Panasonic's New Cameras

Joe Walker

Joe Walker

Well-known member
So, I've noticed the buzz around the new AJ-HPX500, and I gotta ask: Why so low a price point compared to the AJ-HPX2000? The 500 has got variable frame rates with slow mo and fast mo, the 2000 don't. And yet the 2000 is considerably more. Also, and this is probably more directed at Barry and Jan, is there going to be a new version of the Varicam....that could perhaps go to 120fps?!? Any answers would be cool. I won't be able to attend NAB this year. Thanks all.
 
The 2000 has higher native resolution CCDs than the 500 as well as the new I-AVC codec as an option... And a few other different features you could find by searching the board...
 
oh hell thats sweet! re use existing technology! i would totoally use that camera. i bet its low light is stellar.
 
Its low light should be every bit as good as the SDX900, so yes, stellar.

Why is it so much cheaper? I don't really know. I've been working with the HPX2000 for the last few days, and it's really sweet, it's basically an F900 CineAlta at 1/4 the price. And its P2 setup is amazing, it can do a lot more than the HVX can. But, it's also a tad limited -- no variable frame rates, no 24pN. I think the 2000 will be a hit, but I gotta say, I'm more jazzed about the 500. It's going to be half the price, but still 2/3". I'd say we're getting about 85% as much picture out of the HVX200 as we are out of the HPX2000. I've got to believe the HPX500 would close that gap significantly, yet still cost half as much.
 
i keep forgetting hd lenses are 10K

could a good quality sd Broadcast lens work on it ya think if its made for a 2/3" sensor?


EDIT: on second thought kinda makes you realise what an amazing Deal a RED cam will be when its released.
 
TimurCivan said:
i keep forgetting hd lenses are 10K
Click to expand...
Well, CHEAP lenses are 10K. One of the lenses on one of the HPX2000's here must have cost over $60,000. At $10,000 you're looking at bargain-basement lenses.
could a good quality sd Broadcast lens work on it ya think if its made for a 2/3" sensor?
Click to expand...
It'll work, yes, but as with anything, you get what you pay for (and you don't get what you don't pay for).

EDIT: on second thought kinda makes you realise what an amazing Deal a RED cam will be when its released.
Click to expand...
RED lenses will cost just as much though. The big thing about the Red that makes it approachable for lower-cost guys is the idea of using still-camera lenses. Those are insanely more affordable. They will come with their own set of problems (breathing and focusing etc) but there's no denying the price advantage!
 
FS: HVX200 camera package. First $25k takes it. Shoulder strap and one beat to hell battery included.

e
 
Barry, anything seen in the new efforts with P2 that could be theoreticly added to the HVX200 in a firmware update?

If yes, tell me what it is please, if no, tell us what we are missing please..!
I am still exploring effects and efforts of the HVX, curious whats next..!
 
Lots of interesting things in the big camera, like the ability to extract a portion of a clip (from one text memo to the next) and write that out as its own clip, or in-camera ability to copy a clip from one card to another. All that should be possible in a firmware update, but I have no idea if they'll actually do it...
 
Hey Barry -you say the 2000 is comparable to the F900 but at 1/4 the price. Is that a subjective opinion? When I look at the specs between the two there's a big difference in resolution (overall pixels) and compression (HDCam 3.3:1 vs. DVCPro at 6.7:1). Believe me I want to see what this camera cam achieve, but the specs just don't add up.
 
Joe,

I can't find where i saw it, but there was two guys who compared a F900 with a HDX900 (probably the same image as the HPX2000), and both guys were saying the HDX and the F900 had comparable image quality.
 
I have heard that too but the math doesn't add up -unless its this whole progessive versus interlaced resolution thing. Then perhaps the parity starts to make sense.
 
perhaps "specs" are just a marketing strategy, and have little to do with actual performance????? ;) :)
 
Last edited:
HPX2000

Barry did you get to play around with the 4x Digital Zoom. If so what was your impression. If this works I will forgo the extender on the lens, I have a Canon SD W/ Extender lens I used for about 7 years and only used it one time.

Mule.

"Ikie Red Rules"
 
Barry,

re the ability to edit clips: that is great news. I was discussing this with a cameraman the other day and said that this would be a great upgrade for P2. overshooting on a precious medium can prove difficult to manage. This would be a superb addition to the workflow.
 
Specs only matter when they make a difference. Look at the HVX vs. XHA1 clips; the XHA1 has 3x as many pixels. Do you see 3x as much difference in the pictures? We've spent so much time debating numbers, but in the end it's what the footage looks like and the features that you get, not the numbers that matter. F900 is going on 7 years old now (although there have been revisions); HPX2000 is about 7 days old. A lot can change in 7 years. IIRC, a VX1000 and a DVX both have 4:3 410k-pixel CCDs, but the DVX obliterates the VX1000 in image.All I'm saying is: look at the output. The HPX2000 delivers the same recording formats and options as the F900. As for images, you'll have to make your own subjective choice.As for the digital zoom, no we didn't even play with it. Someone there had and said that the 2x is usable, it just adds a touch of grain to the picture, but going beyond that starts to be a compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top