AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Danilo Del Tufo said:
Dvx200, Vol.3 footage (Lens / Features), link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9V-E-eBOiM
Click to expand...
I think this is an advertisement to try and get a few Father's and Grandfather's interested in buying it. "Not pro's".
They would be stupid not to try. Don't forget that it's not going to be a hugely expensive camera, and it will look good on the outside. :cheesy:

Also, if they make the video look to good in that regard, and the people who buy it can't produce the same, they will think there is something wrong with it and ask for their money back.
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
The URSA mini may end up being the true successor to the dvx100 for indie types like me.
Click to expand...

The original DVX100 served a very very very broad range of user needs, mainly because they lacked so few other options! Thus many different kinds of people leapt on the DVX100

This DVX200 will still serve well a small niche of those who loved the DVX100. And the URSA Mini will serve a different small niche of them. And the Canon C100 is serving a different small niche of ex DVX100 users. And the JVC GY-LS300 will serve well yet another different small niche of ex DVX100 users. And so on and so on....
 
If you are looking for 60P UHD the choices are not large. Sony FDR-AX1/PXW-Z100, Panasonic HC-X1000 and then it starts to get really expensive !!! FS7 similarly equipped is more than twice the cost of these or the DVX200. Same for the URSA Mini . If the cost of media for a 2 hour shoot is also included these other expensive choices get even more costly.
 
The news about the lens in the other thread is disappointing. I mean, f/4 is where I shoot a lot of stuff with my AF100 and GH4, so it's not terrible. But for those instances where I need to wring every bit of light out of a shot, it's not going to help.

So I guess my question for Barry is, if I set up an AF100 and a DVX200 side by side, stick a f/2.8 lens on the AF100, set both to 50mm-75mm, and opened them up all the way... which is capable of the brighter image, taking ISO/gain into account? I get that the AF100 has a more open aperture, but is it possible to ramp up the ISO enough on the DVX200 to produce a brighter image, and still have less noise than the AF100 with it's ISO cranked up to, say, 2,000?
 
^Phrased another way, Barry is the NR and incidental NR from downsizing to HD strong enough to over come the lens limitations, or should we assume that a given EV will produce the same image in both the DVX200 and the GH4? How many sop better is the DVX200 image?
 
Last edited:
I feel the uniqueness is 50/60P UHD. If one needs just HD or UHD at 24/25/30P there are other choices with fixed lens camcorders. At just HD there are a lot of choices that may be lower cost. A Sony PXW-X70 at half the cost even records 10bit 4:2:2. As I have mentioned what are the competitors that record 50/60P UHD. Then the question is how does the DVX200 perform at 50/60P UHD. For me then the question is in 60P UHD does the restriction on wide angle make the DVX200 not so attractive as I feel wide angle is more important than the tele end of the zoom range
 
Mike Harvey said:
So I guess my question for Barry is, if I set up an AF100 and a DVX200 side by side, stick a f/2.8 lens on the AF100, set both to 50mm-75mm, and opened them up all the way... which is capable of the brighter image, taking ISO/gain into account? I get that the AF100 has a more open aperture, but is it possible to ramp up the ISO enough on the DVX200 to produce a brighter image, and still have less noise than the AF100 with it's ISO cranked up to, say, 2,000?
Click to expand...
I would have to run that test to say for sure. In terms of which can produce the brighter picture, the DVX200 by far -- it goes to 32,000 ISO. It's very noisy at 32,000 ISO so you wouldn't want to do that unless it was an emergency, but -- at least it CAN do it whereas the AF100 is limited to 3200.

So if I'm following you, you're asking to equate them both on noise, and then evaluate which is brighter? My guess is going to be the DVX200, because a) it has the "HIGH SENSITIVITY" setting, which gives it a base ISO of 1,000 without increasing noise over the normal sensitivity, and b) it doesn't seem to have any chroma noise, which is the type of noise that most people seem to object to. As such, you may be able to squeeze even more ISO out of the DVX200 while delivering a subjectively comparable image in terms of overall noise.

The only thing I can say for certain is that the DVX200, in 1080p mode, delivers a substantially sharper image than the AF100, and delivers a nice quiet image at effectively 1000 ISO due to the "HIGH SENSITIVITY" setting. That should make it about 1.25 stops faster than the 400 base ISO of the AF100, which goes a long way towards negating the f-stop difference between the lenses, without taking noise into account. It is possible that you could gain the DVX200 up higher and thus get a resulting picture that is brighter, while maintaining a comparable overall noise level, but I'd have to set up a specific test for that to see.
 
philiplipetz said:
^Phrased another way, Barry is the NR and incidental NR from downsizing to HD strong enough to over come the lens limitations, or should we assume that a given EV will produce the same image in both the DVX200 and the GH4? How many sop better is the DVX200 image?
Click to expand...
I don't have a GH4 and so cannot say. Hopefully I can arrange to borrow one to see. The DVX200 has the next-generation sensor beyond the GH4, so it's not the same sensor, but it's probably in the same general family so I wouldn't expect it to be dramatically better. If I can arrange to borrow a GH4, I'll try to see if I can get the answer you're asking for.
 
IronFilm said:
Sounds like anybody getting a DVX200 still needs to keep around a GH4 with a fast prime for when the going gets dark
Click to expand...
That may be a solid solution; might want a GH5 though (whenever it comes out) because I would suspect that the sensor in the DVX200 is probably closer to what the GH5 will have, rather than what the GH4 has. I don't know if that will result in a notable difference in the footage, but it seems logical that (if indeed it uses the same or very similar sensor) it may make for a better match. Plus, it wouldn't hurt to have a stills camera for stills, and one that could be used for a second angle, etc.
 
I'm so anxious for outfits like Abel Cine to provide detailed color chart tests for resolution, lighting, compression, skin tones, ISO (lux), ND's, etc... random shooting of non official (or latest) firmware is getting sad. Much thanks to people like Green making the best out of the situation. I foresee great things for this camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
That may be a solid solution; might want a GH5 though (whenever it comes out) because I would suspect that the sensor in the DVX200 is probably closer to what the GH5 will have, rather than what the GH4 has...
Click to expand...
Panasonic - and the MFT format in general - can really benefit from the back side illumination (BSI) technology. Samsung has it in their APS-C sensor on NX-1, Sony now has it on even their full frame A7RII. I'd assume that this inventor exclusivity, where Sony won't sell something to the third party without some very strict non-compete measures, on the BSI is close to expiring (GX8 doesn't have it still) One has to figure that, with Sony pushing everything toward the full frame format, BSI should become available for the market at large on sensors APS-C and smaller due to those niches becoming largely a commodity with lower margins and high volume ruling the day.
 
Barry, is there any difference in image quality when shooting FHD in long GOP mode (50mbps) vs. all I mode (200mbps)?

Also, is there any difference in image quality when shooting FHD vs. shooting QHD and then downsizing it to FHD?
 
Barry_Green said:
I would have to run that test to say for sure. In terms of which can produce the brighter picture, the DVX200 by far -- it goes to 32,000 ISO. It's very noisy at 32,000 ISO so you wouldn't want to do that unless it was an emergency, but -- at least it CAN do it whereas the AF100 is limited to 3200.

So if I'm following you, you're asking to equate them both on noise, and then evaluate which is brighter? My guess is going to be the DVX200, because a) it has the "HIGH SENSITIVITY" setting, which gives it a base ISO of 1,000 without increasing noise over the normal sensitivity, and b) it doesn't seem to have any chroma noise, which is the type of noise that most people seem to object to. As such, you may be able to squeeze even more ISO out of the DVX200 while delivering a subjectively comparable image in terms of overall noise.

The only thing I can say for certain is that the DVX200, in 1080p mode, delivers a substantially sharper image than the AF100, and delivers a nice quiet image at effectively 1000 ISO due to the "HIGH SENSITIVITY" setting. That should make it about 1.25 stops faster than the 400 base ISO of the AF100, which goes a long way towards negating the f-stop difference between the lenses, without taking noise into account. It is possible that you could gain the DVX200 up higher and thus get a resulting picture that is brighter, while maintaining a comparable overall noise level, but I'd have to set up a specific test for that to see.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm asking... does the high sensitivity mode and higher ISO of the DVX200 offset the slower iris, and still produce a cleaner image at those higher ISO's than the AF200?

Or, more practically speaking, can I shoot in the environment like what I posted several pages back (low light operating room), and get a better image than I did with the AF100?
 
Sumfun said:
Barry, is there any difference in image quality when shooting FHD in long GOP mode (50mbps) vs. all I mode (200mbps)?

Also, is there any difference in image quality when shooting FHD vs. shooting QHD and then downsizing it to FHD?
Click to expand...
I haven't spent much time in FHD 50mbit. I can tell you that FHD 100mbit looks better than all-i 200mbit; it retains more detail.

Also, is there any difference in image quality when shooting FHD vs. shooting QHD and then downsizing it to FHD?
Click to expand...
Yes; downconverted QHD retains more sharpness than the native 1080 recording. The native recording is still way hella sharper than an AF100, and looks like genuine sharp HD. Recording in native HD also gives you many additional benefits like i.Zoom, 5-axis image stabilization, and reduced skew in 24p/30p. But, if recording in QHD and downconverting in post, the resulting footage will be sharper, and also will benefit by converting to 10-bit 4:4:4. So there's advantages to doing it each way.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Yep, that's pretty much what I'm asking... does the high sensitivity mode and higher ISO of the DVX200 offset the slower iris, and still produce a cleaner image at those higher ISO's than the AF200?
Click to expand...
Still working on getting an answer. I put it up against a PX270, in a very very low light environment, and the DVX200 kicked the PX270's arse when it comes to grain/noise for equivalent exposure at equivalent zoom range. But, the color rendering was different, so I have to go in and match the two cameras before being able to give a definitive answer on that.

Or, more practically speaking, can I shoot in the environment like what I posted several pages back (low light operating room), and get a better image than I did with the AF100?
Click to expand...
Can't say until I get back to my office next week; I don't have an AF100 here where I'm at to test against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top