Sony EX3 vs Panasonic HPX500

[honeyhouses]

Hello. Anybody have any thoughts as one of these cameras over the other? Both solid state/tapeless, both allow for interchanging lenses, both offer comparable CCD (sony 1/2" I believe, Pana 2/3"). The EX3 is smaller, and about $4000 less.

I have been pretty dedicated to Panasonic over the past few years, but the little i have used the EX3, I am really liking it. I love the HDX900 (and admittedly, with the experiences with hard-drive failures, I do like tape) but as I am looking to put together a personal camera package, I don't exactly have THAT kind of money to shell out. I wonder if the HPX500 is a comparable, tapeless version.

My applications would be for my corporate clients, my independent filmmaking (doc and narrative) colleagues that I regularly shoot for, and my personal documentary films.

I would love to hear any thoughts.

best
Christian Bruno

 

[Barry_Green]

If you're comfortable with CMOS chips, why not compare the HPX300 against the EX3?

They're both CMOS, three-chip 1920x1080 sensors. They're both interchangeable-lens. And they're both the same basic price. The HPX300 is a full-size shoulder-mount like the HPX500, and uses 1/3" chips, and includes a lens. In many ways it's a lower-cost version of the HPX500 but with some upgrades in there too (like an HD viewfinder and HD LCD).

If you want to compare the HPX500 against the EX3, that comparison starts and centers around the CCD vs CMOS issues. But if you're okay with CMOS, it seems like the HPX300 would be the far more natural contender for the EX3.

 

[honeyhouses]

Thanks Barry.

the CMOS vs CCD is a good point. Frankly, I hadn't even thought of the HPX300.
The HD viewfinder is a important asset: I have been impressed with the finder on the EX3. I gotta admit, a shoulder-mount option is important to me. I think the EX3 is getting there, but still isn't exactly it.

So, I guess, in response to your reframe of the comparison:
Which camera, the HPX300 or the EX3, would you prefer? And why?

Christian

 

[KennonF]

I'd say that even the HVX is better than the EX series. I used the EX1 and EX3, and I can say that while they produce solid, sharp footage, the rolling shutter / jello vision issues are way too much to deal with. The shots will look so blobby and blurry on either camera, and there is almost no way of making it look okay. I shot a music video on the EX1 and with the band members fast head movements, the pixels shifted and blurred together so much that you could only see a solid peach color tone where the face was supposed to be, with a couple blobs of other color intertwined. My HVX has never given me these problems, and I would go as far as saying the HVX is better than the XD Cam series, so the HPX cameras must be light years better.

 

[Barry_Green]

Which camera, the HPX300 or the EX3, would you prefer? And why?

EX3 vs. HPX300? Again, it depends on all sorts of factors. The EX3 is a sort-of-handheld, butt-up-against-your-shoulder camera with a magnifying glass stuck over its LCD to serve as a viewfinder. It's a handheld that has tried to migrate up. The HPX300 is a full-sized, full-fledged shoulder mount. So that brings good and bad with it. Good, in that it's a "real" shoulder camera, not a handheld camera with a butt plate on it to jam into your shoulder. But bad, in that with the pro size comes the need for pro batteries, pro tripods, etc. You could use an EX3 on a smaller tripod than an HPX300, and you could use cheaper batteries with the EX3 than the HPX300.

But then again, the HPX300 can use cheaper glass and there will be more lenses to choose from. And the HPX300 uses CAC technology so it'll be easier for lens manufacturers to release lower-cost glass that performs better because of it. The HPX300's stock lens beats the pants off the EX1's lens for chromatic aberration performance.

They're both CMOS 1920x1080 sensors, and the imaging between them is very close in terms of sharpness, sensitivity, and noise. The HPX300 and EX3 are equally sharp, and the EX3 will have maybe a half-stop sensitivity advantage and maybe a stop of dynamic range advantage. But on the other hand, the recording options of the HPX300 are way advanced over what the EX3 offers. 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra spanks 1990's-era 8-bit 4:2:0 MPEG-2 six ways from Sunday.

The EX3 has more image control options in its menus. The HPX300 has the "panasonic mojo" of color and gamma that give the Panasonics their distinctive look.

Either one of them is going to have rolling shutter complications, so that's a neutral point between them.

 

[Steve Shovlar]

I'd say that even the HVX is better than the EX series. I used the EX1 and EX3, and I can say that while they produce solid, sharp footage, the rolling shutter / jello vision issues are way too much to deal with. The shots will look so blobby and blurry on either camera, and there is almost no way of making it look okay. I shot a music video on the EX1 and with the band members fast head movements, the pixels shifted and blurred together so much that you could only see a solid peach color tone where the face was supposed to be, with a couple blobs of other color intertwined. My HVX has never given me these problems, and I would go as far as saying the HVX is better than the XD Cam series, so the HPX cameras must be light years better.

Are you for real?

Afraid you come across as someone who has recently purchased an HVX and only afterwards discovered the Sony XD Cam EX range.

 

[MitchLewis]

Does the HPX500 shoot full-frame (full raster)? Does it have a HD-SDI output at 10-bit 4:2:2 as the EX3? Does it have as good a viewfinder as the EX3?

I'm sure you could buy better glass for the HPX500 than you could for the EX3. Isn't the HPX500 a 2/3 inch camera? That's better than 1/2 inch with the EX3.

SxS cards are much cheaper than P2 cards I've heard.

(there's some stuff to get you started)

 

[Barry_Green]

The 500 isn't full-raster. It has 8-bit 4:2:2 HD-SDI. The viewfinder is not as good as the EX3. And SxS cards (at least in the US) are not cheaper than P2 cards.

 

[LuckyStudio 13]

if i can live with CMOS along with the expense and inconvenience of a shoulder mounted cam factor, I will definitely choose the hpx300 over the EX3 ANYTIME.

 

[GuyB]

rogar-Mark-07(DBG)

The 500 isn't full-raster. It has 8-bit 4:2:2 HD-SDI. The viewfinder is not as good as the EX3. And SxS cards (at least in the US) are not cheaper than P2 cards.

The cost of XGB of P2 is basically the same as the cost of XGB of SxS but you get up to 3 times as much recording time on the same XGB of SxS, but only because the codec used by the cameras that use SxS uses a much lower bit rate, not because of anything different between the media itself... Therefore, in reality, it is not GB you need, it is minutes of record time, and for that the P2 solution is much more expensive than the SxS solution.

The cost of XxS however IS MUCH lower than both P2 and SxS and you can't do that on a P2 camera...

 

[GuyB]

if i can live with CMOS along with the expense and inconvenience of a shoulder mounted cam factor, I will definitely choose the hpx300 over the EX3 ANYTIME.

I'd be more inclinded to choose the JVC HM700 over the HPX300 & wait for Sony to release something similar (sholder mount) in the EX range. I'd like the HPX300 if I didn't need to spend more on media than on the camera itself. IMHO if the HPX300 shot to SDHC media it would be much more appealing, but shooting to P2 only makes it appealing to those that already own P2 media.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I'd like the HPX300 if I didn't need to spend more on media than on the camera itself. IMHO if the HPX300 shot to SDHC media it would be much more appealing, but shooting to P2 only makes it appealing to those that already own P2 media.

I wouldn't say that. For those interested in the HPX's ability to shoot in 10 bit Avc-Intra, the cost of the P2 card is worth it.

 

[Barry_Green]

rogar-Mark-07(DBG)

The cost of XGB of P2 is basically the same as the cost of XGB of SxS but you get up to 3 times as much recording time on the same XGB of SxS, but only because the codec used by the cameras that use SxS uses a much lower bit rate, not because of anything different between the media itself... Therefore, in reality, it is not GB you need, it is minutes of record time, and for that the P2 solution is much more expensive than the SxS solution.

But that argument falls completely apart when you compare SxS to AVCHD. AVCHD records at least as good, if not better-quality video at 21mbps than XDCAM-EX does at 35mbps, so you're looking at half the cost of even KxS at that point! And, AVCHD can go as low as 6mbps, so as long as you're comparing minutes of record time then AVCHD blows SxS and KxS totally out of the water.

So at some point you have to recognize the quality of what you're recording, not just the # of minutes. P2 can record AVC-I 100, AVC-I 50, DVCPRO-HD, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO, and DV. SxS and its variants records only XDCAM-EX and HDV. So, apples, oranges, and kumquats are being compared.

But if you really wanted to compare XDCAM-EX footage against P2, probably the proper comparison would be AVC-Intra 50. Yes you'd be comparing 1920x1080 8-bit EX vs. 1440x1080 10-bit AVC-I, but you'd also be comparing 4:2:0 against 4:2:0 and long-GOP against Intraframe; intraframe and 10-bit should contribute as much or more to the image quality than the additional horizontal pixels of XDCAM-EX. In terms of overall image quality they're probably the most comparable of the formats. And AVC-I 50 takes up 50mbps, vs. XDCAM-EX's 35mbps, so the total amount of recording time isn't all that different.

So, yes, I flatly reject the notion that SxS gives you "more minutes per gig" because it's not recording the same thing. And if you put it in a relatively comparable record format, then you're getting roughly comparable record times (with SxS still having the advantage, yes). And if you're talking about efficiency of recording long-GOP 4:2:0 footage, AVCHD has a massive advantage over SxS.

Apples, oranges, and kumquats.

 

[zacuto]

I've played with both

I've played with both

I've recently made a comparison video about these two cameras. See the video here: http://Zacutovideo.com

In the video we do side by side comparisons with the EX3 and the Panasonic HPX300. Here is what I noticed:

The EX3 is impossible to handhold well unless you build it into a over shoulder setup with one of mine or other setups like my Zacuto baseplate system. And in effect you are making it a large over the shoulder camera like the HPX300 in order to get it balanced properly. If a camera is not balanced you cannot shoot for but 15 minutes before you hands get tired. Also, it is impossible to get stable tripod shots either, because the bottom of the camera is not flat and it wobbles the moment you touch the tripod handle. It is not a production grade camera, it's prosumer. That being said; The EX3 had very little noise (I mean very little) but as well the image looked kind of flat and not as dimensional to me.

The HPX300 has an amazing form factor in a tried and true over the shoulder design that has been the stable of the production business for over 30 years. It felt great on the shoulder. It's 10 times more durable then the EX3, a production grade build, not a prosumer build. It did have more noise in the image then the EX3 but it also had better color and depth to the image.

So now here is the tough choice. I would take the HPX300 all day long over the EX3 because I enjoy the ENG design and constuction build. But I may be living with a bit more noise to do it. I prefer the color and dimension to the HPX300. Still I'd go with the HPX300 because the form factor is that important to me and being able to comfortable shoot all day is key.

Steve

 

[Bassman2003]

Round and round over P2 pricing.

Whether it is apples to oranges to anything, there is no way around it, P2 is expensive!

This is stopping me from buying this camera (HPX-300).

Everybody shoots in different situations. I often need longer record times and P2 leaves me out in the cold.

$2,500 for a 64gig card. That looks like an 800 pound guerilla compared to any other form of memory out today and still is a bit time limited.

I see this as a long term negative for the company as in a couple of years these cards are going to look like buggy whips and you will still remember what you had to pay for them.

The "wait until the next size comes out and the price will be cut in half" theory has not plaid out too well for users.

Sorry for being negative, just tired of not being able to justify an entire line of cameras due to their chosen recording medium.

 

[handsome pete]

I'd say that even the HVX is better than the EX series. I used the EX1 and EX3, and I can say that while they produce solid, sharp footage, the rolling shutter / jello vision issues are way too much to deal with. The shots will look so blobby and blurry on either camera, and there is almost no way of making it look okay. I shot a music video on the EX1 and with the band members fast head movements, the pixels shifted and blurred together so much that you could only see a solid peach color tone where the face was supposed to be, with a couple blobs of other color intertwined. My HVX has never given me these problems, and I would go as far as saying the HVX is better than the XD Cam series, so the HPX cameras must be light years better.

Your post leaves me to believe that you're either lying, had a defective unit, or were just too incompetent to use the ex1/ex3.

 

[GuyB]

Sorry Barry but I have yet to see an implementation of AVCHD that I call professional quality. Just like MPG2 suffers from certain compression artifacts more than DVCPRO HD, AVCHD just doesn't maintain the same quality as codecs like XDCAM EX even with the claimed approprate bit rates. AVC-Intra is a totally different beasts and does not have the low bit rates of AVCHD. 1920x1080 ACV-Intra still uses 100Mbps which gives 1/3 the record time (I accept at a higher quality but that is not the point of contention). If I want quality I can use 100Mbps MPG2 and get uncompressed 8bit quality and much easier post production workflows all to even cheaper CF cards.

It is irreleveant how good AVCHD is at low bit rates as the HPX300 does not support AVCHD, it supports AVC-Intra (I can't find anywhere that details it supports AVCHD). So I stand by my statement that SxS is lower cost per min due to the codec manufacturers are pairing too it.

AVC-Intra is a bi**h to edit in post without conversion to some inter codec. We are only just getting to decent MPG2 HD post productions workflows now. I also find it incredibly hypocritical that Panasonic all along trash MPG2 being highly compressed LONG GOP codec of DVCPRO HD and now start trying to promote the use of AVCHD in their lower end Semi Pro gear to compete with HDV and XDCAM EX as it is even more compressed and also uses LONG GOP. You can't believe anything Panasonic say about codecs with such a clear history of twisting the truth to suite their marketing needs...

 

[GuyB]

I wouldn't say that. For those interested in the HPX's ability to shoot in 10 bit Avc-Intra, the cost of the P2 card is worth it.

Its a catch 22 though, for the most part, those happy to pay the price for the P2 media arn't going to want a 1/3" camera, and those happy to work with 1/3" cameras arn't going to want to pay P2 prices.

If it had used SDHC instead, you'd have many many more users ready to just onboard (I'd be interested myself), even if it had both media slots and you used your prefered media for the job and what was required for the write speed.

 

[SPZ]

I've recently made a comparison video about these two cameras. See the video here: http://Zacutovideo.com

In the video we do side by side comparisons with the EX3 and the Panasonic HPX300. Here is what I noticed:

The EX3 is impossible to handhold well unless you build it into a over shoulder setup with one of mine or other setups like my Zacuto baseplate system. And in effect you are making it a large over the shoulder camera like the HPX300 in order to get it balanced properly. If a camera is not balanced you cannot shoot for but 15 minutes before you hands get tired. Also, it is impossible to get stable tripod shots either, because the bottom of the camera is not flat and it wobbles the moment you touch the tripod handle. It is not a production grade camera, it's prosumer. That being said; The EX3 had very little noise (I mean very little) but as well the image looked kind of flat and not as dimensional to me.

The HPX300 has an amazing form factor in a tried and true over the shoulder design that has been the stable of the production business for over 30 years. It felt great on the shoulder. It's 10 times more durable then the EX3, a production grade build, not a prosumer build. It did have more noise in the image then the EX3 but it also had better color and depth to the image.

So now here is the tough choice. I would take the HPX300 all day long over the EX3 because I enjoy the ENG design and constuction build. But I may be living with a bit more noise to do it. I prefer the color and dimension to the HPX300. Still I'd go with the HPX300 because the form factor is that important to me and being able to comfortable shoot all day is key.

Steve

Steve, can you say anything about the rolling shutter in both cams? Which one handles motion better?

 

[Barry_Green]

Whether it is apples to oranges to anything, there is no way around it, P2 is expensive!

If you compare it to SDHC cards, yes it is. If you compare it to any other medium that records DVCPRO-HD or AVC-Intra, ... no, it's quite cheap. Astonishingly cheap, in fact. I mean, what is your alternative - buy a tape-based VariCam? Spend a dollar a minute on tape stock, and $25,000 on a deck? Or spend $2500 once, have a 64-GB card, and spend a nickel a minute on storage for it?

This is stopping me from buying this camera (HPX-300).

P2 is not for everyone. But for those it's designed for, it's just fine.

$2,500 for a 64gig card. That looks like an 800 pound guerilla compared to any other form of memory out today and still is a bit time limited.

That's only because SxS doesn't have a 64 gig card yet. A 32GB SxS card costs $1425 at B&H; presumably if they *did* have a 64GB card it'd cost $2500.

As for time-limited: the longest BetaSP tape load you could get is 33 minutes. A 64GB P2 card gives you almost three hours of 720/24pN in DVCPRO-HD, and over two and a half hours of 1080/24pN in AVC-I 50, and over an hour of AVC-I 100.

I see this as a long term negative for the company as in a couple of years these cards are going to look like buggy whips and you will still remember what you had to pay for them.

And yet... and here's the important part ... you'll still be able to use them! You'll still be able to record on them. NO MATTER WHAT. Maybe end users aren't seeing the benefit here, but broadcasters sure are. In an era where Sony has made HDV, XDCAM-HD, XDCAM-EX, XDCAM-422, HDCAM, and HDCAM SR, and every single one of those has recorded to its own piece of media and required its own deck, and a migration between any of those to any other has meant having to buy ALL NEW EQUIPMENT, Panasonic instead has made ONE recording device that records EVERY format they make. It started with SD, where P2 recorded DV, DVCPRO, and DVCPRO50, all on the same card. Then it went HD by adding DVCPRO-HD in both 720 and 1080, and (get this) THE SAME CARD STILL WORKS! Absolutely unprecedented in Sony terms. I mean, seriously, this was revolutionary. ALL your postproduction equipment stayed EXACTLY the same. All you had to do was update your NLE software and you were good to go, there was NO infrastructure cost. And then, Panasonic introduced AVC-Intra, and guess what -- SAME THING! Same cards still work. My 4GB cards from 2005 will record AVC-Intra exactly as well as a new/modern 64GB card. Same laptop still offloads 'em. Same card readers still work. The postproduction side got bought once, and that's *it*.

This is the true revolution that has led Panasonic to garner 75% of the American broadcast market and 85% of the European broadcast market, so far. P2 is vastly less expensive *as a system* than anything Sony has ever offered.

And yes, I fully well understand that for an individual user, this doesn't hold the same appeal. Which is why I say again, that's what the HMC150 is for. For those whom P2 doesn't work, they offer direct SD recording. And if they're smart, they'll expand the AVCCAM lineup to appeal to more than just the HMC150 user.

The "wait until the next size comes out and the price will be cut in half" theory has not plaid out too well for users.

Why not? We've gone from $900/gigabyte to $40/gigabyte in three years. What I will agree with is that the point of entry hasn't come down; they discontinue the smaller sizes. Right now you can buy 4GB cards for $150 or so; if they were still offering those as new to the end users I think people might have a different view of the P2 system. They could really use a cheap entry-level card. And yes, we are *way* overdue for a price cut. The 16GB card has been $900 for almost two years, and that's just silly.

Sorry for being negative, just tired of not being able to justify an entire line of cameras due to their chosen recording medium.

I do understand, and again I think it's a two-fold thing: the P2 lineup being aimed at the broadcast/professional infrastructure, and the AVCCAM lineup rolling out very slowly. If there were comparable AVCHD cameras out like an AVCHD version of the 300, I think there would be a lot less complaining about P2. P2 would be the obvious choice for those who need it, and AVCHD would be the obvious choice for those who don't need P2.