Seeking DVX200 high production value footage and opinions

Barry_Green said:
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.


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.


That is, of course, the only way to know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed message Barry, I was hoping you would chime in. Another user sent me some clips off line where he made the DVX200 look pretty good, much better than any skin tones I have seen on-line. Good to know about all of the firmware and color science revamps, I had no idea and it's nice to hear that the engineers at Panasonic are still so responsive to our requests and needs. It would be interesting to paint it to more of a red/yellow bias on skin tones. I have a couple of clients who crave warm skin tones, they love it and often have me white balance to some pretty ridiculous cplor temps in order to get them. I always explain that we have this program called Resolve and it's better to shoot flat and do this in post but they are not good at CC although they are good editors so I give them what they ask for. It will cost me about $280.00 to rent a DVX200 for a weekend to shoot all kinds of tests with it, interiors, exteriors, some 1080 green screen into my Ninja Blade as a preview of buying a Shogun Inferno to shoot 4K green screen.

I really like my Canons but they are leaving a huge gap in the market without a sub-$12k 4k pro camera that the DVX200 could fulfill for me possibly. I love the Varicam LT, but even with all of the rebates, I am still at $28k for a package plus media and batteries, bigger tripod, etc. so that's not going to happen. There seems to be a huge gap in Panasonic and Canon's lines for pro 4K versus prosumer 4K with only Sony and BMD offering something that skirts both categories with the FS7 and Ursa Mini. You'd think the market would really be driving Panasonic to do something between the DVX200 and the Varicam LT for 4K for a pro body with changeable lenses, Prores 10 bit on board for about $8k to $10k. Same with Canon, even at $12k, the C300 MKII, while a great camera, lacks the 4K 60P that many of us could really use. I am having problems with the market segmentation, it's still the prosumer versus the pro stuff with a HUGE divide in between.
 
jpvid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Had a GH4, hated it, really disliked the colors, audio, FOV, DOF, sensor noise at all ISOs, especially above 800 though of course. I could never go back to M43. That's what I like about the DVX200, at least its a semi large sensor. If they gave the GH5 a DVX200 sized sensor, than possibly would consider it.
 
Barry_Green said:
The GH4, GH5, and DVX200 all share the same size sensor. They're all Four Thirds.
Click to expand...

Really? Is there any difference between an M43 sized sensor and Four thirds or are they one and the same? Wow, I did not know that. Hmm...I was not happy with the sensor FOV and DOF overall, but I am wondering it is was also that I didn't have the right lenses?
 
Then be aware that the lens on the DVX is f2.8-4.5
Shallow depth of field is achievable, but it's a 43 sensor with a not so fast lens :)
 
4/3" and M43 (MFT) are the same sized sensor, different sized turret as there is no mirror box in M43. As far as DOF goes, I'm happy with any sensor bigger than 1". Shallow DOF with 1/3" and smaller? That's hard.
 
diegocervo said:
Then be aware that the lens on the DVX is f2.8-4.5
Shallow depth of field is achievable, but it's a 43 sensor with a not so fast lens :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen the specs. I know, not a very fast lens but the gain up tests I have seen show it hjolding together with decent levels of gain too. I would be most interested to see what a MCU to CU interview shot wide open with camera 10' from subject looks like as far as DOF and FOV.
 
puredrifting said:
Really? Is there any difference between an M43 sized sensor and Four thirds or are they one and the same?
Click to expand...
They are exactly the same size. The sensor is Four Thirds. There is no such thing as a Micro Four Thirds sensor; all the sensors are Four Thirds.

The "micro" part comes from the camera's lens mount. There were two mounts made for the Four Thirds sensor -- the original Four Thirds mount, which had a huge flange focal distance (comparable to Nikon/Canon etc) and the new/compact Micro Four Thirds mount (which shrunk the flange focal distance down to under 20mm). So the sensor is the same, but the lens mount was different.

The DVX200 is a Four Thirds camera.

The Four Thirds sensor is twice as big as a 1" sensor, which is twice as big as a 2/3" sensor, so in effect it's four times larger than a 2/3" sensor and about 16x larger than a 1/3" sensor.

I was not happy with the sensor FOV and DOF overall, but I am wondering it is was also that I didn't have the right lenses?
Click to expand...
The FOV on the DVX200 ranges from a 28mm equivalent (on a full-frame stills camera) to 364mm equivalent.

In general, it's going to be an f/3.5 to f/4 lens in most scenarios. It can open up to f/2.8 at the very widest, but in extremely limited range. At most workable distances it's going to be f/3.5 to f/4. As far as DOF goes, it will never be as shallow as a full-frame camera; it's generally about on par with a 2/3" camera that's using a fast lens. It's significantly shallower than a 1/3" camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
They are exactly the same size. The sensor is Four Thirds. There is no such thing as a Micro Four Thirds sensor; all the sensors are Four Thirds.

The "micro" part comes from the camera's lens mount. There were two mounts made for the Four Thirds sensor -- the original Four Thirds mount, which had a huge flange focal distance (comparable to Nikon/Canon etc) and the new/compact Micro Four Thirds mount (which shrunk the flange focal distance down to under 20mm). So the sensor is the same, but the lens mount was different.

The DVX200 is a Four Thirds camera.

The Four Thirds sensor is twice as big as a 1" sensor, which is twice as big as a 2/3" sensor, so in effect it's four times larger than a 2/3" sensor and about 16x larger than a 1/3" sensor.


The FOV on the DVX200 ranges from a 28mm equivalent (on a full-frame stills camera) to 364mm equivalent.

In general, it's going to be an f/3.5 to f/4 lens in most scenarios. It can open up to f/2.8 at the very widest, but in extremely limited range. At most workable distances it's going to be f/3.5 to f/4. As far as DOF goes, it will never be as shallow as a full-frame camera; it's generally about on par with a 2/3" camera that's using a fast lens. It's significantly shallower than a 1/3" camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification on the sensor terminology and size. Coming from the S35 sensors on the C100/300/300 MKII, that would be challenging to deal with. I shoot a lot of green screen so for that, it wouldn't matter at all but when I am crammed into small rooms and offices trying to make something from nothing, that shallow DOF really helps hide ugly or featureless BGs, I can always paint them with light, put some art direction, a plant, a poster or picture back there but it's a lot harder when you have deep DOF. I recall with the HPX170 and HPX300 of having to place my camera 25' from talent to get any sort of shallower DOF but I know the time I spent with the GH4 that that sized imager is easier.
 
A guy I used to work with at BellMedia has a DVX and shoots all sorts of lit professional situations. I don't know if he is on here but he is on Instagram as @valleemedia. You can see some of the setups there.
 
Barry_Green said:
The GH4, GH5, and DVX200 all share the same size sensor. They're all Four Thirds.
Click to expand...

Correct Barry, I suspect that some of Panasonic's marketing and reviewer slogans around the DVX-200 'World's first large sensor fixed lens camera' etc have fooled some people into thinking it contains a 35mm sensor... :cheesy:
 
Barry_Green said:
The Four Thirds sensor is twice as big as a 1" sensor, which is twice as big as a 2/3" sensor, so in effect it's four times larger than a 2/3" sensor and about 16x larger than a 1/3" sensor.
Click to expand...

It's crazy when you look at the numbers like that!

It's hard to believe there were (expensive!) camcorders with 1/2" sensors like EX1/EX3 and 1/3" sensors like DVX100. Tiny sensors!

Oh how far we've come! :)
 
Well, yes, definitely, when you consider a Sony EX3 was a 1/2" chip and limited to 1080, the DVX200's sensor is 8x larger and it does UHD/60p and costs about half what the EX3 did. I was looking at the UX90 as compared to the AC90 -- they cost the same when they came out, but the UX90 is a thousand times more powerful than the AC90 -- the sensor is something like 24x larger, it's 3x more sensitive, it does UHD, it has a 20x zoom lens vs. the AC90's 12x, it's just a better camera in pretty much all ways, for the same price.
 
As some others have said, I'd look into the GH5 or try one once it's out. Straight to the point, regarding your concerns:

- GH5 colour science is different than that of the GH4. Preliminary tests show clear improvements, even with preproduction firmware.
- Adapting lenses via Metabones Speedboster could give you the DoF you are already used to from Super35 Canon Cine cameras (+1 stop of light, useful in low light situations), even a little bit more with the x0.64 version. More options is always better.

With internal 10 bit, IBIS, and its lower footprint, perfect for little stabilizers like Zhiyun's Crane if needed (IMHO, great combination for run n gun), I see it as a total winner. Only downside is ND's, but with an SLR Magic Vari ND and step up rings, although not ideal, it's one hell of a camera all in all.
 
Hi,
I use the DVX200 almost daily. Mostly for high end corporate stuff, and also for web and tv commercials.. In the start i didn't like it, but after at bit over a year with it, i like the flexibility of it. Meaning, you can just take the camera and go out and shoot but also use it for studio work.. For instance, we filmed several internal instruction videos with it.
But to answer..

2:
i think the colors match my GH4, but i don't see that as a bad thing. It's just how you grade it..

4:
we use it on a vocas shoulder mount for run and gun.. the Stabilizer in it is really good, so with a shoulder rig and the long end of the lens, it almost have a gimbal feel to it..

But.. We are considering a Black Magic Ursa mini, for the more "visceral" stuff we do.. Because although the camera is great, it will never be a cinema camera...
 
I was considering Ursa Mini 4.6k PL until Ursa Mini Pro showed up. Different tools for different purposes: DVX200 is still the best unibody videocamera I've ever owned with tons of versatility for dealing with uncontrolled situations like run-and-gun reality work, while Ursa Mini Pro will be the Super 35 cine camera that accepts my PL lenses on shoots with very controlled sets. Both cameras have their place in my toolbox. The big difference right now is that I don't yet own an Ursa Mini Pro! lol
 
JRJphoto said:
The big difference right now is that I don't yet own an Ursa Mini Pro! lol
Click to expand...

LOL that is a BIG difference! But I know what you mean. The Ursa Mini Pro seems to be targeted and you will probably be your next camera. I have also been seriously contemplating a Ursa camera and will probably be getting one in the future. Keep us posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top