AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

Thanks, good to know - I had checked B&H and their Q&A said no active mount, and JVC's official site went on and on about the versatility of MFT, but never mentioned the word 'active"...
 
I have the JVC GY-LS300 brochure in front of me (picked it up at BVE last week when I looked at this clever little cam) and it has the following sentence within it:

"The mount's electrical connections are compatible with many auto focus, iris and power zoom lenses, even when using an adapter"

So with that, straight from the horses mouth (and the Newshooter review) that it is indeed active is clear :-)
 
Thanx all for providing that information - It's a shame Panasonic didn't see the writing on the wall - I think many who have liked the AF100 will have a new home at JVC - If it checks all the boxes, of course, so we'll see - but for 4 grand, I'm taking a chance and pre-ordering one.
 
Mac said:
Thanx all for providing that information - It's a shame Panasonic didn't see the writing on the wall - I think many who have liked the AF100 will have a new home at JVC - If it checks all the boxes, of course, so we'll see - but for 4 grand, I'm taking a chance and pre-ordering one.
Click to expand...
The sensor has mediocre dynamic range. Hopefully Panasonic has something better in the AF100 successor, whenever that's released.
 
Tzedekh said:
The sensor has mediocre dynamic range. Hopefully Panasonic has something better in the AF100 successor, whenever that's released.
Click to expand...

It's DR is supposedly slightly better than the GH4. (FWIW) I agree though, it's middle of the road in the DR department. If they can control the highlight clipping, it could be a decent little camera.

Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath for a AF100 replacement. People on this site have been begging for one for years.

Think about how many NAB shows have come and gone, where everyone was so sure that they were going to introduce a successor? I see little evidence that Panasonic is listening or even cares about this market segment anymore.

But one can always dream...
 
Last edited:
TFilipiak said:
.....

Think about how many NAB shows have come and gone, where everyone was so sure that they were going to introduce a successor? I see little evidence that Panasonic is listening or even cares about this market segment anymore.

..
Click to expand...

Panasonic cares about every profitable market. But they are just recovering from serious financial failure ($6billion loss 2 years ago) having laid off tens of thousands of employees and re-organized. Under that much chaos and strapped for cash, niche markets like the AF100 have to be ignored. So it is no surprise that they have not offered a replacement for the AF100 these last years.

But they are now recovering and ahead of the game. While Sony is still in crisis, Panasonic has the opportunity to grab market share while Sony struggles to sell off divisions, lay off employees, and get re-organized.
 
Panasonic GH4 is selling like hot cakes globally. Because it is a true world camera Panasonic can sell in massive numbers. It is coming from a well establish GH line and by introducing internal 4K and amazing video quality it brought many new Panasonic customers. Just last week talked to three people. All sold their Canon 5D mkiii and moved to Panasonic. So replacement for AF-100 is a nobrainer. I have 2 GH4s and looking forward to purchase the 4K video camera Panasonic will offer. I will have my Metabones speed booster and Atomos Shogun ready..
 
This is where I feel they lose credibility

Price tag is expected to be high – similar to the AF101: around $3k-$4k
Click to expand...

$3-4k is cheap for a "AF200" if it has the features they listed. If anything I would think it would be closer to the cost of a Sony FS7, so somewhere around $8k. C100 ii is at $5.5k, so I could easily see the AF200 at $6k. So if you're thinking that $3-4k is expensive, then I don't have a lot of faith in your rumors.
 
zijital said:
This is where I feel they lose credibility



$3-4k is cheap for a "AF200" if it has the features they listed. If anything I would think it would be closer to the cost of a Sony FS7, so somewhere around $8k. C100 ii is at $5.5k, so I could easily see the AF200 at $6k. So if you're thinking that $3-4k is expensive, then I don't have a lot of faith in your rumors.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Panasonic has a history with the AF100 - when they originally brought it to market, it was a very notable, actually shocking price point... much below what people were speculating. It was below even the prices for cameras that came out later that were supposed to play in the same space - like the Sony FS100, which was more expensive (while delivering less along certain dimensions, such as built-in NDs etc.). That was definitely part of the AF100's appeal - very low price, for the time. That is part and parcel of the AF100's DNA - successor must have the same appeal, otherwise it's just a different camera, and Panasonic already makes other cameras at higher price points. The AF200 must also appeal to the same tradition - delivering a shockingly good package at a shockingly low price. It makes no sense to suddenly escalate prices for the AF100 series. Furthermore, the tendency is for prices to go down for the electronic and computational parts of the camera - the AF cam does not come with a lens, so the price for optics is not a concern. We're talking about the body - and here the prices for computational power and components have been going down. Panasonic is already selling more expensive cameras. They cannot price the AF series at the same level as the FS7 or C series from Canon - what reason would there be for people not to just buy the FS7?

So I agree 100% that $3-$4K is actually "high". For that price, they better stuff the AF200 chock full of features. Better yet, they should go ahead and deliver a lower price - a worthy successor to the AF100 which shocked everyone with its low price... but this is several years later, and the bar for "low" price is much, much lower these days, what with very capable DSLRs like the GH4, the A7S and the NX1 selling for anywhere between the $1-$2.5K level. That's the challenge - make it tons better than any DSLR, and at a price that's super competitive... that's what will bring the indie people back to full featured video cameras - otherwise what reason is there for them to abandon their GH4's, A7S and NX1's?
 
$3,000 is not what I would call a "high" price point at all, in any way shape or form. It would be undercutting everyone else by $2,000 on the low end and others by $5,000 to $6,000. Any DSLR with the added things the AF200 will likely have would cost the same amount and would still be missing a ton of features compared to the AF. At $3,000 they'd be making a very bold statement IMO.
 
These posts about price ceilings for a "professional" camera are so discouraging. I want an erstablished manufacturer, in this case Panasonic Broadcast,. to view this market as made up of people who build equipment expenses into the cost of doing business. If you can't recoup 3-4 grand on one or two jobs, you should find another career.

I want a professional camera to be R&D'd to the point that it is totally reliable for the work that I do, and I expect to pay for that because the per item cost of production isn't based on the mass consumer market. For vacation videos go to BestBuy and buy your consumer GH4. I've been hoping for three years that Panasonic would upgrade the AF100, and now, finally, there's hope - and the penny-pincher-wanna-be's are grousing on these forums about a 3-4 thousand dollar tool. Please.
 
Mac said:
These posts about price ceilings for a "professional" camera are so discouraging. I want an erstablished manufacturer, in this case Panasonic Broadcast,. to view this market as made up of people who build equipment expenses into the cost of doing business. If you can't recoup 3-4 grand on one or two jobs, you should find another career.

I want a professional camera to be R&D'd to the point that it is totally reliable for the work that I do, and I expect to pay for that because the per item cost of production isn't based on the mass consumer market. For vacation videos go to BestBuy and buy your consumer GH4. I've been hoping for three years that Panasonic would upgrade the AF100, and now, finally, there's hope - and the penny-pincher-wanna-be's are grousing on these forums about a 3-4 thousand dollar tool. Please.
Click to expand...

Right on. Absolutely right on.

Panasonic, make the camera sing. Make it something that I can invest in, and please give it a usable, quality VF (unlike the AF100).

This broken record notion that the camera should be 3K and be a significant professional tool is a fools errand. I passed up the AF100 because it was a souped-up DSLR. I hope they don't make the same (stupid) mistake again by targeting the amateur/ hobbyist market. The GH4 suits that market quite well.
 
I agree. It is complicated though. Image quality is creeping up from the bottom of the marketplace. $800 cameras are creating stunning images which can be as good or better than the "tanks". We will see if anything shows up.

Btw, why would Panasonic or any company want to go after a 'low-ball' market? Bring the indie crowd back by making below-margin products just seems like a recipe to lose money imho.
 
Bassman2003 said:
... Btw, why would Panasonic or any company want to go after a 'low-ball' market?
Click to expand...
Because they have lower manufacturing, research and development costs, especially on sensors, if they "overlap" several of their models and, if they get lucky, they'll move a lot of boxes a la GH4. Sometimes, this moves from the upscale camera down, sometimes a lower end camera will have 75% of the higher end unit anyway.

A high end camera may be a hit or a miss and a miss can be costly.
 
True, but I think some of us are saying that to reach that pricepoint the camera will be compromised. It will not be well researched and tested or built for decent pro abuse. Bells and whistles might be "left off" due to the low price. After all of this time, we do not want an in between-try, we want a workhorse, check all of the boxes type of camera. Basically a PX270 with a large chip...
 
Yes, I too believe that pricing this camera too low will require substantial compromise. My feeling is that this camera will range anywhere from $5000-$8000 depending on how Panasonic chooses to position it. The appeal of the AF100 was that it was relatively low cost and feature-packed when it was released; this shocked the marketplace in a great way. I see them doing the same again but not at a $3000 price point as some have suggested. There are still substantial features that will need to be packed into this thing to make it a contender with the FS7 or even the C100/mkII. The cost of R&D for all the features we believe may be in this thing is just too high.

I feel that Panasonic may have approached this camera as such: Would we rather sell (x) amount of cameras at $3000 or (y) amount of cameras at $5000. I'm willing to bet they won't lose many sales because of the $2000 price gap... but they'll definitely gain $2K per unit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top