Seeking DVX200 high production value footage and opinions

puredrifting

puredrifting

Major Contributor
Hi all:

I am a long time Pansonic user and owned the DVX100A, 100B, HVX200A, HPX170, and the HPX300. I switched to Canon a few years ago and have been happy with my C100 and C300 operationally but the C300 MKII's cost and lack of 4K 60P is frustrating to me. OTOH, I have a lot of Canon glass so I may stick with them for quite a while. I need a 4K capable camera and I really don't want to spend $12,000.00 for a C300 MKII though. I may reconsider if Canon drops the price to $10k but the lack of 4K 60p still bugs me. I was able to handle the DVX200 protoype at Panasonic Hollywood when I was there for the Varicam rollout but it was a mock up that was shown under glass at NAB 2015 so I have never shot with the DVX200. I have a few questions and issues I would value opinions on. Seeing the prices with the rebate makes the DVX200 somewhat tempting as a 4K alternative to my rapidly aging Canon EOS cameras. For about half of my work, I could work within the lens limitations of a fixed lens camera.

1. I mostly shoot small crew BTS/EPK and documentaries, but some promos, commercials and high-end corporate. But I occasionally find myself with a client who could use 4k but doesn't have the budget for us to rent a higher end camera. The DVX200 could fulfill a nice niche in servicing clients like this. We are also in production on some pitches and pilots for docu-reality shows where I think the DVX200 could play a role for fast run and gun in 4K, 4K 60P, etc. My reservations about the camera is I keep reading reviews and seeing YouTube samples and frankly, I have not seen anything out of the DVX200 that impresses me as far as footage yet. I know it must be out there, someone who is a full time pro who is using the DVX200 to it's entire potential with killer lighting, movement from gimbal and or Steadicam or motion control slider and high production values. Almost everything I have seen is available light sample or event footage and as I said, none of it has been impressive. The colors look muted, it looks a little soft and noisy. With a 100Mbps or 200Mbps codec option, external recording in 10-bit, green screen composited interviews, etc. combined with good lighting, there must be some footage out there that really shows what the camera is capable of. Would like to see skin tones from V-Log Lite with some quality CC and post work, etc. Anyone shot anything or came across anything with high production values that makes the DVX200 shine and look impressive? Available light event footage just isn't showing me what the camera can do. Looking for well lit interviews, narrative, promo or music video type stuff, if it exists? Also green screen.

2. I had an HPX170 that I really like the color science on, as well as our HPX300 and the second generation Varicams (HPX-3700) that I used to rent. I owned a GH4 that I HATED the color science on. Would you say the color science of the DVX200 is closer to the traditional Panasonic Broadcast/Varicam colors or closer to the GH4? If it looks basically like the GH4, I am out.

3. Is anyone shooting their DVX200 with a Shogun Inferno or Odyssey 7Q+? I would like to know how 10 bit out to Prores HQ 4K looks versus internal codec? I shoot a lot of green screen so clean 4K 10-bit is important to my work.

4. What about run & gun, do most of you just hand hold it or are any of you adapting the camera to a shoulder mount baseplate, rods, etc? Any tips on what the hot setup is? While I used to shoot a lot of run and gun with the HPX-170, the larger size and heavier weight on the DVX200 makes me wonder if holding the camera out from your body for extended periods of time gets fatiguing? I shoot documentary and a lot of BTS footage on TV shows all over the place sometimes operate handheld all day long in the heat, rain, etc. I use a smallrig baseplate, rods, add-on shoulder mount, Zacuto grip relocater, counterweight, etc. on my Canons, what would be the hot set up to do the same with the DVX200?

Thank you for your opinions and input.
 
Here is some good footage:

Honestly I have not been shooting that much with the DVX200 yet, but still enough to give up with Vlog-L and external recorders.
The gain in IQ and dynamic range (if any, really) is not worth the hassle for my type of work. Plus, I like the colors of Scene 4 much more than those of Vlog.
I find the 4'' monitor ok to pull focus and judge WB, so I have no need to attach my 501 either.

I love the ergonomics and the OS lens. The camera is not light but balances very well.

I plan to shoot more in the coming month, now that I've sold my Fs5.
 
diegocervo said:
Here is some good footage:

Honestly I have not been shooting that much with the DVX200 yet, but still enough to give up with Vlog-L and external recorders.
The gain in IQ and dynamic range (if any, really) is not worth the hassle for my type of work. Plus, I like the colors of Scene 4 much more than those of Vlog.
I find the 4'' monitor ok to pull focus and judge WB, so I have no need to attach my 501 either.

I love the ergonomics and the OS lens. The camera is not light but balances very well.

I plan to shoot more in the coming month, now that I've sold my Fs5.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the links. These are decent but still nothing with much lighting, almost all exteriors or ambient lit interiors. Is anyone using this camera to shoot reality programming or talking heads documentaries? I'd really love to see a beautifully lit interior, either narrative or talking head that shows the 12 stops of V-Log L. I observed the same when I held the prototype, it's a pretty hefty little beast but seems well balanced. How is the audio? The audio on all of my P2 cameras was always pretty good. Audio on our current EOS C100/300 is decent, nothing amazing but wouldn't want to take a step down. The colors particularly in the bottom clip were encouraging, nice detail and saturation but I am still missing a variety of people/actors/spokespeople in various lighting scenarios, it would be great to see what the skin tones really look like.
 
pancam said:
here is a small selection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2ptee5DPQ&spfreload=10
Click to expand...

Appreciate the link, the shots look fine but very little with faces, people doing things in detail/CU like I would shoot for a doc. I'm shooting a documentary about a Brazilain musician beginning next month, for the next six months all around the U.S. and Brazil. It would be nice to find a high-end people-centric doc shot with this camera, esepcially something for broadcast or theatrical. But don't know if that exists? The people shots beginning at 3:26 are not bad but not impressive, just available light event type stuff.
 
puredrifting, you may want to put the UX180 on your consideration list as well, because it does most everything the DVX200 does but has two specific advantages that you might find suitable to your work:
1) it's two pounds lighter. The difference between a 6lb camera and a 4lb camera is very noticeable, especially at the end of a long day.
2) it has no additional crop when going to UHD/60p. The DVX200's wide angle is limited to about a 37mm equivalent when in UHD/60p, which you may or may not find limiting; the UX180 maintains a 25mm equivalent in UHD/60p.

The DVX200's advantages over the UX180 are that its sensor is twice as big, it has 10-bit output, and it has VLOG-L and a few more variable frame rates, and can be sharper in 4K/UHD. The UX180's advantages over the DVX200 are that it's 2 lbs lighter, it has a 20x zoom vs. 13x, and its wide angle FOV is 24mm vs. DVX's 28mm, its in-camera 1080p looks better, and it's less expensive. There are some other minor changes throughout, but those are the main differentiating features.

Either way, both cameras have a 16-pole color adjustment menu, 5 color matrices, 8 gamma curves, full control over the knee, and adjustable black gamma. You can make them look pretty much exactly like a GH4 (if that's what you want, which I know it isn't), or you can paint them to look like whatever else you want.
 
To have high production value video from DVX200, DVX200 needs to have been hired onto a high production value project. That's not really ever going to happen as 1. it wasn't intended to be the A camera on a big budget production, though it can certainly do it, but there are better cameras for that. High production value television prefers full-size shoulder-mount ENG style cameras, and movies prefer cinema cameras that allow for lens changes and raw recording. Why use a DVX200 when you can have an Alexa or Weapon?

In my experience, the DVX200 is most likely good enough to be a B camera on a Varicam show...the same kinda show that would use GH5's as crash cams. I'm sure all those flavors of V-Log would cut together well. But, I don't see DVX200 being used as an A cam on any high production value project. I certainly haven't used it for anything like that, yet...though I'd like to. I'm hoping to shoot a short film end of March exclusively with the DVX200 and possibly an anamorphic adapter, but I might wind up using my Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K with the new set of SLR Magic APO Hyperprime-Cine lenses I now own. I will finally be using an external recorder to capture 4:2:2 10-bit ProRes out of my DVX200 so I'll be trying that out sometime next week. I'd very much like to use DVX200 on high production value projects as all the reasons I bought the thing are all the reasons I love to use it. Primarily, I love that I can dress it up like a cinema camera, or I can just pull it out of the bag, slap in a battery and a card and I'm rolling. It's my favorite video camera and I use it extensively in the documentary and reality field. I keep trying to do more tests with it to squeeze as much juicy image out of it that I can - and I believe the external recorder will help, an Atomos Ninja Star - but I keep getting my free days filled up and can't seem to get around to it.

Anyway, I'm in the same boat as the OP, except I already own a DVX200 and have never owned a Canon C-series, though I've used them and I much prefer the DVX200. That's a form thing, as I love the DVX/HVX style. I also love Panasonic sensors as their colorimetry seems to favor skin tones in a way that I like. Having a slow fixed-lens is always going to be a major caveat against DVX200, but it wasn't big enough to make me not wanna buy it. Today, I am still quite pleased with my decision to go with DVX200 over a comparable Sony, JVC or Canon. On with the list:

1. I agree there isn't enough examples of impressive DVX200 user footage. I hate tests and the like and I would just love to see some great looking footage, properly lit, CC'd, the works. Acknowledging my original point from earlier...it's going to be tough to find. I haven't shot anything impressive with it either, yet, I don't think. Would love to...maybe I will soon. When I do and I can control the footage I'll definitely share.

2. I used to use an HPX300, as well. Loved the camera, hated the Fuji lens that came with it. I believe that color science lives on in an up-to-date DVX200. You can make the camera look like a GH4 by using a certain scene file setting, but you don't have to. The colors are far more vibrant and the skintones look far better in other scene settings or a custom one. The ability to create custom picture profiles like that was a huge plus, as I remembered using it the same way on the HPX300 and HVX200.

3. I just got a Ninja Star and intend to go DCI 4K 24p output to 1080 24p 10-bit ProRes HQ 422 and then grade the living crap out of the footage. I will do tests with all the scene files, plus V-log L. I am pretty certain it will be as big a difference as it was going from a Canon T2i to a Blackmagic Cinema Camera (10-bit ProRes, not 12-bit DNG raw).

4. I hand-hold mine like a boss. Also, on stupidly long shoots (like sports) I will use a monopod. For interviews and other locked-down or smooth panning shots I have my trusty Sachtler Video 18 head...which is incredibly heavy compared to even a rigged out DVX200. If I were going to trick it out with some kind of shoulder rig, rods, etc, I would start with SmallRig as their products haven't let me down yet. I have plans on upgrading the hood to a Genus matte box as it'd be nice to finally have an eyebrow on certain shoots. Other than that, I really have no plans on doing any of that to my DVX200, but maybe some other guys can chime in. I know I've seen dudes with Tilta baseplates, Chrosziel matteboxes, etc, etc, so it's happening.

I hope this kinda helps.

TL;DR: Why use DVX200 on a production that can afford Alexa? What a shame, anyway, because I think DVX200 is rather capable.
 
You mentioned that you shoot with Canon (C100, C300) and have alot of their glass. You might want to consider the GH5 with a metabones adapter so you can use your Canon lenses. You won't be any where near the $12K for the MKII. The body of the GH5 is $2k and a Metabones Speed Booster will run you $650. Something you might want to consider.
 
Thanks for the info Jason and Barry. I should clarify, when I say high end, I should have said, "Higher end than available light event footage", not as a replacement for a C300 MKII, RED or Arri Amira. I totally get that sub $4k cameras are generally not the best tool for a given project with a decent budget. But I would like to see someone shoot some pro level broadcast kind of footage/scenarios with it and I bet they have, it's just not easy to locate them. Perhaps an indie film or doc? I found this Adorama sponsored piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guPVpySHrcI shot on it that was okay, nothing amazing but the shots look decent. As stated, I hate the look of the GH4, it is painful to me when I come across the footage I shot with the GH4 also whth the C300. This Panasonic Europe piece has some horrendously bad shots in it but a few decent ones with the dark haired model where at least she is lit interior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF-FN3WTbmY

But the color on my HPX170/300, I was very happy with, and clients loved it too. Lots of broadcast footage I shot on both about five years ago with my HPX170/300 and it still looks good today so if I could get the DVX200 to emulate that look, I would be happy. Coming from mainly shoot S35 imagers for the past few years, I would definitely prefer the 4/3 imager of the DVX200 over the UX-180 and SDI would be nice and 10-bit to record to an Odyssey or Shogun Inferno. I have a Ninja Blade that I use with my cameras and I love it, one of the best pieces of gear I have bought in a long time. But there is a lot of appeal to just shooting with the internal codecs as well and not hanging a big monitor/recorder off of it.
 
Last edited:
I have always been happy shooting with my GH4 outputting to the Atomos ninja flame, 10bit 4:2:2 - footage looks fantastic. The GH5 is suppose to do all that and more, recording directly in camera. The camera isn't out yet so there's not alot of footage to look at. Here is a nice sample that I saw today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX1F1iSe6c4
 
Drifting, I am hoping for a PX level DVX200 camera from Panasonic that improves upon the DVX200. I borrowed one for a day and tried to make it look like my PX270. The color hues can be bent very well but I just did not like the overall look of the camera. I could not avoid a black crush no matter what I did. It just fell a little short for me. I say this because I know you have a good eye and in my opinion the DVX200's sensor is just a little challenged. Though it is a very useful tool and I do not discourage folks from owning it as it is a great design approach. I am picky though.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Drifting, I am hoping for a PX level DVX200 camera from Panasonic that improves upon the DVX200. I borrowed one for a day and tried to make it look like my PX270. The color hues can be bent very well but I just did not like the overall look of the camera. I could not avoid a black crush no matter what I did. It just fell a little short for me. I say this because I know you have a good eye and in my opinion the DVX200's sensor is just a little challenged. Though it is a very useful tool and I do not discourage folks from owning it as it is a great design approach. I am picky though.
Click to expand...

Hi Bassman:

Thank you for your input. There are several things that are a red flag for me as I research this camera. The first is Matthew Allard's six part, comprehensive review of the camera http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/08/...-part-1-camera-overview-ergonomics-and-build/ I like Matthew's writing and he seems to be a knowledgable DP. His main comment that concerns me is that the DVX200, overall, skews toward Magenta. If I am going to go Magenta skin tones, I might as well buy a Sony. Upon further investigation, I now believe that the DVX200 actually skews it's color science very much toward the GH4, which is a shame because I feel the GH4 looks bad. It's weird, I have seen a few things shot on the GH4, a feature even, that looked good, but I know that the footage was heavily massaaged in post. So I guess I should say I strongly dislike the GH4 colors out of the camera, I owned it and two of my best clients were open to using it but ended up hating the footage we shot with it. I quickly sold it off after that, no camera is worth losing clients over. With shooting in V-Log L and heavy post, it may be pushed to look decent but most of my work does not have the luxury of heavy post since I shoot a lot of marketing/PR/EPK content that may get a quick CC pass from the editor but that's about it.

I cannot even shoot C-Log on my Canons because I am afraid that my clients would run the footage or put it on their website as is since they just don't seem to get it about Log. What I may do is just rent the DVX200 from lensrentals.com and shoot some tests, that would sort it right out for me. It's sad too that I have read three different reviews that each complained about the amplified noise levels while shooting V-Log L, which for me, sort of negates ever being able to use it because I would have to not only apply a LUT and CC but also run any edit through Neat Video or something else to just bring the noise levels in line. Then you get that "Photoshop plastic skin look" on your people, no thanks. I reserve Neat Video only for special shots that don't have a lot of people in them. It's too bad because I really want to like the DVX200 but everything I am reading and most of the footage I see straight out of camera doesn't look that good. Other than the few samples I posted, which at least looked better and interesting. I will still rent one and test it.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Hi Bassman:

Thank you for your input. There are several things that are a red flag for me as I research this camera. The first is Matthew Allard's six part, comprehensive review of the camera. I like Matthew's writing and he seems to be a knowledgable DP. His main comment that concerns me is that the DVX200, overall, skews toward Magenta. If I am going to go Magenta skin tones, I might as well buy a Sony. Upon further investigation, I now believe that the DVX200 actually skews it's color science very much toward the GH4, which is a shame because I feel the GH4 looks bad. It's weird, I have seen a few things shot on the GH4, a feature even, that looked good, but I know that the footage was heavily massaaged in post. So I guess I should say I strongly dislike the GH4 colors out of the camera, I owned it and two of my best clients were open to using it but ended up hating the footage we shot with it. I quickly sold it off after that, no camera is worth losing clients over. With shooting in V-Log L and heavy post, it may be pushed to look decent but most of my work does not have the luxury of heavy post since I shoot a lot of marketing/PR/EPK content that may get a CC pass from the editor but that's about it.

I cannot even shoot C-Log on my Canons because I am afraid that my clients would run the footage or put it on their website as is since they just don't seem to get it about Log. What I may do is just rent the DVX200 from lensrentals.com and shoot some tests, that would sort it right out for me. It's sad too that I have read three different reviews that each complained about the amplified noise levels while shooting V-Log L, which for me, sort of negates ever being able to use it because I would have to not only apply a LUT and CC but also run any edit through Neat Video or something else to just bring the noise levels in line. Then you get that "Photoshop plastic skin look" on your people, no thanks. I reserve Neat Video only for special shots that don't have a lot of people in them. It's too bad because I really want to like the DVX200 but everything I am reading and most of the footage I see straight out of camera doesn't look that good. Other than the few samples I posted, which at least looked better and interesting. I will still rent one and test it.
Click to expand...

The DVX200 allows powerful "color correction" in-camera. You can tweak it to your taste with a 16-pole color correction matrix. So, I wouldn't let a "magenta tinge" keep you from purchasing the camera.
 
Larry Chapman said:
The DVX200 allows powerful "color correction" in-camera. You can tweak it to your taste with a 16-pole color correction matrix. So, I wouldn't let a "magenta tinge" keep you from purchasing the camera.
Click to expand...

I am aware of this and mid and high range Sonys offer similar or even more capable tools in camera, but the FS5 and FS7, at least, but to my eye, seem to be incapable of producing warm, natural skin tones like the Canons. The F5 and F55 seem to be able to achieve that look much better, I've shot both my C100/300 and rented C300 MKIIs and seen the same footage cross cut in the same project with other crews who were using the F55 and the end results were that I liked my Canon skin tones and the F55 had been treated to closely resemble my footage and looked very nice. I don't know if not being able to get that look on the FS5 and FS7 is a function of they are lower end cameras and used by lower end users who often perform their own color correction and or grading while users of the F5 and F55, by proxy of their costs, typically get a more comprehensive color correction and grading pass by professional color correction or grading specialists or if the color matrix controls in the two lines (prosumerish FS5/7) vs. (more pro level F5/55) are actually different?

To me, it's sort of the same parameters on the DVX200. If the camera natively skews toward magenta/cyan skin tones, sure you can try to correct that bias using the in-camera controls but if the overall DSP and processing are just not capable of producing warm, pleasing red/yellow warm skin tones like the Canons, Arris, Reds, all you end up doing is eliminating the magenta bias but you are still left with mushy, pastel-like skin tones without rich, warm tones. Have you seen or shot or can post any DVX200 shots of people with warm, rich, Canon-like skin tones? All I see in searching is sort of more pastel-like, mushier skin tones that remind me of what I was getting on the GH4. That look just doesn't work for my clients, they like skin tones like this piece we shot with Canon C100 and C300 of Holly Robinson Peete for AARP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wAw9a9CYkM
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that if you want those creamy and rich tones of Canon, then you shouldn't waste your time looking around. Just stick with Canon.
The DVX is very capable camera, a jack of all trades, with 4K 60p and a plethora of functions for just a few thousands dollars. It's a bargain.
I'm sure that a good colorist (I'm not) can do wonders with it, but it's not something that one can afford on each job.

As usual with cameras, something is always missing. You either take canon colors (which I honestly miss), or the convenience of the DVX200.
 
puredrifting said:
The first is Matthew Allard's six part, comprehensive review of the camera http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/08/...-part-1-camera-overview-ergonomics-and-build/ I like Matthew's writing and he seems to be a knowledgable DP. His main comment that concerns me is that the DVX200, overall, skews toward Magenta.
Click to expand...
Please understand that that series was written when the firmware was on about version 0.30. It was a very early pre-production camera and I can tell you that the cameras that are on the market now are extremely different. There was, in fact, an entire color science revamp done in about version 1.5 which made the camera look so much better that, with all due respect to all the hard work that Mr. Allard put in in his testing, it's not really relevant to the camera that's on the market today.

The DVX200 launch was rough. They changed the color on it a few times. The early versions bear little to no resemblance to the current version. They really got it "fixed" at about version 1.5, and the current cameras are on version 1.8 or later.

Upon further investigation, I now believe that the DVX200 actually skews it's color science very much toward the GH4, which is a shame because I feel the GH4 looks bad.
Click to expand...
Again, you have to take this in context. There was a time when the DVX200 had mediocre color. Then they decided to make it look like the GH4. Then they realized that wasn't the right path to go, so they implemented professional color, and added a separate GH4-like matrix and GH4-like gamma. So you can have it look like whatever you want, you can paint it however you want, and if you want it to look like a GH4 you can get that look by using either my scene files, or using the built-in STILL-LIKE gamma and matrix.

I will still rent one and test it.
Click to expand...
That is, of course, the only way to know.
 
Still think you should consider the GH5, it will work with your canon lenses with a Metabones adapter and it has a great price point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top