Panasonic AG-DVX200 4K vs Sony A7Sii

[Steve Bleasdale]

You Panasonic guys, what do you reckon, i seem intrigued even though i am geared up to get the Sony next month.. Full frame against the biggish sensor?? Weddings, parties, corporate filming. Steve

[Noa Put]

you are comparing a apple to a orange, those are 2 totally different camera's that serve different purposes. The dvx200 is a much more complete video camera that will allow you to shoot just about anything without adding accessories and it is much easier to operate in a run and gun situation.

[Ron Evans]

Firstly I am a Sony guy meaning all my current cameras are Sony camcorders no still cameras at all. I find the question strange because of the big differences between the cameras. One is interchangeable lens the other fixed as the biggest difference. What do you really want to do ? If you want long form event shooting, quick setup in one bag, then the Panasonic is the winner by a long way especially if you want to shoot QFDH at 60P, not available on the Sony, and likely the Sony has a run time limit too so forget shooting for 4 hours continuous with integrated card backup (Sony doesn't have that either ). If you want artistic still shoots in all sorts of lighting conditions the Sony is the winner. A bit like choosing between a pickup truck and a sports car !!! I do not shoot slow frame rates so the Sony isn't even on my list for 4K !!!

Ron Evans

[Steve Bleasdale]

Mainly weddings Ron using 6Ds 5diii, and getting the Sony s soon when out, but was intrigued with the biggish sensor on this new camcorder. We all want that full frame look on a easy set up camcorder right? You would sorta get the full frame look as reports are saying that it will compete with the full frame guys with that lovely bokeh look it gives. Simple question just worded wrong.

[Noa Put]

It can't compete with a full frame look because it's "only" a 4/3 sensor, in it's pricerange it is a unique camera though and you can get a shallower dof but I"m sure that a gh4 coupled with a 75mm f1.8 lens will get a much shallower dof then the dvx200 at the same focal length. It will however be nowhere near to what a full frame camera can achieve at any focal length with a fast prime.

[Ron Evans]

Yes you should get a look similar to a GH4 but for me the main difference is QFHD at 50/60P and for long record times so as a fixed unattended camera will give all the options of post cropping etc. It will also function as a normal run & gun camera like any of the current 1/3" models are used for so has a variety of uses. Without interchangeable lens it will not have the advantage of really fast lenses for low light shooting or the bokeh of a full frame lens so if that is what you are after the Sony will be better. Also since it crops the sensor for 50/60P QFHD it will not have much of a difference to a PXW-X70 1" I expect though the X70 is only 30P QFHD. I am going to look at the DVX200 as a replacement for my FDR-AX1. Unlike you I have no interest in the shallow depth of field look as all my projects are archive theatre shoots.

Ron Evans

[Jack Zhang]

Wait till they iron out the fixed pattern noise issues with the DVX200. People have been reporting quite a lot of noise at 0db/native sensitivity.

If you need 60p at 16:9 4K, the DVX200 is the only option at that price range. I'm waiting for the GH5 where I hope they will solve the crop factor issues.

[Steve Bleasdale]

cool thanks, looks like its the sony then or the new canon 6s. cheers

[Karl Walter Keirstead]

Philip Johnston of HDWarrior is doing a review this week on AG DX2000 - he makes a point about noise observations being related to which Scene File happens to be in use.

Hope this helps

HD Warrior » Blog Archiv » The Panasonic DVX-200 Arrives in Glasgow

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Karl Walter Keirstead

Philip Johnston of HDWarrior is doing a review this week on AG DX2000 - he makes a point about noise observations being related to which Scene File happens to be in use.

He says: "the first thing I am looking at is noise. A few bloggers have noted the engineering sample was noisy in the blacks. The camera comes set to SCENE FILE 1 which is noisey but set it to SCENE FILE 5 and you are looking at a different camera."

Surely the primary point of different scene files should be to set a desired "look"? When they have to be chosen primarily to control noise, then what's the point? It's fine if your desired "look" just happens to co-incide with FILE 5, but what if you want the FILE 1 "look"!?! Are you just supposed to ignore the noise?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

If you need 60p at 16:9 4K, the DVX200 is the only option at that price range. I'm waiting for the GH5 where I hope they will solve the crop factor issues.

Depends how broad you define the price range! More expensive (but not absurdly so) is the FS7, which certainly has 4K 60p and a lot of other advantages as well. The DVX200 at 4K 60p wouldn't be so much of an issue if you could swap lenses, as it is it's a case of do you want any sort of wide angle - or 60p?

[Zach Hunter]

Originally Posted by David Heath

He says: "the first thing I am looking at is noise. A few bloggers have noted the engineering sample was noisy in the blacks. The camera comes set to SCENE FILE 1 which is noisey but set it to SCENE FILE 5 and you are looking at a different camera."

Surely the primary point of different scene files should be to set a desired "look"? When they have to be chosen primarily to control noise, then what's the point? It's fine if your desired "look" just happens to co-incide with FILE 5, but what if you want the FILE 1 "look"!?! Are you just supposed to ignore the noise?

I have to agree with you. The same issue was present on my HMC-150 and AF100 (although not near as bad). I very much liked the look I got from the Cine-like D gamma, and if you exposed correctly, you could get a decent image with it. However, especially when shooting indoors, the noise in the shadow areas made the image practically useless, even at 0db gain! I would always end up using Cine-V or B-press, and I hated the punchy, overly contrasted "video look" I got from those gammas, but for the sake of controlling noise, I had no choice. I'm not saying these cameras were bad by any means, but having to change the scene file solely for noise compensation could become a bit of a hassle. What I want to know is, what happened to the original Cine-Like gamma curve that was available on the DVX100? It was the perfect compromise between noise and contrast, and still gave you a relatively cinematic look. Then when the HVX came out, it was gone, and we were left with only Cine-D and Cine-V, no in-between! Maybe it has something to do with the gamma standards of High Definition or something. I just hope this shadow noise problem is fixed on the DVX200, I really want to be able to make use of the V-Log L curve.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Zach Hunter

I'm not saying these cameras were bad by any means, but having to change the scene file solely for noise compensation could become a bit of a hassle.

To my mind, if a scene file is effectively unusable because it's too noisy (even at low gain), what's the point of having it? And if a camera is promoted on the basis of the "look" of that scene file.......?

Originally Posted by Zach Hunter

What I want to know is, what happened to the original Cine-Like gamma curve that was available on the DVX100? It was the perfect compromise between noise and contrast, and still gave you a relatively cinematic look. Then when the HVX came out, it was gone, .........

Well, a guess, but the move from SD to HD meant smaller pixels as the chip size was kept the same, and since that was only 1/3" it could be that noise just then became too problematic for some of the gamma curves. This could also explain why the HVX200 chipset was fairly low resolution (only 960x540), as an attempt to trade resolution off for noise performance.

The DVX200 has bigger chips - but they're fundamentally with a pixel count optimised for stills, so again the individual photosite size is still relatively small. Compare such with an s35 sensor camera like the FS5, and in that case the sensor is about twice as big, with about half the photosite count. So each photosite is much bigger.

[Brian Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Zach Hunter

I have to agree with you. The same issue was present on my HMC-150 and AF100 (although not near as bad). I very much liked the look I got from the Cine-like D gamma, and if you exposed correctly, you could get a decent image with it. However, especially when shooting indoors, the noise in the shadow areas made the image practically useless, even at 0db gain! I would always end up using Cine-V or B-press, and I hated the punchy, overly contrasted "video look" I got from those gammas, but for the sake of controlling noise, I had no choice. I'm not saying these cameras were bad by any means, but having to change the scene file solely for noise compensation could become a bit of a hassle. What I want to know is, what happened to the original Cine-Like gamma curve that was available on the DVX100? It was the perfect compromise between noise and contrast, and still gave you a relatively cinematic look. Then when the HVX came out, it was gone, and we were left with only Cine-D and Cine-V, no in-between! Maybe it has something to do with the gamma standards of High Definition or something. I just hope this shadow noise problem is fixed on the DVX200, I really want to be able to make use of the V-Log L curve.

I had a chance to shoot some footage on an Engineering model using V-log the footage looked good on the monitor but when I imported it to my editing suite there was noise in the shadows. I hope this will be better on the production model. I plan to rent and test before I buy. I attached a screen capture
Has anyone Filmed with a production model in V-log?