is it the end of HVX/DVXuser as we know it

is it the end of HVX/DVXuser as we know it

  • HVX/HPX is better then a DSLR overall?

    Votes: 32 84.2%
  • DSLR based HD cameras are better then a HVX/HPX overall

    Votes: 6 15.8%

  • Total voters
    38
It's an AVCCAM camera, so it records AVCHD to SD, SDHC, or SDXC memory cards.

Must admist hadn't heard of that. Just had a look/search and I can see now what you mean.

So - recording HD to SD cards - great - does this also mean P2 is going to be yesterday's news too?

Or is the "HD" that AVCCAM's record to SD a more heavilly compressed HD as opposed to that stored on P2?
 
Can I also ask - I now see that there are already several panasonic cameras recording in this format.

I've got an HPX171 - so is my camera still considered more "professional" than these AVCCAM's or not?
 
So - recording HD to SD cards - great - does this also mean P2 is going to be yesterday's news too?
No, P2 is taking over in the broadcast realm. Well, "has" taken over. If anything, I see a gap widening between the lower end and the ENG/broadcast end. AVC-Intra and AVC-Ultra will be the future of P2. But for those who want/need inexpensive/commodity recording media, that's what AVCCAM is for.

Or is the "HD" that AVCCAM's record to SD a more heavilly compressed HD as opposed to that stored on P2?
Yes it's much more heavily compressed. It's 21 megabits, and it's long-GoP, and it's 4:2:0, and it's 8-bit. That doesn't make it "bad", it's far far better than HDV and it's even better than Sony's XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX formats. But it's not AVC-Intra by any stretch! That's why many of us are pining for a second camera, an AF150 or something like that, that uses P2 and AVC-Intra.

But AVCCAM is really pretty good, it doesn't suffer from the motion degradation issues that HDV had, and it's full raster (1920x1080) and true progressive in 24p (no pulldown) so it's a good solid format.
 
Can I also ask - I now see that there are already several panasonic cameras recording in this format.

I've got an HPX171 - so is my camera still considered more "professional" than these AVCCAM's or not?
The HPX171 does lots of things the AVCCAM cameras don't, like HD-SDI output, variable frame rates, and P2 is a much more robust recording format, and it's the broadcast industry standard and it's an edit medium that supports up to 12 streams of realtime HD.

AVCCAM is about cost and bandwidth. Lower-cost customers will be more attracted to the AVCCAM products, and those wanting ultimate quality and reliability will still gravitate towards the P2 products.
 
OMG! this thing is UGLY!

looks like an old 8mm camera minus the pistol grip........

the
AG-AF100_2-670x480.jpg
 
So - sorry to keep asking questions - but...

Trying to establish if I should be desiring one of these to compliment my HXP171 -

Considering what you mention above as the advantages of P2 and HPX etc..

What then are the advantages of this over the HPX....

You can record to SD instead of P2
A little lower cost
You can add on 35mm lenses - which you can't on the HPX.

Anything else I should know...?
 
The new camera will have dramatically shallower depth of field. It will give you cinema-style images, vs. video-style. And it will have interchangeable lenses, so you can get a wide variety of lenses, pretty much any SLR lens ever made could be adapted to it. Its low light performance should be rather incredible, seeing as it's able to take f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses. And, if done properly, its images could/should be substantially sharper than the HPX170's.

If you shoot digital cinema, the AF100 has lots of things going for it that the 170 doesn't have.

If you shoot sports/news, the 170 has lots of things going for it, that the AF100 won't have.
 
Quote me if I'm wrong but the AF100 seems to be Panasonic first attempt at the Red Scarlet/DSLR Movie market.

It's a shame for years on these boards we the customer called for interchangeable lens on the DVX and HVX. It's taken this long because other companies are doing it to undercut these huge cost cameras. All I can say to Pansonic about the Af100 is you took your dam time..... And guy's I think your too late.....


I love Panasonic all my TVs and cameras are Panasonic. But the people who make the decisions to hold off on interchangeable lenses because of a fear it would cut into there more expensive cameras should have been fired a long time ago...... It took a company like the one who makes RED cameras to listen to the people and say "Hey, there is money to be made here"
 
Wouldn't the output from the RED camera be far more high quality than what you'd get from the AF100?

Everyone seems to be going mad for the RED (or whatever the latest one is) I thought because it was such high quality recording for movie making - are you saying the AF100 would be anywhere near that?

If so then it is worth having!
 
Quote me if I'm wrong but the AF100 seems to be Panasonic first attempt at the Red Scarlet/DSLR Movie market.
Well, it's aimed directly at digital cinema; I don't know that you could call it "Panasonic's first attempt" at digital cinema, I mean, they did kind of dominate it with the Varicam; they sold about 8x as many Varicams as Sony sold F900s.

But the AF100 is pretty much Panasonic's first new camera of any type after the introduction of the DSLR and the announcement of the Scarlet. (excepting the HMC40/HPX370, which were both pretty much follow-ups of existing designs.)

It's a shame for years on these boards we the customer called for interchangeable lens on the DVX and HVX.
Who would have wanted it? What lenses would they have used? 1/3" interchangeable has been done, and in the handheld form factor it was pretty much a flop. The DVX outsold the XL2 by, what, 100 to 1? The HVX and Z1 outsold the XLH1 by maybe 500 to 1. Handycam interchangeable lens was never a big priority.

But digital cinema/interchangeable lens -- that's a whole different ballgame.

It's taken this long because other companies are doing it to undercut these huge cost cameras.
Nonsense. JVC's had an interchangeable-lens 1/3" camera since 2005. Canon's had one since 1996. Sony's had one for a couple of years. None of them have been big successes, all have been dwarfed by the sales of non-interchangeable-lens 1/3" cameras. How many XHA1s do you think were sold, vs. XLH1s? Probably at least 40 to 1, my guess.

In fact -- if you want to talk about the ONE manufacturer who's actually made a product that WOULD undercut the sales of their bigger cameras, it's Panasonic! The HPX370 is so good, after it was introduced NBC and ABC bought tons of 'em, and Panasonic started having half-off sales on their VariCam 2700 and 3700 models.

If you want to look at a company that's NOT afraid to go for the throat and make a product the best it can be at the price point, with absolutely no regard to what it might do to their higher-end products -- Panasonic is the one that does it. Sony makes solid-state cameras and cripples the recording codec specifically so it won't compete with their higher-end. Panasonic puts the very highest-quality codec of any camcorder, right in their $7500 HPX300.

All I can say to Pansonic about the Af100 is you took your dam time..... And guy's I think your too late.....
Really? Being the very first manufacturer with a sub-$6,000 interchangeable-lens digital-cinema camera is being "too late"? Since when is being first, "too late"?

It took a company like the one who makes RED cameras to listen to the people and say "Hey, there is money to be made here"
Surely you're not talking about Scarlet, a product that a) doesn't exist, and b) will be 2/3" anyway, so that's pretty irrelevant when compared to an AF100. Or are you talking about the Red One? $30,000 for a kit... Panasonic has been making Varicams for about a decade, so ... what does that have to do with the AF100?

Heck, if all you wanted a digital cinema camera with interchangeable lenses, couldn't you really say that Red was 8 years too late?
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't the output from the RED camera be far more high quality than what you'd get from the AF100?
From a Red One? Certainly. Which is one reason why it costs 5x the price for a shooting kit.

Everyone seems to be going mad for the RED (or whatever the latest one is) I thought because it was such high quality recording for movie making - are you saying the AF100 would be anywhere near that?
Well, not for 4K, certainly -- because the AF100 doesn't do 4K. Or 3K. But in 1080p... well, let's put it this way -- for the folks who happen to think that DSLRs compete with Red footage, then they should be thrilled with the AF100, which should be handily better than any DSLR.

And if you're not one of those who thinks a DSLR competes with a dedicated $30,000 digital cinema camera, then there isn't really any reason to think a $6,000 camcorder will compete with it either.

The question you'd have to ask at that point is -- sure the Red is better, but is it worth 5x as much? For many the answer will be "of course." For many others, the answer will be "no way."
 
And the poll is impossible to answer. questions about "better" and "best" are too subjective to have any real meaning except in the context of defined specifications. Many people think the iphone is the "best". But, I bet your grandmother wouldn't.

The point is, there never is "one size fits all".
 
And the poll is impossible to answer. questions about "better" and "best" are too subjective to have any real meaning except in the context of defined specifications. Many people think the iphone is the "best". But, I bet your grandmother wouldn't.

The point is, there never is "one size fits all".

The poll was used to draw attention to the thread and get a response from people. The DSLR and the HVX for eg really can't be compared as they are two different a camera. As for the AF100.... It is still ugly


Actually Barry I do have one question which you may be able to answer.....

Could I use the GH1 for close ups and the HVX for other shots where I may not need the DOF and cut the footage together without the audience noticing it was shot on two different cameras?

Because if I could, the GH1 is a cheaper option then buying a 35mm adapter on say a HVX and you get the bonus of having a really nice DSLR still camera.
 
I guess as i know dvxers and hvxers has slightly changed,speaking for myself i love and still use my 100a.I used to use it for nearly everything,now i mainly use it for shoots such as talking head interviews,epks and a few other things.Now that i have a 7d i primarily use it on music videos and commercials or sometime bts. I feel for me some projects are better to use my 100a and others the 7d is appropriate,but me knowing that tends to make my workflow easier.
 
so... which is better? The HVX or DSLR cameras? Best image quality? It just sucks that I bought the HVX200a for 6k & now the price is way lower... but i understand the value goes down on things but I guess I bought mine at the latest point possible before the price drop. *SMH*
 
Back
Top