Now that the DVX200 has an official ship date...

ShawnMi

ShawnMi

Active member
Is anyone here planning to take a second look at it? It didn't seem like there was much enthusiasm for the DVX200 at NAB this year. If anything, AF100 owners seemed generally disappointed, while GH4 shooters seemed indifferent. Has anything changed for any of you? My personal feeling is that I'm not nearly as comfortable paying 5k (or more) for an 8bit 4:2:0 camera. I might have been able to live with the fixed lens (maybe)... but MP4? So many nice features... such a lackluster CODEC.

Shawn
 
Ah sorry, no. I don't usually go to the Industry News & Information forum. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Shawn
 
There's lots of nonsense back and forth in that thread, but if you make it through, you'll learn a lot more about the camera.
 
ShawnMi said:
Is anyone here planning to take a second look at it? It didn't seem like there was much enthusiasm for the DVX200 at NAB this year. If anything, AF100 owners seemed generally disappointed, while GH4 shooters seemed indifferent. Has anything changed for any of you? My personal feeling is that I'm not nearly as comfortable paying 5k (or more) for an 8bit 4:2:0 camera. I might have been able to live with the fixed lens (maybe)... but MP4? So many nice features... such a lackluster CODEC.

Shawn
Click to expand...


The nature of most of what I do being what it is, assuming the finished product doesn't suck (and some of the stills Noel Evens has posted makes me think it won't), I'll probably be selling my AF100 and HMC150 to buy it... should make a good replacement for both (for me). I'll keep the GH4 for when the DVX's lens won't cut it (it's grown on me way too much). B&H has it on pre-order for $4,200, which seems about right for it (adjusted for inflation, that's cheaper than the AC160 at launch).

The last few dozen or so pages of the above mentioned thread have some of the best info. Newsshooter.com is halfway through a 4-part review of a pre-release model.
 
Wow, that is an epic thread. You're right, there's a fair amount of noise, but it was worth reading about some of the issues at this stage of development. Looking forward to seeing what the images from the release camera will look like.
 
Mike Harvey said:
The nature of most of what I do being what it is, assuming the finished product doesn't suck (and some of the stills Noel Evens has posted makes me think it won't), I'll probably be selling my AF100 and HMC150 to buy it... should make a good replacement for both (for me). I'll keep the GH4 for when the DVX's lens won't cut it (it's grown on me way too much). B&H has it on pre-order for $4,200, which seems about right for it (adjusted for inflation, that's cheaper than the AC160 at launch).

The last few dozen or so pages of the above mentioned thread have some of the best info. Newsshooter.com is halfway through a 4-part review of a pre-release model.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw the review. I'm looking forward to reading more as it becomes available. I'm also really curious to see what the uptake by AF100 owners is going to be. What about the DVX200 appeals to you?

Shawn
 
ShawnMi said:
Yes, I saw the review. I'm looking forward to reading more as it becomes available. I'm also really curious to see what the uptake by AF100 owners is going to be. What about the DVX200 appeals to you?

Shawn
Click to expand...

Two things.

I miss the wonderful ease of use of my old DVX100b.

I actually like that crazy red panel.
 
ShawnMi said:
...What about the DVX200 appeals to you?

Shawn
Click to expand...

It seems like they stuck my HMC150, AF100, and GH4 in a blender... the ease of use for run and gun-ish stuff of my HMC150 (never having to swap lenses while in the middle of recording a surgery? "Wait... Doc... can you remake that incision? I was changing lenses..." :grin: ), the codecs of my GH4 (I think this whole non-4:2:2 thing is overblown, at least at this price point), and lot of the handy aspects of my AF100. The big gripe for me is the speed of the lens, but if it's as clean at higher ISO's as Barry says it is, I can live with it... most interviews I shoot are between f/3.5 and f/4.5 anyways.

I mean, it's an HMC150 with a 4/3 sensor... or a AF100 with a fixed servo lens. Either way, this is the camera I would have bought it came out at the same time as the AF100.
 
ShawnMi said:
I'm also really curious to see what the uptake by AF100 owners is going to be. What about the DVX200 appeals to you?
Click to expand...

I'm an AF100 owner and intend to pre-order the DVX200 in the next couple of weeks.

I'm actually a three-Panasonic family, so to speak. I still have my now five year old HMC80, but it has been completely eclipsed by my new (since April) PX270. That is and will probably remain my workhorse. Much of my stuff ends up in the broadcast realm, even if only the local PBS station, and there's no question about the PX270's formats being acceptable under their standards. The long zoom and very sensitive power zoom control are important to me as well, and the low light performance in ordinary interiors is reasonably good, even if not stellar.

The AF100 gets used mainly for interviews, these days, where I can control the lighting and like to use fast lenses for narrow DOF. Its known limitations with sharpness and dynamic range aren't terrible handicaps for this work. I also use it for some very-long-lens work outdoors, and for close-up and macro shooting.

The DVX200 will fill a couple of gaps for me. It will allow me to dip my toes into 4K if the situation demands, although I expect FHD will continue to be my mainstream format for a while yet. It gives me another handheld unit for ENG style interviews and B-roll, and looks to be something I can hand to a student in more-or-less auto mode when doing free-form documentary and events coverage. (I work in a high school, and help cover a lot of lectures and events there, sometimes with very inexperienced help.) But the big sensor means I can get a different kind of look from the PX270 while using it in the same kinds of environments, and makes it suitable for more formally staged and lit interviews and performances as well. A wide range zoom with a servo that can do very subtle adjustments and smooth ramps in and out are super important to me, as is a quality audio system with XLRs and decent headphone monitoring. And I despise having to build up complex rigs with lots of cables, power supplies and external equipment just to cover these basics.

I don't intend to get rid of the AF100 right away. When I need F1.4 DOF, a 600mm tele, a macro, or the 12-35mm f2.8 for an impromptu walkabout or interview in a darkish room, none of my other cameras can really do the job as well. What pretty certainly will happen is that I'll be donating the old HMC80 -- there's nothing it does that the PX270 can't handle (often a whole lot) better.

I'm with many of the rest here in wishing the AF200 had turned out to have a faster lens and internal 4:2:2 recording. I also wish it weighed a pound and a half and sold for $19.95 complete with case and tripod, but as Barry Green would say, it is what it is, and the price is fair for what you're getting. (And tongue firmly in cheek, I wish they would offer the side panels in a choice of colors and finishes, even though the red is very sexy.)

- Greg
 
Last edited:
ShawnMi said:
Yes, I saw the review. I'm looking forward to reading more as it becomes available. I'm also really curious to see what the uptake by AF100 owners is going to be. What about the DVX200 appeals to you?

Shawn
Click to expand...
For me as I do shoot a variety of stuff the Rocker Zoom and color science works well. I have a HPX170 for events and this is clearly a step up.
 
Mike Harvey said:
It seems like they stuck my HMC150, AF100, and GH4 in a blender... the ease of use for run and gun-ish stuff of my HMC150 (never having to swap lenses while in the middle of recording a surgery? "Wait... Doc... can you remake that incision? I was changing lenses..." :grin: ), the codecs of my GH4 (I think this whole non-4:2:2 thing is overblown, at least at this price point), and lot of the handy aspects of my AF100. The big gripe for me is the speed of the lens, but if it's as clean at higher ISO's as Barry says it is, I can live with it... most interviews I shoot are between f/3.5 and f/4.5 anyways.

I mean, it's an HMC150 with a 4/3 sensor... or a AF100 with a fixed servo lens. Either way, this is the camera I would have bought it came out at the same time as the AF100.
Click to expand...

All fair points. It sounds like the DVX200 might be a great camera for you. For me, shooting for chromakey has recently become a bigger part of my job, so 10bit 4:2:2 and 12bit raw are a lot more important than they used to be. That's why I was hoping for something like the DVX200, but with M4/3 lens mount and AVCIntra. If the URSA mini 4.6k doesn't completely suck, Panasonic may have to wait another 7 or 8 years to see any more of my money.

Shawn
 
The more I learn about this camera the more I like it. I'm not overly fond of m4/3rds size sensors despite having used them for the last several years. But this appears to be a good all around versatile camera, It would have come in handy last night when shooting interviews solo in a run n gun scenario. Curious to learn how this camera does with facial rec. with the Panasonic lenses on it.
 
NorBro said:
The URSA Mini 4.6K will be in a different league...world's apart.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's certainly a camera made for a different audience. I'm mostly a post guy, so I really appreciate BMD's sensor in a box with a high quality recorder behind it approach, and I've really come to love the color science of the 2.5k Cinema Camera and the Pocket Cinema Camera, much more than that of the AF100. That said, BMD doesn't have nearly the experience with quality control as Panasonic does, so flaws in design or picture quality should be expected. The question will be whether those flaws will be deal breakers or not. Honestly, for the work I do, I can make a case for the Ursa Mini or the DVX200. I just think it will come down to which camera can deliver the best picture for its respective price point, with the least amount of hassle. On paper, I think that will be the Ursa Mini. If I’m wrong, I will rethink my opinion on $4,000.00 cameras that only record 8bit 4:2:0 internally. :-)

Shawn
 
ShawnMi said:
All fair points. It sounds like the DVX200 might be a great camera for you. For me, shooting for chromakey has recently become a bigger part of my job, so 10bit 4:2:2 and 12bit raw are a lot more important than they used to be. That's why I was hoping for something like the DVX200, but with M4/3 lens mount and AVCIntra. If the URSA mini 4.6k doesn't completely suck, Panasonic may have to wait another 7 or 8 years to see any more of my money.

Shawn
Click to expand...

So my question is, how much of a pain in the rear is it for you and both how you in particular work and the particular type of work you do to shoot 4k and downconvert in post, or to hook up something like a BMD Video Assist?
 
Mike Harvey said:
So my question is, how much of a pain in the rear is it for you and both how you in particular work and the particular type of work you do to shoot 4k and downconvert in post, or to hook up something like a BMD Video Assist?
Click to expand...

Good questions. I assume you’re asking about doing a 4k downscale with the DVX200 or using an external recorder with it, vs shooting 1080p on the Ursa Mini? I don’t think down conversion or external recording are bad options at all… I would have to know if the signal coming off the DVX200 was really a 10bit signal though. Then again, the Ursa Mini can also shoot 12bit raw, so I can’t rule that out… or the purported 15 stops of DR. I think it would be easier to get the picture I want out of the Ursa Mini, but who knows. I’ll judge it when and if it ships.


EDIT: Answering your question more directly - for what I do and how I work, down conversion or external recording wouldn't be much of a hassle. I would however, prefer to have a better recorder built into the camera.

Shawn
 
Last edited:
I had a look at the DVX 200 from a Panasonic rep in Miami. Its a suitable run n gun camera. It can't deliver super shallow depth of field for interviews. It's heavy for a small camera.
 
Bucknfl said:
I had a look at the DVX 200 from a Panasonic rep in Miami. Its a suitable run n gun camera. It can't deliver super shallow depth of field for interviews. It's heavy for a small camera.
Click to expand...

Can you define what you mean by "super shallow depth of field for interviews"? I usually shoot most interviews between f/3 and f/4.5 on my AF100 and GH4 in order to keep the head in focus, so I'm curious how you shoot.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Can you define what you mean by "super shallow depth of field for interviews"? I usually shoot most interviews between f/3 and f/4.5 on my AF100 and GH4 in order to keep the head in focus, so I'm curious how you shoot.
Click to expand...
It certainly doesn't do the paper-thin DOF one would get off of, say, a full-frame DSLR with an 85mm/1.2 lens.

We just shot some interviews today, a two-person interview so the lens was necessarily wider; we ended up running at 47mm and f/4. It looks nice. But if someone wants that super-hyper-thin DOF where the pupils are in focus but the nose and ears are out of focus, it's more difficult to get with a DVX200. You can get it, you'd just need to back up and zoom all the way in, so you'd need a lot of space to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top