AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

[Darren Levine]

Here's another way to look at it...

there's no such lens as a 13x, 2.8-4.5 parfocal power zoom for m43, and if there were, it would sure cost a ton more than 5K.

Makes it a steal IMO. however, the two big variables that remain are iso performance, and codec.

if the iso is clean up to 3200, maybe even 6400, and the codec steps up the gh4 even by a little bit, say 4:2:2, then this camera will attract plenty of folks, myself included.

Also interested to know if/what digital zoom options it may employ for HD, such as whats in the ax100/x70 which works fantastically

 

[Mike Harvey]

But, as the debate goes on, some people aren't in this 100%/0 (i.e., all event and corporate and nothing for themselves). Some may be 60/40 and some may be 40/60. So, while this may "check all the boxes" for some, it checks far fewer for others.

Completely agree. And I think some among those complaining about the camera don't get that. Sure, a lot of proper filmmakers wanted swappable lenses... but how many AF100 buyers bought it for that reason? Most of the folks I know personally who bought the AF100... as well as DSLR's, the FS100, C100, and similar cameras... bought them for it's large sensor and resulting depth of field, not because they could swap between this 35mm f1/4 lens and that 85mm f2 lens. But to get that large sensor and shallow depth of field, you had to buy a camera with swappable lenses. The DVX200 changes that.

Thus, this product's fate depend on what the entirety of possible customers decide and, if this pleases only a small portion of them, it's unlikely to be a hit at best and conceivably cause a long term resentment of the company at worst. Buyers can be fickle but, should someone decide to dump his/her MFT lens collection for EF, what are the chances they are coming back to MFT at a later date?

I agree, which is why I think not releasing an AF200 was a mistake. But again, none of us is privy to Panasonic's market research or production process. And I can easily see it if they felt that the DVX200 would have cannibalized AF200 sales to the point it didn't make financial sense. It may seem like a small matter to just release a version without a lens, but there is also the marketing cost for the camera, plus retooling machinery. They may have figure they would have made so little profit it wasn't worth the effort. It's why I also think some sort of microP2 recorder with some flavors of AVC-Ultra for the GH4 (or even DVX200 as well) would be a huge seller.

PS. There's a trend for the larger sensors anyway. Even this camera is MFT, which is far bigger and better than the old and even most recent camcorders. But then URSA Mini and JVC LS 300 and C300 MK II have an s35 sensor and, for that, MFT lenses won't wor for the full coverage. Add another popular brand or two with s35 and you can see a major decline in the MFT popularity and that would really leave Panasonic SOL.

But the LS300 is m4/3 mount. And isn't the Ursa Mini as well? Plus many of BMD's other cameras are also m4/3 mount. And the GH4 is selling like hotcakes and has been hugely popular. And given how well 4/3 is doing in the stills market and the mount's versatility... plus the cost and size of the Panasonic X lenses vs. their larger frame counterparts... I don't think m4/3 is going away from video anytime soon.

 

[TheDingo]

I have one prime that I never use. 95% of my shooting is on the 12-35mm X and 35-100 X lenses.

And I am the opposite. I have both X zoom lenses, but the only one I use is the 12-35mm for handheld work or when I have to shoot in a tiny space. Most of the time I shoot with my Nikon AI-S primes, and I've contemplated buying either the Voightlander wides ( 10.5mm f/0.95 and 17.5mm f/0.95 ) or the Veydra Cine primes. The main reason why I shoot with primes is simply the DOF and the lens speed.

I'll hold onto the GH4 for those instances where I need swappable lenses... but the reality is that it's going to be mostly a B-camera.

If I owned a DVX200 (not too likely) it would become my B-camera for most of my shoots, and my A-camera when I shoot live-events which is only a handful of times per year.

What I'm b*tching about is my desire for a Micro 4/3 cine A-camera, where I'll use my GH4 as my B-camera. But given that a m4/3 cine camera seems to be a dead-duck as far as Panasonic is concerned ( and I'm not sold on the new JVC ), I'm thinking of picking up a used C100 this summer to start building a Canon EF lens collection. Then later in the Fall I will rent the C300 Mk2 when I've got the budget to cover it. ( with the long term goal of buying a C300 Mk2 when it makes sense )

 

[Fahnon]

I agree. I was only trying to explain why people are expressing their disappointment. Also, I would say there's a flaw in your argument: the people who are NOW where I was when I bought the DVX100 are now using DSLRs, and are not very intereted in a fixed lens solution.
In addition to being a freelance cinematographer, I also teach film and video to college students. For student projects, the HPX170s and AC160s do NOT get checked out by the students at all. They hate how it looks. Instead, they check out the Canon 60D from the equipment room. Now, certainly that may have more to do with the small sensor and not the fixed lens, but the culture has changed. Kids just starting out in the video world don't have a fixed lens camera, nor do they particularly want one. At least none of the students I have taught for the last 5 years do. The all have a T4i or something.

When I showed my students the DVX200 specs, they all said "Meh."

Also, I don't consider $5000 entry-level. Not when you can buy a DSLR for $600. Again, a lot of this is about advertising. It's about selling a dream beyond what the actual product offers. My students are all salivating over the Blackmagic Ursa Mini, not the DVX200. If you look at the Ursa Mini website, it's all about using it for films. Commercials, features. The images show a crew and lights on a location. They're selling the dream of filmmaking. They're not selling it as an entry-level camera to do bread-and-butter work. We all have to do that work to pay the bills, but that's not how you get people excited about a camera.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I had an HMC150 back in the day because those fixed lens cameras were the best IQ I could get, not because I loved a fixed lens. I'd also add that I was where those students are less than a decade ago, but the difference is that I now have a set of lenses that have me covered for any given situation that I chose because they give me the best image quality I can afford.

I'd like to use those lenses.

 

[philiplipetz]

If Panasonic brought out a $3-5k AF200 do you think it could compete with the $3-5k BMD URSA Mini. No way. This is why Panasonic had to go this route. Remember most camera companies know what their competition is planning to introduce.

So so how cheap would the AF200 have to have been to compete with the URSA Mini, and could Panasonic afford to sell it for that price?

 

[stevedocmaker]

Here's another way to look at it...

there's no such lens as a 13x, 2.8-4.5 parfocal power zoom for m43, and if there were, it would sure cost a ton more than 5K.

Makes it a steal IMO. however, the two big variables that remain are iso performance, and codec.

if the iso is clean up to 3200, maybe even 6400, and the codec steps up the gh4 even by a little bit, say 4:2:2, then this camera will attract plenty of folks, myself included.

Also interested to know if/what digital zoom options it may employ for HD, such as whats in the ax100/x70 which works fantastically

Agreed, 100%. This is mostly about the lens in combination with the large sensor advantages, but it's all on paper right now. And it looks big and heavy. I have to say as well that the Canon XC10 looks to have similar utility at half the price, and may hit the market much sooner. Yes, the Panny has a better lens, XLR and SDI, but the Canon looks to be half the size and weight, and adding XLR is easy these days, as is converting hdmi to SDI. It will be interesting to see which one of these takes hold, if I had to bet I'd say the price difference, size, and sooner availability will make the Canon come out on top. (i have to add that it's hard to believe that Canon will beat anyone to the punch in low-price).

Except for 4K, I'm miffed as to why it's taken the manufacturers so long to finally come out with a camera with all these features in one package, as nothing else on the spec list is new for the last few years. But I'm glad I'll finally have a camera that I can grab and go with, and also use when I have time to make something more cinematic.

 

[TheDingo]

If Panasonic brought out a $5k AF200 do you think it could compete with the BMD URSA Mini. No way. This is why Panasonic had to go this route.

I don't think an AF200 has to compete with an URSA Mini because it can't use any of the high performance Micro 4/3 lenses on the market. Right now there's almost nothing to compete with the Voightlander f/0.95 lenses, nor the Veydra prime lenses ( or the soon to come Veydra Anamorphic lenses ) at their price points. Canon might have to worry a little bit, but they have usable AF and high-ISO sewn-up with their Cxxx cameras.

Not launching a camera because you are afraid of your competition seems like a bad strategy, as you will lose that market completely, and that loss may affect the other markets that you are currently in.

 

[Fahnon]

Completely agree. And I think some among those complaining about the camera don't get that. Sure, a lot of proper filmmakers wanted swappable lenses... but how many AF100 buyers bought it for that reason? Most of the folks I know personally who bought the AF100... as well as DSLR's, the FS100, C100, and similar cameras... bought them for it's large sensor and resulting depth of field, not because they could swap between this 35mm f1/4 lens and that 85mm f2 lens. But to get that large sensor and shallow depth of field, you had to buy a camera with swappable lenses. The DVX200 changes that.

If I'm a typical example, I really did want to swap lenses. I'm getting the impression that to you in the work you do that would be a huge pain in the arse, but all of my heroes in cinematography prefer primes, and I came up thinking of that as the "correct" way, with zooms only being used in certain situations. Quality of primes is higher in general and the fact that you have to make a choice makes your framing more considered. I use AC160s and EX3s for event work and they're great for that, but for narrative I always choose a focal length for a shot even if I have to use a zoom. So I bought those large sensor cameras for both the large sensors and the flexibility of lens choice.

What if that fixed lens doesn't do something I need it to (like open to f/1.4 or zoom without light falloff)? You CAN'T change it...

I agree, which is why I think not releasing an AF200 was a mistake. But again, none of us is privy to Panasonic's market research or production process. And I can easily see it if they felt that the DVX200 would have cannibalized AF200 sales to the point it didn't make financial sense. It may seem like a small matter to just release a version without a lens, but there is also the marketing cost for the camera, plus retooling machinery. They may have figure they would have made so little profit it wasn't worth the effort. It's why I also think some sort of microP2 recorder with some flavors of AVC-Ultra for the GH4 (or even DVX200 as well) would be a huge seller.

Yup, agreed.

But the LS300 is m4/3 mount. And isn't the Ursa Mini as well? Plus many of BMD's other cameras are also m4/3 mount. And the GH4 is selling like hotcakes and has been hugely popular. And given how well 4/3 is doing in the stills market and the mount's versatility... plus the cost and size of the Panasonic X lenses vs. their larger frame counterparts... I don't think m4/3 is going away from video anytime soon.

The URSA mini is EF or PL mount and currently BMD only have 2 cameras in m4/3.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't think people are knocking the DVX200 per se, Barry. It will probably be a great events camera.
They're probably just venting out of frustration or disappointment at the lack of an AF100 successor.

I get that, totally. I was there, I had the same reaction when I first saw the DVX200. Well, what I saw wasn't called the DVX200, it was a prototype with no name, and I have to say -- I didn't get why they were doing it. I had many of the same questions that I said in my post.

But after thinking about it for a while, and taking it for what it IS, rather than what I said I wanted, I've come around to think that they may really be on to something.

So while it doesn't fit the bill of "an AF100 successor", that doesn't necessarily correlate to "nobody wanted this". Or, let me put it another way -- anybody remember the reaction when Apple first announced the first iPad? Go dig around in the forums, you'll see what people were saying -- "who exactly wanted this?" "what were they thinking?" "stupidest idea ever" "Apple's totally lost it."

... and it went on to be one of their most successful introductions ever.

So is the DVX200 what people were asking for? Definitely not. But -- that doesn't mean it isn't going to be hugely successful. It may be. And for reasons that people may not be able to see today, but -- I'm not so willing to count it out. I think it has the potential to really surprise us.

And, like TheDingo said; a lot of us are invested in the MFTs system.
Where do we go from here???
The GH4 has got some real 'street cred', but many do not want to shoot on a stills camera.

I'm right there with you. I've got the Voigtlander 25, the Lumix 7-14, 20mm, 14-140, 100-300, and adapters for my PL and Nikon lenses all to work on m43. And while I do have a GH2, I really don't care for shooting on a stills camera.

But I've been thinking about it. Other than the Voigtlander 25mm, none of the lenses I have is all that great for video. They're serviceable, but not really great. Certainly nowhere near as fluid and useful as I expect the built-in lens on the DVX200 will be. So, for the time being, I'll keep some of the lenses I've got as long as I hang on to the AF100 and GH2 (or eventual GH5 or whatever I update that GH2 to). And the rest will go on ebay.

Harsh? Yep. But it's the reality of the situation as I see it. Stills-camera lenses are lousy choices for video work, and while I've limped along with it to get the benefits of the larger sensor, I am thinking (and not 100% convinced yet, but thinking) that returning to a true proper video lens is going to really, really limit my appetite for wanting to use something like the Lumix 100-300 for video.

Coming from a product development background; I'm astounded that Panny just didn't simply remove the the lens and develop a companion model to the DVX200.

Preachin' to the choir. I don't understand why they didn't do that, and they have heard it from everyone at the show. For whatever reason, they didn't.

There must be a market for relatively low cost inter-changable lens cine-cameras. Canon, JVC, BMD and Sony all have something to offer there.

Agreed. However, HOW MUCH of a market is there? Is it already fully saturated with offerings, such as the BlackMagic, the JVC, the C100, and the various Sonys? Just how many customers are there, and how divided does that market need to be?

I don't have the answers to that. What I do know, is that -- unlike you and me, who may complain because we didn't get the product we said we wanted -- Panasonic is betting their lives on this. If they honestly thought that the right direction to go, to capture the most sales, was to make an AF200, then I'm sure they would have. But for whatever reason (which, one must assume, would include appropriate market research, and researching ALL markets, including the Chinese and European markets, as well as the huge-population but still-developing markets like India -- they felt that the best choice, for their bottom line, was a camera like the DVX200.

Are they right? I don't think any of us know at this time. But this seems like such a substantial departure from conventional wisdom, that -- hey, it'll either be a huge win, or a huge miss. Will it be their iPad moment? Will it be their Lisa? We don't know.

Reminds me of the old adage about the difference between being involved, and being committed. In breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. Seems to me like Panasonic is committed, and they're making bold moves. They zigged when everyone else zagged. They are trying to take on Arri on the high end, and they're giving the market something completely different on the low end. I don't know whether their strategy will ultimately prove successful, but to me, it's fascinating to watch and, while I was initially thinking they blew it, I'm now much more along the lines of ... perhaps they're being craftier than we thought.

Funny, it almost seems like JVC and BMD knew Panasonic was going leave a vacuum in this segment...

After watching the market closely for the last 11 years, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion.

 

[Barry_Green]

I really hope someone with connection with Panasonic to rely a message to them to make 2 colour version of DVX200; Red and Black. Red is striking but just not my colour.

This feedback was given to them repeatedly.

 

[Ivanhurba]

Nobody complains about the C100 MKII being 4:2:0 1080 60p and the DVX200 has advantages over it. Granted, it will be 4:2:0. But 4k 60p, Vlog and like Darren said a parfocal 13x lens included, lets hope ISO performance is good. It ticks all boxes, events, fast run and gun and occasionally short films and web series. I'm getting one. The moment I'll need stealth or shorter DOF then it's GH4 or hopefully by September GH5.

I'm sure there will be a AF200; we are clamoring for one, just not yet, maybe at IBC as prototype and ready by next NAB, who knows...

 

[philiplipetz]

I don't think an AF200 has to compete with an URSA Mini because it can't use any of the high performance Micro 4/3 lenses on the market. Right now there's almost nothing to compete with the Voightlander f/0.95 lenses, nor the Veydra prime lenses ( or the soon to come Veydra Anamorphic lenses ) at their price points. Canon might have to worry a little bit, but they have usable AF and high-ISO sewn-up with their Cxxx cameras.

Not launching a camera because you are afraid of your competition seems like a bad strategy, as you will lose that market completely, and that loss may affect the other markets that you are currently in.

BMD is active in m4/3 and already had sold the m4/3 Pocket for $500, a price Panasonic cannot compete with. Blame BMD for forcing Panasonic out of this market niche

 

[Barry_Green]

And what does Panasonic do? They give us a fixed lens. And even though it may be a fine lens, it doesn't sell the DREAM of filmmaking. I'm not being cynical here, I'm being serious. A slow fixed lens, which limits your creative palette and which doesn't emulate the approach of higher-end cinematography feels like a step backwards. In all practicaiity, I'm sure it will be a great camera. But would it be the camera I shoot my weekend masterpiece with? No. Is it a camera I'd want to shoot a feature with? No.

And that's why people are disappointed with the DVX200. It isn't cool. It isn't sexy. It doesn't promise to take you to a higher place like the DVX100 did in 2004. In fact, it feels like it's taking you to a lower place. It's taking you back to the quaint old days when you thought fixed lenses were OK because you didn't have experience with anything else. We've all been using interchangeable lenses now for over 5 years and we've learned to love their individuality, and the creative variety we can get with them. The DVX200 just cuts this off.

Okay, this is an interesting take. I see what you're saying here, and yes, there was a lot of "the dream" happening in the 2003-2008 time frame. And I can totally see your view from that perspective.

What I am having trouble reconciling is -- while "filmmaking" seems to have been the reason given for DSLR adoption -- the rise of the DSLR seems to have coincided with pretty much the discontinuation of people actually bothering to make films. We ran a quarterly contest where we would get sixty to 100 entries, people working for three months at a time making a huge variety of films -- some were short masterpieces, some were just horrifically bad, but in every contest we had dozens and dozens and dozens of entries.

Since the DSLR arrived (and I'm not blaming the DSLR, I'm just using it as an approximate time point) -- entries in the contests dropped off. People just apparently don't appear to actually make much content anymore. Heck, we barely even bother to run the contests anymore, since we get so few entries. The User Films section here on the forum is quiet as can be. At one point it seemed like people's idea of "filmmaking" changed from the short or feature film, to the new DSLR-era idea of a montage of shots that one guy alone would get by walking around at the beach or the city at night, and calling that a "short film."

So my question for today's marketplace is -- is it, truly, about the aspiring indie filmmaker anymore? There are a lot of folks doing a lot of work out there, but just how big is the market for those who are actually making films? I'm not being facetious, I'm asking the question because I just don't see the results here.

So it's a bigger question (to me) -- who is the market? Who is going to actually buy a camera for the express purpose of making a film, vs. who is out there buying a camera to use in their video production business? Because the market definitely feels like it's changed, and changed in a big way, from 10 years ago.

And if we adopt the DVX200, what are we supposed to do with our lens collection?

I addressed this in a prior post.

Somebody else above asked why Panasonic didn't just release 2 versions of the camera. A fixed and an interchangeable. I have to wonder the same thing.

We ALL wonder that. It's baffling.

From a marketing standpoint, the camera seems wrongheaded to me.

Well, that's the big question. Are we the market? Or do they know something we don't? If they were to have introduced an AF200, how many would they have sold worldwide? If they instead introduce a DVX200, how many will they sell worldwide? Will they sell a hundred DVX200s to India for every individual AF200 they'd sell to the USA? Will they sell a thousand in China for every AF200 that someone WOULD have bought here in the USA, except that they decided to just get a GH4 instead? Maybe. Who knows? Surely you'd think the company would know, because they are pretty much betting the company on this strategy. They have to know things that we don't.

From my own perspective, I'd love to have a 4K Alexa that uses my existing lenses, and records to AVC-Ultra, and costs $5,000 - sure. I've been begging for it for four years now. I wish they would build it. But they show no inclination of wanting to do so. So I have to evaluate what they DID build, and see what uses it could have. And from what I'm seeing, I'm thinking that while it may not have been what I was asking for (like the iPad), it might actually turn out to be something very very useful.

 

[Fahnon]

BMD is active in m4/3 and already had sold the m4/3 Pocket for $500, a price Panasonic cannot compete with. Blame BMD for forcing Panasonic out of this market niche

In fairness, the camera is $1,000, not $500 and it went back to full price after the sale. That sale was just to clear their channels for new product.

But to your actual point, I'd bet Sony and Canon is more to blame than BMD. They have the fs100/700 and the fs7/C100/300 and I think that's what would really be the battleground for Panasonic with the pros. I love BMD's cameras, but I don't see them having the same cred with mid-range commercial/corp productions that will use the fs7 for example. Maybe after the URSA mini is out and reliable for a couple of years.

This was Panasonic's chance to fire back and they come out with a camera that I will probably recommend replace my company's AC160's, but won't use for narrative.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't want a camera to take me to a higher place. I don't want it to be cool. I don't want it to be sexy. If I'm buying a $4,500-$5,000 camera, I don't want it to shoot my weekend masterpiece. I want it to make me money on Thursday morning. Honestly, as much as I love my AF100 and GH4, if the DVX200 was released when the AF100 was, I would have gotten the DVX200. I appreciate that a lot of folks love the creative freedom that one type of prime over another can give them when shooting a film or something, but I have one prime that I never use. 95% of my shooting is on the 12-35mm X and 35-100 X lenses. My clients simple don't care. They just want something that looks nice. And always having to swap lenses at critical moments has cost me shots and been a pain in the rear.

YMMV... but the DVX200 will help make me more money than having an AF200 would. I'll hold onto the GH4 for those instances where I need swappable lenses... but the reality is that it's going to be mostly a B-camera.

This is what I was trying to say. When we look at "the market", we might think that it's all about filmmakers, but -- is it? Is it really?

I think dvbrother hit the nail on the head when saying that the film students want something like the t4i. They want a $600 camera that has shallow DOF. That makes sense and we've seen it play out worldwide in the "DSLR Revolution". But my question, and surely Panasonic's question, is: would those same students want a $5,000 camera that has shallow DOF? The answer appears to be a pretty resounding "no", in general. So who does want a camera in that price bracket? Someone, like Mike Harvey, who's making money with it, not chasing dreams with it. Those who have bigger budgets may choose to go with the F5 or FS7 or something like that. But there seem to be a lot of folks who would want a "budget" FS7 -- and that seems like what this DVX200 might be. Something you can make money with, something that gives you all the ENG functionality but also gives you the ability to make nice shallow DOF interviews etc.

Ultimately it all comes down to this -- there is no one single product that is suitable for absolutely everyone. This DVX200 is a bold move -- it remains to be seen whether it was the right move, but it's always interesting to me when a company zigs when all of their competitors are zagging. Either they will win big, or they will flop big. They've taken the big risk, it remains to be seen whether there will be big rewards to go with it.

 

[Gweilo66]

"Panasonic's question, is: would those same students want a $5,000 camera that has shallow DOF? The answer appears to be a pretty resounding "no","

Of course, Panny promotes shallow DOF in this cam..as well as at least one rep suggesting it was a varicam companion. It's a bit all over the place.

 

[Barry_Green]

Chances are someone with the DVX200 and an interest in "filmic" will try to find some of the old/new lens adapters. It seems like the least expensive/most reasonable solution.

But -- why? Why do people seem to think that some ancient old spinning-ground-glass "lens adapter" is going to be necessary? This DVX has a very large sensor, 4x larger than a 2/3" camera, and almost as large as 35mm cine film.

You're not the first person to mention a "lens adapter" -- but I'm really floored as to why people would think something like that is going to be necessary?

Thus, this product's fate depend on what the entirety of possible customers decide and, if this pleases only a small portion of them, it's unlikely to be a hit at best and conceivably cause a long term resentment of the company at worst.

Yes. And yes, if it's not a hit, those who resented the company will blame them. But -- if it is a hit, even if it's not a hit among a particular market, is that necessarily a bad thing? It may be disappointing for some individuals personally, but the company has to look at what's best for them. Apparently they think that a camera like this is what's best for them.

PS. There's a trend for the larger sensors anyway. Even this camera is MFT, which is far bigger and better than the old and even most recent camcorders. But then URSA Mini and JVC LS 300 and C300 MK II have an s35 sensor and, for that, MFT lenses won't wor for the full coverage. Add another popular brand or two with s35 and you can see a major decline in the MFT popularity and that would really leave Panasonic SOL.

The trend for cinema cameras is firmly established as S35, yes. No doubt, no argument at all.

But cinema cameras do not necessarily constitute the entire market. Going back with the history lesson, David brought up the Canon HV20. I bought one of those, it was horrible, but it was also a hell of a deal. It was cheap, it made good images, it was miserable to work with, I gave it away to PK in Thailand to use for his charity because I couldn't imagine actually trying to work with it. But it sold a lot of units. How many? Well, let's put this in perspective -- many of the "professional" cameras on the market sell in the hundreds, per year. The more expensive, the fewer they sell. Successful ones may move a few thousand per year. Monster hits might move tens of thousands in a year. Canon, when they announced the HV20, said that they expected to sell 40,000 per MONTH.

I totally acknowledge the trend towards larger sensors -- which this DVX illustrates. The camera they put out just prior to this, the X1000, has (effectively) a 1/3" sensor. Heck, just about all the cameras in this market segment and style have been 1/3" sensors. The DVX's sensor is 16x larger than that. It is an interesting development.

 

[Fahnon]

Panasonic's question, is: would those same students want a $5,000 camera that has shallow DOF? The answer appears to be a pretty resounding "no", in general. So who does want a camera in that price bracket? Someone, like Mike Harvey, who's making money with it, not chasing dreams with it.

I think those students DO want one, but maybe can't afford it. I believe dvbrother also said those students were salivating over the URSA mini, which is a $5k shallow dof camera (assuming they want the 4.6k model). I think Panasonic, by naming the camera the DVX200 just to associate it with the legendary status of the DVX100, are saying that this the camera for the indie filmmakers that made the DVX100 the legend it was. But as one of those guys that aspired to get one (couldn't afford a camera on that level 'til the HMC150), I can tell you that my priorities have shifted and I don't want to be forced into any particular lens. Maybe this camera isn't marketed towards me, but the name suggests that it is, doesn't it?

 

[DPStewart]

Wow, Barry...you've made some great points.

And I suspect you're right on probably all counts.

I too see very little "film making" being done by anyone in these markets of sub-$10k cameras.
In the actual film-making arena I see a lot of Blackmagic cameras, still a lot of 5D3's and 7D's, C300's, and rented higher-end cameras.
I see VERY little film making done with ANY of the other DSLR's and sub $10k variations.
It's almost all commercial production work. Video Services folks looking to earn an income shooting video.

Seems like the DVX200 is really just the latest in their HMC-HVX lineup, and that's just fine.
As I stated early on in this thread - The DVX200 is the type of camera that will excel on 90% of all paid video work styles and conditions.

I really just hope it has good Dynamic Range and a somewhat cinematic picture profile to choose - then I'm all over it.

 

[Barry_Green]

I think those students DO want one, but maybe can't afford it.

Ah, the crucial distinction. And you have hit the nail on the head.

Panasonic is in the business of selling video products. What does it matter how many people may want, wish for, or lust after some product, if they can't (or won't) actually BUY the product? If there are a hundred thousand clamoring film students begging Panasonic to make an AF200, and they do make it, and those film students then turn around and buy a t4i because that's all they can afford, then -- what good was it? A pointless exercise, and a terrible business decision.

The only thing that matters to the company at this point is what they can actually sell, what people will actually buy. Apparently they've decided that this type of camera is a safer bet or a bigger potential reward than making yet another cinema camera to compete against the JVC LS300, Sony EA50, BlackMagic Ursa Minor (I know they call it the "Ursa Mini", but come on, they blew it, they should be the "Ursa Major" and "Ursa Minor"!), various Sony models, DSLRs, and all the rest of the market saturation out there.

I believe dvbrother also said those students were salivating over the URSA mini, which is a $5k shallow dof camera (assuming they want the 4.6k model).

Yes, he did. But -- will they BUY one? If not, they are totally irrelevant to the marketing and development effort. Only actual customers who will actually buy a product in the target price bracket are relevant in this discussion; "wanting" does not count. So how many would actually BUY an AF200, vs. choosing the JVC, or a BlackMagic Pocket, or a DSLR?

We don't and can't know the answers. But I think it's probably the type of question they faced when they evaluated what type of product to build next.

I think Panasonic, by naming the camera the DVX200 just to associate it with the legendary status of the DVX100, are saying that this the camera for the indie filmmakers that made the DVX100 the legend it was.

I think that's not necessarily a comprehensive view of it. Sure the DVX100 was very popular with filmmakers -- but it was also extremely popular with broadcasters. It was extremely popular with events shooters -- heck, it was the first camera that actually recorded decent audio! The competition at the time, the Sony PD150, had hissy nasty audio, and Sony's idea of "fixing" it was to charge people $150 to replace some circuits. The DVX came with great audio right out of the box. It became a standard camera for cable networks worldwide. It became THE default, de-facto filmmaking camera too, yes. But I don't know what percentage of them were sold to aspiring (or accomplished) filmmakers, vs. to other markets. It's possible that indie filmmakers were responsible for its success, but I don't have any data that shows that to be conclusively true.

I can tell you that my priorities have shifted and I don't want to be forced into any particular lens. Maybe this camera isn't marketed towards me, but the name suggests that it is, doesn't it?

My priorities have shifted as well. Interchangeable DSLR lenses are a pain in the arse. They're expensive, you have to haul around a bunch of them, and they don't necessarily always color-match. Plus they're just not made for shooting video. I have largely given up on them. I have a full set of cinema primes (Zeiss Compact Primes), and I have a full set of Nikon Duclos-cine-mod lenses, plus a full set of the Lumix lenses, I probably have a good $50,000 worth of primes... but 95% of the time I just use the good old slow 14-140 because it is good enough, it covers the range of my entire prime lens set, and it can autofocus when necessary. The primes have been relegated to "when needed", rather than "top priority". If I need a super-shallow-DOF interview, I can put on one of the primes. But 95% of the time, they're just a hassle, and a reminder of why zoom lenses were developed in the first place. And if I'm working in the field and have to carry gear? It would be difficult to pay me enough to haul around a crate of primes, when I could just use one zoom and solve nearly all potential situations.

And that 14-140 sucks when compared to a true video lens...

So to me, the return to functionality is a large part of what it means to be a DVX. The DVX was a swiss army knife that could handle any and all situations. The marketing slogan at the time was "Make a living. Flip a switch. Make a movie." It was one camera that could do everything. It was a tremendous events/sports/live camera, it made me a whole lot of money as a corporate films camera, and we even did plenty of short films and even three feature-length films with it. All with that built-in lens. So now, a new DVX that has all the same convenience, the great audio, better pro connectivity, variable frame rates, and a usable functional zoom lens, but also has 4K recording and a large shallow-DOF sensor? Seems like the DVX moniker is entirely appropriate for it.

Sheesh -- the more I think about it, the more I think "AF100 and m43 lenses for sale."