i did just buy this camera (HPX3100) and it's very nice. I'd had a HPX2000, and that camera was very heavy. The weight became and issue as the day wore on. The 3100 is manageable; it weighs what my old SD tape-based camera weighed (SDX900). I would venture to guess there is a 3 pound difference between the first generation and 2nd generation Panasonic HD cameras. Not earth-shaking, but enough that it matters. The other really noteworthy thing about the 3100 is it's price -- $19,900 sans viewfinder. That undercuts what it replaced (HPX3000) buy over ten grand. If I had just purchased one of those HPX3000 cameras from Panasonic, I'd be royally pissed off. In any event, the 3100 makes pretty pictures, and has definitely fired a shot across Sony's bow -- let the cost-reduction of high-end HD gear begin!!
Panasonic AJ-HPX3100GJ
- Thread starter jcoxshooter
- Start date
Kolor-Pikker
Well-known member
Congratulations! I suppose that makes you one of the first mortals to own one, I suppose. If you write up a review for this camera, it will certainly be the first on the internet.
The fact that this camera undercuts Sony doesn't come as much of a surprise to me, considering Panasonic's offerings are usually cheaper than whatever Sony has in comparison.
Also, what level of optics to you suppose would do justice to this camera? Camcorders have dropped in price sure enough, but optics haven't, so one would still end up needing to spend over half the camcorder's price on that.
Good question about optics -- since I am an owner/operator who doesn't have unlimited funds -- I've made do with 2 SD lenses -- both Fujinon -- #1 is 17 X 7.6 and #2 is 13 X 4.7 -- between the two, they get the job done. I'm sure some people would take issue with SD glass on HD cameras, but if the lighting and composition are solid, nobody seems to notice/complain. The 3100 is really just a 3000 stuffed into the form of a HPX370. Comparing the images between my new and old Panasonic HD cameras (3100 vs. 2000) -- the differences are not that noticeable. The 3100 may be a half-stop more sensitive, and it's default viewfinder is definitely sharper. But if it weren't for the lighter weight (and the reasonable price of upgrading), I would've stuck with what I had.
Kolor-Pikker
Well-known member
Coming from photography, I know for sure that getting a sharper lens is always a better idea than a higher resolution sensor, but few people regularly have access to good video lenses, so it's hard to get an opinion, unfortunately.
My guess is that is that Canon and Fuji are still stuck in the days of when this stuff really was out of reach for most people, and so they had to price higher to compensate. Most high-end still photography lenses today practically sell for just above the price it took to manufacture them, so hopefully once there are more affordable (<10k) 2/3" interchangeable-lens cameras on the market, the same might start happening in video land.
My guess is that is that Canon and Fuji are still stuck in the days of when this stuff really was out of reach for most people, and so they had to price higher to compensate. Most high-end still photography lenses today practically sell for just above the price it took to manufacture them, so hopefully once there are more affordable (<10k) 2/3" interchangeable-lens cameras on the market, the same might start happening in video land.