AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

[harddrive]

WHY couldnt you make a film with a cam like this? what am i missing?

It's quite possible to make a film with it, the question is could such look better with something else.

A f2.8 lens and 4/3 sensor will define the minimum depth of field for any given angle of view. If that's OK for the filmmaker, fine.

If less DOF is desired, the only way to get it is with a faster lens and/or a larger sensor, and if we assume 4/3 in all cases, that means an f2 or ideally faster lens. Practically, you're only likely to find such in either a prime or at the very least a small range zoom. And to use such you need the ability to change lenses.

It's worth saying that going for a built in lens greatly simplifies the optical design, which means a cheaper product than is likely to be the case if the lenses are interchangeable.

 

[harddrive]

My guess is that it then starts cutting into the PX270's market.

Yes..... but then (going back to David Jimersons point about local broadcast stations) won't they simply just carry on with PX270's?

I can't see such being remotely interested in 4K for a very long time, which is really what the DVX200 brings to the table over the PX270.

 

[Barry_Green]

Not that i really care because im not doing much "filmmaking" these days, but WHY couldnt you make a film with a cam like this? what am i missing?

I don't think you're missing anything. Plenty of films were made on the standard-def, 4x3, 10x zoom, fixed-lens, deep-focus, 8-bit, 4:1:1 DVX100. Including films that won the Cinematography award at Sundance -- twice.

This camera improves on every possible aspect -- it's not only high-def, it's 4K, it's 16x9, 13x zoom, shallow-DOF, etc, and adds stuff like variable frame rates, 1080/120p, timecode input and SDI output, etc. So if you could make a film on the DVX back in the day, why couldn't you make it on this, today? Granted the DOF will NOT be as shallow as it would be on an S35 camera. But there's a world of difference between "not shallow" and "not AS shallow"...

You would be giving up some options, such as the ability to use a hyper-telephoto lens or an extreme wide angle (and I do confess, that 7-14 is one of my favorite AF100/GH lenses!) You would be giving up the ability to get f/1.2 (or even f/0.95) DOF. If those are absolutely vital to the aesthetic of your film, then this may not be the ideal choice. If you want a tiny camera that is totally discreet, then maybe a GH or a BMC Pocket would be your preferable choice -- or a GoPro, or whatever is appropriate for the situation. The DVX200, with the stock lens, is pretty big -- I didn't compare it side-by-side with something like an AC160/HPX250 but I would say they're comparable.

So it wouldn't necessarily be able to replace everything. I wouldn't likely be ditching my GH if I picked up a DVX200, but I probably would move on from the AF100 at that point. As a workhorse/backbone camera, I think it would probably suffice or excel for most potential situations.

And, of course, it depends on the type of film. There are films where an Alexa is most appropriate, but for docs or something where a DVX has traditionally been used, I think that the DVX200 just seems like it'd be ideal in that scenario. It won't be an FS7 or C300 Mark II, but then again, it could be 1/2 to 1/4 the price of those, and I'd dare to guess the image will be a lot better than 1/2 to 1/4 as good as those...

So, it all comes down to the perennial issue of choices and cost -- what do you NEED, vs. what do you WANT, vs. what can you AFFORD. I know that some of us are disappointed in the "WANT" category, but -- in taking an honest evaluation, I'd think that more than a few of us might be thinking that as far as the NEED and AFFORD categories, this camera might be quite appropriate. Even if it doesn't necessarily check all the WANT boxes...

 

[Barry_Green]

I can't see such being remotely interested in 4K for a very long time, which is really what the DVX200 brings to the table over the PX270.

I'm not sure you're looking at the same thing I am. You think that 4K is the only thing the DVX200 offers over the PX270?

In terms of market segmentation, there is a huge divide between the SD card market and the P2 card market. For networks, P2 is king. For individual users, and (frankly) small or independent stations, many of them have expressed the urgent desire to use standardized, commodity recording media. The PX270 serves the higher-end market excellently -- it's really an impressive piece of kit. But it is 1080 only, and it's a P2 camera (although you can use SD cards for the low-bandwidth recording formats).

Panasonic has always had two lines, the inexpensive/commodity media line, and the proprietary/ultimate line. Otherwise generally known as the AG series and the AJ series. The PX270 is primarily in the AJ camp, its menu complexity and power are far more closely aligned with the AJ cameras, even though its size and price are more typical of the AG series.

The DVX is clearly an AG series. Furthermore, it adds 4K, shallow DOF, and features like 1080/120p and VLog gamma. It's different. The PX270 is a hardcore news/professional production handheld. The DVX that we have here, looks to be the embodiment of the original DVX's marketing line: "Make a Living. Flip A Switch. Make A Movie."

I don't really see them as similar at all, or aimed at the same customer at all.

 

[Barry_Green]

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.

They've made recorders before, but they just haven't caught on. They made the HPG20, and then they had a little AVCCAM external recorder too...

I would guess at this point they're plenty content to leave that segment of the market to units like the PIX-E, Q7, Ninja Star, Shogun, etc.

 

[TheDingo]

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

But the BMD camera is a severe crop compared to an actual 4/3 sensor, so it's fairly useless when it comes to shooting with wide lenses. Also it's batteries die after 20 minutes, and it's pretty atrocious when it comes to audio. I do not see this Pocket Cine camera as a threat to anything Panasonic has produced. The new Blackmagic Micro Cine camera looks interesting, though I'm not sure how I would use it right now, but I like the design much better than the Pocket Cine camera.

The Ursa Mini uses a Canon EF mount or a PL mount, so none of my Micro 4/3 lenses are of any use to it. This also pushes me in the direction of buying a Canon EF compatible cine camera because I can use EF lenses with BMD, Canon, Sony cine cameras and retain aperture and focus control. ( focus might be through a manual adapter, but that's workable )

 

[Camera Expert]

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.

We already have SD cards that writes faster than Micro P2 cards such as these.
http://www.amazon.com/Lexar-Profess...1FKU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429311729&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Secur...?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1429311831&sr=1-15

 

[Jaime Valles]

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)

Indeed. A lot will depend on the reviews and the footage that's posted online.

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 need to be able to shoot 3 camera angles, so I would use a DVX200 plus keep my GH4 and a GH3. I'd probably keep my fast 50mm f/0.95 for ultra-shallow DoF, and the zooms are fantastic for stills. But all the other primes would likely end up on ebay.

 

[Jaime Valles]

Not that i really care because im not doing much "filmmaking" these days, but WHY couldnt you make a film with a cam like this? what am i missing?

You absolutely can make a film with the DVX200. Heck, I made a feature film with a DVX100 (www.casicasi.com) and it was acquired and distributed by HBO!

 

[combatentropy]

You cannot get a baby in one month just by throwing nine women at the problem

In breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

Somebody change Barry Green's title to Sage.

So my question for today's marketplace is -- is it, truly, about the aspiring indie filmmaker anymore?

I probably have a good $50,000 worth of primes

I'm an aspiring bookwriter.

Panasonic is trying to give the absolute best lens system possible at the lowest cost and this means a fixed lens camera with automatic correction

It may not even be parfocal. Many permalenses are varifocal, but the cameras automatically change focus as you zoom. As Adam Wilt said about the AG-HPX250, "The lens is a varifocal, not a parfocal or 'true' zoom; a servo system maintains focus while zooming."

 

[DLD]

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.

I think there will be two main reasons -

a) s/he already acquired DVX200 and

b) now wants to see a shallower DOF without renting some other camera.

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?

It's an aesthetics question mostly (more so, if the adapters are affordable) -- not necessary but something to resort to out of shallow interest ... eh, I mean curiosity.

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.

The way I see this is that no one is hating this camera per se. They're basically blaming Panasonic for not releasing an MFT camera in the same price range that matches up favorably - or reasonably - with the URSA Mini on specs. To a non-engineering degree outsiders, this didn't appear to be an impossible task. As you wrote yourself in that AF-100 thread - up the specs to the current standards, chop off the lens and there's your camera. The rest are details.

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

To delve into this a bit further. With the small sensor point-n-shoots being phased out due to the smart phones, the next affordable niche market is between the MFT and the APS-C. The goal is to give this price bracket a level of performance only found in the higher end cameras of a few years ago. Sony A6000 and GH3/4 are perfect examples of that. However, this advancement in technology pushes the higher priced/higher profit margin cameras to the bigger sensors. That's what gives you this DVX200 - a 4K MFT camcorder for $5,000! - but it's what also gives you a 4K s35 camera for $5,000-$8,000 in URSA Mini-URSA and FS-7. And that sequentially pushes the $20,000-$50,000 into the FF and even the MF sensor sizes. And, if that is the case, then MFT becomes the entry level format and, at some point, Panasonic and Olympus will have to start thinking bigger. (and, oddly enough, if Panasonic is thinking of getting into larger size sensors, DVX200 makes a perfect sense as in-between-the-generations product)

The funny part here is that, the next generation "GH5" with the same MFT sensor could be so good, it'd make most $5,000 cameras superfluous. To my eye, NX1 already looks as good as any other camera aside of Alexa and F65 and GH5 will have another year to deliver the new technology (and the workflow problems can be ameliorated with the YAGH2 ... which, once again, makes DVX200 a perfect in-between model)

HV20 ... 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 ...

Sure, that's your story and you're sticking to it (I kid, I kid)

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...

Exactly. And this is where our arguments reveal themselves not to be arguments in the grand scheme of things.

Local news stations, by the bucketload. 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.

TV stations will find it a tad more expensive to replace the supporting infrastructure rather than the cameras themselves. But that's how it will have to be.

This camera improves on every possible aspect -- it's not only high-def, it's 4K, it's 16x9, 13x zoom, shallow-DOF, etc, and adds stuff like variable frame rates, 1080/120p, timecode input and SDI output, etc. So if you could make a film on the DVX back in the day, why couldn't you make it on this, today? Granted the DOF will NOT be as shallow as it would be on an S35 camera. But there's a world of difference between "not shallow" and "not AS shallow"... .

Right. So to sum it up, no one is disappointed in the camera. Those who are disappointed are disappointed in this not being the other camera.

But they might be able to get it within a year. Let's all note that, while GH4 has proven to be a resounding success, no Japanese manufacturer has challenged it so far. In a truly free market, there'd a dozen GH4 clones already. But there isn't even one. To me, this means that Panasonic has that niche for a while longer (it may also explain YAGH) and will be very much interested in squeezing a lot of performance out of its next generation before the Big Boys arrive with their 4K APS-C cams and a million AF lenses.

 

[Gweilo66]

In terms of end product in capable hands, is this 5X $$ better than FZ1000?

 

[Thomas Smet]

Not that i really care because im not doing much "filmmaking" these days, but WHY couldnt you make a film with a cam like this? what am i missing?

Nothing at all. Anybody who tells you otherwise spends most of their time researching gear instead of actually using it. Since 90% (rough figure pulled out of you know where but you get the idea) of shots are around 12mm-50mm in movies you are going to be using the brighter portion of the lens. I would say really that value is going to be more like the 14mm-25mm range on the DVX200. 25mm should be almost fully open which means you are still working with a f2.8 lens on a potentially slightly more sensitive m43 sensor.

The ironic thing about film making is that it uses light. A lot of it. If the people who make a big stink about film making with the DVX200 cared that much about film making they would know to never ever use a prime wide open at f0.95 or f1.4. No lens looks visually perfect when wide open that much. They would also know the secret to great film is lighting, lighting and this thing called lighting. Lighting can make a $800.00 camera look like a $80,000.00 camera. So many users jump from camera to camera every year and yet don't invest a single penny in light kits.

The film making community has becomes obsessed with ultra low light shooting and razor thin DOF. Yet any high end production I have ever seen uses truck loads of lights and very few if any shots ever have razor thing DOF. Turn on the TV and watch a show like DareDevil and take notes on just how many shots have a part of the shot insanely out of focus or focus drifting all over the place. I teach video production at a college and one of the assignments I give my students is to watch a TV show and write down every shot they see to know how many different shots make up a TV show and write down the number of times they actually see transitions, number of cuts, crazy rack focus shots, constantly moving cameras and any out of focus shots. They are blown away by just what makes up a TV show and all pleasantly surprised that really even iMovie could cut a movie or TV show.

Film making is almost entirely about the talent, the writing and the lighting. The camera can be important but seriously it is the least important factor and the one factor the viewer doesn't give two $*&%$ about.

If one actually had the talent and the crew to make a dramatic TV pilot the DVX200 without a doubt could do so. Anybody else who says otherwise is just making excuses.

 

[Camera Expert]

Significantly better low light capabilities, 4K 60p recordings, built in ND filters, XLR inputs, far more manual controls, far better stabilizer, perhaps far better autofocusing, lanc control, 10 bit 4:2:2 output, etc. To a lot of people, all those features are worth it for the premium price over the FZ1000. Still for people who can't afford it or needs something smaller, than the FZ100 could be better. It'll all depends on what's important. Still, if the codec is just 8 bit and 4:2:0, the price could be closer to around $4,000 to $4,500.

 

[Gweilo66]

"If one actually had the talent and the crew to make a dramatic TV pilot the DVX200..."
Oh..and again..5x $$ vs FZ1000?

 

[Gweilo66]

Camera Expert, how many of those features are specified in the 200? Granted..I hope the zoom is better in 200. It's shiite in 1000. But the rest? Seen any footage? Oh...we can discuss the exterior laminate...

 

[Camera Expert]

All of them. What feature did I mentioned that doesn't sound true?

 

[Gweilo66]

"Significantly better low light capabilities"

Even then, 5x the $$?

You seem to already be suggesting reducing price depending on actual specs. Let's say 4,000 vs $800.

But we shall see here..many were unpleasantly surprised by camera character of AF100. Have to see in each case..

 

[philiplipetz]

"Significantly better low light capabilities"

Even then, 5x the $$?

bigger pixels + downsampled HD image from 4k = better low light

 

[Gweilo66]

Ah..not a similar 1" sensor?