AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

[ShawnMi]

Raw is overrated. 8bit 4:2:2 50mpbs in the C300 is what 80% of users need. It's more than enough. 10bit 4:2:2 is what the other 15% need, and raw is what those 5% shooting heavy CGI feautres need. Hell, 4K 10bit 4:2:2 would be much more than enough for heavy CGI work. I really thibk raw is overrated and not used at all by those who buy raw cameras since most of users ingest the footage, apply some RGB curves to adjust exposure, colour wheels, add some noise and that's it. 8bit 4:2:2 50mpbs is more than enough for that, which I claim is what 80% of users do.

I can't speak to what percentage of users need what. But I will point out that what we used to think of as "high end CGI" (camera matching, deep color compositing, etc.) is now being done on low and no budget projects more and more often. Many of us may not need raw recording most of the time, but it's really nice to have it built in when we do... much like variable frame rate recording. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't expect an AF200 to be capable of raw capture... but if it's not an AVC-Ultra camera with 12 stops of dynamic range, I probably won't be that excited by it.

Shawn

 

[harddrive]

The LS-300 and FS7 are the only cameras in this space, and neither have actually been released yet. If Panasonic can release a 4k camera with a better codec and sensor than the LS-300 (and GH4), but under the FS7's price, they could have a real hit.

The FS7 was released in October, and quite of lot of people have already taken delivery and are using them - as can be seen from this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330545-FS7-Availability-update-thread . It may be true that they are still back ordered, so you can't simply go into a store and pick one up, but by all accounts that's because the demand has been so high. A lot have been shipped, but it still hasn't satisfied demand.

In the past Panasonic have tended to release details of new cameras well in advance of availability, at least for the professional ranges, and if we assume the same will be true of any "AF200", that's why I don't expect anyone to be able to take possession until next autumn. Other manufacturers tend to have shorter times between announcement and availability, and apart from the JVC and FS7, the big unknown must be what Canon will do - let alone other manufacturers.

A 4k large sensor on a PX270 back end seems like a slam dunk.

If to compete with the C300, then yes, maybe. But if (as seems to be expected) it's to record 4k internally, you're talking about what amounts to a totally different camera technically. The PX270 back end is designed to process the output from 3 HD chips to give HD - what's needed for our "AF200" is to process a 4k output from a single 4k sensor. It'll need deBayering, and the read input will also be completely different. In other words, completely different electronics.

 

[harddrive]

At this point in time it looks like Panasonic has decided to not compete in this space. I do not know the sales numbers but I would guess the AF-100 was a failure.

I think "failure" may be the wrong word - it's far too common to view things in purely black/white terms, and that applies here. I believe quite a few were sold - though not nearly as many as Panasonic may have hoped for. Maybe "wasn't the total success Panasonic had hoped for" would be a kinder and more accurate way to put it?

The "forum" wanted a GH2 in a real body, it was given to them and very few liked the image. This type of behavior would cause you to question the market viability of this space.

I think a lot had to do with timing and what other manufacturers did. It was born at a time when DSLR video was becoming popular owing to the shallow depth of field craze. The idea was hatched to put the innards of a GH1 into a more video-friendly body. Quite a sensible idea. But two things went wrong. Firstly, it was over-hyped and potential buyers were led to expect far better than DSLR quality - that led to a level of disillusionment as it rapidly became obvious that it didn't live up to promises made. And secondly, in the long period between announcement and product availability, rivals responded - and brought out cameras like the FS100, and later the C300.

It would also be unfair to call the quality of the AF100 "bad" - but it simply couldn't compare with the s35 rivals with sensors and electronics optimised for video.

We then see the GH line getting more attention. As Mike has said, slap a chip in a PX270 body and there you go. But, that was the same situation with the AF-100...

It needs to be remembered that as with many companies "Panasonic" is not a single entity - rather a collection of departments. There seem to be the pro video division and the consumer side - and it's from the latter the GH range comes from. It also seems that the consumer division has been doing pretty well - the pro video side much less so. With the AF100, Panasonic put the innards of a (consumer) GH1 into a more pro "video" body and marketed it through the pro division.

I can only assume that the ongoing absence of any "AF200" may be a sign that this coming together of departments is not to be repeated. Maybe the consumer division thinks it's doing quite well enough on it's own with the GH4 as is? Maybe a sign that putting a GH innards in such a body got seen more as falling between stools than having the best of both worlds?

Of course, there's nothing to stop the pro division bringing out this mythical "AF200" using it's own tech, and that's why I think such (if it ever happens) is going to be based on s35 and the Varicam sensor. At the moment, I suspect they have their hands full with the Varicam 35 itself......

 

[DLD]

FWIW, Matt Allard of News Shooter found a V-Log on the GH4 demo model at InterBee. When he subsequently asked a Panasonic rep about it, the rep refused to give out any info.

The inference I make here is that V-Log may or may not show up on GH4 itself but it will show up on some model in the near future.

As to Panasonic's market strategy, I am still bewildered by how long C-300 was allowed to rule the high/pro 1080p market. But things seem to be changing at this time.

 

[Bassman2003]

Good points. I guess I am using the term failure because they did not follow up on it. Water your flowers and trim your weeds so to speak. It looks to me that they turned around and walked away as there were obvious improvements that could have been made easily to a successor. Now there are cameras like Black Magic and KineRAW which have a lot of uniqueness at a low price. The JVC is going to be interesting as well. Mix in the improvement in DSLRs along with Sony producing a new camera seemingly every month and the window is a lot smaller than it used to be. As Mike stated, there only option is 4K P2 model and I do not think that fits into Panasonic Pro's game plan at $5,000. AVCHD was just fine from their perspective in the AF-100 as it allowed product differentiation. That is just not good enough in today's marketplace. (yeah).

It is quite strange to see Panasonic sitting on the sideline.

 

[OldCorpse]

$1700.

 

[Mike Harvey]

The FS7 was released in October, and quite of lot of people have already taken delivery and are using them - as can be seen from this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330545-FS7-Availability-update-thread . It may be true that they are still back ordered, so you can't simply go into a store and pick one up, but by all accounts that's because the demand has been so high. A lot have been shipped, but it still hasn't satisfied demand.

Wait... what? How did I miss that little detail? Every time I've looked for FS7 on B&H, I get a pre-order listing. :shocked:

 

[mainstreetprod]

B & H is who I usually buy from , but my FS7, delivered by Fedex about an hour ago, came from EC Pro Video in NY. It still sits in the box because I promised my college age daughter, a camera geek, that I would wait until she got home to unpack it!

 

[DLD]

$1700.

Having a few minutes to mull over this.

They could/should indeed make a camcorder in that range but I would figure it'll be based on either LS-100 (4/3", 12.8 MPX sensor, $899 MSRP) or FZ-1000 (1", 20.1 MPX, $897 MSRP) and it will have a fixed lens, obviously. Theoretically, they could make two models as well, with the lager sensor having a superior lens. Currently, LS-100 has a Leica 24-75 mm equivalent F 1.7/2.8 while FZ-1000 has a Leica 25-400mm equivalent F 2.8/4.

The smaller sensor would be perfect for the run-n-gun, the larger could be made for a jack-of-all-trades.

Images coming out of LS-100 are darn good (if not always properly graded)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICILmOm0Icw

 

[Mac]

Why oh why do people post things like "$1700"? This is supposed to be a pro camera... If you can't afford five grand + for a camera, if you can't make enough to pay for it, stay in the consumer division with your G4. I want a pro level succesor to the AF100, not a kiddie cam. Even five grand is dirt cheap! Panasonic wants to make a profit, not a statement.

 

[electricpig]

I think he's taking the piss from a couple of weeks back that stated that as an acceptable target price.

 

[DLD]

I think he's taking the piss from a couple of weeks back that stated that as an acceptable target price.

To be fair, the $1,500 Samsung NX1 almost has all the anticipated features of the anticipated AF-200
right now.

And within the next 12-18 months, the market will be beating that on the value chart (i.e., features-quality-price) by a whole lot ... so one could say that Old Corpse is just playing the role of a seer.

 

[Mike Harvey]

To be fair, the $1,500 Samsung NX1 almost has all the anticipated features of the anticipated AF-200
right now.

So far, the only info I can find beyond the fact it's H.265 is that the video output is 8bit 4:2:2, which makes me suspect that the internal codec isn't 10bit. Beyond that--

No XLR
No SDI
No dual card slots
No internal ND filters
No Waveform
29 minute 59 second max record length/clip


It's an SLR with a good chip and more efficient codec. It will compete well with the GH4 and 5/7D, but it isn't a proper video camera... and the reason to get an AF200 over an SLR is so that you can have a proper video camera.

 

[combatentropy]

And none of those things need a lot of research and development. So they shouldn't cost the cameramaker much more than the cost of parts, which is less than $100.

 

[DLD]

So far, the only info I can find beyond the fact it's H.265 is that the video output is 8bit 4:2:2, which makes me suspect that the internal codec isn't 10bit. Beyond that--

No XLR
No SDI
No dual card slots
No internal ND filters
No Waveform
29 minute 59 second max record length/clip


It's an SLR with a good chip and more efficient codec. It will compete well with the GH4 and 5/7D, but it isn't a proper video camera... and the reason to get an AF200 over an SLR is so that you can have a proper video camera.

Right and the form isn't there either, which is why I said/wrote "almost" - but waveform and max recording time should be upgradeable. External ND filters can be added on fairly inexpensively too.

The rest the NX body simply doesn't have the room for. GH-4 came up with the YAGH solution but it remains to be seen if Samsung is interested in the same approach since YAGH is - NOT! - selling all that well. From a purely marketing perspective, this is almost in reverse of where it should have been since Panny does have a pro line of camcorders to protect while Samsung does not.

Hypothetically speaking, all the "missing" items shouldn't cost more than a few hundred dollars extra, so with NX1 being $200 cheaper than the hotly desired (by some) $1,700 price point (and rumors are it may be discounted further since the early sales seem to be stumbling) and with the inevitable firmware updates/upgrades coming down the road, it makes for a compelling competitor.

PS. Trascend has announced a new lineup of their SDXC cards - claims 60 MB/s write speed and priced very reasonably at MSRP $49 (64 GB), $109 (128 GB) and $289 (256 GB). The faster media means a far higher capability internal recording, rendering the SDI connection less crucial. In fact, Samsung could double the recording bit rate and still get more than an hour of footage onto the (max allowed) 64 GB card.

 

[OldCorpse]

Why oh why do people post things like "$1700"? This is supposed to be a pro camera... If you can't afford five grand + for a camera, if you can't make enough to pay for it, stay in the consumer division with your G4. I want a pro level succesor to the AF100, not a kiddie cam. Even five grand is dirt cheap! Panasonic wants to make a profit, not a statement.

LOL! Logic 101:

1)"Pro" doesn't have to be "expensive".

2)"Expensive" and "cheap" is relative anyway.

3)Technology progresses. What used to be "expensive" became super "cheap", but the capabilities went UP - see the entire history of cameras. See the capabilities of cameras today at a price compared to the price of years ago and capabilities of years ago. And we're talking about the near future - AF200, not this moment.

4)Being able to afford $5K or $20K, or $200K has nothing to do with wanting to pay $5K, or $20K, or $200K. Just because I can afford it, doesn't mean it's right to buy at any given price - but you are welcome to pay five times more for goods that are worth five times less. Pro has nothing to do with it.

5)Who said "can't make enough for camera" - nothing to do with pro or not pro or price or not price. I can make whatever - but the price of the camera is a separate matter. I'm sure you can make $2K on a job, but why should you pay $2K for a Monster brand cable that can be had for $2?

6)$1700 can buy more than a "kiddie" cam - see the GH4 or the NX1. With technology going further and prices falling as always for electronics, why should we get less instead of more for $1700 tomorrow?

7)Panasonic profits are not tied to a magic number. It's all about volume versus margin. Investigate econ 101 in addition to logic 101.

8)"Consumer Division" - nobody cares what you call a division. You can have high priced items in consumer and low priced items in professional divisions. You can have extremely advanced products in the consumer division and mediocre products in the professional division. Forget divisions and focus on what matters: performance to price ratios.

And once logic 101 has been absorbed, we can go back to discussing the successor to AF100, the AF200, instead of ranting.

Back on topic: $1700.

It is possible to produce an extremely capable successor to the AF100 for $1700. There is no technical reason, and no economic reason why it should be impossible. What needs to happen is for management to perform an accurate assessment of the market. My point is that $1700 would bring in tons of customers. I'd be one. I don't believe there is an economic reason to pay $5K for a camera that will be worth $1K in no time at all. It's better to produce a camera that fits the needs of the user at a price that makes it sustainable to keep buying new cameras as capabilities evolve. I'd rather buy a $1700 camera every year and have the capabilities jump forward with every year, than see what happens in real life with the AF100 - pay $5K for a camera and then sit on it for 5 years with no jump in capabilities and falling value so the cam is not even worth $1K anymore. That's what I'm talking about - something that has far more insight and strategy behind it than a silly rant about "pro" and "expensive is pro!". This is the model: frequent buys from many more customers, frequent upgrades and continuing buying to the profit of the company selling, progress of the technology and evolution of filmmaking capabilities and democratizing the industry and access to everyone. The model of the AF100 does nothing for anyone - not in sales, not in pushing technology, not in getting new customers, not in anything.

AF200 - new technology, new marketing model, new market access: $1700 FOR THE WIN!

 

[harddrive]

7)Panasonic profits are not tied to a magic number. It's all about volume versus margin. Investigate econ 101 in addition to logic 101.

And point by point it's difficult to argue with you. Point by point I'm not in disagreement.

BUT where I feel your argument falls down is in that statement above - "It's all about volume versus margin" It's very true, but is what you want (the "AF200" for $1,700) ever reachable by that formula? I'd argue not. And I'd argue that a big reason hinges around your next point.

8)"Consumer Division" - nobody cares what you call a division. You can have high priced items in consumer and low priced items in professional divisions. You can have extremely advanced products in the consumer division and mediocre products in the professional division. Forget divisions and focus on what matters: performance to price ratios.

On the contrary, companies find it convenient to often make a distinction between consumer and "pro" for very good reasons, and it's a lot to do with different markets having different expectations. For example, reliability may be rated very highly by pros, less so by consumers - at least if it's a straight choice between reliability and cost. Same goes for ruggedness. And it's interesting to look at Mike Harvey's points about what's missing from the NX1 that would be expected in any "AF200". As just one item, XLR inputs. They are seen as highly desirable to "pros" as part of the AF200 spec - but to "consumers" it may be totally the opposite, rarely going to be needed and yet making the camera bigger and heavier. Pros may need a codec that's rugged enough to stand up to heavy post and repeated de/recompression through the broadcast chain - consumers won't need that, and may find a lower bitrate a positive benefit. "Good enough" quality wise, and much cheaper in terms of memory size and speed. Pros may prefer reliability and ruggedness, even at the expense of much greater weight - consumers may feel exactly the opposite, especially when price comes into play. And so on.

Yes, you "can have high priced items in consumer and low priced items in professional divisions" and same for absolute quality but "quality" in the sense you use it is only one factor. Imagine for a moment a F55 was to be priced the same as something like a GH4 and placed on sale in a consumer store side by side. Do you think the store would then sell only F55s and no GH4s? Because if "quality" and price were the only criteria, and both the same price, then why on earth buy the GH4? Practically, it wouldn't happen - I suspect most sales would still be of the GH4 for practical reasons, the average consumer simply wouldn't want something the size and weight of the GH4, and that's before even thinking of power considerations. Which is why the general distinction between "consumer" and "professional" does matter, and to the extent that many companies make a departmental distinction in they are in both markets.

OK, there are exceptions and maybe GoPro have been a huge exception to the general rule - it's enthusiastically been bought by both consumers and professionals. But isn't that because it's in a relatively unique position, and rivals simply haven't been able to compete yet? If you want a very small weatherproof camera, there's little else comparable and that's true for amateurs and pros. That said, pros may want a few things like a better codec, consumers may want something a little more user friendly.

As regards what we're talking about here, this "AF200", then whilst "pros" are actively clamouring for XLR inputs, HD-SDI connectivity and so on, such may be far from what "consumers" want - small size, cheap memory costs, low weight etc. So whilst OldCorpse's camera may appeal very, very strongly to one group, the very features which make that the case are seen as negatives by Joe Public. What this means is that the volume is no longer there to accept the low margin. Actually, it's far worse. Without the high volumes the unit cost of production goes up, the initial design cost has to be recovered from a lower number of units, so we're talking about a bigger margin on top of a higher cost price.

I stress I'm not disagreeing with the thinking behind "volume versus margin", and it's probably exactly what Sony have managed to achieve in a more limited way with the FS7. I'm still amazed that it's being sold at the price it is, given the feature set. But I suspect they've worked out well just how big the target market for such a camera is (bigger by far than a traditional pro camera, but nowhere near the size of a consumer camera), what the unit price will be at that volume, and what their margin must be for viability. And that comes out lower than many (including me) may have expected - but nowhere near $1,700. Sorry.

I see two basic possibilities to get something that may work to people following this thread. One is to do something along the lines that Sony have done with the FS7, and which Panasonic could easily do in principle with elements of Varicam tech. The second may be closer to OldCorpse's heart. If you accept that some things that "pro" users want (XLRs being the most obvious) may work AGAINST volume sales, then why not make them an add-on to a basic unit that WILL appeal to the consumer market? So a basic camera with price (and size, weight etc) kept low through volume sales and general appeal to the mass market, with a separate attachment to cater for the more "enthusiast" users?

Hmmmm. Sounds like I've just described the GH4 and the YAGH........ Joking apart, I do suspect that's where the future lies for Panasonic, rather than trying to compete with such as the FS7, let alone JVC and whatever Canon may do soon. The YAGH may leave much to be desired, but maybe look upon it as a first effort, maybe they'll learn from the criticisms? If I see a problem, it's that however well a "GH5" may sell, however much the volume may drive down unit cost and margin, then any YAGH Mk2 is unlikely to sell in anything like the same volume, so unlikely to have it's costs driven down in the same way. So we may end up in a situation where the "AF200" consists of a GH5 (at $1550) and a YAGH Mk2. But with the latter costing $1500 rather than the hoped for $150........

We'll see.

 

[DLD]

...If I see a problem, it's that however well a "GH5" may sell, however much the volume may drive down unit cost and margin, then any YAGH Mk2 is unlikely to sell in anything like the same volume, so unlikely to have it's costs driven down in the same way. So we may end up in a situation where the "AF200" consists of a GH5 (at $1550) and a YAGH Mk2. But with the latter costing $1500 rather than the hoped for $150........

So, connecting nuts and bolts - and cables and resistors - what do you think the manufacturing costs are for these popular models?

I'd estimate FS-7 around $4,000, GH-4 and NX-1 ~ $600.

PS. I once worked on a sales floor where we got a close-out Betacam. IIRC, the price went down from ~ $15,000 for a brand new in-the-box unit to $5,000 for a demo model and that thing kept gathering a lot of dust. In fairness, the high end consumer/prosumer models in the $3,000 range weren't moving either. The bulk of sales came from units priced in between $700 and $1,300.

 

[OldCorpse]

harddrive, I agree that there are different market segments - certainly. And one segment may be "pro" vs "consumer". My larger point however his how these two bleed over. What I'm arguing against is the inherent conservatism that overtakes a company when they label a division "pro". You've been around for awhile, no? Hand on heart - don't we agree that the list of features that came over from consumer to pro and from pro to consumer is practically endless? The pro features migrating to consumer is a well-known story, so no need to hammer that point home, except to say, that as tech evolves, companies can educate the consumer, who then frequently demands formerly exclusively "pro" features. Reliability in particular... I don't think *anyone* pro, or consumer doesn't like reliability... the difference being that we don't need clunky "pro" solutions to reliability, because, guess what, the thing you point out as at the other end of reliability is "small size, cheap memory costs, low weight etc." - which the pro would also love as long as reliability is not compromised! And what happens in real life? Things go the other way too - from "consumer" to "pro", because those "cheap memory costs" are getting very, very reliable... we don't need P2 high priced memory - sure, I understand that many here love, love, love that idea, but I DON'T. It's BS. I said it, and will say again: it's BS. Because the reliability of cards has been going up and up and up - once upon a time it was only CF, then even SD became more reliable and now microSD - note, how many "pro" cameras now no longer use P2, but use SD - that's entirely thanks to consumer features migrating to pro - because the truth is that pros also like "cheap memory, small size, low weight etc." - as long as reliability is there... which the consumer in turn also wants - reliability; so when the tech is ready, both consumer and the pro meet in a new place - cheap memory, small size and low weight AND reliable... now BOTH can buy and BOTH enlarge the market! There are also stopgap measures like f.ex. recording to SD, but recording to two cards simultaneously - still cheaper than P2 and with double recording pretty much as reliable as P2. Eventually, you will have SD and microSD and whatever comes next be exactly or MORE reliable than P2. That too is the story of technology evolution - many times the old "pro" wasn't reliable at all, and years later we had a new solution - many of today's cheap consumer gear is way, way, way more reliable and cheaper than old fiddly, failure-prone pro gear of yesteryear. Consumer and pro bleed into each other, because the truth is that while each segment of the market may stress a different part of the package, at bottom they mostly agree: both pro and consumer want cheap AND reliable AND small AND light AND extremely capable and so on. The apparent differences are not as great.

The problem has often been that pro divisions are very conservative. It often took the consumer division to push forward the tech, while the pro division was content to sit on high priced gear. Consumer stuff evolves much faster. Look at the kick in the pants photo camera companies got when phone cameras came about. Streaming, use of wi-fi, stronger software image involvement and lens control and so on - all stuff that is coming from the consumer division that is pushing the pro forward. Everything that is clunky is clunky because the pro divisions are conservative. There is no reason why xlr has to be the only reliable connectors - that's nonsense. It's just lack of innovation and conservatism, because the pros are not demanding it. There is no reason SDI has to exist if you boost transfer rates and reliability. We can come up with small, cheap connectors that won't snap or disconnect and not be the size of Soviet tanks like yesterday's tech of XLR. It's absurd.

Anyhow, my point is this. Consumer tech evolves very fast. We need that mentality to come over to the pro division. Look at how it works out in reality. Take a look at the sequence and speed of consumer cameras coming out of Panasonic: GH1, GH2, GH3, GH4 - each leaping forward in capability. Each relatively inexpensive (under $2K), but each iteration a leap in capability. Meanwhile look at the pro AF100 - you are sitting with the same tech for years and years and years, same old tech that you've paid a fortune for. (1) Your AF100 slows down technological development (2) You paid a ton of money (3) You are not upgrading for all these years until a new model comes out, which again then sits for years and years and so on. I'd much rather that people buy the AF100 for a modest sum $1700, then BUY AGAIN next year the AF200, the BUY AGAIN the year after that AF300, and a year later AF400, all for $1700 each time. Just like in the GH consumer space. You'll have tremendous volume and tremendous pressure for technical innovation and evolution. It's not for no reason that the consumer space is where the money often is. Volume, volume, volume - smaller profits individually, greater collectively. Win-win. Of course, companies would rather sit and milk old tech - understandable... it's less effort for them. But they can only get away with it because we - the pros - allow them to. We should demand fast evolution and cheap prices. Instead we have knuckleheads who scream how pro must be expensive, and they'd love to pay more! That's not only stupid but slows down progress.

We can do better. We must demand better. AF200 for $1700 - FOR THE WIN!

 

[ectobuilder]

A rule to remember when talking about business is that we need to make assumptions.

So rather than talking about a concept/idea/position as an absolute truth, please state your assumptions so we know where you are coming from.