HPX250: Any in depth analysis about the hpx250? Urgent!

J

Jean Tecum

Member
I'm still searching for more information about this camera, since i need to buy in the next two weeks. should I just buy a xf305 or the ex1r? the hpx250 has great specs but very little information compared to its competitors is available. when can we expect a review from Barry Green, that would help.
jean
 
Mr. Green wrote the proverbial book, and you can buy it. There is a decent amount of footage posted and most of it looks very nice. The 250 is less expensive than your alternates and has a 5 year warranty. All other things being equal, the Intra100 codec should be a very important factor, especially over the Sony.

Grant
 
Jean Tecum said:
I'm still searching for more information about this camera, since i need to buy in the next two weeks. should I just buy a xf305 or the ex1r? the hpx250 has great specs but very little information compared to its competitors is available. when can we expect a review from Barry Green, that would help.
jean
Click to expand...

I think it really depends on the type of work you're doing. If you're doing a lot of commercials or color grading, then I think the AVC-Intra 100 is important. If you're doing a lot of things that wind up on DVD, all of these cameras make beautiful pictures. If low light is real important, then the EX1R still has a slight edge ... although many think the HPX250 is close or equal.
 
I recommend checking reviews on line about the HPX370, they will be relevant to the HPX250 performance. We have a 250 and an EX1, and I find the sensor performance to be similar. The 250 is a bit slower at PAP level 2, but about the same at level 1, with the risk of possible 3D NR artifacts. Noise wise they are similar. The lens, codec, waveform/vector, TC in/out, genlock, HDMI and HD-SDI out, Panasonic colorimetry all tilt the tables in favor of the 250 for me. The 20-bit DSP handles highlights more like an EX1 than previous Panasonic palmcorders. EX1 still offers more/finer menu control. The R is very similar performance and feature wise to the EX1.
 
How is the build quality? and how good is the finder (not the LCD)? That hasn't been covered in anything I've found.
 
The finder is exactly the same as in the AF100. The build quality is the same magnesium alloy shell as on the prior Panasonic handhelds.
 
Unfortunately, like the AF100 and unlike the HPX170, you can't use the LCD and EVF simultaneously if HD-SDI is turned on.
 
On the HPX170 turning on the SDI would turn off the component output. The AF100/AC160/HPX250 don't have a component output, but they all have HDMI, and the HDMI stays on, so I guess they figured that we'd rather lose the viewfinder instead of the HDMI...

In any case, you can have HDMI + SDI + VF, or HDMI + SDI + LCD, but you can't have HDMI + SDI + LCD + VF all together.
 
Hi,

I shot with it, since october 15th, and that's what i can say about it :

first, the form factor is a very good thing. very practical. hand working is very easy and the 250 is lightweight.
The only thing i can blame is the focus assist button, it is not well placed when the LCD is deployed, and it's a bit slow to reach it.

i was impressed by the wide angle of the lens ! it's just fantasic.

low light performances are very good with PAP 2. PAP 1 is magic, i use it for static scenes. I didn't see any artifacts with PAP 1 on moving shots yet.
I was on a shot for a feature lenght yesterday with low and colored lighting and this cam handled it very well, no need to add gain, and the 5D we used was dropped out !
Something negative, and i force myself a bit is the non-constant aperture. But this has never bothered me.

LCD is very good it's the first time i use it more than the EVF on every shots i made.

Picture quality is amazing. hightlight handling is very cinematic with knee at mid or low, as you said, Dino.

P2 and AVC 100 are the way to go, for me. i shot green screen yesterday, i'll work it and i'll tell you more about that tomorow.

to conclude on a "not so good" point and I force myself a bit again ! The vectorscope could be a little bigger. Or we could have the possibly to zoom on it ! ( are you listening
panny ? )

I'm very glad i've bought this cam, i'll do more tests and probably make a review in a week or two.

see you later... .
 
Good information. I have one ordered to essentially replace my HPX500 for shooting documentaries. I too am surprised that this camera isn't getting more attention. When the AF100 was announced everyone acted as if it was the second coming. I like the AF for some limited things, but my major complaint about it (besides the lack of a good zoom) has been the weak codec and the fact that it doesn't use P2 cards.

Now, here's a camera at just over 5 grand street price with a high-end codec, 10 bit, the ability to also shoot DVCPRO HD (which I really do like despite some of the on-line criticism - good enough for NFL Films, good enough for me), and a (supposedly) fantastic zoom lens - a camera that uses bullet-proof P2 cards, which many already have, yet it seems to be flying way under the radar. I realize the 370 has been around for a while and that's why, but still...

I will keep my AF100 for slow motion and the (very) occasional (and much hyped) need for shallow focus, and probably use the 250 for everything else.
 
Last edited:
Mac, 250 is so much sharper, cleaner than an AF100, better highlight handling, better codecs, no 8-bit banding artifacts. It handles highlights better than an HPX500 as well. I think the 250 or 370 are great doc cameras--although our 2700 is still my first choice.
 
At one point I'd have probably gone for a 2700.. great camera, I've used one - but with technology changing the way it does now I'd have to take jobs I don't want in order to pay for it. I like making my own films, and keeping the costs down helps. Plus, nearing 70 I'm not anxious to commit to another big camera... No, after over 40 years, the days of dragging my O'Connor 50 and a 20+lb camera out of the van are over... Those are the advantages of a camera like the 250.
 
Mac said:
I too am surprised that this camera isn't getting more attention. When the AF100 was announced everyone acted as if it was the second coming. I like the AF for some limited things, but my major complaint about it (besides the lack of a good zoom) has been the weak codec and the fact that it doesn't use P2 cards.

Now, here's a camera at just over 5 grand street price with a high-end codec, 10 bit, the ability to also shoot DVCPRO HD (which I really do like despite some of the on-line criticism - good enough for NFL Films, good enough for me), and a (supposedly) fantastic zoom lens - a camera that uses bullet-proof P2 cards, which many already have, yet it seems to be flying way under the radar. I realize the 370 has been around for a while and that's why, but still...
Click to expand...

Maybe it's singing the small-chip blues.
And to be perfectly honest, I find myself being seduced by the big chip look.

Love the idea of the great in-cam codec of the 250.
And the fantastic treatment of highlights that Jeff is talking about...sounds fantastic.
But then I look at most of the footage I've seen, and so far, I'm not thrilled.

Not the way I'm thrilled when I look at the F3 footage.
But then it's more the 2x the cost, and the onboard codec is yuck-o.

So that's my current quandary. Going to be using for mostly doc work.
Do I splurge for the f3, get really good at pulling critical focus, and perhaps need to buy other extras, like monitor and external recorder (and have images I swoon over).
Or go for the 250, totally practical out-of-the box for doc work, slap on a 35mm adaptor for shallow focus/interviews?

I know no one else can answer this!
 
Mac,
I hear you on the size/weight of a full size ENG camera(and cost).

Danny1280,
I love the shallow DOF look as well, F3 is a great looking camera, but when you buy the body at $13K + you've just got your foot in the door--the lenses, base plate, rods, matte box, follow focus, on-board monitor, external recorder, powering system for on-board recorder(in the case of the Ki Pro mini), and now you've got a very expensive rig that is useless for hand held--even if you could pull focus yourself. So, add grips for the rods, shoulder mount, counter balance, EVF, and.............and you've still got a doc camera that is not going to get the shot on the first take most of the time!

I watched a documentary last week called "From the Sky Down" about U2, shot by Erich Roland. I asked him what camera he used primarily to get the shallow DOF head shots and he told me it was a Panasonic Varicam! I thought it was a large sensor camera. No waiting on lens changes, no blown focus, no external recorders that don't span or drop out of record at 10% memory left!

Next year there will be a new AFxxx, it will offer P2 work flow with Intra 100, but it will still require all the accessories above, except the outboard recorder. I sincerely hope Panasonic changes the front end, because the DSP in the AF100 could never be confused with an HPX250, much less a higher-end Panasonic camera.
 
Dino said:
I watched a documentary last week called "From the Sky Down" about U2, shot by Erich Roland. I asked him what camera he used primarily to get the shallow DOF head shots and he told me it was a Panasonic Varicam! I thought it was a large sensor camera. No waiting on lens changes, no blown focus, no external recorders that don't span or drop out of record at 10% memory left!

This is precisely why I still have my (much maligned) HPX500. I bought the AF100 because it was relatively cheap and I had a bunch of Canon FD and Leicaflex lenses. But last week I had to intercut footage from both cameras and the 500 really looked better. That's why I like DVCPRO HD. If the 500 wasn't so heavy I'd keep using it, and I may anyway. I said a year ago that I wished Panasonic had put the AF100 effort into a small 2/3" camera instead - but the bandwagon was rolling bigger. I'm not crazy about the F3 either, BTW. It may be (really only slightly) better than the 100 but it still isn't the answer... The Scarlet or the C300 may be - but maybe not.

Meanwhile, the size, cost, codec, and lens of the 250 appeal to me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh, and also, relative to the comments I made above, isn't it funny how from day to day the viability of this equipment changes based on what the last pundit has to say? If we never read these forums we wouldn't know how crumby our cameras have become. When I watch a VHS tape I'm amazed that I ever tolerated watching movies that way... Now we are nit-picking over such small degrees of quality that the whole point is being lost - making good films.
 
I have the HPX500 and the HPX250. Just compared shots from monthly commericals I do and the 250 does have higher resolution.
Female talent love the images from the 500 though, makes them look great. Doesn't show every flaw. And nice shallow depth of field, too.
And with the matte box and polarizer the color is nicer too. I will have to add that to the 250.
I used the VFR hacks on the 500 and with the 250 none are needed. Very quick to set frame rates.
The Canon Broadcast lenses give you better subtle zoom control you don't have with the 250.
I think I will keep and use both! But the 250 is an incredible camera and the price is really good.
 
Alphacam,

Yes, 720P is nicer to talent than 1080, 540 pixel shifted is nicer than 720. You can always shoot 720 with the HPX250 or use Diffusion of Soft FX or similar filters. The DOF difference is harder to overcome. Regarding zoom control, I haven't found a palmcorder yet that zooms like an ENG zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top