Jan, is there an AF200 in the pipeline or not? - Wait or buy a C300, fs700 ...?

David W. Jones said:
My bottom line... I will no longer pay over $7K for a camera, with $5K closer to what I would consider paying. When I need a camera to meet client demands above what I stock for larger budget projects, I just rent it and charge the client for the rental fee. I have everything from 35mm film, Arri Alexa, Red Epic and more all available. It just no longer makes business sense for me to invest in expensive cameras in my market when clientele can't tell a difference once their commercial hits the air.
Click to expand...
Exactly exactly exactly, this is exactly it. I could easily afford to pick up a C300 or C500 or something like that, but -- why would I? Occasional rental is fine. The AF100 does so much at such a low price point that it's a no-brainer, and in fact doesn't make sense to rent specifically because it is so inexpensive.

If you have continuous work that would make renting impractical, then maybe buying one of the mid-range cameras makes sense (like an F3/C300 if you're shooting a three-month documentary or something like that). But with the way cameras are changing and coming out at such a rapid pace, why would you want to spend $10,000 or $15,000 on something? Just rent it a few times, and after a few months something better will come along, etc.

To me the AF100's price point is perfect, especially now -- $3500 after rebate makes it too cheap not to own. But moving it into the $8,000 to $15,000 price bracket? Why? Especially since that bracket is already getting really crowded, there's already tons of choice there, but what is there at the AF100's price point? Nothing. It's the only practical choice at its price point.
 
Mac said:
It seems that what is wanted is a little more future-proofing, that's why people, me included, are reluctant to spend big bucks on a camera these days.
Click to expand...
Again, exactly agreed. "future-proof" is nonsense, especially in today's collapsing timeframes. I seriously considered picking up a C300 back in January -- how foolish would that have been, seeing as the C500 was announced just a couple of months later, and the FS700 was announced just a couple of months later, and then the BMC was announced three months later? I am really glad I didn't spend that dough.

It seems that Sony, with the introduction of the FS700, may be looking at future-proofing as a marketing concept, but who knows? It could all be smoke and mirrors...
Click to expand...
FS700 is probably the most interesting Sony to come to market in many years, but it all depends on how they intend to approach that 4K upgrade. If it's $7,000 for an upgrade and a recorder, then -- that's really an odd position to be in, spend $8,000 for an upgraded FS100 and then spend that much again to get it to Scarlet specs, I dunno. But if the 4K upgrade is a $499 firmware update and a $1500 external recorder, then it becomes really quite a bit more interesting. Only time will tell. But then, you're in for $10,000 again, and who knows what will come out three months later?

Once you start spending substantial dough for a camera, you've got to have a pretty compelling business case for it. Nobody on earth is going to pay a nickel more for your movie because you shot it on an FS700 instead of a t2i, people just don't care. So you'd have to be renting mid- or high-end cameras so frequently that buying one is actually saving you money.

And those who want to buy one, thinking they'll rent it out to someone else? That's a riskier game than the stock market. Cameras have become so "fashionable" that you've really got to be on the right side of the trend line. Having a "better" camera doesn't matter, if the agencies have decided that they want the 5D. And buying a 5D Mark III doesn't matter, if the clients have decided they're done with the 5D and want to move on to the C300, etc. Buying a camera assuming you're going to rent it out to folks is a dangerous game, one that a lot of Red One buyers learned the hard way -- who spends $25,000 on camera gear, just to try to list themselves on Craigslist at $100/day? That's bad business.

There's lots of buzz and heat in the $8000-$15000 price bracket, but how many of us DVXUsers are actually, really buying in that price bracket? It wasn't just a few years ago that the idea of stretching to afford an HVX200 was a real stretch for a lot of people, and the $8999 Canon XLH1 was lambasted as being profoundly overpriced, but now so many people talk about $8000 to $15000 like it's "normal". It's weird to see.
 
Barry_Green said:
Nobody on earth is going to pay a nickel more for your movie because you shot it on an FS700 instead of a t2i, people just don't care. So you'd have to be renting mid- or high-end cameras so frequently that buying one is actually saving you money.
Click to expand...

The FS700 looks noticeably better than the T2i and while the audience may not be able to tell you exactly why it looks difference, I'm sure they notice.

Whether they spend any more or not is still up in the air. I only know one or two who have ever seen a movie that was shot on a lower-end format in the cinema, and then only a bit more who have a DVD/Blu-ray of something that was shot that way (and for the majority of these, it's 28 Days Later).
 
Gary Huff said:
The FS700 looks noticeably better than the T2i and while the audience may not be able to tell you exactly why it looks difference, I'm sure they notice.
Click to expand...
Didn't say they wouldn't. I just said they wouldn't pay a penny more for it. :)

I only know one or two who have ever seen a movie that was shot on a lower-end format in the cinema, and then only a bit more who have a DVD/Blu-ray of something that was shot that way (and for the majority of these, it's 28 Days Later).
Click to expand...
True, but you'll also find that same proportion applying to higher-end cameras. How many individual owner-operator Red One films have you seen in the cinema, or bought a blu-ray of? How many individual owner-operator F3 films have you seen in the cinema or bought a blu-ray of? That's kind of the point. Individual owner-op films just don't make it to that level, and there's as many examples of a DVX100 making it to the cinema screens, as there are of DSLRs, as there are of indie Reds. Of course the studios have used Reds as well, but that doesn't count for purposes of this discussion, any more than that I could shoot on 35mm cine film and it wouldn't increase my odds of distribution or what people would pay for it.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
This is not something soon. There is a fishing expedition for ideas in one of the sticky threads above, translate 18 months-2 years.

If you have the money for a C300, that is way outside of a target product as is the FS700.

Best,

jan
Click to expand...

if only guys at Panasonic could add some more extra features and/or improvements over the Payed Update , and i would gladly wait another year or 2...... till the new version of AF100 will see the light! for something like 4:2:2 internal with higher bit rate, 1:1 expanded focus, and some better(slower) slow motion ...... i would pay extra - 500 - 1000$ easy (or maybe even more)! as i just dont like external recorders and dont need pro res..... i just would like it to be a little better, 4:2:2 would be lovely! having all that internal would save me from running around and searching for other options...... i would sit tight and wait for the successor for the next year or 2..
 
Barry_Green said:
Not internal, but you can get 4:2:2 with higher bitrate easily with a $500 Hyperdeck Shuttle 2...
Click to expand...

i really dont need its huge files not even a pro res as i told .... i would better pay same or more to get 4:2:2 internal with something like 50-100mb, with out the need to put unnecessary items on my rig... But seems like u r trying to say that 4:2:2 is not possible with soft update? too bad then, i was kind of dreaming....
 
I doubt 4:2:2 is possible with a software update, but all I was saying is -- if that's something you need, you can get at it right now, you don't need to wait for some new model or some mythical firmware update or anything, it's available right now (through an add-on recorder).
 
My (temporary) solution to this dilemma was to get an HPX250, primarily because I could use the HVX matte box base, batteries and P2 cards I already had - so for under 5 grand I have an AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 camera - But I don't really like it all that much, I don't even know why, it's subjective..

So, for a project I'm shooting now I went back to the AF100, and I really do like that camera better - admittedly it took 6 months to get it dialed in, but it's really producing nice pictures... I still wish there was a decent light weight zoom though (yes, I've order the 12-35 f2.8, but that's over a month away).
 
Barry_Green said:
There's lots of buzz and heat in the $8000-$15000 price bracket, but how many of us DVXUsers are actually, really buying in that price bracket? It wasn't just a few years ago that the idea of stretching to afford an HVX200 was a real stretch for a lot of people, and the $8999 Canon XLH1 was lambasted as being profoundly overpriced, but now so many people talk about $8000 to $15000 like it's "normal". It's weird to see.
Click to expand...

Thank you thank you thank you. An $8000 anything is outside my price range no matter how good it is. I'm buying the BMC with the money I got for my HMC150. I still consider $3000 an expensive buy...
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
This is not something soon. There is a fishing expedition for ideas in one of the sticky threads above, translate 18 months-2 years.

jan
Click to expand...
Bummer.

I will assume that no new MFT digital cinema cameras will be introduced for two years. That kind of makes you think a little different about waiting. Not that I am but two years is a loooooooong time away.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic was already desigining next generation cameras even before the AF 100 was released. I could see them offering a 2.5k camera with AF 100 features recording to micro p2 cards to blow away the black magic camera.
 
Unless someone is shooting several times a week it's not worth it getting a $8K+ camera. I've calculated several times and each time I conclude that the AF101 is just right to me. I welcome if there's more software updates, even paid ones that improves how this camera operates or performs and I'll add a BMDCC to my equipment. Still I think I'll prefer to shoot with the AF for most shoots since it's a nice camera to operate and reliable.

I think the BMDCC will set a new standard and that we'll see more similar priced cameras with great features and that's a good thing because others must follow to stay competitive. I'm surprised that Canon left room for others to dominate $5K because a $5K camera will sell alot more than $10k and plus cameras. Best is to sit still in the boat and let the stream take you into the future rather than jumping into the water and swim upstream.
 
+1

Cameras (like HDTVs, computers, Intel chips, and phones) are starting to hit the plateau of their tech growth curve. The wonderful new features are less and less wonderful. The space that separates different cameras shrink to less and less.

This is a good thing.

Personally I would wait to buy not the second generation of cameras post AF100 but third for a more drastic improvement at the same price (as is the nature of tech).
 
I just love reading Barry's words on the AF100. It reminds me of what I think of my own AF100. Same thoughts when I shoot with it, such amazing performance for the price. I like a great value for the $
 
I'm happy with my AF100, as I said above - But the problem is that all the internet kvetching about this camera isn't only read by users, it's seen by other people on the periphery who now think the AF100 is sub-standard. I've already been asked pointed questions by people who I wouldn't have thought knew anything at all about video cameras. I myself was a victim of this when the noise, highlight handling and banding issues were proclaimed intolerable. But, when I go back through my footage, I'm just not seeing anything that disturbing - It looks pretty damn good.

Sony is obviously capitalizing on this with the FS700. Again, as I also said above, I believe they are seeing "future-proofing" as a marketing strategy. They have hung the 4k bait out, coupled with the fact that, unlike Canon, they have priced it below 10 grand AND, with adapters, we can all use our Canon FD, Leica R, and Nikon lenses. Jump on the band wagon...
 
Oh I'd love to jump on the band wagon of this camera, seems to have everything, but @ 8K price tag, "future 4K firmware upgrade" and "optional Sony 4K recorder" makes me think I'll either be waiting forever for these upgrades and/or bumming at the cost of the upgrades. It's out of my time/price range at that point.
 
Mac said:
I myself was a victim of this when the noise, highlight handling and banding issues were proclaimed intolerable. But, when I go back through my footage, I'm just not seeing anything that disturbing - It looks pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Actually, the highlights aren't great at all but for the price?! Cannot be beat right now.

The reviews on the FS700 make me laugh. Everyone is so excited about NDs! It reminds me of how excited people were for the headphone jack on the MkIII. It's 2012 and we're getting excited about headphone jacks and NDs on cameras?!?! My grandpa's Handycam had a headphone jack for Pete's sake. In the early 90's!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top