So there's no AF100 Successor - Now what?

CineStill said:
I am baffled as to why Panasonic did not just use the GH4 sensor in an Af100 body? Even if it was just to a interim measure while they came up with another mid level solution. I have 2x AF102 cameras and remember the enthusiasm that not only did members have about the camera but there seemed to me to be a real loyalty to the Panasonic brand.
I am now looking at other options but sadly nothing from Panasonic even remotely interests me.
I set up my AF102 to be able to work on my shoulder as I have not so "compact: compact primes and Nikon glass
I like the form factor with a shoulder mount and EVF of BM Mini Urser, & Sony FS7. The Canon C100 & C300 don't seem to me to be very ergonomic.
I am interested to see more footage from with the JVC
Click to expand...

I agree. I shot some of my favorite work on the AF and really enjoyed shooting hand held with it's form factor. I don't know if I'll ever find that joy in a camera again. My FS7 works, but not quite like my old Betacams/full-size DVCAM.
 
brudney said:
So... all they had to do is charge less (3k?). Problem solved :P
Click to expand...
They already have DVX200 for $4,200, meaning that they have less than $2,000 between GH4/5 and DVX200. Most manufacturers don't want one model to cannibalize the other. Which is why there's substantial price/feature spacing in between the various models.

If GH5 comes out for the $1,500-$1,700, then there's room on the upside of DVX200 but it would have to have an s35 or FF sensor. And there's not much room above GH4/5 and below DVX200 because $3,000 is a Sony FF market with A7sII and A7RII leading the sales charts. Sure, Panasonic might be able to move some units in the same niche but it smartly chose a different niche - a large-sensor fixed lens camera - where it faces no competition whatsoever.
 
I honestly believe there's room for both DVX200 and a $3k AF200(?). It's a simple portfolio diversification - 1,5k for GH series, 3k for AF, 4k for DVX. I think it wouldn't be a tragedy cost/engineering-wise as well - 'all' they would have to do is put GH4/5 guts in AF100's body. Done;)
By not having such a camera they basically abandoned all current AF100 owners and made it so much harder for all m4/3 users wanting to step up to a proper video body.
Judging by mixed opinions on various forums and rather shabby samples so far, DVX200 is hardly going to be a gold mine for the company.
 
I was at the DVX200 launch event at Panasonic in LA yesterday. Thank you, Barry Green and the whole bunch! The DVX200 is a pretty fantastic tool for video acquisition in so many ways. And it's probably the camera that is best suited for me to own right about now.

I did speak with a Panny rep about an "AF200" (a true AF100 successor), and the response I got is pretty much that the company does not - at this time - plan to enter an already crowded interchangeable lens camera market. They wanted to offer something a bit different with the DVX200, and in the spirit of the original DVX100. Remember the old DVX100 era slogan, "Make a living, flip a switch, make a movie?" I think they have achieved their goals with this "Swiss Army Knife" camera. Also, the rep did say that they would explore producing an "AF200" someday down the road, but not for the foreseeable future. This is my personal, summed-up interpretation of the conversation I had.
 
DC said:
crowded interchangeable lens camera market
Click to expand...

They just have no imagination. Picture the guts of the Pocket in the PXW-X70 (without lens).

pxw-x70.jpg

They are several cameras in this category, but yet there are many holes open for the taking, due to tiering or mere bungling. I'm thinking of what you might call The Agile Camera. It doesn't do some ridiculous resolution or have peer-to-peer wireless networking built in. But neither is it unergonomic drone micro camera. Just small and nimble, and gets out of your way. Sort of like the Digital Bolex but a little more practical and half the price (CMOS vs CCD perhaps?).

There is absolutely a market for S16-sized interchangeable lens cameras, even at 2K, as the Pocket shows --- if you price it right. I'm thinking people would pay double ($2,000) if it was like a Pocket but with XLRs, a decent (4" 960x540) flip-out screen, and a better body.

The same could be said for Four Thirds, even at 2K (like a mini A7S) for great latitude and low light. At 3K or 4K you could easily charge $3,000 or $4,000. It could sell right alongside the DVX200 without cannibalizing it. In fact, it could reuse most of the parts, so R&D is minimized (in my humble opinion). Four Thirds is a decently sized sensor, almost the size that most movies between the 1950s and 2000 were made in ("Flat 35", 21.95 x 11.86mm, crop factor 1.73). The difference between 4/3, S35, and 135 is overblown in some threads here.

The key to owning the market is by not doing obvious blunders in ergonomics and usability that they others have. The Sony FS5 is the very first interchangeable lens camera whose ergonomics I think are actually at the minimum level. Other things that don't cost much:

- 10-bit 4:2:2
- 1-60 fps
- time lapse
- fast boot
- fast, easy, short menus (defer more choices to post)
- small
- lightweight
- well balanced

Again, think simpler, not more complex. There's a lot of ways to go here. With a million codecs and possible features, cameras have got needlessly cluttered, slow, and expensive. It takes bravery to prune and say no to things, in order to say yes to better things. This industry needs a Steve Jobs!
 
Last edited:
IMO, they will reuse most of the DVX200 parts in GH5. OK, more likely, they'll combine the DVX200 parts with the GH4 parts and the GX8 parts to make GH5. Their version of X-70 is a tougher call, as they are putting their eggs in the DVX200 fixed lens on the high end and FZ300 on the low.

BTW, FZ300 may not be a low light maven but look at the zoom. (near the end)

 
As a wedding videographer, my big concern about spending 4k on the DVX200 is low light capability. Please tell me that this camera is as good as or better than the AGC160. I found this camera just on the borderline of acceptable low light performance. I like its zoom range, great for the center aisle shot, but it is not 4k like the GH4s I have.
 
JVC just released the new firmware that includes the 'Prime Zoom" feature and their own LOG, J-LOG1 - Real fix-it-in-post aficionados will ridicule the J-LOG because it's very subtle, it basically only lowers the contrast, opens up the blacks and desaturates. You can get away with just dialing down blacks in post and get a very nice picture, good skin tones. It doesn't allow for the kind of manic manipulation we've seen in the last few years with other LOGs, but it fits the bill for me just fine.

The Prime Zoom, however is innovative and unique - I shot an art opening last night for a doc about a woman artist who has come down with Alzheimers. I shot with only the Olympus 12-40 Pro, a very small, comfortable package, and was able to get the equivalent of 12 to about 80mm without changing lenses. I shot in J-LOG at ASA800, set at 4.2.2., 50mbps and the visuals are outstanding.

I don't post footage, sorry, I don't have the time nor the inclination, and there are so many on these forums that lack open minds that it's just too masochistic. But I'm pleased.

The one complaint I have about the new firmware is that the whites on all the gamma settings are clipping at 100% now. Before you could get 108% with the Cinema setting, but it's changed. I hope they'll get on their horse and fix it.
 
greytail said:
As a wedding videographer, my big concern about spending 4k on the DVX200 is low light capability. Please tell me that this camera is as good as or better than the AGC160. I found this camera just on the borderline of acceptable low light performance. I like its zoom range, great for the center aisle shot, but it is not 4k like the GH4s I have.
Click to expand...
The DVX200 is more sensitive than the AC160, and the noise performance is much better at the same ISO. Under very low light conditions, the DVX200 image holds up much better than the 1/3" cameras do.
 
Hey Mac, now that you teased us, you have to post SOMETHING, a couple of stills at the very least... :D


Mac said:
JVC just released the new firmware that includes the 'Prime Zoom" feature and their own LOG, J-LOG1 - Real fix-it-in-post aficionados will ridicule the J-LOG because it's very subtle, it basically only lowers the contrast, opens up the blacks and desaturates. You can get away with just dialing down blacks in post and get a very nice picture, good skin tones. It doesn't allow for the kind of manic manipulation we've seen in the last few years with other LOGs, but it fits the bill for me just fine.

The Prime Zoom, however is innovative and unique - I shot an art opening last night for a doc about a woman artist who has come down with Alzheimers. I shot with only the Olympus 12-40 Pro, a very small, comfortable package, and was able to get the equivalent of 12 to about 80mm without changing lenses. I shot in J-LOG at ASA800, set at 4.2.2., 50mbps and the visuals are outstanding.

I don't post footage, sorry, I don't have the time nor the inclination, and there are so many on these forums that lack open minds that it's just too masochistic. But I'm pleased.

The one complaint I have about the new firmware is that the whites on all the gamma settings are clipping at 100% now. Before you could get 108% with the Cinema setting, but it's changed. I hope they'll get on their horse and fix it.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, here are several frame grabs. All were shot with the 12-40, J-Log with minor grading (minus 5-10 shadows, plus 8-12 chroma) in FCPX. The first is from the opening I shot Friday night. Mixed lighting into windows (in the very center window. the green is a plant outside in bright light, shot at f2.8). The second is the street in front of my office, my 20 year old black Jeep and clouds. The third is with the lens @40mm and the VSM @43% zoomed in - of the rock across the street in front of my house in Pacific Grove where I often test for detail in whites and blacks - waves and rocks are good for that. All were shot 1080 30P 4.2.2 @ 50mbps, 5600k preset.

J-Log_01.jpg
J-Log_02.jpg
J-Log_03.jpg
 
Last edited:
DC said:
. . . I did speak with a Panny rep about an "AF200" (a true AF100 successor), and the response I got is pretty much that the company does not - at this time - plan to enter an already crowded interchangeable lens camera market . . .
Click to expand...

This is another one of those statements that has "the milk shooting out my nose."
I can't help but wonder if this rep even knows that Panasonic is already in this market?
They (Panasonic) are the ones that developed and cultivated the removable lens market!

An AF-200 with the GH-4 sensor should have been a no-brainer especially when you consider the 4x3 anamorphic and hopefully v-log ( or whatever it's called ) opportunities. Just think of the possibilities with an AF200 & GH4 ( same sensor ) as your "A" and "B" cams...

Personally I'd kill for one of those.
 
dregenthal: I totally agree with you - look back (if that's even possible) at my posts from 3-4 years ago begging Panasonic to upgrade the AF100 with an improved sensor. The chroma clipping in the highlights ruined several important images for me (I like to shoot into sources and windows, always have), and I finally gave up on that camera. Many people are still happy with it, but I'm not.

Problem is, Panasonic didn't respond to my or others (including Barry's) requests - and I can't make films with a camera that doesn't exist. I went with the JVC, not because I believe in the brand (in fact I've never owned a JVC camera before) but because THEY seemed to be paying attention to what people with a load of lenses had been asking for - not some retro-fixed-lens camera, but a true sequel to the AF100.

The more I use the LS300, the happier I am to have chosen the road less traveled.
 
Hi Mac.
The thing that hurt us the most was losing our advocate (Jan Crittendon).
Not sure who replaced her, crickets . . .

I've been a loyal customer since the DVX100, HVX200, HPX170, AF100, GH2, GH3, and GH4.
I have pretty much a full complement of the LUMIX micro 4/3 lenses.
Been through the BlackMagic series too (and am number 2 on the list at a small store for the Ursa Mini).
Maybe we're just too small a segment of Panasonic's market, I don't know?

Think I'm going to pedal my second AF100 and BMPCC and wait it out for the URSA Mini.
Getting ready to get into the time of year where I shoot less and edit more so I can afford to wait.
And, as you point out, it's not like there aren't other viable options.

I think the DVX200 is going to be a good piece of equipment for some which I may reconsider after there are enough in the wild.

One thing I have to say is that I've enjoyed my Panasonic cameras, and made some good money along the way.
 
Last edited:
I had a pre-order in for the mini, but cancelled it after getting the LS300. I'm not suggesting the LS is better, or even as good, but for me it produces the look I want right out of the camera without dicking with OLPFs, NDs, IRs and all that grading.

Plus the mini still requires an EVF, batteries etc. - too much money for me these days (although I already have the Gratical)... My current philosophy is I don't want to spend so much for a camera that I need to take jobs I don't want to pay for it. I still have two Pockets that I can use in a pinch, but to be honest, I think they'll just live in the cabinet with my (bought new in 1984) Aaton LTR-7 until I decide to sell them - I'll NEVER sell the Aaton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top