AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Barry,
I can not THANK YOU enough for your contributions to getting the DVX200 to a useable condition for me. Your knowledge has transformed this camera from something I was convinced would not work to what I now believe is the best tool available for my project needs. In fact we are buying 2 more DVX200's as a direct result of your expertise. Panasonic is not paying you enough!
I am using your 6 scenes in SCENE2 on my camera. In SCENE3 on my camera am using 5 of your 6 scenes i. I replaced your "SCN5/SCENE5 is Cine-V" with the SCENE file from saltflyer. I pretty much leave the camera loaded all the time now with those 6 SCENE files from the scene3 position.

Thanks to saltflyer for sharing a very studied SCENE file that my colorist also appreciates.
Thanks to mapper65 for for sharing the set up SCENE file of saltflyer specs.
Thanks to mapper65 for his very detailed and clear explanation of SCENE files on the DVX200.
Thanks to pancam for his excellent documenting.

Really Panasonic needs to differentiate between SCENE files and collections of scene files. Only through mapper65's explanation did I finally understand how all this worked.

When teamed with the Video Devices PIX-E5 the DVX200 becomes a whole different camera. (be sure to update the PIX-E5 to firmware ver 1.05 or later so that you can take advantage of 4:2:2 10Bit out) This is where you can finally see the camera's 12 stops of dynamic range and beautiful, sharp, very easily gradable UHD image.

I believe the duo of DVX200 and PIX-E5H add up to the best UHD run-n-gun camera out there.
(have not used the Shogun so can't speak to that)
With the PIX-E5H doing the heavy lifting of recording, the DVX200 is a dream.
Touch to focus works flawlessly as does image stabilization.
The DVX200 alone can't show peaking in touch to focus mode but the PIX-E5 can.
The DVX200 can't show waveform while other screen displays are on but the PIX-E5 can show waveform at the same time the DVX200 shows histogram, audio levels, white bal, etc, etc, etc.
The other thing that is GREAT about the PIX-E5 is that it takes advantage of the cheapest media currently available for recording - 2.5" SSD's. That's 1/5th to 1/10th the cost for media compared to some UHD cameras. And it is FAST to download those ready-to-edit ProRes 4:2:2 10Bit files via a USB 3 port. No additional reader purchase required.
Also looking forward to the PIX-LR to add Sound Devices quality pre-amps to my Lectro audio path.

Barry, thanks again and thanks to the whole dvxuser community for their knowledge and contributions!
 
Last edited:
But why should we have to use an external recorder to get good images? The whole purpose of an all in one video camera is to avoid external rigging. Grab and go with instant on right from the bag. We are celebrating band aids rather than asking why should we be forced heal a injured tool.
 
Yep, my hope is that Panasonic has a PX430 waiting in the wings that fixes all of the ills of the DVX200:

AVC-ultra codecs
10 bit
constant f2.8 lens (o.k with a shorter zoom range)
Image engineering from the broadcast side

I am not holding my breath though.
 
philiplipetz said:
But why should we have to use an external recorder to get good images? The whole purpose of an all in one video camera is to avoid external rigging. Grab and go with instant on right from the bag. We are celebrating band aids rather than asking why should we be forced heal a injured tool.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then again -- didn't the entire shooting world just go through a 7-year phase where everything they did was to fix or heal injured tools? Every DSLR shooter on the planet has had to rig, adapt, bypass, and spend thousands of dollars on additional equipment to get those things to at least a base, functional level. And I swear, it seemed like most of them were more proud of the "rig" they'd built, than the footage they shot on it, we saw more pictures of rigs than we ever saw of footage from those rigs...

The DVX200, with proper scene files, is certainly functional. With a PIX, it becomes even better. There are some things that I wish the DVX200 did on its own (such as being able to use magnified focus assist during recording) but -- it just doesn't. That's the world we live in. There are compromises made in every product to meet its price point. The PIX fixes just about every gap that the DVX200's base design has.

I said it six months ago -- the DVX200 isn't an FS7. If what you want is an FS7, spend the $11,000 and get an FS7 with its 4.5:1 lens; the DVX200 is $4195. Almost 1/3 the price. I think it offers outstanding value at that price point, and now that we've sorted out the color issues (which, frankly, should have been sorted from the factory), it's really in a class all its own. There's nothing else that does what it does. And with the addition of a PIX (or Odyssey or Shogun), it takes it that extra level, not only in functionality but also in quality. And that same PIX or Odyssey or Shogun can be applied to your next camera (or your previous camera, for that matter) so -- what's the harm?

If the DVX200 had cost $8,000 I bet it would have and could have done everything you're expecting. But then it'd be twice the price. This is the camera they could deliver at the price point. If you need a better camera, you can make it a better camera by using a PIX, or you can triple the price to get an FS7, or you can stay on the sidelines and wait for the next introduction from one of the manufacturers to address this market segment in a way you prefer. That's just the practical reality of the situation.
 
ProShootingDigitalSince92 said:
Barry,
I can not THANK YOU enough for your contributions to getting the DVX200 to a useable condition for me. Your knowledge has transformed this camera from something I was convinced would not work to what I now believe is the best tool available for my project needs.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear you've been able to get solutions that are making you happy and that it's working well for you. There's no doubt this has been a rough product launch, but I've always thought that the hardware was there and the bang for the buck was outstanding.

There are about a dozen more scene files coming; I've worked up a PX270 emulation file that might appeal to some folks, and some stylistic scene files similar to the ones previously published for other cameras (like Canon DSLR and Stylin and Warm and Cool scene files from the HPX250, AC160, AF100 and HPX370). The colorimetry in the camera is really good; I'd like to get ahold of a C100 or C300 and see how close I could match it, as lots of folks use those cameras for the type of jobs the DVX200 could be used for.
 
I've been finding it comical but probably more confusing when people that don't own a DVX200 are online complaining about it. I just don't get it. If it's not the camera for you then forget about it and move on. There are some cameras out there that were in my price range that didn't do what I wanted them to do or have the features that I wanted but picking them apart wouldn't have changed them and picking them apart without having the cameras in my hands paints an even more delusional image.

As I have mentioned in the past, I really feel that Panasonic has a commitment to the DVX200. The overall specs of the DVX200 are probably not going to change and I think we can all agree that they missed the mark right out of the box when it came to a base look. With Barry's scene files, I've kind of put that in the past. It's now obvious that the camera has the capabilty that I was expecting knowing its specifications. I completely expect that we will see some slight changes in features via firmware but definitely as Barry just mentioned, more scene files. We need to remember that some of the scene files that we are going to see will be very close to or good enough to what someone may be looking for and others may be nothing at all to your likings. I think the fact that people are getting behind the DVX200 is a good thing. Saltflyer's file wasn't exactly what I was looking for but does that mean it's bad? Not at all. The good thing is that the DVX200 can look drastically different from one scene to another or as Barry's has said "it's very paintable".

From what I see online, Panasonic is really out there promoting the DVX200 around the world and that's the same DVX200 that all of us DVX200 owners have. This forum is just a small sampling of feedback that they are getting so I have to believe that they are fully aware of what people's impressions are and taking many of those impressions into consideration. The good thing is that technology has grown to the point of where firmware can be upgraded on the fly and unlike some other manufacturers, we can do the update on our own cameras without sending the camera in.

I've been very tied up on a couple of projects that have just ended and my DVX200 has been sitting in the bag for a few weeks nearly untouched but I can't wait to get back to shooting wth it. If I would have had Barry's scenes prior to starting those projects I think the DVX200 would have been perfect fit for them.
 
Not trying to be argumentative but could somebody please show me in camera log video of faces with shadow on a cheek hollow to see if that discoloration has been cleared up.
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
Not trying to be argumentative but could somebody please show me in camera log video of faces with shadow on a cheek hollow to see if that discoloration has been cleared up.
Click to expand...

Here is some in camera non v-log footage shot with factory scene 5 and v1.25 firmware. I didn't shoot this so I can't give you anymore information. In my opinion this footage looks pretty good despite it being one of the original factory scenes. I can only think that in camera v-log footage would look even better.

http://youtu.be/FTdEPdS_TnI
 
I had a bit of time with one a week or two ago. I was surprised how large it was (bigger than my PX270) and was very disappointed with the amount the lens ramped. I compared the light gathering ability side by side with my PX270 and if you factor in the lens ramping it is basically a wash. The camera needs an f2.8 lens throughout its range as I feel f4+ is just too limiting. I would see the need for gain to be applied in many indoor situations. Plus f4+ is not ideal for background blur which is kind of one of the whole reasons for using a larger sensor camera.

I am heavily invested/committed to the P2 line and was actually hoping to be able to replace a PX270 with this camera, but it fell short for me. I think it is a great tool but its design specs are holding it back imho. It is the exact same situation as the AF-100. "Yes it is ok but when are you going to bring out the P2 version with the real specs?"... Sound familiar?

So if I am one of the people complaining without owning it is because I wanted to be an owner but feel let down by Panasonic. No love for the faithful P2 investors?
 
Bassman2003 said:
I compared the light gathering ability side by side with my PX270 and if you factor in the lens ramping it is basically a wash. The camera needs an f2.8 lens throughout its range as I feel f4+ is just too limiting. I would see the need for gain to be applied in many indoor situations
Click to expand...

If my take on Barry's book is correct, the light gathering capabilities of a 4/3 sensor will never be what they are with a 1/3 sensor like the PX270 has.

I'm not sure that we are ever going to see a video camera version of the Swiss Army Knife that many people are looking for. That also holds true in the audio department and why we carry a large assortment of microphones. Unfortunately cameras aren't as cheap as microphones, if you can call them cheap these days but if anyone is relying on one camera just like one microphone to do everything, truth be known, that's going to back you into a corner at some point in time or another. I'm just glad that for most applications you no longer need a $40,000 camera to do a project although that in itself has been good and bad for the industry.
 
I do not think the DVX200 is a Swiss Army Knife,
but feel let down by Panasonic me.
I changed from AC160 to DVX200, but this development was not complete. I do not understand why the user needs to develop a camera?
How do the engineers of the Panasonic think, that we don't see the problems: noise, bad colour, bad skin tone, etc
I had: DVX 100 - I loved it
DVC 15 - we worked
AC 160 - trouble-free, easy to use, i like it
I have : LX 100, FZ 1000, G7 and DVX 200.....gimbal, camera crane, steadycam, slider, etc
At the last minute came the Scenes, It helps to keep me no take you back to the dealer the cam.
I had to consider what they can buy take instead...
In this category: FS5, URSA Mini, JVC LS300?
They must realize that none of complete. (4K 50p, OIS, GAIN staircase, lens 2.8-4, touchscreen with area focus/iris, cheap battery, and the extremely beautiful RED the outside of the camera)
So I decided to live with the mistakes, hoping that the situation will improve
because it is a good camera, but it is still immature
waiting...
 
mapper65 said:
If my take on Barry's book is correct, the light gathering capabilities of a 4/3 sensor will never be what they are with a 1/3 sensor like the PX270 has.

I'm not sure that we are ever going to see a video camera version of the Swiss Army Knife that many people are looking for. That also holds true in the audio department and why we carry a large assortment of microphones. Unfortunately cameras aren't as cheap as microphones, if you can call them cheap these days but if anyone is relying on one camera just like one microphone to do everything, truth be known, that's going to back you into a corner at some point in time or another. I'm just glad that for most applications you no longer need a $40,000 camera to do a project although that in itself has been good and bad for the industry.
Click to expand...

I think the DVX200 is kind of a Swiss Army knife. One that I have been looking for, but they made it too weak for my tastes. I am not looking for cheap, I am looking for a camera to be right and a useful tool. Ask how many people with GH4 shoot interviews at f4.5? I bet the answer would be "only if I have to". Imho the lens is holding back this camera. Put the PX270 at f4 and the DVX200 beats it in light gathering. The sensor is fine for normal shooting. A constant 10x f2.8 lens is more useful than a 13x f4+ lens in my experience.
 
In a few hobbies that I'm into the first thing that people do is modify something to their liking. Often times it's really off the wall modifications because they want it to do something other than what it was designed to do. They take something that tons of engineering dollars went into and "they know better" and they end up making so many modifications that they nearly ruin it. One example would be quadcopters. I have nearly $2000 in my setup prior to getting it off the ground and a camera mounted on it. I've only installed things made by the manufacturer that were designed and tested by them. I've never had one crash and I was probably not the best pilot at the beginning. In 99% of the crashes that I read about they all modified their aircraft in ways that were not approved by the manufacturer because they knew better. People just can't leave their hands off of stuff.

I'm really intrigued with what I read online about the DVX200 because it's pretty much the opposite. It was sold with a set of specs that were given to everyone up front but yet when the menu settings need modified to fine tune it to what people would like then many of us, including myself were out of control that we had to make changes. Much of that frustration is because most of us don't know the intimate details of what the settings do or we don't know how to get the look that we want. I think if the DVX200 came out of the box 100% perfect people wouldn't be able to leave their hands off of the menu settings because they want it to do something different and they know better. It just interesting to me when in the case of the DVX200 the process is backwards and how that affects people's opinions.

Just an observation.
 
Barry_Green said:
...I said it six months ago -- the DVX200 isn't an FS7. If what you want is an FS7, spend the $11,000 and get an FS7 with its 4.5:1 lens; the DVX200 is $4195. Almost 1/3 the price. I think it offers outstanding value at that price point, and now that we've sorted out the color issues (which, frankly, should have been sorted from the factory), it's really in a class all its own. There's nothing else that does what it does...
Click to expand...

Not sure why the DVX200 is being compared to the Sony FS7(???)
The FS5 would probably be a better comparison. It's closer in price, size and recording media.
 
mapper65 said:
If my take on Barry's book is correct, the light gathering capabilities of a 4/3 sensor will never be what they are with a 1/3 sensor like the PX270 has.
Click to expand...
Not really, in terms of the sensor (and other factors equal) a 4/3 sensor will always give superior results to 1/3".

It's when you start to take other things (such as max lens f stop) into account that a given 4/3 camera may end up being outperformed by one that is 1/3". (Which may be what you really mean?)

I've posted it before, but the underlying theory isn't difficult, at least to a first approximation and assuming comparable sensor tech. For how well two cameras will perform in low light, the three main things to consider are:

1/Sensor size. Double the area, expect it to improve a stop
2/Single or three chip? Expect three chip to be about 1.5 stops better than the same size single chip.
3/Max aperture of lens. The obvious one! :)

So if we apply the above to Bassman2003 examples of the PX270 and the DVX200, what does the theory predict? Compared to the PX270, the DVX200 should compare in the three categories as:

1/ +4 stops advantage - 4/3 is roughly 16x the area of 1/3" (assuming full sensor scanning)
2/ -1.5 stops - single chip isn't as efficient as three chip
3/ -1.5 stops if f2.8 on the DVX200, -3 stops if assumed the camera is ramping.

So taking all that together, the prediction is (very roughly) that the DVX200 will have an advantage at wide angle (ie at f2.8), but be disadvantaged when the lens is ramping. Which seems to agree reasonably with the results people are finding? At least, that's the case for low light performance, for depth of field the single/three chip factor is irrelevant - so there I'd expect the DVX200 to have a 1-2 stop advantage (depending on degree of ramp).

mapper65 said:
I'm not sure that we are ever going to see a video camera version of the Swiss Army Knife that many people are looking for.
Click to expand...

I said many pages ago in this thread (before the camera was released) that the big question was whether it would be a great jack of all trades ...... or fall between stools. And the feeling generally seems to be the latter is increasingly more the case.

Regarding a "Swiss Army Knife camera" I do think it's possible to get close - but not with a fixed lens. Go to a larger sensor, and to maintain a zoom with long range and fast maximum aperture it is going to have to be big, heavy and likely very expensive. That's down to the laws of physics and optics. Make it interchangeable lens and you get the OPTIONS of either fast lens (but prime or short range zoom) *OR* long zoom range (but limited maximum f stop).

And this is exactly what is happening in a large section of the true pro market at the moment. Use a camera like the F5/55, and EITHER use with a fast prime OR a standard B4 mount zoom with s35 adaptor as appropriate. It's the idea of a large sensor with fixed lens that doesn't really make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top