AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

[philiplipetz]

more information than in post. no time now to summarize, got to work, but he says that the 12 stops DR are all usable with detail in all stops unlike some manufacturers that claim 12 stops but not all are usable. In post he says that when he exposed for a face in the sunshine he saw detail in his black dog as it wandered through the dark shadows.

 

[ugafan]

"because this is a pre-production model of the DVX-200, we can't actually show you the image quality."

aaahhhhhhhhh:furious3:

 

[jimagine]

I literally just learned about this camera looking at upcoming purchases.
I really like so much about it, it checks so many boxes for so many uses...the kind of comprehensive tool I'd absolutely buy a couple of for the production end of my biz.

Then I download the brochure and see the two killer (I mean deal killer) spes - variable lens speed and 4:2:0 codec,
I know it can record 422 externally, but this isn't that camera - this is the all in-one production tool that someone finally produced.
Except they didn't.

If Sony can put a 24-200 f/2.8 on the cheap consumer RX10, Pany certainly could on a $5k camera - it's the only lens you'll ever be able to use, cause you know, it's fixed and all..
If I can record raw and ProRes HQ on our cheap BMPCCs then Panasonic certainly could have allowed for 422 even at 8bit - you know, to grade that great V-log you thought to include.

They would sell so many of these cameras with two things that far cheaper cameras offer.
Panasonic had such a solid idea, but unfathomably (to me as a buyer at least) they cheaped out on the two things most important to most serious shooters - what goes on the front and what goes on the memory card.

What a waste with everything they seemingly got right with this.

 

[Barry_Green]

"because this is a pre-production model of the DVX-200, we can't actually show you the image quality."

aaahhhhhhhhh:furious3:

That's the way it always is. And you wouldn't want to see it anyway, as it's not ready. They still have months of finessing to do. Looking at pre-production images now would be like pulling a cake out of the oven half an hour before it's cooked, so you can try it and see whether you'll like it or not. It's a bad idea... you should wait for the cake to finish cooking...

 

[Barry_Green]

If Sony can put a 24-200 f/2.8 on the cheap consumer RX10

Two things about that: first, consider that at 24-200, that's only an 8x zoom range. The Panasonic DVX200 has a 13x zoom range (I think; maybe it's 12x). And across the entire zoom range, it only loses a bit over one stop. We don't know at what point the lens ramping comes into play. It might be completely consistent at f/2.8 through the first 8x of zoom range, and then start ramping down slowly. Or maybe it's consistent at 2.8 through the first 10x of zoom range, and ramps quickly in the last 3x. We don't know yet.

But what I do know is that the lens on the RX10 looks pretty bad in the corners. Look at the review here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/rx10/sony-rx10A4.HTM. Look at how the corners compare to the center. That's what I'd expect on a cheap consumer camera. I do not expect that the DVX200 lens will look like that.

If you're happy with a 24-200 lens at f/2.8, it's entirely possible that that's what the DVX200 will have; if you just ignore the last 5x of the zoom range you may never even know that it's not a fixed 2.8 the whole way through...

They would sell so many of these cameras with two things that far cheaper cameras offer.

People love to say things like that -- yet -- how do you know? Simple example -- an Arri Alexa is a hellaciously expensive camera, and it doesn't even have autofocus or a zoom lens, two things that a cheap $199 point 'n' shoot has. Would they sell more Alexas if they had those two things that far cheaper cameras offer? Of course not. It wouldn't make the slightest dent in their sales.

The market will speak as to whether they'll sell many of these DVX200s or not. We can all wish that it had every possible bell and whistle that's ever appeared on any camera ever, but -- it doesn't. Every one of us wishes that it had 10-bit 4:2:2 on-board, but it doesn't. It has a specific feature set. It is what it is. We will have to decide, as buyers, whether that featureset does what we need done. I suspect that a whole lot of people will be plenty happy to say "yeah, I can work with that."

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

The thing is we had 1/2 and 2/3 cameras with very nice fast zoom lenses at 7x, 13x, 17x, 20x and so forth with F1.8 aperture reaching far into the zoom range. Then we got large sensor cameras that could use any fast lens at apertures like crazy F1.2.

So a camera like the DVX200 becomes a compromise. Sure it has a larger sensor than 2/3 but not as large as super35 or FF. At the same time the aperture starts at F2.8 and goes down faster than one would like. For it to really shine you would like to have it at F2 going past the 100mm mark and after that only doing a slight drop to F2.8.

As is chances are it wont give a creamy enough image when it comes to the characteristics from large sensors cameras (read super35 or FF) and will fail to impresse.

 

[TheDingo]

But what I do know is that the lens on the RX10 looks pretty bad in the corners. Look at the review here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/rx10/sony-rx10A4.HTM. Look at how the corners compare to the center. That's what I'd expect on a cheap consumer camera. I do not expect that the DVX200 lens will look like that.

The Imaging Resource test shots are 20 Mpx still photos, so keep this in mind when you are looking at their corner sections on the web page Barry linked to. This is a heck of a lot BIGGER than a 4K image.

I would be surprised if the DX200 even at 4K will have totally sharp corner sections at full aperture.

 

[harddrive]

I think what you have to ask is whether for price/performance it hits a sweet spot, or falls between stools, and I suspect different people will have different thoughts. It is what it is, it costs what it costs, and as such it probably delivers in accordance with it's price. Accept that and you accept that in many ways it has some pretty good features and performance - but in a few ways it's compromised compared to cameras a bit more.

I may be proved wrong, but my own feeling is that for run of the mill work it's quite expensive (and maybe the performance is better than needed), and for real enthusiast work it's a little lacking. In that camp I'd try to scrape together enough extra and get something like an FS7. But OK, others may see it as priced in a sweet spot.

It's also worth noting that whilst in that video much is made of it being "a large sensor camera with built in lens", and talk of it's 4K/60p ability - then it's either/or! In 4K/60p it crops the sensor heavily, such that the used area is actually then smaller than a 1" sensor. The specs quote a 35mm equivalent wide end of 28mm or 29.5mm according to format, but omit to mention that in 60p mode the widest is now about 37mm!!

 

[Mike Harvey]

I wish it had 10bit 4:2:2, but I don't know how it's a deal breaker not including it in a sub-$5k camera. I know this is going to sound harsh, but if you have a project that actually requires 10bit 4:2:2, then there should be money in the budget to spring for an inexpensive 10bit 4:2:2 recorder like the Atomos Ninja Star or upcoming Blackmagic Video Assist.

As far as the ramping iris... if the lens behaves anything like the lens on my HMC150 (and this camera sooooooooo reminds me of a 4/3 HMC150), then by the time it reaches ~100mm it should be in the ballpark of f/3 or f/3.5. I just came back from shooting an interview on my AF100 with the 35-100 X lens... subject was framed at around 80mm, and I had to have the iris at f/3.5 in order to keep him in focus as his head naturally moved around. I would think for most applications, f/4 is more than fast enough out past 100mm. Are there even any large format lenses on the market... 4/3, S16, or FF... that are faster than f/4 past 100mm?

[EDIT] Let me rephrase that... are there an zoom lenses past 100mm that are faster than f/4 and not super expensive? The Canon 70mm-200mm f/2.8 is USD $2,100, and the Nikon equivolent is $2,400.

 

[harddrive]

But what I do know is that the lens on the RX10 looks pretty bad in the corners. Look at the review here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/came...ony-rx10A4.HTM. Look at how the corners compare to the center. That's what I'd expect on a cheap consumer camera. I do not expect that the DVX200 lens will look like that.

I have to disagree with your opinion of the RX 10 lens. I bought an RX10 a few months ago, primarily for taking stills on a "once in a lifetime holiday".

During the course of the 5 weeks, I took about 1500 photographs with the RX10 and can only say I was very pleased indeed with it. I've since had some very big prints made off some of the images and well, I'm even more impressed.

The lmaging-resource link you give does indeed show some imperfections at the extreme corners - but they are deliberately chosen tests to show the absolute worst possible. Not only that, do you realise they are deliberately posting RAW images in the lower row which don't have the in camera processing corrections (as the row above does)? Wide open, wide angle, extreme corners. ANY lens will show SOME issues under those conditions. The question is whether it's substantially worse or better than other similar lenses.

And IMO the answer has to come in some of the quotes in the text accompanying those images. Right at the top they say "A very versatile 24-200mm equivalent zoom range, with excellent performance." Further down we get "Far-field performance appears to be excellent at f/5.6, with very good sharpness and contrast across most of the frame throughout the zoom range, and only minor softening and coma distortion in the extreme corners.". And their final conclusion is "Overall, very good to excellent performance for a 24-200mm equivalent f/2.8 constant aperture lens."

And I'd echo that conclusion.

 

[Bassman2003]

Gosh this camera is kind of tearing me in both directions. I love my PX270s and I really wish this camera was the PX430 instead of the DVX200. Mike we can start to say certain projects need 4:2:2 10 bit but lets face it, adding this internally for 1080p would not be any sweat. I know they want to separate but this very separation might cause me to wait for the P2 model. AVC-Ultra is just a great codec. The problem is that if too many people "wait" they might see a product that tanked and not go through with a P2 model (like the AF-100).

The usability is the strong point of this camera. External recorders are a fail imho. Yes the image will be nice but I have some concerns along the lines Hardrive mentioned. I still say that once the camera is out, it will sell better closer to $3,500 than $5,000. The 4k specs are a little tight when you learn the facts and the lens ramping will be revealing. Looking forward to the reviews.

 

[harddrive]

The Imaging Resource test shots are 20 Mpx still photos, so keep this in mind when you are looking at their corner sections on the web page Barry linked to. This is a heck of a lot BIGGER than a 4K image.

And further to my last post, then a big reason why manufacturers like non-interchangeable lens cameras is that they can make lens/camera work together - get away with simpler optics by using electronic compensation. That's not possible with interchangeable lenses. Similar thought with why some "kit" lenses can give performance way better than you'd think for the price - they can play tricks such as dynamic focus tracking with zoom. Result is no penalty to the user, but a package that can give a level of quality that would cost a fortune more if it had to be done solely optically.

And I strongly suspect that is why Panasonic have gone for a non-interchangeable lens with the DVX200. It means they can do similar processes to what the RX10 (and many other modern cameras) does and achieve a level of quality via electronic corrections rather than pure optical precision. That should not be seen as a negative - it means that all these cameras are vastly cheaper for a given performance level than would be the case if they did have to rely purely on optical precision.

 

[jimagine]

If you're happy with a 24-200 lens at f/2.8, it's entirely possible that that's what the DVX200 will have; if you just ignore the last 5x of the zoom range you may never even know that it's not a fixed 2.8 the whole way through...


People love to say things like that -- yet -- how do you know? "

Yeah, I was thinking that about the lens and also thinking it would be good/smart of them to specify the point at which it graduates.

Regarding people loving to say things like that - you also love to say things like "people like to say things like that".

Regarding "how do I know" of course that's rhetorical because of course you or I don't know. We're just opining on the forum.

FWIW, my opining was from someone who buys a lot of cameras and production tools for my business and needs to buy a pair of something small and as complete as possible for a few ongoing projects - I don't like the look of an RX10 as small and well rounded is it may be or the 1" sensor with what we produce.

Same with the XC10. Really wanted it to work but the list of weaknesses, 1", variable lens, no VF w/ a very sloppy add-on.

So the DVX200 really got my attention (although it's not available for the immediate purchases I need anyway) but looking forward, it really does look like the smartest, all in one package around. I miss that in a lot of environments and genres we work in.

So yeah, if the lens carried f/2.8 to even 135mm let alone 200mm it would be more than solid - anything more, 4.5...that's fine.

But the 10 bit thing isn't what I mentioned. 4:2:0 was...even as I said, 8 bit.
I really think that the ability to shoot log was also smart , but it really demands 422 to be able to utilize it's potential.
We shoot everything in Film (BM) and log and either raw or Prores but I'd be fine with a lesser codec with enough color to push around.

So, to me at least, it would be smart for Panasonic to consider offering a 422 firmware upgrade - even offer it as an option. I bet most/many would buy it.
And announce where the f/2.8 becomes f/4.5.

Again, I think this is one of the most complete designs I've seen in a long time.
But it is 2015 and all ranges of production facilities and independents are grading their footage extensively.
420 needs to go the way of SD now.

 

[Wesley Byram]

...
But the 10 bit thing isn't what I mentioned. 4:2:0 was...even as I said, 8 bit.
I really think that the ability to shoot log was also smart , but it really demands 422 to be able to utilize it's potential.
We shoot everything in Film (BM) and log and either raw or Prores but I'd be fine with a lesser codec with enough color to push around.

So, to me at least, it would be smart for Panasonic to consider offering a 422 firmware upgrade - even offer it as an option. I bet most/many would buy it.
And announce where the f/2.8 becomes f/4.5.

Again, I think this is one of the most complete designs I've seen in a long time.
But it is 2015 and all ranges of production facilities and independents are grading their footage extensively.
420 needs to go the way of SD now.

I'm curious about this statement. The DVX200 may not do 4:2:2 internally, but it does do 4k. 4K even at 4:2:0 still provides twice the chroma resolution of 1080p at 4:2:2. And even at 1080p, 4:2:2 is only marginally better, unless one is doing something very sensitive to color resolution, like chroma key. On top of that, bayer sensors sampled at 1:1 can't produce enough color info to fill 4:2:2 anyway.

Of course, that's for progressive footage. If you're talking about interlaced footage, then yeah, 4:2:0 can go die in a fire.

I for one would rather have 10bit than 4:2:2, but that's me.

 

[Greg Smith]

Gosh this camera is kind of tearing me in both directions. I love my PX270s and I really wish this camera was the PX430 instead of the DVX200. Mike we can start to say certain projects need 4:2:2 10 bit but lets face it, adding this internally for 1080p would not be any sweat. I know they want to separate but this very separation might cause me to wait for the P2 model. AVC-Ultra is just a great codec. The problem is that if too many people "wait" they might see a product that tanked and not go through with a P2 model (like the AF-100).

Couldn't agree more, after upgrading to a PX270 as my everyday run'n'gun camera a few months ago. The sweet spot for me would be a lens and sensor like the DVX200 grafted onto the recording back end of the PX270, including all the same menus for configuring the image properties, and selling for about the same price as the PX.

I'm not, for my style of shooting, overly concerned about the ramping aperture as long as it changes smoothly during a zoom and doesn't jump in steps like the Lumix 14-140mm lens I have.

I'll still get one when it comes out, though. I have a project next year that involves handing a camera to a group of high school students and supervising them as they document a week long field trip. I'll be shooting A roll with my PX270 and AF100 and will make sure the essentials are covered in case this doesn't work out, but I want a camera I can give them that can make pretty first-person pictures while still operating mostly in auto focus and exposure. From this distance, the DVX looks like it will be good for this, although we'll have to wait to see real life results.

- Greg

 

[Josh Bass]

Can I ask a dumb question? How/Where do you see the 4:2:2/10-bit manifest itself vs 4:2:0/8-bit? Is it only when you start manipulating footage and see it fall apart faster at the lower rates that the advantages of the higher bit rates/color space become apparent? Could you see the differences on any raw footage just by looking at it, if you shot the same thing with two cams that were identical except for the bitrate/colorspace? I still think the old-ass EX1 looks fantastic, and I have color corrected that footage as much as I ever would unless I was doing something really artsy/aggressive (unlikely given my work/clients/etc.), and it still has always looked fine.

Ultimately unless your clients demand it or you know you need it for your work for some reason, the above, to ME, is all that matters. . .HOW DOES IT LOOK?

 

[Thomas Smet]

I literally just learned about this camera looking at upcoming purchases.
I really like so much about it, it checks so many boxes for so many uses...the kind of comprehensive tool I'd absolutely buy a couple of for the production end of my biz.

Then I download the brochure and see the two killer (I mean deal killer) spes - variable lens speed and 4:2:0 codec,
I know it can record 422 externally, but this isn't that camera - this is the all in-one production tool that someone finally produced.
Except they didn't.

If Sony can put a 24-200 f/2.8 on the cheap consumer RX10, Pany certainly could on a $5k camera - it's the only lens you'll ever be able to use, cause you know, it's fixed and all..
If I can record raw and ProRes HQ on our cheap BMPCCs then Panasonic certainly could have allowed for 422 even at 8bit - you know, to grade that great V-log you thought to include.

They would sell so many of these cameras with two things that far cheaper cameras offer.
Panasonic had such a solid idea, but unfathomably (to me as a buyer at least) they cheaped out on the two things most important to most serious shooters - what goes on the front and what goes on the memory card.

What a waste with everything they seemingly got right with this.

You do realize the Sony RX10 has a 1" sensor while this camera has 4/3" sensor. The larger the sensor the more complicated it is to make fast zoom lenses. Besides what is with this sudden obsession with constant aperture lenses? I have been shooting with professional video cameras and broadcast shoulder mounted ENG cameras for 20+ years and I never had a constant aperture lens. In the past we exclusively used zoom lenses and never once had a serious issue with the aperture slightly changing as we zoomed in. This is just such a non issue.

Panasonic also has consumer DSLR like type cameras with really long zoom lenses at a constant f2.8 but I doubt any professional would even consider using them anytime soon. They are nice little cameras but that smaller sensor makes a big difference. while those lenses are a constant f2.8 its really more like a constant f4.0 when you factor in the light loss from the smaller sensor. You really have to compare apples to apples.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Gosh this camera is kind of tearing me in both directions. I love my PX270s and I really wish this camera was the PX430 instead of the DVX200. Mike we can start to say certain projects need 4:2:2 10 bit but lets face it, adding this internally for 1080p would not be any sweat. I know they want to separate but this very separation might cause me to wait for the P2 model. AVC-Ultra is just a great codec. The problem is that if too many people "wait" they might see a product that tanked and not go through with a P2 model (like the AF-100).

Don't get me wrong, I don't understand why at least AVC-LongG wasn't included. No P2 I get because it would have added to the cost and probably cut into PX270 sales too much. But AVC-LongG would have been nice. It's the "dealbreaker" part I don't understand. It's annoying not having it, but it's also under $5k. I'm genuinely curious what someone's business type is that requires a sub-$5k camera that also has 4:2:2 AND a large sensor with a fixed zoom lens.

 

[Mike Harvey]

...So, to me at least, it would be smart for Panasonic to consider offering a 422 firmware upgrade - even offer it as an option. I bet most/many would buy it.

I don't think *most* would buy it. But I bet enough might buy something like an AVC-LongG firmware upgrade to make it worth their while, while still protecting sales of their other cameras.

 

[john deaver]

Does anybody think nearly 6 lbs is a little heavy?