Panasonic DVX200 at EVS on August 18th & 19th

You've compared the dvx200' low light against some other cameras, all of which I've never used, how would you say it compares to the trusty ex1 in low light?
 
Barry, my interest is UHD at 60P so am only interested in low light performance better than my FDR-AX1 ( which is really like the HC-X1000) or at HD my NX5U which I expect is not quite as good as the newer AC160. I appreciate the lens/sensor size issue as my Sony AX100 ( 1" sensor max f2.8 ) is if anything slightly less sensitive than my Sony NX30 ( 1/3" max f1.6 ) with similar gain settings.
 
mattjeh said:
You've compared the dvx200' low light against some other cameras, all of which I've never used, how would you say it compares to the trusty ex1 in low light?
Click to expand...

The EX-1 is ~f10 @ 2000lux So pretty much the same as the HPX-250.

Regarding the sensitivity, the only spec I am waiting for is how long one will be able to stay at f2.8 as you zoom through the lens. This will make a lot of people happy or sad.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Regarding the sensitivity, the only spec I am waiting for is how long one will be able to stay at f2.8 as you zoom through the lens. This will make a lot of people happy or sad.
Click to expand...
I placing my bets lower. I'm hoping for constant f/3.5 for the "general narrative focal length range" (28mm x3)
 
Bassman2003 said:
Regarding the sensitivity, the only spec I am waiting for is how long one will be able to stay at f2.8 as you zoom through the lens. This will make a lot of people happy or sad.
Click to expand...
Well, depending on where you're coming from, the news is either slightly encouraging, or cause for weeping and lamentation. If you're used to using the 14-140, then you may be overjoyed (or at least reasonably happy) with this lens, since it maintains pretty much a 2/3 to 3/4 stop advantage over the 14-140 throughout the 14-140's range. Obviously it's a full stop faster at 12.8 vs. the 14-140's 4.0, but over the bulk of the zoom range it's about 3/4 stop faster.

For those of us who were hoping for a long zoom range at f/2.8, well, ... no. The versions I have used ramp off of 2.8 quite quickly.

In terms of actual iris at zoom position, it ramps from 2.8 to 4.0 over the range of 12.8 to about 30.5. Then it holds 4.0 to 4.2 all the way out to about 96mm. It holds 4.5 from 96mm out to 167.

Based on that, if you want to treat it as a fixed-iris zoom, you can think of it as an f4 from about 24mm to 167mm; it's within about 1/3 of a stop of f/4 over that whole range.

If you're shooting HD, you have potentially another option, which is to use the (essentially) visually lossless i.Zoom function, that extends the zoom range up to about 1.54x. So using i.Zoom, you could set the iris at f/2.8 and use a very limited optical zoom (from 12.8 - 13.4mm) and then use the i.Zoom to extend that effective zoom range to 12.8 - 20.6mm. Ain't much, but could be useful in a situation where you're shooting an interview in a small office and you need all the iris you can get to make the shallowest DOF possible.

I know for a fact that the lens in this unit is not final and that the actual lens hardware is going to change before the production version, but I do not expect substantial improvement in the iris positions.

I'm disappointed that it doesn't hold f/2.8 for a lot longer. But I temper that with the notion that I've been using the 14-140, and this lens is approximately 1,000,000,000,000 times better than the 14-140 in every imaginable way, and is about 2/3 to 3/4 stop faster than the 14-140. So in that context, I don't mind it. But it's not a fixed f/2.8 like many of us were hoping for.
 
So with the digital zoom in HD I would get 12.8 x 3mm @ f/3.5? Don't know if I'm happy now or if that would be too tricky (I'm mostly interested in the DVX200 as a HD camera).

I mean, digital zoom would affect sensor size and hence DOF - AND noise grain would become proportionally bigger. These two factors could wipe out the advantage of a slightly faster aperture. I wonder if it would be better to stay @ f/4 in HD.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the info Barry. Sad that the f2.8 is more of a marketing number or "token" f-stop number instead of a real world use approach. I was hoping to keep f2.8 until the FF eq. portrait range (85mm-100mm) for shallow DOF interview use. But I have to say this is a strike against the DVX-200 as an all around camera. f4 with the sensor size is not the greatest compared to a s35, FF or even a GH4 with a fast prime. I am still a fan but this lowers the value and street cred in my eyes.
 
joe 1008 said:
So with the digital zoom in HD I would get 12.8 x 3mm @ f/3.5? Don't know if I'm happy now or if that would be too tricky (I'm mostly interested in the DVX200 as a HD camera).
Click to expand...
Well, yes, at f/3.6 or faster you'd have an optical range from 12.8 to 27.3, and then the i.Zoom (not digital zoom, i.zoom, it's different) would extend that to effectively 42mm. So you'd have the ability to go between 12.8 to 42mm at f/3.6 (or faster, at the wider end). So that would be a 3.3:1 zoom range at that iris. It isn't the most convenient way in the world to work, but it is possible. And only in HD.

I mean, digital zoom would affect sensor size and hence DOF - AND noise grain would become proportionally bigger. These two factors could wipe out the advantage of a slightly faster aperture. I wonder if it would be better to stay @ f/4 in HD.
Click to expand...
Well, the i.Zoom isn't a typical digital zoom. In digital zoom, they blow up the existing footage. In i.zoom, they crop in a little bit further on the sensor, but they still have massive oversampling to work with, so you still get the fully-resolved 1080 image. Digital zoom is a complete loss in resolution right off the bat; if you go to 2x digital zoom, it's basically doubling every pixel, so half resolution. In i.zoom, it's still fully resolved 1080 footage.

In the HC-X1000, the i.zoom goes to a full 2x, and when zoomed in at 2x you do see definitely more noise. In i.zoom, it's limited to 1.54x and the grain still looks very good.

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution, just that it's a possible option for those who are shooting 1080.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I was hoping to keep f2.8 until the FF eq. portrait range (85mm-100mm) for shallow DOF interview use.
Click to expand...
Me too. Unfortunately, it isn't; it's f/4 up to about 85mm equivalent. Beyond that it's f/4.2 So it's not night and day different, it's just a stop different. That stop counts, I know, but it's not like the 14-140 where it was more like 1.5-1.8 stops different.

But I have to say this is a strike against the DVX-200 as an all around camera. f4 with the sensor size is not the greatest compared to a s35, FF or even a GH4 with a fast prime. I am still a fan but this lowers the value and street cred in my eyes.
Click to expand...
I do agree; that's one reason why I was very glad to see that the street price is quite a bit lower than what we were originally thinking. I think the price is reasonable given the functionality that the camera has, but as a buyer I would have been concerned if they'd priced it at $5,000. At $4195 it's much easier to accept that it's generally an f4 lens.
 
We had a steady flow of people yesterday and should have more today.....most were glad to get there hands on the camera, see live footage in 4K, a get a real "feel" of how the camera is going to perform....and we got some orders....SO, if you are in town, come on down!

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
818-552-4590
 
Barry_Green said:
It's not a super low-light monster -- if your entire camera-shopping priority consists of the question "how is it in low light", then you probably aren't the target market for the DVX200. It's about comparable, maybe a little better, than the AC160/HPX250/PX270 series in those terms. But if you've got sufficient light, the pictures it makes are exquisite... and its usability is simply unparalleled for a large-sensor camera in this price bracket, or anywhere near this price bracket, especially for a 4K camera...
Click to expand...


Barry, perhaps I missed something but in the main DVX200 thread you implied that the DVX200 with high sensitivity boost and shooting in HD should deliver good results through ISO4000, only some small luma noise but clean chroma. This would seem to indicate that it should be better than the listed cameras, even including the dimmer lens on the DVX200. Yet, you say that they are roughly equivalent. I am sure I missed something obvious but could you please tell me where i went wrong in my reasoning.
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
Barry, perhaps I missed something but in the main DVX200 thread you implied that the DVX200 with high sensitivity boost and shooting in HD should deliver good results through ISO4000, only some small luma noise but clean chroma. This would seem to indicate that it should be better than the listed cameras, even including the dimmer lens on the DVX200. Yet, you say that they are roughly equivalent. I am sure I missed something obvious but could you please tell me where i went wrong in my reasoning.
Click to expand...
Well, there are two different criteria here we're talking about. One is "if set to the same noise level, how do they compare?" And on that basis, I am saying that the general performance, once the lens difference is factored in, is generally comparable.

The other criteria is: "how far can you push it?" In my experience, in HD mode, I'd be perfectly happy pushing the DVX200 to at least 2000 ISO, and perhaps 4000, depending on what shooting mode (4K or HD, VLOG or no VLOG, etc).

The missing piece here is: how far would I feel comfortable pushing the 1/3" cameras? And I didn't run that test. It's possible that they'd remain comparable at comparable levels of gain, or it's possible that the DVX200 would pull ahead, I don't know. The gain performance from the HMC40 to the AC90 was tremendously improved; the AC90 showed practically no increase in grain from 0dB up to maybe 12dB, and beyond that it seemed to just get "flatter". The HC-X1000 seems to have gain performance more in line with the HMC40. From my initial testing on the DVX200, it seems to be somewhere inbetween. There is an increase in grain as you gain up the ISO, but it doesn't seem to get as grainy as the HMC40 did (unless you go to the extremes, 16000 and 32000 ISO).

Now, doubtless there are people who are going to pixel-peep and say "bah, I can see noise in the shadows even at 500 ISO." Well, yes, if you pixel-peep, you will see noise, surprise surprise. But I've had four people gathered around a 4K monitor, at 3-4 feet distance, and challenged them to look for noise, and all of us came back saying basically "ain't none", as in -- yes, it's there if you stare, but in general there just isn't anything there to pay attention to. So it's a question of: are we asking if it's noise-free, or are we asking -- would a reasonable person at a reasonable viewing distance say that the image is noisy? I'm saying that no, in my opinion a reasonable person would not look at DVX200 footage on a monitor at a reasonable viewing distance and say "ugh, that's noisy." It's not that there's no noise, it's that it just isn't an issue in reasonable viewing distances. I have used an Odyssey 7Q+, it has the ability to magnify the image at a zoom ratio of 4:1 or more, and yes, you can see lots of noise if you blow the image up to 400%. But if you play it out on a 40" 4K TV, it just looks really, really good. In my opinion.
 
Does this camera have the same bayo mount as the hpx170? Hoping to use the century extreme fisheye on it since they are both 72mm filter thread cameras
 
We checked out the 16 x 9 wide angle adapter, converter, and fisheye.....they all screwed on fine but the WA adapter and fisheye showed a fair amount of CA in the outer areas. Now the fisheye's CA was ok enough to use, giving it a "artsy" look, you probably wouldn't like what the WA adapter did. The WA converter seemed acceptable. We are trying to see what Century has to offer.....

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top