AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

Yeah, no kidding. I always swore I would never shoot on an SLR... now I'm moving to the GH4 for a lot of stuff. It's just stupid good. I went to the Art Institute of Seattle '98-'00, and there was a production house across the street when I started. It was gone when I graduated because of Mini-DV. You could get 75% of the quality of Betacam at 10% of the price.

This, ultimately, is why who's behind the camera matters more than the camera itself.
 
For me the decision to go for MFT was always based on the relativ small size of the equipment and - much more though - the possibility to adapt a lot of lenses from different manufacturers plus to have a broad range of native glass at hand.

So - waiting for this one now..... might go well together with an AF 200 ... :-)

http://voigtlaender.com/10,5-mm-f-0,95-nokton.html
 
Mike Harvey said:
: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:
Click to expand...


Ha ha, I wish this attitude was limited to a particular geography! I'm used to my fellow Seattleites being a bit off center... but it seems that for better and for worse, the DSLR movement has really changed the video industry, and maybe in some ways that many of us may not appreciate. I think it used to be widely acknowledged that the use of external preamps and audio recorders were an option for cameras that had inadequate, or nonexistent audio capabilities... or for workflows where it was better to have a dedicated sound person with his/her own mixer and recorder NOT tethered to a camera operator. Now, the prevailing thought seems to be that (all) external audio recorders are just better than the audio built into camcorders (all of them). After all, even the cheap ones can record 24bit 96kHz... compared to camcorders which are only capable of capturing audio at 48kHz 16bit... right? This is not a PoV I share BTW. :-) It also seems to be a common thought among DSLR shooters that any feature which can be found on a camcorder, have better equivalents on external add-ons, so the money you spend on these add-ons; battery packs, recorders (audio and video), rails, etc., are more than worth it, because the low light capabilities and shallow DoF of a DSLR CLEARLY makes it a superior image capture device compared to any "tiny sensor" camcorder. Anecdotally, I was having a conversation about this with someone in my studio last week. Not only was he surprised that I used so much light in my interviews (usually, two four foot, four bank Kinoflos, or two, two bank Divas), but he was surprised that I only use "small sensor" cameras (largest sensor camera in my setup is an AF100)... he also went on to tell me that the 7D is every bit as good (IQ wise) as any of the Red cameras, I don't think this is an uncommon mindset.

So to reiterate, I wonder what it would take to woo DSLR shooters (especially those who favor Canon) from their favorite platform? The hot features at the moment seem to be; 4k recording, crazy low light capture (b'cause, natural lighting) and S35 (which... many DSLR shooters confuse with S135). Oddly, few people seem to want better than 4:2:0 8bit recording though.

Shawn
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
Haaaugh!?
Click to expand...

Yup, true story. Check out the screaming matches on Blackmagic's own cinematography forum. Before the 1.9.7 firmware updates which brought audio meters to the BMD cameras, there were very vocal users who berated anyone as amateurs and hobbyists when they suggested that they wanted to (gasp) record synced audio in camera. Through those conversations, I learned that; a. no professional EVER records audio directly into a video camera (not for anything more than a reference or backup track anyway), b. XLR's on a camcorder are a prosumer feature, like auto white balance and c. the Blackmagic cinema cameras aren't camcorders.... they are cinema cameras - If you want a prosumer device like a handycam (with XLRs), you should look elsewhere. Of course, that was all before audio meters came to BMD cameras and, well URSA. Strangest thing about those er... conversations though is that, when it was pointed out that every other "cinema camera" has XLR inputs and audio meters (Alexa, C500, F55, etc) the prevailing answer was "well, no one actually records audio on them though"....check it out, quite amusing.

EDIT: I should have also pointed out that, with a bit of prodding, most of those vocal users admitted that they had never actually shot on anything but a DSLR before... well, a DSLR or a BMD camera.

Shawn
 
Last edited:
That's why I think it's worth trying to free the DLSR crowd from their misconceptions - once they've tried a dedicated video camera, they'll be converts (except where a small form factor is critical). The sticking point in trying out video cameras, is the price. But if the price is affordable - in the range of the cheaper DSLRs like GH4, about $1700.00, it's worth taking a gamble. You remove price as a barrier, and you've got them. That's my thinking. That's why I think the AF200 should be no more $1700 - and they'll expand the market enormously.
 
ShawnMi said:
I'm used to my fellow Seattleites being a bit off center...
Click to expand...

Like I said, freakin' hipsters... :happy:

I'm always amazed at the "Large sensor is ALWAYS better" mentality. I get it for a lot of things (I mean, I have a AF100 and GH4), but there are some it just doesn't work for. When I was shooting game video for the Sounders FC, I never could have pulled that off with a large sensor camera. And I'm all for natural light as much as possible, and maybe it was too many years in a TV studio, but some of the best shot interviews I've ever seen were well lit with a 2/3" camera... and an operator who knew what the heck he was doing. Natural light won't cut it for a lot of my stuff if it means half the interview subject's face is either over exposed, or the other half is under exposed. And often times, I don't have the luxury of natural light.

The idea that it' more professional to uses externally rigged stuff than internal connections to me shows a lack of understanding of what professional means. Anything that *properly* helps me achieve better results easier should be welcomed, and anything that causes me to have to worker harder for those same results is foolish. It also belies a very insular view of people's various needs, and lack of understanding of the industry (and it many, many facets). I mean, I would love to have some of them tell my former coworkers in TV news that their $20k P2 cameras are amateurish, but that they're rigged stills cameras are proper professional video tools. :)

And OldCorpse, I've been a little out of the loop on the Varicam pricing... the Varicam 35 properly setup is $55,000 MSRP. Considering the mythical AF200 would be on par with the FS7 (which goes for $8k at B&H), something tells me Panasonic could easily sell them for $4,500 and it would do well, without hurting either their products above and below. If people aren't willing to spend $4,500 for 10bit 4:2:2 4k, me thinks Panasonic really doesn't want to cater to them, and is happy to sell them GH4's :)
 
OldCorpse said:
That's why I think it's worth trying to free the DLSR crowd from their misconceptions - once they've tried a dedicated video camera, they'll be converts (except where a small form factor is critical). The sticking point in trying out video cameras, is the price. But if the price is affordable - in the range of the cheaper DSLRs like GH4, about $1700.00, it's worth taking a gamble. You remove price as a barrier, and you've got them. That's my thinking. That's why I think the AF200 should be no more $1700 - and they'll expand the market enormously.
Click to expand...
As much as I like the idea of a $1,700 AF200, it would effectively kill the GH4's YAGH and possible hurt GH4 sales. The YAGH is of interest only to videographers, who most likely would rather buy a camera with a proper video camera form factor for $1,700 rather than an ugly, unwieldy combo (connected via a wimpy HDMI cable) for more than twice that price. Plus the AF100 has built-in ND, which I assume the hypothetical $1,700 AF200 would also, whereas the GH4 doesn't.

I would like to see a better 4K MFT sensor -- global shutter, stacked design, higher dynamic range (maybe dual readout, like the Alexa), and higher 4K frame rates. Put that in a $4,500-6,000 camera with an SSD slot and industry-standard CFast or XQD (instead of P2). And include internal compressed raw output (CineForm RAW, anyone?) for those wishing to torture themselves.
 
Last edited:
Tzedekh said:
As much as I like the idea of a $1,700 AF200, it would effectively kill the GH4's YAGH
Click to expand...
KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!

Great idea, horrible execution.

$1700 is still far less than I'd want to pay for such a camera like this, though, because it would have to skimp on features I need. That HD/3G-SDI alone costs a G or so.
 
I should talk to y'all next time I have something to sell on eBay. "No, you're asking too little. Here's three times what you're asking. It's worth it, after all."

Not that I think big companies regularly stalk our forum, but come on, you're on the air!

Don't you know how to negotiate?

You say the price you want to pay (or a little less). It's the seller's job to meet that price or make a counter-offer.
 
I already said... FS7 size/weight/price x0.7, or ~$5600. Match or exceed FS7 capabilities but with m43, AVC-Ultra, Micro P2. There you go.

If they made some POS VG-30 analog for $1700, I'd be ultra-uninterested.
 
Nobody is talking about a POS, we're talking about getting the FS7 or better equivalent A200 for $1700. It's not about dropping specs and features, it's about dropping the price, but upping the feature set. Now before you freak out, keep in mind two things - they're making fat profits off the GH4 for $1700, but technology is marching forward and the price/performance of electronics is rocketing - literally in a couple of years you are talking multiple-factor price drop vs features. It is totally doable, with a delivery by mid-2015. Point number two - it is always and forever about total profit, which has two major variables, volume and price. If by dropping the price you can explode the volume to the point where the overall profit is higher, then that's what you should do. Panasonic should expand their market as I argue, by pulling in the DSLR crowd. With exploded volume, they can afford to drop the price even more. I don't think Panasonic would be crying if they priced their AF200 (with FS7 or better feature/spec set) at $1700. Be bold, or be gone. Panasonic should challenge the market. And again - personal preference - I'd rather pay $1700 than $4500... I'm not criticizing those who want to pay more, and I totally understand the argument that has been made repeatedly about keeping pro gear expensive enough to keep out the irritating sub-par amateurs of no understanding who give everyone a bad name; all I'm saying is that there are also responsible people, not clueless amateurs, who can fit cheaper gear in their pro package and not destroy the market, and I think that those who can responsibly handle it, should be allowed to pay the lower price of $1700.
 
The FS7 is already a steal for what it offers. I don't think you will get same features for much less within at least a year. I don't believe Canon will undercut it price/feature wise with C200/C400 etc and I don't see panasonic offering more in an AF200 than a GH4 on roids.

I would love to be surprised but I've made my choice to go FS7 and abandon hope fore a great AF200.
 
When all is said and done, once the FS7, AF[n], and Canon C++ are all available, what I'll probably wind up buying is a resulting bargain basement C300 or F5 which should still rent out very well for several more years.

Wait a year, repeat. Man, I'm getting tired of low budget work. Time to raise my rates.
 
Paul F said:
What is that statement based upon?
Click to expand...

Marketing resource allocation. Panasonic has historically been very quick to drop marketing efforts and money for products that don't take off, and pour them on for products that make them money. They've put much more in the GH4 than any of the previous GH series and are clearly enthusiastic.
 
Their audio visual sector lost $74 million last quarter. There is no breakout by division. So there is no way to know how well the GH4 is doing as far as I can tell. Regardless, the AV sector is still bleeding.

Money for development of a niche-market item like an AF200 may still be non-existant. They are doing better. But they may not yet be in a position to spend cash on speculative markets like an AF200. I hope not. I would be very happy to see an AF200. But fat profits are non-existant (sure, they may be making a decent buck on the GH4) and $1700 AF200s is unrealistic for now. Let's hope I eat my words at the next NAB.
 
Last edited:
Right, the AV is doing poorly, but that's why they need to do something to shake out of that trend line. Staying the course will only lead to complete collapse. They should concentrate on breakout products, such as the GH4 and forward thinking designed to break the trendline by a radical move, such as market expanding $1700 AF200 with an extremely desirable feature set. That's what they need - let's see if they can deliver. I personally, would buy an AF200 with a feature sent equivalent to an FS7 for $1700, and I would not be deterred by the competitive price (though again, I understand if others think a higher price point is more beneficial for their situation).
 
Tzedekh said:
I would like to see a better 4K MFT sensor -- global shutter, stacked design, higher dynamic range (maybe dual readout, like the Alexa), and higher 4K frame rates. Put that in a $4,500-6,000 camera with ...........
Click to expand...
Lovely idea - very unlikely to happen.

What is being glossed over in this discussion so far is the cost of developing a sensor from scratch.

The more you then produce, the more that initial cost gets spread over each unit, the more economic it all becomes.

Video and stills have each had their own special requirements, and in the past they have tended to have contradictory elements. Less the case now (with better processors) but still relevant.

In the case of the GHx cameras, the sensor has been designed primarily with still photography in mind - hardly surprising since they are first and foremost stills cameras. They are optimised for stills - not video.

For current pro large sensor 4k video, the industry has primarily gone down the s35 route - and it's for such that sensors have been primarily designed. I can only assume that the market is large enough to make the development viable.

But if such as you ask for - better 4K MFT sensor -- global shutter, stacked design, higher dynamic range (maybe dual readout, like the Alexa), and higher 4K frame rates - was to be developed (especially) how many are likely to get sold? I'd suggest the answer is quite small. They wouldn't be of much use in stills cameras, so you've lost all those economies of scale. And most who want such a dedicated chip are likely to go for those features in s35 format. Yes, it'll be just what a number of people are hoping for - but I doubt that's anything like enough of a number to recoup the chip development costs without it being very expensive - certainly way more than $5,000/unit.

So what is likely to happen? I see two possibilities. Either just use the basic innards of the GH4 in a video centric body, and have the economies of scale of a widely produced still camera sensor. (Which is effectively the same ethos as the AF100 - a GH2 chip with GH1 processing in a video friendly body.)

Or use a "proper" s35 video chip - and Panasonic have developed just such for the Varicam - and package that up in a cheaper form. Which is exactly the principle Sony have followed with the F5 chipset being also used in the FS700.

Which way to go? The former has the advantage of keeping happy those who have invested in 4/3 glass - but it will inevitably be seen as inferior s35 competitors with their "designed for video" chips. And whilst I fully agree that lens investments may be increasingly more important and long term than a single camera body, doesn't that argue in favour of making any such investment s35 compatible? Even if you want to stay with Panasonic, then do you really want to build up a collection of lenses for an AF200 - then as you move on to a Varicam have to start all over again with lenses?

My money would be on Panasonic going the same route as Sony with the F5/FS700. They've got the Varicam sensor - once the Varicam is established, let's give it a little brother!

That's not to say 4/3 will go away - I just don't see it progressing much beyond the GH4 and whatever supercedes that. What I don't see is a video specific sensor being custom designed for 4/3.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. I realise that isn't going to go down well with anyone committed to 4/3, but that's how I realistically see it. It's not to say such a camera won't be able to use 4/3 glass - but is likely to mean such will be in crop mode, so nowhere near 4k resolution.
 
mcbob said:
$1700 is still far less than I'd want to pay for such a camera like this, though, because it would have to skimp on features I need. That HD/3G-SDI alone costs a G or so.
Click to expand...
Well, no, it doesn't. The BMD Cinema Camera is $1,995 and has an approximately MFT-sized sensor and 3G-SDI. Plus it comes with a $995 software package. I just don't think Panasonic would be willing to cannibalize sales of the GH4/YAGH when it could charge substantially more and still significantly undercut the Sony F7.
 
Last edited:
Paul F said:
Their audio visual sector lost $74 million last quarter. There is no breakout by division. So there is no way to know how well the GH4 is doing as far as I can tell. Regardless, the AV sector is still bleeding.

Money for development of a niche-market item like an AF200 may still be non-existant. They are doing better. But they may not yet be in a position to spend cash on speculative markets like an AF200.
Click to expand...
The impression I've got is that the consumer division (including the GH4) is doing far, far better than the pro video division. The latter got some areas of strategy completely wrong - like grossly underestimating how 4k and s35 would take off. After a reorganisation they do seem to have realised the mistakes and are trying to get things right - but the delay must have cost them a lot of money.

That said, there may be SOME money to develop an AF200 - but I strongly doubt whether it will stretch to development of a brand new chip. The logical thing to do is use existing tech as much as possible, and hence what I said before - any such AF200 is likely to either have the GH4 chipset or use that from the Varicam. My bet is on the latter, and hence if an AF200 ever arrives I expect it to be s35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top