AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

[demoboy]

I don't care much about the color science or codec from this cam, it's just that sometimes trolling is fun. That's what keeps this forum fun.

On the serious note, as my initial post or concern about the DVX200 was its lens. I know it's asking too much, but this camera would've been ULTIMATE had they focused SOLELY on the Lens system. A minimum of 20x Optical Zoom on an MFT is breakthrough imo, and because after the GH4 - and several other competitors like Sony - 100FPS is just so tasty. In fact I'm more after clean VIDEO look than filmic look. When the rumoured specs came about the DVX200 I istantly thought pimped GH4 with zoom optics. Why? Because I'm so waiting for surf videography with the camera at 100fps. A 20x zoom and priced around $5,800 is worth the budget. For ''filmic'' profiles there's plenty of industry cams with better protocols to do it, seriously. =P

 

[philiplipetz]

This camera is not the best at anything except having the most powerful combination of features at a given price point. Other cameras make sacrifices in several areas to deliver more in one area (BM cameras). If they fit your specific needs then great. The DVX200 will deliver good enough for almost any user in any situation (even cinema). This is a real advantage for most people. It is time to stop pointing out small ways it is not the best in all things and to start to concentrate on the fact that it is an almost unprecedented package that is more than good enough to work for almost all situations without modification or accessories.

 

[Bassman2003]

I don't think Panasonic is doing themselves any favors by letting pre-release cameras out there in the wild with the option of putting footage online. Usage videos are fine, but little films with half baked images is just not wise imho. Did Panasonic and JVC suddenly forget how to release cameras? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Demoboy, a 20x 4k m4/3rds lens? I guess you want that to be f1.8 as well? All for 5,800 and at pixel peeping quality on a small body. "Seriously", dream on and come back to earth where there are physics.

 

[mattjeh]

It's been said many times before, this is not trying to be all things to all people. It's for a band of videographers that need the versatility and convenience of a fixed lens for uncontrolled working environments, docu, corporate, events / weddings. It's for people who simply do not want interchangeable lenses.

My trusty ex1 is failing which has forced me to look at buying a new camera. I can't justify spending almost £5000 on the current HD equivalent, the Sony PXW X200. When I really need to be future proofing by buying 4k, even if Im not going to be outputting to 4k for some time. So the only other camera I see in the price bracket and form factor is the Sony Z100 - which rules itself out immediately due to the poor low light due to a small sensor.

So how long can I wait until Sony releases a large sensor Z100? Who knows. So that leaves the dvx200 as the only camera left standing as an option, not by default, but as it's shaping up it's able to stand there on its own merit.

 

[stoneinapond]

And here we are with well over 1,200 posts. Yeah, Panasonic is sure messing this up...... [/sarcasm]

 

[demoboy]

Demoboy, a 20x 4k m4/3rds lens? I guess you want that to be f1.8 as well? All for 5,800 and at pixel peeping quality on a small body. "Seriously", dream on and come back to earth where there are physics.

c'mon sir, as if 20x optical zoom is anything new in prosumer cameras... I don't think you realize how many professional videographers filter out just optical zooms needs.... f1.8 (perhaps constant as you're joking) is beyond a joke from a serious point I made. Again, I don't mind 8-bit 4:2:0 of a 4K MFT 20x optical zoom camera. Rest assured a 20x MFT purebred mechanical cam will come soon, and had the DVX200 been equipped with 20x optical like its brothers and sisters in the HPX or AJ line you'd know what I mean about innovative initiatives to put other competitors in their place. Seeing as Panasonic and Olympus have to promote their technology such a request isn't asking much for something supposedly breakthrough...

 

[Ron Evans]

The consumer cameras with 20x zooms are all 1/3 ( or effective 1/3" ). Move to 2/3" sensors and a 20x zoom will cost you around $8K and is very big. Want a M43 and it will be even larger and more expensive. Its physics of the sensor size. The 28 to 135 lens for the FS7 is about $3000 and is quite large. Sony with the 1" sensor are limited to about 12x zoom but like the DVX200 can use clear image zoom with the extra pixels on the sensor to get double that range in HD so you are back with a 24x zoom for HD. I have a FDR-AX100 and this feature works very well so have no doubt that the same will be true for the DVX200. In UHD there is no need for more zoom if you are going to edit in HD as one can crop/pan/zoom in post which is what I do with my FDR-AX1 ( which has a 20x zoom but is a 1/3 effective sensor ) and get almost another 4x zoom in edit though quality is better limiting to 2x zoom/crop.

 

[joe 1008]

Rest assured a 20x MFT purebred mechanical cam will come soon, and had the DVX200 been equipped with 20x optical like its brothers and sisters in the HPX or AJ line you'd know what I mean about innovative initiatives to put other competitors in their place. Seeing as Panasonic and Olympus have to promote their technology such a request isn't asking much for something supposedly breakthrough...

Well Demoboy, I (!) would prefer a 10x zoom with a constant f/2.8 aperture. - that's what this camera is all about: compromise. It's not THE 20x surf camera. But to be honest, at a beach there's plenty of light and for surf videos there is no shallow DOF needed AFAIK. You might better fare with a smaller sensor with a longer zoom range.

 

[Barry_Green]

it's just that sometimes trolling is fun. That's what keeps this forum fun.

Please do be aware that trolling is strictly forbidden here, and instances of actual trolling are pretty much guaranteed to see the ban hammer fall...

A minimum of 20x Optical Zoom on an MFT is breakthrough imo

Isn't a 13x on an MFT a breakthrough? Up until now the longest that I know of has been the 14-140, a 10x zoom. This lens is 13x, and it's got incredible image stabilization, it's got an absolutely delicious power zoom, and it's generally about 2/3 to 3/4 stop faster than the 14-140 throughout its range. I consider it a substantial step forward. Sure, 20x would have been better, and I am somewhat spoiled by having used the HC-X1000 (20x optical) and the HPX250 (22x optical). So I get the appeal, certainly. But, considering the original DVX100 was a 10x zoom, I find the 13x quite usable.

and because after the GH4 - and several other competitors like Sony - 100FPS is just so tasty.

Then you should love the DVX200's 120 fps in full HD...

In fact I'm more after clean VIDEO look than filmic look.

Then you should love the 4K/60p, which very few competitors offer anywhere near this price range with this size sensor.

When the rumoured specs came about the DVX200 I istantly thought pimped GH4 with zoom optics. Why? Because I'm so waiting for surf videography with the camera at 100fps. A 20x zoom and priced around $5,800 is worth the budget. For ''filmic'' profiles there's plenty of industry cams with better protocols to do it, seriously. =P

Well -- yes, I think you're right. There are a dozen other "film-oriented" cameras. This one is more suited to live production, live events, sports, conventions, industrials, and a good dose of filmmaking on the side. It's not going to out-film a dedicated film camera. It's not intended to. This is a working camera for reality TV, documentaries, corporate stuff, etc, which can also deliver a film look.

It doesn't have the 20x lens you're asking for, but it's also not the $5,800 you listed either. It's $4195, and 13x. Then again, if you're shooting in HD, you can use the i.Zoom, which gives you an effective 20x zoom range with full HD resolution.

 

[Greg Smith]

... had the DVX200 been equipped with 20x optical like its brothers and sisters in the HPX or AJ line you'd know what I mean about innovative initiatives to put other competitors in their place.

None of the HPX/PX or AJ series cameras has anything like a 4/3" size sensor. As a rough rule, the mass (and cost) of a lens increases as the cube of the sensor size, so to get an equivalent focal length range and equal aperture on a 4/3" sensor, it will be about 64 times the size and price than if designed for a 1/3" camera.

- Greg

 

[Barry_Green]

This camera is not the best at anything except having the most powerful combination of features at a given price point. Other cameras make sacrifices in several areas to deliver more in one area (BM cameras). If they fit your specific needs then great. The DVX200 will deliver good enough for almost any user in any situation (even cinema). This is a real advantage for most people. It is time to stop pointing out small ways it is not the best in all things and to start to concentrate on the fact that it is an almost unprecedented package that is more than good enough to work for almost all situations without modification or accessories.

100% exactly.

 

[Barry_Green]

The 28 to 135 lens for the FS7 is about $3000 and is quite large.

Yes -- but no larger than it needs to be; it just takes up space to make a zoom lens that covers a big sensor. And even then, 28-135 is a bit less than a 5x zoom. The DVX200's lens is nearly 3x the zoom range, yet the entire camera with lens costs only $4200, vs. the FS7's lens alone at $3000. That's physics and manufacturing -- making a zoom lens that covers an S35 sensor means big and expensive (although I think many of my film colleagues would agree with me, we would have killed for a $3,000 5:1 zoom that covers S35 back when we were shooting 35mm!)

We all want the moon, we all want 20x zooms at constant f/1.8, but -- the reality is, they just don't exist. So you're left with the choices that are available on the market today. That's just reality.

 

[Barry_Green]

It's not THE 20x surf camera. But to be honest, at a beach there's plenty of light and for surf videos there is no shallow DOF needed AFAIK. You might better fare with a smaller sensor with a longer zoom range.

Actually you raise a very good point (several, in fact). For surf, do you really need shallow DOF and super low light? demoboy, I'd say you should at least take a look at the HC-X1000. It's a small-sensor 4K/60p camera that sounds like it'd do exactly what you need. It's a 20x optical zoom, it's UHD at 60p, and really it's got a lot of features similar to the DVX200. It's the most recent camera Panasonic's introduced, and it might do what you need, and it's a lot less expensive (about $2800). Only thing on your list that it doesn't do is high frame rates, but maybe the 20x zoom is worth that tradeoff? It doesn't have low light sensitivity but it makes gorgeous images in daylight.

 

[Phil vG]

People will probably say I'm stupid for this, but I'll say it anyway.

It's funny the things considered as "run and gun", when they say it's that sort of camera.

When I think of a run and gun camera, I think of, put it on your setting and go.
"Look over there, grab the camera and hit record". "Quick, here comes the mob, grab the camera, it will be the perfect shot!".
I think of reality TV, like "Survivor" (not that i watch that crap), Bear Grylls (he's good :thumbup: ). Isn't the camera even going to be made out of stronger (light weight) material than most others to handle harder drops?
When doing run and gun I think of, "that color and light is really good for the small amount of time I have".

I don't think of a tripod and give me 30 minutes to set up. (the grizzly bear wont stay still that long)
If you are hoping for a camera that will be really good from an artistic point of view, I'd say look for something different. Or stay with the GH4

It's a camera for people that don't have time to do "pixel peeping".
If it was meant to be a lot more than this, then the 4 would most likely be a 6.
IMO anyway.

 

[NorBro]

The HPX250 was a major workhorse in my ole days of filming surfing. Never needed shallow DOF for the actual surfing, but everything else/all b-roll was filmed on 5DmkIIs just for that purpose. Zoom lenses (depending on the particular activity) and HFR are very important in the extreme sports world.

 

[demoboy]

I've done too much work with MFT I know its potential. There's no need to be bent out of shape for requesting a 20x optical integrated lens even though I work with primes in most of my general work, but zoom work is an obvious healthy field it needs no explaining. If you follow some of early posts all I wanted was zoom lens testing from the DVX20. This is why I joked about ''trolling'' vs codecs blah blah. I am a working professional in television and commercials, I know what's good, and I'm happy with the current technology... Anybody that has done actual field work for close to 600mm knows what time it is. 4K/50p half speed would be so delicious. I just need that extra range. This is why I posted another thread about lens adapters for 72mm and 4K. I can settle for vignetting or chromatic aberration. It's a fierce business and I have rivals from other networks doing projects on various cams.... All I'm saying 5,800 for 20x would be delicious and my producers would get three. Pipeline surfing looks tasty to come. Anyhow good feedback as always.

 

[philiplipetz]

 

[Mac]

It's interesting. I have the opposite opinion... I shoot documentaries exclusively (social issue, not sports) and didn't like the HPX250 at all. I found it cumbersome and thought the lens was overly ambitious - and sold it after only two months - the only camera I've ever owned that didn't pay for itself.

I'm hoping the DVX200 is going to fit me better, but I definitely welcome the shorter lens with only a stop of loss. BTW, I shoot "shoulder style" with an EVF mounted off the handle so my main worry is access to the LCD, because it seems it's often needed for tweaking (I really dislike the trend of handle mount LCDs, it's the main reason I bought a C100 instead of a C300). I hope to actually see the 200 soon - I'll not be ordering till I get one in my hands.

 

[DLD]

Not one frame of footage that you guys have seen, has been from the version of the camera that has final color science. How do I know this? Because I just got the latest firmware, and it's STILL not final color science...

Can "color science" and its finality to a released product be explained in a paragraph or less?

It has 24p @ 50 megabits or 200 megabits, 30p @ 200 megabits, and 60p at 50m, 100m, and 200m.

In UHD, it's 100m at 24p and 30p, and 150mbit at 60p.

What is the engineering reasoning for having a higher bit rate - even if it's variable - at lower resolutions? To me, it should be the opposite, as it is on many products.

OK, I got a lot of questions today. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[C Walker]

People will probably say I'm stupid for this, but I'll say it anyway.

It's funny the things considered as "run and gun", when they say it's that sort of camera.

When I think of a run and gun camera, I think of, put it on your setting and go.
"Look over there, grab the camera and hit record". "Quick, here comes the mob, grab the camera, it will be the perfect shot!".
I think of reality TV, like "Survivor" (not that i watch that crap), Bear Grylls (he's good :thumbup: ). Isn't the camera even going to be made out of stronger (light weight) material than most others to handle harder drops?
When doing run and gun I think of, "that color and light is really good for the small amount of time I have".

I don't think of a tripod and give me 30 minutes to set up. (the grizzly bear wont stay still that long)
If you are hoping for a camera that will be really good from an artistic point of view, I'd say look for something different. Or stay with the GH4

It's a camera for people that don't have time to do "pixel peeping".
If it was meant to be a lot more than this, then the 4 would most likely be a 6.
IMO anyway.

I agree with you.