Panasonic HC-X1 4K 60p camcorder
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
Harry Pallenberg
Well-known member
And what are diff between this and UX180?
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Other than the red audio cover, it appears to be the exact same body. Briefly looking at the specs, other than sensor and lens, it appears not a whole lot.
[EDIT] There is no HD-SDI.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
So basically, as near as I can tell, they'll be pretty close to identical, except the UX180 will have SDI and IR recording. Looks to be the same lens.
joe1946
Veteran
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, sensor size is a big one; lots of folks don't seem to know that a 1" sensor is literally half the size of a Four Thirds (1.333") sensor. So don't gloss over that, it's a pretty big distinction.
Lens range is another big differentiator, on the DVX200 it's 13x, on the HC-X1 it's 20x optical. And on the HC-X1 it's notably wider; a 24mm-equiv field of view rather than the 28mm-equiv on the DVX200. Telephoto is longer too, a 480mm equiv rather than 360mm.
The body looks similar to the DVX200, but clearly it's not; look at the position of the 2nd XLR port, it's in a different spot from the DVX200, so that means it's a different body. Don't know what that means for size and weight, just that it's different. However, the first words that Panasonic uses to describe it are "light, compact". See my later post for details on what that means (post #12).
No SDI output, no timecode in/out, and no BNC for standard-def composite video, although there's a yellow RCA port for standard-def.
Looks like the O.I.S. may be advanced beyond that of the DVX200 (or maybe this is just a new way of naming the "Hybrid" O.I.S., I don't know yet).
I saw no mention of V-Log, or DRS, or other such features; they may or may not be present, we'll just have to wait for more details. EDIT: the brochure provides many more details, see post 12 for some.
If this is a small camera like the HC-X1000, then this makes a ton of sense. If this is the same size as the UX180, then -- I don't really understand the purpose of having two so-similar models. I imagine we'll know more by the end of the week, I'm sure the team will be grilled excessively on what the differences are between the HC-X1 and the UX90 and UX180.
Last edited:
I dunno about 'key', but, I don't see a mention of log recording, the LCD looks more HC-X1000 than DVX-200 (the latter has a much higher res lcd), the lens seems simplified, and of course it records much wider and can then telephoto to roughly the same spot. The OIS on the X1 states that it covers an area 9x larger than the AC160A, the 200 states it covers an area 4x as large. There's no TC and no SDI outs. It's a pound and a half lighter, an inch less long, half inch shorter and narrower.
I expect you'll get roughly the behavior of the DVX-200 in 4k60p mode modulo whatever is lost in the lens.
Isn't the area covered by the DVX-200 in UHD 60p mode roughly 1"?
Again, though, in UHD 60p mode the DVX200 is 37.2 mm to 485.1 mm while the HC-X1 is 25.4—508.0 mm (24mm is specific to the wider 4k mode). The telephoto is roughly the same (in 60p). It's mostly different on the wide side. HD shooters will see a more dramatic shift (on the telephoto end). It'll also be interesting to see what the 2.8-4.5 ramp looks like.
"Six files preset with picture quality settings are provided as Scene Files ... You can change any of the settings as desired and store one set as a Custom File in the HC-X1, and up to eight sets on an SD memory card."
Also "IR (Infrared) Shooting in Dark Places"
From the ftp site above.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, going through the brochure, there are more details there (thanks to joe1946 for posting it!) It does do IR recording, it does have scene files and it looks like all the same general controls as the DVX200; it shows a new gamma mode, "still-like", which I would assume would be a GH4-like tone response, it uses a smaller filter (67mm) so that implies that the lens itself may actually be physically smaller in diameter. This seems to be supported by the stated weight, which is 4.4 pounds, which is much lighter than the DVX200's 5.95 pounds. The overall body is very slightly smaller but not significantly so; 173 vs 181mm wide, 195 vs 216mm high, and 346 vs 374mm long. In terms of volume that's about 25% smaller, which is nice, but other than being notably shorter front-to-back I don't know that most folks will notice. But the weight, I think everyone will notice.
Another thing people will notice is the LCD resolution. The DVX200's LCD monitor is gorgeous and nicely high-res, with about 2.8 million dots. The HC-X1's LCD is smaller (3.5" vs. 4.3") and only shows 1.3 million dots. The viewfinder seems comparable though.
So the HC-X1 seems to be very, very similar to the DVX200 but with a smaller sensor, wider/longer zoom, in a slightly smaller and significantly lighter body, with a smaller/lower-res LCD and no SDI output. It draws about 9% less power, so batteries should last slightly longer too. I didn't see any mention of V-Log, so I'm guessing there's no V-Log, or you'd think they'd have found space in a 16-page brochure to at least mention it.
We won't know all the answers until the owner's manual is out, but that's about the way I see it so far.
Another thing people will notice is the LCD resolution. The DVX200's LCD monitor is gorgeous and nicely high-res, with about 2.8 million dots. The HC-X1's LCD is smaller (3.5" vs. 4.3") and only shows 1.3 million dots. The viewfinder seems comparable though.
So the HC-X1 seems to be very, very similar to the DVX200 but with a smaller sensor, wider/longer zoom, in a slightly smaller and significantly lighter body, with a smaller/lower-res LCD and no SDI output. It draws about 9% less power, so batteries should last slightly longer too. I didn't see any mention of V-Log, so I'm guessing there's no V-Log, or you'd think they'd have found space in a 16-page brochure to at least mention it.
We won't know all the answers until the owner's manual is out, but that's about the way I see it so far.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, exactly. The DVX200 has about 28mm-wide field of view in 4K/UHD/FHD, but when you go to UHD/60p that field of view shrinks to 37mm, because the portions of the sensor used is reduced to about what a 1" sensor would be.
Which brings up another potential point of differentiation, which is that I'd wager the DVX200 makes sharper images than the HC-X1. The DVX200 uses a 5K sensor to make its 4K images, but the HC-X1 uses a 4K sensor. Not a night-and day difference, I'm sure, but using a sensor with twice the surface area and 1.5x as many pixels (approx) will likely result in sharper images. Although I would bet that in UHD/60p and UHD/50p they're probably nigh unto identical.
In UHD/60, you're right, the telephoto is the same-ish, and the difference is primarily in wide angle. However, if you're a UHD/60p shooter, I'd wager that the wide angle difference alone might be enough to sway someone towards an HC-X1 instead of a DVX200. The wide on the DVX200 is fine in FHD/UHD, but in UHD/60 it's quite tight. The X1's 24mm would be luxurious in comparison.
Yes, that's one of those things that we can't/won't know until we get some hands-on time. Seeing as it's a Leica Dicomar design with 4 groups of moving elements (pretty similar to the DVX200) then I'd prepare myself to expect the same type of ramping, but who knows, we might be pleasantly surprised.
Regardless, in terms of DOF, the DVX200 should always provide notably shallower DOF at all times (other than at UHD/60p of course).
Yep, found that in the brochure; I hadn't seen the brochure yet when posting that first post. First post has now been edited to avoid confusion.
Yes, saw that in the brochure.
Indeed, if you're a 4k or UHD/30p shooter, you'll almost certainly get nicer pics (ed: on the DVX-200). Have there been any tests on the DVX200 for the resolving limits in UHD/60p vs UHD/30p? Same question for low light performance....
And then there will be the differences in lenses added to that.
[steadfastly ignoring the mystery regarding the X1 vs UX180, although I'm finding it difficult]
Last edited:
mellodeque
Member
For me the HC-X1 will be really good friend with DVX200, it's like FZ1000 in Cam body - i'm using DVX200 as Primary Cam, then 2x FZ1000 as B-Cams, and G7 (with 9-18mm Oly) mounted on EasyStab One gimbal.... - so this my little setup is good for my 98% of projects (mostly for web, promos, and sometimes TV) - i'll wait for HC-X1 (for replace FZ1000s) - so for me this should be really good B-cam for DVX200
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, we can't know those answers until the specs are released on the UX180. At the bare minimum we know the UX180 will have 3G-SDI output and timecode sync capabilities, which the HC-X1 doesn't have. I don't know of any other differentiating features at this time; hopefully they'll release the specs for the UX180 soon so we can know.
Camera Expert
Well-known member
There's an older thread for this camera:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?349308-Panasonic-announces-new-HC-X1-4K-camcorder
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?349308-Panasonic-announces-new-HC-X1-4K-camcorder
UX180 and UX90: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGaqLgoDP2w
HC-X1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC30355Lt-E
Note that the UX180 loses dedicated audio out compared to the HC-X1, along with gaining TC and SDI (see 2:55 vs 2:42)
3:27 of the first video has a chart of the 90 vs the 180.