Sony s35 camcorder

[naavt]

Everybody (including me), is so excited about the AF100 that Sony's presentation of their s35 camcorder was instantly forgotten - or so it seems!...

I was planning to buy the Panasonic camera, but the more I read about the AVC codec the more I think if it isn't better to just wait and see what Sony has to offer.

Many mates are guessing a price tag around 8k for it stating that 8k is absurd comaring with the 6K from Panasonic. But I'm expecting Sony to implement 100Mbps DVCPRO on it. Now... if you add the price of a Nanoflash to AF100's to bypass the AVC codec you're going to end with two cameras with similar price tags.

And even if I don't dislike AF100's design (which remembers me an old S8 or 16mm camera), I have to agree that Sony's slimpackage can be an advantage in many situations.

Besides all that, s35 has academic sDof, and comparing with AF100's 2 crop factor when you use 16:9 acquisition, you end up with more resolution with the Sony as well...

So... I really don't know what to think about this! But I'm more and more tempted to wait and see what 2011 brings.

 

[Bassman2003]

Your correct, but you have to wait given Panasonic's camera will not ship until the end or beginning of next year anyway.

BTW, Sony would never use DVCPro for their codec. I bet you meant Mpeg-2.

2011 will be a banner year for this space as I am sure some other models will appear as well.

 

[combatentropy]

I like it, too. But it's too big. So is the Panasonic.

The reason is, is a combination of three ingredients that I have:

Point 1. Size of the whole camera.
The ideal size and shape for a professional camera is something like the HMC150. For simplicity I'm going to refer to this size and shape as "prosumer."

Going down a notch, the consumer, handycam is really nice, it fits like a glove. But there's no place for XLR jacks.

Going up the other way: the broadcast, shoulder camera has served professionals for years, no doubt, but:

- Broadcast accessories eat your lunch. The viewfinder, battery charger, tripod, and lens cost thousands of dollars each. One reason is economy of scale. The prosumer cameras use the same batteries as the consumers. They're also lighter, so less tripod is needed.

- the prosumer is less intimidating to your subjects. Panning a shoulder cam at someone looks eerily like training a rifle and scope at them. On the other hand, looking down at the flip-out LCD on your prosumer cam looks more like you're faintly bowing to them. Which do you think leads to more relaxed, natural faces?

- the prosumer version is just more fun to use. Imagine carting around a shoulder cam and its accessories, say, through an airport. Or glimpsing something after hours that might make good B-roll. Which is easier, whipping out a prosumer camera or a big ol' shoulder rig?

Point 2. Size of the image sensor
Now, like I said, the ideal form for a pro camera is the prosumer one. But the ideal image sensor size is not 1/3, like almost all prosumer cams have. I think it's something like 4/3 or S35. These give you lots and lots of cheap lens choices. They also give shallower focus when you want it. You can still get deep focus. Try S35 at 5.6. Even so, even the people everybody supposes need deep focus are embracing the DSLRs just as much as the film students. Witness all the wedding videos and even independent documentaries and online news videos shot with shallow focus.

Point 3. The lens.
The film students will always prefer and do fine with their primes. And their requirements for size and shape are the least rigorous. But it is hell to shoot a wedding with primes. And there will be times in many documentaries when you would do best with a nice, slow zoom-in. So you need a rocker zoom. You also need a good range. The 35mm equivalent of 28-300mm is pretty much a Swiss Army knife lens. This is about an 11x zoom. Anything more, like 12, 13, 14x zooms is probably just giving them more telephoto that they don't need, and if they do, they're probably on a tripod shooting a game and could screw on a 2x extender.

The fly in the ointment is our Point 2, large sensor. Large sensor + large zoom range = large lens. Unless the lens makers are holding back on us. All the SLR lenses in this range max out at f4. If you want an f2, 10x, S35 lens, all the ones I've seen weigh, literally, 20 pounds or so. Now, all of them also happen to be Hollywood lenses. So I don't know what is accounting for the huge discrepancy in size between these and SLR zooms (parfocal? breathing? stronger materials? velvety mechanics?) but I bet the aperture is a big part of it.

My guess is that we'll never have a lens like we're used to for prosumer cameras (13x, f2), because of size and weight requirements of Point 1, above (prosumer body style). I would say the absolute least we need is something like 5x f4, and 7x f2.8 would be excellent.

Now, a 7x f2.8 rocker zoom for 4/3 will likely be bigger than even a 13x, f2 lens for 1/3.

Conclusion

If you're shooting for the prosumer form factor, but with a large sensor and interchangeable lens, then the body without lens actually has to be smaller than the typical prosumer camera without lens. Imagine the HMC150 with the lens sawed off. Now saw that in half. That's my guess of what we're shooting for.

 

[naavt]

BTW, Sony would never use DVCPro for their codec. I bet you meant Mpeg-2.

You're right! My mistake I'm betting on the XDCAM 422 or even some improvement of it.

I like it, too. But it's too big. So is the Panasonic.

For what I've seen both Sony and Panasonic seems smaller than a EX3! The Panasonic seems a tad bulky but the Sony size it's somewhat exaggerated by the massive lens and matte box with which it was presented at NAB. The body seems very small to my eyes. If you add a 35mm prime, even the wide open Sigma 1.4, it's size is a very nimble one, or so it seems.