Little venting and frustration

alaskacameradude said:
Well, I think the F3 is actually GREAT. I would have LOVED to buy it, my problem is budget. My market has almost no 'higher end' work in it
to justify the extra cost of the F3. I don't view it as a 'crippled codec'. The XDcam EX codec looks great to me. That being said, if I had
an F3, I'd almost certainly buy an external recorder and Slog at some point, so that I could take advantage of everything it had to offer.
Shoot, if I was spending $13k on a camera, I might as well spend another $5k to get everything possible out of it. As for the Panasonic/Sony
thing, I obviously have a different opinion than you :-)

But let me say this. Every camera has a feature set that appeals to someone. Our local PBS bought a bunch of 350's, precisely because they thought
they were very GOOD value for money. Their previous cameras were Panasonic DVC Pro cameras, so they were not Sony 'fanboys'. To some people the
F3 or 350 might seem bad value....I think they are great. I think the AF 100 is great. I think the FS 100 is great, and great value for the money.
But I have run across many on this site that don't like Sony. Guess I can't be surprised, but I don't look at it that way.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I've been buying Sony cameras since the 1970's, have owned most every BVP and BVW and DSR camera they made. We still have four Sony cameras in our inventory. However, if you're telling me that Sony offers the same value from a codec perspective as Panasonic, that's demonstrably not the case. Sony doesn't even offer a 10-bit codec until you get to HDCAM SR, and when it was only tape based, was very expensive and not exactly cheap in its solid state form.

Sony clearly made an intentional decision not to include XDCAM 422 as to not compete with their higher end offerings. That's "crippling" to my way of thinking. Why not offer a $3400 firmware upgrade, like the 4:4:4 and SLog upgrade?

If one compares the F3 to Sony's higher-end cameras, it looks to be a great value, but if you compare it from the bottom up, not as much. An HPX250 at $6K with 10-bit, I-frame, 4:2:2 is amazing to me. A 350 at $19K with 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP, not so much, especially with the Panasonic HPX3100 with AVC-I at $20K on the market(yes, still needs lens and finder).
 
Last edited:
Dino said:
Just to be clear, I've been buying Sony cameras since the 1970's, have owned most every BVP and BVW and DSR camera they made. We still have four Sony cameras in our inventory. However, if you're telling me that Sony offers the same value from a codec perspective as Panasonic, that's demonstrably not the case. Sony doesn't even offer a 10-bit codec until you get to HDCAM SR, and when it was only tape based, was very expensive and not exactly cheap in its solid state form.

Sony clearly made an intentional decision not to include XDCAM 422 as to not compete with their higher end offerings. That's "crippling" to my way of thinking. Why not offer a $3400 firmware upgrade, like the 4:4:4 and SLog upgrade?

If one compares the F3 to Sony's higher-end cameras, it looks to be a great value, but if you compare it from the bottom up, not as much. An HPX250 at $6K with 10-bit, I-frame, 4:2:2 is amazing to me. A 350 at $19K with 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP, not so much, especially with the Panasonic HPX3100 with AVC-I at $20K on the market(yes, still needs lens and finder).
Click to expand...

Look, you can have your opinion. But there is some inherent 'silliness' in this to me. Are you really comparing the F3 to the HPX 250?
One has a super 35mm chip in it, the other has little 1/3 inch chips. So yeah, the HPX might have a better code, but the hardware is decidedly inferior....
hence the difference in price.


I could play this game too.....but I will use my better judgement and not do it. However, I WILL point out, that I see two approaches here.
One 'cuts corners' if you will on codecs. The other 'cuts corners' in the hardware area, not as nice chipset and so on. 350 has bigger, nicer
chips than 3100. 3100 has a nicer codec.....I see this a LOT when you compare the two different manufacturers....seems to be a different approach
to the compromises you must make to get a camera at a certain price point.

Personally, I would much rather have a camera with a inferior codec, but better hardware, after all, I can alway stick on a Nanoflash or Ki Pro Mini
and get a better codec, but you are stuck with the chips in a camera.
 
How does the PMW350 have "bigger, nicer chips" than the HPX3100? They're both 2/3", but the 350's are CMOS, vs. the 3100's which are CCD... it would seem to be a quite difficult argument to make that anything in a PMW350 is superior to anything in an HPX3100...
 
alaskacameradude said:
Look, you can have your opinion. But there is some inherent 'silliness' in this to me. Are you really comparing the F3 to the HPX 250?
One has a super 35mm chip in it, the other has little 1/3 inch chips. So yeah, the HPX might have a better code, but the hardware is decidedly inferior....
hence the difference in price.


I could play this game too.....but I will use my better judgement and not do it. However, I WILL point out, that I see two approaches here.
One 'cuts corners' if you will on codecs. The other 'cuts corners' in the hardware area, not as nice chipset and so on. 350 has bigger, nicer
chips than 3100. 3100 has a nicer codec.....I see this a LOT when you compare the two different manufacturers....seems to be a different approach
to the compromises you must make to get a camera at a certain price point.

Personally, I would much rather have a camera with a inferior codec, but better hardware, after all, I can alway stick on a Nanoflash or Ki Pro Mini
and get a better codec, but you are stuck with the chips in a camera.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point re: HPX250. Panasonic can put their best codec in a $6K camera, Sony won't even consider an 8-bit 4:2:2 codec unless it's over $20K.

The HPX3100 has 3)2/3" CCD's, the Sony 350 has 3)2/3" CMOS chips. If you want to talk about hardware, the 3100 is the superior choice at the front end, and then crushes the 350 with the studio quality codec. Yes, you can add an external recorder to a 350, like all of Sony's under $20K cameras that need a better codec, but I'll take an inboard, ultra-reliable 10-bit codec/media anytime. External recorders are band-aids.
 
7
Dino said:
Barry, he was probably thinking of the HPX300.
Click to expand...

You are right, I totally thought of the wrong camera. Actually I thought of BOTH the wrong cameras. I was thinking of the HPX370 (I think...)
as compared to the Sony 320. The local NBC affiliate that Mikko works for bought one. Nice codec, 1/3 chips, nice camera overall,
I think they were a little cheaper than the Sony 320's, but can't remember exactly what they said they paid for them.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
300 is less than 1/3 the price of the PMW350. The 3100 is about the same price as the PMW350, so I was presuming he meant it as he typed it.
Click to expand...

Actually, on B&H, the 350 is $18,900 with lens and viewfinder. The HPX3100 is listed at $19,500 with NO lens and NO viewfinder. So I can see
why the HPX3100 would be nicer.....once you add a lens and viewfinder it will cost a decent amount more.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Actually, on B&H, the 350 is $18,900 with lens and viewfinder. The HPX3100 is listed at $19,500 with NO lens and NO viewfinder. So I can see
why the HPX3100 would be nicer.....once you add a lens and viewfinder it will cost a decent amount more.
Click to expand...

That's right, as I already posted, lens and finder are additional, but nobody would buy an HPX3100 and put that low-end kit lens the 350 comes with on a 3100. It only costs a couple of thousand dollars separately, but if they did, the 350 and 3100 are within around $5K difference. I know which one would be the more popular camera for shooting green screen as a rental camera!
 
Dino said:
You're missing my point re: HPX250. Panasonic can put their best codec in a $6K camera, Sony won't even consider an 8-bit 4:2:2 codec unless it's over $20K.

The HPX3100 has 3)2/3" CCD's, the Sony 350 has 3)2/3" CMOS chips. If you want to talk about hardware, the 3100 is the superior choice at the front end, and then crushes the 350 with the studio quality codec. Yes, you can add an external recorder to a 350, like all of Sony's under $20K cameras that need a better codec, but I'll take an inboard, ultra-reliable 10-bit codec/media anytime. External recorders are band-aids.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I get it. All I was saying, is that there are OTHER reasons why a Sony may cost the same as a Panasonic even though it doesn't have the better codec.
For example, Sony has the EX line which have 1/2 chips. To get a Panasonic with bigger than a 1/3 inch chip, you have to jump to the $15-$20K level....
EXCEPT for the AF100. And what kind of codec does the AF100 have? Not the good 10bit 4:2:2 one you are talking about. Seems to me, you have to compromise
somewhere, even if your name is Panasonic. Big chip, good codec, good price. Pick two.
 
Dino said:
That's right, as I already posted, lens and finder are additional, but nobody would buy an HPX3100 and put that low-end kit lens the 350 comes with on a 3100. It only costs a couple of thousand dollars separately, but if they did, the 350 and 3100 are within around $5K difference. I know which one would be the more popular camera for shooting green screen as a rental camera!
Click to expand...

On a $20K camera, $5K is 25% of the price. So to me, it makes perfect sense that a camera that costs 5K more would be both a better camera AND
more popular for shooting green screen as a rental camera (you know....assuming your clients have a budget and all :-)
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
Oh no, I get it. All I was saying, is that there are OTHER reasons why a Sony may cost the same as a Panasonic even though it doesn't have the better codec.
For example, Sony has the EX line which have 1/2 chips. To get a Panasonic with bigger than a 1/3 inch chip, you have to jump to the $15-$20K level....
EXCEPT for the AF100.
Click to expand...

The Panasonic HPX500 is a 2/3" CCD camera with an I-Frame, 4:2:2, high bit rate codec that's been around for awhile and the current cost is $10K. This is another, in a series of Panasonic cameras that offer good value for the money, as does the Sony EX1/EX1R, to be fair.
 
Dino said:
The Panasonic HPX500 is a 2/3" CCD camera with an I-Frame, 4:2:2, high bit rate codec that's been around for awhile and the current cost is $10K. This is another, in a series of Panasonic cameras that offer good value for the money, as does the Sony EX1/EX1R, to be fair.
Click to expand...

Ah, the HPX500. Yes, it does have bigger chips and a decent price point. My question would be, why would someone buy a EX-3 instead of
the HPX500? HPX500, has the better codec right? I'll tell you why, again it's the chips. The HPX500 uses the kind of 'pixel shifting'
that the HVX200 did. At the time, it was great (this is a pretty old camera in tech terms)....but technology moves on. There was a
reason the EX series became a popular alternative. Newer tech, with native 1920x1080 chips instead of the 'close to SD resolution
pixel shifted' chips in the Panasonic HVX200 and HPX500. The HPX 500 looks very soft for a HD camera compared to the EX series, and
compared to newer Panasonic cameras like the 370 as well. You are not going to find a camera that does not compromise somewhere.....chip,
codec, or price, something has got to give. You wonder about Sony and their codecs....which can be valid. I could just as easily
wonder why Panasonic can not give us a larger than 1/3 inch chip with native 1920x1080 resolution. But I already know the answer.
It's cost......to hit a certain pricepoint, compromises have to be made. Again, you can see this in Panasonic's own AF100.
They DID put a good chip in it. But then, they as good as said, that to put a better codec in it, would put it in a whole
different price range.
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
Ah, the HPX500. Yes, it does have bigger chips and a decent price point. My question would be, why would someone buy a EX-3 instead of
the HPX500? HPX500, has the better codec right? I'll tell you why, again it's the chips. The HPX500 uses the kind of 'pixel shifting'
that the HVX200 did. At the time, it was great (this is a pretty old camera in tech terms)....but technology moves on. There was a
reason the EX series became a popular alternative. Newer tech, with native 1920x1080 chips instead of the 'close to SD resolution
pixel shifted' chips in the Panasonic HVX200 and HPX500. The HPX 500 looks very soft for a HD camera compared to the EX series, and
compared to newer Panasonic cameras like the 370 as well. You are not going to find a camera that does not compromise somewhere.....chip,
codec, or price, something has got to give. You wonder about Sony and their codecs....which can be valid. I could just as easily
wonder why Panasonic can not give us a larger than 1/3 inch chip with native 1920x1080 resolution. But I already know the answer.
It's cost......to hit a certain pricepoint, compromises have to be made. Again, you can see this in Panasonic's own AF100.
They DID put a good chip in it. But then, they as good as said, that to put a better codec in it, would put it in a whole
different price range.
Click to expand...
.
I agree with most of your points, but I for one don't think that the difference in 1/3" vs. 1/2" chips is much to get excited about.
An HPX370 is $1K less than an EX3 with rebate, comes with a Fujinon 17X HD zoom, has a true ENG form factor, two color displays,
and a much superior codec. No question every camera has compromises somewhere due to price point, but if you ask most people
who've been around this industry for awhile, Sony is normally not seen as the value leader. Many would say you pay extra for the
Sony name. Clearly they are holding back their better codecs for those looking for under $20K cameras, and this is unfortunate.
 
Dino said:
.
I agree with most of your points, but I for one don't think that the difference in 1/3" vs. 1/2" chips is much to get excited about.
An HPX370 is $1K less than an EX3 with rebate, comes with a Fujinon 17X HD zoom, has a true ENG form factor, two color displays,
and a much superior codec. No question every camera has compromises somewhere due to price point, but if you ask most people
who've been around this industry for awhile, Sony is normally not seen as the value leader. Many would say you pay extra for the
Sony name. Clearly they are holding back their better codecs for those looking for under $20K cameras, and this is unfortunate.
Click to expand...

The HPX 370 is a great camera, no doubt about it. I still think I'd prefer an EX-3, but it's pretty close. 1/2 to 1/3 is pretty
much the same as 1/2 to 2/3. Depending on the person, it may or may not matter, same thing with the codec. I'm sure you have a MUCH
better idea of what people in the industry think, you do gear rental, I only know people in the industry in my little isolated corner
of the world. I know the former head engineer at the local PBS station thought the EX series was pretty much the value leader in
under 10K cameras. Mikko who is pretty well known on this board, and a VERY smart and talented guy, opted for the HPX 370.

Do I wish Sony would give us XDCam HD 4:2:2 50 in the EX line (not to mention on the F3 and FS100 for that matter!) YES! I'd also
like to see a AF100 with a better codec, a FS 100 with built in ND, an F3 that costs 7 grand and an HPX 370 with 1/2 or 2/3 chips.
I say it's a conspiracy by the camera makers. Once they make the perfect camera at the perfect price, we won't need to keep
upgrading :-)
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Brian, You compare 10 months of use with 3 years of use and saying that the AF100 isn't as profitable as the HVX200? I think you may be a little premature in your judgement call.

As far as whether we should have released two cameras instead just one, please know that we are still trying to determine the size of the large imager market, it doesn't seem to be large enough to warrant but we are still in survey mode. As an interim, you can add 280Mbs recording to the AF100 for less than what the P2 version would cost up from the AF100. If you need higher bit rates, then look at one of the many different off board recorders that are out there.

And I think we have made a game changer. Note that we were the first to the market with a Video camera with a large imager, and it is only because we announced at NAB 2010, that the competition had an opportunity to react because they only had the F3 on their docket at that time. It wasn't until November of 2010 that they alluded to a new little version of the F3. However what they delivered is a fairly under featured large imager camera. I think that we did establish a leadership position here by delivering a fully functional camera that is fairly comparable to the F3, at least until you add the SLog and external recording to it.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

Jan,

Thanks for your response, you are one of the main reasons I want to try to stay with Panasonic. Jan you represent Panasonic very well, as far as I know Sony doesn't have anyone combing the forums and talking to customers.

Premature, I truly hope so, because if I'm not i'll be pretty disappointing.

As for trying to determine the size of the "large imager market", in this town nearly everything, with exception of some broadcast stuff, is large sensor. And it started well before the RED was out. The 35mm adapters were huge in this town especially the mini35 and Pro35. I've shot dozens and dozens of furniture spots and other things with the Pro35 attached to a Varicam and a lot more on a Mini35 or Letus/HVX combo. Then once the RED came out all the high dollar spots when to RED. Then the 5D came out and most of the low budget stuff went 5D. I know other cities and markets are similar, hell Panasonic even did a Lumix G2 commercial on the 5D. That spot put Panasonic in a bad light here in town. The making of video, where the 5D was prevalent, was emailed to everyone in town. I know it was the consumer division, but I hope someone got fired for that. As for an external recording device, I often rent a Nanoflash, but the cost for the customer increases more than some of my customers are willing to pay, so either I eat some of the cost or we just don't use it.

Ok you're right about the game changer, the AF100 was a game changer. I just feel a P2 version would have been a far bigger one. "first to market" can be looked at pretty broad, and both the RED, 5D, and others could be considered in that market, after all you do say "large imager market". If you mean the first affordable actual video camera with a large sensor, than yes you are correct. Also I agree about the "under featured" FS100. The image is better than the AF100's image, but it has a lot of the DSLR issues like lack of ND. If the FS100 had a better form factor, ND wheel, etc, I'd have to admit, the AF100 wouldn't have a chance.

Bottom line is the AF100 is a good camera, and I like it, but I loved my HVX, not sure if I will ever love the AF100. I hope it lasts longer than I predicted, but only time will tell. Thanks again for your response Jan.
 
If the big money wants a Red, and the little money wants the 5D, then the middle will pay for a AF-100 or something similar. By the time you rig out a AF-100 with lenses, and all the trimmings, you have a medium value cam. The Nano costs around 3k, and that just doesn't seem like a huge investment in a mid-market video production business. Just my 2c.

Grant
 
I would love to hear more about that commercial, the seems like a very bad spot to be in.

The AF100 has been a great camera for me thus far. It was used on an indie short and the rushes looked great. Matched with a cine lens it feels even better. The form factor while rigged is spot on for me, feels great. the FS100 just would not cut it for me in terms of operating and feeling the camera. I saw an image live to a sony HD monitor (not sure on settings mind you), and quality wise seemed par with the AF100 quickly looking. Panasonic has always had a richer, more filmic quality to the image, every since the hvx/adapter days, and i like that about the AF100.

My biggest gripe is with the F3 out, everyone looks at the AF100 as a sub par system, somehow slightly above a DSLR or even equivalent if they dont know better. The AF100 is levels upon levels higher quality than a dslr, yet for roughly the same rates, DSLR is chosen for work and still praised. The image doesnt compare for my eyes. Anyone in Canada, who has seen the Moxie commercial on tv (sorry if you shot this), but the super quick racks of the AF lenses, shaky handheld camera work didnt work for me, and has somehow slipped by as an approved professional product in todays standards for video work.

The AF100 has proved for me to be a great system. Despite the 10bit, for shadows and mid tones and light fall off, which is my only issue with the AF100 (cine V helps a lot), and possibly the S35 chip, it is a great system. Perhaps a better codec will come with time from Panasonic, and when it does it will only further improve on an already great piece of equipment in this price/product category.
 
jdesignhi said:
There is a great, never-compressed option for the AF100:

nanoFlash
Click to expand...

My issue is not so much compressed or non compressed, but dependability. Is the NanoFlash / CF route as safe as the P2?

edit: What about the Atomos Ninja or Samurai?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top