The Next Panasonic Camera -- suggestions to the product manager

[fastfinger]

So, I'll start us off with some suggestions of what I think would be eminently do-able and which I would be happy to buy:

1. Take the HC-X1000's body, chop off the lens, pull out the sensor, shove in the GH4's sensor, and put an M4/3 mount on it. Everything else can stay the same. Voila, instant 4K "AF200" with GH4 image quality and 4K/60p, that could use any kind of lens through an adapter or SpeedBooster. I'd buy that.

What else would you folks like to see? They're listening; let's give them some good suggestions for products that lots of people would want.

(from a sports shooter) I might add It would be nice to include some type of in camera stabilization so smooth panning won't be lost with M4/3 lenses. Also like the smooth aperture changes of a fixed lens camera

 

[dcloud]

Take the fs7 specs, make it cheaper.

maybe use the varicam 35 sensor technology.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I would like the 4k version of the PX-270.

Basically the Pro version of the HC-X1000 but with SDI, P2 and AVC-Intra 4k support.

And LEICA LEICA LEICA all the way. Not a fan of the lenses on the 250/270, they feel cheap to me.

I got a pair of 270s to replace my aging HVX-200s but what I really want is 4k moving forward.

 

[fastfinger]

I would like to see a new POV camera design with a couple focal lengths and better audio. Add a looping function as well as auto start so it could double as a dash cam. I think a few manual options like lowering the shutter speed would eliminate the strobing effect of fast moving scenery.

I also wonder when the big manufacturers will start making dedicated dash cams. These are being used more and more to combat insurance fraud.

 

[mcbob]

1. Yes to the "AF200." Give me something better than the JVC GY-LS300, smaller and less expensive than the FS7. m43, 4K, VLOG, internal 10-bit 4:2:2, HDSDI would are requisites I'll need in my next camera - staying Panasonic would be nice. WiFi and internal streaming capabilities are also niceties. IBIS would be a nice touch.
2. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!! Mk2, with a battery (VBG-6's or the like) that can also power the camera. Change the design to add more 1/4-20 tapped and the like for direct accessorization. Heck, make and sell accessories and then don't abandon the system.
3. VLOG
4. Combine a 10-bit 4:2:2 HDSDI/HDMI recorder with an OLED EVF... 4K if I can get greedy... able to plop on any camera in your lineup. Power it with BLF19's and/or DC line-in. Consider the size of the Atomos Ninja Star and SmallHD DP4. Not unreasonable. I'll make this myself if you don't... once I learn something about electrical engineering and computer firmware programming and secure financial backing and all.

5... or so. On the "AF200"... I've advocated something like this since the "suggest AF100 updates" thread eons ago, and Panasonic is somewhat starting in this direction with their GH4+YAGH and Varicam35/HS packages... but modularity is a good thing. RED has it, but plays to a different budget range... same to some degree with Sony. Also the Apertus taking it on wholeheartedly. I think people are getting tired of updating their whole camera every couple years, when it's not necessary... heck, the Canon C100.2 only just now reached feature parity with the ancient AF100... if we could ever have updated just the AF100's sensor or just its EVF, it would still be selling, WELL.

Anyway... a system of "parts" that fit together to suit the needs of a job - camera head + I/O box + audio box + encoding box + power box. 3 heads: m43, S35, and small sensor (with lens). I/O box is your base, with majority of common electronics, simple 1/8" audio and HDMI/SDI ports. Audio box (optional) with XLR ports, etc. 3 different encoding boxes: H264/265 on SDXC, AVC-U on MicroP2, and raw on SSD or the like... option to use two (?) for redundancy. Power box with ~VBG6 and/or large brick battery options. Throw in some handle control and mount options, make it all work together nicely, and whee... upgrade individual portions of the system as technologies increase. I can run just a head + AC power for studio setups, or m43 + audio + AVC-U + VBG battery power for a documentary, or S35 + Raw + brick battery for commercial/narrative work, or any combo that suits a job at hand. Never need raw? Always hire a sound guy? Then don't buy that box. Panasonic introduces an organic S35 sensor with 21 stops DR, or makes a m43 sensor with IBIS? Great... get a new camera head.

It might sound "pro," but you're already doing it with the GH4 + YAGH. Just commit to the notion and integrate the parts well (the YAGH is ugly and clunky to use... just thought you should hear it from me).

 

[harddrive]

.......things have changed a little at Panasonic as well. Or, should I say, they've changed a LOT. The Panasonic consumer factory has just produced the HC-X1000, a pro-style, pro-flavor camera that is every bit as much of a Panasonic pro broadcast camera as any of their other handhelds. Not to mention the success of the GH1, GH2, GH3, and GH4, all of which came from this same division (and even brought us the YAGH, which was their first attempt at crossing over to the pro market).

And, the product manager for Panasonic's consumer division is very interested in hearing from us about what we want to see them develop.

Realistic suggestions have the highest likelihood of actually being implemented; ..........

1. Take the HC-X1000's body, chop off the lens, pull out the sensor, shove in the GH4's sensor, and put an M4/3 mount on it. Everything else can stay the same. Voila, instant 4K "AF200" with GH4 image quality and 4K/60p, that could use any kind of lens through an adapter or SpeedBooster. I'd buy that.......

Firstly, it's interesting (but not surprising!) that this approach is coming from their consumer division. It's been pretty obvious that within Panasonic that division has been doing well, whilst the pro division has... well, shall we say had it's problems?

And with that in mind, let's think what is most realistic coming from that division.

I've thought for a while that any "AF200" is likely going to go one of two ways. Either be an s35 model (with Varicam sensor?) to roughly compete in the FS7 marketplace. *OR* follow the path of the GH4 with YAGH - which implies 4/3 sensor and mount.

If we're specifically talking about the consumer division, the latter must be more likely. The YAGH certainly leaves a great deal to be desired - but that's the current implementation - not the basic concept.

I don't doubt Barrys idea 1/ above may appeal to many people (basically the AF200 being to the GH4 what the AF100 was to the GH1) - but it means quite a redesign for a relatively small production run. (Small compared to GH4 type sales, anyway!) The advantage of the modular approach is that GH4 type volume of sales keeps the cost of the basic unit way down. Anybody opposed to the idea is probably thinking that such a modular idea just won't be as user friendly as the AF100/200 concept. That may be true as far as what's available at the moment. But it doesn't have to be so. Put enough thought into it and a future "GH5/YAGH Mk2" *COULD* rival the AF100 in terms of usability and ergonomics. (I'd actually hope it could improve on the AF100 ergonomics.)

The basic GH5 would need certain "video specific" things built in - and ND filtration is the first that springs to my mind.

In many ways, I agree with DLD above. This modularity could be built on. Buy a "GH5" to get a fairly basic still/video camera out of the box. Add a YAGH Mk2 to get more pro audio connections, controls, inputs outputs - maybe even improve the basic ergonomics for video work? Add further accessories to get better viewfinding, codecs etc. Nowadays, the bar to higher end codecs is not intrinsic to the camera - the coding chips used tend to be common, it's just what's enabled - but more to the recording of them. Go 4k, go AVC based, go I frame only and what changes is the datarate. You need much higher spec memory, and you need a lot more of it. That's why manufacturers tend to be chary about putting such codecs in "consumer" equipment.

And specifications aside, this means that a user can have a very capable "video" camera, but strip off the extras and they are left with a good stills camera or a box for shooting basic material discreetly. Apart from the cost/economies of scale arguments, that's another advantage of the modular approach - if it's done properly.

Finally, then give some thought to the long term. What about some sort of commitment that any buyer is buying into a SYSTEM for the longer term? A commitment that any accessories bought won't be rendered useless when the GH6 replaces the GH5? This is the state of affairs with lens mounts - why not with other parts of the system? When a new model comes out, why is it necessary to move certain controls a few millimetres?

 

[DLD]

... In many ways, I agree with DLD above. This modularity could be built on. Buy a "GH5" to get a fairly basic still/video camera out of the box. Add a YAGH Mk2 to get more pro audio connections, controls, inputs outputs - maybe even improve the basic ergonomics for video work? Add further accessories to get better viewfinding, codecs etc. Nowadays, the bar to higher end codecs is not intrinsic to the camera - the coding chips used tend to be common, it's just what's enabled - but more to the recording of them. Go 4k, go AVC based, go I frame only and what changes is the datarate. You need much higher spec memory, and you need a lot more of it. That's why manufacturers tend to be chary about putting such codecs in "consumer" equipment.

This would roughly make it a "three" camera lineup. A $1,500-$1,700 GH5 (or GH4 MKII, as it were), a $2,300-$2,500 GH5+YAGH combo and a $3,500 unibody along the lines that Barry suggested.

In this sense, they'd have to decide the feature sets and price points for all three of the above.

FWIW, I just saw Dave Dugdale's review of the Shogun and, to sum it up briefly, his opinion was that it was not worth its price for the GH4 users. Many GH4 users already came to the same conclusion about YAGH. To be worthy of purchase then, the attachment - keeping the modularity in mind - would then have to offer something akin to YAGH+Shogun+battery and for about a grand total.

The $3,500 camera then would have to offer something even greater. Looking at the current market offerings and projecting slightly forward, it would probably have to be ~ an FS-7 with an MFT mount/sensor.

The other option for them is to make GH5 more desireable by the photography market a la the upcoming Olympus EM-5 with its pixel shifting, etc.

 

[harddrive]

This would roughly make it a "three" camera lineup. A $1,500-$1,700 GH5 (or GH4 MKII, as it were), a $2,300-$2,500 GH5+YAGH combo and a $3,500 unibody along the lines that Barry suggested.

But..... IF the GH5/YAGH Mk2 was good enough, then why bother with the "$3,500 unibody"?

Everybody has to forget about the actuality of the current YAGH, and think about concept. By which I mean modularity, with such a "GH5" at the heart. And there may be a "mini-YAGH" which just offers XLR connectors, and a "maxi-YAGH" which offers a lot more. To say nothing of other components which can be used to add on as required.

Advantage to Panasonic - they don't need to spend money developing a separate basic camera. Advantage to consumer - only buy what you need, and if you want to work light, strip it down and work with the bare minimum.

The big "IF" in all this is if they can make the modular design to be as satisfactory as a dedicated video camera as Barry described. We'll see.

 

[DLD]

But..... IF the GH5/YAGH Mk2 was good enough, then why bother with the "$3,500 unibody"?
...

Presumably, there'll still be features left on the table for which Panasonic can charge another $1,000 (i.e., in between GH5+YAGH and AF-200 "Unibody").

At the moment, I am not sure what they can be in a X-1000 size shell beyond some sort of an awesome 3-5 Axis stabilization system - a mechanical feature - that won't be deemed an intentional crippling of a GH5+YAGH combo.

PS. OK, I thought of a few things. They can put a better MFT sensor into the $3,500 camera - BSI, 24 MPX, 6K video, faster sensor readout - Samsung claims NX1 can do 240 fps - thus nullifying the rolling shutter, higher (72 at 4K) frame rates. Pack some more processing power and that can add a much higher recording bitrate- let's aim for 400 Mbps - with HEVC onto their new 95 MB/s SDXC cards. Add a better/bigger/sharper OLED monitor.

Is a lens with a rocker zoom too much to hope for at this price? Maybe they can adapt their 35-100mm F/2.8 and offer it as a package a la C100?

IMO, there's still some wiggle room left here.

 

[DLD]

I'll add as a separate post - they may have to seriously think about redesigning YAGH into something much closer to their Varicam layout. That would leave the GH5 screen in somewhat of a limbo, though.

 

[TubEfingers]

only buy what you need, and if you want to work light, strip it down and work with the bare minimum.

The bare minimum for me (and I'm guessing a lot of other corporate shooters) is an all in one unibody solutions with XLR/SDI/waveforms/manual buttons etc
I appreciate the GH series design (hacked GH2 owner) and the modular approach makes a lot of sense but on the jobs I do it can't replace an all in one solution thats ready to go the minute i take it out the bag.

 

[harddrive]

PS. OK, I thought of a few things. They can put a better MFT sensor into the $3,500 camera - BSI, 24 MPX, 6K video, faster sensor readout - Samsung claims NX1 can do 240 fps - thus nullifying the rolling shutter, higher (72 at 4K) frame rates.

The trouble is that the moment you say they are effectively designing a brand new sensor the price sky rockets. The cost either has to be recouped through high volume sales or charging a great deal per unit item.

Here, a large section of the market will just go the GH_ route (especially if a good modular solution comes along), another large section will just want s35 for the higher price - which may leave what you suggest between stools. It will sell - but I doubt in anything like the quantities needed for the new sensor design. Not at the price you hope for, anyway.

And beware of framerate specs. Well, lots of specs, really! Just because a camera can do a high framerate, then ask if it can do it at full quality? Just think of the FS700 - it will do up to 960fps, but not at anything like the same quality as it does normal speed HD.

Pack some more processing power and that can add a much higher recording bitrate- let's aim for 400 Mbps - with HEVC onto their new 95 MB/s SDXC cards. Add a better/bigger/sharper OLED monitor.

The processing power isn't a problem - it's probably built into the chips anyway. (A common chipset makes sense.) The issue is more down to RELIABLY recording it, beware of quoted speeds for memory. What gets quoted is often a read - not write - speed, and may then only be applicable to burst - not sustained.

 

[harddrive]

..........on the jobs I do it can't replace an all in one solution thats ready to go the minute i take it out the bag.

I can only say again a comment I made a few posts back:

Anybody opposed to the idea is probably thinking that such a modular idea just won't be as user friendly as the AF100/200 concept. That may be true as far as what's available at the moment. But it doesn't have to be so. Put enough thought into it and a future "GH5/YAGH Mk2" *COULD* rival the AF100 in terms of usability and ergonomics. (I'd actually hope it could improve on the AF100 ergonomics.)

In principle, if the design is right, there is absolutely no reason why a "GH5/YAGH Mk2" couldn't be designed to be easily stored assembled, and operationally be as ready to go the minute you take it out the bag as any unibody design.

 

[TubEfingers]

I missed that post, but yeah absolutely - I'd buy into it if Panasonic could devise an affordable modular system that moved away from the GH4/YAGH design towards something that handled like a video cam

 

[DLD]

The trouble is that the moment you say they are effectively designing a brand new sensor the price sky rockets. The cost either has to be recouped through high volume sales or charging a great deal per unit item.

One assumes that the company isn't standing still and constantly working on new sensors, codec, lenses, etc.

The question you raise is whether developing an entirely new MFT sensor for one camera model is worth it. I'd agree and say "no" also. However, Panasonic should look at it as a sensor that will first appear in a $3,500 camera and then trickle down to lower priced models such as GH5/6/7 and so on.

The next objection ought to be is whether waiting for this new sensor to be ready is worth delaying the camera release. This would obviously depend on what stage the development of this sensor currently resides. Samsung management said in a recent interview that they had worked on the NX1 28 MPX BSI sensor for three years. But they were breaking into an unfamiliar territory with NX1. Panasonic has been in the MFT business for a while. Presuming that Panasonic has several projects at work, delaying the introduction of a vastly improved product may be worth the additional 9-12 month wait... even when the advancements in camera design are moving at light's speed (oh, that was corny, wasn't it?)

I can only say again a comment I made a few posts back:

In principle, if the design is right, there is absolutely no reason why a "GH5/YAGH Mk2" couldn't be designed to be easily stored assembled, and operationally be as ready to go the minute you take it out the bag as any unibody design.

The funny thing about this - and I don't mean YAGHA funny! - is that the new Varicam's modular design seems to be pretty well done and the early testers of the camera (though, here I can be corrected) had no problems with either the ergonomics or the workflow.

So, maybe a Unibody design isn't a must, as long as the modular contraption doesn't look or operate like GH4+YAGH or even A7s+Atomos.

 

[harddrive]

The funny thing about this - and I don't mean YAGHA funny! - is that the new Varicam's modular design seems to be pretty well done and the early testers of the camera (though, here I can be corrected) had no problems with either the ergonomics or the workflow.

The thing about the modular nature of the varicam is that it's intended to allow a recorder to be used with either the s35 or 2/3" front ends. The assumption seems to be that a typical user will buy one recorder and one each of the front ends and swap as appropriate. Practically, it makes far more sense that when you want to use 2/3" lenses you just use the s35 head end (the only one to give 4k) and a B4-s35 adaptor. My suspicion is that most varicams sold will simply be a s35 front end with recorder and never get split.......

The big difference is that the Varicam front can never be used by itself. A "GH5/YAGH Mk2" is a different story - the whole point is that many (probably most) "GH5s" will be sold and used without the back end. But it shouldn't be insoluble. For example, the entire back of a "GH5" may normally be an LCD screen - but it may be hinged to swing away sideways to the left so the "YAGH Mk2" connects to the rear of the camera, the screen then lying alongside to form the LHS of the combined unit.

So, maybe a Unibody design isn't a must, as long as the modular contraption doesn't look or operate like GH4+YAGH or even A7s+Atomos.

The key point is that any modular design MUST be designed as one from the outset. What's happened in the past is that a camera (like the GH4) has been designed and produced and somebody has been tasked with building an add-on box to give extra functionality. Accept that, and there becomes far less impetus for a unibody. (At least from the consumer division, which we assume is already making and marketing many GH4/5/6s as we move forward.)

 

[DLD]

The question you raise is whether developing an entirely new MFT sensor for one camera model is worth it. I'd agree and say "no" also. However, Panasonic should look at it as a sensor that will first appear in a $3,500 camera and then trickle down to lower priced models such as GH5/6/7 and so on.

Ah, quoting a wise man (i.e., myself) now.

Why? Because Samsung, somewhat surreptitiously, is releasing a new sub-$1,000 camera with the same 28 MPX BSI APS-C sensor as NX1. A lower priced camera will have a different processor and won't be capable of 4K ... but it will do QHD (2560x1440), which is a pretty big step up in value for this price range. The overall point being is that components introduced in higher end models will trickle down and this trickling process can be very quick.

The thing about the modular nature of the varicam is that it's intended to allow a recorder to be used with either the s35 or 2/3" front ends. The assumption seems to be that a typical user will buy one recorder and one each of the front ends and swap as appropriate. ... The big difference is that the Varicam front can never be used by itself. A "GH5/YAGH Mk2" is a different story - the whole point is that many (probably most) "GH5s" will be sold and used without the back end. But it shouldn't be insoluble. For example, the entire back of a "GH5" may normally be an LCD screen - but it may be hinged to swing away sideways to the left so the "YAGH Mk2" connects to the rear of the camera, the screen then lying alongside to form the LHS of the combined unit.

Indeed. This what makes it a tad treacherous. As I had brought up before, off most recent reviews, Shogun was deemed a worthy - an essential - compliment to A7s but not so to GH4, where the price wasn't worth the marginal improvements. In a modular camera format then, a GH5+YAGH II combination would really have to trump the GH4+Shogun for value. Presuming roughly the same set of features, it'd have to run considerably less than the current $3,500-$3,700 total (or slightly over $4000, if you count the media)

Here, the value of this package becomes the debate. From an engineering point of view, it certainly seems doable. From a marketing perspective, pricing will probably be staggered into something like $1,700 for GH5, $1,500 for YAGHII, $3,000 for both.

PS. Random thinking - since GH4/5 is "mostly" a video camera, a screen that flips out to the side a la your regular camcorder wouldn't be too far out of the left field (US baseball derived term) but it might screw people who already have a bunch of GH3/4 accessories. A Unibody won't, so it sort of makes sense to offer both, especially if an existing camcorder shell and the related electronics serve as a base for this new model.

 

[J Michael]

My idea of a well thought out modular design would include something like a power block that provides your choice of power options, a data block for internal or external recording options, a base for mounting options, a camera block, an i/o block if not part of the camera block, etc. The blocks snap together and you wind up with what looks like a standard video camera. Aluminum or magnesium body. Expand on some of the concepts of the Red cameras. The base would permit choosing a center of gravity for the shoulder mount.

There is an unfilled niche for a great wildlife camera. Think of something you wouldn't mind packing in for several miles, fits in a carry-on with your lenses, etc.

 

[DLD]

Arri Alexa M is also a "piggyback" design ... but its main purpose is to decrease the size of the main unit for different shooting options and that is different than the Varicam, which is designed to work with the 2/3" ENG head.

Overall, modularity needs to have its reasons. Otherwise, a unibody design is so much simpler to handle in the field, especially in the run-and-gun situations.

 

[wgtwo]

An AF200 would be great, but I'm afraid I wouldn't really consider buying it unless it could compete in terms of dynamic range and low light performance, which could be difficult with a M4/3 sensor.