Well, you'd essentially get a AF100 w/ a fixed 14-140.....
NAB Rumors?
- Thread starter vicrattlehead
- Start date
No - I mean EXACTLY an HPX-250 with a M43 sensor. The same great lens from the 250 rather than that dog of a 14-140. Built in the same way, using P2 cards. Just take a 250, rip out the sensor and put M43 in. (yes I know there are issues with getting a lens as good as that to cover M43) AVC intra recording, decent form factor, proper iris and focus control.
Why? I know there's a cost issue with making a lens to cover the sensor but the 250 has a good, sharp, fast 22x lens. If I had that i wouldn't need to spend all my money on 10 different lenses. Would happily pay C300 prices for AVC intra and a great single lens that covers 10~200. Add the GH2 ETC mode and I'd never buy another camera. Well, maybe never 
not just cost but also size. try to look for a cinema lens with 22x. it doesnt exist.
this is 12xhttp://www.abelcine.com/store/Angenieux-Optimo-24-290mm-Zoom-Lens/ look at that size. and that costs a lot more than several af100s.
this is 12xhttp://www.abelcine.com/store/Angenieux-Optimo-24-290mm-Zoom-Lens/ look at that size. and that costs a lot more than several af100s.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
It's the problem with building a zoom for such a large sensor, is what people are getting at. I agree though, 10x would be great.
Mark Smith
Veteran
Unfortunately we live in a world governed by physics, not by impulse to rip out the sensor and replace it with X and keep everything else the same.
Have you seen the size of the sony zoom for the F3 which costs $12K? and that's a 4.0 I f I recall. I have a cooke 20-100 which weighs a nice 10 pounds without matte box rods, baseplates and follow focus and that lens is a T 3.1.
With a small sensor lenses can shrink to small sizes, but if you want fast zoom lenses with large focal ranges get yourself over to dream land.
I think the fastest zooms out there right now are the Arri- Fuji Alura's and they are what T 2.8? and 5 or 6x zooms. The reason for that is not because the lens designers at Fuji are lazy sots, its because that's about all they can make right now to cover a certain sensor size and have the lens perform at the optimum level.
Have you seen the size of the sony zoom for the F3 which costs $12K? and that's a 4.0 I f I recall. I have a cooke 20-100 which weighs a nice 10 pounds without matte box rods, baseplates and follow focus and that lens is a T 3.1.
With a small sensor lenses can shrink to small sizes, but if you want fast zoom lenses with large focal ranges get yourself over to dream land.
I think the fastest zooms out there right now are the Arri- Fuji Alura's and they are what T 2.8? and 5 or 6x zooms. The reason for that is not because the lens designers at Fuji are lazy sots, its because that's about all they can make right now to cover a certain sensor size and have the lens perform at the optimum level.
Mark Smith
Veteran
Moore's law does not apply to optics or lenses unfortunately....
Greg Smith
Veteran
The HPX250 uses 1/3" sensors. The AF100 uses a 4/3" sensor. So it's about four times as big in its linear dimensions. (Exact dimensions may differ, but this is just an order-of-magnitude sort of exercise. Bear with me.) To create a lens with the same effective aperture and angle-of-view range as the 22X from the HPX, you'd basically have to multiply all its dimensions by a factor of four. Just put it in your de-miniaturizer machine (steal the one from "Fantastic Voyage" and put the batteries in backwards) and blow it up four times.
Now, you have a lens that is about two and a half feet long, with roughly a 9" diameter front element (the size of a dinner plate). Since the weight goes up as the cube of the linear dimensions, and assuming the lens in the HPX weighs two pounds or so, it would weigh about 128 pounds. (Probably more, in fact, because the metal parts would have to be larger in proportion to support that weight, like an elephant's legs are much thicker than a horse's. And the zoom and focus motors would have to be similarly beefier.) Machining all that glass and metal to precision would probably cost more than x^3, but if we use that as a guideline, you're looking at maybe $100,000 for this beast. And mind you, that's for a lens with a non-constant aperture that loses two stops when you zoom in all the way. If you could pick it up, it might make pretty nice pictures, but we're no longer dealing with a handheld or even shoulder-mounted camera here now.
That's why small-sensor cameras will always have, for the money, faster and wider-range zoom lenses than large-sensor cameras. And that's why ENG crews, for example, typically shoot with small-sensor cameras -- classically 2/3", although the HPX370 is helping to push them smaller.
- Greg
Now, you have a lens that is about two and a half feet long, with roughly a 9" diameter front element (the size of a dinner plate). Since the weight goes up as the cube of the linear dimensions, and assuming the lens in the HPX weighs two pounds or so, it would weigh about 128 pounds. (Probably more, in fact, because the metal parts would have to be larger in proportion to support that weight, like an elephant's legs are much thicker than a horse's. And the zoom and focus motors would have to be similarly beefier.) Machining all that glass and metal to precision would probably cost more than x^3, but if we use that as a guideline, you're looking at maybe $100,000 for this beast. And mind you, that's for a lens with a non-constant aperture that loses two stops when you zoom in all the way. If you could pick it up, it might make pretty nice pictures, but we're no longer dealing with a handheld or even shoulder-mounted camera here now.
That's why small-sensor cameras will always have, for the money, faster and wider-range zoom lenses than large-sensor cameras. And that's why ENG crews, for example, typically shoot with small-sensor cameras -- classically 2/3", although the HPX370 is helping to push them smaller.
- Greg
Does that include a shoulder mount ?
It might be hard to hand-hold without a shoulder mount...
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
+1 Not just NAB though, EVERY trade show is a 12 Month advance dog & pony show. That's why they are called TRADE shows
will be headed to BaselWorld to see what's going to be in retail 12 months from now TTFN !
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Not true really but it does apply MUCH less slowly. so no, no doubling of CPU capability in 18 months but as the computationals get faster, then the design of the optics can be sharper and more precise. Modern optics are due for an overhaul. My Superfocus eyewear is more advanced than most movie lenses
OKCPicker
Active member
I have absolutely no inside information but as long as we're speculating...I'd bet Panny will have some type of large format camera at the $15-20K (like Sony/Canon) price point. It will be a "better" camera than the AF-100. 3 to 4 times better? You all will be the judge. Will it be the "perfect" video camera? Will it be the next "Betacam"? (Panasonic wishes
I agree. This is an amazing little camera considering the price. I am making money with it and it paid for itself months ago. That was a difficult thing to do with $30 - $40K Betacams back in the day. I'm really not concerned with the next version as long as my clients expectations have been exceeded by what they are getting right now. It has far more to do with composition, content, lighting and how efficient you are than anything else. The AF-100 allows us to create beautiful images only if we know what we're doing in the first place.
I'm in business to make clients happy and to make a living. Not a gear slut wallowing in debt.