PMW320 vs. HPX250
- Thread starter NorBro
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
The PMW320 has an MSRP of $11,536. The HPX250 has an MSRP of $6,335. The PMW320 is a 1/2" chip, shoulder-mount, interchangeable-lens camera, the HPX250 is a 1/3", fixed-lens, handheld camera.
In short, sharpness is about the last thing you should be concerned about between these two. They're totally different products aimed at totally different users, at wildly different price points.
A more head-to-head comparison would be an HPX370 against the PMW320.
In short, sharpness is about the last thing you should be concerned about between these two. They're totally different products aimed at totally different users, at wildly different price points.
A more head-to-head comparison would be an HPX370 against the PMW320.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not necessarily; it has its set of advantages and also disadvantages. But if you're on a quest for the overall sharpest camera, why would you be looking at these two? Why not a 4K camera like the Scarlet?
What I'm getting at is, comparing the PMW320 vs HPX250 is like comparing a pickup truck against a motorcycle, and saying "I just want whichever gives better gas mileage". It seems like they're so vastly different, why are you even comparing them? What is it you're looking for? Because if your criteria is "sharpness", a Scarlet will blow them both away.
NorBro
Major Contributor
So we've collected a number of cameras over the years. Lots of sports work. We have a Panasonic HMC150, a Sony EX3, my friend recently purchased a PMW200 and I picked up an HPX250 (per your recommendation a few months ago when I asked you which cameras you're using these days - I really love it). We also have a few Canon 5DmkIIs, a C300 and a BMCC on the way. I really want to add a shoulder camera to the sidelines where it's tough working with tripods and sometimes those are even banned in certain locations. We obviously hold our cameras now or use cheap shoulder rigs, but I think a traditional shoulder mount camera would be nicer.
I was just wondering how the PMW320 compares in sharpness to the HPX250 since I use that one the most myself..just so I can have some kind of comparison. I know it's a tough and maybe unfair comparison, but I need some kind of understanding. There are barely any 320 samples out there on YouTube or Vimeo.
I was just wondering how the PMW320 compares in sharpness to the HPX250 since I use that one the most myself..just so I can have some kind of comparison. I know it's a tough and maybe unfair comparison, but I need some kind of understanding. There are barely any 320 samples out there on YouTube or Vimeo.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, if it's not a purchase decision and it's just a general question, that makes more sense...
They're both 1920x1080 native chips, recording to a 1920x1080 recording format. The PMW320 has a slightly bigger image sensor, and that will help it. The HPX250 has a better recording format, which will record more color information and hold on to tiny fine detail better in high-motion scenes, so that will help the HPX250. The quality of the glass may make the difference; if you put a better lens on the PMW320 and a Samurai or PIX 240 on the back of it, then you'd eliminate the weak spots and maybe, in those scenarios, the PMW320 would indeed show a sharper image, and likely brighter too. I don't know how high quality the stock lens is on the PMW320, if it's like most kit lenses on less-expensive cameras then it may be no better than the quality of the HPX250's built-in lens. But with a high-quality lens, you may be able to get more sharpness out of the PMW320.
They're both 1920x1080 native chips, recording to a 1920x1080 recording format. The PMW320 has a slightly bigger image sensor, and that will help it. The HPX250 has a better recording format, which will record more color information and hold on to tiny fine detail better in high-motion scenes, so that will help the HPX250. The quality of the glass may make the difference; if you put a better lens on the PMW320 and a Samurai or PIX 240 on the back of it, then you'd eliminate the weak spots and maybe, in those scenarios, the PMW320 would indeed show a sharper image, and likely brighter too. I don't know how high quality the stock lens is on the PMW320, if it's like most kit lenses on less-expensive cameras then it may be no better than the quality of the HPX250's built-in lens. But with a high-quality lens, you may be able to get more sharpness out of the PMW320.
Firstly, agree 100% that PMW320 v HPX250 is not a valid comparison - the PMW320 is better overall, but it should be as it's a lot more expensive. When I bought mine, the fact of 1/2" image sensors was a big factor in the decision. I'd say the difference between 1/2" and 1/3" is much more than "slight" - the active diagonal is normally taken as 8mm for 1/2", 6mm for 1/3". In area terms, that gives the area of a 1/2" camera sensor as being about 1.78x that of 1/3". That should give it nearly a stop advantage over a comparable 1/3" camera in terms of sensitivity, dof control, diffraction limiting etc - and I'd say that is borne out in practical usage.
I'm quite happy with the sharpness of the PMW320 kit lens - it's very good, certainly as good as built in lenses on cameras like the EX, HPX250 etc. It depends what you're coming from in many respects (zoom range, zoom speed and smoothness, ramping, edge aberrations etc). If you're used to a hand-held camera with built in lens, you'll be very impressed. If you're used to 2/3" lenses costing over $10,000, it's not as good.
Far and away the biggest difference between the lenses on the PMW320 and HPX250 is nothing to do with quality IMO. The 320 kit lens has a true manual mode, "manual" on the HPX250 is via servos, so you don't get proper end stops on such as the focus ring.
Not as far as internal codec. The HPX250 is better in that regard.
If, say, you're wanting to produce programming for the BBC, the HPX250 is a better buy, as it is fully approved for all productions. The PMW320 would require an external recorder to achieve the minimum 50mbps codec, driving the cost up even more.
If the 320 had a 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec, it would be an all around, kick ass camera. Perhaps the next upgrade from Sony?
A better comparison to the HPX250 is the Canon XF305 and PMW200. Of these, I'd go for the 1/2" chip 200.
Just to add, I recently did a shoot for a national cable TV show where we used PMW 200s and 320s. The producers couldn't care less one camera had a 35mbps codec, the other a 50mbps codec. As long as it looked good.
Last edited:
One could argue the JVC HM700 line of shoulder-mount cameras would be in that price range. They can even use the same codec.
But they're older, 1/3" CCD cameras. I would think JVC will upgrade them soon, along the lines of the new HM600/650. Still with a 35mbps, 4:2:0 codec, though.
Oh, and don't forget the HPX370.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Would love that.
It's quite possible - they seem to be upgrading the 35Mbs range one by one.
Though I wonder if the PMW300 will get seen as a replacement for the EX3 AND the PMW320? I've yet to try one in the flesh, but it does seem better ergonomically than the EX3, and I wonder if they might just think it fills the market between PMW200/XF305/HPX250 and such as the PMW400 by itself?
(And since the PMW300 has it, I'd expect any PMW320 replacement to not only have XDCAM 50Mbs, but XAVC as well!!!)
No. What I was really referring to are to do with focus and iris. With a true manual lens, the focus and iris rings are directly coupled to the mechanisms that do the control, hence what happens is as precise as your finger movements! Turn the focus ring and when it gets to the infinity setting there's an end stop.
With a servo lens, the focus ring will continually rotate - no end stop. It works by ring movement generating a control signal to make a servo system actually move the operational part. Some are much better than others, but in general you make the adjustment - then see the effect slightly later. Likewise, they can tend to overshoot with rapid adjustments. As I said, some are better than others, but in general they don't have the precise feel that a true manual lens does, and obviously there is no direct distance scale on the ring.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The HPX250's focus ring doesn't have end stops, but it also doesn't have any of the drawbacks harddrive mentions. It has absolutely precise control, completely repeatable movement, and zero overshoot. There are terrible servo rings out there, the Canon XLH1 had one of the worst, but the HPX250's is the best there ever has been.
Granted, it doesn't have a distance scale on the ring itself, but it does have a distance scale in the viewfinder display, and that one will measure down to the inch or fraction of the inch, so arguably that's substantially better than having a distance meter on the actual lens.
The only practical differences between the HPX250's focus ring, and a physically-linked focus ring, are these two: 1) the HPX250 doesn't have end stops, and 2) the HPX250 can autofocus without having to physically spin the external ring.
Granted, it doesn't have a distance scale on the ring itself, but it does have a distance scale in the viewfinder display, and that one will measure down to the inch or fraction of the inch, so arguably that's substantially better than having a distance meter on the actual lens.
The only practical differences between the HPX250's focus ring, and a physically-linked focus ring, are these two: 1) the HPX250 doesn't have end stops, and 2) the HPX250 can autofocus without having to physically spin the external ring.
For basic zoom lens theory, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens#Varifocal_lens
As simply as it can be put, such a lens has a group of individual lenses that control the magnification. It's normal in lenses for still cameras for the focus to change when you change the focal length - that doesn't matter as long as it's refocused before taking the picture. In this case they are more properly called varifocal lenses, not zoom.
That's no good for moving images, so for true zoom lenses a second set of lenses moves with the first set to try to maintain focus during the zoom. Obviously that adds complexity - which is why true zoom lenses are more expensive than equivalent varifocal ones. It's also very difficult to design well, and you can expect the focus to vary slightly throughout the zoom - how much depends on how well the lens is made. Not surprisingly, the more you pay, the better it is.
There also tends to be a trade off in lens design between factors such as this, max aperture, zoom range, sharpness, aberrations etc etc - and most importantly, cost! Generally, high numbers sell - but beware of long focal length ranges. Frequently they are achieved only by a trade off in other factors.
(I believe one difference between the kit lens on the PMW350 and most other lenses is that the traditional way to keep focus during zooming was a mechanical linkage between the lens groups. I believe the PMW350 kit lens does it electrically, using a servo to drive the second group in response to movement of the first. This is supposed to explain why the performance is so much better than the price would have you suspect. They're replacing precision mechanical systems with electronic ones.)
AwakenedFilms
Veteran
My guess; peaking...perhaps you are seeing an apparent change in sharpness due to loss of peaking when extreme motion blur is introduced.