AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

I've seen situations in which camera come out at a bit less than what was originally thought. I'm just not sure Panasonic will be willing to sell a camera that records 8 bit 4:2:0 internally for $5,000.

Plus from what I've heard in the past, the low light capabilities of the FZ1000 isn't as good as it should be when you shoot in 4K.

No. The DVX200 has an M43 chip which is supposed to be better than the GH4's and LX100's. With that said, we'll obviously need to see examples to really prove that.
 
Last edited:
4/3 vs 3/3? Seen (not heard) comparisons of 1000 vs GH4 variable lens? Considering how Panny blew the AF100 rollout/opportunity, then follow with this cam of retro/bizarro nomenclature, I will wait for end user reports on DVX200...hopeful spec divining fanfolk not-withstanding..
 
Last edited:
The DVX200 doesn't have to be out to know that it'll have better low light capabilities than the FZ1000 unless the DVX200 will be severely flawed.

All I was doing is saying why the DVX200 costs more when it was asked. This thread didn't have to turn out this way.
 
David Jimerson said:
Local news stations, by the bucketload. Considering the purposes they used the DVX and the HVX for, seems like a perfect fit.
Click to expand...
As a former videographer at a news station, I disagree that the DVX200 will be a perfect fit for news. I DO agree that news stations might be initially shortsighted enough to buy a bucketload of these, but it will be a bad idea.
First off, the most important aspect of news videography is simply GETTING THE SHOT. And hopefully getting the shot in focus. A MFT sensor is not the smartest choice for easily nailing focus. A 1", 2/3" or even 1/3" senseor makes more sense.
Second, news organizations are making the switch to smaller cameras not only to cut equipment costs, but because they are often phasing out dedicated photographers and replacing them with MMJs (multimedia journalists) who are simply reporters who get handed a camera and are expected to be a one-person band.
So, a reporter with a journalism degree, who maybe ran camera once or twice in college, gets sent out alone to shoot and report a story. With MFT depth-of-field, just how sharp is the focus is going to be on the footage they capture? It's not going to be pretty.
 
Barry_Green said:
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. .
Click to expand...

This does seem to be what happened. It's almost as if the technology has become this addictive thing and that the "Camera Test" and "Walking around montage" have become their own genre. Their own art form. It's a constant dipping of one's toe in the pool and nobody seems to be actually diving in to take a swim. I know short films still get made because I teach at 3 different colleges and I see them every semester. I just got back from a film festival tonight and saw a shorts program filled with them. But in the larger scheme, some kind of narrative filmmaking paralysis seems to have taken hold.

Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this is why I think indie filmmakers are excited by the Blackmagic Ursa Mini.
 
dvbrother said:
As a former videographer at a news station, I disagree that the DVX200 will be a perfect fit for news. I DO agree that news stations might be initially shortsighted enough to buy a bucketload of these, but it will be a bad idea.
First off, the most important aspect of news videography is simply GETTING THE SHOT. And hopefully getting the shot in focus. A MFT sensor is not the smartest choice for easily nailing focus. A 1", 2/3" or even 1/3" senseor makes more sense.
Second, news organizations are making the switch to smaller cameras not only to cut equipment costs, but because they are often phasing out dedicated photographers and replacing them with MMJs (multimedia journalists) who are simply reporters who get handed a camera and are expected to be a one-person band.
So, a reporter with a journalism degree, who maybe ran camera once or twice in college, gets sent out alone to shoot and report a story. With MFT depth-of-field, just how sharp is the focus is going to be on the footage they capture? It's not going to be pretty.
Click to expand...

Right now I use the AC90 for outdoor events most of the time partly because when I do use auto focusing, it's better than my GH2 plus 14-140 lens. The other reason is because it's easier to keep the shots stable when zooming in and out.

Here's a few videos I shot years ago with the GH1 and the 14-140 lens in full auto mode. The camera was also completely handheld without any kind of support. If I were to have shot these today, I would have set the aperture to f/6.3 instead of keeping it in full auto. Again, I'd rather use my AC90 for event shooting than the GH1 and GH2 but the auto focusing in those videos isn't bad and might surprise. Since the DVX200 has a lens that is supposedly far more advanced for video shooting than the 14-140 lens, I'd expect the auto focusing to be better and I might not have a problem using the DVX200 for events like this. I'll still love to see videos shot at events using the DVX200 to really see how the auto focusing is.

2009:
https://vimeo.com/6273188
https://vimeo.com/6272829

2010:
Same beach event but a year later.
https://vimeo.com/16785241
 
Last edited:
I would argue that a videographer should not have to rely on autofocus to get the shot (I know some do, this is not a knock, but for all but a few types of shooting, AF is generally frowned upon by professionals). . .that means we are using gear not suited to the situations in which we are using it. I'm not saying we should all expect be expert manual focus-trackers (some disagree, I know), but if you're having to refocus THAT often (NOT talking about movies/narrative/etc. here) it may be a case of wrong tool for the job. That's why I'm a little perplexed so many call this an "event camera". I would consider something like the EX1 or a cam with a similar or smaller sensor size an "event camera". Something where, while shooting b roll, you can plop down and shoot a guy, and when he moves three feet, he's not blurry. Stopping down gets your marginally more/deeper DOF in my experience, when what you need is YARDS more. Or I guess you can stay on wider focal lengths all the time. Please don't get me wrong, I've done b-roll/events with a 5D, and yeah, it looks cool, but it ain't ideal. . .and not 'cause it doesn't have autofocus.
 
When I was in High School, I was thought how to shoot in full manual and became very good at it. I usually don't like it when some camcorders that are around $900 and up doesn't a have manual focusing ring around the lens or other features because some shots will be better if you shoot manual. When I'm shooting events for fun especially with my AC90, I've never had anyone complain about shots looking out of focus. If the auto focusing in the DVX200 works a bit better than a GH series camera with a 14-140 lens than it would be decent for shooting outdoor events at least during the day. With that said, it's true that smaller chip cameras like the AC90 will most likely be a little better though. As for shooting at night and using something like f/2.8 to have the least amount of gain in the video, we'll have to wait and see since it's harder getting things in focus at f/2.8 than it would be at something like f/6.3.

Like I mentioned earlier, I think Panasonic could be banking on people who shoot events but would like their chip to be big. Basically not everyone who does ENG/Documentary type shooting will want a camera like this but the ones who tries to shoot events with cameras such as the Panasonic GH4 and Sony FS7 for example, they might consider it if their willing to live with a fixed lens. Still, I do think we'll eventually see a real AF100 successor. Hopefully sooner rather than later.



All this writing is really making me want to shoot an event with the DVX200 and keep it on auto focusing just to see how it'll turn out.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait, stop, hold on... are you saying that lighting is important? :happy:

And I agree just in general... not only film making, but anything video/film related. While I personally try to be as minimalist as possible in my lighting (just my personal taste), it drives me bonkers when I see a video and it looks like the shooter tries to have "cool" razer thin DoF with an expensive lens, but doesn't even bother to try and light an interview or scene. Some of the best interviews and shots I've seen have been on 1/3" and 2/3" cameras where the lighting was fantastic.
 
combatentropy said:
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."
Click to expand...

The HVX had such a mecanism as will probably have the DVX200. IMO, if a lens behaves like a parfocal lens, by my criteria it IS parfocal, regardless how this is achieved. I really don't mind if the lens is parfocal because of optical precision or because of a servo motor (the latter being the much cheaper solution). Same with vignetting and edge sharpness. I would even favour an Iso-settin, that simulates a constant aperture (always if you can turn it off), which would be helpful in run & gun situations.

Mike Harvey said:
Wait, stop, hold on... are you saying that lighting is important? :happy:

And I agree just in general... not only film making, but anything video/film related. While I personally try to be as minimalist as possible in my lighting (just my personal taste), it drives me bonkers when I see a video and it looks like the shooter tries to have "cool" razer thin DoF with an expensive lens, but doesn't even bother to try and light an interview or scene. Some of the best interviews and shots I've seen have been on 1/3" and 2/3" cameras where the lighting was fantastic.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The first lightning workshop I assisted was a revelation.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
Film making is almost entirely about the talent, the writing and the lighting.
Click to expand...

IF... you're making a silent film.

And lets not leave out the director -- someone's got to have a vision of what the final product should be, otherwise you get "design by comittee" which seldom turns out well.

But really, I agree with your premise. The camera itself is pretty far down on the list of importance.
 
500 posts, the Panasonic marketing people must be thrilled. No other camera introduced during NAB 2015 has this many posts. As long as the camera is in people's minds, even for complaints, their work is succeeding.
 
dvbrother said:
As a former videographer at a news station, I disagree that the DVX200 will be a perfect fit for news. I DO agree that news stations might be initially shortsighted enough to buy a bucketload of these, but it will be a bad idea.
First off, the most important aspect of news videography is simply GETTING THE SHOT. And hopefully getting the shot in focus. A MFT sensor is not the smartest choice for easily nailing focus. A 1", 2/3" or even 1/3" senseor makes more sense.
Second, news organizations are making the switch to smaller cameras not only to cut equipment costs, but because they are often phasing out dedicated photographers and replacing them with MMJs (multimedia journalists) who are simply reporters who get handed a camera and are expected to be a one-person band.
So, a reporter with a journalism degree, who maybe ran camera once or twice in college, gets sent out alone to shoot and report a story. With MFT depth-of-field, just how sharp is the focus is going to be on the footage they capture? It's not going to be pretty.
Click to expand...

I dunno; that sounds like you're going out of your way to nitpick, especially when no one has any idea how exactly how it's going to perform.

The HVX wasn't the easiest thing to focus only using the LCD or the EVF, either, but it was (still is) a news workhorse.

If the autofocus is as good as they say it will be, then it'll be a moot point, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top