New Panasonic 4K 60P Camcorder HC-X1000

Does anyone know if you get 4 tracks of audio when you have audio connected to the XLR inputs? The older models give you the XLR inputs plus the on-board stereo mic in 4 tracks. I'm mostly used to the HVX200 which does 4 tracks of audio.
 
I can't find anything in the manual about more than 2 channels, and I wouldn't expect it on this class of camera.
 
How is everyone found the camera so far? Low light isn't brilliant - but we knew that already. Can't really fault anything else bang for buck.
 
I think that it's a fantastic camera. The 1080p is brilliant, the 4K is sharp, the auto mode is extremely competent, the autofocus is fast, and the OIS is fantastic. I shot an event recently with it where I didn't even bother to drag around a tripod, I did all the interviews handheld and it looks for all the world like a tripod shot.

It's not a see-in-the-dark camera -- but then again, neither was the AC90, and I think the world of that little camera. But the HC-X1000 is a sharper, better AC90 than the AC90 was.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's not a see-in-the-dark camera -- but then again, neither was the AC90, and I think the world of that little camera. But the HC-X1000 is a sharper, better AC90 than the AC90 was.
Click to expand...

In terms of light sensitivity, shooting in 4K would you say the HC-X1000 is equal to or better than the AC90 shooting in 1080P?
 
A few years back I used an HMC40 for a couple of years. It was also a great camera but its weakness was low light. How does the X1000 compare to that in low light?
 
In many respects, small chip cameras will never compete with the big chip cameras in low light....it's a physics thing. Bigger chip gathers more light.....

Jim Martin
 
Jim Martin said:
In many respects, small chip cameras will never compete with the big chip cameras in low light....it's a physics thing. Bigger chip gathers more light.....

Jim Martin
Click to expand...


Do we care? I mean, as long as the low light performance is good enough, it's good enough, regardless of chip size. Small chips are getting better all the time - and one day may get to the point where the low light performance is good enough for most people's use scenarios; sure, bigger chips are also getting better, but if, f.ex., a small chip one day gets to perform at A7S levels in low light, do I care that at the same time a bigger chip can see into the proverbial black hole (never mind laws of physics :))? If all I need is A7S levels of performance in low light, and a small chip delivers, I don't care what a bigger chip does.

That's why people are asking: is the X1000 an adequate performer in low light? For example, the GH4 is still not quite up to par in that department, even if otherwise it's a great camera.
 
I had the HC-X1000 for a while but ended up returning it. It was my first camcorder and I really loved the all in oneness of it, the features, the convenience, but I ended up not happy with one aspect of the image. I come from a landscape photo background where detail is very high on my priority list. I've been doing video with a GH4, andI knew that the smaller sensor/pixel size of the HX-X1000 would have low light/noise and dynamic range implications, but since it shares the same bit rates with the GH4 I thought detail would be comparable especially down ressing from UHD to HD. I did expect some less detail because the lens might not be as sharp as the Nikon glass I was using on the GH4. What I found was that on high contrast detail the HC-X1000 was very detailed - sufficiently close to the GH4, but it could struggle with low contrast detail and tended to mush things out, take on a plastic appearance. The GH4 did a much better job in those circumstances. For me that was a problem. I tried all scene modes, different parameters like turning down/off noise reduction, post- processing contrast changes, but I couldn't get it where I hoped it would be. Maybe I was doing something wrong. I don 't know. I'm new to video so it wouldn't surprise me if I was at fault. Always something to learn.
 
Chips and processing are getting better, but with the move to 4K, the pixel size drops so much that it's a big step back with regards to light sensitivity.

There are now several low light video samples on You Tube, including a direct comparison to the Sony NX3. My guess, based on looking at these videos it that the X1000 is slightly less sensitive than the HMC40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7noyeareq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v1-kIVll3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gFFooWo6k4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quVTUl_q3EI
 
PlanB said:
What order from best to worst in low light do these come in ? Hmc150, Hmc40, x1000, ac130, ac90.
Click to expand...
If "low light" is a major concern, then you wouldn't want to consider any of the smaller-chip cameras. The AC130 is the only one on that list that would warrant serious consideration for serious low light work.

I'm spitballing here, as I haven't compared them side by side, but I'd put the X1000, AC90, and HMC40 all in the same general vicinity. The HMC150 is a lot more sensitive than them, but is lower definition and grainier. The AC130 is about as sensitive as the HMC150, much higher resolution, and cleaner.
 
PlanB - I assume you're still talking strictly about low light capability...

I've used the HMC40, own the Canon XF100, and just got the X70. I found the HMC40 very weak in low light, the XF100 about a stop better (which is one of the reasons I bought it in May 2011 instead of the HMC40), and the X70 slightly better than the Canon. The 150 and 130 probably both have better sensitivity than these other cameras, but then the age of the sensor comes into play. The HMC40, HMC150, and the Canon are 4-6 year old tech. Newer cameras may not be any more light sensitive, but their gain is often much cleaner and usable. The brand new X70 is cleaner at +15db of Gain than my XF100 is at +9.

So there are many variables.
 
A couple of questions, as I'm still learning.

1) is it better to drop 4k into a 1080 timeline or edit in a 4k timeline and export in 1080?
2) Space is a bit tight on my HDD. If I shoot in 1080 (which as I understand uses the full 4k sensor to downscale in camera) will the quality still be comparable to a downscaled 4k in post? Or should I take the storage hit and shoot 4k?

I'm looking at going to a RAID 5 solution soon anyway. I have drive bays available (plan was four 2TB drives) - is that better than using an external enclosure (starts getting expensive). I need to start looking after my storage when I turn freelance properly.

help appreciated, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top