AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

mcbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Black Magic Cinema camera (in MFT mount) is $1995 so close to $1700 but even it is
a little more. If you don't need NDs, XLR, HDSDI and so on, then yes, you can probably get
close to the $1700 price point. Because if you don't need those things, you can just go with a
DSLR (or Blackmagic). I thought this was about a camera which did have those things and
how much it would cost. Certainly if Panasonic made one for $1700 they would get some attention.
Especially from people who have invested in the MFT format. Again, I just don't know that it will
happen. $1700 seems awful low for a full featured, large sensor cam. We will see, certainly
if they do this, they will create some buzz.
 
They will never release an AF200 at $1700. All the other cameras, (mostly Black Magic cameras) that have pushed the price barrier are lacking in TONS of features. If people want a camera that is a sensor in a box with nothing included, Black Magic already makes it.
IMHO, for an AF200 to really give users lots of options and big improvements over the AF100, it would need to come in at $5,000 or $3995 if they want to be ridiculously aggressive.
 
I would want the PX270 feature set - all of the advanced processing, color matrix, pro connections, Micro P2 etc... along with 4k in an AF-200. Make the colors match with the PX270 so they can work together. This puts the camera in the ~$4,500 range imho. And a great deal.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I would want the PX270 feature set - all of the advanced processing, color matrix, pro connections, Micro P2 etc... along with 4k in an AF-200. Make the colors match with the PX270 so they can work together. This puts the camera in the ~$4,500 range imho. And a great deal.
Click to expand...
That would be exactly what I would want too.
 
OldCorpse said:
But that's just the point - if Panasonic can't deliver an $1700 video camera, then how are they getting the DSLR crowd?
Click to expand...

The DSLR crowd is not the be all end all market.

I've read in multiple places that Panasonic was woefully unprepared for the demand for the GH4. It was months before many could get their hands on it (including me!), and it's by and large lived up to expectations. I have yet to read one bad thing about the GH4, but have read multiple articles about how much better it is than it's competitors. It's been a huge hit. Anyone who's going to jump ship to Panasonic will with the GH4. If Panasonic so desperately wants that crowd, it's not that hard to create a S35 GH camera for those that turn their noses up at m4/3.

But an AF100 type camera... with XLR and SDI ports, proper audio features like phantom power, proper controls, and undoubtedly some sort of P2 slot... at $1,700 will never make financial sense. They would lose money on the cameras, and if they sell a lot of cameras, that adds up to a huge loss. Anyone currently with a DSLR will bring that glass with them. So there is no way they could sell enough glass to offset those losses. It simply makes no financial sense. It's like Red Robin or 5 Guys suddenly slashing their prices to win over folks who only eat at McDonalds, and are never willing to pay more than the price of McDonalds. Or Lexus slashing prices to that of a Toyota. It doesn't matter if you suddenly have a huge market share, if you can only sell ever to them at a loss.

However, at ~$5,000... suddenly you're dealing with slightly larger companies, the promo departments of local TV stations, media departments of large corporations, folks invested in a P2 infrastructure... people who can both afford and appreciate what such a camera can do. Canon and Sony seem to be doing just fine in that market niche. A ~$5,000 camera that out performs the FS100, C100 and C300, but is priced under the C300 and FS7 is going to turn much more of a profit and competes at the level than selling the same camera for less than a 5D3 in the hope they buy glass they don't need. If the DSLR crowd isn't willing to spend an extra $3,000 on a proper video camera, they aren't going to spend that much for glass when they already have that. Simply being different and shaking things up for it's own sake so people notice you is a losing strategy. But people with FS100's, C100's, and C300's are eventually going to want 4K and /or a better codec. If your options are a $8k FS7, a $6k FS700 that requires an external recorder, or a $5k AVC-Ultra AF200, what would you chose? I'll take that crowd any day of the week over selling at a loss to a market where I already have a profitable, winning product whose sales I would destroy.

Some potential customers just aren't worth pursuing at all costs.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I would want the PX270 feature set - all of the advanced processing, color matrix, pro connections, Micro P2 etc... along with 4k in an AF-200. Make the colors match with the PX270 so they can work together. This puts the camera in the ~$4,500 range imho. And a great deal.
Click to expand...

This. A hundred times over. Just stick a m4/3 mount on it.
 
The Canon 7D has a 5.2K S35 sensor. If Panasonic used a 5.2K S35 sensor also, then the 4/3 crop mode would be 4K. So the 4K'ers and the M43'ers would both be happy.

If the mount is micro four thirds, then not only could you adapt it to almost any lens, but a speedbooster could bump it up to full frame. So, a camera that is:

- 5.2K
- S35
- m43

could be adapted to any format down to 2/3 with resolution that is at least acceptable. With the corresponding crop modes, it works out to these resolutions:

LensResMount
FF (135)5.2speedbooster
S355.2adapter or native m43*
4/34.0"
S162.7"
16mm2.3"
2/32.0"

* For those who would rather not have an adapter, remember that you can buy certain lenses with micro four thirds mounts that cover S35 and even full frame: Zeiss CP.2 primes, Zeiss CZ.2 zooms, Rokinon, and SLR Magic. And Schneider and Duclos might do it too if this thing catches on, since they already make lenses with interchangeable mounts (EF, F, and PL, so far).
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
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
Click to expand...
I do love the word "just! Now we're "just" talking about something which is " just a different kind of camera with a different feature set"! Do you have any idea how much money alone it would cost to "just" develop what you call a "video-dedicated m4/3 chip"?

Expect it to be a lot. And then realise that whilst it's exactly what some people may be begging for, it's a minority market. Most people who want a largish dedicated video chip want s35. And those economies of scale are helped by being able to recoup a lot via high end pro sales - F55, Varicam etc. But to have to spend that sort of money and oh! let's only charge $1700 for the camera we'll put it in......!

It's a lovely bit of wishful thinking..... it simply isn't going to happen, and frankly it's not helpful. I do think some sort of "AF200" will happen - eventually - but all speculation along the lines of this highly specced $1700 camera do is then make the reality seem a disappointment.

So what I may hope for is one thing, what I realistically expect is another. I agree with Bassman2003 when he says "I don't want my $5000 AF-200 "video camera" to have a "stills camera" designed chip in it[/I]", and I don't think it needs to be so. The obvious is to use the Varicam chip, and something like the HPX270 back end, the whole leaving off such features as not to impact Varicam sales. I'd suspect things like 4k being limited to long-GOP recording only, no RAW capability - and that would mean a lessening of the media requirements as well.

Price? The FS7 has probably set the bar, and realistically by the time any "AF200" does eventually appear it's going to have to undercut that to make any sensible impact. I would also hope Panasonic take note of FS7 ergonomics, and even if they base the back end on an HPX270 technically, they do a lot better ergonomically.
 
I get to meet with the Panasonic engineers in a few weeks and I'll pass on all these concerns & suggestions....

Jim Martin
 
Mike Harvey said:
PX270 body
S35 chip
m4/3 mount

Pretty much everybody's happy.
Click to expand...

Me happy too! Getting 4k is no deal breaker.

I've stayed on the sidelines for so long waiting for the right cam to come along. I've been warming to the 270 since Panny seems to be getting around to finishing things, but a large sensor version with interchangeable lenses would be ideal.

What is really important to me is to keep the P2 and I-frame workflow so you can record a high quality codec in cam on a very secure media. The one thing that I refuse to do is buy a cam with a crap VF and flip-out. Although I really wanted to love the C100, having a mediocre viewing system, no SDI out, and only AVCHD in cam just killed it for me. So yes, keep all of the PX270 feature set; better VF and codec. Although they might take a page from both BlackieMagic and Canon and offer more than one lens mount option. Maybe you can get there anyway with a Metabones solution.



Grant
 
OldCorpse said:
and for $1700.
Click to expand...


This is so unrealistic, I'm not sure why this is even in the conversation. If you want a 4/3 cam that shoots 4k, there is one for $1700. It's called a GH4. You get to live without a lot of the stuff needed in a pro-cam like decent phantom audio, SDI and ND. You can get some of that by adding a YAAAGH! But you still need a recorder to get past H264 and still no ND filters. Don't get me wrong, I have given strong consideration to a GH4, but for the most part, I'm not interested in a frankenrig just to capture some quick corporate clips. I pack enough crap already.

Grant
 
Mike Harvey said:
PX270 body
S35 chip
m4/3 mount

Pretty much everybody's happy.
Click to expand...
Well, PX270 body in technical terms, maybe - but can we add FS7 ergonomics.....? :) Because I'd say the FS7 has now set the bar for a camera at this spec/price point. (And Grant, agreed - $1,700 is unrealistic for what we're talking about. If all anyone can afford is $1700, just get a GH4.)
 
harddrive said:
I agree with Bassman2003 when he says "I don't want my $5000 AF-200 "video camera" to have a "stills camera" designed chip in it[/I]", and I don't think it needs to be so. The obvious is to use the Varicam chip, and something like the HPX270 back end, the whole leaving off such features as not to impact Varicam sales. I'd suspect things like 4k being limited to long-GOP recording only, no RAW capability - and that would mean a lessening of the media requirements as well.

Price? The FS7 has probably set the bar, and realistically by the time any "AF200" does eventually appear it's going to have to undercut that to make any sensible impact. I would also hope Panasonic take note of FS7 ergonomics, and even if they base the back end on an HPX270 technically, they do a lot better ergonomically.
Click to expand...

^^
 
harddrive said:
can we add FS7 ergonomics
Click to expand...

And here we diverge. Some want a large cameras, even shoulder mount, and I respect that. Totally fine for many professional assignments. But in many other circumstances, it is unwieldy, overly attention-getting, and somewhat dorky.

We should not underestimate the importance of DSLRs' size in their appeal. I think it would sell more if they made one like this mock-up by roxics.

 
Last edited:
The matching imager and software of the hpx370 and the 250 ended up being pretty disappointing, though it is an interesting idea to have the same guts in different form factors.

I wonder what Panny is doing with the hpx600, cause isn't that the cam we are really talking about? It is a smaller sized shoulder mount, large chip, I-Frame, P2 cam with a bunch of nice features. It's also near 20k with a decent lens. Could Panny find a way to slim down the features and get that cam so the price isn't out of reason?

Grant
 
You'll go insane trying to find out how much a theoretical camera should cost by comparing it to actual ones with overlapping features.

"It's like an AJ-PX270 ($6,000) without a lens, so it should be $5,000."
"It's like a Blackmagic ($2,000) with XLR and ND filters, so it should be $2,500."
"It's like a AG-HPX600 ($11,000) but with an even bigger sensor and yet the body and all those electronics shrunk to a fifth of their size, so it should be $20,000."
"It's like an iPhone ($600) with a bigger sensor, XLRs, and and NDs, but without all the telecommunications circuitry, so it should be $1,000."
 
Last edited:
I won't go insane over it, just sayin that the hpx600 has all the features (and more) that everyone is wanting but its price point is stratospheric compared to what the market will pay for it IMHO. I wonder how the sales are for it, you sure don't hear much about it in the market.

Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top