Panasonic's ALEXA killer?

[Bryce O]

Guys, the point is, Sony REFUSED to put a large sensor in something like an EX1 body precisely BECAUSE they were trying to protect their super-expensive Genesis, F23, etc. They withheld that technology from prosumer shooters so as not to undercut their ultra-expensive cameras. That is the whole point of this entire discussion.

Or because the cost for silicon wafers of that size have been expensive-as-balls up until recently...

but it's probably a mix of both.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Guys, the point is, Sony REFUSED to put a large sensor in something like an EX1 body precisely BECAUSE they were trying to protect their super-expensive Genesis, F23, etc. They withheld that technology from prosumer shooters so as not to undercut their ultra-expensive cameras. That is the whole point of this entire discussion.

The EX1 wouldn't have worked as well for its typical customer base if it had a 35mm sensor without a lightweight 35mm ENG-style zoom attached to it. Considering that those are just starting to be developed, and that they are missing on current DSLR cameras, it would have been a serious problem for the EX1.

I could support an argument or conjecture that the EX1 was deliberately limited to 1/2" sensors because Sony didn't want to put their 2/3" sensors in it and undercut their other 2/3" cameras, but it gets harder to believe that an EX1 with a 35mm sensor in it three years ago would have been useful in the same way, not without the supporting video zoom lens technology. The main target audience for the EX1 was not narrative feature filmmakers using typical cine lenses and focus pullers, it was more for the ENG/EFP crowd that wanted a better prosumer camera with more pro features. It also became useful as a "C camera" for stunts and whatnot on shows using F35's, Reds, and whatnot. So I don't think one can be absolutely sure that Sony "refused" to create a 35mm version of the EX1 three years ago. I think that their thinking was a bit more complicated than that.

This gets to the heart of the problem with DSLR video, all the ridiculous add-ons that people have to use just to make it a practical video camera rather than a still camera that can shoot video. People are putting thousands of dollars of attachments onto these cameras so that the end product is actually costing them over $10,000 in many cases.

But whether or not Sony believed that smaller, cheaper 35mm sensor cameras would undercut their pro line, I think what is becoming clear is that there are markets for all sorts of combinations of sensor sizes and designs, and that the ENG-style camcorder will still be around even if DSLR video becomes more commonplace as well.

You also have to figure that the ability to record to solid state memory has also been a factor in reducing the size, weight, and cost of high-end pro video cameras. High-quality HD tape recording technology was never going to get much cheaper to put into a camera.

And the truth is that doing real-time debayering of single-sensors with high pixel counts, at high quality, at 24 fps and higher, has been an improving science to say the least.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I do recall a conversion I had years ago with some Sony engineers who came out from Japan for a demo of the unreleased (yet) F23 at the ASC Clubhouse -- I asked them straight-out why they didn't make a 35mm single-sensor camera instead of a 3-CCD 2/3" camera and their response was "we felt that customers have spent millions of dollars over the past decade upgrading to 2/3" HD zoom optics and we didn't want to upset them by suggesting that Sony was moving away from 2/3" into 35mm sensor video cameras." Now maybe that's an example of limited imagination, but these were engineers I was talking to, not marketing people, and they seemed pretty earnest. Of course, at the same time, they had just come out with the Genesis working with Panavision, so clearly they also believed that there was a market sector for 35mm sensor cameras, but they clearly felt it was a small sector compared to their 2/3" customers. And several years ago, they were right, and to some extent, they are still right, 2/3" is a pretty big market.

That doesn't mean they weren't wrong about the potential of 35mm digital movie cameras, but it suggests that it wasn't all about screwing consumers as much as it was about protecting their loyal pro video customer base.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I know many renowned wildlife film makers still investing in 2/3" cameras simply because of the investment and choice of lenses. If a 40x or 42x stabilized zoom is your work horse, the last thing you want is a 35mm sensor camera, doesn't matter how good it may be.

 

[Craig Meadows]

I don't think it was so much a refusal to put a big sensor in something like a EX1 but a practical business decision. They sell a ton of their small cams; EX1/EX3 and below and a ton of their broadcast rigs. For every F23 they probably sell dozens of EX1's. At the broadcast level, TV station production departments and news crews want a video zoom lens and pro features like built in ND, etc., don't know many ENG photogs who have the time or want to switch out primes. Quite frankly that is Sony's market; TV stations for broadcast and small producers for prosumer cams. All of their R&D tilts that way, that's where they make their money. That's not to say they are not interested in episodic or film production. They get great P.R. shooting Star Wars, and that P.R. goes a long way in selling tons of 1/3", 1/4" 1/2" and 3/4" chip cameras. The CineAlta label on a EX3 is as much about marketing as it is about engineering.

Technically, take a look at a original R1 body, lots bigger than a EX1/EX3. With a best-of-the-best team and with no doubt a sizeable investment by Jim it took a couple of years to get the R1 to market and we are still waiting on Epics/Scarlets. I don't think it's easy for any of these companies to churn out large sensor cameras. Canon was caught completely off-guard by the 5Dmk2 as they originally added video capability for news photographers. Look how long it took to get a 24p firmware upgrade and the camera lacks in so many pro areas.

You may imagine that Sony and Panasonic have plentiful more engineering capability than RED. My take is that much like the auto industry where at one time R&D was somewhat proprietary, all manufacturers now have pretty much the same access to similar technology, design, tools and engineers. Because of this I hope and imagine that the RED development team and Sony and Panasonic have equal technology access and engineering ability on par with each other. The companies and departments may not compare in size but I think they all know current sensor and camera design equally and realize the challenges in bringing big sensor cameras to the markets they make a profit in.

 

[M Most]

The CineAlta label on a EX3 is as much about marketing as it is about engineering.

As I recall, the CineAlta designation was originally used on Sony devices that supported 24p video (in the form of 23.98psF) and were thus appropriate for film-style production. It seems to be a bit less specific to that today.

 

[undergone83]

Supersonic Self Sensor cleaning of AG-AF100.

I think it would be very helpful when I change lots of lenses in the sandy field.

 

[David Rasberry]

Supersonic Self Sensor cleaning of AG-AF100.

I think it would be very helpful when I change lots of lenses in the sandy field.

This is a real name forum undergone.

 

[C. Jagan Mohan]

The simple truth why Pansonic has launched this camera targeted for low-budget digital film making comunity is because now they think the targeted customers are well educated enough and the need is there for good numbers. Always GOOD NUMBERS is a game for Panny.
Why people use RED to make movies? I do not know the other part of the world why they do that, but in India we use RED to make low-budget movies movies in a cost effective manner.
In digtal cinema space a Chicken and Egg issue was always there: Digital screens first or digital productions first. Now there are already more than 500 digital screens available in India and only less than a dozon theatre are true DCI class. So rest and most of all are e-cinemas showing 1920x817 image in 2.35:1. Why do they need a 4K for it?. This kind of situation is there in many developing countries.
Its guarantee that Panasonic is going to sell tons of these cameras. unless RED speeds up the Scarlet launch this one is going to spread into this space.

 

[C. Jagan Mohan]

Can you post a link to that confirmation? Everything I've seen in the form of official documentation from Panasonic has, as I last posted and linked, stated that the camera won't do 1080/60p.

Here is the writeup "......... The AF100 will record in 720p and 1080p at all the standard resolutions and has variable frame rate capability up to 1080 60p (that’s right 60P)........" the link is http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/09/

 

[Gunleik Groven]

C. For the first time - almost, I think I agree with you.

Technologyrevolutions spread from the low-budget countries and upwards as it proves itselves worthy.

If the Panny doesn't display sopme of the total nastiness of the DSLRs, and it is remotely gradeable, it may very well gain some serious traction.

Pitting it against the R1, Alexa or even how the Scarlet seems to pan out, is in many ways a silly comparison on a tech level. On a practical level, I think you may be right.

 

[Jim Retar]

Tom... I assume that you think RED were also be holding out on technology?

They did not release a 1080p S35 camera for $6k, when clearly the demand was there.... were they protecting the R1?

Now, I know personally this statement is false.... but it shows the flaws in your argument.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I don't think it was so much a refusal to put a big sensor in something like a EX1 but a practical business decision. They sell a ton of their small cams; EX1/EX3 and below and a ton of their broadcast rigs. For every F23 they probably sell dozens of EX1's.

I don't think it was a very smart decision to stick with only tiny-sensor prosumer cameras. Sure, if some people want EX3's with small sensors, go ahead and make them and sell them. I don't think it was a "practical business decision" to refuse to make large-sensor HD prosumer cameras, considering that Canon is now raking in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in profits by putting out an incredibly crude large-sensor HD camera with almost no R&D at all. How can that be a good business decision? It's a terrible business decision. It shows an almost criminal lack of foresight or knowledge of market. Sony has now slipped in to near bankruptcy, while Canon is printing money.

You say they Sony sells a ton of EX1s. How many EX1s have they sold vs 5D2s? And again, if certain people need a small sensor, go ahead and make a standard EX1/EX3 as well. No harm in that. But the huge, shocking profits in the last year have all been flowing into Canon's coffers, precisely because they put out a large-sensor HD camera with interchangeable lenses.

By the way, David, your posts on this topic are thoughtful and reasonable, as always. Your input on topics like these is always appreciated. I try to keep a totally open mind while reading your posts here. I've learned that over the years.

 

[David Rasberry]

Well the 5DII is primarily a still camera, they are selling to a different market at less than 1/2 the price of an EX3.
There is the new Sony NEX-VG 10 which looks to be a pretty sweet little camcorder if you don't insist on 24p.
The AF-100 is going to fall in a pretty nice sweet spot marketwise I think. Especially if they can develop some more video friendly zooms for it. But it is not going to shoot high resolution stills. It is a true HD video camera optimized for image quality in that role.

The Scarlets are going to be pretty up market in terms of both image quality and price compared to these.

 

[Craig Meadows]

The point I was trying to make with my previous post is that engineering and manufacturing a large sensor camera, particularly 2-3 years ago, was/is very challenging, for any of these companies. Both Canon and Nikon had large sensor cameras already in the market. Nikon still does not have video right on theirs, so perhaps not as easy as thought. Canon had access to video engineers from their video division., something Nikon does not have. Yet, the Canon still lacks in so many ways, so again, not as easy as thought. I think it is all just a natural and progressive evolution of camera design and not a lack of foresight or knowledge of market. 5D's may outsell EX1's but they also cost about a third of a EX1. Not to mention a good number of 5D's sold to still photographers with a new or passing interest in video. Not a fair comparison when one camera sells to two distinct overlapping markets while the other one is more singularly focused.

 

[M Most]

...Canon is now raking in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in profits by putting out an incredibly crude large-sensor HD camera with almost no R&D at all.

You keep saying this, and you say it with the assumption that Canon is selling all of the 5D's and 7D's to people who are shooting video with it. That's just not the case. The vast majority of these cameras are being sold for exactly what they're designed for - stills. Your statements to the contrary would need to be backed up by some solid research before I would even begin to believe them. Your own personal interests are not universal, and assuming that they are is a sure way of seeing a skewed view of the world.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

This is an interesting discussion indeed. I agree that developing large sensor cameras that work reliably and deliver high quality images that can be recorded on the fly and not to huge tethered recorders is still not as simple as it sounds. I also have to believe that however devoid of imagination and sense of adventure industrial behemoths like Sony are, they understand that it is better to separate their products into well defined market segments, and not just create one-for-all, end-all cameras to fit every style. Can that panacea be achieved? Of course, RED has done it, but it is not as simple as that. When I bought our company's first RED, I loved the camera, but back in the days of build 12 or whatever it was, our camera could not handle a highlight without a nasty blowout, and I had to make a considerable investment in PL glass (those were the days before Red Pro Primes) so given that 95% of my work was aimed at the TV world, realistically speaking, RED was a bit of luxurious, beautiful toy for me at that point. And even though I was absolutely confident that RED would get it right and that I wanted RED as part of my arsenal, I sold the camera, thinking that I would be able to buy a RED2 in 6-8 months I then decided to rent RED whenever I needed one and to wait for FF Epic, thinking that that too would take just a few months, but lucklily two years later, that goal now seems finally within sight
In the meantime, I went back to using our F-900's with our Fujinon lenses, which were producing beautiful images, and still to this day make us money. In fact, when Sony released the EX-1, I was blown away that albeit with a smaller sensor, basically 95% of the F-900 extensive menu tweaks had been rolled over to the EX-1. That denotes a willingness to satisfy, and even impress, a market segment as opposed to alienating them, and indeed, I was so happy with the EX-1 that I sold one of our F-900's. Now, I've had a chance to test the Canon DSLR video "capabilities" and there's no way I would choose those in favor of an EX-1, much less a RED. But the fact that so many people have jumped onto the DSLR video bandwagon does not show imagination or vision on Canon's side, only that the masses are still ready to drink koolaid, especially the flavor that comes with instant shallow DOF and all kinds of manual lens abilities, even if half of those "adepts" do not know how to focus manually and that, as David pointed out, it takes thousands of $ extra to make those cameras truly video ready. I think that the one fact that denotes a resistance to roll with the times is the pricing policies of those companies. The EX-1 is a great little camera, but everybody would have accepted its limitations far more happily, and Sony would have made far more profits from its sales, if they had priced it in the $3K-4K range as opposed to $6K, which was still amazing considering that it could do 80% of the things the F-900 could do, and which still sells for $60K. Remember, the most fundamental aspect of RED is not all the things it does, you'd expect that from a $100K camera, but that it can do all that and still sell for below $20K. At that price point, RED fused the differences between market segments, and forced people who were happy with 1080p 2/3", and should have been happy with it, to look at this camera that cost the same as their P2, HDCAM and XDCAM options but that offered so much more, even when they "didn't need" all the extra goodness. That's what was truly revolutionary, not that the camera could do 4K, eventually somebody would come up with that...oh wait, somebody already had, it was called Dalsa, it indeed created beautiful images, and as "should have been" the case, it cost in excess of $100K. Jim changed the industry by flooding it with so many of these inexpensive things that they began to pop everywhere, forcing people to take a look at them, and realizing they could shoot with them, just as easily, if not more so, than they were shooting with their legacy 2/3" HD cameras. Had Sony shown the same vision and sold the EX-1 for three grand, they would have truly revolutionized that segment of the market, but as it stands, they just took one step forward.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

...and I don't believe for one second that Canon is making tens of hundreds of millions in profit from the sales of 5D's and 7D's, that would mean that at a generous 30% margin and an average sale price of $3K per camera they would have to sell in the hundreds of thousands of those cameras, and that I find very hard to swallow if not completely unrealistic (not trying to be belligerent here Tom)

 

[Tom Lowe]

It seems that what we have here is a fundamental disagreement. Not a lack of communication, but real differences in what some of us believe.

I believe without any doubt that Panasonic or Sony could have made a large-sensor HD prosumer camera with interchangeable lenses any time in the last 5 years. I am a big believer in "Where there's a will, there's a way." Some of you do not believe Sony or Panasonic had the R&D chops to do it. So we'll have to disagree on that point, since it's not something that can be settled here with conclusive, valid evidence.

In terms of whether Sony and Panasonic held back certain large-sensor prosumer HD cameras so as to protect their higher-end cameras, I believe they did. Some of you may disagree. Again, it's not something we can come to a conclusion on here, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I will tell you this, CMOS technology changes A LOT every year, I know, I design CMOS chips and have been for over 13 years. Five years ago, I recall most video cameras being CCD that were in production.

I can understand the frustration of wanting what we are getting now, but from a business standpoint, any of you in a business that produces electronics has to balance the gain of what you are getting. Five years ago they might not have been willing to take the risk and the R&D money and resources to make CMOS better. At the time, the variance in the design practices might have been large enough that it just didn't seem feasible to them.

I work with HUGE companies all the time, and I can tell you this, they don't work as monotonically as some of you think. In many cases, these companies are HUGELY segmented and engineering groups highly separated from each other through geography, management structure, and even marketing and accounting up to the top-level. If you only knew the HALF of it, you'd understand why many companies end up missing cutting edge technology because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

It's not because there was never a desire, it's because each person that is a part of the whole in this big companies does SO little of the final product that there isn't always a cohesive upgrade mentality of the whole as their is to the smaller picture. People that design CCD circuitry are NOT going to be the same people who design CMOS so much when you are talking about the experts. If their microelectronics engineers are so focused on making a better CCD and management is convinced that CMOS just can never cut it, one though like that can keep a product line in a path for a long time.

I'm not convinced Canon or Panasonic held back for any other reason than they just didn't see the benefit. You can try and guess about their revenue all you want, but clearly it's not just about their own products, it's the products in the market that drive what they make. Makes you wonder, if Canon or Nikon didn't implement their video and no one else had still added it as a feature, would it have taken the Scarlet S35 to push this market?

Better yet, why is the 2/3 coming out first? I'd rather have the S35 which is so much more closely aligned with the EPIC in terms of sensor size and no fixed lens. Why isn't that coming out first? That would clearly be easier than the 2/3 Fixed would it not? Are they protecting the EPIC sales since a lot of people I am sure would pick up the Scarlet S35 at the price point (me included) since that is the level of work I do and the EPIC is out of my price range. People have even said they don't want the S35 to come out too soon so they can rent their EPICs longer on this board.

However, that is complete speculation based on nothing other than release schedule. Does that make it more right or wrong?

For me the AF100 is probably going to be my stop-gap between my 7D and Scarlet S35. Given it has been 5 months since I ordered my CF Reader that is waiting to pass FCC regulations, I just see the S35 being pushed WAY out into the later part of next year. I NEED something better than the 7D and there is no other solution at the moment. I'm glad someone is filling the gap for now.