So, if you had a choice to get any sub-$15k camera from Panasonic, not counting the HPX500, which would you choose. It needs to be a great all round run-n-gun field camera, and we shoot a lot of dark interiors. I currently own an HVX200, and love it other than its lowlight downfalls. I prefer 4:2:2 as an editor, but we have mixed opinions on data rates and shooting in the field (with the cost of p2). The HMC-150 seems great for long format field shoots, but I'm afraid won't match the quality I'm used to from the HVX. All productions are delivered in 720p. The company I work for is aquiring 2 new pannies of my choosing in the weeks to come. I know this is a pretty broad question, but am curious of peoples opinions on some of Panasonics new models. :huh:
sub-$15k Panasonics?
- Thread starter jdert
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, the 500 is the class of the group with the best low light performance of all of them, so why is it ruled out?
Assuming the 500 is ruled out, would that also rule out the 300? Is it the full-size form factor that you don't like?
Have you tried a 170 or 200A? The low light performance is significantly better; you can pretty much use 9dB of gain on a 200A and match the grain pattern of a 200, and it's a half-stop more sensitive, so the net effect is that you can get about 1.5 stops brighter with the same overall amount of noise as a 200 at 0dB.
I guess I'm curious about your price point, when you chose "under $15,000" because the 500 is the only one between the $8500 HPX300 and the $27,000 HPX2000, so ruling out the 500 would automatically mean that you're looking at $8500 and below, right? Am I missing something?
As far as 170 vs. 150 - if you've got the money, get the 170, no questions asked. If you need cheap long recording times, and don't need VFR or 4:2:2, you can't beat the 150.
Assuming the 500 is ruled out, would that also rule out the 300? Is it the full-size form factor that you don't like?
Have you tried a 170 or 200A? The low light performance is significantly better; you can pretty much use 9dB of gain on a 200A and match the grain pattern of a 200, and it's a half-stop more sensitive, so the net effect is that you can get about 1.5 stops brighter with the same overall amount of noise as a 200 at 0dB.
I guess I'm curious about your price point, when you chose "under $15,000" because the 500 is the only one between the $8500 HPX300 and the $27,000 HPX2000, so ruling out the 500 would automatically mean that you're looking at $8500 and below, right? Am I missing something?
As far as 170 vs. 150 - if you've got the money, get the 170, no questions asked. If you need cheap long recording times, and don't need VFR or 4:2:2, you can't beat the 150.
monday1313
Active member
if low light noise is an issue, get the neatvideo plug-in...I have no affiliation with them whatsoever, but my god, that plug-in is phenomenal...
the downside is that you have an extra step, but you can also save a lot of money that way.
just my two cents
the downside is that you have an extra step, but you can also save a lot of money that way.
just my two cents
Thanks for the response Barry, I guess I'm just looking to boil down my options. We will be getting two loaner cameras that will lead to a purchase months down the road. Though we will have the budget for the 300 or even the 500, I want to make sure we can stretch it as far as possible allowing room for storage and accessories. So, when I said to leave out the 500, I only did so cause I know its the cream of the crop in this price range, and wanted to see whay you had to say on the other new models 
Whatever we get, I'll be running it through the ringer!
The 300 seems sweet, but I'm weary of investing in a 1/3" cmos camera with all the new stuff coming out, and is it even available yet? At that price why not just go with an EX3, or hold off for the Scarlett? I guess my big question is which camera will offer the best lowlight and all round picture quality for 720p delivery. If I can get comparable results with the 170 vs. the 300, I'd go with the 170. Since they're going to be field cameras the lighter weight would pay off in many run n' gun scenerios. We also occasionally mix footage with XHA1's, and I know my HVX200 can't stand a chance in lowlight compared to that camera (though it wastes it on all other grounds!)
I'm an editor first, videographer second, and am tired of looking at the footage I've been getting lately. 90% of what I edit comes from JVC HD250U's (studio) and 200's (field) and its downright hideous sometimes. Even in a well lit studio, the 250's are giving me a lot of noise, especially in the shadows...and thats feeding out of the HD-SDI! Being a Panasonic owner and fan myself, I veared them in this direction I think HDV has its place, but all the new camera lineups are Solid State which is clearly where its heading. It also seems everyone I work with fears not having tape based cameras, what say you there in you experience with solid state? Have you ever had issues with solid state?
Anyway, for post I'm not worried about data rates, as everything we shoot now is ingested in 720p ProRes at the least. Even if we ended up with the 150's, it seems I'd have to import as ProRes so the lesser AVC data rate would only lighten the load during the shoots (until FCP supports native AVC). Also, I'd like to see if theres any lowlight comparisons of the 300, 170 and 150, you don't know of any do you? Thanks in advance.
Whatever we get, I'll be running it through the ringer!The 300 seems sweet, but I'm weary of investing in a 1/3" cmos camera with all the new stuff coming out, and is it even available yet? At that price why not just go with an EX3, or hold off for the Scarlett? I guess my big question is which camera will offer the best lowlight and all round picture quality for 720p delivery. If I can get comparable results with the 170 vs. the 300, I'd go with the 170. Since they're going to be field cameras the lighter weight would pay off in many run n' gun scenerios. We also occasionally mix footage with XHA1's, and I know my HVX200 can't stand a chance in lowlight compared to that camera (though it wastes it on all other grounds!)
I'm an editor first, videographer second, and am tired of looking at the footage I've been getting lately. 90% of what I edit comes from JVC HD250U's (studio) and 200's (field) and its downright hideous sometimes. Even in a well lit studio, the 250's are giving me a lot of noise, especially in the shadows...and thats feeding out of the HD-SDI! Being a Panasonic owner and fan myself, I veared them in this direction
I think HDV has its place, but all the new camera lineups are Solid State which is clearly where its heading. It also seems everyone I work with fears not having tape based cameras, what say you there in you experience with solid state? Have you ever had issues with solid state? Anyway, for post I'm not worried about data rates, as everything we shoot now is ingested in 720p ProRes at the least. Even if we ended up with the 150's, it seems I'd have to import as ProRes so the lesser AVC data rate would only lighten the load during the shoots (until FCP supports native AVC). Also, I'd like to see if theres any lowlight comparisons of the 300, 170 and 150, you don't know of any do you? Thanks in advance.
Barry_Green
Moderator
170 and 150 are identical in low light performance. The 300 prototype I used was a prototype so until it's released there's no definitive answers as to how it compares; in my testing I found it about comparable in terms of sensitivity and generally comparable to lower in noise, although in the deep darks it exhibited a blocky gritty noise that the 170/150 don't have. However, that was a prototype, and therefore they may change things before it ships.
The 300 has the option of 24dB of gain for a hyper-bright picture, but when I tried that function I found it noisier than a Ratt concert (as you'd expect from 24dB) so I don't really consider that a viable option for anyone other than maybe a news shooter out in the dark who really, really needs to get whatever kind of shot he can.
How would the 300 do against the 170 for 720p delivery? I didn't test 720 vs. 720 (oh, wait, actually I might have some similar 720 vs 720 shots from Africa, I might have to dig through my stuff for that...) but in general I'd say the 300 is going to look better, barring any rolling shutter issues. The 300 has a cleaner texture to it, and it'll be full-raster 1280x720 vs. the 170's 960x720, and the 300 will be coming from a 10-bit source instead of 8-bit.
300 vs. 150? Hmm, the 150 adds full-raster recording, but it's still 8-bit and it's still going to be grittier than the 300. And it'll have less color resolution, being 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2.
The 300 has the option of 24dB of gain for a hyper-bright picture, but when I tried that function I found it noisier than a Ratt concert (as you'd expect from 24dB) so I don't really consider that a viable option for anyone other than maybe a news shooter out in the dark who really, really needs to get whatever kind of shot he can.
How would the 300 do against the 170 for 720p delivery? I didn't test 720 vs. 720 (oh, wait, actually I might have some similar 720 vs 720 shots from Africa, I might have to dig through my stuff for that...) but in general I'd say the 300 is going to look better, barring any rolling shutter issues. The 300 has a cleaner texture to it, and it'll be full-raster 1280x720 vs. the 170's 960x720, and the 300 will be coming from a 10-bit source instead of 8-bit.
300 vs. 150? Hmm, the 150 adds full-raster recording, but it's still 8-bit and it's still going to be grittier than the 300. And it'll have less color resolution, being 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2.
Never had any sort of hint of any type of difficulty with solid state.
Wow, 24db gain, thats ridiculous! I hate using 12, let alone 18db on my HVX. It seems the 170 may be a better field cam for our needs, especially if it offers basically the same quality minus the resolution difference and 10-bit source. We wouldn't likely be shooting in 720 either, I'd rather work with the extra resolution of 1080i. I really wanna get my hands on a 300 though, I love the fact that it has AVC-Intra 100 and DVC Pro HD! Are the AVC-Intra 100 files 4:2:2? You don't happen to have any on hand from the 300 do you? Maybe I'll shoot for a 170 and 300 to test out
Barry_Green
Moderator
AVC-Intra files are 4:2:2 when you shoot in 100-megabit mode. If you shoot in 50-megabit mode it records AVC-I at 4:2:0.
Andy Shipsides posted some HPX300 raw files. I've got tons of 'em but they're all a bit long to upload...
Andy Shipsides posted some HPX300 raw files. I've got tons of 'em but they're all a bit long to upload...
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
So what about a 170 with 2 32Gig P2 cards for $5750.00 new from authorized dealer?
I guess what I'm wondering is how that's better than an HMC150 with almost unlimited SD cards?
NC17z
Well-known member
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Don't feel sick.
It is a European model from the UK. AG-HPX171E
I am only getting it because I have family there that can handle any warranty issues for me and I go there frequently anyway.
I get round trips for $400 so worst comes to worst it would be a good excuse to go visit.
Sorry to alarm you.
But, is a world camera so it does have a few advantages to balance everything out.