Low light performance is poor, but the real deal-breaker as far as I can see is the lack of a wide end. If you're stuck like a pig in mud, with a fixed lens, the lens should at least be usable. I cannot understand why there is so much at the long end (360-380) and so little at the wide - I'd happily give up anything longer than 200mm in exchange for a few mil at the wide - 28-29mm... are you kidding me? I'm not asking for 14 or even 18, but why doesn't it at least go to 24? And don't say adapters, because the whole point of a fixed lens is the convenience, if I have to get involved with that nonsense, I'd sooner not have a fixed lens at least I'd have options.
Now that the DVX200 has an official ship date...
- Thread starter ShawnMi
- Start date
Mike Harvey
Veteran
The lens is 12.8mm at the wide end, but they're advertising it as "35mm equivalent = 28mm". On my 12-35mm lens, it starts to fisheye a bit at around that width, and it's more than plenty wide for most situations.
12-35 in m4/3 is 24-70 FF (35mm) equivalent, which makes sense - I'd be happy with that. I find it necessary for interiors, though 18 is better for smaller spaces - and depending on what you shoot, fisheyeing may or may not be an issue. But in any case, yeah, I'd live with 24-70. But that's not what you have here - The specs say:
35mm Equivalent
DCI 4K: 29.5 ~ 384.9mm
UHD 4K/HD: 28 ~ 365.3mm
As I'm sure you're aware every mm on the wide end makes a huge difference (and minimal difference on the long end past about 70). I mean there's a huge difference between 24 and 28/29. And truth be told, I feel uncomfortable working at the very end of a zoom range anyway, I like to have a bit of a margin - even if I want to work at 24 and the zoom is rated as 24-70, often there can start to be slight aberrations at that 24, so it would be better if it were, say, 22 or 18 I'd feel more comfortable working at 24 on a 18-35 zoom. Bottom line, we have a fixed slightly slowish zoom with an unacceptable wide end and oodles and oodles of unnecessary long end (of course, if you're using the dvx200 to record wild life, that's different).
Barry_Green
Moderator
Sure, everyone always wants wide, but -- what you're asking for has never been done, as far as I know, and likely for good (engineering and cost) reasons.
The original DVX100 had a 32.5mm equiv. lens.
The EX1 had a 31.4mm equiv. lens.
The AC160 has a 28mm equiv. lens.
The HPX250 has a 28mm equiv. lens.
The PX270 has a 28mm equiv. lens.
The JVC HM100 has a 39mm equiv. lens.
The Sony NX100 has a 35.5mm equiv. lens.
The Sony AX1 has a 31.5mm equiv. lens.
The Canon XF100 had a 30.4mm equiv. lens.
The Canon XF305 has a 29.3mm equiv. lens.
The Canon XC10 has a 27.3mm equiv. lens.
While I'd be delighted with an 18mm equivalent, that hasn't stopped me from being able to work with the full range of fixed-lens camcorders that have 28mm-equivalent lenses, and I'd dare say the scads of EX1s and other fixed-lens camcorders that have been sold, have shown that even a 31mm equivalent isn't exactly a great big problem for a whole lot of folks.
I'm not saying wider isn't better, I'm saying that it doesn't sound appropriate to be lambasting and ridiculing the choice of a 28mm lens for a fixed-lens camera, when in fact the prevailing standard for fixed-lens cameras is 28mm... the DVX200 has almost the widest equivalent lens that's ever been offered on a fixed-lens camcorder.
The original DVX100 had a 32.5mm equiv. lens.
The EX1 had a 31.4mm equiv. lens.
The AC160 has a 28mm equiv. lens.
The HPX250 has a 28mm equiv. lens.
The PX270 has a 28mm equiv. lens.
The JVC HM100 has a 39mm equiv. lens.
The Sony NX100 has a 35.5mm equiv. lens.
The Sony AX1 has a 31.5mm equiv. lens.
The Canon XF100 had a 30.4mm equiv. lens.
The Canon XF305 has a 29.3mm equiv. lens.
The Canon XC10 has a 27.3mm equiv. lens.
While I'd be delighted with an 18mm equivalent, that hasn't stopped me from being able to work with the full range of fixed-lens camcorders that have 28mm-equivalent lenses, and I'd dare say the scads of EX1s and other fixed-lens camcorders that have been sold, have shown that even a 31mm equivalent isn't exactly a great big problem for a whole lot of folks.
I'm not saying wider isn't better, I'm saying that it doesn't sound appropriate to be lambasting and ridiculing the choice of a 28mm lens for a fixed-lens camera, when in fact the prevailing standard for fixed-lens cameras is 28mm... the DVX200 has almost the widest equivalent lens that's ever been offered on a fixed-lens camcorder.
Last edited:
Off the top of my head, the Canon XA20 is 26.8; I'm not "ridiculing", I'm pointing out a significant weakness. That weakness is a fixed lens - if you are boxing people in with a fixed lens, then the least you can do is provide a range that's usable. I don't think a wide of 28 is enough, while giving extravagant 380 at the long end. Zooms that are wider and faster exist, so I don't know what the issue here is, maybe, as you point out, it's economic, but regardless of what the reason is for providing a crippled zoom range on the wide end, it remains crippled... and it's not technical reasons, since wider and faster zooms do exist.
There's more to it than that. According to the Panasonic spec, in the various modes:
so I believe the 28mm equivalent corresponds to HD only - when it's using the max 15.49 megapixel.
Use those figures and do the maths, and the corresponding wide angle equivalents are:
4K/24p - 30.1mm
UHD/29.97p - 30.7mm
UHD/59.94p - 37.3mm
Well, as I said in the other thread, at least it HAS a 60p mode when shooting 3840x2160, which not all cameras do! But it comes at the complete loss of any wide angle.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Be careful not assume your own needs are necessarily the needs of everyone else'. What you consider a significant weakness is going to be a non-issue for a lot of folks. I find the range extremely usable... frankly, I wish it had a longer zoom, closer to that of the numerous other fixed lens cameras out there. It's roughly the same range as my HMC150, and for events, I sometimes find that lens frustratingly slightly short. But at the wide end, for a large number of folks... especially those coming from fixed lens cameras like those Barry mentioned... this should be plenty wide.
It's a jack of all trades camera, trying to bridge the gap between the fixed 1/3" and 1/2" cams and the large sensor cams. They probably could have improved the range, but it would have been at the cost of either the already slightly dissapointing iris, or by making it more expensive. Jack of all trades, master of none.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Ah -- well, see, here's the fundamental issue then. You don't understand this camcorder. The fixed lens is not a "weakness" -- it is, in fact, the primary reason someone would consider buying a DVX200. You don't buy a DVX200 "in spite" of its fixed lens, you buy it specifically *because" of its fixed lens! The whole point of this camera is to be a fixed-lens, servo-zoom, autofocus/auto-iris/image-stabilized camcorder, but with a big sensor.
It's not an AF100 with a fixed lens, it's an HPX250 with a big sensor.
If you have an aversion to a fixed lens, then this camera will never make sense to you. This is the camera for those who long for the flexibility and freedom that the fixed lenses of the past provided, while also wanting a big sensor and shallow DOF.
Well, that's the crux, isn't it? You're saying it's "unusable" -- by that definition, you'd have to say the original DVX100 was unusable, the EX1 was unusable, and basically every fixed lens camcorder ever made was unusable.
On the counterpoint, I'm saying that a whole lot of fixed lens camcorders have been used quite a bit over the last 20 years, and the DVX200 has a wider lens than almost every one of them. Therefore... I don't think that most people will find it unusable. You might not find it useful for your purposes, but then again, you wouldn't be able to do what you need with any other fixed-lens camcorder either, so ... perhaps your work just isn't suited to fixed-lens cameras. That's fine if that's the way it is, but there's a world of difference between "It's unusable" and "I can't use it."
Please show me one 13x zoom lens that supports a large sensor (4/3" or larger) and is wider than the DVX's, and also faster. What you're describing does not exist.
Seriously though -- using a term like "crippled" when it supports the same or wider wide angle than practically every other professional fixed-lens camera that's ever been made? I think you're misapplying the word.
You can't make an exact comparison unless the coverage area of the sensor is IDENTICAL in each case, and just because two 4/3 nominal sensors are involved doesn't mean that's the case. It seems the EXACT area used in the DVX200 is slightly less than on your camera - hence the 35mm equivalent is slightly more telephoto, even though the actual focal lengths may be the same.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There are options. When recording UHD/60P, it does effectively have a longer zoom because of the aforementioned crop; it becomes effectively a 484mm lens. Or, when shooting FHD, you can use the i.Zoom, which gives you up to a 1.54x effective sensor zoom, so you'd have the equivalent of a 560mm lens.
Um, I'm not brain damaged, I do understand that it's a fixed lens camera: I'm on topic here - responding to the OP's request for feedback on the dvx200 from the perspective of af100 users. It is therefore legitimate to point out that from a af100 user point of view, the fixed lens situation on the dvxuser is a significant limitation/crippling, because of the range limitation of the provided zoom at the wide end. Had the dvx200 had a wider end - of at the very least 24mm - then an af100 user might be able to live with a zoom like that, was my point. As is, it's unacceptable, because that's not a usable range at the wide end. So to restate my point: if you want to reach af100 users with the dvx200 with fixed lens, you need to make that a usable zoom at the wide end. Sorry, but 28mm is in no way adequate at the wide end - what do you do in smaller spaces? My feedback to the OP is: this zoom is a deal-breaker for many af100 users.
Now, comparing the range of the dvx200 against other fixed lens camcorders is a separate matter, but then again, it's a self-selecting market, isn't it - those who need wider than 28mm are not going to be interested; this doesn't mean that if someone came out with a better range you wouldn't suddenly significantly expand the market. I'm sure there are many who would be interested in all the advantages of a fixed lens camcorder, if only it didn't have such an abysmal wide end.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Fair enough... but keep in mind an awful lot of us AF100 users had to make do with the lack of a fixed servo zoom
The AF100 has been co-opted into roles I don't think it was ever really intended for. The DVX200 helps fix that. For your situation, it can suck and I can see why. But I too also shoot in incredibly cramped spaces (medical exam rooms), and it's sort of a non-issue.
I think a better way of framing it is "if you need an extremely wide angle lens, it's going to be difficult to use"
Last edited:
Yes, but the EX1 does have a wide angle adapter made by Schneider Century that has compensation for barrel distortion built into the camera. It is in the camera's menu and the adapter was sold through Sony. I use it a lot. Be nice if the DVX200 had a similar arrangement.