PDA

View Full Version : HPX250: The good, the bad and the ugly



Mac
12-18-2011, 12:15 PM
If you're considering an HPX250, these comments are my impressions of the physical attributes of the camera, not the picture it produces - although I will say that the image quality seems superior to most of what's out there, even at a much greater cost. And it is a 1/3" camera so it's silly to compare it to the current trend for "bokeh" (a word always pronounced after a significant pause, an intake of breath, and a drawn out "e-e-ah" as if tasting fine wine).

Also, these are personal observations and may not suit everyone. I shoot documentaries, mostly hand-held and without a crew other than a sound-man, so ergonomics are a big issue with me.

THE GOOD:

Obviously 10 bit AVC-I in an affordable camera is really good - in my opinion AVCHD doesn't even get in the ballpark compared to AVC-I. The box of this camera, with a larger chip and a modular EVF, is what the AF100 should have been, and with any luck, may eventually be.

P2 cards, hooray!

If you've got an HVX200 almost everything works, including the batteries. In fact my Chrosziel matte box base fits better on the HPX250 than it did on the 200.

HDMI out so I can use my Z-Finder and shoulder mount it.

Amazingly light even with that large lens - it does get heavier when you tweak it, but it starts out well. My "tweaks" are custom brackets along with some accessories, like the finder, that I share with my AF100 for handholding.

The Scene File names display in the finder just as you named them. Finally! This seems a no-brainer.

3/8" as well as 1/4" tripod mounting.

Good location of OIS button. I don't use OIS often, but when I do I can turn it on and off quickly.

Three rings, just like the circus.

"Push to focus" works faster and better at 24fps than on previous Panasonic cameras.

Audio ALC. Much appreciated by documentary types. (I usually work with a sound-man who feeds a wireless signal from his mixer to CH2, but I have a good nose mic on Ch1 for BU - nice to not have to worry about the level.)

The control placement is pretty much carried over from previous Panasonic cameras.

And, the old Scene File wheel is there (albeit less robust than on previous cameras). I was surprised that the AF100 had abandoned it. I'm sure there was some engineering reason, but that little clicky wheel is a Panasonic icon.

THE BAD:

Bad for me - the camera stopped working after the first time I powered it up. It had to go back to Panasonic and wasn't returned for over a week. I had a TV spot (at a homeless center on Thanksgiving Day no less) and the first 3 days of a documentary, both of which I had intended to shoot in AVC-I that week. To their credit, I will say that Texas Media Systems and Panasonic both jumped on getting it fixed ASAP. Just bad luck on my part.

It's not exactly a handy "handy-cam". The side battery placement and redesigned handle are improvements, but it's so long that it's really tripod bound unless you customize it for serious hand-holding.

Those three rings never stop, they just spin and spin. It would be nice if at least the iris would have stops when switched to manual.

No VFR over 30fps at 1080. (You can always switch to 720 DVCPRO HD, but the difference is noticeable - I'm keeping my AF100).

I haven't really had time to test in depth, but it seems the same batteries don't last nearly as long as on the HVX.

The lens - not that it's "bad" per se, in fact it's pretty good - But that large ramp in exposure from wide to telephoto is bothersome in low light (interestingly, the original prototype apparently had a much larger front element, hmmm). And of course the much discussed and dissed close focus/zoom issue does require some thinking (but really, it's not nearly as problematic as some posts would lead you to believe).

Personally I wish the lens wasn't so ambitious. I know that some think its great to get a 22x f1.6 lens in a small camera like this, but to me it's just marketing. I liked the Leica lens on the HVX - I can live with 1.6 - 2.8 - That was a marketing/consumer win/win - I wish that lens was on this camera.

I miss a front mounted audio dial (as on the HPX500) but, as I mentioned above, there is ALC.

The power switch and mode switch. I don't use the side handle, so the thumb activated switch is awkward for me. I really like the power switch on the AF100 (although many actually complained about it, I think it's very "professional").

THE UGLY:

Out of the box and unadorned, this camera has that awkward look of a stretch limo - you know, where the proportions are no longer quite right so it just looks wrong. But I assume the length is needed for the P2 cards, and they are way more important than looks after all.

The lens hood is cheesy and really looks crappy. Throw it away.

And (not specific to this camera but something I've never liked) that ubiquitous, bulbous built-in mic that looks amateurish and can interfere with some accessories (like my favorite old Arri 3x4 bellows matte box with the adjustment rod on top). Give me a smooth uncluttered handle and let me add my own microphone, thank you very much.

Mark Williams
12-18-2011, 01:43 PM
Mac, thanks for the review. I was wondering if you looked at the Cannon XF300/305 before purchasing the HPX250. If so, what were your observations.

Mac
12-18-2011, 03:53 PM
I did look at the Canon, and I like Canons in general - I shot a film on an an XL H1 that was broadcast nationally on PBS (MY NAME IS BELLE) and still looks great on a 60" screen... I had both the wide and normal zoom lenses and an A1 as a backup - it's a nice camera line with great lenses. To be honest it was P2 cards that decided me.. I have five 16GB cards from my HPX500 (that I bought to shoot a feature length doc), and I've gotten used to the security of them. Even though I've never had a problem with the teeny-weeny cards in my AF100, I just don't feel comfortable sometimes. Also, since I have an HVX200 that I bought as a backup for my 500, I had batteries, matte box etc, so that was also a factor too...

As for image, I'm sure there could easily be a Ford/Chevy conflict, but, to be honest, I've seen great pictures from bad cameras and vice versa... Bottom line is, they're both approved for broadcast by the BBC - for whatever that's worth, I had a show broadcast in part there that I shot in HDV on a Canon HV40, so really it's about content anyway...

timbook2
12-18-2011, 04:07 PM
I second all of Macīs observations and would like to add: not as much jello/skew as I feared.
It feels lighter than the HVX 201.
I also miss the old lens!
I will get the large Swit batteries since the power consumption is almost double.

jpmulligan
12-18-2011, 10:32 PM
I have come from an HMC150 and have been most surprised at not how large the HVX250 is, but rather how dimunitve the HMC150 is, I suppose. Maybe a back-handed complement, I guess. For me I enjoy the larger dimensions and weight, it makes hand-held more stable and balanced.

digitalgecko
12-19-2011, 06:29 AM
I too agree with Mac. The lens ramping is my only real complaint. You can't call it a low light camera if you can only shoot with it wide. If they went to an 82mm lens like Canon, they probably would have gotten to 2.8 on the telephoto end. Something we could live with. But would probably increase the price another $1,000 or so, and I believe they were trying to create a sub $6,000 camera.

The plus side is the camera is so quiet you can easily jack the gain to 6dB with no noise. And the AVC intra 100 codec you can push a great deal with the color corrector. But you have to spend the time to do it. So like all cameras, pluses and minuses. But I do think the picture quality is amazing.

Danny1280
12-19-2011, 07:11 PM
I have come from an HMC150 and have been most surprised at not how large the HVX250 is, but rather how dimunitve the HMC150 is, I suppose. Maybe a back-handed complement, I guess. For me I enjoy the larger dimensions and weight, it makes hand-held more stable and balanced.

Hi JP,

Just out of curiosity, how steep is the learning curve from HMC150 to HPX250? I own the HMC, and I'm planning to rent the 250 for an upcoming job.

Thanks,

Jarek Zabczynski
12-31-2011, 02:16 AM
How is the skew and rolling shutter flash banding?

dcloud
12-31-2011, 03:36 AM
I can say theres a flash band compensation

Mac
12-31-2011, 08:56 AM
Learning curve, no problem - certainly not compared to the AF100 - Skew and rolling shutter- I haven't noticed anything objectionable, and I shoot a lot of movement - I shoot handheld often, and just shot about 50 landings and takeoffs at SF Airport(at maximum telephoto, on a tripod of course) and I can't see a thing that bothers me. The picture is really good - I did mention somewhere else that I encountered some "jello" in a fast moving shot in a forest, but it was a situation where I was intentionally pushing the chips and the codec.It's potentially bothersome, but only in extreme situations.

digitalgecko
12-31-2011, 09:15 AM
How is the skew and rolling shutter flash banding?

I concur. No problems with skew or flash banding. The compensation really works. Great pictures and sound. The audio limiter works very well.

aalleexx
12-31-2011, 09:36 AM
how does it compare to the sony ex1 in terms of sherpnes and overall resolution?

DustBowl
01-01-2012, 10:16 PM
How is the highlight handling? I had a real problem with the way the AF100 blew out highlights and how the colors looked overly processed to me.

Dino
01-02-2012, 08:08 AM
How is the highlight handling? I had a real problem with the way the AF100 blew out highlights and how the colors looked overly processed to me.

HPX250 has a 20 bit DSP, with 10 bit architecture, therefore highlight handling is superior to any Panasonic palmcorders or HPX500. It handles highlights like an HPX300/370, closer to the 2/3" Panasonic cameras, which have 32 bit DSP's, and doesn't suffer from chroma clipping or banding which all the 8 bit Panasonic palmcorders have, especially evident on the AF100.

The HPX250 resolution matches the EX1, but is slower in PAP Level 2, similar in Level 1.

digitalgecko
01-03-2012, 07:21 AM
HPX250 has a 20 bit DSP, with 10 bit architecture, therefore highlight handling is superior to any Panasonic palmcorders or HPX500. It handles highlights like an HPX300/370, closer to the 2/3" Panasonic cameras, which have 32 bit DSP's, and doesn't suffer from chroma clipping or banding which all the 8 bit Panasonic palmcorders have, especially evident on the AF100.

The HPX250 resolution matches the EX1, but is slower in PAP Level 2, similar in Level 1.

Dino, Have you used the PAP 1 filter on a job and did you find any problems with it.

Dino
01-03-2012, 10:29 AM
Dino, Have you used the PAP 1 filter on a job and did you find any problems with it.

No, just testing in house. I'm not ready to try it on a real shoot yet. Most of our rental clients aren't doing low light shoots.

digitalgecko
01-03-2012, 01:28 PM
No, just testing in house. I'm not ready to try it on a real shoot yet. Most of our rental clients aren't doing low light shoots.

The few times I have turned it on just to test it, I have not seen the micro-jelly or any noise around moving objects. I was wondering if Panasonic improved on the PAP filters since the HPX370, or is it something that comes and goes depending on whate you're shooting.