Any Chance of an HMC-150 Style (fixed lens) AF-100?

B

Bassman2003

Veteran
Hello,

This camera really looks like a great instrument. Panasonic deserves a lot of credit for being the first to market and getting it right.

I would like to ask if there is any chance of a fixed lens offering of this model?

I do video and still work, but I do not make movies. I would like to incorporate a camera like the AF-100 in my work but find I need a servo for it to fit in more than one role to justify the cost.

An HMC-150 style approach with fixed lens even with an 8x range would really help us "video guys" come to the party. I say the HMC-150 because it is lightweight, has a wide lens and also uses AVCHD.

Thanks for listening.
 
At this point I'd say it's not going to happen any time soon. The only inexpensive lenses that cover the big sensor are stills-camera lenses, and a servo motor in a stills lens is pretty much unheard of.

The other lenses that cover the big sensor are cinema zooms, and even the cheapest of those cost more than the camera body does; a less-than-5:1 zoom like the Red Pro 18-85 is $10,000.

You could get an external motor like we use on cinema camera lenses, I guess, but stills zoom lenses aren't made to execute smooth zooms.

Fujinon and Canon don't make any ENG lenses that come anywhere near to covering the large sensor of the AF100, so I wouldn't expect anything from them anytime soon.

I guess the prospect exists that Panasonic Broadcast could take the Lumix 14-140 and re-house it into a servo body, but ... with a full slate of servo-zoom camcorders with fixed lenses already (HVX200, HPX170, HMC150, HMC80, HMC40) I don't see that as too likely for them to concentrate on.
 
I doubt it. The whole point of the AF100 is the m4/3 mount, to be able to use almost any lens in existence. A fixed-lens camera defeats that purpose. Now, if you're asking for a servo-controlled zoom lens that one could attach to the AF100, that's another question.

EDIT: Barry beat me to it, as usual. :)
 
I think it would make more sense for Panasonic to release the camera with a zoom lens.

It would've been awesome if they could've added something like what the Scarlet fixed lens (28-220mm 2. 8) is going to be.

I would've paid 5900 bucks for that.

Though I'm not sure that they could make it happen in the 4/3 format.

Still, the 14-140 mm Panny lens available is way too dark for me.
 
Thanks for your replies. I guess i was thinking along the lines of what Barry mentioned of a Panasonic in-house development or a maker like Leica to provide the optics. It would bring me in as a buyer. I don't know how many other as oppsed to how expensive it would be to develop.

When I look at any fixed lens camera I think they all need a special lens just for that body. Why can't this special lens be made for a larger sensor? It is not like the lens on the HMC-150 can be sold to Sony to be used on their model, it is a stand alone creation.

I realize the role of this camera is cinema based and I don''t want to detract from that. Just wondering about a more video style approach.
 
The 14-140 is the only possible lens on the market that could have been considered for the job. It's the only one that does video-style autofocus.
 
Any idea if Panasonic is going to update that lens to make it brighter?

3.5 on the entire zoom range would be awesome.

Still, I'm probably going to get two lenses initially once the AF100 is out. A shorter and faster zoom lens (like 14-50 or something like that) and the 20mm 1.7.
 
Yes, I would pay more for it. The EX-1 or new Canon are around $6,000 ish. Could an AF-100 be made with a fast fixed lens for this amount? Maybe a bit more? I would buy it to replace an EX-1 in my lineup.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Yes, I would pay more for it. The EX-1 or new Canon are around $6,000 ish. Could an AF-100 be made with a fast fixed lens for this amount? Maybe a bit more? I would buy it to replace an EX-1 in my lineup.
Click to expand...

As we have it right now:

Camera: ~$5000
14-140: ~$800

So the camera with a "dumb" zoom lens is a bit less than $6000. Consider they would need to refine the mechanics of the lens, add a pretty chunky servo motor to the lens, and then add control surfaces to some part of the camera itself. I'd say, if they did it, we'd be looking at at least $7000.
 
That is probably true, but I would still pay it. The footage posted yesterday was as sharp and detailed as one would ever need imho. This imagery along wih the useability of the HMC-150 would be a great tool and compliment. The lens would need to be fast like an f1.9 to be worth it though.
 
Bassman2003 said:
The lens would need to be fast like an f1.9 to be worth it though.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem. No such lens like that exists. Not in cinema, not even if you spend $40,000 for it. Not in stills -- can you find a still-camera zoom lens that's 8x and f/2? Doesn't exist.

The smaller the chip, the faster the lens can be. It's easy to make an f/1.6 lens on a 1/3" camera, or an f/1.9 lens on a 1/2". But the bigger the chip, the more impossible that task becomes.
 
Even though the resolving resolution is so much lower than a still camera ~2MP? It is odd that the relatively small (real world) size difference between a 1/2" chip imager and a 4/3rds imager would be the difference between possible & affordable and impossible.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
Even though the resolving resolution is so much lower than a still camera ~2MP? It is odd that the relatively small (real world) size difference between a 1/2" chip imager and a 4/3rds imager would be the difference between possible & affordable and impossible.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons that many people see 2/3" imagers having a looooong lifespan ahead of them. Fast, long, servo zooms.

It is, as Barry said, why lenses for larger form factors become so much more expensive. Cinema primes for S16 and 2/3" sensors are much more affordable than for their S35 relatives. APS-C lenses are significantly cheaper than FF35 at the same angle of view and f/ stop.
 
Good points. I am thinking about this from a video imaging point of view where a stills approach would be a better viewpoint. Thanks for your input and too bad for those pesky laws of physics!
 
Bassman2003 said:
It is odd that the relatively small (real world) size difference between a 1/2" chip imager and a 4/3rds imager would be the difference between possible & affordable and impossible.
Click to expand...
Relatively small? The 4/3 chip is over six times bigger than the 1/2"!

Well, I shouldn't say "impossible", I should let the real world judge. I've searched around, and I cannot find any 8x or 10x cinema zoom or SLR zoom, at f/2, at ANY price. The cinema zooms I'm finding are typically less than 5x, and cost between $10,000 (Red Pro 18-85 T3) and $48,000 (Cooke 15-40 T2), and are usually over a stop slower at f/3. And none of them have a servo motor.

For SLR zooms, any SLR zoom of any length that I'm seeing (such as the Nikon 18-200, which is basically a 10x zoom) is f/3.5 or slower. f/3.5 is over 1.5 stops slower than the stated/desired f/1.9. In fact, look over this list of lenses that DP Review has reviewed, and look for the number of SLR zooms that are f/2.0... there's exactly none on that whole list.

What you're asking for just doesn't exist, at any price. Sure, I'd love to have it if it did, and I'm disappointed it doesn't exist, but ... it just doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
The lens would need to be fast like an f1.9 to be worth it though.
Click to expand...

The lens would end up looking like an Angenieux Optimo 24-290, and even that is only t2.8. The grip would end up being on the lens, and it would look like a bazooka on your shouder
 
I guess the sensitivity/noise of the AF-100 would determine if an f1.9 would be so neccessary. I am thinking of these wide aperatures because video cameras like the HMC-150 or the EX-1 need these f stops to get enough light to make them useful tools.

Maybe an f2.8 lens would let the AF-100 operate in the same light levels as we are used to with existing video cameras. But anyway, it seems like this might be wrong tree to bark up as it is pushing the envelope on an already groundbreaking situation.

I need to try and figure out if a fixed focal length camera approach could have a place in my workflow. I have shot handheld with my 5D and focus movement is all that makes sense in regards to camera stability. Thanks again for the input!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top