AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

john deaver said:
Does anybody think nearly 6 lbs is a little heavy?
Click to expand...

agreed! the weight of the Sony Ex1 is around this and although its an akward camera to handhold much of the time (for me) i find it fairly hefty in weight especially when its ergo compounds that. i was surprised at the weight of the DVX200. also if needed to attach a recorder to get better specs that also sort of diffuses the run and gun aspects of an all in one camera...that shouldn't need a rig or shoulder rig.

david
 
Wesley Byram said:
I'm curious about this statement. The DVX200 may not do 4:2:2 internally, but it does do 4k. 4K even at 4:2:0 still provides twice the chroma resolution of 1080p at 4:2:2. And even at 1080p, 4:2:2 is only marginally better, unless one is doing something very sensitive to color resolution, like chroma key. On top of that, bayer sensors sampled at 1:1 can't produce enough color info to fill 4:2:2 anyway.

Of course, that's for progressive footage. If you're talking about interlaced footage, then yeah, 4:2:0 can go die in a fire.

I for one would rather have 10bit than 4:2:2, but that's me.
Click to expand...

That's it. I'm getting mentally prepared for 4k adquisition for 10 bit 4:2:2 output in 2k (yes I know, it's not real 10 bit but at least this bit depht is the only way to deal with the whole amount of information) but for that workflow I'll have to factor in a more powerful computer. Add V-log and the grading experience should be excellent.
 
It's a bit heavy yes to be honest. for example, a C100 with a 24-105mm F4 is less than half the weight of the DVX200. But the camera does have its lens and features that justify it. 6 pounds are almost a sweet spot for steady comfortable handheld shooting. I just wish the camera met broadcast standards and offered 50mbps 4:2:2 codec even in 8bit like the C300, the H.264 8bit 4:2:0 will hurt the camera badly marke/sales-wise compared to a 10bit or even just 4:2:2 designation (even though I personally believe the difference is negligble to me, but my clients and the camera buyer now really signify this feature and demand it on that scale of a camera. It should be added in FW prior to shipping in my opinion or else the camera will be met with 8 bit 4:2:0 shame sticker.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't understand why at least AVC-LongG wasn't included. No P2 I get because it would have added to the cost and probably cut into PX270 sales too much. But AVC-LongG would have been nice. It's the "dealbreaker" part I don't understand. It's annoying not having it, but it's also under $5k. I'm genuinely curious what someone's business type is that requires a sub-$5k camera that also has 4:2:2 AND a large sensor with a fixed zoom lens.
Click to expand...

For me it is a purchase/investment no matter how much to costs or does not cost. Buying a 4:2:0 8-bit camera for $5,000 seems like a poor investment compared to buying one with more current specs. I do not like to rent and want to get a long term usage from my cameras. Yes, one can deal but wait a year and how much less will we all think of 8bit 4:2:0? I already started laughing when I first heard the Panasonic guy mention AVCHD. Really in 2015 for a $5,000 camera? I did not pay that much more for the PX270.

About the weight, imho 6 lbs seems heavy for handholding. The weight of the PX270 says 5.7 with battery but it seems a lot lighter than the EX-1. Will have to see about the balance.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Besides what is with this sudden obsession with constant aperture lenses? I have been shooting with professional video cameras and broadcast shoulder mounted ENG cameras for 20+ years and I never had a constant aperture lens.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you think it's a sudden obsession. I've been producing film and TV for as long as you and if you've never used a constant aperture lens then I'd just say you're missing out on some things that are important to me as a producer. It's a non issue for what you produce I'm sure. For what we do fast lenses are very valuable. We don't zoom during shots - it's having as fast as aperture possible on the portrait end that matters to me.

I'm not crazy for 1" sensors (although we shoot a lot spot work with the super 16 sensor on the BM Pocket), but I'm talking about the need for a couple of small all in one cameras for current projects.

With a 1" sensor, if you want any decent separation in CU work you're shooting at the long end of the zoom and yes it's good if that is as fast as possible - and even there wide open you're getting a FF DOF of around /7-8ish probably...but at 200mm the compression and DOF can work.

Again for that reason alone (and it's of real importance for what we do) if the DVX has f/2.8 at the same 200mm then it's going to have better DOF control and emotion. I mostly work in S35 but for this type of camera 4/3 could be really nice.
 
Last edited:
jimagine said:
I'm not crazy for 1" sensors (although we shoot a lot spot work with the super 16 sensor on the BM Pocket), but I'm talking about the need for a couple of small all in one cameras for current projects.

.....
Again for that reason alone (and it's of real importance for what we do) if the DVX has f/2.8 at the same 200mm then it's going to have better DOF control and emotion. I mostly work in S35 but for this type of camera 4/3 could be really nice.
Click to expand...
I think it comes back to what I said earlier about whether a camera like this hits a sweet spot, or falls between stools.

In this case, the "stools" are 1" and s35, and 4/3 is in between.

Personally, I'm coming more to the conclusion that I'd prefer to go for 1" for a fixed lens design, and s35 for more serious stuff with interchangeable lenses. (Bear in mind that 1" is actually about twice the area of a 2/3" camera, so a stop better for dof.) Such would tend to ease the lens issues for the fixed lens camera in terms of size, weight etc (and if it makes an f2 lens possible, gives the same dof characteristics as f2.8 on 4/3 anyway!).

But others may disagree...... I just feel that 4/3 in this context seems a bit neither one thing nor the other.

As far as codec goes, then Panasonic seem to be heavily toting this as a "B camera to the Varicam" - in which case I'd expect it to have the same codec choice for basic frame rates. At the very least it could do with the long-GOP version of AVC-Ultra.
 
Isn't the C100 body without lens 1020 Kilograms and the 24-105mm 670 grams? Perhaps the battery and grip are what I am mis-calculating here? and does the dvx200 weight include grip, battery, top handle too?

Anyhow still, a full fledged s35 camera and the dvx200 is heavier. But I actually don't think of the DVX200 weight being a disadvantage, 6 Lbs is perfectly fine for a normal healthy human body to carry, it will help with steadiness, the weight is totally justified by the camera's size compared to the C100 and most notable justified by the huge range zoom almost-cinema lens.

The DVX200 looks perfect as a handheld camcorder, very well thought out design from the ground up including size and weight and buttons and LCD, EVF, battery, media, and even the aesthetic shape, she is a beaut! Perhaps even a better handheld camcorder design than the C300 I adore the design of, but clearly these are different cameras when it comes to uses due to lenses.

Remember this is a camera that doesn't need add ons when you think of the weight, with a C100/300 you can find your self at 20 pounds by adding a huge lens, shoulder mount, monitor, etc. This one is an all-in-one solution ready to shoot out the box as is, 6 pounds is within the capability of any healthy human being so don't bother by it unless you have a specific condition needing the lightest camera options, this isn't it.
 
john deaver said:
Does anybody think nearly 6 lbs is a little heavy?
Click to expand...

For anyone in Australia (don't know about everywhere else). If you go and get a standard house brick and walk around with it you'll be getting in some good practice. That's an almost identical weight. :grin:
 
Phil vG said:
For anyone in Australia (don't know about everywhere else). If you go and get a standard house brick and walk around with it you'll be getting in some good practice. That's an almost identical weight. :grin:
Click to expand...

That is exactly my issue, if I'm carrying around a camera all day then that 6lbs becomes an issue at some point, i sold my C100 just for that reason.
 
The DVX200 appears to be very similar in overall shape, and almost identical in weight, to my PX270, which I find I can handhold very comfortably and carry around all day by its handle without undue strain. Although I have a shoulder rig that fits the PX270 well, I found I prefer to shoot without it most of the time, because it more than doubles the total weight I'm carrying, even though it balances better.

- Greg
 
If you sold your c100 for weight the dvx200 is not your camera, it's considerably heavier than the c100, too heavy for you sorry!

You'll have to look at the smaller camera, A7s, GH4, NX1, 5D, and if you still want camcorder design look at the AX100, X70, XC10,
 
Bassman2003 said:
For me it is a purchase/investment no matter how much to costs or does not cost. Buying a 4:2:0 8-bit camera for $5,000 seems like a poor investment compared to buying one with more current specs. I do not like to rent and want to get a long term usage from my cameras. Yes, one can deal but wait a year and how much less will we all think of 8bit 4:2:0? I already started laughing when I first heard the Panasonic guy mention AVCHD. Really in 2015 for a $5,000 camera? I did not pay that much more for the PX270.

About the weight, imho 6 lbs seems heavy for handholding. The weight of the PX270 says 5.7 with battery but it seems a lot lighter than the EX-1. Will have to see about the balance.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it also depends on the type of work you do. For 80%+ of the work that I do, AVCHD is perfectly adequate. Of the other 15%-20%, either one of the higher bitrate options or downconverted 4k will work for a good chunk of it of it. If you're planning on shooting for broadcast, I might see the issue. But even then, my old TV station was using upconverted DVCPro25, and two of the other three news stations in my market were shooting Betacam still. I've seen some amazing stuff that was broadcast shot on a GH2 with stock codecs.

I think one of the things people keep forgetting is we are not the end viewer. I'm all for trying to use the best tools possible and giving the client the best product I can... but I'm shooting for the client, not me. And if they don't care, then I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it. The producer I shoot the most for is happy with AVCHD. His clients are happy with what he's giving them. The video geek is still baffled why AVC-LongG wasn't included (I mean, seriously, would it have really been that big a deal to just include it?), but practically, it doesn't really affect me too much, and I'm betting for the target market of this camera, it's not really going to have that much of a practical effect.
 
Slightly off topic. . .regarding handheld, for me, it's not an arm/shoulder thing, but a back thing. I tend to lean back/puff my stomach out when shooting handheld. . .I don't know why. . .maybe in a way it feels more relaxed/stable for me. Also I'm 5'2, so I'm generally shooting up at everything. After a short time, this position blows hard. Therefore, rigs don't really seem to help 'cause it's not the weight on my arm I'm usually trying to relieve/balance. Any ideas? Besides getting a bodybuilder to operate for me while I carry a wireless monitor and boss him around?
 
This camera seems a quick shot to rally with the 4K craze. Lets hope Panny comes up with a real follow up of the AF100. Its been many years that I am waiting...
 
Mike Harvey said:
Ah, but it also depends on the type of work you do. For 80%+ of the work that I do, AVCHD is perfectly adequate. Of the other 15%-20%, either one of the higher bitrate options or downconverted 4k will work for a good chunk of it of it. If you're planning on shooting for broadcast, I might see the issue. But even then, my old TV station was using upconverted DVCPro25, and two of the other three news stations in my market were shooting Betacam still. I've seen some amazing stuff that was broadcast shot on a GH2 with stock codecs.

I think one of the things people keep forgetting is we are not the end viewer. I'm all for trying to use the best tools possible and giving the client the best product I can... but I'm shooting for the client, not me. And if they don't care, then I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it. The producer I shoot the most for is happy with AVCHD. His clients are happy with what he's giving them. The video geek is still baffled why AVC-LongG wasn't included (I mean, seriously, would it have really been that big a deal to just include it?), but practically, it doesn't really affect me too much, and I'm betting for the target market of this camera, it's not really going to have that much of a practical effect.
Click to expand...

Well it is all subjective but after working with 10bit 4:2:2 it is just better than 8bit 4:2:0. Neither processing power or memory card speed is holding this back (1080p on down). The HMC-150 had AVCHD... That was how many years ago? 7? As you know, I am only talking about 1080p & 720p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top