AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Panasonic might be protecting a higher end model, but in all honesty they do not look that engaged in this market segment. If they were wanting to fight and win they would have multiple versions of this camera including a version without a lens. I think they see deflating prices and do not want to jump too far in any direction. The AF-100 was always a half-hearted attempt in my mind with no follow up. The DVX-200 could very well follow suit.

Clearly the GH line is Panasonic's focus. I like the thinking behind the DVX-200 but you have to deliver the goods or it will fail just like many view the AF-100. The lens numbers, the overall size and weight along with the 4k FOV limitations and lack of 1080p 4:2:2 option are giving me pause. It seems $10,000 is too much but $4,000 lacks features. I thought Panasonic struck nice balance with the PX-270 and was expecting the PX-430 when the all in one body design was announced. The DVX-200 is close, but will the compromises be too much?
 
DLD said:
There are sort of two current solutions to it - one is the Back Side Illumination (BSI), which Sony has began to use on even their full frame sensors (A7RII) but which seems off-limit to Panasonic at the moment. The other option is the "clear/white" pixel in the so-called RGBC filter, ......
Click to expand...
What you call "clear/white" brings advantages (better sensitivity cf Bayer), but it comes at the price of colour resolution. For some applications it may be a trade-off worth doing (small sensors in cellphones, for example) - for quality imaging it isn't.

As far as the codec debate goes, implementing a high end codec shouldn't make the basic camera cost any higher - but is likely to make a cost difference as far as memory goes. You'll need more of it, and it'll need to be capable of handling higher bitrates - more GBs and more expensive per GB! But it shouldn't have much (if any) effect on the basic camera production cost.

For a camera in this class, that may make 4K I-frame codecs unattractive - but there is no technical reason whatsoever why an XAVC/AVC-Ultra long-GOP codec shouldn't be implemented with little impact on cost.
 
Thomas Smet said:
But you can't really compare it to a f2.8 zoom lens on the GH4 because the DVX200 is all about having a longer than 3x range to shoot with for live video. You have to compare it to a GH4 with a 14-140 lens. In this case the DVX200 will be better in low light and offer power zoom and built in ND filters.
Click to expand...

I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't trying to compare lenses. My GH4 comment was used only to show that even with a faster 2.8 lens, people complain about the GH4's capabilities in lowlight and yet it outperforms the DVX200 (according to Barry). People who find the GH4 a poor performer in low light are likely to find the DVX200 even worse, I for one, am likely one of those people as I work with DSLR's and traditional camcorders.

So even if Panasonic were to build the same lens on the DVX200 only at a constant 2.8, and there is no indication that is going to happen, it still wouldn't be a low light monster. I wasn't trying to comment on the viability of the DVX200 as I am sure it will sell and have many fans. My main point was that the current state of sensor technology has not allowed for an all in one 4K camcorder with decent zoom range that can perform well in low light for the reasons I noted in my post.

As for the rest of your points I agree with everything you are saying.
 
Kind of a silly question but to those of you with pre-production DVX200's. Does it look like it will be easy to remove the painted red part of the camera? Probably going to pull it off paint it and put it back on.

Thanks
 
el jeffe said:
Kind of a silly question but to those of you with pre-production DVX200's. Does it look like it will be easy to remove the painted red part of the camera? Probably going to pull it off paint it and put it back on.

Thanks
Click to expand...

initially i was really turned off by the RED back end but I've accepted that it is what it is but would prefer to just have it black. looks cheesy & tacky to me. still if the camera overall is to my liking i of course would still buy it with the goofy looking RED.

david
 
Osslund said:
I see no cost reasons since it's only chips and codecs and chips are inexpensive. SDXC cards are capable of at leasts 250MB/s write speed so the camera could still use SD-cards.
Click to expand...

When the AF100 came out, Jan said that the reason P2 wasn't implemented was because it would have added $1,000 to the cost. Even though current SDXC cards are fast enough, I have a very hard time seeing Panasonic adding even AVC-LongG without including some sort of P2 option. Even micro-P2 would have added to the cost. And saying they can just slap an AVC-Intra set of chips and processors into the DVX200 at no cost isn' realistic. There are currently no 4k cameras outside of the GH4 (and similar), HC-X1000, and the Varicam's in Pansonic's pro-ish line-up. They aren't going to stick the Varicam's guts into a $4,200 camera, so they would need to develop all that from scratch. It's not unreasonable to expect that would add to the costs.

Panasonic has never said that it's the same guts as the GH4, but it's (mostly) the same codecs as the GH4 and X1000, and both the GH4 and DVX are 4/3 sensors, so it makes sense that they most likely borrowed some of the same tech to save money.

I mean, think about it... the AC160 and HPX250 were basically the same camera. And yet, the HPX was a lot more expensive upon release. Why is that, if chips and and codecs are cheap? The same with the HMC150 and HPX170... basically the same camera, but the HPX was significantly more expensive.

Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing Panasonic developing from scratch the chips necessary to implement their higher end codecs in a $4,200 camera... especially considering that that $4,200 camera has a lens that most likely cost a lot more than it's similarly priced or more expensive 1/3" predecessors. Hopefully they'll release a higher tier version sooner rather than later. But for what it is at this price point... and having used the GH4's 4k and 100mbs 1080p codecs... it's not as bad as people seem to think.
 
Last edited:
If a lot of you think it's as simple as swapping a chip and writing a codec then why don't you just do it yourselves?

If you do it carefully so it doesn't look you interfered with the inside, B&H even give you 1 month to get it right, then you can just send the camera back if it doesn't work.
 
Speaking of the GH4's codecs... in the DVX200, do the non-AVCHD codecs have the metadata to span when dropped into a NLE's timeline? Meaning, if I shoot something longer than what I'm assuming is the 4GB file limit in, say, 4k... will it drop the entire multi-file clip as a single clip (like AVCHD and AVC-Intra does), or do I have to drop each individual 4GB chunk like the GH4?
 
Bassman2003 said:
Panasonic might be protecting a higher end model, but in all honesty they do not look that engaged in this market segment. If they were wanting to fight and win they would have multiple versions of this camera including a version without a lens. I think they see deflating prices and do not want to jump too far in any direction. The AF-100 was always a half-hearted attempt in my mind with no follow up. The DVX-200 could very well follow suit.

Clearly the GH line is Panasonic's focus. I like the thinking behind the DVX-200 but you have to deliver the goods or it will fail just like many view the AF-100. The lens numbers, the overall size and weight along with the 4k FOV limitations and lack of 1080p 4:2:2 option are giving me pause. It seems $10,000 is too much but $4,000 lacks features. I thought Panasonic struck nice balance with the PX-270 and was expecting the PX-430 when the all in one body design was announced. The DVX-200 is close, but will the compromises be too much?
Click to expand...

I'm seeing a trend in the latest posts that reflect my thoughts at this point. I think it's fair to say that most who comment in or read this thread are interested in and hopeful about this camera. I use GH4's rigged up with Juiced Links and cages and SmallHD Sidefinders, and I use a Sony PMW-200. I'm very aware of the strengths and the limitations of both cameras, and I'm looking for a camera that merges their individual strengths while minimising their individual weaknesses. Within reason. But, for the life of me, I can't understand how a camera that is four or more times the size and weight of a GH4 delivers so little extra. I can't imagine the professional who would be over the moon about the DVX-200's offering. Pro audio inputs, ND filters, stabilisation, decent zoom range - these are givens at this price point and style of camera. But if this camera can't outperform or even match a GH4 with a f2.8 lens in low light... If this camera doesn't offer 5 axis stabilisation in 4K... If Vlog-l is only for 'cinema' applications, not worthwhile for run and gun extra dynamic range... If there is a noticeable lag in the evf (not sure if this is the case)... Why lug all that extra weight around?

I spent a couple of days with the JVC GY-LS300 - I was hoping it would be a great solution - but was shocked at how out-of-date it's evf was, in size and performance, and how unergonomic it was, generally.

At this end of the camcorder journey, you really would expect companies to have nailed it.

Though not perfect, the GH4 truly was and is an amazing little device - especially for the money. Perhaps we've been spoiled, expecting to be just as impressed with this new offering...
 
NRT said:
I'm seeing a trend in the latest posts that reflect my thoughts at this point. I think it's fair to say that most who comment in or read this thread are interested in and hopeful about this camera. I use GH4's rigged up with Juiced Links and cages and SmallHD Sidefinders, and I use a Sony PMW-200. I'm very aware of the strengths and the limitations of both cameras, and I'm looking for a camera that merges their individual strengths while minimising their individual weaknesses. Within reason. But, for the life of me, I can't understand how a camera that is four or more times the size and weight of a GH4 delivers so little extra. I can't imagine the professional who would be over the moon about the DVX-200's offering. Pro audio inputs, ND filters, stabilisation, decent zoom range - these are givens at this price point and style of camera. But if this camera can't outperform or even match a GH4 with a f2.8 lens in low light... If this camera doesn't offer 5 axis stabilisation in 4K... If Vlog-l is only for 'cinema' applications, not worthwhile for run and gun extra dynamic range... If there is a noticeable lag in the evf (not sure if this is the case)... Why lug all that extra weight around?

I spent a couple of days with the JVC GY-LS300 - I was hoping it would be a great solution - but was shocked at how out-of-date it's evf was, in size and performance, and how unergonomic it was, generally.

At this end of the camcorder journey, you really would expect companies to have nailed it.

Though not perfect, the GH4 truly was and is an amazing little device - especially for the money. Perhaps we've been spoiled, expecting to be just as impressed with this new offering...
Click to expand...

I keep getting this creepy feeling that I am going to be pretty pissed at myself for buying a DVX200 when the next round of 4K camcorders come out....lol
 
True North said:
I keep getting this creepy feeling that I am going to be pretty pissed at myself for buying a DVX200 when the next round of 4K camcorders come out....lol
Click to expand...

Very funny... I'm getting the same feeling. Who knows, I may end up having a Dvx200 in my gear inventory, but I'm leaning towards "No" for this very reason.
 
True North said:
I keep getting this creepy feeling that I am going to be pretty pissed at myself for buying a DVX200 when the next round of 4K camcorders come out....lol
Click to expand...
The usual suspect here is again Sony, with Z100 and AX1 getting up there in age. Their replacement - and I am speculating 110% here - would be something like RX10II (1" BSI, 20 MPX sensor) but with the DVX 200 type of features in a camcorder body. Something like this might come around a year from now.
 
DLD said:
The usual suspect here is again Sony, with Z100 and AX1 getting up there in age. Their replacement - and I am speculating 110% here - would be something like RX10II (1" BSI, 20 MPX sensor) but with the DVX 200 type of features in a camcorder body. Something like this might come around a year from now.
Click to expand...

Something like that, with a decent lens, I'm betting would sell really well.
 
Mike Harvey said:
When the AF100 came out, Jan said that the reason P2 wasn't implemented was because it would have added $1,000 to the cost......... They aren't going to stick the Varicam's guts into a $4,200 camera, so they would need to develop all that from scratch. It's not unreasonable to expect that would add to the costs.
Click to expand...
Putting P2 (and AVC-Intra) into the AF100 may have increased cost of ownership by virtue of much higher memory costs - but TECHNICALLY there is no reason why it should have made the camera itself any dearer, that's the huge, fundamental change between tape/disc based recording and solid state cards. At the end of it we're talking about an H264 encoder chip, and a different card connector, the latter costing pence. What form of H264 - bitrate, long-GOP or I-frame only etc - the eventual signal takes depends on what the chip is instructed to do. There are very sound economy of scale reasons for manufacturers to have a single encoding chip for many purposes, and enable/disable features according to application.

Proof of that concept came out with the F5 hack to enable internal 4k recording to XAVC. It was proven that the F5 had exactly the same encoding chip as the (much more expensive) F55 - it was simply that some of it's abilities had been software disabled. But (as the hack proved) it was possible to enable such - albeit at the likely voiding of any warranty!

Point is that a high end codec doesn't necessarily mean a far more expensive chip. It's likely for many manufacturers (as with Sony) that the same encoding chip gets used across a variety of product with differing features enabled. Higher bitrates will mean more expensive memory, yes, but that's as far as the cost implications should go from a technical and manufacturing point of view.

And look at the Sony Z100. I don't think much of the front end because of the small sensor, but it's a similar price to the DVX200, and incorporates XAVC as standard - and the I-only modes at up to 600Mbs at that, not just the long-GOP versions. You could say they've put the (codec) guts of a F55 in a $4,000 camera, so why can't Panasonic do the same with the Varicam encoding engine in the DVX200? Or, at least, just the long-GOP version of it so it could still use SDXC? Think about it. They market it as "B-camera to a Varicam", after all!!

Mike Harvey said:
I mean, think about it... the AC160 and HPX250 were basically the same camera. And yet, the HPX was a lot more expensive upon release. Why is that, if chips and and codecs are cheap?
Click to expand...

Marketing!!! Simple as that. Similar to the F5 and F55, though there is a lot of differences between those two other than internal XAVC recording. Same applies to many, many other products and not just in the camera field. I'm not knocking it - it's sheer design sense to use a single chip across a whole range of product. The cost of a chip is largely in it's design, not production.

Mike Harvey said:
Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing Panasonic developing from scratch the chips necessary to implement their higher end codecs in a $4,200 camera.......
Click to expand...

But they shouldn't need to design any chips from scratch - just use the ones from the Varicam. Same as Sony have done with F5/55 coding chips in the Z100. What's the difference? Maybe limiting it to long-GOP only modes?
 
DLD said:
The usual suspect here is again Sony, with Z100 and AX1 getting up there in age. Their replacement - and I am speculating 110% here - would be something like RX10II (1" BSI, 20 MPX sensor) but with the DVX 200 type of features in a camcorder body. Something like this might come around a year from now.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I also speculated (120%!!) a month ago - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...corder&p=1986563847&viewfull=1#post1986563847
If I was a Panasonic marketing man, what would currently be giving me sleepness nights at the moment would be the worry of such as Sony bringing out a camera with something like the front end and lens of the new RX10, with better zoom speed and manual controls etc, with the back end and codecs of the Z100.
Click to expand...
The eventual appearance of something like that I think is more likely than not - the big question is when? I'd be inclined to think your estimate of a year is on the long side, but let's wait and see.
 
DLD said:
The usual suspect here is again Sony, with Z100 and AX1 getting up there in age. Their replacement - and I am speculating 110% here - would be something like RX10II (1" BSI, 20 MPX sensor) but with the DVX 200 type of features in a camcorder body. Something like this might come around a year from now.
Click to expand...

The AX1 has been discontinued so a replacement is likely. The other option is a 4K version of the NEX-EA50 which could replace the FS100 in the lineup too. Sony has announced the NX100 so a 4K version of that is also likely and would replace the AX1. Maybe all of the above !! Fixed lens and interchangeable. Both these approaches would use the larger NP-F970 battery and from my FDR-AX1 I know high frame rate UHD eats batteries .
 
Thomas Smet said:
Really how different is a 1" sensor at f2.8 compared to a 4/3" sensor at f4.0? You seem to be more worried about the number itself and not how it will actually perform. We have to be careful not to fall into a trap of f4 is always f4. We also have to be careful to not compare this to a f1.8 or f2.8 lens. Find a good long range zoom lens at f2.8. We have seen Panasonic's 1" f2.8 cameras and they always leave a bit to be desired in terms of low light. I'm pretty sure the DVX200 is already better than what a 1" f2.8 would have been.

I also think a lot of pros would have laughed hysterically at a DVX200 with a 1" sensor. m43 already has a hard time getting any level of respect with the FF fanatics.
Click to expand...

True, it is tricky but my thinking is with a little smaller chip maybe the 4k mode would not be so hobbled? It looks to me that 4k recording modes are pushing the limits on the DVX-200 as they are changing the sensor readout at every framerate. With a smaller chip and lens maybe they could keep all 4k modes the same as the 1080p modes? even including 5-axis stabilization.

The concept of "no difference between f4 and f2.8" is kind of the point here. With a faster lens one could make up the difference and allow for maybe better features and possibly a little smaller and lighter camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top