Which precisely why I say keep the box and the chip size, just make it better.. My fear is that they will rest on the laurels of the GH3 and let that be Panasonic's niche in the larger sensor video world. But, of course, my HOPE is that they will take that sensor and put it in the updated AF.. I really don't want to have to gaffers tape a GH3 to the front of my AF100.
Are these realistic expectations for an AF100 successor?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
Which precisely why I say keep the box and the chip size, just make it better.. My fear is that they will rest on the laurels of the GH3 and let that be Panasonic's niche in the larger sensor video world. But, of course, my HOPE is that they will take that sensor and put it in the updated AF.. I really don't want to have to gaffers tape a GH3 to the front of my AF100.
ShawnMi
Active member
I completely agree with everything above. I'll also add my opinion that if Panasonic delivers an AF200B for ~$5k, with all the specs of an ARRI Alexa next year... people will complain that it doesn't shoot 3D like an iPhone 6, or that it isn't a 65mm cinema camera like the expected SonyF1200. And they will (of course) also say that the AF200B costs too much given it's paltry features.
Shawn
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
s35 zooms are too costly and heavy - even the Red 18-85 which is affordable is not carryable in an ENG manner
MFT has to be a great sensor size allowing smller zoom lenses .. but where are they
nice MF ones with a great feel and fast ap?
S
MFT has to be a great sensor size allowing smller zoom lenses .. but where are they
nice MF ones with a great feel and fast ap?
S
Barry_Green
Moderator
Realistic expectations for an AF100 successor depend on what you consider an AF100 successor to be. If we're talking about a revised version of the existing product (i.e., "AF100A") then no, nothing like what's being discussed would be reasonable. A revised AF100A would probably have the same type of differences as we saw when the AC160 was upgraded to the AC160A.
Now, if you're talking about an entirely different model, a so-called "AF200" or "AF250", then that's a whole different ball of wax, and there's no way to predict what they may or may not do.
But typically, in model refreshes like "A" or "B" versions, there isn't much changed in the way of hardware. The HVX200A got a new chipset with 1/2-stop more sensitivity, and the HPX370 got a new chipset with faster rolling shutter in 1080/24p, but that's about the most extensive hardware change we normally see in minor revisions. Usually an "A" update (like DVX100 to DVX100A, or AC160 to AC160A) involve some new features (DVX100A got 16:9 "squeeze" mode, AC160A got turbo autofocus and magnified focus assist), but usually we've never seen something like a form factor change or a new direction for a camera in an "A" or "B" update.
Now, if you're talking about an entirely different model, a so-called "AF200" or "AF250", then that's a whole different ball of wax, and there's no way to predict what they may or may not do.
But typically, in model refreshes like "A" or "B" versions, there isn't much changed in the way of hardware. The HVX200A got a new chipset with 1/2-stop more sensitivity, and the HPX370 got a new chipset with faster rolling shutter in 1080/24p, but that's about the most extensive hardware change we normally see in minor revisions. Usually an "A" update (like DVX100 to DVX100A, or AC160 to AC160A) involve some new features (DVX100A got 16:9 "squeeze" mode, AC160A got turbo autofocus and magnified focus assist), but usually we've never seen something like a form factor change or a new direction for a camera in an "A" or "B" update.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Exactly Barry. The AF100 is a product in a product line. It has its clearly defined market and target use. That helps define what the camera will have or not have. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they will or should have to. Just because lots of S35 sensors are out there doesn't mean the AF100 revision (whatever it is) needs to have that. Panasonic invested in the M4/3 way of things, and it's highly unlikely that will go away anytime soon.
What do I consider a realistic expectation? A better codec then before, increased DR (even a little), a little more detail, and 60p at a minimum again. I think greater performance from the sensor is all I really care about having, and then the compression that takes place afterwards.
What do I consider a realistic expectation? A better codec then before, increased DR (even a little), a little more detail, and 60p at a minimum again. I think greater performance from the sensor is all I really care about having, and then the compression that takes place afterwards.
Barry_Green
Moderator
As for a "better codec", AVCHD hasn't changed much, so I wouldn't expect it to be any different. I would think it'd be reasonable to expect 1080/60p to be included, but I wouldn't expect any new nonstandard codec because they just don't do that. I would expect microP2/AVC-LongG to be in an AF200 though... it'd be silly for them to make a whole new model and not take advantage of their latest tech.
But in an AF100A I think it'd be unrealistic to expect such a substantial change. Refinement, not revolution, is the standard for incremental model revisions. "revolutionary" new features and designs come in all-new models. So, like I said before, it all depends on what someone considers the "successor" to be. If they're looking for a from-the-ground-up new model, then sure, all sorts of changes are possible and everything should be considered on the table. But if they're looking for a follow-up AF100A type of camera, I wouldn't expect it to be anything more than what they've done with prior "A" versions, such as the AC160 to AC160A, or DVX100 to DVX100A.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
What I meant by better is maybe a higher profile codec or version of AVCHD, higher bitrate perhaps, etc. Not sure if they could put AVC Ultra in there? I know they'll stick to AVCHD, just would hope for something better then the current camera. 
I know I'd be happy with the following list of codecs, standard or not:
Panasonic DMC-GH3 FHD Video Specifications
AVCHD format: 1920×1080 @ 24p, 25p, 30p - 24Mbps
AVCHD format: 1920×1080 @ 50i, 60i - 17Mbps
AVCHD format: 1920×1080 @ 50p, 60p - 28Mbps
MP4 format: 1920×1080 @ 25p, 30p - 20Mbps
MOV format: 1920×1080 @ 24p, 25p, 30p - 72Mbps (ALL-I)
MOV format: 1920×1080 @ 24p, 25p, 30p - 50Mbps (IPB)
filmguy123
Veteran
Fair enough, it'd be great to see an AF200 and an "SF350" or whatever Panny wants to call an S35 cam, but I am excited with the technological process and what *should* be around the corner in terms of performance and price
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I seriously doubt you'll ever see a camera in the sub-$15k-$20k price range that is S35 from Panasonic. It really doesn't make sense from a business perspective. They would need to design an all new mount and all new lenses for a product line that is in a niche market where they already have cameras.
filmguy123
Veteran
Sorry but this isn't business ignorance, I would argue to say the opposite would be technology ignorance. The biggest business/pricing problems are because AF100s, BMCs, FS700 aren't mass market consumer products. They're going to cost more to make in every department, absolutely!
The point is the technology in mobile processing power is there today, and it's cheap. A lot of the pipleine in these cameras is software and CPU. You're right, that doesn't account for all the other goodies. But we know how much those goodies cost because we see much cheaper cameras with these ergos, internal NDs, HDMI, HDSDI, XLR inputs, etc. that are profitable at very low price points. The point is, the huge price gap between those lower end cameras and high end models that shoot high FPS/more resolution/etc. are in many way artificial. An AF100 with GoPro CPU internals (which are responsible for being able to process the 4K resolution/720p @ 120FPS) could easily be made at the same cost (probably cheaper) than the initial AF100. You don't need better CPUs because the AF100 has a better sensor, the actual data/resolution/file sizes are the same. In fact, it should be cheaper since with the extra space afforded in larger camera bodies heat dissipation is less an issue, meaning you can get away with CPUs that use older transistor processes.
A 1080p viewfinder, while more expensive to produce in smaller quantities and for non-mass market products, still won't cost more than a few hundred (and that's on the high end!) to produce. These new smartphones have full sRGB displays to boot. Yield rates and panel prices are dropping rapidly.
If the next AF100 can't shoot *at least* 120fps in HD, doesn't stop artificially limiting via software what codec choices we have (allow us ProRes, AVC-Intra/HD, DVCPRO, etc.), and doesn't allow for beyond HD resolutions (at least 3K) - all for CHEAPER than the AF100 - I'm going to be very disappointed. That should be more than reasonable @ $3500 given todays technology. An S35 version should be priced no more than the original AF100.
And no, it's not a piece of cake to develop a bombshell camera. You need capital, resources, engineers, etc. There's a few maverick companies that are really using current technology to deliver what's possible at fair price points, and I hope this forces bigger more traditional companies who DO have the capital to utilize modern technology and stop artificially inflating prices to deliver cameras that take full advantage of modern technology at profit margins that don't exceed 4-5x. I mean, $1500 for WiFi modules to control a camera? $750+ SSDs? 10x+ mark-ups? That stuff is a joke. I don't care how aluminum or steel you wrap it in, it doesn't cost anywhere close to that much to produce even after factoring in R&D and marketing.
Yes, there is a lot of work that goes into a camera. But the technological factors that have made certain features cost prohibitive have become increasingly eliminated, and the excessive costs are artificial. Put it like this - the technology required to process 720p video @ 120fps isn't worth more than $400 (much less, actually). Clearly I'm not talking about the entire camera, just the ability to process this many frames of a certain resolution image (disregardless of sensor type or other camera features). Yet by today's camera company practices, a camera with identical build quality, ergos, features, etc. That adds the capability to shoot @ 120fps might cost $2k-$3K more than it's identical, non-120fps shooting counter-part.. It's artificial price inflation, and hopefully it will not be sustainable for companies to do this anymore.
I hope Panny leads the charge on innovating it's cameras and delivering the best possible product/features at a fair profit margin without artificial price inflation/product segregation or propriety gouging.
If they don't, someone else will. It's already begun.
tacotim
Well-known member
Yes please, give me an AF100 with that and rgb highlights that all clip at the same time and I will buy it in a heart beat.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I completely agree that high prices are 90% artificial. (and 10% build)
For example Im convinced that there are minimal practical differences between the C100 and C500, demonstrating that the C500 could be profitable at whatever the C100 costs - the C100 is just a C500 with a few things switched off.
The opening is there for anyone who makes a sub $10 C500 - if that is an AF100 replacement is debatable - Id say it is..
S
For example Im convinced that there are minimal practical differences between the C100 and C500, demonstrating that the C500 could be profitable at whatever the C100 costs - the C100 is just a C500 with a few things switched off.
The opening is there for anyone who makes a sub $10 C500 - if that is an AF100 replacement is debatable - Id say it is..
S
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Unless you're privy to numbers we're not, I've got to call false on this. If this were accurate (or even close to accurate), the Japanese manufacturers wouldn't have been getting shellacked the last few years like they have and be recording much higher profits than they are reporting.
But does it make business sense? If I can make a widget that does everything the competitor's widget does for half the price and still make a profit, does it make sense to charge half the price when there is only a limited market for it? I mean, if my competitor is charging twice as much and they still sell profitably, why wouldn't I? It's called supply and demand... you sell a product for the highest amount you can that will move the most units possible. If I can sell X amount of units at one price, and 70% of X at twice the price, what makes the most business sense?
[EDIT] Case in point... look at Apple. Apple could sell their plethora of gizmos for less and still make a handy profit. But why would (or should) they? People are happy to pay a premium for Apple products, so it makes no sense to charge less.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My point is if the C100 is profitable (maybe it isnt) I guess the C500 could be profitable at that price too - being the same camera and all just without hobbled firmware. +/-10%
Business sense? While the big boys have quiet meetings and run a cartel of course they ramp prices, great business today
As soon as an indy successfully breaks that cartel it all falls over and the biggies have to align or fail
Sooner the better IMO
S
Business sense? While the big boys have quiet meetings and run a cartel of course they ramp prices, great business today
As soon as an indy successfully breaks that cartel it all falls over and the biggies have to align or fail
Sooner the better IMO
S
KyleProhaska
Veteran
The indy's are already driving down the cost of cameras. Do you think the ALEXA would be the price it is today if RED didn't exist? Not a chance. I'm still of the opinion that we're incredibly spoiled to get what we get at the prices we currently get it. Yes, in time you'll see more and more performance and features packed into bodies at lower costs but it'll happen little by little, especially from the bigger companies well established. Panasonic, Canon, etc. they aren't going to be the ones to show up at NAB with something like the BMC. It's just not apart of their plan...that much is clear.
Panasonic won't live or die either based on whether or not they keep up with what some expect from them specs wise. Did they do that with the AF100? No, plenty said "meh I wanted more" and yet the camera has done just fine from the looks of it. Next time around people will likely be disappointed again like they always are, but they're still going to sell plenty. They're not really worried about you lol.
Panasonic won't live or die either based on whether or not they keep up with what some expect from them specs wise. Did they do that with the AF100? No, plenty said "meh I wanted more" and yet the camera has done just fine from the looks of it. Next time around people will likely be disappointed again like they always are, but they're still going to sell plenty. They're not really worried about you lol.
Reality check.. I currently have two cameras with which I make my living, the AF and an HPX250 - both Panasonic products cost in the neighborhood of 5 grand. But the 250 (which came along only about 6 months after the AF) has vastly improved highlight handling, seems to have a better dynamic range, records AVC-I to P2 cards and has a 22x lens! Now we have the GH3 looming on the horizon which is about $1,300 for the body...
I'm not saying that it would be a breeze to revamp the AF with this technology and keep their (arbitrary) price point, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility. And I really don't care about the semantics - call it 100a, 200, ZX3000 - who cares? I like so many things about the AF100, I don't want to be forced to give it up because it can't keep pace.
I'm not saying that it would be a breeze to revamp the AF with this technology and keep their (arbitrary) price point, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility. And I really don't care about the semantics - call it 100a, 200, ZX3000 - who cares? I like so many things about the AF100, I don't want to be forced to give it up because it can't keep pace.
Attachments
KyleProhaska
Veteran
First of all, great rigs there...sweet. Second, I agree with you that the greatest benefit to the AF100 would be image related. Give people greater detail, better DR (doesn't have to be BMC just something better), better low light, and a higher bitrate and I think many would be over the moon. Everything else about the camera I enjoy and like.
Second, I agree with you that the greatest benefit to the AF100 would be image related. Give people greater detail, better DR (doesn't have to be BMC just something better), better low light, and a higher bitrate and I think many would be over the moon. Everything else about the camera I enjoy and like.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I agree, nice rigs Mac.
Wouldn't the improved tech behind the GH3's sensor (which I was under the impression had better DR), plus AVC-LongG solve a lot of the highlight issues?
Wouldn't the improved tech behind the GH3's sensor (which I was under the impression had better DR), plus AVC-LongG solve a lot of the highlight issues?