The wraps are off! Panasonic EVA1 compact cinema camera announced with Super 35 5.7K sensor and Dual Native ISO

[HockeyFan12]

25 minutes ago, rndmtsk said:

Boy do people like to complain. 

I hate to say it, but I agree. Only maybe 5% of tv and 20% of theatrical features (I'm guessing, but it's along these lines) are shot on RAW. Because it's not worth the extra expense on productions already costing $250,000/day to get that last tiny little bit of image quality. And yet it's a huge omission on a camera that costs $8000? 

You can't expect everything. Or you can, but you'll be disappointed. 

[Orangenz]

17 minutes ago, deezid said:

I'll take two of these if it has the real Varicam (LT) look. That would be amazing.
If footage looks like shot with a GH5 (processed, homevideo like) I buy the C200 instead.

Oo you're going to buy one? What are you kicking out of the nest?

[deezid]

13 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

Oo you're going to buy one? What are you kicking out of the nest?

My old GH4 finally. GH5 doesn't really impress me. Too videoish. 
If EVA looks like Varicam (organic film), that will be mine.

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, deezid said:

My old GH4 finally. GH5 doesn't really impress me. Too videoish. 
If EVA looks like Varicam (organic film), that will be mine.

We just finished that Netflix show... 13 Reasons Why and I will say it looked very organic with good colors. If the EVA has half of that LT look it will be a beaut. 

[deezid]

Just now, mercer said:

We just finished that Netflix show... 13 Reasons Why and I will say it looked very organic with good colors. If the EVA has half of that LT look it will be a beaut. 

Actually didn't like the look in any of Netflix's Varicam shot shows. The color grading isn't mine.

But you can download varicam MXF files everywhere, they're lovely and look wonderful after grading.

[mercer]

26 minutes ago, deezid said:

Actually didn't like the look in any of Netflix's Varicam shot shows. The color grading isn't mine.

But you can download varicam MXF files everywhere, they're lovely and look wonderful after grading.

The grading isn't your... cup of tea? Or literally isn't your work, but you do grade Varicam footage professionally?

[HockeyFan12]

Just now, mercer said:

The grading isn't your... cup of tea? Or literally isn't your work, but you do grade Varicam footage professionally?

I'm assuming the latter. 

[deezid]

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

The grading isn't your... cup of tea? Or literally isn't your work, but you do grade Varicam footage professionally?

I just don't like it. Very inconsistent skintones and nuclear greens were a big problem in 13 Reasons Why.
Other shows even looked videoish.

But based on the the RAW MXF footage you can download everywhere, it's not the camera's fault.

Tried to colorgrade some footage (quick and dirty) from the Varicam LT:

 

[mercer]

Just now, deezid said:

I just don't like it. Very inconsistent skintones and nuclear greens were a big problem in 13 Reasons Why.
Other shows even looked videoish.

But based on the the RAW MXF footage you can download everywhere, it's not the camera's fault.

I liked it... it had a real indie vibe with the flat color palette. Reminded me of It Follows. That's funny, I didn't notice the nuclear greens... I'll have to go back and look. 

But then again, I struggle with Canon color... so I'm probably not the best judge. Maybe two months straight is too long to leave in one pair of contacts... ? 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

2 hours ago, Zak Forsman said:

That's good to hear. Definitely keeping an open mind. I've got a big four month job coming up that will finish in the fall, leaving me flush with cash for a new camera this fall.

PS -- my very first camera, when I was a teenager, was a Panasonic SVHS camcorder.

Believe it or not, that amazing Varicam 35 reel that blew us all away a few years ago was shot on the same 10-bit AVC-Ultra codec.

 

[Kisaha]

43 minutes ago, mercer said:

I liked it... it had a real indie vibe with the flat color palette. Reminded me of It Follows. That's funny, I didn't notice the nuclear greens... I'll have to go back and look. 

I enjoyed 13 reasons why, watched on not an expensive TV set, really excited about the Varicam look.

Until the 2 cameras are out, and final specs and prices are set, Canon still can be an option, this Panasonic isn't a C200 killer -if the rumored 8000$ stays.

The ND in Canon is 10 vs 6 here, it seems like Sony will be ahead of those for the next 3-5 years with their e-ND.

Internal Canon raw, even for 15minutes per 128GB is a thing, can't complain about it, better to have (ain't this right @mercer ). The Panasonic raw is rumored to be a paid upgrade in the feature (we certainly do not know, it seems possible for a company that sells log for 100$!), still I do not blame them, if it save the camera a 500$, but still..

Canon C cameras are no slouch in high ISO, maybe not native 5000, but certainly no problem to work with a similar number. We don't even know the base ISOs of this camera, it can be 800/3200, and 3200 is perfectly fine for C cameras.

The camera is still in development while people will have C200s in August or early September (and still in development, 5 months before its estimated release, is a bit worrying, it is not good to rush things).

Dual Pixel AF is something I want in my next camera. I have enjoyed using it occasionally with the Canon C100mkII, and I am hearing great things from C300mkII users. AF it is not a gimmick, and having a touch screen to choose AF on a less than 9999$ camera, it can be exactly what will make it more mainstream in video professionals.

I have used 120(100)frames on my NX1 twice in the 2 years I own the camera, and a couple of times we have rented a FS700 for slow mo purposes in the last 3 years maybe. 60(50) frames is mandatory to have, 120(100) is perfect for most uses. I won't deny the Panasonic advantage, even for small bursts is a great feature, but I won't base my decision in this (while internal raw and Dual Pixel are huge - for me!). That dramatic slow motion effect is over rated in my opinion and this is coming from someone that used to be a high speed camera operator for some time!

The price difference (8-7500$) is not that huge from the C200, while a JVC LS300 (that keeps mentioning here and for good reasons) is 2650$ (that is a competitive price! not even close in specs, but hold some aces into its sleeve as well, and for the price..). Panasonic should be closer to 5500$ to be competitive to Canon/Sony, not 7500$, and that shows something about how much a really competitive S35 professional video camera can cost. If Panasonic can't make it cheap (while selling a camcorder with a fixed lens at 4500$), and BlackMagic can't make it cheaper, then maybe it ain't possible.

Of course we have to address the elephant in the room, C200 has no middle codec. This Panasonic announcement will probably push Canon to announce in winter time a middling 10 bit codec I guess. While they still can sell cameras (Panasonic has no definite delivery time, while Canon has) and keep the C300mkII people silent for a few more months, but C200 (as the name indicates!) is the perfect "middling" tier camera, only that it isn't!

Sony FS5 mark II anyone?!

[Orangenz]

20 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Believe it or not, that amazing Varicam 35 reel that blew us all away a few years ago was shot on the same 10-bit AVC-Ultra codec.

 

Still amazing!

[mercer]

27 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Believe it or not, that amazing Varicam 35 reel that blew us all away a few years ago was shot on the same 10-bit AVC-Ultra codec.

 

Yeah that's gorgeous. The shots of the barren wasteland remind me of an old af100 video of the salton sea. You can really see the lineage. 

But why do Panasonic colors always make pencils look orange? 

@Kisaha I think two good cameras were introduced this week and both at fair prices. Sure I would have loved to have seen both come in about $2000 cheaper, but that would be unrealistic for what we're getting here. I really can't wait to own one in 5 or 6 years... ??

[hijodeibn]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Yeah that's gorgeous. The shots of the barren wasteland remind me of an old af100 video of the salton sea. You can really see the lineage. 

But why do Panasonic colors always make pencils look orange? 

@Kisaha I think two good cameras were introduced this week and both at fair prices. Sure I would have loved to have seen both come in about $2000 cheaper, but that would be unrealistic for what we're getting here. I really can't wait to own one in 5 or 6 years... ??

I will definitely go for a C200, is the perfect camera for me, the DPAF is a must now in my shooting style, and 15 minutes of internal RAW is more than enough, with a NPR loaded with 400ft I was just getting 12 minutes, so here I am getting 3 more, just fantastic!!!…..and I feel your pain @mercer, we will have to wait some time to get this baby, if some business go well probably I could get one early next year, otherwise, 4-5 more years

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, bertzie said:

The lack of internal raw is incredibly disappointing. Even Canon is finally jumping on the raw train (finally) so to see Panasonic lag behind in that regard is rather disheartening.

The C200 is in reality a crippled camera that aside from raw (and let's wait and see how well/badly it is implemented) has a shitty shit shit codec inside it.

[Kisaha]

@mercer in 5-6 years 8K will be the standard and the conversation will probably shift to full frame video cameras, or medium format video.

I was expecting the Panasonic to be around 6500euros and Canon at 7500euros - but hoped for 500euros less!

I don't know the US pricing, but right now, Canon is more than 9000euros in Europe. That's a lot of money, and I do not think that it is a viable option for this market and me specifically, especially if someone wants to pair it with the 18-80 CN-E lens. Now, (I know it is too soon probably) I am wondering what a C100mkIII could bring to the table. A 4K/30frames and 1080 10bit codec and 1080/120frames 8bit is all I need, no raw, no 4K/60p, Dual Pixel - yes, please - and with a touch screen, and that close to 5500euros, so 12.000euros with the lens, while is 15000euros for C200 and CN-E..hm..

In the end, pricing and features sets the market. I am expecting Panasonic to lower the price, or it won't be easy to take a lot of FS5 and Canon users.

@IronFilm I wouldn't call any Canon codec as "shitty shit shit". What history has taught us is that Canon can have a shitty shit shit sensor, but never a shitty shit shit codec! All their low bitrate ones over perform and deliver. I am not going to dismiss a Canon just from the spec list, or else 98% of the world and 90% of the professional world, would be shooting with the a6300, and that is a really bad implemented camera. In the end, numbers are just numbers, real life samples and workflows are the final judge.

Monday we are going for an ok corporate (big winery and alcoholic beverages company, at least for our standards - probably New Zealand's too, but "middling" production), camera of choice? Canon C100markII, with a shitty shit shit codec!

[mercer]

@Kisaha US prices are $5999 for the C200B and $7500 for the full kit... so I guess 5300 and 6600 euro respectively... give or take.

I would love a C200b. A small 4K monitor and my Nikkor lenses... yeah I could dig that. I may rent one next summer... I'm sure they will be reserved until then. 

I guess I'll just deal with ML Raw until then. 

[dbp]

42 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@mercer in 5-6 years 8K will be the standard and the conversation will probably shift to full frame video cameras, or medium format video.

I am not going to dismiss a Canon just from the spec list, or else 98% of the world and 90% of the professional world, would be shooting with the a6300, and that is a really bad implemented camera. In the end, numbers are just numbers, real life samples and workflows are the final judge.

 

Yep, totally. Canon C line seems to always overdeliver compared to the spec sheet. The footage will tell the tale, as it always does! 

[ND64]

Its always entertaining to scroll through dreamy wishlists here

[rndmtsk]

4 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Believe it or not, that amazing Varicam 35 reel that blew us all away a few years ago was shot on the same 10-bit AVC-Ultra codec.

 

How do people know it's the Varicam 10bit AVC Ultra codec and not the 400mbps H.264 coming to the GH5? Has this been confirmed anywhere?