AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

harddrive said:
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?
Click to expand...

My quibble with this isn't that you're wrong, it's that Panasonic is in the unique position to do both with the same camera. A mythical AF200 will need a mount of some sort. JVC is apparently able to put an S35 sensor in an m4/3 mount, and with proper adapters still use S35 glass. Why can't Panasonic do the same? Go crop mode for m4/3 glass. Realistically, that means losing 4k. But honestly, if the trade-off is 1080p with S35 size pixels, I'm more than okay with that. If a client demands 4k 10bit 4:2:2 (which, if this mythical camera has AVC-Ultra, it would have), I'm more than happy to bill them accordingly and rent S35 glass. Or shoot on my GH4 for 8bit 4K. Plus, an m4/3 mount means it will be easy to adapt almost any sized lens to the camera.

Boom. Panasonic more or less makes everyone happy (except for OldCorpse :))
 
Mike Harvey said:
My quibble with this isn't that you're wrong, it's that Panasonic is in the unique position to do both with the same camera. A mythical AF200 will need a mount of some sort. JVC is apparently able to put an S35 sensor in an m4/3 mount, and with proper adapters still use S35 glass. Why can't Panasonic do the same?
Click to expand...
There's no (technical) reason at all - and it would be my best guess - I did say "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!"
Mike Harvey said:
Go crop mode for m4/3 glass. Realistically, that means losing 4k. But honestly, if the trade-off is 1080p with S35 size pixels, I'm more than okay with that.
Click to expand...
The question is..... will everybody else be? It may indeed suit those with existing 4/3 lenses who are happy with 1080p at the moment, but even then will it be adequate 1080? Remember you need more than 1920x1080 photosites in a single chip design to get true 1080 - I'll let others do the lens coverage maths.

That doesn't mean it's performance would be at all compromised in s35 mode - but it does make any long term investment in 4/3 glass look far riskier, at least for dedicated video work. Hence I see the split between "true" video going down the s35 route, and 4/3 being increasingly the preserve of what are fundamentally stills cameras (as the GH4) - even if used in video mode.

What I don't see happening is any chip being purpose designed for any such AF200, and if it did, don't imagine you'll buy it for under $2,000! They've already got the Varicam and GH4 chipsets, far more viable to use one of those.
 
The problem of using existing chipsets is the perceived value of that chipset. If they plunk the GH4 chip in a $5,000 AF-200 folks will feel short changed. If they plunk the Varicam chip inside folks who paid up for the Varicam are going to feel shortchanged. And they will have to "cripple" the AF-200. Panasonic does not have enough models on the market to put out an in-between camera. They need to nail this or people will just groan and move on.

The longer they wait, the better (and cheaper) it has to be...
 
Mike Harvey said:
Go crop mode for m4/3 glass. Realistically, that means losing 4k. But honestly, if the trade-off is 1080p with S35 size pixels
Click to expand...

harddrive said:
will it be adequate 1080? Remember you need more than 1920x1080 photosites in a single chip design to get true 1080
Click to expand...

Do the math. Forums would be easier to read if people used Google and a calculator first.

Image sensor sizes:
S35: 24.89 x 14 mm
4/3: 17.3 x 13 mm


What would happen if you cropped a 4K S35 sensor to 4/3 mode?
S35 ÷ 4/3
= 24.89 ÷ 17.3
= 1.44

4,000 pixels ÷ 1.44 = 2,778 pixels. So you would have a 2.778K camera in 4/3 crop mode.

But wait, there's more!

Saying that the 4/3 crop mode would be 17.3 x 13 mm is a naive copy-and-paste of the 4/3 spec. 17.3 x 13 has a 4:3 aspect ratio. What's important for your 4/3 lenses is the diagonal. The diagonal of 4/3 is 22mm. So all 4/3 lenses cast a circle that adequately covers a 22mm diagonal. So as long as your rectangular image sensor fits within a 22mm circle, your 4/3 lenses will cover it.

So, using a little more advanced math (a[SUP]2[/SUP] + b[SUP]2[/SUP] = c[SUP]2[/SUP]), you will find that all of these rectangles have a diagonal of 22mm:

Want an aspect ratio of:Your 22mm rectangle is:
4:317.3 x 13
16:919.2 x 10.8
1.85:119.35 × 10.46
2:119.68 × 9.84

So for 16:9, the ratio between S35 and 4/3 is 24.89 ÷ 19.2, which is 1.3.
4K ÷ 1.3 = 3.07K.
So your 4/3 crop mode would really be 3K.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
The problem of using existing chipsets is the perceived value of that chipset. If they plunk the GH4 chip in a $5,000 AF-200 folks will feel short changed. If they plunk the Varicam chip inside folks who paid up for the Varicam are going to feel shortchanged.........
Click to expand...
That's assuming you tell people what you've done...... In practice you don't. You just use lots of words like "superlative performance", " breaking new boundaries" etc and keep facts to a minimum.

And sorry for my laziness with the maths - I did pose it as a question though! I agree with what you say. In 16:9 crop mode, the 3840 goes down to a little under 3,000 - so yes, should be fine for 1080.
 
True, but in reality, I don't want my $5000 AF-200 "video camera" to have a "stills camera" designed chip in it. Maybe they can work some magic but a was shown with the AF-100, people saw through the smoke. VDSLRs are getting better and better but they still represent compromise in some ways. I don't want to pay $3000 for ergonomics if the image is not refined. I also think they need an internal path for native EF lenses (s35 chip or accessory for great success.
 
In many ways the AF100 is my favorite all-time camera to use - sadly chroma clipping drove me away. Here're my takes on this discussion, being one who pleaded for an "AF200" two years ago before switching to a C100.

1) MFT glass is dirt cheap compared to many other lens choices, so who cares if you need to switch later? In my case I bought a Pocket Camera and those lenses are still working for me - but it could be a a Panasonic G camera, or keep the AF - everyone needs a backup or "glove compartment" camera anyway.

2) Okay, so now with the Canon I've got cash invested in EF lenses too. Well, those things seems to be adaptable to almost everything, including MFT with a speedbooster that makes them even better.

3) Already many with the AF100 are using adapted Nikon, Canon FD and Leica-R lenses. If Pansonic makes an AF200 with MFT, everything still works. If not, those vinatage still lenses can be adapted to another mount (I use my Leica-R lenses on my C100 and they look terrific).

So - Dear Panasonic, please consider an upgrade of the AF100 - use any mount or chip you deem feasible as long as it is capable of delivering a professional image - and, in that regard, as I wrote many times here 2 years ago - fix the damned chroma clipping!
 
Last edited:
True, but in reality, I don't want my $5000 AF-200 "video camera" to have a "stills camera" designed chip in it. Maybe they can work some magic but a was shown with the AF-100, people saw through the smoke. VDSLRs are getting better and better but they still represent compromise in some ways. I don't want to pay $3000 for ergonomics if the image is not refined.

But that's just the point - if Panasonic can't deliver an $1700 video camera, then how are they getting the DSLR crowd? They already have the GH4 for that price. Now they need a dedicated video camera - it's just a different kind of camera with a different feature set, but both can be delivered for the same price. Look at the AC90a, it's $1900, bring it up to feature parity with the FS7, drop the lens, save a ton of money and put it into a video-dedicated m4/3 chip. The $1700 AF200 won't be the best stills camera, but the $1700 GH4 is not the world's best video camera. Each has a different orientation, but both can have the same price. And the "making me look like a pro", so what? It's about professionalism. If pros are willing to sacrifice their "image" and buy a $1700 cam instead of shelling out $10K and such prices for gear, then don't cripple them with an inferior camera! I'm willing to take the reputational hit and buy for $1700, but I don't want a crippled camera, otherwise that's just $1700 wasted. The breakthrough has to be along price/performance - anybody can deliver a poor quality cam for cheap money, that's not an accomplishment. For Panasonic to stand out, they must deliver FS7 or better quality for $1700 - obviously not now, but next year, as the world of electronics moves very fast in the price/performance metric. I'm willing to sacrifice and buy for $1700 - is Panasonic forward looking enough to step up to the plate? It's completely doable - expand the market - but you need to be able to think outside the box, question is, does Panasonic have what it takes to break out of the old way of thinking, it's a new market, hopefully they can adjust and thrive in this new environment. $1700 FTW!
 
I do not agree with your $1,700 price tag. It is internet forum fodder from a company's perspective. Why chase "cheap" customers? They will be on to the next thing in a short while anyway. This camera will be $3,500 - $5,000 if it ever shows up. The PX-270 is over $5,000. You are paying for image quality, not hardware and they will never cheapen the P2 line with a $1,700 camera.
 
We'll see. It's either that, or go the way of the dodo. Of course, IQ is important, nobody said otherwise, but at a price. Can't tell you how many cams that cost a fortune are worthless today, and whole market segments have gone away. I think the $1700 cams are the future, and you adjust or you die. Given how much you can already get for $1700, it's just a matter of time and not a lot of time.
 
There's potential value of a stratification like they did with the AC130/160/HPX250 line... all essentially the same camera at three price points with slightly different capability:
- 130 at the 'prosumer' level, largely bare-bones
- 160 adding HDSDI and other pro bits
- 250 with full P2ness

Canon pulled approximately the same thing with the C100/300/500, and Sony with the FS100/700/7 and F5/55/65, after all.

So maybe OldCorpse's ~$1700, bare-bones C100-esque video-only, without the GH4's glitchy timecode, HDMI-only, SDXC, internal-4:2:0 version, maybe re-using the GH4's EVF/LCD. In that form, it makes sense.
Then a midrange Professional model sporting Micro P2, 3GSDI, AVC-Ultra or other 4:2:2... around $5000, your potential C300/FS7 analog.
Then an upper-level Pro model which would essentially be a mini-S35 Varicam... not a cam to rob from the Varicam range, but offer some of the core Varicam capabilities in a smaller, less expensive package... leaving off some of the very nice but expensive to implement Varicam features... your potential C500/F5/55 analog.
Then the Ultra-Pro Varicam models, which they already have.

It would fill out their ecosystem to make a full Panasonic gear set a realistic possibility, something we haven't really seen since HVX/HPX days. I don't know if any of those stratification schemes worked out financially for any of the companies involved, of course... and if that's what a cam system buyer is after, why switch to the latecomer unless they offer something really compelling (and the VariCam rather is, IMO)
 
mcbob is exactly correct: "why switch to the latecomer unless they offer something really compelling" and the AF200 is way late to the game. AF100 started out early and got a lot of loyal users, but Panasonic needed to quickly ramp up the feature set and quality, but instead they fell behind. Now to scramble back up, they need to start with a low price point. The stratification mcbob outlined is good - with one caveat, that the "pro" features from higher level cams in time drift down to the "basic bare bones" cam, and very quickly, like within a year or two (which is what Sony has been doing).
 
mcbob said:
There's potential value of a stratification like they did with the AC130/160/HPX250 line... all essentially the same camera at three price points with slightly different capability:
- 130 at the 'prosumer' level, largely bare-bones
- 160 adding HDSDI and other pro bits
- 250 with full P2ness

Canon pulled approximately the same thing with the C100/300/500, and Sony with the FS100/700/7 and F5/55/65, after all.

So maybe OldCorpse's ~$1700, bare-bones C100-esque video-only, without the GH4's glitchy timecode, HDMI-only, SDXC, internal-4:2:0 version, maybe re-using the GH4's EVF/LCD. In that form, it makes sense.
Then a midrange Professional model sporting Micro P2, 3GSDI, AVC-Ultra or other 4:2:2... around $5000, your potential C300/FS7 analog.
Then an upper-level Pro model which would essentially be a mini-S35 Varicam... not a cam to rob from the Varicam range, but offer some of the core Varicam capabilities in a smaller, less expensive package... leaving off some of the very nice but expensive to implement Varicam features... your potential C500/F5/55 analog.
Then the Ultra-Pro Varicam models, which they already have.

It would fill out their ecosystem to make a full Panasonic gear set a realistic possibility, something we haven't really seen since HVX/HPX days. I don't know if any of those stratification schemes worked out financially for any of the companies involved, of course... and if that's what a cam system buyer is after, why switch to the latecomer unless they offer something really compelling (and the VariCam rather is, IMO)
Click to expand...

True, but.....Canon and Sony do not charge $1700 for any of their mentioned cameras. So
not sure if that will be done or not. $1700 seems to be a DSLR price point. Yes, I know about
Black Magic's pocket camera offering. I am thinking of a camera which has a big sensor, NDs,
XLRs and so on. What is the cheapest one of that type of camera? Probably the AF100 and its
more than $1700. Not saying they couldn't do it, in just not so sure they will, it's not like
everyone else is selling that type of cam for $1700.
 
it's not like everyone else is selling that type of cam for $1700.

That's why it's an opportunity to break out for Panasonic - the entire point. The only company that even made a nod in that direction has been Black Magic, but they have still been catering to the DSLR crowd (at least until recently), and Panasonic has a chance to do that with a no-apologies full-on dedicated pro video cam - WOW! It would totally shake up the market, they'd become a leader in the segment and have a chance down the road of moving people up to higher level cams for more money. But they gotta keep the entry point affordable, a bit like what macbob suggested, though with more pro features. It's a total opportunity, if Panasonic were bold enough!
 
alaskacameradude said:
it's not like everyone else is selling that type of cam for $1700.
Click to expand...
Black Magic MFT. It's been done, in the same sensor crop as Panny's GH4 4K mode. Specs aren't that far off - TRS vs. XLR, and of course the Raw recording. Add in the 4K and higher frame rates that the GH4 has, plus usability features... I'd trade raw capability for NDs, decent handling, and reliability any day, and so would a lot of others, I reckon.

Vs. the GH4, I'd gladly trade any photo capability for full internal power, NDs, and well-integrated XLRs for most work.

Granted, in my next camera I'll absolutely need 4:2:2 and HDSDI, so a camera like that wouldn't fit my bill, but it well might for a wide swath of folks that find themselves between DSLR and BM lands.
 
Way back in the 2000s, you remember, 4 years ago, this discussion raved on and on with no satisfaction. Why? Panisonic's profit issues for one.

But the main reason was, and I assume still is, that the AF100 comes from the Broadcast Division, not the Consumer Division. The Broadcast Division was doing very well, thank you very much, because they provided cameras to TV stations and the likes of NFL Films. They produced the HPX500 (I had one unfortunately, lost out there) - and then the HPX250 and the 270 for the low-end folks without the mega-budgets. Those low-end cameras are over 5 grand.

All of the rants from those wanting a sub-$2000 camera are falling on deaf ears because the Broadcast Division does not need to produce in mass market numbers to survive - and in fact may be turning them off to the idea. I say make an AF200 at the price that reflects the more limited market and I'll buy one. I paid over 5 for my C100 and it paid for itself in three months... That's what "professional" gear is supposed to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top