AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

[Barry_Green]

Hey Barry, could you please test the stabilizer when the lens is full wide and you're walking with the camera? In other words, how well does it work as a steadicam?

That's easier said than done, because first there's two layers of stabilization (the OIS and the Hybrid) but on top of that -- you can adjust it! The DVX200 actually has menu options for customizing the OIS... you can adjust the Blur Amplitude and the Blur Frequency. So -- a lot of testing would need to be done to find out what the proper settings should be and how well it performs.

And yes, I will be doing all that testing... just can't say as to when.

I can say this -- I used the HC-X1000 in 1080p mode and with the 5-axis Hybrid OIS, and it was frickin' sweet. I shot a 2-day event, tons of interviews, all that -- and didn't even bother bringing a tripod because it simply wasn't necessary. I hope the DVX200 has that level of stabilization, but I can't say yet if it does. This is a much heavier camera, of course, and that will go a ways towards helping stabilization anyway, so -- I am optimistic, but that's just a guess until I dig in and really try to figure this whole thing out.

 

[Josh Bass]

heres a fun question: will this ship with a book like some of the other pana cams (barry green's dvx200 guide)?

 

[Ralph B]

I am optimistic, but that's just a guess until I dig in and really try to figure this whole thing out.

Thanks. If anyone can do a comprehensive test, it's you!

 

[electricjib]

Valid.. But lets not lose sight of the technical art. Like I stated, I understand the positives of higher ISO leading to such things as lower foot print production, more energy efficient lighting system and so on.

You say," well you guys are spoiled because this is how it was when I started..." I'm pretty sure some will agree that lots of young wouldn't have stood a chance in the medium of film and photography of when we started. In fact, lots of the same principles of what some of us knew then are applied to technology used today. Maybe lighting changed in terms of output and size, the the principle of it is a over a century old. And guess what? The Sun's exposure index is quite older.

So when I hear things like "this cameras base ISO is 1600 and therefore if that camera only has 500" and then go on to think it's an unusable shame? Seriously. Go look at your own work and tell me what percentage of it is shot in near zero darkness and using 10watt practicals as lighting. If its higher than say 70%, then you NEED the full frame 12 micron pixel count of the A7s or equivalent. If it's 10% then you really shouldn't be too concerned about such a device and more concerned with the other advantages the camera can provide in your product delivered.

Does this mean I'm for the abolishment of progress in cameras capable of such feats? NO! It means that there is a certain point were the technical advance might just override the artistic capability. If you can't somehow take a camera that shoots a clean image up to 1600 ISO and that keeps you up at night as a determining factor for your art ad decision of the purchase of a camera.... To me its like saying, "Man, I can produce this film with my 15 watt lights". Compared to the yesteryear, some people don't understand just how good they have it. But all too often I hear comments of "This camera cost $850 and does things than that one costing $14,000 or more doesn't". Well then the decision is easy for you right? Why make a $8000 camera that shoots 800iso's when there are ones that can do 1600iso cleaner for $850, only to complain about the $8000 constantly? For me it because I have not ran into a single camera that can do everything.

Sure, 10-15 years ago we will look at cameras built today and wonder how we used them. They will be cheaper and more powerful. But guess what else will happen? People will complain about certain features. They might even say, "This $1500 8k raw camera that lights your shot for you is garbage because it doesn't levitate and I have to hold the damn thing. My brain camera can do that". It's not technological anti-progress. It the level of what people think they deserve as consumers that translates into entitlement that I often start to question.

But I'll tell ya something... When I started professionally (primarily a stills shooter) I invested in a camera that lasted me nearly 20 years. I still have that camera and it works and performs today as the day I bought it. It made me a lot of money. Today, we buy 2,3 even 4 cameras a year it seems. Replaced by version II the year after. Or we jump ship because this one doesn't have moire and does 25 more bits/sec and has 1/2 stop better DR. Only to jump ship again the year after because the other brand built upon the previous. PROGRESS! Things are getting better and more advanced! Trust me man... I got caught up in it too. The amount of money I have dropped on cameras in the past 5-7 years is mind blowing. For instance. I just about owned every Blackmagic camera release up until the URSA. I don't own a single one now. None of them personally made me look at my work in a better light than what I was working with before. Gh2's, Gh3, Gh4, AF100, C100, C300, XF305, A7s, RX10, Blackmagic, the list goes on and on. And thats just cameras. Then I sat down one night and looked at my work, be it as it may. I noticed that none of them made me any more stellar in product as the other one did. In fact, I found that some of the work I did with the lowly 5Dmk2 looked and felt better to my eye than the latest and greatest camera produced that far exceeded it technically. I started thinking about that old camera I had for 20 years. My conclusion was to get of the "latest and greatest" crazy train and work with what seemed to be working best for what I do and what I deliver. Therefore, I'm gonna sit this wave out and not buy any of these cameras coming soon. Therefore, I'm not gonna drop $3000 or more just for an extra 1/2 stop of better lowlight performance. I'm gonna take the camera I choose to work with that I own, make $3000 and invest it towards a camera that levitates on it's own when the time comes.

So who is looking backwards when I'm making a decision to look further without having to justify minute stepping stone advances. I'm gonna jump over the pond and wait until a camera comes along that truly elevates my product. Because cameras don't make pictures. They take them.

Well said and great post!

As for the bolded, it's hard to say. I think there are a lot of great minds, and great eyes out there. I learned on film as well. I've met a lot of talented people younger than myself that use the same tools as well or better than I do now. I think the greatest part of what career, hobby or passion we've all taken in interest in makes it really hard to question one anothers ability or knowledge. The best part about the love for something is the human minds ability to become a sponge and literally capture as much as it can handle. And my personal favorite part of that is learning from people whom have had to take the harder road by working with mediums I've never had the chance to use, as well as those younger than myself using new tech that I haven't fully jumped on board with yet.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Or you can just go where there is light and film or take pictures. And where there is no light, bring some lights with you...

Ordinarily, I would agree wholeheartedly with your post, but in the case of the DVX200, let's not forget the target market. Others have touched on it, so I'll try not to beat that particular dead horse... but a lot of the target market for the DVX200 is going to be folks for whom lights will be impractical. I get I'm personally an extreme case, but I can't take lights into surgery. I do, somebody is going to probably die. On the less extreme end, shooting a speaker at a local chamber of commerce event isn't something I can set up lighting for without ruining the mood of the room.

If this were a C100/FS7/GH4 type camera intended primarily for dramatic work, though, I'd be giving you a standing ovation :thumbsup:

 

[philiplipetz]

As an event and doc shooter I can never place lights. I have invested in a nice set of lights but I am never allowed to use them. Not even camera lights. Never.

I am growing tired of people saying that I am a lesser shooter because I care about ISO and DR but these are the things that save a job when all I have is uncontrolled practical lighting. In the past year I have been allowed to use lights exactly once, when I was hired as camera op on a corporate shoot.

Why should I have to endure repeated attacks from the same people whenever I enquire about the technical characteristics that are essential to my working conditions? The DVX200 will be used for many different jobs yet these people act like we do not know our stuff because we have to capture a usable image under difficult and unpredictable conditions. All in one cameras were designed for this sort of work. Please have the decency to respect the wide variety of shooters that inhabit this forum.

 

[dustylense]

Ordinarily, I would agree wholeheartedly with your post, but in the case of the DVX200, let's not forget the target market. Others have touched on it, so I'll try not to beat that particular dead horse... but a lot of the target market for the DVX200 is going to be folks for whom lights will be impractical. I get I'm personally an extreme case, but I can't take lights into surgery. I do, somebody is going to probably die. On the less extreme end, shooting a speaker at a local chamber of commerce event isn't something I can set up lighting for without ruining the mood of the room.

If this were a C100/FS7/GH4 type camera intended primarily for dramatic work, though, I'd be giving you a standing ovation :thumbsup:

Then look at it this way...
The DVX200 intended for a target market where to whom the use of bringing additional light might be impractical is any different that that of the DVX100 when it was released? The image on the DVX200 will be far superior even if it topped out at 1000iso. I can mentally visualize the exact image of the HVX200 in my head of certain situations and scenarios. I can even take a decent stab at how the DVX200 will look if I consider the image might be a 10% improvement of the Gh4.

You're getting into a real specific filming scenario. Taking a camera into a surgery room. Tell me, how often do you take a camera into a surgery room. If it's once or twice a year I would think you rent a camera that is practical and best suited for that situation (And what camera would you say is the absolute best solution for filming a surgery anyway???). If it's 50 times a year and you think the DVX200 is not suited for the filming of a surgery, why even consider it then? There has to be a list of pros and cons that would weigh your decision.

Here is how I imagine the DVX200 in my bag. Its a camera with the ergonomic of what we knew as the DVX100, XF305, EX1 but has a large sensor that we're used to seeing in the Gh4 or Blackmagic V1 2.5k. A blend of the two styles of camera. But instead of a small camera like the Gh4 its a DVX100 style shooting camera with a Gh4 inside of it mounted with the Lumix 14-140 that somehow has a faster 2.8 on the wide and a longer reach focal length and 5.6 on that longer lens. And thats it. Except the fact that because it's housed in a DVX100 style body it also contains a good monitor, built in useable VF, XLR, SDI and HDMI, waveform, handle, buttons everywhere, etc. You can slap a recorder on it for more controlled shooting but basically you pick a mic of your choice and go shoot. You don't even need a camera bag because you just carry it around ready for any shot or moment. Now, contrast that to shooting with the BMD 2.5k camera. Think of all the situations you film. Fast run and gun doc work, some skateboarding, interviews, wildlife nature, narrative long form or shorts. All sorts of things to film, right? I think it's a jack of all traits master of none camera. But one that you really can't compare to any other camera because there is no other camera quite like it. Like I said, it's a large chip DVX100. Which is why is numbered 200. I don't expect it to perform in lowlight like the C300 or A7s. But I do expect it to work in a faster environment in most other environments than those cameras. No lens changing, no goofy rigs, no add ons other than a good mic for sound.

Do I have an interest in this camera. Sure, I'm in this thread right? Will I buy it. Probably not. It's too early to tell. I've come to one conclusion as of late. I'm done buying cameras upon its initial release. In fact, any new video camera that comes fourth, I'm renting for a solid week before making a purchase decision. People are buying cameras based on paper specs and a few early pre-production video samples and thinking, "This camera is going to solve all my problems" only to buy the successor 7 months later with the exact same thought. I must say, the manufacturers defiantly have a mind control grip on a lot of people lately. How many cameras has Sony released in the past year? It's getting kinda silly....

But to answer your last statement. This camera is not intended primarily for dramatic work. Its a jack of all traits for people accustomed to shooting with a DVX100. Any of you ever worked with a camera body like the DVX100, XF300, EX1 and said to yourself, "Man, it would be cool if they slapped a larger sensor in this"? Well, enter the DVX200. A one of a kind camera... For now.....

 

[dustylense]

As an event and doc shooter I can never place lights. I have invested in a nice set of lights but I am never allowed to use them. Not even camera lights. Never.

I am growing tired of people saying that I am a lesser shooter because I care about ISO and DR but these are the things that save a job when all I have is uncontrolled practical lighting. In the past year I have been allowed to use lights exactly once, when I was hired as camera op on a corporate shoot.

Why should I have to endure repeated attacks from the same people whenever I enquire about the technical characteristics that are essential to my working conditions? The DVX200 will be used for many different jobs yet these people act like we do not know our stuff because we have to capture a usable image under difficult and unpredictable conditions. All in one cameras were designed for this sort of work. Please have the decency to respect the wide variety of shooters that inhabit this forum.

I can go on the internet and link you to over a million effective videos in which your exact shooting scenarios took place. But I'll describe one for you.

I can remember watching a film a guy shot of a platoon fighting in Afghanistan that was filmed on the Canon 5D Mark II. He had a couple lenses and a small glidecam with a mic mounted on top. It had footage of firefights, night ops, narrative, aerials, dusty helicopter takeoffs and landings in the middle of a WAR! No focus fulling and seemed to be alone as a one man crew on this film. Oh and his situation didn't allow him to bring any lights. The camera had 10 stops of DR and no headphone or audio monitoring capability, so He had to rig an audio solution. He produced a film that one all sorts of awards. Then went on for a nomination for academy award. The film was called "To Hell and Back Again". Do you think for a second if you gave him a DVX200 back then he would complain? I mean, he did film this in 2009.

 

[Josh Bass]

I don't see why you're arguing with those guys. . .you guys are ALL on the same side! They're both saying people yelling "learn to light, LOSER!" were in the wrong because their day to day shoots demand a camera that is useable in low light, and "learn to light" is not a feasible solution for them. I am on plenty of those types of shoots myself, not pitch darkness, mind you, but relatively poor interior lighting where lights are either not practical or not in the budget, so if this cam is good in those situations, all the better.

Anyway, why WOULD people keep buying new cams if your old ones are still making money? Only reason I'm looking is cause I never owned an HD cam. I can almost guarantee if I'd bought one of the older card-based HD cams, like an HVX200, I'd still be using that mofo as much as possible, only renting when clients demanded higher specs than the cam could deliver, and only considering buying when I was renting too much or losing too much work due not having a fancy/modern enough cam. Maybe even if I'd gotten one of the tape/HDV cams, though that tech really is a pain to deal with in capture terms, and hard to justify once you've dealt with cards/drag and drop.

 

[EndCredits]

I am mostly interested in how it handles colours as it is over exposed, weather it goes that digital yellow look with over exposure??

Other than that I think it already looks super useful for all types of shooting.

 

[Ron Evans]

The Gh4 is a better choice if you can get away with using a prime lens at a stage production. Keep in mind if you do use a zoom like the 12-35mm f2.8 the DVX200 could very well be just as sensitive as that combo if not a tiny bit more. So really the only negative at all to the DVX200 is the inability to slap on a f1.4 prime lens, which can be very limiting in a stage production without the use of multiple cameras. Everything else in terms of using a zoom is either equal or superior to many DSLR + zoom lens combos.

The issue with DSLR's for stage productions is record times. How do I get over 90mins recording in 60P UHD from a DSLR ? My need is to get wide enough to get all the stage in, shoot 60P UHD and record for at least 90 mins without changing cards. Not sure if there is a DSLR that shoots 60P in UHD anyway. So for me it appears the only downside of the DVX200 at the moment is if 37m wide is wide enough without mounting a wide angle lens to it. Most of the time I am sure it will be fine and for those few occasions either use something else ( I use a NX30U as backup to my FDR-AX1 now ) or a wide angle adapter.

 

[TheDingo]

The issue with DSLR's for stage productions is record times. How do I get over 90mins recording in 60P UHD from a DSLR ?

Not 60p, but I can shoot UHD 30p for 2.5+ hours with my GH4, 128 GB SDXC card, and one battery. If I add the battery grip and a 256 GB card I am up to 5+ hours.

Eventually 4K 60p will come to MirrorLess and DSLRs, but you'll have to wait for a bump in the internal processing power. Who knows maybe the GH5 might have this.

 

[Greg Smith]

The issue with DSLR's for stage productions is record times. How do I get over 90mins recording in 60P UHD from a DSLR ? My need is to get wide enough to get all the stage in, shoot 60P UHD and record for at least 90 mins without changing cards. Not sure if there is a DSLR that shoots 60P in UHD anyway. So for me it appears the only downside of the DVX200 at the moment is if 37m wide is wide enough without mounting a wide angle lens to it. Most of the time I am sure it will be fine and for those few occasions either use something else ( I use a NX30U as backup to my FDR-AX1 now ) or a wide angle adapter.

What about a stage production would demand 60 fps? You'd get longer record times, easier exposure through an effectively slower shutter speed, and, on the DVX, a wider angle of view shooting at 24p or (my favorite) 30p. I can't imagine that the fidelity of motion would suffer much at all -- many would probably even like the look.

Not trying to be critical, just curious.

- Greg

 

[DLD]

.... Eventually 4K 60p will come to MirrorLess and DSLRs, but you'll have to wait for a bump in the internal processing power. Who knows maybe the GH5 might have this.

I doubt they'll put more tech in GH5 than they have into DVX200, especially at half the price. Chances are these specs are as good as GH5 will get. (but, aside of 10-bit 4:2:2, higher bit rate and the BSI sensor, these aren't bad specs anyway).

 

[Phil vG]

What about a stage production would demand 60 fps?

IMO you put all forms of dancing in the "stage production" category. People like that in 50p/60p as much as any sport.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I doubt they'll put more tech in GH5 than they have into DVX200, especially at half the price. Chances are these specs are as good as GH5 will get. (but, aside of 10-bit 4:2:2, higher bit rate and the BSI sensor, these aren't bad specs anyway).

The GH4 could almost already handle 60p UHD if it wasn't a processing and/or heat issue. Having a GH5 with 60p UHD is not unrealistic at all. the GH3 was already a 4k sensor but it couldn't handle the processing of 4k video. The Gh4 greatly expanded the processing so it could handle up to 30p 4k video. I think it could be very likely the Gh5 will get a processing boost once agin to handle a 4k readout from the sensor at 60p.

 

[Thomas Smet]

As an event and doc shooter I can never place lights. I have invested in a nice set of lights but I am never allowed to use them. Not even camera lights. Never.

I am growing tired of people saying that I am a lesser shooter because I care about ISO and DR but these are the things that save a job when all I have is uncontrolled practical lighting. In the past year I have been allowed to use lights exactly once, when I was hired as camera op on a corporate shoot.

Why should I have to endure repeated attacks from the same people whenever I enquire about the technical characteristics that are essential to my working conditions? The DVX200 will be used for many different jobs yet these people act like we do not know our stuff because we have to capture a usable image under difficult and unpredictable conditions. All in one cameras were designed for this sort of work. Please have the decency to respect the wide variety of shooters that inhabit this forum.

How exactly is the DVX200 bad in low light for that intended market? We can't keep looking at just a f2.8-f4.5 lens and have to keep in mind how that compares to other cameras using a zoom lens and the sensor size. All are part of the equation of how much light the camera can gather. You just cannot compare the DVX200 to a 1/3" video camera with a 13x lens. There is really no comparison. Its also hard to compare this camera to a DSLR with a 3x zoom lens also at f2.8. If you really need a 13x zoom lens there really is no other comparison out there right now. Sure you could use a FF camera with a f2.8 70-200mm lens but thats not even a 3x zoom and extremely limits what can be covered without multiple cameras.

The type of shoots where lights are impractical also share the fact that primes are impractical as well. This means you really have to compare the DVX200 to cameras using zoom lenses. How well does a GH4 handle a stage production with the 14-140 lens? Probably not super great. Well the lens on the DVX200 is an entire stop better so right away if you are one that shoots with pretty much any type of zoom lens there is an advantage to the DVX200 when it comes to low light. Yes it isn't constant but few zoom lenses actually are. This is even more true with a 13x zoom lens. Even if you could get away with a 12-35mm f2.8 lens during a live production it really isn't the optimal lens to use in those situations. DSLR shooters are more or less stuck with using two or more cameras at an event like that.

 

[jimagine]

Do you think for a second if you gave him a DVX200 back then he would complain? I mean, he did film this in 2009.

I think Christopher's essential message is a really solid one for a lot of people if they put his experience with cameras and image making in context.

We produce different things but have a similar background, in my case producing TV and promotional films starting with big broadcast Beta cams, the first P&S 35mm adapter through to today.

I think a lot of us have realized how rich our choices are now - period.
Creative hasn't really changed during this time, just constant tech, and while we all have our preferences there are too many choices to pursue today if your real interest is storytelling.

A camera like the DVX200, on paper, is so much more than is necessary for the vast majority of paying gigs, that it does get silly to nit pick.
Sure it's fun from a camera interest side of things, but from a plain, "what will people think if they see your work on this?" - it's pretty much a done discussion.

This camera, or the A7s, BMPCC, or for that matter, a 5D MKII will wow the viewer if you do your job.
You don't need an Alexa unless it's a job requirement.

I think more and more it will, and should be, about cameras like this that allow the majority of shooters to focus more on their craft and less on the camera.
That's certainly where I'm at going forward.
Overall affordable IQ is really a done issue.

 

[philiplipetz]

How exactly is the DVX200 bad in low light for that intended market? We can't keep looking at just a f2.8-f4.5 lens and have to keep in mind how that compares to other cameras using a zoom lens and the sensor size. All are part of the equation of how much light the camera can gather. You just cannot compare the DVX200 to a 1/3" video camera with a 13x lens. There is really no comparison. Its also hard to compare this camera to a DSLR with a 3x zoom lens also at f2.8. If you really need a 13x zoom lens there really is no other comparison out there right now. Sure you could use a FF camera with a f2.8 70-200mm lens but thats not even a 3x zoom and extremely limits what can be covered without multiple cameras.The type of shoots where lights are impractical also share the fact that primes are impractical as well. This means you really have to compare the DVX200 to cameras using zoom lenses. How well does a GH4 handle a stage production with the 14-140 lens? Probably not super great. Well the lens on the DVX200 is an entire stop better so right away if you are one that shoots with pretty much any type of zoom lens there is an advantage to the DVX200 when it comes to low light. Yes it isn't constant but few zoom lenses actually are. This is even more true with a 13x zoom lens. Even if you could get away with a 12-35mm f2.8 lens during a live production it really isn't the optimal lens to use in those situations. DSLR shooters are more or less stuck with using two or more cameras at an event like that.

You misunderstand me. Perhaps you grabbed the wrong quote, and you meant to quote Ron Evens . I love the DVX200. Our nonprofit has two on order, and I think we are number one in line at the dealers. Placed orders the day of the announcement. I was responding to someone who keeps interrupting different threads by implying that we are deficient and/or ignorant if we do not use light kits instead of wanting high ISO and high DR. Our team is not allowed to use additional lights. Only preexisting practicals.

 

[TheDingo]

I doubt they'll put more tech in GH5 than they have into DVX200, especially at half the price. Chances are these specs are as good as GH5 will get.

But most of the DVX200 specs are GH4 specs ( minus a nice 13x zoom lens, a newer sensor, XLR inputs with good audio preamps, and probably a more robust electronics package ), so why would anybody buy a GH5 if it doesn't do anything better than the GH4 currently does ?