AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

For those who want to pay "more! more! more!" - well, uhm, Panasonic already makes more expensive cameras! It's really not that hard to locate expensive cameras. It doesn't even have to be a Panasonic. You can spend $80K on an Alexa. Or go buy the FS7 - I see little point in Panasonic coming up with a FS7-like camera for FS7-like price. Clearly, even those who want to spend "more! more! more!" simply want "more camera for less money"... which is exactly what those of us who are advocating $3K and below want too: "more camera for less money" - except that we are clear on the concept: "less" is less, not "more". Continuing the AF tradition for Panasonic, means more camera for less money, and in 2015, that means $3K and less. If you want to pay "more", go knock yourself out, there are plenty of expensive cameras you can sink your money in that will be obsolete in 6 months - camera technology is evolving very fast these days, and companies are throwing new cams into the market at record speed, every time you turn around Sony has something new, even JVC is throwing a curve. Personally, I recognize that, and my preferred approach is not to wait for the "perfect" camera that "checks all the boxes", because the "box list" changes all the time anyway, so there never will be a camera that "checks all the boxes" for that reason alone - after all, a couple of years ago, nobody even thought of 4K, so it was not on any box list to be checked. I'd rather buy a camera that's "good enough" - it doesn't have to do the impossible task of being the perfect camera that "checks all the boxes" - and btw. the box list will be different for different people and different ways they use the cam, run & gun, narrative, interviews etc. So I'd rather get a camera that is "good enough" for my scenario - narrative work - which was the original AF100 mandate, and so if it doesn't check all the boxes for run & gun, I'm fine with that - for you it may be different. I don't need a camera that does everything for everyone and toasts my bagels as well. I'd rather get a camera that's good enough - and since the tech evolves so fast, I see no point in sinking a huge amount of money into it, so I don't see the point in "cost more! please cost more! oh won't you charge me mooooore please!" - pay less, but more often as tech evolves. It's stupid to pay a lot and then be stuck with a big sunk cost while the tech makes your big sunk cost obsolete anyway and you have to chase the next "best" camera that "checks all the boxes" all over again. I'd rather pay less, it will amortize faster, and when the tech evolves, I can just buy the newer one, because the cost is low. Camera body is not where I want to spend my money on.

So my point to Panasonic would be: keep the tradition of the AF alive - a ton of camera in a shockingly low price range, make your money on lenses, peripherals, and big volume - elitist expensive cameras are a tiny part of the market, and then you can charge chumps as much as you want. But the AF series is not that. It's for the smart people, and if you want to compete in that market, price it at $3K or less and give us a lot of camera for that, and you'll have a huge success on your hands.
 
The original AF100 was $5k when it came out, not particularly cheap, nor expensive. But it did offer a ton of features for the price - in fact at the time I think the best price to feature ratio. Why wouldn't they be able to do that again? $5k is still a sweet spot for a huge market segment, those of us above the amateur/hobbyist but below the high end cinema market.
 
EidolonFilms said:
The original AF100 was $5k when it came out, not particularly cheap, nor expensive. But it did offer a ton of features for the price - in fact at the time I think the best price to feature ratio. Why wouldn't they be able to do that again? $5k is still a sweet spot for a huge market segment, those of us above the amateur/hobbyist but below the high end cinema market.
Click to expand...

+1

This is the price range that I am expecting for a Canon C100 competitor.
 
Right, $4,995... in 2010! That was what a low price for a good feature set looked like. But 5 years in the world of camera technology is an eon. That's a very long time indeed. That was a low price back then. Today, $5K is not a low price anymore. Today, $3K is a low price. It's the same as in any computationally intense electronic industry. You used to have to pay $3-$5K for a laptop. Today, you have far more capable laptops, far more feature-rich for $1K and under. There will always be the $80K cameras, $5K laptops, etc., but if you are looking for the price/performance champs that the AF lineage represents, the low price has moved lower. In 2010, $5K was low. This is 2015 and $3K is the benchmark for the low price/high performance market. The high end is still there, to be sure, and will always be there, but that's not what we are talking about. I see it stabilizing eventually - not too long into the future, where $1700 is what we'll be looking at, basically sub-$2K which is where the DSLR market is moving, and the video camera market will follow.
 
So the circle of this thread goes around again... NAB can't get here quick enough! Although we will probably all be disappointed when no AF refresh is announced anyway.
 
Mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm with Mac on this.

Bought the AF100 more for it's features than it's price. Now I want improved features & am willing to pay the price. Highier DR, & ISO, great looking & properely placed EVF, Smart Grip, weather resistance, V-Log, 10-bit 4:2:2, broadcast compliant bitrate, etc, etc, all while keep it small enough to still carry onboard flights in an international-sized rolling bag, with room leftover for lenses & accessories.

Along with the GH4 it should be able to be used with the Varicam on multicam productions. Panasonic would have then have a strong lineup capable of scaling to any size production.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
Right, $4,995... in 2010! That was what a low price for a good feature set looked like. But 5 years in the world of camera technology is an eon. That's a very long time indeed. That was a low price back then. Today, $5K is not a low price anymore. Today, $3K is a low price. It's the same as in any computationally intense electronic industry. You used to have to pay $3-$5K for a laptop. Today, you have far more capable laptops, far more feature-rich for $1K and under. There will always be the $80K cameras, $5K laptops, etc., but if you are looking for the price/performance champs that the AF lineage represents, the low price has moved lower. In 2010, $5K was low. This is 2015 and $3K is the benchmark for the low price/high performance market. The high end is still there, to be sure, and will always be there, but that's not what we are talking about. I see it stabilizing eventually - not too long into the future, where $1700 is what we'll be looking at, basically sub-$2K which is where the DSLR market is moving, and the video camera market will follow.
Click to expand...

Just curious....if what you say is correct, where are the 3k big sensor video cameras?
The only things that might fit that range are the FS100 and AF100.
Im not talking DSLRs/mirrorless because those are still cameras first and besides,
using your own logic, if you want to pay less, just buy a GH4/A7s for less than 3 grand.
There will always be lower cost cams such as these for people willing to accept compromises.
Those who want more full featured cams (XLR, HD/SDI/built in NDs etc) will be paying a bit
more than the DSLR crowd.....simple economics. They cost more to make so they sell
for more. JVC's new large sensor cam is a good example of this. Includes most of what
AF100 users have been clamoring for at a cost of what? $4450? So I'm not saying it can't
happen (shoot, I hope it does!) but if Panasonic makes a full featured large sensor cam for
less than 3k they will be the first to ever do it.
 
IMO, they really want to be a "bang for the buck" leader again, much like they were with GH4, LX 100 and the original AF100, and this suggests a lower price point than its competitors.

So, as Bassman2003 said, we have come a full circle ... more or less. GH4 is now being sold for $1,500 and some retailers are throwing in some goodies to go along with it. If you use that price as a starting point, then a $3,500 "pro" camcorder seems entirely reasonable.

FWIW, JVC's new 4K camcorder with most of the popular in-demand features included is already $4,000 with a Rokinon lens thrown in at that price. And it actually has an s35 sensor, not an MFT. Once again, doing a bit of interpolating, $3,500 is well within reason.
 
Well, that's what being a leader is - being first. That's what Panasonic did with the original AF100 - where was that feature set at that price anywhere back in 2010? Exactly. Now we're talking about the successor to the AF100 - the AF200. And in order to follow the original AF100 heritage, the AF200 must also be the leader in price/performance. Hence, the new "shockingly low price" is $3000 in 2015, just as $5K was in 2010 - perhaps unprecedented, but that's what being a leader is all about.
 
I think citing the professional stills market is in order here. Nikon and Canon both market their flagship DSLR cameras within the same $5000-$6000 range and have for years. The features with each generation become substantially better and more refined, however the price remains fairly consistent. The reason is that there needs to be a price premium to own the best to maintain proper segmentation of the market. A modern D7200 is superior in basically every way to Nikons last full body DX flagship the D2X yet it's MSRP is wayyyy less. The D7200 came many years after the D2X though. Compare the price of the modern D4s to the D2X when it was introduced.

Market segmentation. I'm happy to pay $5000 for an AF200... I'd be ecstatic to pay $3000 but that doesn't make much sense from a business standpoint.
 
I think the advances since the AF100 would bring down the price OR increase features. Now a big sensor camera will need to do 4K, 10 bit, 4:2:2 internal and maybe even provide a RAW capability albeit reliant on 3rd party (Oddessey 7Q) recorders. It should take advantage of the higher speed media and new codecs. Thats' why I think it is reasonable that it land in the $5K - $6K range keeping it under the Sony FS7 and the Cion, Canon Cs, for that same price performance. I wouldn't want it to compete with the DSLRs, I'd rather it compete with those cameras. Plus I hope it takes it's tech from Varicam and not the consumer cameras. I wouldn't be interested in the $3K version. It'd be hobbled out of the gate.

I think the GH4 is great but I'd like to see the AF100 come from the pro side, not consumer.
 
OldCorpse said:
Well, that's what being a leader is - being first. That's what Panasonic did with the original AF100 - where was that feature set at that price anywhere back in 2010? Exactly. Now we're talking about the successor to the AF100 - the AF200. And in order to follow the original AF100 heritage, the AF200 must also be the leader in price/performance. Hence, the new "shockingly low price" is $3000 in 2015, just as $5K was in 2010 - perhaps unprecedented, but that's what being a leader is all about.
Click to expand...

Hope you are right......obviously features are trickling down to lower priced cams,
I doubt anyone here will be against a full featured pro camera for $3000 so if
Panasonic pulls it off I'm sure they will sell plenty of them.
 
I would love to see some pro accessories, like a higher end detachable EVF that could be mounted in different positions, or a higher end "inline" (mounts directly to the camera body) recorder with advanced CODECs, etc...
 
TheDingo said:
I would love to see some pro accessories, like a higher end detachable EVF that could be mounted in different positions, or a higher end "inline" (mounts directly to the camera body) recorder with advanced CODECs, etc...
Click to expand...

As I indicated before: IMHO the way to go is to keep the price rock bottom on the body, and make more $ on the accessories. That's a win-win. Because then you can pick and choose what you want to add for how much $ for your situation. The EVF you mentioned could be one option. I personally would like for there NOT to be a fixed XLR input - rather, for that to be a separate optional module you can buy as a pro accessory just like the EVF... reason being is that for what I want the AF200 for - narrative work (which was the original mandate of the AF100), and for highest quality - I'm going dual sound anyway, so I don't need to record my production sound onto the camera (and if I need to record a scratch or guide track, a 1/4" connector is just fine); meanwhile somebody else may want to buy the xlr module for Run & Gun or docu work.

That's the whole idea - if you are trying to force Panasonic to come out with a camera that is all things to all people ("checks all the boxes" - except everybody's box list is different!) - you are going to push up the cost and not make everyone happy. Because the person who wants a narrative camera won't use, doesn't need and doesn't want to pay for eng features and vice versa and so on for every scenario.

So why not sell a rock-bottom priced body and then you can select additional pro accessories as your needs and budget dictate - win/win. Panasonic could sell recorders for more codec options, audio modules, storage, monitors, evfs etc. etc., and make this a super versatile package - you build an ecosystem and get loyal users. But it all starts with a super affordable body - $3K and under.
 
I don't see any precedent for Panasonic to take a modular approach at all. Which Panasonic recorder? Which Panasonic EVF? That's the kind of thing saved for the highest tier like Reds and Sony F55 and Alexa. Off loading the cost of accessories is NOT a low price strategy. Look at the Cion It's a very capable body, with excellent recording options but if you want a monitor, an EVF and a power solution besides plugging it in that $9K camera runs closer to $13.5K by my estimates. How is that good for the consumer? It doesn't keep the system price down at all. It's the systems functionality, having all the tools, NDs, balanced audio, WFM, buttons not menus interface, robust camera presets, zebras, etc.. all that good AF100 stuff, that make it such a good value.

I'm not sure what you're proposing for a $3K AF. What would you leave out? 10 bit 4:2:2 internal? 4K?
 
What is the worth of internal 10bit 4:2:2 to someone? XLR's? Internal ND filters? Wide dynamic range? My guess is that for a lot of people, it's actually not much. If you have the sort of clientele for whom this sort of thing actually makes a difference, they are the sort of clients that are probably able to pay for it. I'm getting to the point in my business that this sort of thing is actually becoming important. Because of that, I'm willing to pay $4k-$5k for it... because I can charge clients more for it.

I get that we all want to give our clients the absolute best product that we can. But I've also come to the realization that at some point, it's unreasonable to do so. There reaches a point where you need to recognize the difference between what I can give, and what I want to give. I can't go into a place selling $7 bacon burgers, and expect the quality of a $40 prime rib... even if it's theoretically possible to do so. I just came back from spending a month in Vietnam working on a project for a friend's medical NGO, shooting on my GH4. Good Lord, do I love that camera now. It is an insane value for the money. And for clients for whom it's quality is good enough, it's perfect. But I can't be expected to give my clients more than that just because I can. If I have clients who need more than the amazing footage the GH4 can produce, it's unreasonable to expect me to give it to them for the same price, even if it's possible. And I think it's unreasonable to expect Panasonic to supply a camera at that price point that delivers that kind of footage and the usability of the AF100... even if it's theoretically possible... when the competition is selling cameras that are equal or inferior in many aspects at a much higher price point, especially if those cameras will sell well. Panasonic's job is to make money for their shareholders, and if you can sell X amount of the AF200 at $1,700 and still somehow make a profit, or sell 75% of X amount of the AF200 at $4,500, what are you going to do? Especially when a large chunk of that 25% that didn't by the AF200 will still end up buying the GH4 instead? Considering the competition will either still be more expensive (Sony & Canon) or of lesser quality (JVC), selling an insanely feature packed camera at well below market value doesn't make you look like a (niche!) market leader, it makes you look like a fool who I wouldn't want to buy stock in.

Pride before the fall... and professional pride is not a justification for crappy business decisions.
 
I'm not sure what you're proposing for a $3K AF. What would you leave out? 10 bit 4:2:2 internal? 4K?


It's actually quite logical. By having a bare bones cam body, you are minimizing the price, yes, but with peripherals you are actually bringing up the quality. F.ex., they could include only a rudimentary monitor to keep the price down. You want more, get the pro monitor that has all the bells and whistles. It's win-win. Why? Because people use monitors differently. Some demand peaking, others find peaking misleading and don't want it; some demand waveform, others want something else and so on. So what does Panasonic - or Sony, or whoever - usually do? Well, they include a monitor that is middle of the road, pleasing nobody... it's too much for the minimalist, and it's too little for those who demand some function that has been left off. So why not save the money on the mediocre monitor that pleases no one, and give an optional monitor that has all the bells and whistles - that way, if you're a minimalist you don't have to buy it, saving money, and if you want the top of the line, you can buy that peripheral... not to mention that many people already have a monitor and would rather that Panasonic charge less for a basic function instead of including a mediocre monitor for more money. It's all about picking and choosing what you want. F.ex., I don't need XLRs in my cam - I record dual sound for top quality narrative work... so I'd rather save the money on the XLR - but if you want it for Run & Gun, then you can buy an audio module with XLR inputs... maybe somebody prefers to work with simple codecs or doesn't need raw - save the money; you need it - get the recorder option. Clearly including ALL the options that EVERYBODY can wish for is first of all quite expensive and second of all not even possible (there's always something someone wants that's rare) - plus odds are that it'll be implemented in a mediocre way unless the cost is through the roof.

Bottom line, by mixing and matching and buying only what you need, you end up 1) paying less money because you pay only for what you actually want and use 2) get higher quality components 3) can grow with the camera and change the mix of features as your needs change and evolve instead of having to buy a whole new "fully featured camera" for a ton of money.
 
hscully said:
Which Panasonic recorder? Which Panasonic EVF ?
Click to expand...

...So we end up with an AF200 with a typical Panasonic EVF bolted to back of the top handle that many of us will never use, because we want an EVF we can use with the camera shoulder mounted. Then we are stuck with being limited to only AVCHD CODEC support, so we have to buy a 3rd party $2,000+ recorder that somehow has to bolted to our new AF200 Franken-rig.

I just wish that Panasonic would not be so short sighted as to not realize that there is a market for higher end accessories that can be used to upgrade the basic camera.
 
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...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top