AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder
- Thread starter Screenforme
- Start date
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Hahaha.
Though, I do think the X1000 is pretty safe. If someone was going to choose the DVX200 over the X1000, they probably already bought the PX270. By the time the DVX200 is released, the X1000 should be routinely under $3k. $2,800 vs. $4,800?
Mike Harvey
Veteran
To follow up Barry's points... when I told the producer I do the most work for about the DVX200 yesterday, his response was along the lines of...
"Wait, so it should do better in low light? And it uses the the same formats as your current camera, but has better options as well for green screen? And dual records? And we don't have to constantly keep swapping lenses, but still get the same depth of field?"
He was pretty excited... especially about the lens.
"Wait, so it should do better in low light? And it uses the the same formats as your current camera, but has better options as well for green screen? And dual records? And we don't have to constantly keep swapping lenses, but still get the same depth of field?"
He was pretty excited... especially about the lens.
Last edited:
Darren Levine
Veteran
ya know, an interesting thought comes to mind: the sony ex3. a 1/2" camera with a purpose built lens that is detachable. not many folks tried adapting lenses to it though because half inch isn't very widely used. but if they put their 1" sensor in there, B4 lenses and s16 lenses would all have a heck of a time.
/thoughts
/thoughts
ugafan
Looking for a woman
i would love a camera like that. they could also make swappable built in lenses. like if there was a standard all purpose built in lens for eng, but then you could take that off and put on the cinema lens. or take that off and put on a long zoom lens...
soarprod
Veteran
I think the big market for this camera is reality shows like storage wars, bearing sea gold, etc. Networks will want to go 4K soon and this is the least expensive best option out on the market (maybe some Sony offerings but I think all are 2/3". If I was producing a fast paced reality show, this would be a dream camera. I shoot and produce a lot of sports feature docs and we mainly shoot with GH4s. This might be a great option for these type of projects. FYI I preordered the URSA mini.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Same as a GH4, depending on what lens is used on the GH4. If you have an ultra-fast lens (like my Nikon 85mm f/1.4) then you'll get shallower DOF on the GH4 than you would on the DVX200. If you're using the 14-140 on the GH4, you'll get shallower DOF on the DVX200 than on the GH4.
In any case, it will be a shallow-DOF camera. Just HOW shallow depends on what you're comparing it against, but it will be vastly shallower than any 1/4", 1/3", 1/2", or 2/3" video camera that's come before, when using a comparable type of zoom lens.
If the producer's statement would have been "... but still get shallow depth of field?" then the answer would be a definite YES. Since the question was "the same depth of field", that's why it has to have a qualified answer.
Local news stations, by the bucketload. Considering the purposes they used the DVX and the HVX for, seems like a perfect fit.
One guy put it to me at NAB a few years back like this: big, expensive shoulder-mounted cameras are a mainstay, but there's a lot of reason to use smaller cameras for small jobs and B-roll. And he put it like this -- at the price point of the DVX200, and even the HVX before it, the attitude the station has isn't "be really, really careful with that camera," it's literally "try not to destroy it." They're almost considered disposable.
A good, inexpensive ENG-style camera will sell like crazy. $5K is pretty much pocket change for a TV station. And a TV station will buy several at a time, not just one.
Again, around here we tend to think of the sub-$10K market as the whole world, but it's really small-ball.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Almost all the interviews we shoot are on my 35-100mm X... roughly f3.2-f4 between 60mm and 80mm, so it should be more or less the same.
john deaver
Well-known member
when i bought a Canon XH-A1 I was also looking at a HL-H1 (which had an interchangeable lens) and the sales guy was telling me for all the Canon LX1s, LX2s they had sold (which he had estimated to be very high number) he could only think of one or two customers who had purchased additional lenses.
And while most hollywood movies are shot with a box of primes on a film/digital cinema camera I wonder how many 16mm or S16 cameras from the past for news/doc/budget productions lived there entire lives with the same basic but high quality zoom lens attached.
Heck thats true for todays local news shooters.
Off the top of my head, reactions here included "too small to be a tablet, and too big to be a phone," and "the answer to a question nobody asked."
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
I would rather dislike blue. Perhaps it should be original-DVX beige, though I actually like the red.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
This. This right here. The past few days I haven't been able to stop thinking about the DVX200.
Just this morning, I was shooting a presentation of a new musical for potential investors using one GH4 and two GH3 cameras. One of them was hooked up to the soundboard via XLRs using a Tascam DR-40 as an adapter to feed the camera the good audio from the actors' lav mics.
Did it work? Yes.
Was it user friendly? No way.
With a DVX200, I could have plugged those XLR cables directly into my camera and had clear audio with proper controls and accurate level meters on my display. Trying to adjust the audio levels on a Tascam DR-40 while it's sitting on my camera's hot shoe is an exercise in futility. Not to mention the feeble cable that connects the DR-40 to my GH4 is way too fragile. And I have to keep track of another set of AA rechargeable batteries running out (with their own separate charger).
With a DVX200, I could have used the servo zoom with a LANC-type controller clamped onto the tripod handle to get super smooth, slow zooms during the more dramatic moments of the show. Shooting it this morning with my 14-140 on the GH4 made those type of slow, steady zooms impossible to achieve. I had to settle for uneven, sometimes jerky zooms that I'll have to edit around, and that means I'll miss the dramatic zooming action. Lots of folks say zooming while shooting is a no-no, but if done sparingly, and done right, a good zoom can be incredibly powerful!
With a DVX200, changing the focus should be a breeze, either manually or with auto-focus. With the 14-140, focusing manually is very hit-or-miss. And using autofocus on a GH4 means pressing the shutter button halfway, but careful to not press it all the way because I'll stop the recording! And, no, I can't tap on the screen to focus because my finger will be blocking the screen right when I need to be looking at it the most!
With a DVX200, my shoot this morning would have been a heck of a lot easier. Period.
I got GH3 and GH4 cameras because they were dirt cheap and I love the image quality & shallow depth of field I get because of the large sensor. But they are a serious compromise as far as usability for live event shooting (which is 98% of what I do). After they announced the DVX200, my initial reaction was the same as almost everyone else here. I wanted an AF200! But, if I'm honest with myself, I don't really want an AF200. I want the image quality of a GH4 with the ease of use on my original DVX100. Shooting live events is a very, very stressful endeavor. Doing so with still lenses and clunky XLR adapters only increases that stress, especially as a one man crew.
Once the DVX200 shows up, I'm pretty sure I'll be adding it to my gear as the A-Cam. It's an upgrade in every way possible for event shooters like myself. I'm still keeping my GH4 and GH3 cameras, since I can rig them in places a DVX would never fit, and I also shoot event still photography with them. But I now see the DVX200 becoming the breadwinner in my business.
I'm glad Panasonic decided to Zig when everyone else Zagged (as Barry put it). And I do hope they keep the red color panel.
ATL Media Group
Veteran
This. This right here. The past few days I haven't been able to stop thinking about the DVX200.
Just this morning, I was shooting a presentation of a new musical for potential investors using one GH4 and two GH3 cameras. One of them was hooked up to the soundboard via XLRs using a Tascam DR-40 as an adapter to feed the camera the good audio from the actors' lav mics.
Did it work? Yes.
Was it user friendly? No way.
With a DVX200, I could have plugged those XLR cables directly into my camera and had clear audio with proper controls and accurate level meters on my display. Trying to adjust the audio levels on a Tascam DR-40 while it's sitting on my camera's hot shoe is an exercise in futility. Not to mention the feeble cable that connects the DR-40 to my GH4 is way too fragile. And I have to keep track of another set of AA rechargeable batteries running out (with their own separate charger).
With a DVX200, I could have used the servo zoom with a LANC-type controller clamped onto the tripod handle to get super smooth, slow zooms during the more dramatic moments of the show. Shooting it this morning with my 14-140 on the GH4 made those type of slow, steady zooms impossible to achieve. I had to settle for uneven, sometimes jerky zooms that I'll have to edit around, and that means I'll miss the dramatic zooming action. Lots of folks say zooming while shooting is a no-no, but if done sparingly, and done right, a good zoom can be incredibly powerful!
With a DVX200, changing the focus should be a breeze, either manually or with auto-focus. With the 14-140, focusing manually is very hit-or-miss. And using autofocus on a GH4 means pressing the shutter button halfway, but careful to not press it all the way because I'll stop the recording! And, no, I can't tap on the screen to focus because my finger will be blocking the screen right when I need to be looking at it the most!
With a DVX200, my shoot this morning would have been a heck of a lot easier. Period.
I got GH3 and GH4 cameras because they were dirt cheap and I love the image quality & shallow depth of field I get because of the large sensor. But they are a serious compromise as far as usability for live event shooting (which is 98% of what I do). After they announced the DVX200, my initial reaction was the same as almost everyone else here. I wanted an AF200! But, if I'm honest with myself, I don't really want an AF200. I want the image quality of a GH4 with the ease of use on my original DVX100. Shooting live events is a very, very stressful endeavor. Doing so with still lenses and clunky XLR adapters only increases that stress, especially as a one man crew.
Once the DVX200 shows up, I'm pretty sure I'll be adding it to my gear as the A-Cam. It's an upgrade in every way possible for event shooters like myself. I'm still keeping my GH4 and GH3 cameras, since I can rig them in places a DVX would never fit, and I also shoot event still photography with them. But I now see the DVX200 becoming the breadwinner in my business.
I'm glad Panasonic decided to Zig when everyone else Zagged (as Barry put it). And I do hope they keep the red color panel.
This... as you and several others have mentioned, the DSLR lenses while great if they are fast primes are not as good as video lenses of they are anything but... The 14-140 was "good" for a DSLR type of lens and that lens was arguably one of the best video style lenses when it came out... Same with the 12-35 and 35-100... If I can replace all those with a fixed lens *and* get better DOF on the wide end at f2.8 then it's a win win.. Also back in the day shooting an interview I'd use a long zoom to get compression... which is the same effect as shallow DOF... I still do it with my Nikon D750 and 70-200 for photos and video... this little DVX seems like it might do the same... so shallow on the wide end, great compression on the long end.. I'm almost sold... Just need to see some footage to confirm that this is in fact the video replacement to a GH4 (you know what I mean... heh)
Here's the other thing... would you sell your GH4 and lenses to get the DVX or would you maybe keep a fast prime and the GH4 to use when you want that ultra shallow DOF on a shot? I think that might be the ideal kit.. a fast prime on a GH4 and the DVX200... Boom.. covered the bases.
I agree with all of that.... but, why then not make it codec etc compatible with the cameras it's to be the B-camera to?
Why not give it the ability to use micro-P2 and such as the AVC-Intra codec (at least for HD), as well as codecs it will currently do? That shouldn't add any cost to the basic design, it's only the micro-P2 that would cost extra money. And if you didn't want to use such, then don't. But for the people David mentions it could only increase it's appeal.
And why not follow the trend away from the "all out in front" ergonomics? JVC started it, and cameras like the Ursa mini have followed, also the FS7.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
The AF100, HMC150, 45-175mm and Zeiss ZF f1/4 50mm lenses are going on Ebay. The GH4 and 12-35 and 35-100 are staying for B-cam and special projects... and because I'm starting to have a ton of fun using them for photography.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
My guess is that it then starts cutting into the PX270's market.
What I don't understand is why the just don't come not with a Atomos Ninja Star-like microP2/SDXC recorder with the 100mb/s and below AVC-Ultra codecs. It would make a great companion to the GH4 and DVX200, with out cutting into the markets of their other cameras.