thinking that its Murphy law that the AF100 replacement will turn up just after I buy the GH4 :) So it has to be just around the corner.
Click to expand...

I have a very low mileage AF-100 that B&H offered 1300 for. Is that too low?
 
newzhack said:
I have a very low mileage AF-100 that B&H offered 1300 for. Is that too low?
Click to expand...

Well I've seen af100 go as low as 800 on eBay. I'm actually waiting it out and trying to snag one for 1000 or less. So with that in mind 1300 doesn't seem to bad for just the camera
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top