AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

It's not for a lack of telling them. They have been told. So whatever the reason is, it's not for lack of trying. I would say it has to be some manner of hardware limitation; to meet the price point, or the availability of chips that do what they need. They build 10-bit 4:2:2 cameras so they know how to do that, but the only one they have in 4K is the VariCam, and it would be a bit much to expect them to fit all the VariCam's processing into a camera that runs almost 3 hours off a single 7.2v battery.

As always, the choice is: if it does what you need, consider buying it. If it doesn't do what you need, then don't buy it. That is the complete extent of all the considerations here.

As said before: 8-bit has been with us for a long time, and has been used in many high-end productions (everything shot on the VariCam or the F900 was 8-bit, and the Canon C100 and C300 that people seem to love are both 8-bit cameras, so ... it's not like 8-bit is some big disaster, it's a known quantity.) 10-bit is certainly better and nobody is disputing that. If you need 10-bit from a DVX200 it's possible to get that; the options are to either record externally, or (for HD deliverables) downconvert 4K footage to 1080 in post, giving you 10-bit 4:4:4.

So the question you have to answer is: do you want 10-bit, or do you need 10-bit? If you have clients who are saying "we will not hire you unless your camera delivers 10-bit footage on its internal recording media", then you need 10-bit, and this camera is not the right one for you. I would suspect that the number of actual users who actually need 10-bit is quite a bit lower than the number of users who just want or prefer 10-bit, and as such I suspect the DVX200 would be a viable choice for a lot of folks. But only you can decide if you're one of them. If you absolutely need a large-sensor camera with 4K resolution and variable frame rates and an ENG-style lens, your choices are pretty much limited to the $11,000 FS7 at this time, right? So at that point you have to determine just how important that 10-bits is... if your budget stretches to no more than $5,000, and you determine that only a certain percentage of your work actually requires 10-bit, then maybe a DVX with a Samurai or Shogun makes sense to you for those jobs.

If you're a purist who demands "10-bit or nothing" then ... well, your choice at this time is "nothing"; you'll have to wait for the next generation of $4,000 cameras that includes a model with 10-bit internal recording along with a large sensor and ENG-style lens. As of today, the choice on the market is a large-sensor camera with ENG-style lens and 8-bit 4:2:0 internal codecs, with 10-bit 4:2:2 external output.
 
I too am disappointed, so add another to that list of people who Panasonic isn't marketing to. Much of what I do is broadcast, and BBC and PBS are pretty specific about specs. So, no DVX200 for me. But that's okay, because as I said earlier, I had an HPX250 and sold it because I thought it was clunky - and this camera looks even clunkier.

But wait, that was 4 years ago and the 250 was 4.2.2 10 bit... So why isn't the DVX200?

I currently have two BMPCCs, cost $999 for one and $500 for the other on sale. $1500 for two broadcast quality cameras. Sure you need accessories like cages, EVFs and lenses - but I already had most of those from my AF100 days - the camera which I and many others hoped this DVX200 would be a replacement for.

So, I just bought a JVC LS300 instead - a camera many (who've never used it) say is a piece of crap. Well, it is kinda cheesy, but it was $3,500, is very sleek and light, got a S35 sensor, uses all my lenses (including those from my C100 with the adapter I also bought) and it has 4.2.2 - it's H.264, which isn't ProRes, but it looks pretty darn good and meets my current needs - and, oh yeah, its 4K capable when the need arises.

After 15 years and owning two DVXs (100 and 100a) an HPX500, HVX200a, HPX250 and AF100 I had hoped to rejoin the Panasonic fan club, but it was not to be.
 
Last edited:
Darren Levine said:
Well then, just go out and buy the other >$5000 m43 fixed lens... oh wait.

If a camera doesn't have what you need, you can be disappointed all you like, it won't change what it is. Meanwhile there are those using 8 bt 4:2:0 cameras left and right and suiting their needs just fine, if your needs are 10bit, then you have to pony up the cash or take serious compromise. Camera companies are never going to make YOUR camera, they are making a mass marketable camera.

i probably sound harsh, but i still love ya.
Click to expand...


Darren Levine said:
but again you're not seeing the point, you just mentioned $900 cameras that have what you want... but you're not buying one of those because they're entirely different cameras. Making requests and suggestions is of course great and always a good idea, but looking at the dvx200 as a disappointment because it only checked off 9 out of your 10 must haves, is only relevant to you, 1 person, panasonic isn't making the camera at this price for you, they're making it for a market segment. it's fine that it's not for you, but it's sure as heck not a disappointment if 1000s of people have great use for it with its specs and price point.
Click to expand...

+1 :thumbup:
 
Mac said:
I currently have two BMPCCs, cost $999 for one and $500 for the other on sale. $1500 for two broadcast quality cameras. Sure you need accessories like cages, EVFs and lenses - but I already had most of those from my AF100 days - the camera which I and many others hoped this DVX200 would be a replacement for.

So, I just bought a JVC LS300 instead - a camera many (who've never used it) say is a piece of crap. Well, it is kinda cheesy, but it was $3,500, is very sleek and light, got a S35 sensor, uses all my lenses (including those from my C100 with the adapter I also bought) and it has 4.2.2 - it's H.264, which isn't ProRes, but it looks pretty darn good and meets my current needs - and, oh yeah, its 4K capable when the need arises.
Click to expand...

The fact you can get all that for that price is why I would say Panasonic is doing something different.
 
and here's a thought, if 10bit 4:2:2 is so critical, the blackmagic video assist does it in FHD and even with that cost is less than the original projected price of the dvx200... if you need it in 4k, you're really out of your pricerange for a comparable.
 
Mac said:
But wait, that was 4 years ago and the 250 was 4.2.2 10 bit... So why isn't the DVX200?
Click to expand...

In today's dollars, the HPX250 upon release was around $6,200. The DVX200 is $2,000 cheaper (adjusted for inflation), and has what is probably much more expensive glass built into it. Actually, adjusted for inflation, the camera is cheaper than the AC160 was when released.
 
I won't argue that the price is great, in fact I was surprised when they announced that it was way below the original "Under $5,000" estimate. And I'm sure it's potentially a terrific camera for that price, certainly as good or better than the original C100, which also came bundled with an f4 lens, but of lesser focal length (of course it is interchangeable).

I think the point, mentioned several times above, is that many would have paid much more for a little more oomph - and I agree with the comment that Panasonic possibly could have sold 5 times as many cameras. One thing is clear from many years of reading this forum - Panasonic really doesn't like to compete with itself (neither does Canon) - they don't weaken the sales potential of the real pro stuff by offering too much at the prosumer level - with one exception - I was amazed at the pro features of the HPX250 and bought one the instant it was available, I just wish I'd liked it better
 
philiplipetz said:
Remember HD internal is good but not as detailed as HD downsized in post from 4k
Click to expand...
True, but -- the HD that's generated on the live SDI output from the 4K internal is really, really good too. External recording of HD off the 4K sensor delivers almost everything (sharpness and quality-wise) as you'd get from downconverting 4K in post; the main difference being that you'd get 4:4:4 from the post route, vs. 4:2:2 from the live route. But the live route is much faster in terms of delivering footage, for those that need a quick turnaround.
 
Barry_Green said:
As said before: 8-bit has been with us for a long time, and has been used in many high-end productions (everything shot on the VariCam or the F900 was 8-bit, and the Canon C100 and C300 that people seem to love are both 8-bit cameras, so ... it's not like 8-bit is some big disaster, it's a known quantity.) 10-bit is certainly better and nobody is disputing that. If you need 10-bit from a DVX200 it's possible to get that; the options are to either record externally, or (for HD deliverables) downconvert 4K footage to 1080 in post, giving you 10-bit 4:4:4.
Click to expand...

Does the down convert process to 10 444 not qualify as internal 10 it 4:22 minimum? Or are broadcasters saying that the internal codec must be shot in 1080 10 bit 4:2:2? I guess the practical part of me doesn't see the difference if the math adds up.
 
Mac said:
But wait, that was 4 years ago and the 250 was 4.2.2 10 bit... So why isn't the DVX200?
Click to expand...
HPX250 is high-def, the DVX200 is 4K. I'm assuming they don't have a processing engine that handles 4K and delivers 10-bit.

Now, if the DVX200 was HD-only, I'd think you'd have an unassailable point.
 
Mac said:
I won't argue that the price is great, in fact I was surprised when they announced that it was way below the original "Under $5,000" estimate. And I'm sure it's potentially a terrific camera for that price, certainly as good or better than the original C100, which also came bundled with an f4 lens, but of lesser focal length (of course it is interchangeable).

I think the point, mentioned several times above, is that many would have paid much more for a little more oomph - and I agree with the comment that Panasonic possibly could have sold 5 times as many cameras. One thing is clear from many years of reading this forum - Panasonic really doesn't like to compete with itself (neither does Canon) - they don't weaken the sales potential of the real pro stuff by offering too much at the prosumer level - with one exception - I was amazed at the pro features of the HPX250 and bought one the instant it was available, I just wish I'd liked it better
Click to expand...

I would love to hear someone at Panasonic explain why at least AVC-LongG wasn't included... the good old days of Jan being around. I don't know they would have sold five times as many units, but I'm really curious how much per unit it would have cost to add AVC-LongG versus what their market research told them. Maybe $4,200 was the sweet spot it terms of cost versus features, and 10bit 4:2:2 internal wasn't as big a deal as we all think. Or maybe they're just paranoid.

Either way, I do think there should have been a second tier, "HVX300" version of this camera with AVC-Intra and maybe a removable lens with MFT mount for folks like you. Even with a street price $6,500, I think it would have competed well against the Canon and Sony offerings.
 
Mac said:
I think the point, mentioned several times above, is that many would have paid much more for a little more oomph - and I agree with the comment that Panasonic possibly could have sold 5 times as many cameras.
Click to expand...
That point has been made to them many times too. We asked for an AF250, the P2 back end of the HPX250 grafted onto the front end of the AF100, many times. And we've repeatedly made the point to them that the logical path is to produce a DVX250, with interchangeable lens mount and 10-bit 4:2:2 recording. So they have heard the requests.

As to what quanitity they'd sell -- that's the thing. There's a lot of people here and on other forums saying what they want, what they "would" buy. Maybe they actually would, maybe many of them are all talk, we don't know. But we do know that Panasonic has to bet their lives on making something that they believe people WILL buy, not what they say they will buy. Good wishes don't pay the bills, sales do. So -- whether you agree with them or not, clearly their market research is telling them that this is the product, and this is the price point, at which people will actually buy their camera. Not everyone will, of course, but they're gambling millions of dollars on the idea that enough people will, that it will be worthwhile.

If they honestly thought that 5x as many people would have bought a $6,000 version with interchangeable lenses, then you can bet your tushy that they'd have built that. So clearly, with their market research departments, they don't agree. And as has been pointed out a hundred thousand times, there are a huge wide variety of large-sensor interchangeable-lens cameras already available, so they must have thought that segment of the market rather crowded, and decided to go in a totally different direction. Time will tell whether that gamble pays off for them or not; it all depends on how many they actually sell.
 
thefluentone said:
Does the down convert process to 10 444 not qualify as internal 10 it 4:22 minimum? Or are broadcasters saying that the internal codec must be shot in 1080 10 bit 4:2:2? I guess the practical part of me doesn't see the difference if the math adds up.
Click to expand...
It depends on the post-processing flow. Some broadcasters are perfectly happy to accept external recorders; the EX1 originally was ruled ineligible for BBC production because of its 35-megabit 4:2:0 codec, but when paired with a NanoFlash (50mbps 4:2:2), it was then acceptable. Same with the AF100; the onboard codec was not accepted by them but when paired with a Nano (or better) recorder, it was ruled acceptable. But that's for delivered footage; in the case of a DVX200 you'd be considering delivering 4K footage and expecting them to integrate it into a 1080p workflow, and that may or may not be acceptable deliverables to any given particular broadcaster, it'd be up to each one to set their policy on that.

If they are amenable to it, you could do the downconversion yourself and deliver the footage, but I would expect that there would be highly stringent requirements put in place to make sure that someone doesn't screw up the footage in the process.

The easiest path forward would be a $500 BlackMagic Video Assist, which would record 10-bit 4:2:2 live and you could deliver that footage to the broadcaster or client.
 
Barry, Noel, or whoever else has played with a pre-release version, quick question... does it have the "Natural" scene file like the GH4 has?
 
Mike Harvey said:
Barry, Noel, or whoever else has played with a pre-release version, quick question... does it have the "Natural" scene file like the GH4 has?
Click to expand...

No, the only things that are shared between the GH4 and the DVX200 that I can think of are the cinelike-D and cinelike-V gammas. Everything else is different.
 
This is quite a divisive camera. My only hangup with this whole 4:2:2 thing is that lets face it, 4k mode is kind of hobbled compared to HD mode. So the "shoot everything in 4k and downsample" loses a lot of shine when you pick it apart. No 5-Axis Stabilization, no 120fps, Less Wide Lens etc... A 4:2:2 HD mode makes a lot of sense. Too bad they are choosing to leave it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top