So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

[brunerww]

Coming to this thread late, but I agree with the majority here that Panasonic dropped the ball on the AF100 follow-on. The DVX200 will certainly find a niche, but the lack of a modern pro MFT camcorder calls the future of the MFT system into question. If Panasonic wants to sell high end lenses to professionals, they need a high end professional camera - but right now, they don't have a large sensor interchangeable lens product between the MFT mount GH4 and the B4/PL mount Varicams. Do they not want to sell lenses into that market segment?

Fortunately for them, JVC has stepped in to fill the gap.

Like others in this thread, I am looking for a sub-$10,000 camcorder - so I rented the LS300 a few weeks ago.





It was good to shoot with a real camcorder again. I love my GH cameras, but I have grown to really dislike the hassle of cabling up external recorders and screwing in ND filters.

The LS-300's variable crop sensor is easy to adjust and makes the lens mount very very flexible. You can adapt just about any lens to this camera with a simple adapter. No 2x doublers would be needed for 2/3" lenses, for example.

The image quality, especially at 3840x2160, is every bit as good as my GH4 at the same resolution. I don't like that its highest frame rate is 1080/60p or that its color space is only 8-bit (especially after the experience of grading the lovely 10-bit ProRes from my BMPCC), but I can live with it.

My conclusion after the pleasure of shooting with this camera was to shake my head and wonder what Panasonic is thinking. By abandoning the sub-$10,000 camcorder market, they have pretty much guaranteed that they will lose two groups of customers:

1. Long time AF100 shooters who have been waiting patiently for an upgrade - for almost half a decade - watching Sony pass the AF100 (FS100) and then lap it (FS7)

2. GH camera shooters who are ready to step up to a camcorder (some of whom recently came over from Canon DSLRs to the GH4/Metabones combination - but who will naturally gravitate back to Canon Cinema EOS because they already have EF lenses)

I am in group 2. I have all 4 GH cameras, but I am done waiting for an interchangeable lens camcorder from Panasonic.

If I can't swing the money for an URSA Mini 4.6K plus viewfinder, I will buy the LS300 (plus an external viewfinder - the viewfinder absolutely sucks).

At $4K, it is a good value for the money.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for the mini review. I will shake my head that in 2015 JVC would put a crap viewfinder on a large sensor handheld friendly camera... Why is there always some glaring issue with every camera? What do these companies not get? I will never understand this.

 

[DLD]

Coming to this thread late, but I agree with the majority here that Panasonic dropped the ball on the AF100 follow-on. The DVX200 will certainly find a niche, but the lack of a modern pro MFT camcorder calls the future of the MFT system into question...

It does indeed and I am beginning to think that there will be no more MFT "pro" - or, at least, the $5,000+ pro - gear coming out at all. Everything trends toward the larges sensors and MFT and APS-C will now be taking the entry level positions.

On the positive side, the entry level products will be incredibly good, so many shooters in the pro camp will not even need to invest $5,000 into anything.

If Panasonic wants to sell high end lenses to professionals, they need a high end professional camera - but right now, they don't have a large sensor interchangeable lens product between the MFT mount GH4 and the B4/PL mount Varicams. Do they not want to sell lenses into that market segment?

That's a strategic question that many a photo/video manufacturers - including also Fuji and Olympus - face. If they are not going upmarket, they'll be forever resigned to an entry level products only ... even if those entry level products are of the highest quality. The margins simply won't be there in the sub-$750 category and not many will pay over $1,000 for MFT (Sony and Samsung are already offering the APC-S sensors in the $500-$700 range) or even for the APS-C. And, if FF is the way of the future, the MFT coalition really has to scramble to get there.

(hypothetically speaking, the MFT Group can form a similar "FF Group" as a counter to the Canon, Nikon and Sony, currently dominating in that segment, and recruit an established lens manufacturer such as Sigma or Tokina to license their products for some universal mounting until their own models are ready. If they all went PL, as an example, they could also target the high end video along the same route)

Fortunately for them, JVC has stepped in to fill the gap.

The JVC entry into the market is not accidental by any stretch. Chances are that the next pro entry by Panasonic will have an s35 sensor and your usual EF and PL mounts. PL is something that Panasonic and the rest can live with. Having to go EF must be driving them nuts.

 

[TFilipiak]

It's also arguably the "only" upgrade path for AF100 users. ; )

I will almost certainly purchase a 4K cam in the coming months and what concerns me about the LS300 has nothing to do with the camera's feature set, which is quite remarkable. It's the purportedly lower DR of the sensor (10 to 11 stops?) and suspicious highlight clipping that is a bit disconcerting. These perceived (or actual?) shortcomings may prevent this camera from becoming a wildly popular production/cinema tool, particularly with new cams such as the high DR URSA mini breathing down its neck. Lpowell, do you share these concerns, or do you think the camera sensor's image will hold up?



To me, the samples I've seen show some trouble in low light scenarios and strange macro blocking artifacts (YouTube compression?) at times as well. Don't get me wrong, I rather want to like this camera.

The LS300 is undoubtedly a good camera for the price.

But strip it of it's 4K capability, it appears to be only an incremental move in terms of image quality over the AF100.

Personally, I'm tired of battling highlight 'issues' with my Panny. I am looking to get into a new camera that is a little more forgiving in that area. The JVC seems more of a lateral move from the AF100; not a true "successor".

 

[Vardalos]

I think there’s still hope for a new Panasonic MFT interchangeable lens camera. All they would need to do is put an active MFT mount on a DVX200 body, call it the ???? and price it to compete with the BMD and JVC 4K cameras. It's all about market share so the question isn't why, it's why not?

 

[DLD]

I think there’s still hope for a new Panasonic MFT interchangeable lens camera...

GH5 (+ YAGH II ... maybe).

BTW, to confirm what I've been saying about sensors, the DSLRShooter has a NAB'15 interview with a Zeiss rep, who more or less confirms that Sony is moving toward the Full Frame (and Zeiss is making their auto focus enabled primes) technology. With A6000 retailing for as little as $548, the margins have been beaten out of the 1080p APS-C cameras. FF is the next natural step (and, looking beyond that, the Medium Format - and Sony also makes the sensors for Hasseblatt and Pentax MF cameras - will be the one after the FF).

And APS-C has ~ a 65% larger area than an MFT to begin with.

 

[Lpowell]

The LS300 is undoubtedly a good camera for the price.

But strip it of it's 4K capability, it appears to be only an incremental move in terms of image quality over the AF100.

Personally, I'm tired of battling highlight 'issues' with my Panny. I am looking to get into a new camera that is a little more forgiving in that area. The JVC seems more of a lateral move from the AF100; not a true "successor".

The ace up the LS300's sleeve is its numerically adjustable gamma control, in addition to black level controls. In practice, it allows you to shoot at a low ISO to protect the highlights, and then independently boost black level and gamma to lift the shadows and midrange where you want them. The lack of adjustable gamma control on the AF100 forces you to use a highlight knee, which flattens bright skin tones and distorts colored highlights.

 

[camsr]

But strip it of it's 4K capability, it appears to be only an incremental move in terms of image quality over the AF100.

Hmmm, you forgot to add : and strip it of 50Mbps recording, 4:2:2 color space, lower noise it has, large sensor for shallower depth, ...

It's difficult to deny that it's a major upgrade over the AF100. And it should be, some time has passed since the original AF100.

On the other hand, for some purposes or for some users the AF100 is still good enough. Then again, a well maintained 1990 luxury sedan might be driving fine in every way, but it is impossible to deny that current luxury sedans are a step up from that.

 

[Tye]

I would go for m43 mount DVX200 over a LS300 and use it as an A cam with my AF100 if it was priced right...

 

[Gary Senda]

The LS300 is undoubtedly a good camera for the price.

But strip it of it's 4K capability, it appears to be only an incremental move in terms of image quality over the AF100.

Sorry, but I totally disagree: the JVC LS300 is a big step over the AF100. I've bought the first AF101 in Italy and I was a big fan (and now an orphan) of this project (consider that I was one of the videomakers that panasonic engineers have interviewed while they were working to the project). My seller has given me the camera to try it for a weekend and after I have decided to buy it, because it is a decisive step.
- Very high definition (much more than af100) in FHD also
- stunning definition in 4k (also with the sensor cropped in m43)
- 4:2:2 sampling in FHD
- much less video noise
- better performance in low light
- better holding of highlights
- better use of the dual slot
- better focus assist
- very high versatility (you can mount every lens you want) due to the m4/3 mount and sensor mapping
- S35 sensor
- streaming functions and remote controls via smartphone
- shotgun included
- totally open (nothing of proprietary)

For the price this is a little great camera and the only available upgrade for the AF100 orphans and for all the people that, like me, have invested a lot of money in m43 lenses.

So, after 5 consecutive panasonic cameras (from DVX100 to AF101) I've sold my AF101 and I've bought the LS300. And I have not regretted, at least for the moment

Gary

P.S. = Please, apologize my broken english

 

[TFilipiak]

Hmmm, you forgot to add : and strip it of 50Mbps recording, 4:2:2 color space, lower noise it has, large sensor for shallower depth, ...

It's difficult to deny that it's a major upgrade over the AF100. And it should be, some time has passed since the original AF100.

On the other hand, for some purposes or for some users the AF100 is still good enough. Then again, a well maintained 1990 luxury sedan might be driving fine in every way, but it is impossible to deny that current luxury sedans are a step up from that.

You missed my point; even with those advantages, the JVC's IMAGE QUALITY doesn't seem to be a big leap forward over the AF100. (Judging from the footage I've seen posted)
The 'video' look, replete with chroma-clipping is what I'd expect from the 5 year old Panny, but not a camera in 2015.
Consequently, look at the images coming from a new BMD or Sony. To me that's what the latest sensor/camera IQ should offer.
I am certainly not trying to dissuade anybody from buying the LS300. As I said, it's a good little camera for the money.
If it had come out at the same time as the AF100, I would have bought the JVC over the Panasonic in a heartbeat.
I think a lot of us were hoping for a bit more in the IQ department...

 

[camsr]

No, it was exactly the point I was making, but I'm guessing we see that differently - also, some improvements such as 4:2:2 or higher bitrates can never be visible via internet streaming. And I have to admit I'm not talking about some videos out there that are terribly overexposed and clipped.

Very dark videos like the heist series would drown in noise with the AF100. That by itself is a leap forward in IQ in my book. The 12 stops of dynamic range they speak of is a leap forward as well. A lot more definition than any AF100 image as well. Those videos and some others don't have any serious amount of chroma clipping going on. Again, I'm just disregarding some videos out there that are obviously poorly exposed.

On the video-look, one can debate : these days the consensus seems to be that a film look is a desaturated, flat, low-contrast look. Powerful deep blacks and saturated colors seems to have gone out of fashion for some. A raw camera image on which one forgot to do post (coloring, gamma, ...) seems to be what passes as a filmic look. I'm guessing the Transformer series by Michael Bay is colorgraded so it is no longer filmic by the same definition?

 

[Gary Senda]

On the video-look, one can debate

The camera is fully configurable: you can achieve any look you want, the only real difference with AF100 is that you have not any scene file, nothing of ready. In terms of shallow depth of field the S35 sensor is much more cinematic than micro 4/3. Here you can download two frames. ***Note, it's a raw test, the camera is not white balanced***. The lens is a canon fd 85mm f1.2 af f4 at a distance of about 1 meter: perfect (and fast) focus in 4k without any external support, only using the focus assist in the camera

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8wx30ka4pr8u3mb/AAAAIo5JtyOgT3Paak2OGy7Da?dl=0

I have purchased some charts to test well the camera and my lenses in controlled conditions and with various sensor remapping. I will post the results

regards

Gary

 

[electricpig]

A raw camera image on which one forgot to do post (coloring, gamma, ...) seems to be what passes as a filmic look.

The Cineon standard was there for a reason to convert from a raw log scan from film, 95, 685, 0.6 gamma, representing a projected image.

Nowadays raw/log is seen as a flat image to grade, rather than a base to run a viewing standard on.

 

[Dave Rochelle]

I appreciate the info and observations on the JVC LS300. Features like the selectable gamma and lens to sensor mapping are really innovative and just the forward-thinking ideas I was hoping might find their way into an interchangeable lens Panasonic offering.

I really have not liked any of the footage I've seen thus far from this camera though. And I hesitate to buy another camera that suffers from the kind of uneven chroma-clipping I see happening with the LS300. I know how to properly light and expose, but a fair amount of the run & gun work I do requires some latitude in that department... and I'd appreciate a camera with some more headroom for exposure - or that at least treats it in a more forgiving way. Some of this is subjective, I think - but slightly over-exposed footage from Sony, Blackmagic, and Canon cams seems to just look more natural - with more even roll-off & better treatment of clipped highlights.

What I wouldn't give for a m43 lens mount camera with built-in NDs, the gamma control & lens/sensor mapping features of the JVC, the Blackmagic OLED viewfinder, and the form-factor of the Ursa Mini...

 

[mcbob]

I shy from the LS300 because I fear having to work for three years with another camera that I'll have to explain to larger potential clients. I'd almost pay the ~$5K premium for the FS7 just to avoid that.

 

[DLD]

I appreciate the info and observations on the JVC LS300. Features like the selectable gamma and lens to sensor mapping are really innovative and just the forward-thinking ideas I was hoping might find their way into an interchangeable lens Panasonic offering...

Sensor mapping isn't that different from the ubiquitous "crop sensor" video. It's just that JVC is giving more options with this model.

Panasonic gives similar type of mapping with GH4, with the cropped UHK/4K and then 4:3 for the anamorphic lenses.

 

[Lpowell]

The director of the LS300 Heist footage summed it up in his behind-the-scenes interview: This is a camcorder designed for videographers who want to get very close to the look they're after straight out of the camera. It's clearly not for SLOG fans who're looking for the raw dynamic range needed to produce high-quality results from flattened footage, post-processed through LUTs.

In-camera results are what the AF100 was built for as well, but Panasonic's gamma curves and Scene Files weren't tweakable enough to correct the chroma clipping of its highlight knee. If the LS300 gives you hands-on control of the curve, it'll hit the sweet spot the AF100 could never quite deliver. But this is not something you can readily spot in YouTube sample footage, it's something you have to find out from the camera itself.

The important question is one you have to ask yourself: Do you want a camera that produces ready-to-watch footage, or one that relies on extensive support from high-class post-production tools? If you're in the latter camp or thinking seriously about the 3D LUTs in FilmConvert, steer clear of the LS300 and H.264. and go straight for 10-bit or RAW. Here's a taste of what I mean:

http://philipbloom.net/2013/08/25/premiereluts/

 

[OldCorpse]

Is anybody else seeing the terrible jitter that happens every time you pan the LS300? Here's a review by Philip Johnston:

LS300 Video Review

for example, see minute 1:18 to about 1:23; 2:50 - 3:02 where the jitter is off the charts; even with super slow panning there is horrible jitter - see 7:55 - 8:03 and 8:07 - 8:10 - the worst I've ever seen with such slow panning. The review otherwise carefully avoids any panning - this is so bad it's disqualifying. I'm sorry but if this is representative of how this camera renders motion while panning then it's just not a serious candidate at all.

 

[Gary Senda]

Is anybody else seeing the terrible jitter t.

Nothing of similar in original files: it is not the camera, it is compression or vimeo

regards

gary