Why Panasonic didn't make a built in recorder like Nanoflash ?

[olof]

I think this is all about marketing and cost of production.

If you go to the trouble of creating a 10 bit 422 or 444 even camera, with high bitrate recording, who wants to make the worst one.

So when a manufacturer makes that class camera, all the components get expensive, at least today. You have to use a real expensive chip (remember development cost balanced to #'s of projected sales over the life of the chip).

I think Pany wanted to hit this price bracket really badly and therefore the AF100 is what you get, and it is a great tool for the price.

Other manufacturers hit different markets (like the upcoming F3) and they too make compromises, in some parts like recording. But for almost 10G more give you 10bit 422 or 444 as options (lots of $$). And yes the chip is a higher quality than the AF100 chip. That is the Sony play.

I think there is a market for both. And both companies have lots of other products as well.

I don't think they are trying to rip us off. I think they are just trying to guess at what the market will buy. And I think it is really cool that third parties can take a great cam like the AF100 and make it a higher grade tool, that Pany did not want to gamble on, but made provisions to upgrade to.

These are very exiting but stressful times.

 

[Boncrek]

I think this is all about marketing and cost of production.

If you go to the trouble of creating a 10 bit 422 or 444 even camera, with high bitrate recording, who wants to make the worst one.

So when a manufacturer makes that class camera, all the components get expensive, at least today. You have to use a real expensive chip (remember development cost balanced to #'s of projected sales over the life of the chip).

I think Pany wanted to hit this price bracket really badly and therefore the AF100 is what you get, and it is a great tool for the price.

Other manufacturers hit different markets (like the upcoming F3) and they too make compromises, in some parts like recording. But for almost 10G more give you 10bit 422 or 444 as options (lots of $$). And yes the chip is a higher quality than the AF100 chip. That is the Sony play.

I think there is a market for both. And both companies have lots of other products as well.

I don't think they are trying to rip us off. I think they are just trying to guess at what the market will buy. And I think it is really cool that third parties can take a great cam like the AF100 and make it a higher grade tool, that Pany did not want to gamble on, but made provisions to upgrade to.

These are very exiting but stressful times.

+1 Well Said

 

[TheDingo]

Here is a link to uncompressed pict files from both a nano @ 140 mbs and internal AVCHD PH mode (converted to ProRes in FCP)

Comparing these two images as static photographs, looking at the NANO image I can see a little better image definition on the face of the girl in pink.

...But viewing this as a 24 fps film, there is no way in hell that anyone could tell which was which. The difference is much too subtle to notice.

 

[Elton]

When comparing the two in motion, the AVCHD held up much better than I expected it to. You're right that almost nobody could tell which is which at first blush...but once you have the need to really push the motion-stressed footage in post, high bitrate outboard recording can make a signifigant difference.

 

[jonatha]

When comparing the two in motion, the AVCHD held up much better than I expected it to. You're right that almost nobody could tell which is which at first blush...but once you have the need to really push the motion-stressed footage in post, high bitrate outboard recording can make a signifigant difference.

Ya that is true higher bit rate and higher color sampling is good for post and keying,that is the main advantage of higher quality of video,

 

[Boncrek]

When comparing the two in motion, the AVCHD held up much better than I expected it to. You're right that almost nobody could tell which is which at first blush...but once you have the need to really push the motion-stressed footage in post, high bitrate outboard recording can make a signifigant difference.

In your opinion, is that significant difference worth the price and complexity involved with using an external recorder?

 

[nugat]

canon xf300 6500$

canon xf300 6500$

Canon 305 with 422 50mbit and excellent lens costs 6500$.
It is accepted by EBU and BBC for prime broadcast use.
Panasonic 371 with 10 bit AVC-intra 422 100mbit and lens is 10k.
Hi-bit 422 coding is not a cost factor.

I think this is all about marketing and cost of production.

If you go to the trouble of creating a 10 bit 422 or 444 even camera, with high bitrate recording, who wants to make the worst one.

So when a manufacturer makes that class camera, all the components get expensive, at least today. You have to use a real expensive chip (remember development cost balanced to #'s of projected sales over the life of the chip).

I think Pany wanted to hit this price bracket really badly and therefore the AF100 is what you get, and it is a great tool for the price.

Other manufacturers hit different markets (like the upcoming F3) and they too make compromises, in some parts like recording. But for almost 10G more give you 10bit 422 or 444 as options (lots of $$). And yes the chip is a higher quality than the AF100 chip. That is the Sony play.

I think there is a market for both. And both companies have lots of other products as well.

I don't think they are trying to rip us off. I think they are just trying to guess at what the market will buy. And I think it is really cool that third parties can take a great cam like the AF100 and make it a higher grade tool, that Pany did not want to gamble on, but made provisions to upgrade to.

These are very exiting but stressful times.

 

[Boncrek]

Canon 305 with 422 50mbit and excellent lens costs 6500$.
It is accepted by EBU and BBC for prime broadcast use.
Panasonic 371 with 10 bit AVC-intra 422 100mbit and lens is 10k.
Hi-bit 422 coding is not a cost factor.

Is this the Canon 305 you were referring to? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/684198-REG/Canon_4454B001_XF305_Professional_Camcorder.html
Its $7,500 according to B&H.
In any case the Canon 305 is not like the AF100. Two different beasts im sure. One is a fixed lens ENG type of camera and the other is an Interchangeable Film Camera. The cost of one does not relate to the other so Im not sure why you're comparing them.
You don't know how much of the Canon's $7,500 is due to its 4:2:2 recording ability.
And the same goes for the AF100 and its AVCHD so lets not compare apples to oranges.
( Yes they both may be fruit but they have different seeds )



Im glad this camera is a $5000 camera.
It puts it just within arms reach for me as a content creator and I cant complain about that.
If Panasonic could have made a "better" camera for the same money Im sure they would have.
Something prevented the AF100 from having your exact wishlist of features.
It happens all the time.
It could have been cost to manufacture or time to develop the necessary technologies etc.
What we have is an awesome camera by any strecth of the imagination.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some persons would love for the camera to perform well in a market it was never intended for.
Common sense tells me that if Panasonic could have put in more bitrate quality for the same price then they would have.
If you think the camera should have had "this" or should have had "that" then its probably not the camera for you.

 

[nugat]

Is this the Canon 305 you were referring to? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/684198-REG/Canon_4454B001_XF305_Professional_Camcorder.html
Its $7,500 according to B&H.
In any case the Canon 305 is not like the AF100. Two different beasts im sure. One is a fixed lens ENG type of camera and the other is an Interchangeable Film Camera. The cost of one does not relate to the other so Im not sure why you're comparing them.
You don't know how much of the Canon's $7,500 is due to its 4:2:2 recording ability.
And the same goes for the AF100 and its AVCHD so lets not compare apples to oranges.
( Yes they both may be fruit but they have different seeds )

The xf300 is 6,500$ at BHPhoto --with the same codec* ability. And that's what's being discussed, 422 hi-bitrate codec.
So how much do you figure it costs Canon extra to put such a codec on a 6500$ camera?
Assume gross margin of 55-60% (typical for such products), the manufacturing cost is 3000$. And the codec chip? Half of it? Joke, joke, more likely 15-20% for the whole codec, 5-10% of total manufacturing cost extra for the extra paramenters. Ok, for the sake of the discussion-- half the cost, or 1500$!
Even so, a fine price to be paid to be accepted by EBU/BBC for HD broadcast use.
Unless such codec would not help AF100 to improve overall performance, in that case AVCHD is just sufficient.
We'll know when EBU/BBC publish their tests on Af100, hopefully with the section on a outboard 422 recording for comparison.

*onboard electronics and software

 

[Hywel]

IF (camera A does what you want AND you can afford it) THEN

Buy camera A​

ELSE

IF (another camera does at price you can pay) THEN

Buy other camera​

ELSE IF (you can live with the compromises for the cash)

Buy Camera A
Make best use of it, within compromises
Use profits made shooting with Camera A to upgrade when you are richer or products have improved​

ELSE IF (you can get loan somehow for alternative camera which does everything)

Buy alternative camera
Pay off loan with profits made from using it​

ENDIF​

ENDIF


A modular system like the AF100 makes some compromises less hard and fast and thus easier to live with. Need witness marks? Need f/0.95 to shoot in the dark? Need superwide lenses? Super tele lenses? 422/100 Mbit recording? At least the camera system is sufficiently open to allow them to be added.

For me the AF100 looked like a great compromise between price, performance, dSLR image look and feel and video camera handling at a price I could afford. I'm enjoying getting to grips with it, will be shooting my first "proper" shoots with mine this week, and hopefully the increases in quality and productivity will improve my profit margin, up the bottom line and maybe let me be able to consider a secondhand Red One or the latest greatest new thing in a year or two's time. Sorted!

Cheers, Hywel

 

[danap]

the next AF1XX model should be systematically modular
1. interchangeable lenses (done)
2. separate sensor module
3. separate encoding module
4. separate command module
5. separate output module
6. separate display modules (viewfinder, LCD)
7. separate sound module
8. separate remote command module, e.g. wireless command

A common bus called POB - Panasonic OmniBus will allow communication between all these parts.

Commercial side effect: you don't buy "one" Panasonic cam, you buy repeatedly, Panasonic modules. Good for you, good for Panasonic, isn't?

PS. Isn't it what RED tries to do, though at a premium price?

 

[Elton]

In your opinion, is that significant difference worth the price and complexity involved with using an external recorder?

Like everything in life...it depends. It isn't necessary for indie/personal projects, but for any production intended to pass muster with a discriminating broadcast outlet, it's a must.

I have to say that my experience using the AF100/nano has been nearly complexity-free. I mean, I could stick the thing in my coat pocket with a 3 hr battery and just run and gun. No extra weight on the camera or fancy rigs. Can't get much easier than that.

Don't forget the peace of mind that comes with redundant recording too. SD card failures are not unheard of.

Given the price points of new products like the Ninja...external recording shouldn't necessarily fall into the 'luxury option' category anymore.