Dear Panasonic : An Open Letter

yoclay said:
I cannot help but feel that most of these manufacturer's have been beating around the bush for quite sometime. They have all got road maps as the best way to sell the most amounts of cameras over the long term and unfortunately that doesn't correspond with the objectives of the buyer - us.

I'll keep it real simple:
10 bit 422 in camera, S35 sensor. 444 with external recorder or LOG, or both. Built-in ND's, decent codec, xlr's, sdi.

10k?
Here's my money.

Voila.
Click to expand...

I'm right with you on this but I can see the profit pie charts from all companies with higher end cameras or conflicting video/stills divisions come crashing down, even from RED, if the price were 10K. And that makes it doubtful this will happen soon. This is just like the 35mm adapter on 1/3" sensor cameras era. It took years for the companies to get us the Af100 and FS100, and just this year they delivered. The last piece of the puzzle might take the same amount of time if you want it cheap. For now Af100 or FS100 with external recorder at or around $7K- $8K for 4:2:2 high bit rate shooting. Heres my money.
 
Egg Born Son said:
They still have a need for prestige products as well as volume. Car manufacturers invest in Formula 1 and other motorsport because it sells cars - even though the cars sold are not Formula 1. The buying public assumes (sometimes even correctly) that the R&D filters down to consumer products.
Click to expand...

There are huge flaws with this logic, the biggest being that target audiences. You don't buy a truck for your construction business or a van for your delivery business based on who is investing in an F1 car. If you do, you're using a lousy set of criteria for your business decision. People plunking down the cash for an F3/Scarlet/C300/hypothetical AFxxx are buying them for a business using a set of business criteria.

The folks who buy cars based on a manufacturer investing in Formula 1 racing are folks buying high performance sports and luxury cars, and those types of purchases aren't generally going to be business related.

And to be honest, I have never met anyone who ever made any sort of vehicle buying decision based on what company was investing in what motorsport.
 
That's certainly true for trucks and vans but there's a reason they do it, the sponsorship isn't enough to keep the sport going. The value is in reputation. But I don't to get bogged down in talking cars, this is a DV site. I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison, just making the example that most high end companies that do their own R&D have flagship products sold with low volume and margin (sometimes even a small loss) in pursuit of the "industry leader" title. To briefly make another car example I believe the Bugatti Veyron was sold at significantly less than half it's manufacture cost to this end. If Canon ONLY made their Powershot series digital cameras would they make as many sales or have as good a reputation for lenses? The consumer market is where they make their money, they service high end customers for reputation. Most consumers don't do a lot of research, and those that do don't look much further than what the professionals are using. That said my argument is probably moot (for me anyway) because a prestige model would probably be out of our price range anyway...
 
I think the really interesting question will be whether the big companies decide to take a page out of Arri's book and offer ProRes/DNxHD in-camera recording. Add something like that to a S35mm sensor with decent DR and Highlights at an affordable price-point, and a lot of people will stop weighing up options and simply put their money down.

Having now seen the workflow of using an external recorder to record in an edit-ready format - I'm convinced that's the way of the future. Being able to move seamlessly and instantly from shooting to editing (and by that I mean actually being able to cut and arrange your footage instantly) is as exciting a prospect as the beautiful S35mm footage we can all now shoot affordably.

I for one am very glad to hear that Canon are going to make the C300 more competitive price-wise. Between the C300 and the F3, video-cameras have now reached that every so important point of 'good enough'.

It's a bloody exciting time to be making pictures.
 
Last edited:
A big thing missing from this thread...

$8k > AF100 + Sound Devices Pix 220 / 240; Atomos Ninja; AJA Ki Pro Mini; Convergent Design Nano Flash.

Yeah the AF100 is missing 10bit & the chip isn't perfect, but I still think it is a great combo for indie filmmakers today. 4/3 is larger than 16mm so you're already shooting on a much larger imager than any indie film shot on 16mm.
 
i would happily pay a great deal more than $10k for an S35 sensor camera with a solid internal codec in a properly integrated package. external recording if needs be, but a real, proper video camera.

please, show me the end of the Franken-camera, and ill pay. i may not have $80-$100k for an alexa package, but i'd pay a whole lot more than $10k.
 
i wonder if that's the idea. by the time one of the manufacturers puts a big chip in a regular old workhorse body, they'll bill it as a great innovation and those that aren't ooo-ing and ahhh-ing will still be grateful enough to snap them up.
 
MPB said:
i wonder if that's the idea. by the time one of the manufacturers puts a big chip in a regular old workhorse body, they'll bill it as a great innovation and those that aren't ooo-ing and ahhh-ing will still be grateful enough to snap them up.
Click to expand...
That's what Panasonic did. A big 35mm-sized sensor in a professional video camera body. And you don't have to pay $10k for it, you can get it for about $4k.

Granted, it's not "s35", it's more like "normal 35", but still -- isn't that basically what you're asking for?
 
Barry_Green said:
That's what Panasonic did. A big 35mm-sized sensor in a professional video camera body. And you don't have to pay $10k for it, you can get it for about $4k.

Granted, it's not "s35", it's more like "normal 35", but still -- isn't that basically what you're asking for?
Click to expand...

As you know, there is that noticeable difference between s35 and m4/3. Not that a good DP can't use it, but I can see how some would be left wanting. Add to it that the AF100 is less appealing than the gh2 in terms of overall iq. The colors look really awful for something in this price range. The AF100 is there, in terms of specs, but the image quality is less gratifying than a T2i. So, while I personally like the idea of the AF100, I prefer the current dslr's over it. And that is sad.
 
How about the m4/3 chip in the HPX250 body? Biggish chip, P2, AVC-Intra 100. Without the $5K HPX250's complex imaging block or the 20x lens, it should go for $5K or so.
 
Right now, I still don´t see why the "indie low budget filmer" mentioned in the above "open letter" should complain at all? Low budgeteers have the t3i, the (hacked) GH2, (probably sth from Nikon and Sony too I just don´t care enough), with lenses and all for sub 2K, man, this is like the golden age of indie film!!!
Sound can be taken care of for around another grand and there you go!
I mean, just a couple of years ago, indie meant DV cameras, SD video with 4:2:0 / 4:1:1 color space, sorry fellas, but if you´re still complaining, you probably just don´t have anything compelling to tell.
Besides big CGI Hollywood blockbuster flicks, take any good movie you personally like and imagen traveling back in time to the movie set, leaving everything as is/was and just changing out the cameras.
My bet: Since indie flicks where often shot on S16 and later blown up, shooting that same movie on a t3i would even improve the images...
My 2c.
 
James0b57 said:
As you know, there is that noticeable difference between s35 and m4/3.
Click to expand...
It's a difference, but not a massive difference. Not half the difference of "full frame" vs. 7D, for example. S35's a little bigger than 35mm, and M4/3 is a little smaller than 35mm, but they're both big huge chips compared to a conventional-sized video camera.

Add to it that the AF100 is less appealing than the gh2 in terms of overall iq.
Click to expand...
That is a matter of opinion, certainly not one of fact. I would disagree.

The colors look really awful for something in this price range.
Click to expand...
I absolutely profoundly disagree there. The AF100 has perhaps the most accurate color palette of any camera I've ever used. Just shoot a color chart and look at how precise the colors are. The norm1 matrix reproduces colors incredibly accurately.

The AF100 is there, in terms of specs, but the image quality is less gratifying than a T2i.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you'd say this; I will allow that it's your opinion but all I know is that when we shot "A Verse Before Dying" on it and took it to a high-end post suite, the colorist said "this is some of the best looking footage I've ever had in this suite." It's leagues better than a T2i in all possible ways - color rendition, latitude, accuracy, sharpness, freedom from artifacts, etc.

So, while I personally like the idea of the AF100, I prefer the current dslr's over it. And that is sad.
Click to expand...
I think that's pretty sad too, because the AF100 is a great camera and a screaming steal at its price point. Might want to give it another look before dismissing it, because I think you'd find that if you asked AF100 owners who use it every day what they think about it, I think you'll find most if not all of them would agree with me.
 
Tzedekh said:
How about the m4/3 chip in the HPX250 body? Biggish chip, P2, AVC-Intra 100. Without the $5K HPX250's complex imaging block or the 20x lens, it should go for $5K or so.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm asking 'em for. The AC160 is basically an AF100's back end and a 1/3" chip block & lens grafted on. So how about taking the AF100 body and shoveling in the HPX250's back end... that would be sweet. Most folks have said they'd pay $8k for that, but I think $6k should be within reason (considering an AC160 costs the same as an AF100, why couldn't an AF250 cost about the same as an HPX250?) Speculating, but heck... I'd love to see something like that.
 
Spartacus said:
Right now, I still don´t see why the "indie low budget filmer" mentioned in the above "open letter" should complain at all? Low budgeteers have the t3i, the (hacked) GH2, (probably sth from Nikon and Sony too I just don´t care enough), with lenses and all for sub 2K, man, this is like the golden age of indie film!!!
Sound can be taken care of for around another grand and there you go!
I mean, just a couple of years ago, indie meant DV cameras, SD video with 4:2:0 / 4:1:1 color space, sorry fellas, but if you´re still complaining, you probably just don´t have anything compelling to tell.
Besides big CGI Hollywood blockbuster flicks, take any good movie you personally like and imagen traveling back in time to the movie set, leaving everything as is/was and just changing out the cameras.
My bet: Since indie flicks where often shot on S16 and later blown up, shooting that same movie on a t3i would even improve the images...
My 2c.
Click to expand...

I think that was an earlier poster's point. Manufactueres are able to use the argument of "well, it's better than what you had before" and then continue to intentionally hold back on products in a lower price bracket.
 
Barry_Green said:
I think that's pretty sad too, because the AF100 is a great camera and a screaming steal at its price point. Might want to give it another look before dismissing it, because I think you'd find that if you asked AF100 owners who use it every day what they think about it, I think you'll find most if not all of them would agree with me.
Click to expand...

I will most definitely give it a second look, when I can get my hands on one again. Do you have a link to some of your work with the AF100?
 
Barry_Green said:
That's exactly what I'm asking 'em for. The AC160 is basically an AF100's back end and a 1/3" chip block & lens grafted on. So how about taking the AF100 body and shoveling in the HPX250's back end... that would be sweet. Most folks have said they'd pay $8k for that, but I think $6k should be within reason (considering an AC160 costs the same as an AF100, why couldn't an AF250 cost about the same as an HPX250?) Speculating, but heck... I'd love to see something like that.
Click to expand...

Now we're talkin'
 
James0b57 said:
I will most definitely give it a second look, when I can get my hands on one again. Do you have a link to some of your work with the AF100?
Click to expand...
The only things I have that are publicly released are The AF100 DVD (shot on the AF100, of course) and "A Verse Before Dying". Other stuff has primarily been through FlightLine Films, which is pretty great stuff but not publicly releasable. Although I will say that Flightline's cinematographer, Jay Nemeth, who regularly works with lots of high-dollar stuff, looked at the image coming out of the AF100 on the telescope and declared "that's the best looking image I've ever seen coming from that telescope."

It's a good little camera. Well worth its price. It isn't quite an F3, but it's less than 1/3 the price of an F3.
 
I don't see how an s35 lensless camera is thousands more than a 3-cmos with a sharp 20x servo zoom on it. I don't even see why their not cheaper than the fixed lens zoom cameras. (of course, excluding those cameras which are tweaked and refined like an F1 racer.)
 
James0b57 said:
I don't see how an s35 lensless camera is thousands more than a 3-cmos with a sharp 20x servo zoom on it. I don't even see why their not cheaper than the fixed lens zoom cameras.
Click to expand...
As stated a hundred times before -- those of us who are not in the business of manufacturing cameras, cannot possibly navigate the waters of manufacturing and understand why some things cost more and some less. The fact of the matter is that stills cameras will sell something on the order of a thousand for every video camera, and consumer video cameras will sell a thousand for every professional video camera, and professional video cameras will sell a thousand for every digital cinema camera. So even though you may add up the cost of various parts and think "well, by golly, this AC160 should cost more than that AF100", the fact is that the market for AC160's is probably at least 10x bigger than the market for AF100's, and that means that the costs can be amortized a lot quicker and across a much broader swath of customers.

So I don't know exactly what this stuff should cost. Nor does anyone outside of the Panasonic factory. My guess of $6k is based on the notion that the AC160 and AF100 retail for the same price, so perhaps an HPX250 and AF250 could retail for the same price. But that may not be possible. It might need to be a grand or two more. We don't know. Only the factory knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top