Has anyone upgraded the HPX viewfinder?

pathfinder said:
I hope panasonic read of what we all want and take our thoughts into considerations.
Click to expand...

I'd really like to see the aftermarket make something. It's a common problem with lots of mid range setups.

I want a "universal" HD viewfinder with a component HD and HDSDI input and tally inputs.
Make it for around $2500 and I bet they would sell a few.
I could run it off the Component out on the 500.
Now to see if the menu can be enabled on the component out while off on the HDSDI?
 
David See said:
I second that!

As time passes , more and more people are coming out of the woodwork complaining that this vf is not acceptable. Honestly, it is nothing more than crap. I was VERY disappointed after my Sony DSR-570, which I thought had a poor vf but at least was better than the 500's.

I have the 2.0" vf on mine ($3000 here in Aust, thank you very much) and it was *marginally* better (hmmmmm, *maybe* slightly sharper) but yes, the peaking is NOWHERE - repeat - NOWHERE near as good as on my mates 900 with the same vf.

I conclude that the resolution to the vf out of the camera is poor, almost unacceptable - especially for an HD camera. So, no matter what vf you put on it, the image will always be soft and the peaking will always be low.

Lift your game, Panasonic...this is an HD camera and should have a suitable vf and/or signal to the vf..

I think a board swap or some other kind of upgrade is definitely warranted.
Click to expand...

Any news on the peacking??
Has anyone, some how managed to get more peacking???........:crybaby:
Paul,
 
I think if you are using a 500, you are pretty much either relegated to living with the soft, SD level output to the VF OR hooking up to a real external HD monitor.

I shot on a TV show today and the main operator was using an HDX-900. He had the Panasonic LH-80 on an Israeil arm and even covered up the monitor and his face with his windbreaker to shoot an interview in bright 9:00 AM sunlight. It works, however, if you are handheld, that is a heavy meatball, he was on sticks all day, I shot handheld on the HPX170 and they also had an HVX200 for cutaways. The HPX170 VF and LCD screen are leagues better than the 500 or the 200.

Dan
 
Last edited:
So is the VF20 worth upgrading to? I can get hold of one for about 1400$.

Last weekend I was working as a operator at a show with the Sony HDC1500, with the HDVF20A B/W VF. Ok it was a better than what we get from the std. vf on 500, but not some revolution...

So far the stock vf on the 500 has worked on actionsport shoots with a lot of extender use and some heli shoots, mostly not that much of an issue to shoot with the std vf. But when shooting in low light, maybe with some gain it's a bit more challenging to always get proper focus.

Is the peaking any better at all on the VF20? And working in low light, any help at all on focus over the stock vf?
 
It's not great, but come on, it's not like it is impossible to shoot in focus. Somehow we manage to do it all the time with just the stock VF.

As someone said, quick zoom, and focus assist get you what you need.

When you get used to it your shots are in focus. If it is so hard to keep focus I don't know how a goon like me manages to track seabirds and various other beasts with the vast majority of the shots being in focus.

Of course it could be better, but it is what it is for a camera that was released when it was at the price it was released at.
 
What walnutcrunch said above is right... I do have the 16x9 finder, which is a big improvement, but it is possible to work with the stock finder... If you are trying to focus at medium or wide, that is always going to be a problem.. I don't like mechanical zooms, so I've removed my zoom motor (I like to use an Aaton grip, but you can set the zoom to manual) that way you can zoom in and out very quickly to focus...

Additionally (I think I mentioned this before) I use a Chrosziel DV follow-focus that (uniquely) has the scale on the side.. I've inscribed the footage #s on the scale so I can see it from the viewfinder and can easily estimate distance when shooting wide.

That said, I had the opportunity to use a new JVC 700 last weekend.. That viewfinder is terrific (on a $7000 camera!) - it IS a shame that Panasonic didn't foresee advances in technology and provide an HD output for an aftermarket viewfinder.
 
Look.....i'm not going to follow the sheep on this.
If Sony and Ikegami can make a DSR-570 with a VF that has usable peaking!!
then i think, Panasonic can make one w/ the same amount of peaking that they have.
THATS ALL.......TURN THE PEAKING UP.........SOME HOW!!!!
a board fix or what ever,
More peaking......whats the big deal.
a little R & D will go a long way.......

Thanks, Paul
 
I agree with Paul. From what I understand, the LED and VF on the 170 are physically the same as the ones on the 200 and 500, yet on the 170, the VF and LED are much easier to focus with because the peaking was amped up. Maybe some electronics genius can figure out a way to hack the hardware control and inch up that peaking?

I can still focus with the HVX200/500, but it is a lot harder and I do have more out of focus shots than I get with the 170 or 300.

Dan
 
I'm ok with the stock VF. I've had it since June and all's good. Leaving for Hawaii for another documentary, so knock on wood.
 
BradFu said:
I'm ok with the stock VF. I've had it since June and all's good. Leaving for Hawaii for another documentary, so knock on wood.
Click to expand...


That's the thing.......i don't want to knock on wood......i shouldn't have to "KNOCK" on wood.
Yeah it will work......but i don't want to work at it to make it work!!!.....LOL
For the love of GOD!!!!........or love of Panasonic!!!!
Just a little more peaking......Peaking.......PEAKING......P-E-A-K-I-N-G !!!!!!!!

anyone....?

Later, Paul
 
Great point.

Shot all day with it for the Eddie Aikau ceremony in Oahu yesterday. No problems, used the focus assist a few times if I was second-guessing myself. Couple of shots came out soft on the edges, but that's the glass.

I concur though, more peaking would be really good.
 
I only know the HPX with the 2" 16:9 VF and I thought that was bad... I really don't want to see the original VF then...

I was used to 10-12 year old Sony VF's on DVCAM camcorders and these were actually better in all aspects. They had better peaking, better brightness control and way better zebras (well that's a camera feature). I still find it extremely hard to judge the brightness of the picture in the HPX viewfinder - everyone I know who shoots with the HPX for the first time comes home with overexposed footage. I know the zebras are there to help you, but I never had to rely that much on the 100% zebras to avoid overexposure.
 
Well after all this time it seems there's def not going to be any kind of upgrade of the 500, and no third party manufacturer appears to think it's worth coming up with a solution to "worst VF on a pro cam ever" problem.

Oh well - back to what we do have.

I've been tossing up between a 500 and a 370 for quite some time. I've rented the 500 (502 here in Oz) many times and used it extensively, but only ever with the standard 1.5 inch VF. I'm pretty sure I'm going with the 500 now, if I can find a good deal on a kit.

My question to those with the relative experience is: how does focusing and using the 2 inch upgrade VF on the 500 compare to a b/w VF on a digi-beta like say the Sony 790WS or similar? As I don't know if I can get to try out a Panny upgrade VF anywhere before purchasing, i'm keen to compare it to something SD that i know. I don't see any point in comparing to any current HD VFs for obvious reasons.

Also dare i ask if Panasonic offer any kind of trade in / upgrade deal where you can send in the original one and get some kind of deal? (Still can't believe it wasn't an upgrade option on a new camera).
 
FBAS said:
I only know the HPX with the 2" 16:9 VF and I thought that was bad... I really don't want to see the original VF then...

I was used to 10-12 year old Sony VF's on DVCAM camcorders and these were actually better in all aspects. They had better peaking, better brightness control and way better zebras (well that's a camera feature). I still find it extremely hard to judge the brightness of the picture in the HPX viewfinder - everyone I know who shoots with the HPX for the first time comes home with overexposed footage. I know the zebras are there to help you, but I never had to rely that much on the 100% zebras to avoid overexposure.
Click to expand...

I believe this to be a manufacture problem. at first use I found myself overexposesing everything, even with zebras. It seems that the dynamic range of the viewfinder and outputs are completely different to what is actually being recording... Everytime i thought i was spot on, I came home to watch footage completely blown out.

Another thing to warn everyone about... when using the build in ND it will always tell you to open up more than you should. I have learned to look at it and perpously underexpose everything to eye. When I underexpose things by about a stop it seem to come out just right. I don't understand why things are so off... Even with my external 9'' HD monitor things look perfect, then I get home and watch it on the 1080p monitor and its all blow...

Must learn to underexpose or it will get you every time, my first week with the camera was the learning process. If you've yet to shoot outdoor with the camera and you have a gig coming up where you need to, I strongly suggest going on a test shoot first and do an exposure test in bright sunlight, the difference may really shock you. It can help you from completely blowing your shoot with the client.

I noticed that the ND settings are wrong, It will start to flash the ND down symbol to open up because the camera thinks its too dark when its not and perfectly exposed. Don't listen to it!

:kali:
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
I believe this to be a manufacture problem. at first use I found myself overexposesing everything, even with zebras. It seems that the dynamic range of the viewfinder and outputs are completely different to what is actually being recording... Everytime i thought i was spot on, I came home to watch footage completely blown out.

Another thing to warn everyone about... when using the build in ND it will always tell you to open up more than you should. I have learned to look at it and perpously underexpose everything to eye. When I underexpose things by about a stop it seem to come out just right. I don't understand why things are so off... Even with my external 9'' HD monitor things look perfect, then I get home and watch it on the 1080p monitor and its all blow...

Must learn to underexpose or it will get you every time, my first week with the camera was the learning process. If you've yet to shoot outdoor with the camera and you have a gig coming up where you need to, I strongly suggest going on a test shoot first and do an exposure test in bright sunlight, the difference may really shock you. It can help you from completely blowing your shoot with the client.

I noticed that the ND settings are wrong, It will start to flash the ND down symbol to open up because the camera thinks its too dark when its not and perfectly exposed. Don't listen to it!

:kali:
Click to expand...

WTF????!!!!

I haven't heard of this before. Anyone else had these issues?

And to all you owners - would you still buy one? I still love the cam despite it's problems, but have to admit being a little nervous about it being relatively old technology now. That said my price range means I'd buy this second hand (as opposed to a new 370 or similar). My work is mostly documentary, corporate etc, and news.
 
It's common for a bad viewfinder to cause all kinds of exposure issues, every camera is different. You just need to learn your cameras abilities. I would still buy them, one of the best cameras ever made in its price point.
 
i own hpx500 for more than two years, it's an amazing camera, you can't compare it to hpx370... these are two very different cameras and for some jobs you might want to go with 370, others - 500, up to you to decide... other than that, no problems, whatsoever... as for the VF issue, you get used to it, not that bad, could be sharper, but you can deal with it..
 
I've had mine (500) for what?, three years?.. I got one of the first in California - and time does slip by, but at least that long anyway.

Would I buy it again? Yes. You can stop reading now, the rest is rambling.

I have shot a feature documentary and about 7-8 ten minute to thirty minute documentaries with the camera, and everyone is very impressed with the picture... The long doc has been reviewed several times, and twice the cinematography has been noted. That's really all I care about. Theoretical discussions of codecs do not impress me. And I like the P2 cards.

Early on I added the 16x9 finder with a custom-made plate that moves it 1 1/2" farther forward - and even though it's an overly heavy camera, now it balances perfectly (I handhold almost exclusively). Since then I also moved it to the left because my right eye went bad on me. I don't mind this finder, but then I'm used to it. The stock one was pretty bad admittedly, but I didn't use it much.

Would I change the camera? You bet. I'd saw about 6 pounds off and, of course, stick on a better color viewfinder (which would mean having an HD out for the finder instead of what's there now).

For now I'm happy with DVCPRO HD 720/24pn, and wouldn't let the bullys in the play-yard convince me differently. Don't mess with success.

One other thing I would do is design the CAC so that it would work without the zoom motor. As an old film guy, I don't like zoom motors, and have removed mine, which negates the CAC. I have the Fujinon, and can't really see horrible CA, and, as I say, the picture looks good on a big screen - but it would be nice to be able to take advantage of the feature.
 
The 500 heavy?! At around 3,8kg it light for a 2/3" ccd camcorder. P2 in general are very light, ligher than most Xdcams(disc).
 
They're all too heavy... the basic design was locked in when these things had tape transports and were meant as all-purpose ENG cameras (I used an RCA TK76 in the very early '80s - whew, and it didn't even have a tape transport)...

Now they should be replicating the 16mm cameras they're replacing (Arri & Aaton) by being more ergonomically designed, and with smaller, lighter zoom lenses available that aren't intended as one-size-fits-all. And you should be able to see over the camera to the right when it's on your shoulder (try an Aaton XTR to see what I mean).

As I said above - and relative to this thread - I moved my viewfinder forward because in the stock position it made me tilt my head back when handholding.. that's just bad design and, by the way, contributes to the finder's faults because it's difficult to get your eye centered quickly.

And they're all like that because they aren't designed by people that use them. The "handycam" designs are, of course, even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top