Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Agreed. I'm just happy folks like Emeric exist and share their "home movies" with the rest of us. Cheers.
Zacuto Shootout Part 3?
- Thread starter AKED
- Start date
ditto
ditto
I'm with you.
I'm ready to pull the trigger on a VDSLR this year. I really, really want to get a GH2, but the issues you raise above are what may force me into the Canon camp- kicking and screaming and pouting. I say that as a fellow professional user, who is inclined towards Panasonic products.
I suspect that Panasonic will try to push customers into a AF100 by dumbing down the GH2-no live monitoring, and a improved but still weak codec. It would be frustrating for me personally, but in the bigger picture an unfortunate move for Panasonic. I'm interested in a VDSLR because of it's form factor and utility (stills and video). I'm not interested in an AF100, nor do I consider it a replacement for a VDSLR. The cat is out of the bag with VDSLR's and I'm willing to bet that Panasonic would like to protect their pro line and put the kitty back in the sack. However, It would be nice to be proven wrong on this one.
I hope someone from Panasonic is listening ;-) .
ditto
I'm with you.
I'm ready to pull the trigger on a VDSLR this year. I really, really want to get a GH2, but the issues you raise above are what may force me into the Canon camp- kicking and screaming and pouting. I say that as a fellow professional user, who is inclined towards Panasonic products.
I suspect that Panasonic will try to push customers into a AF100 by dumbing down the GH2-no live monitoring, and a improved but still weak codec. It would be frustrating for me personally, but in the bigger picture an unfortunate move for Panasonic. I'm interested in a VDSLR because of it's form factor and utility (stills and video). I'm not interested in an AF100, nor do I consider it a replacement for a VDSLR. The cat is out of the bag with VDSLR's and I'm willing to bet that Panasonic would like to protect their pro line and put the kitty back in the sack. However, It would be nice to be proven wrong on this one.
I hope someone from Panasonic is listening ;-) .
Vitaliy Kiselev
Carbonite Member
Japanese corporations do not work this way.
They don't run and listen to the customers.
They make research, many meetings and head managers deside main points and marketing niche.
They do not normally adjust products if it becomes clear that some things must be adjusted.
I am pretty sure that we all be disappointed in GH2.
Plus we still do not see GH2 LSI chip. Normally Panasonic introduces LSI chips using compacts (Sony and Canon also do this) to gain volume and hence low price.
And all current Panasonic LSI's are weak.
One possible solution could be to adapt camcorders LSI from TM700 (like Sony).
If this is the case - look at TM700 features.
Ben_B
Veteran
To be fair the various branches of the company don't really listen to each other anyway, so Lumix won't be trying to put the cat back in the bag for the benefit of Panny Broadcast if it being out means Lumix will sell more cameras.
Anyway, all the GH2 really needs is live monitor out (SD, HD, whatever) which the GH1 already has until the recording button is hit (although implemented in a way that has made it technically unfeasible to modify to work),) a better implementation of AVCHD, and 24pn. Throw those in and it will already be better than any Canon on the market. The image is there, it just needs a few more features.
Canon did listen to the 24p demands for the 5D. They just met with George Lucas and others like Rodney Charters ASC and Sam Nicholson ASC to discuss the future of HDSLRS for moviemaking. Panasonic listened to filmmakers in developing the DVX100 etc. I guess the Lumix division is wearing earplugs or headphones and can't hear anybody!
Barry_Green
Moderator
You're attributing a motive there, when there is none. Panasonic won't try to "push" you anywhere. There are two extremely different divisions being talked about, the consumer Lumix division, and the professional broadcast division. Neither of them really know, talk to, or bother with the other, as far as I can tell.
The GH1, and any GH2, are manufactured to provide the features that they believe their customers will want and need. And there are practically no consumer stills photographers who need live monitor out, and certainly not live HDMI out. So why would they spend money on such a feature?
Whereas the broadcast division very much understands that their customers want, need, and demand live monitoring out, which is why the AF100 will have both HDMI *and* HD-SDI uncompressed 4:2:2 HD output.
So it's not a matter of someone "pushing" you in one direction or the other; it's a matter of a customer trying to put a product to a use for which it was never designed. The GH1 was designed and marketed as a consumer home video/still hybrid camera.
How can I take that bet? A thousand bucks, right now? Please? I could use another thousand bucks right about now!
Panasonic has no interest in "protecting" their "pro line" -- if the pro products can't compete, screw 'em, they're going to put out products that they think will sell the best. If that cannibalizes their own sales, well, too bad -- at least they're still getting the sale, instead of a competitor getting it. Sure, they'd rather you spend $60,000 on a camera than $6,000 -- but, and here's the key point that people seem to miss all the time: if you're simply NOT GOING to spend $60,000 on a product... then they still want to get your $6,000 sale.
If they were worried about cannibalizing their higher end, would they ever have released the HVX200? The Varicam was the top-end camcorder in the line, with variable frame rates, DVCPRO-HD, and 720p. The HVX200 cost less than 1/10th the price, had variable frame rates, DVCPRO-HD, 720p and 1080/24p and 1080/30p and 1080/60i, and pre-record and time-lapse and all sorts of things, and recorded on solid state where the Varicam was still stuck on tape. And yes, now the original Varicam is discontinued. And the HVX200 went on to usher in a total domination of the broadcast industry, where P2 is being used by 80% of the world's major broadcasters.
Would that have happened if they had "crippled" the HVX to "protect" the original Varicam?
So, back to Panasonic, and listening, and the GH2: the Lumix division probably doesn't even know that we exist. The Lumix division may or may not build a camera dedicated to the independent filmmaker; my guess is that they're far more interested in the home camcorder/digital camera customer. They sell tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of cameras to Best Buy and Wal-mart. And they make what their customer wants.
The broadcast division, however, knows exactly who we are, and are going to bring out all guns blazing to build exactly the product we want. The broadcast division is organizing meetings with filmmakers, cinematographers, professional videographers, and others, to find out exactly what it is that we want and need, so that they can build that exact product.
And what if this new product (AF100) ends up being so good that it squelches the HVX, HPX170, HMC150, VariCam 2700, and VariCam 3700? Well, if it does -- screw 'em. If the product is that good, then it will deserve to dominate the market -- and if it's good enough to cannibalize their own high end, it's going to be obviously way good enough to cannibalize Sony's high end too. I seriously doubt Panasonic would be disappointed by having 100% market share, do you?
Now, do I expect a $6,000 product to outperform a $60,000 product? Of course not. But with the "good enough" revolution being what it is, hey, it could happen.
Panasonic knows that the only way forward is to make their products so good they're irresistible. The original DVX100 was way beyond what we were expecting and stood the market on its head. The original Varicam was the same way. They know that, and I expect them to bring that same effort to the AF100.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
You are comparing apples to oranges... or PCs... in any case, the Canon Still Camera has been a choice for years for pro photographers. In many cases the only reason why a pro doesn't use a Canon, or a Nikon, (were there cameras made anywhere else than Japan... Rollie who... Exakta what...), is because they bought a camera and acquired lenses and that first camera was a Nikon or a Canon.
But the point is these are going professional camera products. The Lumix is 'Leica lite', and so, as such, does not have that 'pro' backup (well, maybe there's a pro that drives their Duesenberg to the photo shoot with their Leica...). It seems to be viewed as something Panasonic to have as a market presence in the consumer world.
Barry_Green
Moderator
In general this may be true, but I can assure you that for Panasonic Broadcast, it isn't.
I can absolutely guarantee that this is not the way Panasonic Broadcast works.
I would guess that those who are expecting a dedicated digital cinema camera out of a GH2 will be disappointed. That's not who it's for. That's who the AF100 is for.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Absolutely correct. Lumix doesn't know or care about Broadcast, as anyone who attended NAB looking for info on the Lumix products can attest. You won't see Broadcast products at PMA or PhotoKina, and you won't see Lumix products at NAB.
Last edited:
Of course Panasonic is driven by motive- the profit motive if nothing else.
Is their market integration centrally managed between the two divisions?- maybe not. However, I would not be able to suspend the amount of disbelief required to believe that they don't talk to each other and pass information on, or hear say back and forth. Again, they may be under no obligation to heed the others advice or admonition, but I'd bet they talk. Panasonic seems like a pretty smart company ;-). It is entirely reasonable to think that they may coordinate feature specs. Maybe not, but then again much of this thread is based on speculation and conjecture anyway.
Why do Canon consumers spend money on such a feature? Because they want to. The difference between "amateur and professional" in in this price range is pretty arbitrary. Are there Canon customers who want/need monitoring? Yes. Are all of those customers buying top of the line pro Canons- nope. The 5D and 7D are or were considered to be in that nebulous category of the prosumer genre. The bottom line is that this camera although technically an amateur camera is being used for professional video work- as are "amateur" Canon and Nikon cameras. What's Panny gonna do? Who knows.
I'm not referring to the GH1. That was Panasonic's foray into this market genre. It was a brave new world for them. Now, It's safe to say that Panasonic is now aware that this is a viable professional tool and market segment. Whether they choose to maximize their position in this segment remains to be seen.
Why isn't AVC-intra 100 listed as a specification on the AF100 then? Of course they strategically limit features. Panasonic is more generous than most manufacturer's in this regard, but they still engage in it. Nothing wrong with that, it's the marketplace.
Comparing a tape Varicam to a HVX 200 is still sort of an apples and oranges comparison. Panasonic was making the transition to P2 with the 200, a significant differentiation from the old Varicam. How does the 200A stack up to the 2700? That's a more reasonable comparison. Of course they don't want to unnecessarily cripple sales from the higher end cams.
The sardonic, wise-acre and skeptical part of me wants to ask: "If Panasonic is so in touch with their professional users, then why did it take years to introduce a reasonably priced single P2 card reader?" If ever there was a more obvious and out in the open frustration about the P2 system... Is it possible that Panasonic did not want to cannibalize PCD20 and PCD35 sales? Yes, I'm a bit skeptical.
As attentive as the broadcast division of Panasonic is to their customers, the consumer division may even out due them in this regard. They have seized substantial market share with micro 4/3's cameras that are very nicely featured. Even pre M43, Panasonic demonstrated a willingness to listen and tend to the enthusiasts and high performance users. I have a LX3 that I'm crazy about. It is a Leica -aspiring point and shoot. I hope this willingness to innovate the GH2 is not hampered by considerations from the broadcast division.
We'll see, time will tell. But as I mentioned, my concern is with the GH2. I'm hoping to see the GH2 be the truly irresistible camera for it's market segment and for me. Panasonic is now in uncharted territory in their history - where there is overlap between their consumer and broadcast divisions.
Last edited:
Did they say what lens they were using for the ISO tests? It would be nice if they would reveal which lenses they used on the GH-1 for all parts of the test. I wonder if the lens contributed to the "baked in" look they were talking about.
Aside from that, it was a very well done, and it's nice to see the GH-1 holding its own with the Canons, even though it was crippled by not having comparable glass. But that kit zoom is pretty killer, isn't it?
BrianBrook
Active member
Am I right in understanding that after the tests were made the footage from all the cams were color corrected/balanced to look as similiar to the film stocks, if so I would have rather seen the unprocessed footage (especially from the GH-1)
philip bloom
Veteran
I was in charge of the DSLRs for this test including the GH1. I am a massive GH1 fan. I also have the GF1. They are great cameras hampered by a crappy bit rate.
We used high quality Zeiss lenses and had the camera set to what I believed to be the optimum settings. Of course many will and do disagree because there is always someone who knows better than you
I have come to accept that!!
In an ideal world we would have tested each camera for a day at every single ISO, every single setting but that was just unworkable unfortunately.
Yes it would have been nice if both Panasonic and Nikon had accepted Zacuto's invitation to be present at shoot but they declined. It's a shame as Canon were there and were nice and hands off.
The GH1 did pretty well...Should I have shot 720p? No not really. The camera has full HD so let us use it. it's only really on movement that the full HD bit rate screws up and there was very little movement here.
I am still buying lenses for my GH1 and loving it. Hell I even bought the D3s recently due to my experience with it in lowlight for the shootout.
I still believe what we did in this tests was incredibly useful for many people (myself included) and that the GH1 came out pretty well for what is a essentially a consumer camera. I for one cannot wait until Panny put that chip in that new camera of theirs!
We used high quality Zeiss lenses and had the camera set to what I believed to be the optimum settings. Of course many will and do disagree because there is always someone who knows better than you
I have come to accept that!!In an ideal world we would have tested each camera for a day at every single ISO, every single setting but that was just unworkable unfortunately.
Yes it would have been nice if both Panasonic and Nikon had accepted Zacuto's invitation to be present at shoot but they declined. It's a shame as Canon were there and were nice and hands off.
The GH1 did pretty well...Should I have shot 720p? No not really. The camera has full HD so let us use it. it's only really on movement that the full HD bit rate screws up and there was very little movement here.
I am still buying lenses for my GH1 and loving it. Hell I even bought the D3s recently due to my experience with it in lowlight for the shootout.
I still believe what we did in this tests was incredibly useful for many people (myself included) and that the GH1 came out pretty well for what is a essentially a consumer camera. I for one cannot wait until Panny put that chip in that new camera of theirs!
philip bloom
Veteran
I have no idea where this notion that we used the kit lens came from? We used Zeiss Primes on all the DSLRs including the GH1. For the GH1 we used a 4/3 mount Zeiss F1.4. Not sure of the focal length...I would have to check as it was not my lens.
Chris Light
Veteran
yeah, that D3s was a stunner in low light. that was a surprise, as i don't know much about Nikons.
bumkicho
Well-known member
I wish Tester13's patch had come before this shootout. You would have been able to shoot in 720p MJPG mode at 70-80Mbps with GH1. Kidding aside, I just want to say that you and Zacuto team did an excellent job with this shootout series!! And yes, GH1 held its own against heavy competitions! Thanks!
Vitaliy Kiselev
Carbonite Member
This is incorrect assumption according to MTS file analysys.
GH1 overcompresses I frames (banding and other not so nice things as result).
Good AVCHD camcorder sometimes(for static scenes) have 3x less compression for I frames compared to GH1.
Hi, Philllip nice to hear from you here, i have a only concern about the Zacuto test and was the fact of the were almost no comment of the GH1 shots from part of the Zacuto team and the people in the audience, give me the impression of just using the GH1 to emphasize diversity of cameras SLR with video features and nothing else. I don´t know how sales are going on the Canon side Vs Panasonic, but i believe that Gh1 have many users around the world (i´m from Venezuela and cost me almost what a 5dmdkII cost) and my believe is with the video capacity of the camera, many users of the GH1 expect to hear from the professional guys, comments about it, and thanks for take a time to discuss here.
Cheers and congratulations for you 10mill
Cheers and congratulations for you 10mill
Ben_B
Veteran
The notion came from the fact that the GH1 latitude chart test was out of focus and Steve made some comment at a screening about not having a proper adaptor for the GH1.
In any case, I am a little surprised you guys didn't use the exact same lens on all the cameras...seems a little strange to me (F-mount can be adapted to all of them.)
Anyway, my main complaint about part 3 is the strangeness of trying to do a resolution test where we're supposed to "look at the detail in the fans" when that detail is being lost due to latitude not due to resolution! Anyway, all in all things were pretty good. I would have preferred seeing more commentary on each camera individually though, and also some uncompressed screen grabs.