Why is the AF100 using SD cards?!? Is Panasonic dumping P2?!?!

EDV

EDV

Well-known member
Okay, we've all read the countless threads on P2 vs SD, and why Panasonic thinks P2 is superior and virtually "future proof". Knowing this some of us have literally invested thousands in P2 technology... not only cards but other hardware as well. Is Panasonic now making the switch to SD technology? Why release a new "revolutionary" product that is P2 incompatible?!
 
You do know that P2 technology is actually a RAID system using SD cards...right? They have been using SD cards all along.
 
No, I actually didn't know that. All I know, is that I can't use my super expensive P2 cards on the AF100.
I suspect that also means a lot less functionality, and a lot less reliability, since these SD cards always seemed so small and flimsy. Oh well, forget the AF100, I'll keep saving for a HPX370.
 
EDV said:
No, I actually didn't know that. All I know, is that I can't use my super expensive P2 cards on the AF100.
I suspect that also means a lot less functionality, and a lot less reliability, since these SD cards always seemed so small and flimsy. Oh well, forget the AF100, I'll keep saving for a HPX370.
Click to expand...

The AF100 and the HPX370 are two completely different animals. Choose what works best for you!

I've been using the HMC150 for over a year now without one SD problem to date.
 
Yes, but people on these forums have certain expectations from Panasonic... unless is a "prosumer type" of camera we're talking about. Perhaps Panasonic is trying to come up with a new DVX in the AF100...(lets not forget how revolutionary the DVX was when it first came out) a camera that is affordable for indy filmmakers, gives you an amazing look, but lacks some of the pro functionality of the bigger broadcast cameras
 
David S. said:
It's a cost issue. p2 capability would add thousands to the sticker price.
Click to expand...

This is an honest question, not trolling:

Why would it add thousands? The technology is available now, it's proven, it's in a ton of their cameras, there should be no more R&D costs with creating it (it's created already). Does it just cost that much to make the P2 components that go into the camera, then interface them with the new sensor?

I would love a P2 version, even at a cost of one or two thousand dollars more - I just don't understand why it costs so much more to use the components/codecs they already have, unless the actual production costs are that much higher.
 
I didn't understand Panna thinking on the AF-100 at first. After using AVCHD on one of my cams and realizing this really is a pretty good looking codec, I came to the following conclusions:

P2 cams are oriented towards journalists, documentaries, and mid-level movies shot with higher end P2 cams. Reliability is paramount. The SD card based AF-100 is not going to win the hearts of the run and gun crowd or high end shooters. Maybe later there will be a P2 based AF-100 style cam using the intra codec and a higher price.

The AF-100 is aimed at snatching away the DSLR crowd from whatever they are now shooting with and may snatch a few Red customers on price - performance considerations. Price point is important and the improved feature set of the AF-100 over a DSLR with accessories is going to be a hit. While no one ever wants a card failure, saving thousands using SD over P2 probably makes sense (until you do have a SD card failure). For the more serious and deliberate shooters, they can skip the SD card route and go to an external recorder and still come in around $12000 with a couple of decent lenses.

This is making more sense to me now.

Grant
 
I use the HPX170, and the only reason I would consider buying another camera (at this point) is to have access to a better lens. The AF100 seems attractive, but without P2 I dont see myself using it. Instead, I would go for the HPX370 and use it in multi-camera shoots alongside the HPX170. I am also getting into steadicam, and the AF100 appears too light for that.
 
Butcher said:
This is an honest question, not trolling:

Why would it add thousands? The technology is available now, it's proven, it's in a ton of their cameras, there should be no more R&D costs with creating it (it's created already). Does it just cost that much to make the P2 components that go into the camera, then interface them with the new sensor?

I would love a P2 version, even at a cost of one or two thousand dollars more - I just don't understand why it costs so much more to use the components/codecs they already have, unless the actual production costs are that much higher.
Click to expand...

Because it would add thousands to the cost of the camera.

The product manager for the AF-100 stated this in response to a question elsewhere.
 
I know she did - I read it. I'm asking if anyone that has manufacturing experience could speculate whether or not the parts themselves would be that expensive, or the R&D to make it work, or what. If they can sell the HPX170 for $4K, and it's got XLR/P2/HDSDI and records to DVCProHD, I'm having trouble figuring out why a new sensor in a similar camera body can't utilize P2 and a better codec without it driving the cost up by thousands.

Barry? Otis? Jan?
 
I would think that it would be possible if they made it record to DVCPRO-HD only. But who would want that, now that AVC-Intra is out? And if they made it record to AVC-Intra, it would mean ripping out all the 8-bit internals and replacing them with 10-bit hardware. And according to Jan, making that camera would be thousands more than the existing one. On top of which, you'd have to buy the P2 cards as well, and for the price point this camera is targeted at, and the customer base in this range, Panasonic felt that an AVCCAM version was the right way to launch it.
 
Thanks Barry. It makes sense that changing all the 8-bit components to 10-bit could be a dramatic cost increase. Personally, I'd still prefer P2 (I'm already invested and trust it more), and DVCProHD fits perfectly into my existing workflows (no transcode required).

But, Panasonic has crunched their numbers and I'm sure targeting the DSLR crowd would be much, much more profitable than trying to sell this camera primarily to their existing userbase (HVX200/HPX170 users).

Since Panasonic does listen to its userbase, though, here's my vote for an 8-bit/P2/DVCProHD version of the AF100.

Thanks again.
 
That's actually a new/unique version. I've been badgering them for 6 months for a P2/AVC-Intra version, but man, I wonder if an 8-bit DVCPRO-HD version would be an easy product to produce and how many folks would want it? Might be a lot of people out there... interesting...
 
Butcher,

If you think about it, the DSLR crowd that doesn't presently own P2, would have to buy P2. That WOULD run the cost up for those folks and might reduce sales. In my case, I have three P2 cards and I might need to buy more if I purchased a AF-100. That would run the cost up for me too. I guess if you have plenty of P2 already, it would make great sense to make a P2 version. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a P2 version, but the cam would have the same memory price ***** factor as the 1/3" HVX and HPX cams.

Grant
 
We have a couple HPX170's and I'm thinking of getting a couple AF100s to compliment them. We do multiangle shooting weekly at a church as well as interviews and tons of other random stuff. Was looking at HPX300s because of our weekend service recording, but AF100 gives us ALOT more capability for other styles of shooting. Even live with more artistic shots.

I'm bummed about the no P2 thing. I'd prefer DVCPROHD to AVCCAM, but really think of it this way. SD cards are not expensive (compared to P2). Buy an AF100 and some SD cards, and use the cam til the update/upgrade AF200 comes out with P2. Then SELL THE AF100! Your losses should be minimal; the AF100 will be popular for a looong time yet.

In that meantime, it'll be easy to enjoy the smaller data size of AVCCAM footage. And I really believe that the AF100 compliments HPX170 really well. Everything the AF100 lacks (4:2:2, ENG style shooting, run and gun, CCD), the HPX170 has. Everthing the 170 lacks, (Good low light, 1080p imager, DoF, cinema style) the AF100 has. Need a green screen? HPX170. Need a good interview? AF100. Need a man on the street? Use both and mix the footage!

Really it seems like a no-brainer to me!
 
Your not going to use an amazing camera because you have invested in p2 cards? I understand the disapointment in your already owning a specific format. But thats the way technology works, I have invested in some beautiful Canon fd glass, I bought lenses from all over the world to make a close to perfect set. Then I bought the T2i, and had to start all over again with glass for that. Yeah it sucks, but I didn't want to limit my tool box because I already own fd glass, And now I will have to start over again with the af100, Because I want to use cinema lenses. It's a cycle that never ends.
 
maranfilms said:
Your not going to use an amazing camera because you have invested in p2 cards? I understand the disapointment in your already owning a specific format. But thats the way technology works, I have invested in some beautiful Canon fd glass, I bought lenses from all over the world to make a close to perfect set. Then I bought the T2i, and had to start all over again with glass for that. Yeah it sucks, but I didn't want to limit my tool box because I already own fd glass, And now I will have to start over again with the af100, Because I want to use cinema lenses. It's a cycle that never ends.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to buy the AF100 because it doesn't fit my workflow. The P2 cards are just a secondary reason I'm not ordering one. I don't have the luxury of waiting for my footage to transcode so I can edit - every minute waiting for a computer to do a format conversion is time I've lost in the edit. That's why P2 and DVCProHD work so well for me and why I require it for the bulk of my work - it's fast and it's available instantly. AVCHD isn't, so the AF100 doesn't fit my workflow.

You can get an adapter to continue using your FD glass, and the rest of the workflow is the same. I can't get an adapter to use my P2 and switch the codec to DVCProHD for the AF100, so my entire workflow had to change, and that won't happen at this time. Maybe in the future, but right now it doesn't make sense for me. Your needs may be different, so this camera may be more for you.

Now if someone in town buys an AF100 and is willing to rent it out I'll get my hands on it as soon as I can and rent it when time allows, if the picture holds up and it's everything we're hoping it to be. But as a daily cam, it doesn't fit my workflow well enough to be a major item on my purchasing list. Reusing P2 would just be a bonus.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's actually a new/unique version. I've been badgering them for 6 months for a P2/AVC-Intra version, but man, I wonder if an 8-bit DVCPRO-HD version would be an easy product to produce and how many folks would want it? Might be a lot of people out there... interesting...
Click to expand...

I would like that just for the improved color space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top