PDA

View Full Version : Ex1 vs Hpx 300 Comparative Board



shapna
03-11-2009, 10:30 AM
Hi everyone i have to decide what of this 2 cameras i have to buy in the next few weeks. So i decided to put a Comparative Board to help people with the same problem or help me with others people answer.

Hpx 300 ------------------------- / EX1
Better RS but in 1080/24,--------/ Worse Rolling Shutter
worse than Ex1
--
Better color ( thats my opinion) / Problems with some colors like Black fabric
------------------------------------/ without IR Filters. (barry made an incredible example)

--

AVC Intra 100 / Long Gop

--

More heavy ( 5 Kg) / 3 kg aprox

--

1/3 sensor CMos / 1/2 CMos

--

8.5k ( street price) / 6.5k

--

Better optical (x17) / (x14)

-

Better LCD / - LCD

--

Please this is an incomplete board, so dont hate me if i missed any important information you think is importat.

Anyone with better information, I will be pleased to hear from you.

Damian

MrBill
03-13-2009, 08:58 AM
I think a lot of us are debating the same issues. I would have liked to have seen the 300 keep CCD chips, but that's a choice Panasonic made. I think if you can get your hands on the 300 you will probably go with it. It sounds like it will be easier to use accessories with it ,easier to upgrade in the long run and the Intra Codec is suppose to be incredible. I'm planning to got to NAB here in April to decide.

Good Luck! :beer:

shapna
03-13-2009, 01:55 PM
2 batteries $399X2 $800
one dual charger $815
sound built in on Sony can by an additional mike for $300
HPX300 no built in sound must buy $300 mike to get any sound
EX3 HPX300
bat sony $250 $800
charger comes with $815
sound onboard free none must buy$300
cards 2 8gig free two 16gig $780X2=1560
other card people sandisk panasonic only
card adapters MXM express $35 none
16gig $47 none

for poor people the after market solution card will make the EX3 take off
both sony and panasonic cards are $760, if you can do mxm express for 16gig for $82 which camera would you buy?
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/images/statusicon/user_online.gif quote

thanks to mailboulake

MrBill
03-13-2009, 02:16 PM
Personally I'm seriously considering the new JVC. With all the problems they are having with CMOS, god forbid I should ever have to shoot a music video or sporting event. CCDs, for me, seem to be the way to go and I like the QT files.

My dealer here will be selling the JVC 700 for 7,000. I recently bought a JVC HD monitor from him and it looks incredible. Also, I like to buy locally.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101851

:thumbsup:

Justyn
03-13-2009, 02:17 PM
I think it depends. The look of the 300 is so darn impressive for clients. It looks expensive and might be a way to make higher day rates just due to the size and "wow" factor. Clients do actually think about that.. and if it's bigger and more expensive looking, they might be willing to shell out a few more bucks.


Another major thing I'd say is that the EX line of cameras is dismal for handheld work. Simply aweful ergonomics and that's what the 300 would be good for.. Sure it's big but it would be balances and probably a lot less painful than the EX series.

Tim Naylor
04-01-2009, 09:47 PM
I just reviewed test footage on both cameras and the hpx 300 is a real disappointment. The refresh rate must be real low because the cmos skew on it is unbelievably bad. Never seen anything like it. Also, it's noisy. Go figure.

I found the EX1 makes a much better image. Less noise, more please DOF, and sharper.

Very disappointed in the the 300. I think 1080 on a 1/3 inch chip is just asking for trouble in too many areas. Perhaps the lack of inherent sensitivity has Pana pushing the gain hence the noise. In any case, I'll pass on this. The difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is huge.

lawriejaffa
04-02-2009, 10:46 AM
The difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is huge.


Wow huuuuge - i think between 1/3 and 2/3 its huge. 1/2... meh

I'll be interested to see how this pans out as it were with the hpx300 though

Tim Naylor
04-04-2009, 11:43 AM
Do the math. 1/3 to 2/3 increases the area by 4x. 1/3 to 1/2 increases it by 2.3 x. More than double is huge.

lawriejaffa
04-04-2009, 05:14 PM
Yeah Tim - math my british bottom - ive yet to see double the difference in DOF variation with artistic real world applications in any of the shorts produced on the EX's for the fests for example. I mean ive seen beautiful footage shot on it - and all the cams really, but talking strictly DoF practical choice then meh.

That to me is what counts - so in this instance math is surprisingly relative....

So sorry, maybe your convinced but im not, thus we can agree to disagree hehe :P

Tim Naylor
04-04-2009, 07:38 PM
You won't see a profound difference in DOF between 1/3 and 1/2. But you will see a profound difference in noise at similar sensitivities and that's a "real world" artistic element.

When you cram too many pixels in too small a space you either get a low asa or must bump up the signal (noise). A half inch chip literally has more than double the area of 1/3 which is why the EX1 has less noise. I'm no fanboy just going but the test footage I've seen from both cameras confirms this.

There's a reason why the HPX 500 is the most sensitive 2/3" camera out there (better than f900, Varicam, hpx 3000, etc in the ASA race). It's a PAL SD chip.

dregenthal
04-04-2009, 11:23 PM
This has got to be one of the goofiest threads in a while. Starts out with at least two of the eight things being wrong (street price and, I think, weight). Sounds like the equipment is being compared by reading from a spec sheet (apologies to posters that have actually spent quality time with either camera) instead of qualified hands on . . .

To be fair, if all "my dog's bigger than your dog" threads were deleted from this site it would probably be half empty. Want CCD's? There are plenty of choices . . . want 3 chip full raster in something that resembles a professionally featured camera for under 10k, what are your choices? No camera is going to suit every need (or every person). I'd rather be shooting than getting too deep into this discussion--good news is I don't have to execute a half dozen whip pans every time I power up my camera.

Don't know how many people have looked at (compressed for the web) puredrifings video shot without a lot of setup time (thanks for that, btw), http://www.vimeo.com/3798041 but I'll be adding a 300 to my stable within the next 30 days.

My greatgrandfather used to say, "it ain't the bow & arrows . . . it's the indians that count."

13th Judas
04-05-2009, 04:07 AM
My greatgrandfather used to say, "it ain't the bow & arrows . . . it's the indians that count."

funny because the indians learned to use the ripples when they realized that their bow and arrows was an inferior weapon.

Robert Sanders
04-06-2009, 03:49 PM
I personally can't see much of a difference in DOF between 1/3" and 1/2". I've watched a ton of footage from the EX1 and EX3 and I really can't tell if the footage is all that much shallower than, say, my XLH1.

lawriejaffa
04-07-2009, 05:04 PM
What Judas? Your saying the indians learned to use their nipples?!? when their bows and arrows became obsolete hehe...

13th Judas
04-08-2009, 12:14 AM
What Judas? Your saying the indians learned to use their nipples?!? when their bows and arrows became obsolete hehe...

LOL :D yeah i know. my inglesh and sfelling socks. damn shcool :angry:

Spartacus
04-08-2009, 02:12 AM
I´ve have also just been to a HPX300 presentation and came home disapointed.
The image comming from the 170 next to it looked way better for my eyes. (SDI out to Sony(!)broadcast LCD)
The 2100 next to them blew both away (well, should have to anyways).

During the presentation on thing made me wonder: the Pana rep didn´t mention the 500 in one single comparison.
All the grafics showed the 300 to be the only model, between "Prosumer" and "Broadcast" cams.
HPX170 -> HPX300 -> HPX2100
I asked about the 500 and got very short answers from this otherwise very communicative person.
All the talk focused on AVCintra.
And they repeated like in a mantra, that the production version of the 300 won´t show ANY skew or rolling shutter problems.

I won´t finally judge the 300 on that "clinic" testing though, although I fell in love with Pana for their out-of-the-box-looking-great picture, I´m used to tweaking from my XL2 days.

But I keep my eyes open at NAB, because I somehow got the impression, that there could be a HPX500 update on the way.
I don´t think it will be AVCintra though, but maybe they´ll ad AVCHD support on a seperate SD card slot?
Anyway I wouldn´t mind scoring an "old" but cheaper 500 then...

Or maybe the 500 will be discontinued...?

Cees Mutsaers
04-08-2009, 04:43 AM
In what respect did you like the HPX170 image over the HPX300 image ??? It can not be resolution wise !!!! Was it noise?



I´ve have also just been to a HPX300 presentation and came home disapointed.
The image comming from the 170 next to it looked way better for my eyes. (SDI out to Sony(!)broadcast LCD)
The 2100 next to them blew both away (well, should have to anyways).

During the presentation on thing made me wonder: the Pana rep didn´t mention the 500 in one single comparison.
All the grafics showed the 300 to be the only model, between "Prosumer" and "Broadcast" cams.
HPX170 -> HPX300 -> HPX2100
I asked about the 500 and got very short answers from this otherwise very communicative person.
All the talk focused on AVCintra.
And they repeated like in a mantra, that the production version of the 300 won´t show ANY skew or rolling shutter problems.

I won´t finally judge the 300 on that "clinic" testing though, although I fell in love with Pana for their out-of-the-box-looking-great picture, I´m used to tweaking from my XL2 days.

But I keep my eyes open at NAB, because I somehow got the impression, that there could be a HPX500 update on the way.
I don´t think it will be AVCintra though, but maybe they´ll ad AVCHD support on a seperate SD card slot?
Anyway I wouldn´t mind scoring an "old" but cheaper 500 then...

Or maybe the 500 will be discontinued...?

Spartacus
04-08-2009, 08:47 AM
In what respect did you like the HPX170 image over the HPX300 image ??? It can not be resolution wise !!!! Was it noise?

Haha, now I have to say what I always hated as an answer myself: the 170 had more mojo:evil:.

I may need to stress again that this was a very clinic testing, some flowers lit by HMI softlights, not sth I consider a real world test.
Maybe it just was that after hearing for almost an hour how great the new cam and codec were, I just expected sth more jaw droping.

I guess I know what the 300 is, it ain´t the next big step, but just an alternative step, same as with the EX1 and EX3 relationship.

If one is satisfied with an HVX200 image, but wants or needs to look "big shot" this camera will do it, plus give you a manual lens, which alone could still sell me over...:thumbsup:

Imagewise it just isn´t that much of an upgrade for HVX/HPX owners IMHO.

Still waiting for Canon here to change the game...

Bassman2003
04-08-2009, 10:10 AM
From my perspective, selling a camera on it's codec seems a bit weak.

The visual differences in the upper range of bitrates are ever diminishing and often need to be pixel peeped even to be noticed.

This is magnified by the sub-$10,000 price point of this camera.

Is the broadcast world in such a way that camera Manufacturers have to coo the big boys with $8,000 1/3" chip cameras?

Because for the average $10,000 camera user, the need for a 10 bit codec is nice but not a deal breaker.

Christian m
04-08-2009, 11:03 AM
Is the broadcast world in such a way that camera Manufacturers have to coo the big boys with $8,000 1/3" chip cameras?

Because for the average $10,000 camera user, the need for a 10 bit codec is nice but not a deal breaker.
One issue, at least from my point of view, are that today "anyone" can buy and use a hpx170/dvx200 or Sony Ex1/3. That often leaves the ones of us who could use the hand held cameras with the problem that clients some times don't understand why I charge xxx amount a day when his kid just bought the same camera. Even a company I worked one day for as an assistant told me that they could do with the Z1 Dvcam but brought the large dsr570 because it looks better and more pro the client, the client feels he gets more for his cash with larger gear. At least that's one reason why i consider the 300 over the 170, along with the full manual lens and option to add 2/3" telelenses with adapter.

If I choose the 300 i might end up with shootingmostly dvcprohd(720p with overcranking) and dvcpro50/25 as many still wants SD. I agree that the codec probably wont be the deal breaker, but it offers pana a marketing advantage over Sony who still are going on with "hdv turbo" xdcam ex's and 8bit all over their high end filebased cameras. But after all planet earth have a lot of the old varicam on it and both the bluray and bbcHD broadcast blows any xdcam competition away with ease...and that's still 720p 8bit originated footage.

puredrifting
04-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Spartacus:

I just shot a big project last week with the HVX200, my HPX170 and a prototype HPX300, a community safety video for a new train line for LA Metro. I will post a sample from the show as soon as it is edited but so far, the editor and I are seeing huge differences between the HPX300 shots and the HPX170/HVX200 shots. The 300 shots are clearer, cleaner, much more filmic, better color saturation and sharper. No contest, huge difference and I did have the HPX300 and the HPX170 setup to match also.

Shot of me with the 300, B camera op Jeff Samuelson using the HVX200 and C camera op Jesse Arnold shooting a scene with the HPX170
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=109&pictureid=749

Shot of me with the 300 and B camera op Jeff Samuelson using the HPX170
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=109&pictureid=748

I will have footage and grabs for you soon but editor is hip deep in editing with a deadline so it will be tough to get access at the moment.

Dan

Spartacus
04-08-2009, 01:24 PM
Dan,
this will be a great real world comparison of the two workhorses and the new kid!
Looking forward to seeing some footage!
If you could only also throw in the 500...:evil:

The form factor and the lens will be appealing enough for many to take the 300 over the 170, but is the 500 worth the extra cash will probably soon be of more concern...

puredrifting
04-08-2009, 01:59 PM
After using the 300, I would have a hard time buying the 500 for three simple factors...

1. The 500's VF and LCD flip out screen are really difficult to use compared to the LCOS flip out and new VF on the 300. Monitoring your shots and being able to easily and quickly focus in HD just like I used to with my Betacam in SD is a wonderful thing. Focus enhance on the 300 is almost not needed, the new screen and VF are that good. The VF and flip out LCD on the 500 leave something to be desired for some users.

2. The 500 does have the low light and noise advantages of the 2/3" imagers but the native resolution is still 960x540 which means that the 500 footage, to my eye, can look a bit softer than the 300. It is really refreshing to shoot a low cost Panasonic camera that has the same native resolution as the EX1, it does make the pictures overall a bit sharper, clearer and more detailed.

3. The AVCIntra codec is also noticeably better than DVCProHD. It would be tough to shoot a project for a week with the 300, then to go to the 500, it would feel like a small step backward in quality. 10bit vs. 8bit makes a difference.

OTOH, the 500 is Discovery Channel Silver certified, has great features and is a proven commodity. It is an excellent camera, but once you have tasted the nicer newer features on the 300, it would be tough to go back.

Dan

Christian m
04-08-2009, 02:17 PM
Dan,

Just curios, what Sachtler head did you use with the 300 on the picture above? Looks like a 75mm? Dv6/8?

puredrifting
04-08-2009, 02:39 PM
DV-6SB. I had thought that the HPX300 might be too much for the little DV-6SB but it turned to be a perfect match. The HPX300 is really light, one of the things I loved about it, it was so easy to shoot with, yet heavy enough to give the handheld shots some smoothness.

Think of the the HPX300 as a 3/4 sized full size camera, I love it.

Dan

Christian m
04-08-2009, 03:36 PM
Music to my ears!!

I've already got a Dv6sb that I use with my old Sony Z1 and was afraid it might be to small for the job, but I was hoping it might be up for it as it's proven itself to be a real sachtler workhorse...even in -30 Celsius it gave my silky smooth pans:thumbup:(maybe more surprising that the Z1 and a nikon d90 actually worked in that harsh condition, but that's another story..)

Noel Evans
04-08-2009, 03:39 PM
Dan I agree with all your points. 100%. One thing though is evident when I watch broadcast HD - you can pick the 1/3 - 1/2" cameras due to the fact they simply do not have the range of 2/3" and in trying to get some shots they just blow out highlights - theres no other option. Utterly evident also when I was looking at the 500 and 300 side by side. In a darker area I could get solid exposure on a face with the 500 whereas the 300 just couldnt reach it.

Field wise comparing the EX to 2/3" is exactly the same story. So in my case Im willing to live without some res at this point in favour of the expanded creativity I can achieve on 2/3", namely the 500.

Also on a broadcast monitor, or even computer monitor the resolution difference is easily discernible. Whereas viewing on a CRT, LCD or Plasma TV, the res gains arent so easy to pick.

No, not trying to justify here what I have, I can change that tomorrow if I need to. Just what works for me atm. Still I wont say a bit more res and ACIntra, the EVF on the 300 arent all things I dont want to add to what I already have.

puredrifting
04-08-2009, 03:44 PM
Yes Noel:

From a lineup standpoint, the 300 does put the lineup into a weird place. I was on a shoot with the 3000 the other day and it has the same LCD that my HPX170 has. Panasonic now has the best monitoring system on the entire lineup on their $10,000.00 camcorder. Hopefully they will migrate this new LCOS screen and VF to the entire P2 lineup, they really need to.

Dan

Christian m
04-08-2009, 03:50 PM
Don't Panasonic have a new VF just around the corner for the higher end camcorders?
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1011300-post9.html

puredrifting
04-08-2009, 03:53 PM
Ouch! U.S. $8,500.00 for a new VF? Worth it if you are a working pro and I have used what I am sure is a lower end version of this VF on the HPX300. The new LCOS technology is amazing and it is a big improvement over the existing technology.

Nice option at least.

Dan

SPZ
04-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Dan, what were your settings for the 300? Any detail coring or - detail to cover the noise?

puredrifting
04-08-2009, 08:13 PM
Hi Sergio:

Slight boost to Chroma, B-Press, Cine-Like Matrix, no detail coring or -detail to cover noise. Since we were mostly shooting in nuclear bright daylight, I didn't really worry about noise. I have not seen most of the footage yet on anything but an FCP screen or on my laptop when we were dumping cards so hopefully it is not too noisy but as I was shooting and upon review of the raw cards, it all looked fine.

It is a 1/3" chipset, it is going to have more noise than larger chips, especially 2/3" chips but I have never been bothered by the noise on my 200 or 170 so I would imagine this would not bother me at all unless it is really bad. I did not see very much excessive noise on my surf video footage and I did see that on an HD monitor. Personally I find the lack of noise on the EX1 to be a detriment, to my eye, that camera is clean to the point of the picture looking sterile and somewhat clinical at times. That is where a lot of the "EX-1 footage looks like video, not filmic" comes from I think. I used to shoot a lot of S16 so grain has never been a big issue with me, at times, I kind of like it, depending on the subject.

Dan

SPZ
04-09-2009, 01:44 AM
Dan, thanks for the info. 7800 sounds like a good deal for this camera. Will go to Pana HK to try it again with hopefully more time, will take my glidecam 4000 plus smooth shooter to see if it can handle it, than will decide.'

Christian m
04-09-2009, 03:52 AM
Ouch! U.S. $8,500.00 for a new VF? Worth it if you are a working pro and I have used what I am sure is a lower end version of this VF on the HPX300. The new LCOS technology is amazing and it is a big improvement over the existing technology.

Yes, its ouch! But it's about the same as the C35W HD VF from Sony and less than sony's new C30WR HD VF thats about 13k according to some websites. The VF on the 300 are a "smaller version" of the new CVF100FG VF if a few sources at the web are to be believed. But I'll guess if you are in the market for 2700/3700/3000 the VF won't hurt your budget that much as a setup with one of those don't come very cheap in the first place.

puredrifting
04-09-2009, 06:49 AM
That's true. If you are into a camera for $50k, what's another $8,500.00 for a kick ass VF?

Dan

Ben Digedig
04-12-2009, 03:57 PM
Hi Sergio:

Slight boost to Chroma, B-Press, Cine-Like Matrix, no detail coring or -detail to cover noise. Since we were mostly shooting in nuclear bright daylight, I didn't really worry about noise. I have not seen most of the footage yet on anything but an FCP screen or on my laptop when we were dumping cards so hopefully it is not too noisy but as I was shooting and upon review of the raw cards, it all looked fine.

It is a 1/3" chipset, it is going to have more noise than larger chips, especially 2/3" chips but I have never been bothered by the noise on my 200 or 170 so I would imagine this would not bother me at all unless it is really bad. I did not see very much excessive noise on my surf video footage and I did see that on an HD monitor. Personally I find the lack of noise on the EX1 to be a detriment, to my eye, that camera is clean to the point of the picture looking sterile and somewhat clinical at times. That is where a lot of the "EX-1 footage looks like video, not filmic" comes from I think. I used to shoot a lot of S16 so grain has never been a big issue with me, at times, I kind of like it, depending on the subject.

Dan

Dan have you seen any specs on S/N for the cam? They are impossible to find as far as I can tell - fishy....very fishy... I also cant find out what the max f stop is on it - hope it starts with a '1'!

It ticks so many other boxes though!

BD

DavidNJ
04-12-2009, 04:29 PM
It is a 1/3" chipset, it is going to have more noise than larger chips, especially 2/3" chips but I have never been bothered by the noise on my 200 or 170

The pixel spacing is 2.5µm on 1/3" 1920 sensor, and 5.0µm, double that, on the HVX's 960 photo site wide sensor. Double the size.

The HVX was really rather clever. The low resolution sensor would have produced less noise than a higher resolutions sensor the same size, and at the time (and even now) the systems have significant MTF falloff past 200lp/ph. Meanwhile coupling it with high bandwidth DVCProHD, progressive sensors, and 4:2:2 chroma subsampling when the competition had HDV, interlaced sensors, and 4:2:0 sensors.

For reference, the Canon 5DM2 has 6.4µm photosite spacing, the GH-1 has 4.4µm spacing, the EX1/3 4.1µm and a 2/3rd camera 5.7µm.

Jim Simon
04-12-2009, 10:01 PM
Want CCD's? There are plenty of choices . . . want 3 chip full raster in something that resembles a professionally featured camera for under 10k?

Actually yes, to all of the above.

What is needed and wanted here is an affordable camera that can be used for hand held event work, has 3 full resolution CCD imaging devices & full raster I-frame only recording to affordable, non-reusable media.

Right now, that camera only exists at SD resolutions. We need an HD equivalent, and soon!