HPX370 likes and dislikes?

J

Jacquesstar

Member
Okay,

So I was originally trying to choose between an HPX370 and a Sony PMW320. I know that the 320 is more expensive, and has larger chips. I went with the 370 because cost of ownership is lower..

So there are things that I like and dislike about the camera. I like the codec, DVCPro and AVC-Intra are def. better than XDCAM. I like the options for 4 channels of audio. I like the clip viewer, and the fact that you can dump straight to a hard drive.

I don't like the cheap LCD monitor and the viewfinder is sub-par by my standards. Before this, I shot with a Z1U, a Digital Betacam, and a Beta SP, all of which have better viewfinders in my opinion.

I also think that the lens is pretty much useless. It's not wide-enough first of all. Second, it's very difficult to focus, and sometimes my focus is soft. Would buying a 2/3 or 1/2 inch lens make it easier to focus? I wonder. I definitely want a better and wider lens. I know they make an adapter, but I don't know if I can use both 1/2 and 2/3 lenses with this cam.
 
Jacquesstar said:
I don't like the cheap LCD monitor and the viewfinder is sub-par by my standards. Before this, I shot with a Z1U, a Digital Betacam, and a Beta SP, all of which have better viewfinders in my opinion.
Click to expand...

LCD and VF are actually quite good. I'm surprised you don't like them. The only area that I find annoying is the VF's LED backlighting that flickers if you move your eye around too fast.

Jacquesstar said:
I also think that the lens is pretty much useless. It's not wide-enough first of all. Second, it's very difficult to focus, and sometimes my focus is soft. Would buying a 2/3 or 1/2 inch lens make it easier to focus? I wonder. I definitely want a better and wider lens. I know they make an adapter, but I don't know if I can use both 1/2 and 2/3 lenses with this cam.
Click to expand...

Bigger chip cameras have shallower depth of field. A 1/2 or 2/3 inch camera would be *more* difficult to focus than a 1/3" camera, all other things being equal, as the depth of field becomes significantly narrower. I find that on the wide end of the lens, I can simply guesstimate the focal distance and set it based on the feel of the barrel - 75% of the focal distance is within one quarter of a turn, the rest of the focus marks are nearing MOD.

Now I thoroughly agree with you about the factory lens being cheap and not wide enough for everyday use. I have the fujinon 13x3.5 and leave it on for 99% of my work. Its a lot wider (3.5mm vs 4.5mm), slightly faster (f1.4 vs f1.6) and even tough it doesn't have CAC, its much better optically than the stock lens (there is some minor blue fringing where overexposed areas meet dark areas when open wider than f2.8). The factory lens is a bag full of hurt at wide open, but CAC seems to help quite a bit.

If you were to get a 2/3" lens and adaptor, it will have a huge crop factor that would make the wide end utterly useless. Depth of field will not change when mounting a 2/3" lens onto a 1/3" chip camera.


Jason
 
Main thing to keep in mind with an HPX370 (and any other 1/3" full-raster camera) is don't stop down the lens. f/5.6 is about as far as you can go if you want the image to be sharp. At f/8 it's already softening up noticeably due to diffraction. f/11 or f/16 are just murder to your resolution. Use the ND filter and keep that iris open.
 
If there was an ideal camera for me, it would probably be a Sony PMW350 with an HPX370 control layout, AVC-I and sold at Panasonic's usual under-cutting prices. But alas, the only cameras better than the 370 badly need an external recorder, at least until Panny finally releases a 500 replacement.

When it comes to 1/3" lens selection, the options are pretty slim. The Fujinon 13x3.5 is wider, sharper and all the other good things AwakenedFilms mentioned, but it costs $6,800 and it just goes up from there, with Canon's 17x4.3 w/2x topping out at $15,000.
Whatever the lens is, do follow Barry's advice and try to keep any 1/3" just below f/5.6, but usually not wider than f/2 depending on the quality of the lens. 1/2" and 2/3" cameras have much more leeway for aperture choice, but they also need smaller apertures to compensate for a thinner depth of field. I recommend against using auto-aperture on the 370 most of the time.
 
You'll end up spending as much or more on a lens replacement for the 370 so live with the stock lens. It still renders a very pretty image.
 
videoatlanta said:
You'll end up spending as much or more on a lens replacement for the 370 so live with the stock lens. It still renders a very pretty image.
Click to expand...
It certainly looks very nice on the long end, but even at f/4 I can tell that the corners are soft. As to the OP's question, the simple answer is that the Fuji 13x3.5 is the cheapest upgrade choice for the 370, even if it does cost as much as the camera; whether or not it's worth that is up to him though.
 
Hi Jacquesstar,

I've got the 371 with the standard lens and the Fuji 13x3.5. Yes the standard lens isnt really wide enough so i bought the 13x3.5 wide angle lens, it is much better, wider and a little sharper but it does have a few downsides.
With my copy, the 13x3.5 is very soft wide open at f1.4 but is fine by f2 & great f2-f5.6, the standard lens is sharp from f1.6 to f5.6.

The 13x3.5 makes the 371 a bit nose heavy whereas the kit lens balances perfectly, the last point already mentioned is that the 13x3.5 can exhibit some CA in areas of bright highlights whereas the kit lens much less so.

The main thing with any lens on the 300/370 range is getting back focus absolutely spot on and once done "Do not touch the macro collar on pain of death". On my camera there is a very slight play in the macro ring, once
ive back focussed, if i grip the macro collar i can put the back focus out enough to mak wide shots slightly soft. On the 1/3 " chip cams there doesnt seem to be much room to play with the backfocus,once set. Im sure on bigger
chip cams there a slightly bigger range of play to be had.

Sorry for the long answer, its taken me a while to get it how i like it but so long as you dont go above f5.6, it can give stunning pictures :)

cheers Andy
 
I have to agree that the EVF isn't very good on the 370. Even my JVC HD-100 EVF is much better.
I definitely like the image on the 370 better though! And the build of the Panny
is much better, and the codec, and the balance. Having a waveform monitor built in
is great, as is the two zebra settings, I use that a lot more than I used zebras on my Beta
or HDV cameras.
Ed
 
The main thing with any lens on the 300/370 range is getting back focus absolutely spot on and once done "Do not touch the macro collar on pain of death". On my camera there is a very slight play in the macro ring, once
ive back focussed, if i grip the macro collar i can put the back focus out enough to mak wide shots slightly soft. On the 1/3 " chip cams there doesnt seem to be much room to play with the backfocus,once set. Im sure on bigger
chip cams there a slightly bigger range of play to be had.
Click to expand...
I can back every single word spoken, small-chip cams do NOT like misalignment, and the macro does in fact have play in it to throw your focus off.
And yeah, the VF rattles if you shake it and on a camera that is largely built like it could survive repeated trips to the Sahara and Arctic, it's the only part that really feels cheap.
 
I agree the rattling viewfinder is not good but as for the rest of the camera I can't fault it for the money.

I think I will tape or cable tie my viewfinder up to stop it rattling as it is the diopter adjustment that causes it and once set it will be Ok for me, it sometimes moves anyway due to the portabrace body armour so fixing it for me would be a good move.
 
I am looking at the limitations to the cam, and now I really regret not getting an HPX500. since the 500 has 2/3" chips, it seems like a better cam. Should I have gotten the HPX500 instead? You can get a used one with a lens for a little more than an HPX 370
 
The 500 has some things about it that are better -- such as 4 P2 slots, 4 XLRs, and 2/3" chips. But then there are things about it that aren't better; the HPX370 has a color viewfinder, it has AVC-Intra, it makes sharper footage than the 500 does, it has the slot for a wireless receiver...
 
I had some of the same doubts. As Barry explains, the 500 would have DVCPRO HD which is 1440x1080, not that the 500's CCD chips are high-def either, they are only 960x540 (half-res) and upscale to get 720 and 1080p. Using SD lenses on it is completely viable.
Also, the 500 is a physically bigger cam, I don't think I'd have the strength to lug a kit around if it were any bigger, unless I'd hit the gym. Also, good idea about the VF, maybe I can cut some styrofoam to fit in there too.
Having many P2 slots isn't that critical ever since 64gig cards are available now, unless you intend to shoot a really long event start-to-finish; you can always hot-swap too.

Downsides aside, there really aren't any good alternatives if you want 1/2" or 2/3" that badly and a good codec. It's either a Sony EX1/3 or PMW320/350 with an external writer, or a rather long step up to the 3100, which is 30k just for a camera with VF and lens. Then there is always the used market...
The 370 does everything I need it too, and maybe I would have liked it to be better some ways, but there just aren't any "a little better" options right now.
 
Last edited:
I put some black electricians tape around my viewfinder and fixed the dipotre in position for me and it now does not rattle.
 
I was in the same boat, the 370 or the old 500. The 370 does disappoint on some levels.
The alternative would be the 2000 and the 2700 popping up on ebay now. Those are great cams and you can get the AVC-Intra too.
 
As long as this 370 makes me money, I'll be happy. Been kind of slow right now. I am working on getting some more corporate and broadcast clients and hopefully business will pick up.
 
Hmm there seems to be an HPX2000 with AVC-I and VF for 15k on eBay, but it will be over 20k to just to build a camera, whereas you can have a full 370 kit for that, from tripod on up to audio and lighting. Different cameras with different capabilities I know, but depending on what you do it may not be worth it.

IMO, the 370 is certainly enough to do most jobs, if recent trends are anything to go by (online distribution) I would even go so far to say that there's room to spare... unless the client wants that DSLR-thin depth of field.
 
Overall, I am happy with the 370. You can't beat variable frame rates. It is just another tool in my kit, the way I see it. Great for time lapse and the like. Eventually, I am going to get a 2/3 inch chip camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top