The YAGH essentially becomes part of the camera, so how is an external system less kludgy? And no, the DVX200 doesn't exist yet, but we at least know that it has built-in XLRs.
AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder
- Thread starter Screenforme
- Start date
combatentropy
Veteran
philiplipetz
Veteran
The YAGH demonstrates that Panasonic can deliver things that fulfill a spec list requirement but are not well thought out. I hope they do better with the DVX200 using different engineers.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The biggest problem with the YAGH, IMO, is that it cannot be battery-operated. So for a handheld system, it becomes rather kludgy - unless you're willing to wear a 12v XLR battery belt to power it.
If it was battery-operable, then I'd totally agree with you, it'd be far less goofy than the tinkertoy piecemeal rigs.
Fair enough. The original point, of course, is that when considering the price difference between the GH4 and the DVX200, you've got quite a bit more to consider than just the price of the GH4 body alone. 'Sall I was trying to say.
philiplipetz
Veteran
http://translate.google.com/transla...jp/docs/news/20150421_698576.html&prev=search
A Google machine translation suggests that the lens will not change focus as it zooms.
A Google machine translation suggests that the lens will not change focus as it zooms.
Hopefully this means the lens will be optically parfocal and not "electronically" parfocal.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Kichitto means "exact" according to a Google search, so this seems to say that exact focus will be maintained during zoom.
Darren Levine
Veteran
What is the purpose of this current discussion? to convince some people of something they can't/won't accept?
i keep coming back to the operative figure here: the lens! if it were a separate entity, it would be thousands of dollars. XLRs, yes, NDs, yes, 5 axis stabilizer, yes, all these things add up to the likely price tag being totally reasonable. i was thrilled with the EX1 when it launched at 6500.
in the end if it works for you it works, if not, what is the point of debating what it could have been ad nauseam?
i keep coming back to the operative figure here: the lens! if it were a separate entity, it would be thousands of dollars. XLRs, yes, NDs, yes, 5 axis stabilizer, yes, all these things add up to the likely price tag being totally reasonable. i was thrilled with the EX1 when it launched at 6500.
in the end if it works for you it works, if not, what is the point of debating what it could have been ad nauseam?
Mike Harvey
Veteran
:thumbsup:
The YAGH as is leaves a great deal to be desired, and I agree with philiplipetz "The YAGH demonstrates that Panasonic can deliver things that fulfill a spec list requirement but are not well thought out."
But I'd like to think it's a first attempt and they've learnt from it. I've said in another thread that I can see a lot of future in a system built around a "GH5" or whatever - provided it's designed as such from the outset. Is more than just taking a stills camera with video mode and building a not very ergonomic box to bolt on to give a few extra facilities. Such could easily win the hearts of the "AF200" advocates in a way the DVX200 simply won't. And have the further advantage that in basic, stripped down mode is much smaller, lighter than any DVX200.
I don't see anything wrong as such with the DVX200, but what was a mistake was the tease in Kunihiko Miyagi's blog: ".... we’ve decided to go for a new breakthrough, and try to create another disruption in the industry ....." The DVX200 is an good evolutionary product, but I doubt anyone sees it as a "breakthrough" or likely to cause "disruption in the industry". By saying things like that, they just drove up expectations too high, and are now experiencing a backlash.
True North
Well-known member
'Breakthrough', from a technology standpoint, was probably a bit of a stretch, based on what we know about the camera today. There may be more details forthcoming that may prove that this camera is a 'breakthrough', but at this point it doesn't seem as if the DVX200 is a technological breakthrough. It may 'disrupt' the industry in that it is currently the only Camcorder with a large enough Sensor to potentially produce reasonably acceptable low light performance at 4K. There is no 4K camcorder on the market that can be viewed as a decent low light performer and there is only one on the market that can currently shoot in 4K 60P, so the DVX200 is part of an extremely short list as far as specifications are concerned. I for one am looking at this camera with great interest and I look forward to seeing some footage.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I disagree with you. I think many are spoiled today by what DSLRs like the GH4 have offered in terms of quality but the work flow and ergonomics always leaves something to be desired. There are many shooters who still prefer a video camera type of a tool and workflow. Only downside to those type of cameras are the tiny sensors. What the DVX200 does is finally bridge that gap between workhorse video camera and DSLR. For years I had one of each because there is such a thing as the right tool for the job. With the DVX200 shooters can finally for the first time in history really have one single camera that can do it all. It acts and functions exactly like a traditional video camera yet enjoys all the image quality, DOF and low light benefits of a m43 DSLR.
Look we know the GH cameras are widely used by those who create other types of video besides indie films. The wedding crowd and corporate video is a decent market for the GH3 and GH4. Many of those people at one point came from a background using video cameras. While they all successfully made the move to a camera like a GH4 there have been a lot of compromises along the way. With the DVX200 those people finally have the Gh4 they would likely prefer to have. About the only thing really lacking on the DVX200 is the ability to add f1.8 glass. That is a bummer of course but the DVX200 will still crush most other 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" video cameras. Considering the 1/2" video camera market is still generally more expensive than the DVX200 I would say thats pretty darn impressive. Forget about getting a 2/3" 4k video camera anytime soon wither. The last 2/3" video camera I used was a Sony DVCAM that cost over $12,000.00. 2/3" is extremely expensive and 1/2" is pretty far up there as well. Typically the sub $5,000.00 video cameras are 1/3" Here we get a 4/3" sensor video camera which is just astronomically huge for a $5,000.00 video camera.
It is not easy to make a power zoom lens for a m43 sensor. The larger the sensor the more difficult it is to build a zoom lens. Sure traditional sub $5,000.00 video cameras have impressive zoom lenses but those are designed for a 1/3" sensor or at the most a 1/2" sensor. The lens on the DVX200 is exceptionally impressive because Panasonic did make the worlds first actually usable power zoom lens with a decent full range and decent aperture. This is a lens that as far as we know functions just like a traditional video camera lens and yet works with a m43 sensor. That is rather unheard of.
Besides the lens and sensor the DVX200 basically has everything else many really wish they had on the GH4. Great in camera audio, better ergonomics for run and gun shooting, better physical controls that are easier to get at quickly and so on. The DVX200 is really a GH4 with a stellar lens attached, high quality XLR audio unit built in and a bigger body with many menu controls moved to the body for quicker access.
I would call that pretty darn impressive and a bit of an industry first. Would I have liked to see the zoom lens start at f1.8? Of course but lets be realistic here. Name a single f1.8 zoom lens built for m43. There is a reason why we don't see a whole lot of f1.8 zoom lenses. Even Olympus who had 43 f2.0 zooms decided to go f2.8 for their m43 zoom lenses due to cost and size. A lot of the f2.8 zoom lenses out there can only do so within a limited zoom range. For example 35-100 and 12-35. It is exceptionally difficult to combine those together and almost double that 100mm reach on the long end. Sure the DVX200 could have had interchangeable lenses but then it would actually lose a lot of those benefits that some shooters like with traditional video cameras. The AF100 was a nice camera but honestly it only really bridged the gap between video camera and DSLR but was never a perfect merge of the two. The DVX200 is a perfect merge of the two. The AF100 still had limited zoom options and only two not so good power zoom lenses that were horrendous in low light and not very practical. For one who shot productions that really required the use of zooming while shooting the AF100 was kind of an expensive bust and they would likely still prefer to use a really good and equally expensive video camera.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I agree, but we have to wait until it ships and gets tested before any assumptions are to be validated. Being better or crushing anything is based upon comparisons including price, quality etc... The theory and concept look great. I am waiting for the execution to make a conclusion. I can say I trust Panasonic to make a winner but it is better to just wait and see.
philiplipetz
Veteran
I also agree with Thomas Smet. And add that Panasonic has said that the only reason the DVX200 is possible is in camera lens correction with corrections optimized for each lens and camera combination, correcting for inevitable manufacturing variations when making more inexpensive zoom lenses for such large sensor zooms. They have stated that such quality at low cost is impossible without in camera correction for each lens' variation. Traditional large sensor zoom lenses for cine use are so expensive because of the low tolerance for manufacturing variation. Panasonic has said that the design breakthrough was accepting variation in body and lens, and then correcting in camera for each fixed immovable camera lens alignment. But they state that this is impossible with interchangeable lenses. Each combination is unique, and remounting the same lens introduces variations too large to allow this level of correction. They hint, but do not say, that this large sensor zoom lens requires in camera distortion correction to make it affordable, it is not just a question of optimization, but feasibility. This why the camera is a breakthrough that will redefine what is possible, just as the DVX100 did. It makes it possible to affordably have a large sensor zoom lens.
Last edited:
I agree about the low light performance, my main interest in the camera, but there are at least 3 more at a reasonable price that can shoot 60P, they may even have the same 1/2.3" sensor !!! Panasonics own HC-X1000, Sony's PXW-Z100 and FDR-AX1 . For twice as much the Sony FS7 and then the BM Ursa before we get into the really expensive stuff. I have the FDR-AX1 and low light is not its best feature !!! It is however a very clean image so is not too far behind my other Sony's but about 2 stops slower than my NX5U that gets noisy very quickly with gain above 9db. I too will look at the DVX200 when more information is available.
I think it almost certainly means electronically parfocal as the lens corrections need to be made in camera likely by focus point and zoom position. As has been said before it is this feature of this lens/camera that makes this possible at this price point. This is likely true for all the new cameras at this lower price point.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
While I hope this is true there are plenty of video cameras with a built in lens out there that are not parfocal. Panasonic cameras to be specific. I really hope the lens is parfocal but until we know for sure I wouldn't assume anything.
I agree. Depends on the firmware. My NX5U is pretty good and the FDR-AX1 useless !!! Even though the lenses look to be the same !!! But then again the FDR-AX1 is not a finished camera maybe in a future firmware update !!!
The problem I have with electronic parfocal lenses has to do with the corrections being momentarily visible in the recorded image. Zooming to a new FOV and watching the lens re-focus is not what I want to see in my footage.