AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

David W. Jones said:
Oh c'mon, if 2 people can announce a rumor, I can announce it DOA.
Click to expand...

Lol :happy:

I think an m4/3 mount would be quite popular... if they can stick an S35 sensor in there and make it work (which, if JVC is doing it, it must be possible), but keep an m4/3 crop mode, all while putting it in what is basically a PX270 body with AVC-Intra while keeping it in the $5,000 range, it would be a huge hit. There's a lot of m4/3 glass out there, and the GH4 is proving to be quite popular... I have a hard time seeing Panasonic wanting to shut out those of us invested in the m4/3 line.

I have a hard time seeing them keep 4k in such a fabled m4/3 crop mode... but if the trade off was the larger pixels of an S35 sensor for 1080p, I'm more than okay with that. If I ever needed 4k, I can either use my GH4 or rent glass.
 
dcloud said:
only way it can compete is if it has FS7 specs at $4500
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it still compete even if it had FS7 specs and were priced at $6500 - $7900? Not trying to be a smart a$$, just curious as to why people think it should be valued so much less than the FS7 if it can deliver similar results in the field and in post-production.
 
vicrattlehead said:
Wouldn't it still compete even if it had FS7 specs and were priced at $6500 - $7900? Not trying to be a smart a$$, just curious as to why people think it should be valued so much less than the FS7 if it can deliver similar results in the field and in post-production.
Click to expand...

Only if it had the S35 sensor and crop mode for M43 like some people have mentioned. In my earlier post I mentioned what I saw in the Apertus Axiom indiegogo campaign. Given the choice of S35 or M43 with similar specs and for similar prices, people chose S35 over M43 by 300 or 400 to 1.
 
If it has the same capability as the FS7 then it's fair to have the same price, if fact, the fs7 is so under priced that it can even get away with a higher price. Look how the C300 is selling even right now, it's not just about a spec list.

Anyway I believe an AF200 would not exceed 6 thousand US dollars. It would have a m43s sensor, it's the system they're invested in and the lenses their customers own, it's highly unlike they give it a different sensor and mount. It will probably have the GH4 sensor, but with the ability to do higher frame rates and record to a 10 bit codec internally. Plus of cousrse all the camcorder usability advantages. This has the potential of being a very good competitor.
 
Honestly, I think Panasonic should make a bold move. They are late in coming with the AF100 successor, and if they want to shake up the industry and get everyone's attention, they need to do something that will get people to stop everything and LOOK. I think, they should price the AF200 at $1700. That would get people to fall off their chairs and it is totally realistic. Yes, they won't have much of a profit margin, but this is not about profit, this is about mindshare. Grab the mindshare and profit will follow - get it back on lenses (new lenses, particularly wide, fast and stabilized are sorely needed) and in other ways. But bodies are disposable and obsolete very fast - in that scenario, who wants to drop $10K every 1-2 years... that's not sustainable. So price it accordingly to disposable - I say it should be $1700.00. If Panasonic were to do that, they'd gain a lot of respect and loyalty of a ton of indies, it would also steal away from the DSLR crowd, people would flock. I say, $1700 - do you hear that Panasonic? The prices bandied about are for the birds - real revolution starts at $1700. People think it's all about specs. It is not. Revolutions are made very often by the price point alone - we've seen that in both hardware and in software. Not higher than $1700. Think big, Panasonic, open your minds - $1700. That right there is a road to success! $1700, and not a penny more! One more time: $1700!
 
OldCorpse said:
Honestly, I think Panasonic should make a bold move. They are late in coming with the AF100 successor, and if they want to shake up the industry and get everyone's attention, they need to do something that will get people to stop everything and LOOK. I think, they should price the AF200 at $1700.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that it will kill their profit margin on the GH4 as well, and something tells me they won't make it back on glass. I mean, there is a logic to it... more people with m4/3 glass means more demand for m4/3 cameras. But glass will outlast a good camera, and if an AF200 were $1,700, so then would an AF300 and AF400. No one is then going to go out and buy a new 35 - 100mm X lens for each new model of camera. Not only would they not make any money on future versions, but it would kill the GH line of cameras.

Keeping it under $5k while incorporating AVC-Intra (remember, AVC-LongG can be recorded to SD cards and is 10bit 4:2:2), incorporating the new V-Log profile from the Varicams, while retaining the m4/3 mount seems like a winner to me. It sets it apart from the GH line, but doesn't hurt the Varicams. And it's a much better bang for your buck than the Cannon C series or Sony FS7.
 
Shenan said:
After seeing the response to the various sensor options that were offered in the recent Apertus Axiom indiegogo offering, I feel like Micro 4/3 may be a bit of a dead end when it comes to dedicated video cameras. Unfortunately you can't see it now, but when I last looked a few days before it closed, the Axiom with the S35 sensor had "sold" 300 or 400 units, while the M43 option had "sold" 1 (one!) unit.
Click to expand...

The 4/3 sensor also had far lower frame rates and dynamic range (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/axiom-beta-the-first-open-digital-cinema-camera).

On the flip side, the "S35" sensor is actually halfway between S35 and 4/3, with a crop factor of nearly 1.8.
 
Last edited:
Mike Harvey said:
The only problem is that it will kill their profit margin on the GH4 as well, and something tells me they won't make it back on glass. I mean, there is a logic to it... more people with m4/3 glass means more demand for m4/3 cameras. But glass will outlast a good camera, and if an AF200 were $1,700, so then would an AF300 and AF400. No one is then going to go out and buy a new 35 - 100mm X lens for each new model of camera. Not only would they not make any money on future versions, but it would kill the GH line of cameras.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "it'll kill their GH4 sales", not profit margin, because they're selling the GH4 at that price right now, and obviously must be making a profit, so that's not affected by a $1700 AF200. And you may be right that it would affect their GH4 sales, but I was thinking of a different scenario - a $1700 AF200 would bring DSLR folks from other platforms, more than leech away from the GH4, because - as we can see even on dvxuser boards - a ton of folks use their GH4 as more than a video cam, with photography as an important element, plus there are still some differentiating factors like the GH4 will always be smaller than any AF cam. Anyhow, I'm thinking a super affordable AF200 would bring a TON of people to the platform - from Sony and Canon, so cannibalizing the GH line should not be a big problem. And more people means more lens sales. Basically, you're expanding the market - plus it works the other way too, because once you have the lenses, you'll keep buying bodies and other accessories because now they're part of a system. Obviously, someone would have to do some marketing research to see if the cost/benefit of such a move would pay off or not, but I strongly suspect that it would. And also, I'd rather pay $1700, than $4500 (although I realize there are many who want pro gear to cost more to weed out the irritating amateurs).
 
I'd personally rather they just send me a camera in exchange for a heartfelt thank-you letter... or maybe they could send me a heart-felt thank you letter for sticking with the AF100 for so very very long.

Make it look good, make it inexpensive, make it professional... no 4:2:0 8bit, no blown highlights, no $8K, no glitchy timecode, no weird-ass half-baked add-ons, useable EVF and minimal rolling shutter. They've got the tech, they just need to put it in one box.
 
Please, please let there be a true AF100 successor announced at NAB. I've been waiting patiently for this and I really don't want to abandon m4/3. I am a true lover of the system and will stick with it if Panasonic can get it right.
 
OldCorpse said:
... a $1700 AF200 would bring DSLR folks from other platforms, more than leech away from the GH4, because - as we can see even on dvxuser boards - a ton of folks use their GH4 as more than a video cam, with photography as an important element...
Click to expand...

I don't know man... it seems like a lot of DSLR shooters see camcorders as dated and not quite to the quality of DSLR cameras. Many of them see built in features like XLR inputs, waveform monitor and ND filters as consumer oriented... I know crazy right? I do wonder what it would take to lure those folks away from the familiarity of rigged out stills cameras, to proper video recorders.

Shawn
 
OldCorpse said:
I think you mean "it'll kill their GH4 sales", not profit margin
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. My bad. Should have been paying more attention.

but I was thinking of a different scenario - a $1700 AF200 would bring DSLR folks from other platforms, more than leech away from the GH4, because - as we can see even on dvxuser boards - a ton of folks use their GH4 as more than a video cam, with photography as an important element, plus there are still some differentiating factors like the GH4 will always be smaller than any AF cam. Anyhow, I'm thinking a super affordable AF200 would bring a TON of people to the platform - from Sony and Canon, so cannibalizing the GH line should not be a big problem. And more people means more lens sales. Basically, you're expanding the market - plus it works the other way too, because once you have the lenses, you'll keep buying bodies and other accessories because now they're part of a system. Obviously, someone would have to do some marketing research to see if the cost/benefit of such a move would pay off or not, but I strongly suspect that it would. And also, I'd rather pay $1700, than $4500
Click to expand...

The problem is that lenses, like a lot of other things, tend to be one time purchases... I'm still using the same sticks and Sennhieser ME66/64 I bought a decade ago. Unless there is a very good reason for me to ditch them, I plan on keeping my 12-35mm X and 35-100mm X for quite some time, as they're quality glass. Plus, an m4/3 mount can be adapted to Canon, Nikon, or Sony glass... so a lot of folks would be coming over with glass already, eliminating (or at least diminishing) the need to buy m4/3 glass.

And as far as photography, a lot of folks who do both will still see the benefit of a GHx. But for me, photography is a neat benefit (and now burgeoning hobby), but not something I can make money on. A lot of folks are buying the GH4 just for video. Those sales would effectively be gone. Not a big deal if the camera they bought instead also turned as good (or better) a profit. But in your scenario, it wouldn't.

I do get what your saying about using it as a loss leader. I just think $1,700 is a bit much of a loss for them to swallow for what they'd get in a benefit. Now, if they charge something like $3,500, I could see that working, as the sales of P2 media coupled with lenses might make it worth it... especially for 4k video. For a lot of folks, 10bit 4:2:2 4k with V-log out of a $3,500 camera would more than justify the cost of investing into P2 (not me personally, but I could see that for a lot of folks).

(although I realize there are many who want pro gear to cost more to weed out the irritating amateurs).
Click to expand...

Cough cough... I don't know what you mean... cough cough

(I just lost a potential client I suspect to one of those irritating amateurs an hour ago based on her comment about my quote being vastly more expensive than what she'd been quoted elsewhere, and I'm relatively inexpensive for this market :huh:).
 
ShawnMi said:
Many of them see built in features like XLR inputs, waveform monitor and ND filters as consumer oriented... I know crazy right?
Click to expand...

:huh: I think my head just exploded.

Well, this IS Seattle, where a lot of people have a lot of crazy ideas... but please tell me you slapped these individuals. Repeatedly. How ANYONE could think XLR's and waveforms and ND filters are consumer oriented, but 3.5 miniplugs and overexposed video isn't is beyond me.

[EDIT] Because that $25,000 HPX-5000 is sooooooooo consumerish. Freakin' hipsters :happy:
 
Last edited:
Well, you may be right - although I have the 12-35 and I'm not super happy with it - the problem is the horrible aperture flicker and also as documented by many people, micro-jitters on video with stabilization engaged. I could do with a better lens. That said, I do hear you. Hard to know how'd it shake out.

Regarding irritating amateurs - there's a guy I know here who screams about this so bad I keep being afraid he'll burst a vein and I'll have to take him to the hospital. Basically his beef is that if the gear is too cheap, all his investment of tens and tens of thousands becomes wasted, because a big part of how he makes a living is by renting himself out and getting paid for his equipment package as well. If a cheap amateur turns up with cheap gear, why hire the pro with all that expensive gear that needs to be paid for. Plus many doofuses don't understand the difference between pro and consumer gear and hire the cheapest package they can get. Sad. On the other hand I keep telling him that times are changing, and a ton of gear that used to be expensive can be gotten for unbelievable prices and is just as good or better than the old pro gear, it's really amazing... I mean look at cameras, since that's what we are discussing, the kind of IQ you can get from a $1700 GH4 is better than you could get from a $20K camera of 5 years ago. If you're hoping that your old gear that you've paid a ton of $ will always guarantee better quality than new $2000 gear that just came out, you're in for a world of hurt. Some things still hold value, like lenses, microphones and the like, but man, it's scary how cheap - and GOOD - a lot of the gear has gotten. Anyway, we're off topic here a bit - I just wanted to stress that $1700 is not completely crazy - electronics has gotten insanely cheap, Moore's law and all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top