Old style 4/3rds may be dying, but the AF100 uses the newer Micro 4/3rd mount lenses as standard.

Richard,

On what basis do you figure 4/3's is dying?

Richard and Darren were basing their opinion on simple observation,
and they're right, the *original* 4/3 format is outdated. The AF100,
however, is Micro 4/3, which is currently a highly active and thriving
format (as Richard points out).

I did only say it "may be" dying out.

It would be odd for a company to support 2 different lens mounts long term.
Given the relatively recent launch of micro 4/3 and its popularity I would assume Olympus intend to phase out the original over time.

Although they did recently confirm that they are still committed to both - Olympus still committed to Four Thirds DSLRs: Digital Photography Review

We'll have to wait and see, but personally I wouldn't be rushing to buy a camera with the original 4/3 mount.

Aesthetics
 

While I am quite excited about the announcement of this camera, they ought to do something about the aesthetics of the camera itself. Not that it matters in the slightest but the design reminds me of old VHS camcorders. Big a boxy with a GIANT handle on top.

Form follows function.

Yes, but imagine hand-holding it...... Not only have you got all the weight right out of in front of you, but the point of contact with the face is the sticking out eyepiece. I'd say that was positively dangerous if you were in a hurry, or with other people around. If you can't have a proper shouldermount, at least enable the camera body to be braced against the cheek. So I'd say functionally it's a dog - no wonder it looks like one!

But it is a prototype, let's hope it gets a major physical design before a real product emerges.

Geez... how is it any different from, say, a CP-16?

The best way to run any camera is *without* touching it.
I wouldn't hand-hold a camera unless I absolutely had to,
and even then, there's *always* a way to add a shoulder
support.

Half the cameras we cover on this site have lousy ergonomics.
Why is it suddenly an issue with this one? Give me a break.

Large sensor cameras of this class are truly welcome for videographers. It's probably a bit early to try to look for too many specifics with coming products. As competitive forces kick in, more and more detail about features and functionality will emerge. I'm really looking forward to the next couple of years. I suspect there is some really good stuff coming.

I have been thinking about the design of these size cameras and I do think they can benefit from a design overhaul. I have two ways I have found to get steady shots:

To me, the best way to keep a steady shot with the handycam style cameras is two hands on each side of the camera and the eyepiece pressed up against my face. This gives stability in the three directions, roll (with the two hands), yaw (with the eyepiece), and tilt (with all three).

Now for me, why not put two handles on each side with the important controls at our fingertips?

The only problem with this setup is that it promotes panning from a fixed point. Which is not the best for 24p shooting.

My second handheld method is having one hand flat underneath the camera extending to the lens and the other hand gripping the top handle at the very back of the camera. This is very smooth and allows for more camera-move based panning better for 24p.

The box design does not work with these techniques as the controls are not in the right place or there is nothing to hold on to.

These cameras can always be operated on a tripod. I agree, we need to shape the camera design around handholding comfortably and leave the box design in the past. In a way, who cares what the camera looks like as long as we can use it and not have wrist cramps.

I already have a BushHawk 300sV Shoulder Mount for Video Cameras with Double Handle which I use with my 5D MKII and my HPX170. I am sure that any RedRock, Zacuto, etc. rig that people are using with their DSLRs will work fine with the new Panasonic.

It all depends on what type of shooting you are doing, but most modern small sensor cameras already have terrible ergonomics. The EX1 comes to mind especially, I shot a baseball game with an EX1 hand held and my wrist was sore for days, this was before I bought the Bushhawk.

It is ugly but so what, my HPX170 is ugly too, the EX1 is similar, just a box with a lens. I think that ergonomics for shooting handheld are important to your work, you need to be looking at a shoulder mounted HPX370 type of form factor anyway. All of these small cameras are a compromise when shooting handheld, this camera is similar except that it will have a large sensor. DSLRs especially, they are awful for shooting video, everything is in the wrong place. But we make do and still manage to shoot some decent footage.

Dan

4/3 may be a bit small. about a 2.0 crop - ~1/4 the size of the 5DII. The shape is less ideal too, compared
to 35mm ratio. I feel the ideal size may be film 35mm, like the 7D. 4/3 will have too much dof for some users. Especially with fewer lens choices.

Good 4/3 lenses are also expensive compared to 35mm. No large economy of scale yet.
Anyway, with it's release "by the end of 2010" this announcement is more of a "hey, we're doing something". The product manager was quoted as saying this camera wouldn't have the image issues apparent with existing VDSLR. That's an interesting statement considering its probably no where near finished.

I agree Don. For that and other reasons, I feel it's too early to look too closely at what is coming. Now that larger sensor cameras are being competitively defined, I suspect the camera manufacturers will be doing a number of things to react to each others products. This is a good thing for the consumer. Long live competition.

Yeah, these are great times.

Canon, Nikon and Red don't have to worry about performance of these cams relative to their existing product line. Sony and Panny have problems in this regard. This year looks pretty well set for most companies (including Red, which I doubt will ship scarlet to the masses). But 2011 should be a big year.

> 4/3 may be a bit small. about a 2.0 crop - ~1/4 the size of the 5DII. The shape is less ideal too, compared to 35mm ratio. I feel the ideal size may be film 35mm

I thought Film-35mm and 4/3 were almost identical?