I'm with Phil on this, apart from the sensor. Personally I'd be happy with an HPX250 with a M4/3 sensor - great fixed lens, good body design, good sensor. Maybe increase the AVCHD rate, or if the product was right step up to P2 for AVC Intra. I love my Af101 except for the lenses - would much rather have one good quality fixed lens.
Where is Panasonic in this game?
- Thread starter Phil1076
- Start date
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
What if Panasonic would make an AF250? Micro 4/3 chip with a fast 20x zoom lens built in 
I guess the whole point of my post was that from what I see, Panasonic already has ALL the technology required to make a great camera, but this technology is spread out over several other cameras. My reasoning for the S35 sensor was low light (FS100 sees in the dark practically) and available lenses....if it keeps the cost of the camera of the camera down, keep the 4/3 sensor instead.
The technology is already there:
-take the sensor from the GH2
-add AVC-Intra 100MBps 10-bit 4:2:2 (to SDXC as a bonus, but P2 would work also)
-put it all in an AF100 body.
I'm hugely unimpressed with the C300's specs for $16k. It seems Panasonic has all the pieces of the puzzle built already -- they just need to assemble the puzzle....and it wouldn't be that expensive to do so.
The technology is already there:
-take the sensor from the GH2
-add AVC-Intra 100MBps 10-bit 4:2:2 (to SDXC as a bonus, but P2 would work also)
-put it all in an AF100 body.
I'm hugely unimpressed with the C300's specs for $16k. It seems Panasonic has all the pieces of the puzzle built already -- they just need to assemble the puzzle....and it wouldn't be that expensive to do so.
"What's wrong with M4/3? I still don't understand why this seems like such a big handicap to people."
Well, there's obviously a few -
- No one wants to lose anything off of their lenses, particularly wide ones. Fast, good, wide glass costs an arm and a leg. As the 4/3 micro effectively doubles perspective, that means something like the 14mm 2.8 Canon (costing around $2,000) becomes a 28mm. Not fun. Sure, the S35 also does the same thing, but to a far lesser degree.
- Lack of native glass. Simply put, there isn't a whole lot to choose from, and what's there tends to be pricier then a comparable Nikon or Canon. Again, fast, sharp and wide m4/3's lenses are very few and far between - not to very pricey.
- Add to that smart adapters that are only now hitting the market (and the fact that they're minor investments in their own right), and it can reasonably be called a negative.
- 4/3's glass is good on one type of Camera - 4/3s. You won't be porting over any of that glass to any other sort of mount 10 years down the line to a Canon or a Nikon or a Sony (at least as things stand now). It's 4/3's or nothing...
- ...And considering that the format has only existed for about 4 years, it should make any one take pause before any would be investment in 4/3's glass. Only two large companies currently use the format, Panny being the only "true" video camera maker. The other company - Olympus - may very well go bankrupt due to criminal corporate book keepings. Compare that to Nikon, which has well over 400 lenses (not counting 3rd party glass) and has been around for 50 plus years, or to Canon's EOS line - which has been around for 25 years and has something like 200 lens (not including 3rd party) available, and the the 4/3s doesn't look so good. Both companies have 10's of thousands of bodies out in the wild - probably hundreds of thousands. M4/3's not close in that comparison either.
That's a track record that means one thing - you know you'll be able to sell your Canon or Nikon lenses down the line. Every brand-new Nikon AF lens, except for G lenses, works fine on a Nikon 1959 F body.
- Notice that I haven't referred to the quality of the current m4/3's cameras and that's for a simple reason - anyone who's been in the biz for any length of time will tell you, it's your investment in glass that really matters, not what camera is currently the hot s@#* - because 4 years latter, that camera will look ancient - but good glass is practically forever.
At least if their are still cameras using the format that is. And the jury's very much out on that question - and will be for some time to come.
All that said, I'm fine with Panny sticking with the format. Just amp up the AF100 to an on board 4:2:2 50mpbs codec, a wee bit more resolution/sharpness, and some more of the DVX mojo (which does seem to be missing), and I'm in.
Well, there's obviously a few -
- No one wants to lose anything off of their lenses, particularly wide ones. Fast, good, wide glass costs an arm and a leg. As the 4/3 micro effectively doubles perspective, that means something like the 14mm 2.8 Canon (costing around $2,000) becomes a 28mm. Not fun. Sure, the S35 also does the same thing, but to a far lesser degree.
- Lack of native glass. Simply put, there isn't a whole lot to choose from, and what's there tends to be pricier then a comparable Nikon or Canon. Again, fast, sharp and wide m4/3's lenses are very few and far between - not to very pricey.
- Add to that smart adapters that are only now hitting the market (and the fact that they're minor investments in their own right), and it can reasonably be called a negative.
- 4/3's glass is good on one type of Camera - 4/3s. You won't be porting over any of that glass to any other sort of mount 10 years down the line to a Canon or a Nikon or a Sony (at least as things stand now). It's 4/3's or nothing...
- ...And considering that the format has only existed for about 4 years, it should make any one take pause before any would be investment in 4/3's glass. Only two large companies currently use the format, Panny being the only "true" video camera maker. The other company - Olympus - may very well go bankrupt due to criminal corporate book keepings. Compare that to Nikon, which has well over 400 lenses (not counting 3rd party glass) and has been around for 50 plus years, or to Canon's EOS line - which has been around for 25 years and has something like 200 lens (not including 3rd party) available, and the the 4/3s doesn't look so good. Both companies have 10's of thousands of bodies out in the wild - probably hundreds of thousands. M4/3's not close in that comparison either.
That's a track record that means one thing - you know you'll be able to sell your Canon or Nikon lenses down the line. Every brand-new Nikon AF lens, except for G lenses, works fine on a Nikon 1959 F body.
- Notice that I haven't referred to the quality of the current m4/3's cameras and that's for a simple reason - anyone who's been in the biz for any length of time will tell you, it's your investment in glass that really matters, not what camera is currently the hot s@#* - because 4 years latter, that camera will look ancient - but good glass is practically forever.
At least if their are still cameras using the format that is. And the jury's very much out on that question - and will be for some time to come.
All that said, I'm fine with Panny sticking with the format. Just amp up the AF100 to an on board 4:2:2 50mpbs codec, a wee bit more resolution/sharpness, and some more of the DVX mojo (which does seem to be missing), and I'm in.
Last edited:
Yeah, except for the use of the too expensive P2-memory cards
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Asking Panasonic to make a non m4/3 sensor wont happen with the AF series but they might go with something like HPX style and a PL mount larger sensor in the future.
Erik Naso
Veteran
I doubt a updated AF-100 will be announced at NAB. The camera is only one years old. Panasonic was first to deliver a camera that has what we wanted. Basically a DSLR that works for video first. The other guys have caught up now but really the FS100 is the only competitor in the $5K price point and I wouldn’t sell my AF-100 to buy it. If I was in the market for a new camera and didn’t have the AF-100 i’m not sure the FS100 would be my choice even though I would like the S35 sensor. The Canon is now retailing at $16K. What’s the deal? Wasn’t it supposed to be $12K? At $16K that puts the C300 at three times the price. Its in a totally different class and should only be compared to F3 and Scarlet.
What if Panasonic would make an AF250? Micro 4/3 chip with a fast 20x zoom lens built in
Yes please
I reckon they should be aiming for the lower end of the market rather than the high end, there are enough broadcast ready large sensor cams as it is. even at 4-5 grand without lenses the af100 is still to expensive for many people to purchase outright (myself included). surely they'd make more money by releasing a lower end af50 with a price of around 1500 to 2000 pounds/dollars/euros. something on a par with a hmc40 but with a m4/3rds sensor and interchangeable lenses, and some stripped out functions to lower the costs; all you really need in a camera to be able to shoot properly is zoom,focus and iris contol, iso/gain, shutter control, ND filters, a viewfinder and some basic level of audio input and adjustment. Everything else is just a nice bonus, and i'm guessing plenty of people would be able to live without some of the mod cons in newer cameras if it saved them a few thousand.This would be the ideal camera for all the extreme sports shooters, low budget doc's, film schools, B cam, and even weddings if your into that kind of thing.
I really don't understand why none of the manufacturers have cottoned on yet, these new cinematic cams were supposed be "DSLR killers" which is pretty hard to achieve when they cost 5 to 10 times more than your average stills cam, which is why, if anything you're seeing more people jumping on the dslr bandwagon; For example, 2 small production houses i freelance for finally made the HD switch last year, high end cams like reds and kitted out f3's were out of the question financially, but rather than go straight to the mid range af100 or fs100 both went with the dslr option instead as the picture quality is very close (sometimes better) and you don't gain a huge amount by spending 3 or 4 grand more. so yeah basically what i'm trying to say is that if panasonic (or anyone) come out with a lower end large sensor camera targeted directly at the dslr market i think they will absolutely smash it, and easily outsell all the competition.
I really don't understand why none of the manufacturers have cottoned on yet, these new cinematic cams were supposed be "DSLR killers" which is pretty hard to achieve when they cost 5 to 10 times more than your average stills cam, which is why, if anything you're seeing more people jumping on the dslr bandwagon; For example, 2 small production houses i freelance for finally made the HD switch last year, high end cams like reds and kitted out f3's were out of the question financially, but rather than go straight to the mid range af100 or fs100 both went with the dslr option instead as the picture quality is very close (sometimes better) and you don't gain a huge amount by spending 3 or 4 grand more. so yeah basically what i'm trying to say is that if panasonic (or anyone) come out with a lower end large sensor camera targeted directly at the dslr market i think they will absolutely smash it, and easily outsell all the competition.
The M4/3 format only doubles the crop factor when compared to the world of Full Frame 35mm Still Photo cameras. When compared to the current S35 Cine standard ( we are shooting video here ), the crop is 1.3x, which is not that big a deal. Yes it will mean buying a few wide angle lenses that are specifically designed for the M4/3 format, but buying a few M4/3 wide lenses is also not that big a deal.
Quick Quiz : Which format has more dedicated wide-angle primes : APS-C or M4/3 ???
Let's see...
M4/3 Wide Primes : Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5, Olympus 12mm f/2.0, SLR Magic 12mm f/1.6, Panasonic 14mm f/2.5, Olympus 17mm f/2.8
APS-C Wide Primes : Samyang 8mm f/3.5
Panasonic has 4 new M4/3 lenses coming out this year. ( the 12-35mm and 35-100mm zooms, and something else ??? )
Olympus has stated that they are releasing 5 new M4/3 lenses this year. ( some will be prime lenses, hopefully more wide angle primes )
M4/3 format is not going away any time soon, and new cameras will keep coming.
Quick Quiz : Which DSLR / EVIL camera records higher resolution 1080 HD video : APS-C or M4/3 ?
Anyone who has watched Philip Blooms Xmas shoot-out clearly knows that the still photo camera that shot the highest resolution video was the Panasonic GH-2.
Quick Quiz : Which DSLR / EVIL camera records 1080 HD video with the least amount of aliasing or moire : APS-C or M4/3 ?
Panasonic GH-2
...If you can afford $6K for a camera body the new Nikon D4 looks really interesting right now, and I will definitely watch for new reviews from actual film-makers, but if you can't afford a $6K camera, the best low cost video option right now is the Panasonic GH-2 with it's M4/3 format: 1080 HD with lots of fine detail, lack of aliasing and moire, high bit-rate hacks that enable intra-frame shooting, able to use almost any lens made
All this might change once Canon and Nikon introduce their new APS-C camera bodies, but right now the GH-2 is the camera to beat.
The crop factor is highly overrated. I actually shot with the GH2 over the weekend in very cramped spaces and rarely needed to go below the 14mm of the stock 14-44 Lumix lens, and on one occasion easily used a Tokina at 11mm to get what I needed. The rest were the standard 24mm and 50mm lenses.
I used manual aperture Nikkors. The only benefit is for the image stabilization that the native lenses can provide, which worked very well in my opinion. Other than that, I had no issues with my Nikkon F or Canon EF adapter. Even had my 60D on set to change the aperture, but only used that once (with the Tokina).
As a side note, I'm hearing rumblings of m4/3rds popularity starting to spring up in the photog world. If that catches on, the m4/3 glass might end up being a non-issue.
I think the AF-100A should be 4:2:2 10-bit out and Panasonic should also come out with their own P2 version of the NanoFlash/Ninja/Samauri/ect. that records DVCPRO/AVC-I (and keep AVCHD built in). Also be nice if it took a cue for image processing from the HPX-250 as well.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
4/3 is the reason I didn't buy a GH2. I didn't want to be compelled to buy 4/3 glass to get wide. To be a serious player in the pro world I think S35 is pretty much required so cinema glass would be be native FOV.
I got wide using a Tokina EF lens.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Price on one of those?
Just found it, about $700, not that bad, but it's still investing a lot of green in a stills lens that vignettes on a FF still sensor.
HAHAHA hilarious.
"As a side note, I'm hearing rumblings of m4/3rds popularity starting to spring up in the photog world. If that catches on, the m4/3 glass might end up being a non-issue."
While I'm not predicting m4/3's going away.... it could. Unlikely? Probably, but it is a rational reason to prefer a format like Nikon's that you know for certain will be here in 10 years (and prolly for another 50).
"The crop factor is highly overrated."
Perhaps. But with the Sony version of S35, I gain 25% more perspective then with a m4/3's sensor - and that's not nothing. The DoF is noticably different for one, and should allow for perhaps a 1/2 stop better sensitivity all other factors equal. The size difference isn't necessarily "better" per se, but certainly to some shooters more desirable. For others, less DoF is preferable. But in either case, there is enough of a difference between S35 and M3/4s for someone to make a decision based on that alone.
More to the point, many buyers DID make that decision based on that alone - for reasons that seem rational.
"Quick Quiz : Which format has more dedicated wide-angle primes : APS-C or M4/3 ???"
You left off many wide APS-C lenses, primarily the incredibly popular Tokina 11-14mm (which many people consider close enough to prime to be called a prime). And in any case, APS-C lens can be used (in most cases ) on FF cameras (as you can with the aforementioned Tokina)... Of which - as I noted - there several tens of thousands more of them M4/3's cameras.
You buy wide 4/3's, it's good for M4/3's camera only - that's it. Which mean one - exactly one - professional video camera in the world (the AF100/101) can effectively use those M4/3's wides, whereas every APS-C lens (not to mention FF glass) ever made will work for every large sensor interchangable video camera - including 35 year old Canon FD glass - with a $25 adapter. In other words, I can use all of my Canon ASP-C glass on the AF100, but ZERO m4/3s lenses on a Canon (or a Sony or Nikon).
"I used manual aperture Nikkors."
Which in my opinion (other than using Canon FD, Canon/Zeiss, or Canon/Rokinon) is the smartest way to go, particularly for video shooters. And that of course is what people are doing, with perhaps one or two M4/3's thrown in. But doing so means that you give up autofocus and in the case of Canon EOS glass, control of the aperture. At this point, I believe only Redrock makes an adapter to get that control back - and it's $450.
All of which goes to show my point - there are reasons, legit real-world reasons, why someone might be turned off by the m4/3s format. Personally, those aren't reason enough to avoid it if the camera strong enough, but I can totally understand why someone might feel differently.
While I'm not predicting m4/3's going away.... it could. Unlikely? Probably, but it is a rational reason to prefer a format like Nikon's that you know for certain will be here in 10 years (and prolly for another 50).
"The crop factor is highly overrated."
Perhaps. But with the Sony version of S35, I gain 25% more perspective then with a m4/3's sensor - and that's not nothing. The DoF is noticably different for one, and should allow for perhaps a 1/2 stop better sensitivity all other factors equal. The size difference isn't necessarily "better" per se, but certainly to some shooters more desirable. For others, less DoF is preferable. But in either case, there is enough of a difference between S35 and M3/4s for someone to make a decision based on that alone.
More to the point, many buyers DID make that decision based on that alone - for reasons that seem rational.
"Quick Quiz : Which format has more dedicated wide-angle primes : APS-C or M4/3 ???"
You left off many wide APS-C lenses, primarily the incredibly popular Tokina 11-14mm (which many people consider close enough to prime to be called a prime). And in any case, APS-C lens can be used (in most cases ) on FF cameras (as you can with the aforementioned Tokina)... Of which - as I noted - there several tens of thousands more of them M4/3's cameras.
You buy wide 4/3's, it's good for M4/3's camera only - that's it. Which mean one - exactly one - professional video camera in the world (the AF100/101) can effectively use those M4/3's wides, whereas every APS-C lens (not to mention FF glass) ever made will work for every large sensor interchangable video camera - including 35 year old Canon FD glass - with a $25 adapter. In other words, I can use all of my Canon ASP-C glass on the AF100, but ZERO m4/3s lenses on a Canon (or a Sony or Nikon).
"I used manual aperture Nikkors."
Which in my opinion (other than using Canon FD, Canon/Zeiss, or Canon/Rokinon) is the smartest way to go, particularly for video shooters. And that of course is what people are doing, with perhaps one or two M4/3's thrown in. But doing so means that you give up autofocus and in the case of Canon EOS glass, control of the aperture. At this point, I believe only Redrock makes an adapter to get that control back - and it's $450.
All of which goes to show my point - there are reasons, legit real-world reasons, why someone might be turned off by the m4/3s format. Personally, those aren't reason enough to avoid it if the camera strong enough, but I can totally understand why someone might feel differently.
Last edited:
And which FF still sensor are you planning to use it on? The 5D? The 1DX? And...uh, oh. No vignetting on F3/FS100/AF100/C300/ect ect ect.