Yup, but the Sony's nearly 10lbs. One of the things that appealed to me about the AF is you're starting off with a very light box... and because of the MFT mount, the final package makes a great doc rig. I still have mine, don't use it much, but when I do I really appreciate many things about it.
AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!
- Thread starter tobbihe
- Start date
When I first read about the FS-7, I thought this should be the AF200. But now, looking at the JVC GY-LS300, it really seems to be in the same spirit as the AF100. The LS300 might become my AF200. . . unless Panasonic comes out with a model that has everything the LS300 has, plus 10-bit data (and maybe micro-P2 cards). :laugh:
Beware of not comparing like with like - that 10lbs is an all up weight (incl a lens as well as batteries etc). I checked the spec and it says:
the comparable body only weight for the AF100 is "approx. 1.3kg" (without lens, battery etc)
So yes, the FS7 is somewhat heavier, but the body weight is only 2kg. I'd also say that my impressions were that although it may be a bit heavier, it's far better ergonomically than the AF100 when handheld (or any similar style of camera) as so much of the weight goes on the shoulder - not all on the wrists.
The s35 is only part of it - to appeal to the higher market, then whatever the size, the sensor really needs to be optimised for video - not stills. And as I've said so many times now:
1 Panasonic pro division now have such a sensor, as the Varicam shows
2 Sony shared the same sensor between the F5/FS7 - Panasonic could (and IMHO, should) do the same with Varicam/"AF200"
3 Using an off-the-shelf 4/3 still sensor is one thing - purpose designing a 4/3 video-optimised sensor quite another. Expensive.
4 And why bother doing (3) above when the Varicam sensor already exists? The R&D already done?
I'd only disagree with DLD regarding "...who will need a $1,700 AF-200?. I'm sure quite a few would - but if we assume a "GH5/YAGH Mk2" becomes available, that destroys the economies of scale that OldCorpse reckons on. The masses will probably just go for the GH5 - that's what will bring the price of that down - and the Mk2 YAGH will satisfy many. Which leaves too small a market to make any $1,700 AF200 viable. They could use the GH5 guts in a "AF200" body - but never be able to sell enough to make a $1,700 price tag possible.
Mac, I think your photoshopped image is entirely doable for Panasonic , and now having the suitable sensor makes it even more possible.
I cannot for one moment believe that making the AF100 to take P2 instead of SDHC memory would have changed the manufacturing cost much, if at all. That's the beauty of solid-state. Gone are the days of expensive and intricate tape decks, it's simply a connector as far as the camera is concerned. And P2 uses a standard Cardbus computer connector, such as built into every laptop of the era. Codec wise, then there is no reason why a AVC-Intra chip should cost more than an AVC-HD chip. Since they are only different flavours of H264, I wouldn't even be surprised to hear it would mean the same physical chip anyway. If the addition of P2 to the camera meant an extra $1,000 on the selling price, then that could only be down to marketing strategy and pricing - not because it inherently made it any more expensive to manufacture.Mike Harvey said:
That said, P2 v SDHC WOULD lead to an increased cost to the user owing to higher bit rates - so more memory needed - and P2 being so much more expensive per GB anyway. But that's a different argument.
Spartacus
Veteran
Even though it's just a guessing game, I can't believe that anyone thinks a 2000$ AF200 will come, just because Pana has a popular MFT with a clunky XLR add-on.
Their larger-sensor marketshare basically is non existent. Yeah, there are some AF100 diehards and yeah The Raid was shot on it.
They are competing in a highly saturated market now and they have no legacy besides the Varicam brand from 2/3" days.
The VaricamS35 is the attempt to establish that brand again, for the "cine" market.
The GH4/5/6 cater to the indie crowed.
What´s left is the possible sales volumes of the owner/operators C300/FS7 market.
So, a new AF for 2000$?
Their larger-sensor marketshare basically is non existent. Yeah, there are some AF100 diehards and yeah The Raid was shot on it.
They are competing in a highly saturated market now and they have no legacy besides the Varicam brand from 2/3" days.
The VaricamS35 is the attempt to establish that brand again, for the "cine" market.
The GH4/5/6 cater to the indie crowed.
What´s left is the possible sales volumes of the owner/operators C300/FS7 market.
So, a new AF for 2000$?
I was looking at it from Panasonic's point of view. I am sure shooters will want a $1,700 camera ... with the Alexa 6K IQ and workflow.
And that's the camera Samsung should make (sensor size aside) as an upscaled NX-1, if not for $1,700, then for $3,000 or so.
Going back to the $1,700, Panasonic will have to come up with the product that won't compete on features - and, I assume, form - with GH4 MK II/GH-5. And they have to avoid bumping into their most recent 4K camcorder in HC-X1000 ($3,500). So, I suspect it will be something based on LS-100 (4/3" sensor, 4K internal, fixed 24-75mm F1.7/2.8 lens, $899 MSRP). The next question centers on what would justify the additional $800 price tag. Here, I go with a higher quality lens, something close to Sony RX-10 (24-200mm F2.8, $998) but slightly stripped of features, compared to X-1000 - say, void of XLR's, some stabilization, a camera remote, 60p, etc. Most importantly, the price of this camera won't be known until it hits the market, so not to scupper the X-1000 sales.
Everything is prone to change, obviously, should a major competitor (not Black Magic Design) beat them to the punch with similar features and in the same range. One has to assume that Sony and Canon won't be sitting idly and JVC already has its lineup released for the upcoming CES.
An early model to beat then is Sony AX-100 ($1,798 currently), which came out in the spring of 2014, and soon-to-be released JVC HM-170 (1/2.3, 24p UHD at 150 Mbps in H.264, $2,495) and HM-200, which adds XLR's and a few other features for $500 more.
It's amusing to see people (I don't mean DLD) who cannot see where the trend lines are leading, even when it's as clear as day. The trend line is "more tech for less money" - it's been true for cameras for all these years we've been on these boards. Why do people imagine that somehow we've reached "peak camera" and now the trend lines will stop or reverse themselves? You are looking at 40% drops in price/performance per year, minimum without any heroics and revolutions in the marketplace - and I'm not even talking about left-field entrants like BM. That $8000 camera can be made and marketed for $1700, it's just a question of time. The only thing in dispute is how soon it will happen. My entire argument is that Panasonic is sorely lacking in this space (Varicam aside) and if they want to re-assert being a player in this space, they need something radical - not your usual 40% per year that's true for the industry average. If they don't, they won't be able to compete with Sony. That's why they need to deliver on the $1700 and upend the game. If you can't get a better position with the way the board is, you flip the board over and set different rules, or watch slowly getting strangled and rendered irrelevant. We will one day - no question - get that $1700 fully featured pro cam. When? Panasonic should answer: $1700 - AF200 - 18 months. If they don't, they may as well give up on that space altogether.
Bassman2003
Veteran
By their actions, they might have already given up participating in this space. Large companies only operate where they are profitable unless they see a marketing upside. But grabbing market share in a sinking market ($1,700 pro camera) sounds like one a company might want to avoid anyway.
gkantziper
Esteemed Member
I am pretty sure most can see the trend. The problem is that it is sort of like a curve in baseball - it's very difficult to anticipate where it's going to be along the way.
For BMD, this is/was an easier task. They just packed as much tech as they could and went forward without worrying where their product fit in the grand marketing scheme. But everyone else has to figure out where to set their chess pieces. In general, the double-the-price scheme works fairly well. The only catch is that no one ahead of time knows the "sweet spot" that will have the most appeal and thus the greater profits. Recent home runs were Alexa, C-300, FS-700, A7s, BMD PC and GH-4 but they were a lot of other units that were either moderately or only marginally successful. And some were outright failures.
And that's only speaking for the individual models, as ranked by total sales. Major manufacturers have to think about a 10-20 model lineup and they have to maximize total profits, not just the orders for a particular "member of the team".
So, to come back to $1,700 price point - I'd say, in 2015, it will be a camera selling for $2,500 today.
Within a couple of years, the most recognized pro names on the list will be packaging lenses and cameras a la their entry level brethren because the cost of the electronics will fall so drastically, there'll be hardly any profit margin left in them. Just look at any electronics business - TV, stereo, computers. The money is great at the beginning of a product cycle but are negligible toward its end.
Last edited:
Yes, that's absolutely true. We can all see the trend in principle - it's regarding the SPEED we may differ from OldCorpse. I'd also say that in the past the improvements have tended to come more in terms of much improved quality than cost for a camera in a given market sector. But it remains to be seen how much longer that can go on for and then maybe we'll see cost becoming the factor to change.
But it should never be forgotten that for any item there will always be a minimum possible price/unit that can never be bettered by any ramping up of numbers. It's when the volume/price graphs start to show lower that realism has to set in.
If one follows the minimum price point - not counting smart phones - for the 4K acquisition, then just over the last two years, it went from $13,000 with 1D C to $1,700 GH-4 and now to $900 with LS-100 and FZ-1000. Granted, it's not apples for apples but, when BMD released their 2.5K Raw Cinema Camera for $3,000 in 2012, it was heralded as a breakthrough in the value department.
The problem with the image acquisition market - unlike the computers, as an example - is that the 4K video approaches its end (aka retina) quality on very large size screen and, while from a pure technological perspective, one can already find a 16K/133 MPX sensor, it's essentially of no benefit to the consumer, enthusiast, ENG and pro video markets. It's needed for the military and the astronomy but those are relatively isolated from the individual shooters.
Even high ISO/low light images are virtually tapped out with A-7s. There's room for higher dynamic range and frame rate and, once those are fought over, it's a race to the bottom.
PS. I am old enough to remember VCR's selling for well over $1,200 in the early 1980's. The last one I bought was around 2004 and I paid $50 for it at Best Buy. These days, they're a collector's item, which is the path for cameras and camcorders as well.
PPS. I compare sensors more to the car engines. These days one can purchase a sports car with a 310 HP engine for under $30,000 in the US. In that regard, power has become a commodity that is approaching virtual meaningless beyond Corvette's 455 HP. In other words, whereas in the previous generations, engine was a major variable in car's price on all levels, nowadays one can buy a supercar for under $60,000. Obviously, there are some practically one-off models that run over $1,000,000 and have over 1,000 HP but, for basic intents and purposes, the extra money spent for the likes of Ferrari and Bugatti buy very little in terms of actual driving experience with a possible exception of a race track.
Last edited:
More food for thought - the total number of smart phones (i.e., those with cameras and other features) has gone from 100 million in 2008 to over 800 million in 2013 globally while their photo/video sensor have gone up from 4-5 MPX to over 40 (albeit the average has gone up to around 13). Meanwhile the photo/video camera shipments are expected to shrink to about 40% of their 120 million unit high of 2009. The point-and-shoot (low end of the camera market) is basically dead and Sony is surely squeezing down the APC niche with their A6000 ($600, including the 16-50 F3.5/5.6 kit lens). As I recall, a year ago, Nikon D7100 camera with a kit lens was about $1,500. Even medium format has become affordable for many more shooters, with a 50 MPX Pentax 645Z selling for $8,500 rather than a $20,000-$40,000 Hasseblad 50 MPX unit. Furthermore, there are a ton of rumors of upcoming Sony and Canon 46-50 MPX full frame models that are likely to sell for under $4,000.
And, just out of curiosity, I went on Best Buy's site last night and found Full HD camcorders for under $100. First series of HD camcorders were only introduced around 2006 and pro versions were in the $5,000 area.
And, just out of curiosity, I went on Best Buy's site last night and found Full HD camcorders for under $100. First series of HD camcorders were only introduced around 2006 and pro versions were in the $5,000 area.
Again, I think that a $1700 "fully-featured professional large-sensor camera" can very realistically come out mid-late 2016 (announced NAB 2016). I would like it to be Panasonic AF200. But someone surely can - it may be some traditional cam maker like JVC (though I'm not generally thrilled with JVC), or it may be someone from left field like the BM of old, but it's fully realistic. Heck, maybe even Samsung, who has not played in this space at all. As DLD points out, the price/performance in the consumer space has seen an incredible trend line over the last 2 years alone - there is no reason why we can't see the same from the pro space in the next 1.5 - 2 years. It's enough time for f.ex. Samsung to make a dedicated video chip based on the same tech as they did in their NX 1. And the electronics available in the second half of 2016 will be miles ahead of what's possible today. I cannot see what the hangup would be technically - it's entirely a question of market positioning, and for that, it needs some company to decide to seize the initiative, either because they want to dominate, or want to break into this space. I really wish it was Panasonic, because I like their products.
filmguy123
Veteran
ooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
we hear you
Yup it COULD happen. It's possible.
But no matter how many times you keep posting it, it doesn't make it more likely or more realistic. It will entirely depend on business strategy, competition, etc. and none of us know what that will hold in the coming years. Just because a company CAN make something cheaper does not mean they will or should from a business POV. Competition, economies of scale, etc. will pretty much be the main thing that dictates that.
Please remember you +1'ed me earlier, I'm in agreeance of tech improvement and prices dropping. But let's move on and bring the conversation back to what we want to see in a new, non-GH4, Panasonic M43 / S35 camera. That's what this thread is suppose to be about. The ONLY thing we know for sure about their pricing is that they will price it to both maximize their profit and their competitive advantage. End of story. Posting 50 more times what you think is possible or what they will do will do absolutely nothing to impact their market analysis of this.
FWIW, I like most people want the camera to be as affordable as possible. I don't care about differentiating my skill by amount of $$$ sunk into gear, I just care about being the best at what I do.
we hear you
Yup it COULD happen. It's possible.
But no matter how many times you keep posting it, it doesn't make it more likely or more realistic. It will entirely depend on business strategy, competition, etc. and none of us know what that will hold in the coming years. Just because a company CAN make something cheaper does not mean they will or should from a business POV. Competition, economies of scale, etc. will pretty much be the main thing that dictates that.
Please remember you +1'ed me earlier, I'm in agreeance of tech improvement and prices dropping. But let's move on and bring the conversation back to what we want to see in a new, non-GH4, Panasonic M43 / S35 camera. That's what this thread is suppose to be about. The ONLY thing we know for sure about their pricing is that they will price it to both maximize their profit and their competitive advantage. End of story. Posting 50 more times what you think is possible or what they will do will do absolutely nothing to impact their market analysis of this.
FWIW, I like most people want the camera to be as affordable as possible. I don't care about differentiating my skill by amount of $$$ sunk into gear, I just care about being the best at what I do.
combatentropy
Veteran
I disagree. I think Panasonic and the rest listen to us.
I think OldCorpse is trying to persuade us to ask for the the best price for a given product. It is surprising that he has to say this. Instead, for some odd reason, a great deal of people here play seller's advocate. They defend the seller for charging as much as they can, even for tiering their products.
"The seller is going to sell it for as much as they can get away with," they say, but they don't mention the other side of the coin, "The buyer will pay as little as they can." It's very odd, considering which side we're on.
I can understand defending a company's need to stay afloat. We should not ask for a price that we think is less than the cost. However, stop defending the intentional crippling of products to fit them into a tier.
Also, cost is flexible. There is enormous inefficiency in large companies. I've worked within three, and it will absolutely floor you how much money they waste on bureaucracy. I've seen several examples of millions of dollars paid for software for which there is a free alternative and for employees who do very little. Big companies move slowly. People don't push to change things, because you could get fired if it doesn't work out.
I don't think that the noise from an Internet forum will affect the price much, but it is absolutely counterproductive to stand behind manufacturers for their current prices and to try to silence those here who call for better prices.
If someone calls for a price you think is too low, just be silent. Let it lie. If you argue, you're only going to get him to repeat himself over and over anyway. Just let it lie, and move on.
I think OldCorpse is trying to persuade us to ask for the the best price for a given product. It is surprising that he has to say this. Instead, for some odd reason, a great deal of people here play seller's advocate. They defend the seller for charging as much as they can, even for tiering their products.
"The seller is going to sell it for as much as they can get away with," they say, but they don't mention the other side of the coin, "The buyer will pay as little as they can." It's very odd, considering which side we're on.
I can understand defending a company's need to stay afloat. We should not ask for a price that we think is less than the cost. However, stop defending the intentional crippling of products to fit them into a tier.
Also, cost is flexible. There is enormous inefficiency in large companies. I've worked within three, and it will absolutely floor you how much money they waste on bureaucracy. I've seen several examples of millions of dollars paid for software for which there is a free alternative and for employees who do very little. Big companies move slowly. People don't push to change things, because you could get fired if it doesn't work out.
I don't think that the noise from an Internet forum will affect the price much, but it is absolutely counterproductive to stand behind manufacturers for their current prices and to try to silence those here who call for better prices.
If someone calls for a price you think is too low, just be silent. Let it lie. If you argue, you're only going to get him to repeat himself over and over anyway. Just let it lie, and move on.
Last edited:
First series of clues will come shortly at the CES'15, which is three weeks away. That's where we'll see the consumer and enthusiast level cameras- may see some pros too, as the prices seem to merge on their way downward - along with the companies marketing strategies.
The next major photo-video show is CP+ in February. That's also a consumer/enthusiast product type of a meet but, if there are new APC mirrorless/SLR 4K cameras for under $1K, then it will certainly put pressure on the overall price level.
Off the rumors circulating around the net, Sony A7000 and Nikon 7200 should be the pair to follow. Their full feature set is unknown at this time but the presence of in-body 4K recording is strongly hinted.
Shipping will be $60,000, however.