Ex1 vs Hpx 300 Comparative Board

S

shapna

Active member
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
 
Last edited:
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:
 
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?
user_online.gif
quote

thanks to mailboulake
 
Last edited:
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
The difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is huge.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
What Judas? Your saying the indians learned to use their nipples?!? when their bows and arrows became obsolete hehe...
 
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...?
 
In what respect did you like the HPX170 image over the HPX300 image ??? It can not be resolution wise !!!! Was it noise?


Spartacus said:
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...?
Click to expand...
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
In what respect did you like the HPX170 image over the HPX300 image ??? It can not be resolution wise !!!! Was it noise?
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
Bassman2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top