New Panasonic AG HC-X2 (HC-X1/UX180 successor)

The CX350 has SRT functionality built in but I do not know how well it works or how extensive it is. But coming from the "broadcast" group instead of the consumer group, it is included.
 
The CX350 had no SRT streaming when it was lauched. It was added in a firmware update. All the new PTZ cameras from Panasonic have built-it SRT too. They master the technology, I don't see why the would not add it.

Maybe Panasonic considers the almost 4-year-old CX350 the professional line and the HC-X2 the prosumer line, but I do not see why SRT is more "professional" than RTMP for instance.

NorBro said:
In the history of cameras, there have been many true priorities that systems never addressed, so I would say the chances for something like the above are slim unless they are very important requests (IDK if they are). I would check the history of Panasonic camcorder firmware releases (for the CX350, etc) and see what type of updates are usually provided and the direction Panasonic has generally taken.
Click to expand...
 
It might happen. Broadcast folks are the only folks that even know what SRT is. So Panasonic might not feel compelled to add it to a prosumer camera. Unless enough voices are heard. But sometimes it is a hardware restraint. Hope it happen for you if you need it.
 
Yes but Panasonic does not have a flagship handheld camera apart from the HC-X2. The CX350 is somewhat old and the PX270 is even older. Maybe is a CX370 on the road with all the bells and whistles for broadcast work?

Bassman2003 said:
It might happen. Broadcast folks are the only folks that even know what SRT is. So Panasonic might not feel compelled to add it to a prosumer camera. Unless enough voices are heard. But sometimes it is a hardware restraint. Hope it happen for you if you need it.
Click to expand...
 
These types of cameras are in a strange place in the video world. Broadcasting has evolved so much in which many other systems have replaced them like cinema cameras and stills cameras that shoot video, and then when networks or productions require true broadcast cameras they aren't looking at the CX350 but using the bigger models like perhaps the PX5100 or the CX4000 (Panasonic examples).

Sports and similar productions benefit from them the most, but only for the smaller businesses (which have other options).

In this case, as you say, there is literally no other worthy Panasonic camcorder after the CX350/X2 until you get into the ones above $20K, so it's like just make SRT available (if capable) or release both models at once so people know what's up (like the X2 and a hypothetical CX370).
 
Good points. But I see a lot of market for small camcorders like these. Broadcast nowadays is suffering the crisis like other bussiness. The budgets are not there to spend 20k for a shouldermount camera + 30k 4k lens. Small TV stations (even large ones) use more and more small cameras and deal with its caveats.


NorBro said:
These types of cameras are in a strange place in the video world. Broadcasting has evolved so much in which many other systems have replaced them like cinema cameras and stills cameras that shoot video, and then when networks or productions require true broadcast cameras they aren't looking at the CX350 but using the bigger models like perhaps the PX5100 or the CX4000 (Panasonic examples).

Sports and similar productions benefit from them the most, but only for the smaller businesses (which have other options).

In this case, as you say, there is literally no other worthy Panasonic camcorder after the CX350/X2 until you get into the ones above $20K, so it's like just make SRT available (if capable) or release both models at once so people know what's up (like the X2 and a hypothetical CX370).
Click to expand...
 
If there was a lot of market for them I would financially assume companies would have made more than 10 or so camcorders in the last 5 years compared to 40-50 mirrorless', but maybe.

I hope so, I would like to see more camcorders, I do - but sometimes they just aren't very appealing. IQ is always lagging behind other systems, small chips, slow lenses, barely any have 4K/60p, none have 4K/120p, no true IBIS, only Canon has recently in the last few years added DPAF (Sony has not made a camcorder with their best AF yet)...if you don't need a rocking zoom which I imagine 99.9% require a rocking zoom who use these kind of cameras, they seem like a tough sale.
 
Done! I asked for SRT streaming, FTP upload and face-detect in MANUAL mode.

firehawk said:
I think the HC-X2 just like the HC-X1 is under a different division than the AG line. Like before when the HC-X1 was under the consumer line whereas the almost identical AG UX180 was under the pro/broadcast line.
I'm not sure where to go because I filled out forms at 3 different locations (which I cannot remember now) and I got one response so I don't know which one worked:

https://na.panasonic.com/us/audio-v...ast-cinema-pro-video/broadcast-camera-systems

https://na.panasonic.com/us/contact-us
Click to expand...
 
I think the CX350 is still up to date. It does 10bit 4k60 in a lightweight 20x zoom package. It has every codec you would ever want and the price is affordable. So I do not see that much of a need for a flagship of the "little cameras" outside of an image quality/DR improvement. Nobody really needs 8K enough in this space so it might be a while before a CX370 would appear.

I find I still enjoy the image from my PX270's a little more as they are three chippers, but that is mainly in indoor shooting environments. Outside, whith the right settings the CX350 can look outstanding.
 
So for conferences and interviews which is the better camera between the cx350 and x2 assuming you do not need wireless streaming?
 
Unless there is clear evidence that shows a visible difference between the two from any potential internal improvements done to noise or picture quality detail in the X2, I would assume they will look identical (besides some possible color shifts) because of their small chips and slow lenses.

But if you're buying one of these two, why not get the newer one if you don't need any of the 350's features?
 
P.S. I saw this video the other day about this guy talking about his XF605 and some of his other Canon cameras. He says a lot, but one thing he mentions is how there's barely any difference in IQ between the $4700 605 and his other $1500 Canon.

And that's true and what I have been saying for years...the quality has barely improved in camcorders over the last decade and you're mostly paying for other features like 60p and some codecs that don't make much of a difference in these systems, and buttons, switches, and other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N2pHVZW8mw&t

Unless the cameras are 6-7-8 years apart and perhaps in different classes, you're not going to see much of a difference in picture quality, IMO. So you then focus on the zoom range, lens speed, 60p, AF, etc.
 
NorBro said:
P.S. I saw this video the other day about this guy talking about his XF605 and some of his other Canon cameras. He says a lot, but one thing he mentions is how there's barely any difference in IQ between the $4700 605 and his other $1500 Canon.

And that's true and what I have been saying for years...the quality has barely improved in camcorders over the last decade and you're mostly paying for other features like 60p and some codecs that don't make much of a difference in these systems, and buttons, switches, and other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N2pHVZW8mw&t

Unless the cameras are 6-7-8 years apart and perhaps in different classes, you're not going to see much of a difference in picture quality, IMO. So you then focus on the zoom range, lens speed, 60p, AF, etc.
Click to expand...

I am leaning towards the newer one (x2) but wanted to see if the CX350 has any other advantage/s besides the AVC codec, specially since the pricing is very similar.
 
NorBro said:
Unless the cameras are 6-7-8 years apart and perhaps in different classes, you're not going to see much of a difference in picture quality, IMO. So you then focus on the zoom range, lens speed, 60p, AF, etc.
Click to expand...

I think you could make this argument for most digital cameras (DSLR, mirrorless, cinema, etc.) from the past 10-12 years. Improvements have mostly come in the form of codecs and framerates / resolution (and low-light performance in some models).
 
This is basically the same camera, with the same sensor so you get mostly the same picture quality. But the X2 has the edge since its LCD screen is gorgeous (sharp and bright), and autofocus seems snappier than the CX350.

I'm impressed with its battery life too. The included battery lasts forever. Impressive. Panasonic just needs to address some strange decisions like no face-detect in manual mode and other things, but overall this camera ticks almost all the boxes.

Ken1212 said:
So for conferences and interviews which is the better camera between the cx350 and x2 assuming you do not need wireless streaming?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
drboffa said:
I think you could make this argument for most digital cameras (DSLR, mirrorless, cinema, etc.) from the past 10-12 years. Improvements have mostly come in the form of codecs and framerates / resolution (and low-light performance in some models).
Click to expand...

But the difference is those improvements in the resolution, the over-sampled resolution, codecs (including RAW in the Canon models), framerates, low-light performance, color science updates, etc. have resulted in a visible difference in the end-result. Videos from an a7S don't look like videos from an a7SIII, or a 5D Mark IV looks visibly softer than a R5 with 8K Canon RAW.

Whereas camcorder models from 2022 look barely any different than 2012. It seems like the 4K from the small chips is not any better than the HD.
 
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. With a tiny sensor and a huge zoom lens we cannot get the same picture quality than a full frame with prime lens.
 
I think most who wanted improvements in camcorders understood that and were a bit more reasonable with requests. I'm speaking in past tense because that ship has likely sailed and the state of the industry is very much focused on hybrids.

But you can put a huge zoom lens on a micro four thirds sensor and get tremendous results as we see all of the time - including from a few here on the forum with the GH5/GH6 - so having camcorders built with slightly bigger sensors would have been a nice first step, which would then make having f/4-f/5.6 lenses (on the longer end) less painful.

With these camcorders you zoom in a tiny bit and you're already at f/3.5-f/4, it's nuts.

And it's not like they are asking for a thousand bucks for them...most are still in that $3K-$5K window which is a lot of money to spend on a camcorder in today's video world.

The price just does not justify the IQ, not anymore, I'm sorry to say.

It's too late though...they won't make them any better, people are not buying them like they used to.
 
For streaming and live events like sports, camcorders is the way to go. I have had horrendous results with DSLRs in live events, they just are no meant for that: overheating, fragile HDMI connections, weird non-standard output format, de-synchronization... a nightmare.
 
I would love to try out an X2 and compare it to the CX350. I am not in the market to buy one but would be very interested to see if any image quality improvement took place. As for which one to buy, I would try to get them both and make sure the X2 does not have any gotchas since it does not come from the broadcast side. I really like the ability of the CX350 to have separate output settings for the SDI and HDMI. This is great for live streaming as I can leave monitor characters on in the SDI for monitoring and take them off for the HDMI live stream feed. Does the X2 offer things like this which are real-world work type solutions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top