AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!
- Thread starter tobbihe
- Start date
Bassman2003
Veteran
Yes that diagram is quite interesting. 1/3" to 1/2" looks like a joke when you compare it to the larger sensors. Make sense why Panasonic decided to only go with 1/3" or 2/3" for their cameras. Looking at the diagram also makes me NOT want m4/3rds. APS-C would be best in terms of flexibility for DOF options imho. Going for shallow is easier than with m4/3rds and a little deeper is not out of reach. But that topic has been beaten to death and has support on both sides. At this point, I think everybody would just be happy to see Panasonic playing ball in this space.
Not sure I agree with that. The difference between 1/3" and 1/2" is that 1/2" has roughly twice the area of 1/3" - and that means a difference of about a stop for a number of key matters - depth of field, sensitivity, diffraction limiting - with all else equal.
That means little if the lens for 1/2" has a max f stop that is a stop less than a comparable 1/3" camera. Operationally you're back to square one. The real clever part is that on cameras like the PXW-X200 the max f stop has been kept as wide as f1.9 - so you are getting the benefit of the bigger chip size in real terms, and without a huge increase in size or weight. The surprise to me is why only Sony have gone to 1/2" for cameras of this type - why haven't not just Panasonic, but Canon and JVC gone the same route?
But yes - if you want a large format camera, neither 1/3" or 1/2" approaches 4/3 or s35 for the characteristics of those. But not everybody wants that.....
Bassman2003
Veteran
Sort of speaking off the cuff there... Yes there are benefits to a little larger sensor but what used to be so narrow (the choice between 1/3" to 2/3") is now kind of trivial with the choices out now. In my use of Varicams and the new PX-270, I see no drawbacks for the 1/3" in terms of light sensitivity or noise. In fact, the PX270 is the cleanest Panasonic video camera I have ever used. I think the industry likes to offer 22x zooms and that becomes more costly etc... with 1/2" chips.
combatentropy
Veteran
As I said in an earlier post, an S35 sensor can become any of the others --- including full frame, thanks to the Speedbooster. If its resolution is 5.2K, it can be cropped all the way down to 2/3 and still have 2K resolution.
I was talking recently to the owner of a camera museum who retold how ~100 years ago, the 135 'full frame' format was considered by some as too small for serious professional use. An asthmatic photographer named Oskar Barnack was tired of lugging around the huge view cameras of the day and made a wee baby play camera using modified Eastman Kodak 35mm movie film with the help of his business partner in Wetzlar, Germany, by the name of Leitz. It somehow caught on.
Panasonic might be dipping their toes into the anamorphic waters with the latest GH4 firmware updates. Then a 4/3 readout gives a 4.5K image ... which is more than their $55K Varicam!
Anyway, I think it will be based on the same sensor as GH4, which is allegedly capable of 13 stops in photo Raw. AF-200 might even have the Raw 4K out to something like AJA Ki Pro Quad a la C-500 whilst targeting a $5K price point. If it can get 12-13 stops - via multiple exposure, if necessary - plus all the necessary accoutrements, it should be a hit.
PS. Speaking of the prices, there are currently GH-4, YAGH (and 12-35 F.28) specials. GH4+YAGH is being offered for $3K now (+ some freebes, depending on a retailer).
ShawnMi
Active member
The PX270 is able to get away with the smaller body because of it's placement of the LCD and one XLR. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect anything the size of the XA-20, let alone the GH4. The PX270 has two SDXC/microP2 slots, a normal sized P2 slot, internal ND filters, HD-SDI, TC in/out, Genlock, multiple USB slots, and a much larger LCD and viewfinder. 4k is going to require multiple 3G-SDI outputs. It's also going to need batteries much larger than the GH4's to power it. That all is going to take up a lot of real estate. Just look at how big the YAGH!!!!!!! is for as little as is actually contained in it... and it still requires external power. Plus, the PX270 and AF100 have vastly more external switches and controls compared to the XA-20 or GH4. I would much prefer having a bigger camera with everything at my fingertips, than a small camera where I have to hunt through a menu every time I need to adjust audio. And compared to my HMC150, it really isn't that big... I'm used to full sized shoulder mount cameras, so I guess it's all a matter of perspective
What Mike Harvey said!!
Shawn
Mike Harvey
Veteran
What Mike Harvey said!!
Shawn
No, not what I said... well, not quite. It occurred to me just now, the reason for the YAAAAAGGGHHH!!!!!!!!! is that the GH4 only records internal 8bit 4:2:0, and micro-HDMI stinks as far as connectors go. A potential AF200 will most likely (or at least should) include various flavors of AVC-Ultra... which is 10bit 4:2:2. There really is no practical reason to include 4k output via 3G-SDI or HDMI. 1080p HD-SDI? Sure, for monitors. But Premiere Pro, Avid, Final Cut, Vegas, and Edius all support P2 natively now. There really is no reason to need to record to ProRes to an external recorder. And at this price point with the general feature set most of us are clamoring for, you can't really expect 4k 4:4:4 or Raw (or, HD 4:4:4 or Raw, for that matter). Now, granted, 4k in the AVC-Ultra lineup is 4:4:4, but I don't see a reason not to include a new flavor at 10bit 4:2:2... even if it has to be AVC-LongG, I would have to imagine at 200mbs it would look pretty stinking good.
If you absolutely have got to have to have 4:4:4 or Raw, go rent the Varicam or get a BlackMagic camera. I mean, to get Raw out of the FS7, you're going to need another $7k-$8k in connectors and recorders, making it a $15k camera. Otherwise, this cuts down on necessary connectors, which saves space/size (keeping it in the PX270 range) and costs. You could even limit it to microP2, saving a little bit more in the space/cost department. This helps sales of P2 media, and protects the Varicam line. It also keeps it competitive with the Sony FS7.
ShawnMi
Active member
I thought we were talking about making a camera with the capabilities of a PX270, but three times smaller than the AF100 (which, I'm still not sure is possible)... doesn't it defeat that purpose if you start taking features away to reach that size? Sure, you can delete P2 recording, ND filter wheel, an XLR port, T/C, Genlock and the varying buttons and switches we're accustomed to on cameras in this range... but what do you have then, something more like the XA20 maybe? Fine, if size is more important than features for you application, but I personally would like an AF200 that is more like the PX270 with M/43 sensor and interchangeable lens mount... it could even be bigger than the AF100, wouldn't bother me a bit. I'm into this kind of camera for flexibility, usability and image quality, size is probably the fourth most important thing to me in this case. If I need something very small, I can always use an XA20 or the Pocket Cinema Camera.
Shawn
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I thought we were talking about making a camera with the capabilities of a PX270, but three times smaller than the AF100 (which, I'm still not sure is possible)... doesn't it defeat that purpose if you start taking features away to reach that size? Sure, you can delete P2 recording, ND filter wheel, an XLR port, T/C, Genlock and the varying buttons and switches we're accustomed to on cameras in this range... but what do you have then, something more like the XA20 maybe? Fine, if size is more important than features for you application, but I personally would like an AF200 that is more like the PX270 with M/43 sensor and interchangeable lens mount... it could even be bigger than the AF100, wouldn't bother me a bit. I'm into this kind of camera for flexibility, usability and image quality, size is probably the fourth most important thing to me in this case. If I need something very small, I can always use an XA20 or the Pocket Cinema Camera.
Shawn
No, we're on the same page
. I had pointed out in an earlier post, that dual 3G-SDI for 4k output is going to take up space. On second thought, I don't see a need for it if it records to AVC-Ultra internally. And MicroP2 is capable of 200mb/s, which should handle most people's needs. Still keep everything the PX270 has, there just isn't a need for extra stuff. Plus eliminating full sized P2 in favor of just microP2 saves a bit of space (and cost). I was just looking at photos of the HC-X1000, and it's pretty stinking small, but incredibly feature laden. Adding the ports for T/C, Genlock, and SDI will add some size, but it could still be slightly smaller than the PX270 (if only ever so slightly smaller). And using micro/mini-HDMI instead of fullsized helps cut a little space as well.I'm just thinking of ways to make it as compact as possible and cut costs while not cutting features people will actually use.
But will shooters really want to this to be a hand-held competition to GH4? I would assume Panasonic will rather have GH5 (or GH4 Mk II, if you will) as a compact body 4K run-n-gun camera while going for the C-100/300/FS-700 niche with AF-200. In this case, it has to be aware of what the competition offers by the NAB'15 and, if new models feature SDI and HDMI, then that's the way they have to go too ... or, alternately, include a high quality internal 4K, something in the vein of 150-200 Mbps in HEVC.
The gap between this and the Varicam is large enough for Panasonic to be very brave with this model.
The gap between this and the Varicam is large enough for Panasonic to be very brave with this model.
combatentropy
Veteran
A camera that records 10-bit 4:2:2 video has little need for an external recorder, and it's about time. ProRes 422 HQ at 60 frames per second is merely 55 megabytes per second, within reach of some SDXC cards. Or if they go H.265 then it could be ProRes quality at AVCHD bitrates or less.
A camera with a screen of the quality of most smart phones these days has little need of an external monitor. In fact, at least one of the external monitors basically uses an iPhone screen.
Either way, the jacks are not the main reason that the AF100 looks like a contestant at the beginning of Biggest Loser. I don't know why it's so big, in fact. However, I do know that engineering has a lot of flexibility. There's more than one way to do it. The more time you spend on something, the smaller it can get. I have no doubt that Panasonic can make an AF200 that's no larger than a PX270 with the lens hacked off. We should at least ask for it. For those who don't care how big it is, just let us air the complaint and see how Panasonic responds. A discrete (but still adequately sized) camera will satisfy not only you but also a swath of users who care.
A camera with a screen of the quality of most smart phones these days has little need of an external monitor. In fact, at least one of the external monitors basically uses an iPhone screen.
Either way, the jacks are not the main reason that the AF100 looks like a contestant at the beginning of Biggest Loser. I don't know why it's so big, in fact. However, I do know that engineering has a lot of flexibility. There's more than one way to do it. The more time you spend on something, the smaller it can get. I have no doubt that Panasonic can make an AF200 that's no larger than a PX270 with the lens hacked off. We should at least ask for it. For those who don't care how big it is, just let us air the complaint and see how Panasonic responds. A discrete (but still adequately sized) camera will satisfy not only you but also a swath of users who care.
Connections wise, one can have a single 12G SDI out (the Shogun will have a 12G SDI in) and thus save some space this way.
Anyhow, I think there will be a compact 4K recorder from Panasonic but in the more consumer friendly AX-100 mode (and for $1,700 to boot!) whereas AF-200 will be slightly larger, priced substantially higher and geared toward pros - 4.5K in a 4/3 anamorphic, HEVC. 12G SDI, etc.
Anyhow, I think there will be a compact 4K recorder from Panasonic but in the more consumer friendly AX-100 mode (and for $1,700 to boot!) whereas AF-200 will be slightly larger, priced substantially higher and geared toward pros - 4.5K in a 4/3 anamorphic, HEVC. 12G SDI, etc.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
We did meet with the Panasonic engineers yesterday and I can tell you that I did relay all of your suggestions...and they were very receptive to those suggestions.
Jim Martin
Jim Martin
slidemaster
Well-known member
Is there any word on the announcement?
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
No, nothing to announce... they were just looking for input & opinions....but if I did know something, out of respect, I wouldn't want to say anything because I wouldn't want to take any "thunder" away from Panasonic....it's not the right thing to do.
Jim Martin
Jim Martin
So they're pricing it at $1700 then? ;D
FWIW, Canon Rumors mentioned a C-300 MKII probably being announced at the NAB'15 too. Given that C-100 MKII is out there, the C300 update will have to be priced higher and its major competitor for the time being will be FS-7 and Cion (whenever Cion comes out), so AF-200 should have the $5,000 niche all to itself.
Of course, with the CP+ being held in February, there can be a few consumer tier cameras with 4K too.
Of course, with the CP+ being held in February, there can be a few consumer tier cameras with 4K too.