I received a call from a Panasonic rep (for the first time ever) yesterday, checking to see what my plans were for new equipment. I told him that I was waiting for a small form-factor camera that would record high-quality 1080p 60fps, and he said that he hadn't heard of anything in that size category coming soon. He also said that he didn't have any definite information, but that something in the way of a shoulder-mount 1080p 60 fps camera might be unveiled at NAB. I know that this is only a rumor, but I thought it might be worth sharing.

Interesting. I'm waiting for a contender for the Sony 350 EX camera, an updated HPX500. This maybe it?

Otherwise, I'm expecting to see an AF100 update...

According to one of my sources there has been little noise coming from Panasonic about new product for NAB. Doesn't mean anything for sure. I see lots of things they could be doing but I often am wrong at how fast things change and my expectations from Panasonic are low this year. They are not like Apple which can announce the new iPad one week and release it 12 days later.

AVC-Ultra could make a comeback if this indeed comes to fruition. This may be the year broadcast 1080p60 becomes introduced if BDUs provide more powerful set-top boxes, or a new revision of the ATSC standard would be introduced and put into practice.

.........something in the way of a shoulder-mount 1080p 60 fps camera might be unveiled at NAB. I know that this is only a rumor, ........
That could mean two things - a camera with the ability to shoot 1080p/60 (which implies a new codec to go with it) OR a camera which is a true "1080 Varicam". I'd expect the latter to be more likely.

At the moment Panasonic seem to have two very distinct ranges with the 2000 and 3000 series. The 2000 series are based around a 1280x720 chip, but do have slo-mo capability in 720p. The 3000 series are true full-res 1080 - but with linited or no variable speed, and no 720p mode at all. The obvious "hoped for" product is a true 1080 capability with the ability to overcrank to 60fps at 1080.

From what I hear it had better come soon. The obvious competitor is Sonys PMW500, and whilst that doesn't offer full slo-mo in 1080, it does offer a full 1080 mode, together with a 720p mode with slo-mo. That seems to be selling very well, and is already becoming something of a standard - Panasonic COULD trump it with full res 1080 slo-mo - but they need to do it very soon.

If such a thing does come about, I don't see it being cheap - not the HPX500 successor Sanjin hopes for.

A far as an AF100 upgrade goes, then don't underestimate the task. When Panasonic developed the AF100, it was in response to DSLRs, and was basically putting a stills chip in a video package with more optimised processing than DSLRs had at the time. A good idea in principle, but it could never hope to be as good as a camera with a large format chip purpose designed for video. And unfortunately for Panasonic, that's exactly what Sony announced even before the AF100 was in the shops. With the C300, Canon rubbed the point home. An AF100 upgrade could be fairly simply done by using the GH2 sensor in place of the GH1 - GH2 users are already reporting better results than the AF100 gives. But it would still leave a lot lacking compared to the FS100, especially in terms of sensitivity. Would it be worth it?

The real solution, to really answer the critics, is a purpose designed chip - but that takes time, is expensive, and very unlikely to happen yet. (Unless it was already being developed alongside the AF100.) It also raises the question of what size to purpose design it to? S35 or four-thirds? Given the AF100, four-thirds must seem the obvious choice - but S35 is the traditional standard, and it's what both Sony and Canon have gone for. Compared to four-thirds, S35 has about twice the area, and that translates to a stop advantage in sensitivity and depth of field control. It's one thing to cheaply make use of an already existing sensor, but if you're going to the expense of purpose designing one, do you really want to do it in the full knowledge that it will still be second best to the competition? (Even if getting over most of the flaws of it's predecesssor?)

An AF100 upgrade could be fairly simply done by using the GH2 sensor in place of the GH1 - GH2 users are already reporting better results than the AF100 gives. But it would still leave a lot lacking compared to the FS100, especially in terms of sensitivity. Would it be worth it?


Off course it's worth it. There is a price gap between the AF100 and the FS100. It's a 1100€ price gap (taken from CVP). So I see no problem with AF100 being an inferior camera compared to FS100 regarding IQ as it is a cheaper camcorder.
So I say bring us an improved AF100. Panasonic usually makes a revised model, don't they? So the notion of an updated AF100 with the GH2 chip isn't so far fetched (along with some other improvements). And with all the special offers that end just before NAB make this IMHO even more possible.

I personally never liked the IQ of AF100. It looks like an DSLR. And I especially dislike the purple/blue hue that I saw on a lot of videos made with the AF100. Don't know if this is CA or not, but if it is CA it's all over the place.

Regarding the supposed upcoming shoulder mount camera I agree with you David. Sony is really rocking it with the PMW500! I wonder what are they thinking at Panasonic?? And I never understood why they didn't include 720p in the new HPX-XXXX models! I think that this was/is a mistake from Panasonic.

Off course it's worth it. There is a price gap between the AF100 and the FS100. It's a 1100€ price gap ........ So I see no problem with AF100 being an inferior camera compared to FS100 regarding IQ as it is a cheaper camcorder.
So I say bring us an improved AF100.
I agree with a lot of that. I don't like to think in terms of "good" or "bad" cameras - rather how they relate to each other and in relation to what they cost. Initially the AF100 was a similar price to the FS100 and as such was definitely not a good buy.

So what is the right price? Both the FS100 and the AF100 offer operational advantages over DSLRs - XLR inputs, form factor etc. But the FS100 also offers significant image quality improvements over DSLRs - the AF100 doesn't, it's a DSLRs innards in a video camera box. (Witness all the reports of the GH2 IQ being a little better.)

In that case, don't you think people are now feeling it expensive compared to a DSLR, rather than cheap compared to such as the FS100? If you are going to pay a lot more than DSLR money, why not go a bit further still? In that respect, nearly £3,000+VAT (body only) still seems too high to me. I'd say around £2,000-£2,500 would be more realistic.
Panasonic usually makes a revised model, don't they? So the notion of an updated AF100 with the GH2 chip isn't so far fetched (along with some other improvements). And with all the special offers that end just before NAB make this IMHO even more possible.
I certainly think it's a possibility, but do bear in mind that such an improvement will be incremental. Such an "AF200" will still be a DSLR innards in a video camera body, and as such will still be inferior to an FS100, let alone the more expensive large format cameras, and will still be four-thirds. There is now an expectation for s35 in a camera like this.

It comes back to is such an upgrade worth it? If the extra price it can command is not that much, then taking into account development costs and losses from having to sell off old AF100 stock, I'm not sure it would be.

An upgrade to a "designed for video" chip is a different matter. Yes, a lot more to do, but then it can start to command a bigger premium, and seriously look at rivalling Sony and Canon.
I personally never liked the IQ of AF100. It looks like an DSLR.
That's because fundamentally it is DSLR innards in a more ergonomic package! Second generation DSLR video processing, true, which gets away from the abysmal chroma aliasing of early DSLR video, but it's only by going to a purpose designed chip that some issues (like highlight handling and sensitivity) will ever be really addressed.

There is now an expectation for s35 in a camera like this.

It comes back to is such an upgrade worth it? If the extra price it can command is not that much, then taking into account development costs and losses from having to sell off old AF100 stock, I'm not sure it would be.


Panasonic obliviously made a "legacy" problem for them selfs with the m4/3 standard. s35 is where it's at but they are swimming partially against the current with the m4/3. If you ask me - now they have to continue the m4/3 line of cameras. There are lots and lots of people invested in m4/3. Maybe they should keep the AF series of cameras put them in a 2.5k - 3k price range and create an s35 chip and put it in a 5k - 7k price range. But they would probably want to have a lower end camera and a higher end camera that use the same glass, so I doubt that this will happen. Another idea is to keep feeding the AF100 line the chips from the GH DSLRs and alongside have an AF200 line that has a purpose designed m4/3 video chip.

But still they will always have the problem of the m4/3 size. If they will create a digital cinema camera it really should be an s35 and not an m4/3. I don't think that m4/3 would get accepted in the movies crowd nearly as well as an s35 format - so coming from this perspective it wouldn't be wise for Panasonic to push the m4/3 format in the C300, F3, scarlet price range. Although scarlet is a true digital cinema camera compared to the more broadcast oriented C300 and F3...

We'll see what happens. I think that they should keep the m4/3 standard but keep it in the lower end 3k price range Where it Belongs and create ans35 format camera in a higher 10k price range where it belongs and just forget about the m4/3 standard.

I think that they should keep the m4/3 standard but keep it in the lower end 3k price range Where it Belongs and create ans35 format camera in a higher 10k price range where it belongs and just forget about the m4/3 standard.
I see where you're coming from - but it contradicts what you say about "But they would probably want to have a lower end camera and a higher end camera that use the same glass, so I doubt that this will happen", doesn't it?

And that's the problem. A strong rationale for future high/low end models to at least share the same size sensor - same glass - and another strong rationale to go 4/3 for the low end, s35 for the higher. And if you do go for a common size, there's a lot of advantage in s35. Developing the AF100 around exisiting 4/3 tech made a lot of sense when there was no competition, but it's given a nasty legacy headache now.

Have you seen the thread about Canon making another announcement at NAB? One possibility is a little brother to the C300, and if that's so the competition is going to get far hotter still.

The other thing to think about is the likelihood of an inexorable move to 4k. If s35 sensors have a big edge
over 4/3 now, that's likely to be even more the case in a 4k world.

Have you seen the thread about Canon making another announcement at NAB? One possibility is a little brother to the C300, and if that's so the competition is going to get far hotter still.


Yes I have. This NAB is going to be exciting. I just wish that Panasonic is going to release something that I can use my P2 cards with. Don't want to sell them, and I don't want to buy the 250.

Panasonic is going to lose a lot of potential customers if they don't bring a better AF camera to the market. I'll laugh if they bring a new AF100A with a GH2 sensor, the same DSP and give it a price tag of 5k (same as FS100). If that happens I'll sell my HPX171 and all it's gear and switch camp -> Sony!. Or Canon if they bring something worth buying (in the 5k segment) to the market...

An AF100 upgrade could be fairly simply done by using the GH2 sensor in place of the GH1 - GH2 users are already reporting better results than the AF100 gives. But it would still leave a lot lacking compared to the FS100, especially in terms of sensitivity. Would it be worth it?


Hi David, Obviously you are not aware of the fact that it is the same silicon in the AF100 as it is in the GH2, but with better DSP to offset the skew and other MOS artifacts.

Best,

jan

Obviously you are not aware of the fact that it is the same silicon in the AF100 as it is in the GH2, but with better DSP to offset the skew and other MOS artifacts.

I was going on the fact that every single side by side comparison I've heard of says that GH2 video is BETTER than the AF100 - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-canon-cinema-eos-c300-c300-pl-cameras/503836-phil-blooms-trip-france-w-c300-2.html#post1706618 - for just one example. Two posts down Sanjin posts two comparative grabs from Phil Blooms tests, which seem to give substance to the claim. I could post other references all saying pretty much the same thing. The general assumption (which I repeated) has therefore been that the difference was effectively down to a newer sensor in the GH2 and the likelihood of the GH1 sensor being used in the AF100. If this is not the case, I'm happy to accept that as so.

So can you answer why, if they do share the same sensor, there seems to be a strong consensus that the GH2 is doing a better job than the AF100, at least in terms of image quality? Maybe the differing DSPs are minimising skew at the expense of other attributes?

This does mean that there is therefore no easy simple improvement path for the AF100 then, doesn't it? I don't dispute the AF100 compares well with DSLR video - but is simply nowhere near the standard of the large format cameras with "designed for video sensors"? (C300, F3, and FS100.) And that applies to resolution, aliasing, sensitivity, dynamic range and a host of other factors.

I previously said:
When Panasonic developed the AF100, it was in response to DSLRs, and was basically putting a stills chip in a video package with more optimised processing than DSLRs had at the time. A good idea in principle, but it could never hope to be as good as a camera with a large format chip purpose designed for video.
I have no doubt that Panasonic have the wherewithal to compete with Sony and Canon, but not with the AF100 - it needs a large format chip purpose designed for video. When can we expect that from Panasonic?

And will it be 4/3 or s35?

@Jan...Thanks for giving us a decent large sensor camera with proper ND filters, XLR audio, greater than 12 minute record time and other goodies we need for video. Looking forward to the next iteration.

So can you answer why, if they do share the same sensor, there seems to be a strong consensus that the GH2 is doing a better job than the AF100, at least in terms of image quality? Maybe the differing DSPs are minimising skew at the expense of other attributes?
I was curious enough about that question to enquire further, and got this answer:
I believe it is correct that the GH2 and the AF100 share the same sensor but read different sections from it. The AF100 reads just under 12 million pixels, the GH2 just under 14 million. To see how this is look at the diagram marked Multi-Aspect Sensor here at the bottom of the page - Panasonic DMC-GH2 Review: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2)

The GH2 sensor in 16:9 mode has dimensions of 4976x2800 and the resolution before aliasing appears to be based on one quarter of that, 700 lines. This is as in the diagram. In 4:3 mode, the GH2 sensor has dimensions of 4608x3456 and it seems when used in the AF100 the used area is a 16:9 crop of that and not the bigger area as used in the GH2 itself. I do not know why. Hence the effective area used in the AF100 is 4608x2592, and doing the same calculation as before gives an expected resolution before aliasing of 648 lines.

These figures, 648 and 700, closely agree with measured results. The difference is not huge, but is noticeable, and explains why so many people are reported GH2 video sharper than the AF100. Both cameras show a lot of luminance aliasing, but virtually no coloured aliasing, unlike most other DSLRs.

It's easy enough to prove all the above if you have a GH2 and AF100. Put then side by side and shoot video with them locked off with the same lens. You will find the angle of view of the GH2 to be a bit wider than that of the AF100, the above theory predicting about 8% wider.
And all of that now makes sense to me. They do indeed physically share the same sensor, but it seems the AF100 is not making full use of it. The USED area in the GH2 is 17% bigger than in the case of the AF100, 17% more photosites! Who has both cameras and is going to test the angle of view theory?

And all of that now makes sense to me. They do indeed physically share the same sensor, but it seems the AF100 is not making full use of it. The USED area in the GH2 is 17% bigger than in the case of the AF100, 17% more photosites! Who has both cameras and is going to test the angle of view theory?

David, very interesting. I to didn't know that the AF100 uses the GH2 chip. This makes me wonder what they can do to improve it? A better DSP I guess...? It also makes me think that an upgraded AF100 is not coming. The probability of an P2 AF100 is IMHO a bigger possibility judging from this new info we acquired. That or a completely new s35 camera that will be announced at NAB and lunched in late Q4.

Here I found a test from Texas media with both the AF and the GH mounted on top of each other. It's all hand held so it's not really good. Panasonic GH2 mounted on top of an AF100 with the same lens on both - YouTube

The AF-100 does NOT use the GH2 chip, and Jan Crittenden has stated that numerous times.

The AF-100 does NOT use the GH2 chip, and Jan Crittenden has stated that numerous times.

Hi David, Obviously you are not aware of the fact that it is the same silicon in the AF100 as it is in the GH2, but with better DSP to offset the skew and other MOS artifacts.

Best,

jan

Silicon, DSP, Chip .... no wonder people are confused

The AF-100 does NOT use the GH2 chip, and Jan Crittenden has stated that numerous times.
But not on this thread..........! Quite the opposite!

A few posts back she corrects me, and says:
Hi David, Obviously you are not aware of the fact that it is the same silicon in the AF100 as it is in the GH2, but with better DSP to offset the skew and other MOS artifacts.

Best,

jan
I now agree with what she says - same physical chip, but think the difference between the AF100 and the GH2 is down to amount of the chip each reads out - the AF100 is windowed or cropped relative to the GH2. As said before: "They do indeed physically share the same sensor, but it seems the AF100 is not making full use of it. The USED area in the GH2 is 17% bigger than in the case of the AF100, 17% more photosites! Who has both cameras and is going to test the angle of view theory?"

There seems to be pretty good evidence from Phillip Blooms Xmas shootout - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-canon-cinema-eos-c300-c300-pl-cameras/503836-phil-blooms-trip-france-w-c300.html#post1706302 . He shoots on the same lens, same view, from same position with both the AF100 (10min 18sec) and the GH2 (13min 40sec) - and it's obvious the GH2 does indeed have a noticeably wider angle of view. (I'm not prepared to draw any other conclusions from that test - the lighting has changed for one thing.)

The explanation provided to me said "It's easy enough to prove all the above if you have a GH2 and AF100. Put then side by side and shoot video with them locked off with the same lens. You will find the angle of view of the GH2 to be a bit wider than that of the AF100, the above theory predicting about 8% wider."

I tried to quantify the difference between the images in Philip Blooms examples and I made it to be approximately 6-7% - a pretty good correlation with the 8% that was predicted, given the margins for error. I'd be interested if anybody is able to redo the comparison under more controlled conditions.
David, very interesting. I to didn't know that the AF100 uses the GH2 chip. This makes me wonder what they can do to improve it? A better DSP I guess...? It also makes me think that an upgraded AF100 is not coming.
The obvious thought in my mind is that although they both use the same chip, an upgraded AF100 could still benefit from reading it in the same way as the GH2, read the 4976x2800 window instead of 4608x2592. If the GH2 can do that, why can't the (far more expensive) AF100?

It still won't compete with all the "designed for video" sensors by a long way, but would be an improvement. At least it would mean the quality would be on a par with the GH2.

Here's an idea I just had: a 4K 2/3" camcorder!

This sounds outrageous at first, but this should be quite doable, considering that with modern advances in sensor design (gapless micro-lenses) it would have about the same pixel pitch as a 1/3" camcorder... when Canon released the the 1D4 a while back, it was claimed as having a higher resolution over it's predecessor (16mp vs. 10mp), but with the exact same pixel size on a same-sized sensor. There aren't many 2/3" lenses that could provide the sharpness needed to make use of 4K, but the extra resolution can allow for over-sampling to 2K/HD until optics catch up.

Edit: while I'm on a roll, would it kill to also ask for some sort of log/linear gamma? I know there's more DR available in these cameras than the software allows for. Low-contrast settings (Cinelike D, low knee, master ped 0 etc.) look like what you'd get from a stills camera with the contrast turned up to 11.

The obvious thought in my mind is that although they both use the same chip, an upgraded AF100 could still benefit from reading it in the same way as the GH2, read the 4976x2800 window instead of 4608x2592. If the GH2 can do that, why can't the (far more expensive) AF100?

It still won't compete with all the "designed for video" sensors by a long way, but would be an improvement. At least it would mean the quality would be on a par with the GH2.

Sure, a little more resolution would not hurt but what would convince me of buying the AF100 is a better DSP and P2 - not more resolution. I don't like the way it handles highlights and I especially don't like the chroma clipping. It looks a loot like my HPX171 in this regard. Same chroma clipping, especially in the red channel.
This two things are a lot more important to me than 50 more lines of resolution. I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this matter.

Anyway, there must be a reason why AF100 uses a lesser amount of the chip area than the GH2...

Here's an idea I just had: a 4K 2/3" camcorder!

This sounds outrageous at first, but this should be quite doable, considering that with modern advances in sensor design (gapless micro-lenses) it would have about the same pixel pitch as a 1/3" camcorder... when Canon released the the 1D4 a while back, it was claimed as having a higher resolution over it's predecessor (16mp vs. 10mp), but with the exact same pixel size on a same-sized sensor. There aren't many 2/3" lenses that could provide the sharpness needed to make use of 4K, but the extra resolution can allow for over-sampling to 2K/HD until optics catch up.

Edit: while I'm on a roll, would it kill to also ask for some sort of log/linear gamma? I know there's more DR available in these cameras than the software allows for. Low-contrast settings (Cinelike D, low knee, master ped 0 etc.) look like what you'd get from a stills camera with the contrast turned up to 11.

If JVC can now squeeze 4K out of a single 1/2" chip on the HMQ10, why not a 2/3" chip? Wasn't this the design of the original Scarlet?

If JVC can now squeeze 4K out of a single 1/2" chip on the HMQ10, why not a 2/3" chip? Wasn't this the design of the original Scarlet?

I would rather have a 2K 2/3 chip with a decent DR and good noise performance.

..........what would convince me of buying the AF100 is a better DSP and P2 - not more resolution.
When you say "P2", I suspect what you really mean is "a better codec", isn't it? What is also interesting from Phil Blooms tests with the GH2 is that sensor aside, it's been hacked to record at a higher data rate and his video indicates 170Mbs. (He does say that may not be reliable to his Class 10 card, but seems to indicate the 70Mbs mode is.) So with SDXC, recording 100Mbs AVC-Intra shouldn't be any problem - wouldn't the option of that be a better way forward than P2?
I don't like the way it handles highlights and I especially don't like the chroma clipping.
I've said on many occasions (mainly to do with DSLRs) that there is a far bigger gap than is generally recognised between sensors PRIMARILY designed for stills and those PRIMARILY for video. And highlight handling is one way it shows up. Think about it. There are actually 18 megapixels on the GH2 chip (though the AF100 only windows 12 megapixel), and it's roughly half the size of an s35 sensor. It's an equivalent photosite size to over 30 megapixels on an s35 chip!

Hence each photosite must be only about one tenth the area (very approximately) to that on the F3/FS100 - is it really a surprise that highlight handling is not as good as the "designed for video" sensors?
Anyway, there must be a reason why AF100 uses a lesser amount of the chip area than the GH2...
I've just heard one plausible sounding explanation, that the AF100 started to be designed around a GH1 chip, and the GH2 chip was a late amendment to the spec. I can only assume that to meet release dates etc it wasn't possible to do a total redesign, and some of the original processing couldn't cope with the full 16:9 window of the GH2, so this windowing was the compromise. Doing the same calculations for the GH1 chip suggests that even if the max area was used, the max resolution before aliasing would be only 612 lines, and if it used the windowed area it would only be 562 lines!

So the 648 of the AF100 is still a significant improvement over the 612 it would have been initially.

(And if anybody does still have any doubts, these calculations show that it definately does have the GH2 chip, it wouldn't be able to get to 648 lines with the GH1 sensor, with the processing used.)

When you say "P2", I suspect what you really mean is "a better codec", isn't it?

Yes, a better codec. Bot no, for me personally I did actually meant P2 - as I am already invested in P2 and wouldn't like to sell it.
Off course, ditching P2 and going the CF road or even SDXC as you suggested would be an general improvement. P2 is to expensive to be in this lower end market segment! It's that simple. Remove it. But as we've been through this legacy issues I won't go through them again.


I've said on many occasions (mainly to do with DSLRs) that there is a far bigger gap than is generally recognised between sensors PRIMARILY designed for stills and those PRIMARILY for video. And highlight handling is one way it shows up. Think about it. There are actually 18 megapixels on the GH2 chip (though the AF100 only windows 12 megapixel), and it's roughly half the size of an s35 sensor. It's an equivalent photosite size to over 30 megapixels on an s35 chip!

Hence each photosite must be only about one tenth the area (very approximately) to that on the F3/FS100 - is it really a surprise that highlight handling is not as good as the "designed for video" sensors?


Wow those are actually some quite small photosites! I've never got down to calculating their size on the GH chip. At least Panasonic doesn't delete the ones it doesn't need like Canon does (I'm surprised that they are still doing it...). But still, it isn't all to do with photosite size is it? The DSP is also very important in highlight handling and chroma clipping, yes?


I've just heard one plausible sounding explanation, that the AF100 started to be designed around a GH1 chip, and the GH2 chip was a late amendment to the spec. I can only assume that to meet release dates etc it wasn't possible to do a total redesign, and some of the original processing couldn't cope with the full 16:9 window of the GH2, so this windowing was the compromise. Doing the same calculations for the GH1 chip suggests that even if the max area was used, the max resolution before aliasing would be only 612 lines, and if it used the windowed area it would only be 562 lines!

So the 648 of the AF100 is still a significant improvement over the 612 it would have been initially.

(And if anybody does still have any doubts, these calculations show that it definately does have the GH2 chip, it wouldn't be able to get to 648 lines with the GH1 sensor, with the processing used.)

This does sound like an very plausible explanation yes!

It's funny that all this time we thought that the AF100 uses the GH2 chip!:) There's actually a lot of people walking around wishing that Panasonic would introduce a revised AF100 camera at NAB this year that would feature the GH2 chip!:)

If JVC can now squeeze 4K out of a single 1/2" chip on the HMQ10, why not a 2/3" chip? Wasn't this the design of the original Scarlet?
Oh yeah, the Scarlet used to be 2/3" while in the works, I forgot about that... still sounds like a good idea though, even with the actual Scarlet out now.


I would rather have a 2K 2/3 chip with a decent DR and good noise performance.
I doubt noise performance would take a big hit from cramming 4K in, if it's done right, the extra pixels would most likely just quantize the noise floor at worst. 2K w/ bigger pixels would be killer too though.

Off course, ditching P2 and going the CF road or even SDXC as you suggested would be an general improvement. P2 is to expensive to be in this lower end market segment! It's that simple. Remove it. But as we've been through this legacy issues I won't go through them again.
There are plenty of CF/SD camcorders in this price range as it is... at least with P2 you're getting a quadruple redundant fail safe system that ensures you never lose more than 4 seconds or so of footage, even if you pull the card out while recording or the camera explodes or something. Also, solid state media is infinitely cheaper than any disk/tape based solution because it can be erased/used practically indefinitely, 95% of everyone can get away with having to own 2~3 cards for the whole life of the device... digital tech has really spoiled this generation.

Wow those are actually some quite small photosites! I've never got down to calculating their size on the GH chip. At least Panasonic doesn't delete the ones it doesn't need like Canon does (I'm surprised that they are still doing it...). But still, it isn't all to do with photosite size is it? The DSP is also very important in highlight handling and chroma clipping, yes?

By popular myth, sensor size seems to have direct correlation to DR, but this isn't always so. The ALEXA and RED push the limits of 14-bit ADCs with 13.5 stops of DR, but sport an S35 sensor that about 1.6x crop equivalent to a full-frame dSLR, conversely, many dSLRs have about 11.5 stops of DR at ISO100, such as the 5D2. Few cameras, like the Nikon D3s, manage to get 13 stops but rarely more so. A typical camcorder has 10 stops of DR, despite having an absolutely tiny sensor in comparison.

I would rather have a 2K 2/3 chip with a decent DR and good noise performance.

I sure wouldn't complain about such a camera!
I honestly liked the original design of the Scarlet better than what it is now. Mainly, the $6,000 target price. I'd have been very happy with a 2/3" chip, fixed lens and 4K resolution. I'm waiting for the eventual reviews of the forthcoming HMQ10 to see how close JVC comes to the original Scarlet concept. I work with EX3s all the time, and I don't feel crippled with the 1/2" chip size.
But I'll admit, my FS100 has spoiled me with its Super-35 sensor.

... at least with P2 you're getting a quadruple redundant fail safe system that ensures you never lose more than 4 seconds or so of footage, even if you pull the card out while recording or the camera explodes or something.
That may be so - but it also applies to other solid state systems. And with the C300 you have the ability to record to dual CF cards at once. The reliability advantages of that (provided the user is sensible enough not to keep them together!) are not just down to card reliabilities, but that even if one got lost/stolen) there's always the other card.

And the economics are such that even two C300 parallel recordings still work out much cheaper/minute than a single one on P2!
Also, solid state media is infinitely cheaper than any disk/tape based solution because it can be erased/used practically indefinitely, 95% of everyone can get away with having to own 2~3 cards for the whole life of the device... digital tech has really spoiled this generation.
Yes - but that equally applies to other solid state solutions. (Though it ignores the cost of the media you download onto.) The real point is that one-off cost adds about $2,000 onto the capital cost of a P2 based system (for approx 3 hours recording) but it's far less with other systems. Hence to be competitive the basic body only price with P2 then has to be about $1,500 less than for other systems - I'd rather put my money into a better camera, not more expensive memory.
By popular myth, sensor size seems to have direct correlation to DR, but this isn't always so.
What I and Sanjin referred to was NOT sensor size, but PHOTOSITE size. It may not be a direct correlation, but generally bigger PHOTOSITES give better dynamic range. And you get bigger photosites by either/or having a bigger sensor and/or FEWER overall sites on the chip.

This is one of the reasons why using a sensor primarily designed for stills is highly unlikely to give as good results as one primarily designed for video. And going for four/thirds (approx half the area of s35) exacerbates the problem.
The ALEXA and RED push the limits of 14-bit ADCs with 13.5 stops of DR, but sport an S35 sensor that about 1.6x crop equivalent to a full-frame dSLR, conversely, many dSLRs have about 11.5 stops of DR at ISO100, such as the 5D2.
Yes - but Alexa has an effective photosite count of 2880x1620 (in 16:9) or about 4.6 megapixel. (Enough to give very good 1080p - but no more.) The Alexa also has about twice the area of the AF100 sensor, and the two factors together mean that EACH photosite should be about (2*18/4.6=7.8) 7-8 times as large on the Alexa as the AF100.

As far as "typical camcorders", then with the EX as an example, it's sensors are each about 1/8 the size of a four/thirds sensor - but it has about 2.2 megapixels each compared to the 18 of the AF100. As 2.2x8=17.6, I'd therefore expect the EX photosites to be (if anything) a bit larger than those of the AF100.

Photosite size may not be the only factor regarding DR - but it's a big one.

And the economics are such that even two C300 parallel recordings still work out much cheaper/minute than a single one on P2!

Yes - but that equally applies to other solid state solutions. (Though it ignores the cost of the media you download onto.) The real point is that one-off cost adds about $2,000 onto the capital cost of a P2 based system (for approx 3 hours recording) but it's far less with other systems. Hence to be competitive the basic body only price with P2 then has to be about $1,500 less than for other systems - I'd rather put my money into a better camera, not more expensive memory.
There is no such thing as "cheaper/minute" in any digital recording solution unless you're thinking of recording uncompressed 4K or something, under realistic use, storage is cheap enough for it to be a non-issue.
3x P2 costs $1905 at B&H (SxS is a bit more) and 3x CF cards (Sandisk EP 64GB) is $1,110... ok an $800 difference? I know there are cheaper CF cards, but I probably wouldn't want to use those for anything worthwhile.
Considering the useful life of the product, and the likelihood it'll buy itself back, $800 is moot by any standards. Any camera sporting P2 isn't likely to be used by penny-pinching hobbyists.

What I and Sanjin referred to was NOT sensor size, but PHOTOSITE size. It may not be a direct correlation, but generally bigger PHOTOSITES give better dynamic range. And you get bigger photosites by either/or having a bigger sensor and/or FEWER overall sites on the chip.

This is one of the reasons why using a sensor primarily designed for stills is highly unlikely to give as good results as one primarily designed for video. And going for four/thirds (approx half the area of s35) exacerbates the problem.

Yes - but Alexa has an effective photosite count of 2880x1620 (in 16:9) or about 4.6 megapixel. (Enough to give very good 1080p - but no more.) The Alexa also has about twice the area of the AF100 sensor, and the two factors together mean that EACH photosite should be about (2*18/4.6=7.8) 7-8 times as large on the Alexa as the AF100.

As far as "typical camcorders", then with the EX as an example, it's sensors are each about 1/8 the size of a four/thirds sensor - but it has about 2.2 megapixels each compared to the 18 of the AF100. As 2.2x8=17.6, I'd therefore expect the EX photosites to be (if anything) a bit larger than those of the AF100.

Photosite size may not be the only factor regarding DR - but it's a big one.

...Alright, so what about the 14 megapixel RED Epic? It has a small-ish sensor by still-camera standards, but has a higher dynamic range than even medium format digital cameras, which have absolutely massive pixels. To put it in perspective, a medium format camera needs to have 80mp to match the 5D2 in pixel size, which in turn has the same pixel density as an 8mp crop camera; most MFD cams are in the 40~50mp range.

If Red isn't using some secret sauce in their cameras, then I don't know what it is. The RED camera has been tested and proven to have the exact same DR as the Alexa, if they didn't label the step chart I couldn't tell which was which.

3x P2 costs $1905 at B&H (SxS is a bit more) and 3x CF cards (Sandisk EP 64GB) is $1,110... ok an $800 difference?
But you're forgetting that the codec as used in the C300 puts 2 hours on to a 64GB card, with P2 it's only one hour per 64GB - that's why cost/minute is more significant than cost/GB. Hence the comparison figure really should be more like $550 for CF - so a $1,350 difference - not $800.
Considering the useful life of the product, and the likelihood it'll buy itself back, $800 is moot by any standards. Any camera sporting P2 isn't likely to be used by penny-pinching hobbyists.
You need to look at a total system cost - camera plus memory. Think of the memory as part of the capital cost of the system - I fully agree it's not a consumable cost.

The point I'm making is that I'd rather spend that $1,350 on a better camera - not more expensive memory. If I've got $6,000 to spend, I'd rather it be a $5,500 camera and $500 of memory than a $4,000 camera and $2,000 of memory. This is especially true if you compare something like the HPX250 with the XF305. In many ways comparable, but the 250 is considerably cheaper - until you factor in memory cost when they become similar in price. But the XF305 is better in respects such as the true manual lens (the 250 is servo for iris and focus)
...Alright, so what about the 14 megapixel RED Epic? It has a small-ish sensor by still-camera standards, but has a higher dynamic range than even medium format digital cameras, which have absolutely massive pixels.
I can only repeat what I said before: "Photosite size may not be the only factor regarding DR - but it's a big one."

As far as this discussion goes, then most of the competition to the AF100 are s35 - not four/thirds - and that gives them an advantage to start with. (Twice as big photosites for the same count per chip.) It doesn't surprise me that Panasonic used the GH2 chip in their first camera for reasons of speed and economies of scale, but if they are going to seriously compete from now on, they are going to have to come out with a designed for video chip. And the really big question will be whether it's s35 or four/thirds.

Go for s35 and it's all change for lenses, everything. Stay with four/thirds and it will always struggle against all the s35 rivals in so many ways, always be a runner up. It's a tough decision.

And the news of the FS700 has ratcheted up the stakes considerably.

And the news of the FS700 has ratcheted up the stakes considerably.

Yes, Sony is in a really good place at the moment - hands down. They have all the corners except the sub 5K market where the AF100 and DSLRs come in.
A slightly updated AF100 won't do much now. They must come out with a brand new S35 camcorder!

Have you seen the new Sony PDW 680 ENG type camcorder? What are they doing at Panasonic?

Here is the big annoucement for NAB. Some surprises.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/506956-panasonic-nab-announcements-sdhc-p2-adapter-hpx600-hpx255-w-ccu-more.html

May not be enough to make people happy with Panasonic but some good ideas

Finally! HPX600 is here!:) Can't wait to get my hands on one. Wonder if there will be a stock lens to go with it? Same as the pmw350K has a stock lens...