PMW-200 vs. XF-305 vs. HPX-255

T

timothychew

Active member
Dear All pro

We are setting up a video setup for events

we will upgrade to HD

now I have a few 4 cam

1) PMW 200 ( 1/2 inch sensor ) - zoom not that far
b) PMW 100 , PMW 160 ( zoom better and got night shots )
2) HPX 255 (1/3 inch sensor ) but can control CCU using 1 unit of datavideo
3) XF 305 ( not familiar )

for my case I am using this for setup

and will sent to recording and video out to live LED 70 inch

or 2 PWM 200 (14x) , and 1 PWM 160 (20x) , 1 PMW 300


please tell me the pro and cons
 
They all will have nice images...

It comes down to media cost and functionality. The HPX-255 has the highest media cost. I would try them all for functionality - zoom servo responsiveness, LCD placement, Viewfinder quality & size, menu color controls, light sensitivity, etc...
 
PMW200 and HPX-250 will not match. Let alone XF 305. I'd stick w/ same brand and make for live multi cam switch if there's no ISO rec on each cam. These cheaper cams do not have full 12-color matrix adjustments to fine tune your colors between the cams. There's only white shading and black shading on the Sonys, but those are not enough to get the colors reasonably close to other cam. Apparently quality and color consistency are not your top priorities. But keeping it under a specific budget is.

The PMW200 has a more metal built. Feels firmer. I like XDCAM EX's auto volume create name based on date vs P2's "NO NAME" for all of its camera format. I have no idea why Panasonic has not address this since the creation of P2 back in 2007. It's a simple update on the firmware and new software code to address this.
 
timothychew said:
We are setting up a video setup for events...please tell me the pro and cons
Click to expand...

I'd highly recommend the PMW200's half-inch sensor over anything with 1/3".

I haven't upgraded to the PMW200 yet, I'm still using my two EX1-Rs on conference records - they're not sexy, but they're capable and keep on delivering the goods. I'm sure the PMW200 does slightly better in terms of noise management.

The EX1 Picture Profile settings do allow quite a bit of flexibility in setting up the colour if you have a good chart, controlled situations and the knowledge to bring the cameras together.

The PMW200 and EX1/3 are not really designed for connecting to a CCU - doing that adds layers of complexity and expense that some clients cannot or will not pay - and it seems harsh to be able to offer something almost as good and yet tell the client 'no, you can't afford it'. I've been filming conferences with 2, 3 and sometimes 4 cameras (all EX1/3s) feeding vision mixers for webcasts, and ISO records for a better online 'on-demand' version for many years - and built a business out of it. I've learned that 1/3" doesn't quite cut it, and multiple cameras of the same type are easier to handle than a mixed bag (though I do like the Canon C100 as a wide, and can make it mix with the EX1/3s). Also, 720p at 35 mbps looks nicer than 1080p when all is said and done. Controversial perhaps, but hey - that's how it looks.

I'd go the PMW200 route. It's my 'Desert Island Camera' (if you only had one camera to do what you do...). Your mileage may (should) vary....
 
MattDavis said:
I'd highly recommend the PMW200's half-inch sensor over anything with 1/3"....
Click to expand...
Have to agree with Matt. Especially regarding the half-inch sensor point, but about other things as well.

CCU facility is nice in principle - but it adds a lot to the complexity etc - and hence price. Is it worth it? If you MUST have it (maybe not for all cameras?) then look at the PMW320, which is CCU compatible, and I think the cheapest Sony model which is. (It's not too much more than the PMW200 - but does need more expensive accessories such as heavier tripod) The PMW320 should match in pretty well with PMW200s.

At this price point, then beware of just comparing lens reach, certainly on cameras with built in lenses. Lenses with longer zoom range may suffer in other ways, such as increased aberrations. That's maybe another reason to look hard at the PMW320 - it's interchangeable lens.
 
If you want the 1/2" sensors:
No way I'd go for a PMW-320. It has an outdated 35mbps, 4:2:0 codec (although for event videography, this isn't as much of an issue). And it's a lot more expensive than any of the other cameras, over twice as much in some cases.
Get the PMW-200 with its true broadcast 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec.
Better yet, wait for the PMW-300 due out this month. It's about $2,000 more than the 200, but it has interchangeable lenses and can be upgraded to the XVAC codec next year.
If you ever need your cameras for broadcast work, or decide to rent them out, you might as well get the cameras with the accepted broadcast codec standard. The PMW-200, HPX250 and XF305 all have such a codec.

I just shot a corporate event with an HPX250 and an HPX300. We were way in the back of a large meeting room, so the long zooms came in handy. Even though the lighting wasn't ideal (typical corporate stage lighting at a hotel) the images were really nice, especially for 1/3" cameras. We shot the action on stage at 0db, so noise wasn't an issue. 1/3" cameras are still effective tools. They'll be noisier than 1/2" chip cams, of course, but they certainly did the job.
The HPX250 can use the new, cheaper micro P2 cards, so that lowers the cost of the media. The XF305's CF cards are getting pretty cheap in price.
 
I chose the xf305 over Sony a few years ago and haven't regretted it. The longer zoom, and cheaper media were good features. The CF cards have been more reliable than SD for me, never have failed. the Sonys are
'industry standard' though and easy to replace from rental pools if needed,or if you need to rent more cameras for a larger event.
 
vanvideo said:
If you want the 1/2" sensors:
No way I'd go for a PMW-320. It has an outdated 35mbps, 4:2:0 codec (although for event videography, this isn't as much of an issue). And it's a lot more expensive than any of the other cameras, over twice as much in some cases.
Get the PMW-200 with its true broadcast 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you're missing why I brought the subject of the PMW320 up - go back to my other post and I said:

CCU facility is nice in principle - but ........ If you MUST have it (maybe not for all cameras?) then look at the PMW320, which is CCU compatible, and I think the cheapest Sony model which is.
Click to expand...
Now I'm not sure about the PMW300, but I don't think the PMW200 has the ability to be controlled via a CCU?

I also think you're pessimistic about it with regard to pricing ("over twice as much in some cases") - I've just looked it up, and current UK price for the 320 is £6,795. That compares with £5,699 for a PMW300K1, £8,923 for a PMW300K2 and £5,640 for a PMW200. (But OK, as I said above, it's a true pro camera, and needs pro accessories like V-lock batteries and a heavy duty tripod.)

I also think it's wrong to call the codec "outdated". It's actually the current codec of choice for many News organisations (including the BBC), if not approved for mainstream broadcast, and I'd say is probably optimal for such as event etc work as well. If the work is not for mainstream broadcast, it's a very good compromise between file size, quality and convenience. And if the whole point is for a camera whose output is to be vision mixed, then as long as it gives HD-SDI it's an irrelevance anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top