Just saw this on engadget.

Mods please feel free to replace with a direct JVC link in English when it becomes available - the primary source for this JY-HMQ30 information is currently a Japanese (Google translated) page, but it does have lots more spec information and pictures:

JVC unveils $18,000 4K interchangeable lens camcorder with Nikon F-mount (http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/13/jvc-4k-camcorder-nikon-lenses/)

Here is the translated source page:

Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.jvckenwood.com%2Fpress%2F2013%2Fjy-hmq30.html)

$18,000 !!! Who on earth is going to buy one of these, when an F5 is available for not much more money?

Interesting, but unimpressed. (Unless the real price is substantially less.)

Substantially higher in price than the HMQ10. Hopefully the street price will be lower.

It's still cheaper than the F5 with the 4K attachment, isn't it? By many thousands of dollars.

And what the heck is a 1.25 type sensor? The Q10 has a 1/2.3" sensor.

Might be a 1.25" sensor.

t's still cheaper than the F5 with the 4K attachment, isn't it? By many thousands of dollars.
Yes..... but the JVC is recording a compressed and processed signal, maybe 8 bit and onto 4 SD cards simultaneously.

With the optional back the F5 records 4k RAW - a massive improvement. OK, maybe an apples and oranges comparison, but if I was spending $18,000 I'd feel this falls between stools. Think I'd rather spend a bit more and get something which is in the top end bracket.

I wonder what crop factor it will be...
Found the product photo shown in CES2012:
JVC HMQ30-9 (http://www.photographybay.com/2013/06/13/jvc-unveils-4k-camcorder-with-nikon-f-mount/jvc-hmq30-9/)
(Article: JVC JY-MHQ30 4K Camcorder with Nikon F-Mount (http://www.photographybay.com/2013/06/13/jvc-unveils-4k-camcorder-with-nikon-f-mount/) )

Compared to Sony NEX-VG30 and VG900 series: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/08/sonyvgdsc07813.jpg

The sensor measures "1.25 inch" diagonally, so the crop factor should be somewhere between 2.1x and 2.3x, which is a little bit more than a Micro Four Thirds camcorder has.

A quick measure of the sensor in comparison to the f-mount the sensor suggests size is about 1".

Could this be the newly presented Aptina 1" 4k sensor being used?
If so it would offer 4:2:2 and 4k@60fps.

Edit: I missed the translated page on which they call the sensor "1.25 type" sensor.
But that would suggest a sensor larger then 1" and something like the BMCC?
"Crop factor" of 2?

$18,000 !!! Who on earth is going to buy one of these, when an F5 is available for not much more money?

Interesting, but unimpressed. (Unless the real price is substantially less.)

Say what? To make the F5 useable, you need to spend $25,000 + a lens.

Want to add the external recorder? now you're up to $32,000... and still need a lens.

From the translated article, it sounds like they're saying this new camera uses the same sensor as the fixed lens GY-HMQ10 (1.2/3 CMOS).

Edit: Actually it looks like it is just a GY-HMQ10 with exchangeable lens feature.
JVC GY-HMQ10 4K Compact Handheld Camcorder GY-HMQ10U B&H Photo

Say what? To make the F5 useable, you need to spend $25,000 + a lens.
Maybe, but you're still going to need lenses for this camera on top of the $18,000 - plus other things "to make it usable".

B&H price for an F5 plus v/f is close to $20,000. Yes, you need memory, batteries and other accessories on top of that - but same with the JVC camera. (And the F5 v/f is very good - I suspect the JVC will almost certainly need an external.)

True, you then need to spend extra to get 4k ability with the F5, but it's then RAW. Going for 4k, and spending $18,000 (plus lenses etc) implies someone going for the higher end of the market. I just don't see the JVC system of spreading the recording across 4 SD cards, and being fairly highly compressed going down too well at this point in the market. I'd also think anyone interested in this sort of camera would want a large sensor, larger than 1/2.3" anyway?

It just falls between stools IMO. Too expensive for the real budget filmmaker, not good enough for those who have got the budgets.

David,

Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the saying. I feared I'd find the definition in a medical encyclopedia, but discovered it here: Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com)

fall between two stools
to lose both of two possibilities by hesitating between them or trying for both.

There's only 4 reviews on B&H Photo for the GY-HMQ10, so it makes me wonder just how much success it's had, selling now for $5,000 and what kind of reception JVC expects out of this $18,000 model. Maybe I'll go up to the JVC showroom in Tokyo and see what's on display.

I feared I'd find the definition in a medical encyclopedia, but discovered........
:-)

Yes - in this context it's just not "professional" enough to be taken seriously by people doing high end work. But far too expensive for budget film makers. Maybe "neither one thing nor the other" would have been a better saying? ( :-) )

I can see who will buy a camera like the F5/55. I can see who will buy something like the FS100/AF100. But just who is the JVC camera aimed at?

Maybe, but you're still going to need lenses for this camera on top of the $18,000 - plus other things "to make it usable".

B&H price for an F5 plus v/f is close to $20,000. Yes, you need memory, batteries and other accessories on top of that - but same with the JVC camera. (And the F5 v/f is very good - I suspect the JVC will almost certainly need an external.)

True, you then need to spend extra to get 4k ability with the F5, but it's then RAW. Going for 4k, and spending $18,000 (plus lenses etc) implies someone going for the higher end of the market. I just don't see the JVC system of spreading the recording across 4 SD cards, and being fairly highly compressed going down too well at this point in the market. I'd also think anyone interested in this sort of camera would want a large sensor, larger than 1/2.3" anyway?

It just falls between stools IMO. Too expensive for the real budget filmmaker, not good enough for those who have got the budgets.

I believe the sensor on this camera is bigger than 1/2.3". That is for the HMQ10. I think this sensor is 1.25". So, maybe close to a 4/3 sensor?

The VF on this camera is a low resolution, 250K type. Odd choice for a 4K camera. It's a carry-over from the original HM100. The monitor is high resolution, though. Also, only HDMI ports.

It is compressed 4K, but you do get 60P at 144mbps. I've heard the image from the HMQ10 looks very sharp. Maybe not a lot of dynamic range like the F5/55, of course. It's still one of the cheaper 4K cameras out there, if you really need 4K with interchangeable lenses. Four 16Gb SD cards will give you an hour's worth of 4K. That's a pretty low cost for media.

Who's gonna buy this? I dunno. I still don't understand the price. The HMQ10 is $5,000. This is basically the same camera, with a new sensor and Nikon mount. How does adding a new sensor and a Nikon mount add $13,000 to this camera? Someone on another forum wondered if the whole thing is a hoax.

Edit - Forgot the BMC4K camera. That's a far cheaper option.

I think you're right, it actually is a 1.25" sensor. But apparently has the same pixel count as the 1/2.3 sensor. So does that mean the pixels are larger and there'll be better low light performance along with the shallower DOF? I saw on another site some pictures taken at CES 2012 where this camera was under glass and had two BNC (SDI?) ports, which I haven't seen mentioned in the latest specs. Just trying to find an explanation for that asking price....

Side by side comparisons of the HMQ30 and 10, not quite to scale:

From my limited knowledge of physics, larger pixels means better low light performance. Larger sensor size mean shallower depth of field.

Here's the prototype at CES 2012. There appear to be two attachment points on the right side, below the lens mount. HD/SDI?

Yes here's the 2 BNC's on the prototype.
http://www.photographybay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/JVC-HMQ30-8.jpg

4 SD cards again? Multiple points of failure... the worst of all worlds. You also have to run the footage through some kind of converter, before you use it in any NLE...

Can I say - the worst idea ever? At least these days?

How... Why... Seriously?
Who is in charge of...

Face palm.

Going to check out a friend's Red Scarlet later next month that starts for $15,000 plus lenses. (Cheap lenses fixed focal length start around $3,500 per lens) so this may not be a wildly expensive camera. Hopefully it lands closer to $8k instead of $18k then I think it will sell. But lots of questions, will be interesting to see if it when it makes it to market. I would prefer a Film School Grad camera. Say something similar but 1080p 23.97 super wide dynamic range with little to no CMOS JELLO VISION (Large CCD perhaps?) and Nikon/Canon mounts. Sort of how Blackmagic cameras SHOULD have been. Just a thought JVC marketing employees trolling the forums! :)

Make it well made metal, modular, but don't worry about 4k if that's the hurdle. Rather have nice imaging with 1080p than 4k.

$18,000 !!! Who on earth is going to buy one of these, when an F5 is available for not much more money?

Interesting, but unimpressed. (Unless the real price is substantially less.)

Although I would prefer a lower price, allowing Nikon glass (I have a substantial collection) is appealing. The 4-way RAID recording is a little strange, but so be it as the data rate for 4K is right.

Dude, Nikon glass would work on F5s and F55s with an adapter.

4 SD cards again? Multiple points of failure... the worst of all worlds.

It would be great to allow parallel recording (different formats or not) which case the redundancy provides the best of all worlds. Still, I can't believe camcorders announced today do not offer a 2.5" SSD slot and a higher bit depth intraframe compressed-RAW format. 144 Mbits is roughly 18 MBytes / second.

Sony's AXS recorder is almost that, minus the 2.5'' SSD part... and far more expensive.

Yeah, I'm using a Nanoflash, and it does up to 280 Mbps I-Frame only one CF I. Nanoflash is compact, but obviously, more in-camera compression options.