I wish Panasonic would release a large sensor p2 based camcorder

R

ryaninoz

Well-known member
The current state of cameras really annoys me. I have a hpx300 which I love but more and more clients want the shallow dof look. I shoot with a canon dslr when that is required but it is like having one of your arms tied behind your back trying to operate a dslr as a professional video camera. I love the look of the f3 over the af100 but like the af100 it isn't a shoulder mount camera and if I buy the f3 I need to buy expensive ( overpriced ) after market kits to make it work ergonomically as a pro camera. Also I hate the idea of going from avc intra to 35 mb xdcamHD so as well as a shoulder kit I'd also need to buy a ninja or kipro recorder. All this adds to the price of an f3 which I'd rather spend on one stand alone camera like my 300 is - but one with a 35 mm sensor.

So when is Panasonic going to release a shoulder mount camera with a large sensor and avvcam to avc intra p2 based recording. They would fly off the shelves. I'd hate to buy the f3 and see something from Panasonic come out that would suit me better. I'd rather stay with p2 and have a large sensor camera that fits into that workflow and also uses the same batteries etc.

So does anyone have a functioning crystal ball or a hunch as to what the hell is happening camera wise :) It just seems like the days of expensive 2/3 inch cameras like the 3000 series are over and for that price bracket ( or less ) a super 35 mm sensor camera with p2 and avc intra would be a no brainer.
 
Maybe a replacement for the 500 will appear soon I have been waiting for an HPX600 for two years now but suppose the 3100 is their current 2/3" model now.
 
There's always expensive after market DOF adapters! Although now that people are jumping ship to AFs and F3s, you can probably pick up a used M3 or Letus kit for cheap.

It just seems like the days of expensive 2/3 inch cameras like the 3000 series are over
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Do you really want to watch sports on TV all slack-jawed as the camera operator tries to keep the players in focus? Want to watch a show where actors go out of focus when they aren't standing on a flat plane? Do you want to see extremely thin dof in programming that doesn't really need it?
Small(-ish) sensors are going to live on in one way or another, and they will probably remain on the upper end because TV programming will always demand the best technology and newest features, regardless of sensor size.
 
Yup. Ever watch a TV sitcom? Hardly any shallow depth of field. They use blocking and objects to constrain the scene. Shallow depth of field = higher expense on a fast moving production schedule.
Shows like Dr Quinn Medicine woman where shot exclusively on S16mm and 24-290 Angeniex zoom.
Would really like a 2/3" 3chip camera for under 15K. But, don't expect it from Panasonic. Ever.
 
A large sensor doesn't have to mean razor thin DOF it just gives you more control. I am also sick of seeing the over used super shallow DOF look but being able to use it when the client wants it or when it is preferable - i.e interviews, would be nice. Also the low light ability of large sensors is fantastic. It's amazing the run the 5dmark2 has had, and that it has taken so long for panasonic and sony to counter it. It just annoys me being ready to upgrade and having to go to such compromised options in order to get a large sensor video camera. I'd like to stay with P2, I'd prefer to use shoulder mount cameras. I've been looking everywhere to see if there is any kind of hint of a p2 35 mm sensor camera in the works but amazingly nothing. NAB 2012 has me intrigued though, hopefully then we might see something.
 
Here you go. No AVCHD, but plenty of Intra. If you want 3CCD 2/3" all ya gotta do is pay. Makes that HPX500 seem pretty nice for the price. Not trying to be a shmuck here, I would love to have a 2/3" ccd Panny shoulder cam, but so far the only thing within my budget is the 500, and I suspect with the proliferation of CMOS, it is going to stay that way.

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webap...83653&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AJ-HPX3100GJ
 
Last edited:
the 3100 is a great camera for broadcasters. It doesn't answer the need for a large sensor p2 based camera though. Also 19k isn't the price, add to that the cost of glass and a viewfinder. I've always used 2/3 inch - from high band umatic to betacam to digi beta. The hpx 300 is the first small sensor cam I have ever owned, I must say it performs brilliantly too. But I would love to move into larger sensors - micro 4/3 - super 35, and not have to bother with crappy compression codecs like xdcam 35 mb 4:2:0. Avc intra is fantastic, coupled with a larger sensor like the one in the f3 or even the af100 and I think there would be lots of happy shooters.
 
I would love for panasonic to bring out a 2/3" shoulder based camera similar to the Sony PMW-350K, i realise it would have to be cmos to keep the cost down but there is such a jump from the 370 to the 3100 here in the UK.

I think the problem is times are changing, for decades broadcast camera manufacturers have been able to charge premium prices for the mid-top end gear. Nowadays with advances in technology and better manufacturing we are now getting cameras which are almost rivalling the top end gear at a fraction of the price.

I can see the days of the £37,000-£40,000 shoulder mount camera body being numbered, with the current economy, people are finding it increasingly harder to justify when profits are being squeezed.

I am not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field, i just want a successor to the 370 (maybe a cmos 500?) with a bit less dof and better low light ability. If they could do it with a lens for the price of the Sony 350 i think it would fly off the shelves.

The problem is... do they want to or would they rather keep to top end prices?
 
Last edited:
A large sensor doesn't have to mean razor thin DOF it just gives you more control.
Click to expand...
Well, not quite. Technically, one would assume that the greater inherent sensitivity would allow a larger sensor to not only allow for shallower DOF, but also to stop down as much as a smaller-sensor camera for depth of field, thus giving it a greater range of options. Within a certain limit, this does hold truth, as a 2/3" camera at f/1.8 is gathering 2 stops more light than 1/3" also at f/1.8, what with sensor and lens having 4x the area, and can easily stop down 2 stops past what is considered safe on a 1/3"er (f/4 compared to f/8).

However, technology is not that efficient and while the 5D2 or 7D is much more sensitive in darkness at f/1.8 at equal gain to the 370, you simply can't stop them down enough to match the 370 for DOF and still maintain a usable gain level and shutter speed. To a smaller extent this even happens between the 1/3" and 2/3" sensors, with the 1/3" sensor allowing for a massive 20 meters of focus error at 4.5mm and f/4.

I am not a fan of ultra shallow depth of field, i just want a successor to the 370 (maybe a cmos 500?) with a bit less dof and better low light ability. If they could do it with a lens for the price of the Sony 350 i think it would fly off the shelves.
Click to expand...
I second this. It's not a case of the days of small-sensor cameras being numbered, but the days of expensive small-sensor cameras being numbered. A compact 3xxx series Panny is my dream camera, but not for 30K+
 
Last edited:
Kolor-Pikker said:
Well, not quite. Technically, one would assume that the greater inherent sensitivity would allow a larger sensor to not only allow for shallower DOF, but also to stop down as much as a smaller-sensor camera for depth of field, thus giving it a greater range of options. Within a certain limit, this does hold truth, as a 2/3" camera at f/1.8 is gathering 2 stops more light than 1/3" also at f/1.8, what with sensor and lens having 4x the area, and can easily stop down 2 stops past what is considered safe on a 1/3"er (f/4 compared to f/8).

However, technology is not that efficient and while the 5D2 or 7D is much more sensitive in darkness at f/1.8 at equal gain to the 370, you simply can't stop them down enough to match the 370 for DOF and still maintain a usable gain level and shutter speed. To a smaller extent this even happens between the 1/3" and 2/3" sensors, with the 1/3" sensor allowing for a massive 20 meters of focus error at 4.5mm and f/4.


I second this. It's not a case of the days of small-sensor cameras being numbered, but the days of expensive small-sensor cameras being numbered. A compact 3xxx series Panny is my dream camera, but not for 30K+
Click to expand...

+1 , for 15K or less if possible.
Different cameras for different uses. For WEVA type work (not including stills) a camera like that would be the workhorse of the industry.
Just like there continues to be movies shot on S16mm, 2/3" has a long future for the right manufacturer. The only fly in the ointment is if affordable 4K displays and delivery become a reality. I seriously doubt that for the next 5 to 10 years, but could be wrong.
Moreover, Sony is investing in technology to convert 1080p to quad HD/4K with excellent results. So I'm not worried.
 
4K is definitely a potential reason one would want to move away from small sensors as you would really start to fight with pixel density. On a 2/3" camera it may be feasible, but I wouldn't be surprised if frame sizes increased up to super16 or 1" to support that, although that would require a new line of lenses.
I think 4K would also be a much more expensive advancement for the film and television industry than the step up to HD ever was, and will require a massive upgrade to processing and storage. Sure, some productions use 4K and even higher resolutions right now, but it's a niche within a niche.

Actually, the more I think about it, the less likely it's starting to sound.
 
ryaninoz said:
the 3100 is a great camera for broadcasters. It doesn't answer the need for a large sensor p2 based camera though. Also 19k isn't the price, add to that the cost of glass and a viewfinder. I've always used 2/3 inch - from high band umatic to betacam to digi beta. The hpx 300 is the first small sensor cam I have ever owned, I must say it performs brilliantly too. But I would love to move into larger sensors - micro 4/3 - super 35, and not have to bother with crappy compression codecs like xdcam 35 mb 4:2:0. Avc intra is fantastic, coupled with a larger sensor like the one in the f3 or even the af100 and I think there would be lots of happy shooters.
Click to expand...

And what is it about the 3100 that wouldn't answer the need for a large sensor P2 cam? Is there some feature that makes it less than what's advertised?

Grant
 
The 3100 is a great camera for sure but 2/3 inch is a lot smaller than even micro 4/3rds and those of us working with Ad agencies know how in demand the full size sensor look of the 5d is. Personally I'd love to get a 3100 but given that just about every commercial I see shot and most of the corporate work around me is being done on canon dslr's a 2/3 camera for the price of the 3100 is a risky prospect. The AF100 looks great but for the codec, what about a p2 based large sensor cam inbetween the 370 and the 3100.

Also re the DOF limitations of larger sensors - in particular not being able to achieve a deeper DOF because of the sensor size, you can shoot at any
aperture you want, just use ND's. Large sensor doesn't have to mean shallow DOF - a look which I agree is getting pretty tired.

Which ever way you look at it you gotta admit these are strange times. I have heard of commercials go from being shot on super 16 mm, to sony f900's to canon 7d's. When a $ 2000 stills camera is a serious consideration to shoot a national commercial over a $ 80 000 HD camera then it does raise the question how long sony and pana can keep charging car prices for technology that is increasingly being stepped over in favour of much cheaper options.
 
It's a fad. When there is a fad, it doesn't matter if the means to an end entails in choosing a $2000 consumer product over something that was previously defacto.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that more than anything, investing in inexpensive large-sensor cameras is riskier than a standard camcorder. The industry shift was exactly because they are so cheap that there is a low entry price for a blind-try, compared to the kilo-buck camcorders they can even be called disposable.
Buying a complete DSLR kit, an AF100 kit, or even an F3 with S-log and recorder is actually still less than a just-working full-raster 2/3" CCD camera with 50mb long-gop or 100mb I-frame. For most people they still get 90% of the quality in the end result, and also that look everyone's into...

Price differences aside, a camcorder is simply easier to use in rushed, unplanned or improvised circumstances, using a large-sensor camera with a prime lens instead would be like trying to mix water with oil.

Also re the DOF limitations of larger sensors - in particular not being able to achieve a deeper DOF because of the sensor size, you can shoot at any
aperture you want, just use ND's. Large sensor doesn't have to mean shallow DOF - a look which I agree is getting pretty tired.
Click to expand...

Except you can't shoot at any aperture you want, because there is a loss of efficiency, as I've already explained. A large sensor camera can't stop down to the same depth of field as a small sensor camera and maintain a usable shutter speed and gain should you need to do so, I've already tested it myself - the 5D2 loses several stops of light at 640ISO and 1/50th shutter compared to the 370 shot wide open at -3db if I bring the 5D's aperture down to f/8.
 
Ryaninoz,

If you went with the AF100, you can certainly avoid AVCHD by going with an external recorder via SDI. During the next year, I plan to add a cam (using a HPX170 presently). I really would like the form factor of the 370, but I'd love to have a used HPX500 for the 2/3 chips but have to live with the compromise on IQ and codec. Then I see that bag full of L-Glass in the corner and think maybe a AF100 doesn't sound so bad if Berger ever gets it together. You ARE right, it is strange times. I do know I don't plan on using a DSLR.

Grant
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
Well, not quite. Technically, one would assume that the greater inherent sensitivity would allow a larger sensor to not only allow for shallower DOF, but also to stop down as much as a smaller-sensor camera for depth of field, thus giving it a greater range of options. Within a certain limit, this does hold truth, as a 2/3" camera at f/1.8 is gathering 2 stops more light than 1/3" also at f/1.8, what with sensor and lens having 4x the area, and can easily stop down 2 stops past what is considered safe on a 1/3"er (f/4 compared to f/8).

However, technology is not that efficient and while the 5D2 or 7D is much more sensitive in darkness at f/1.8 at equal gain to the 370, you simply can't stop them down enough to match the 370 for DOF and still maintain a usable gain level and shutter speed. To a smaller extent this even happens between the 1/3" and 2/3" sensors, with the 1/3" sensor allowing for a massive 20 meters of focus error at 4.5mm and f/4.


I second this. It's not a case of the days of small-sensor cameras being numbered, but the days of expensive small-sensor cameras being numbered. A compact 3xxx series Panny is my dream camera, but not for 30K+
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that a 7D with its line skipping is only actually collecting light from about the same sensor area as a 1/2-2/3" sensor (1920*4.3um=8.3mm) and the 5D about a 1" sensor. I would suggest that a 35mm camera that actually collects light from all of the photosites in its array probably would actually allow the flexibility to gain up and stop down to maintain similar DOF options to a smaller sensor camera. I would also suggest that the 1/3" format is rarely chosen for its depth of field but rather its price. For most 2/3"@f2.8 or 35mm@f8 is likely to be sufficiently deep focus for many situations considering that on 35mm, an 18mm lens at f8 focused to its hyperfocal distance will render everything from 3.5ft to infinity in focus. Now if you compare an ALEXA/F3/FS100 at f8 and ~18db gain to a 1080p 2/3" camera at f2.8 and 0db gain you may find a lot more similarities.
 
Ah yes - line-skipping - that back-stabbing, corner-cutting dick move I happened to completely forget about. Makes sense now.
 
ggrantly said:
And what is it about the 3100 that wouldn't answer the need for a large sensor P2 cam? Is there some feature that makes it less than what's advertised?

Grant
Click to expand...

For starters, It's almost a year past due. Is anyone able to buy one? B&H don't even list it for pre-order.
 
zeke said:
For starters, It's almost a year past due. Is anyone able to buy one? B&H don't even list it for pre-order.
Click to expand...
Technically I do believe it's available for ordering, as there are people who have these already, but none of them have said anything about it... I'll take this as a good sign, because more often than not when people go on the internet to write about something, it's about how it didn't meet their expectations. All the happy people are out happily shooting stuff.

Another thing I just remembered, the bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens has to be as well, so as not to break the laws of physics or anything. It's peanuts for a 2/3" zoom to have a range equivalent to 35-600mm f/5.6 or so in 35mm terms, maintain adequate sharpness, distortion, etc. throughout the zoom range and still be small enough to not weigh more than about 2.5lbs. I wonder if Sony can pull off even half of that with their newly announced 18-252mm for the F3?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top