Correct. My point is that Panasonic doesn't have a range, so it doesn't offer feature upgrades at any price point.
Yes, they do. At $15,000 to $30,000. The AF100 is a third to an eighth of that cost. You have to consider class to class, or you'll never be able to make reasonable comparisons. And class to class, the closest thing they have to the AF100 is the FS100, and it's 8-bit. And at twice the price, the FS700, is still 8-bit. Under $10k, it's an 8-bit world with very, very, very few exceptions.
Yes, at a combined price point of $15,000. Or 4x the price of an AF100A. Which means, again, you're comparing totally different classes of products.
True. But Canon has the C100, which doesn't do real 10-bit, in fact it does only 8-bit. And the C300, which does only 8-bit. And JVC has their entire lineup which does only 8-bit. And Sony has their entire NEX lineup, from the FS700 on down, that only do 8-bit.
Well, maybe they could have, and maybe they couldn't have. Maybe the internal processing engine is based around 8 bit, and so maybe it would never have been an option to go 10-bit. You don't know. I don't know. I think that as far as the market is concerned, we would have dearly loved to see the AF100A have AVC Long-G and 4:2:2 10-bit on-board! That would have been a big step forward and would have given them a big competitive edge. Why didn't they? I don't know. Either it's because they're painfully blind (which I doubt), or there were reasons they just couldn't do it.
You know, sometimes I wish Panny would get their act together and rethink their strategies to better suit the market.
Competitors like Canon, for example, have embraced their DSLRs being used alongside pro cameras, and integrated the technology across their pro and consumer departments. Yet Panny's rep at NAB previously shot down anyone asking about the GH2 or its rumored successor. It was as if the pro camera department didn't want to acknowledge that the GH2 existed or could even compete with their other offerings. Meanwhille, I've heard many an AF100 shooter lament that they wish they had the GH2's sensor in an AF100 body.
But then, I look at Canon's lineup and how they integrated technology across their offerings at a price point per crippled feature. The variation in price from an entry level Rebel to the 1DC, and how everything in between is so close but just doesn't quite get it, etc... and suddenly, I think we're better off with Panasonic as we know them currently.
Y'know, that's entirely possible too. Maybe they consider the market oversaturated with offerings, such that there isn't much point in them chasing after it? I don't know. I know their little cameras are quite excellent, so they've really done well there. And they must believe there's still a market to pursue with the 2/3" products. Maybe they're not that interested in chasing after a congested market like digital cinema? At least, in the higher price brackets. I still say the AF100A is untouched in its price point, there's nothing out there like it, they really do have the low-cost pro camera segment to themselves. Maybe they're happy with that and don't want to go after the bigger sensor market, seeing as there's already a C100, C300, C500, 1D-C, FS100, FS700, F3, F5, F55, Epic, Scarlet, and ... who knows what all else ... that's pretty crowded as is...
AVC-LongG is interesting. It will be the only P2 format that does not have a fixed compressed frame size, which can be a challenge to a non-linear editing system. I wonder if it was intended to be mainly for delivery and broadcast. We are going to be providing native LongG editing in Raylight Cutter. ( http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?295267-Raylight-Cutter ) as well as support for exporting it from FCP and FCPX. I have just now started looking at the specifications for it. Maybe AVC-LongG and the mini P2 card will revive the P2 format for filmmmakers.
You might try recording the same mike on 2 channels, one at a normal setting and the other at a low setting. Use the louder channel during edit, but if the louder channel peaks out, use the other one. Always boosting a low recording risks audible quantization noise, especially with 16-bit audio.
I recall my old cameras having great limiters that would never have lousy clipping or record distortion. (with reasonable audio source -- I am sure if I put a horn in front of the mic it would distort.)
