The whole "I don't have a 2/3 inch chip camera anymore" syndrome

J

Jacquesstar

Member
I started freelancing in the Dallas market in 2003. In that time, I acquired a BetaSP and Digibeta camera, and did network shoots, corporate shoots, etc. In 2006, I left to go back to school for another degree, so I sold all my gear, except for my Z1U HDV camera, light kit, and audio kit. I came back to this market a year and a half ago to continue my freelance work. Things were a little slow, because everyone was already going tapeless. I needed a tapeless camera, so 8 months ago, I bought a Panasonic HPX370 P2 camera. I was originally going to get the PMW320, but I couldn't afford it at the time. So far, I have been pretty busy with my HPX370, but there are some things that I am not that happy with, such as the CMOS chips, chip size, the viewfinder and the lens. I also feel inadequate simply because of the fact that I don't own a 2/3" chip camera. I still do network level, but they are usaally on an HDX900 that I either rent, or is provided to me by another shooter. I have also shot on the HPX3100 for some reality TV stuff, and my friend has an HPX3700 Varicam that he rents to me for a great deal.

I still want to OWN my own 2/3 inch camera for some silly obsessive reason, and I can't stop thinking about it. I am slated to shoot and edit a newsmagazine show that is to air on the networks, and will keep me busy roughly anywhere between 12-26 weeks. I am tempted to buy an HPX3100 just for this reason, because I believe that a 2/3" camera will make the show look better. But, heck, FOX Sports Southwest has their staff sports photogs using HPX300's, and the local NBC affiliate uses the 300's as well, so I see the 300 series cameras used in broadcast quite a bit. Still, I want to shoot on a 2/3 inch camera instead. Is this normal? Or, is this some silly obsession that I have?
 
I've had the HPX300 since 2009, and getting (and keeping) accurate focus has been my biggest gripe. I really miss the 2/3" Betacam and Digi Beta cameras I've used in the past. I've had a few other things going on, but overall my work has been a bit slower the last couple years. If not, I would have already sold the 300 and bought the 3100 with the higher rez B & W viewfinder and a wide lens.

David
 
Its all a matter of economics. Are you losing work for not having a 2/3" camera? How much? Are your rental cost projected to exceed your purchase costs? Don't forget about additional insurance, or residual value of the camera. Run the numbers and see what they say.
 
Jacquesstar said:
Is this normal? Or, is this some silly obsession that I have?
Click to expand...
From my point of view... totally normal. Once you go big, it's kinda hard to go back, and this I know quite well from my photography hobby (Point&Shoot -> 1.6x DSLR -> FF DSLR and really salivating over medium format now).

videomagician said:
I've had the HPX300 since 2009, and getting (and keeping) accurate focus has been my biggest gripe.
Click to expand...
I keep thinking about getting a field monitor like the smallHD DP6 just for this reason. For some things a deeper depth of field is a good thing, but on the other hand, it also "hides" the precise plane of focus that you'd otherwise clearly see even without peaking.
 
2HungryDogs said:
Its all a matter of economics. Are you losing work for not having a 2/3" camera? How much? Are your rental cost projected to exceed your purchase costs? Don't forget about additional insurance, or residual value of the camera. Run the numbers and see what they say.
Click to expand...

Numbers number numbers... This forums always come down to number crunching!:) Don't forget people: we are artists and we always like to operate with as good of an equipment as it's possible. Making compromises is making compromises on the quality of our final product and this is what is essential bothering us. We like shooting, we like producing great pictures and this I way Jacque wants a better camera:) It's perfectly normal.

Turning it all to numbers is a no-no. Numbers are objective and we are in this because we love doing it not because we are business man. Well some of us are (I'm a producer, but also an editor, storyteller, compositor, etc.). All I'm saying is that we can't turn ourselfs into number crunching producers because this would in-essence devaluate us as artists.

Just my 2 cents.
 
KINOKS said:
Turning it all to numbers is a no-no. Numbers are objective and we are in this because we love doing it not because we are business man. Well some of us are (I'm a producer, but also an editor, storyteller, compositor, etc.). All I'm saying is that we can't turn ourselfs into number crunching producers because this would in-essence devaluate us as artists.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

And then you end up having to be about the numbers because you went and bought gear that your work can't help you support and you have to turn around and sell it at a loss.

Want to be an artist? Then write/sculpt/paint/ect. Video is too expensive and requires the efforts of a lot of people to be art in the same way that those are.
 
I completely understand the 2/3" camera envy. In my case I started on a Beta SP Sony DXC-537, an industrial 2/3" camera.
I went from Beta to a JVC HD-100 1/3" HDV camera and dealt with all the tape dropout and editing hassles (then I got a FSH-200 recorder for it- it's for sale BTW).
Now I shoot with the 370. It produces great images, doesn't weigh much, but I hate the EVF viewfinder, it sucks. I miss the DOF of the larger cameras,
but have learned to live with it. I can't afford the bigger 2/3" camera, but it doesn't mean I don't have an irrational desire for one. :)
Ed
 
I'm in the same boat. Really want to be back with a 2/3 CCD camera. Lusting after the 2000 and 3000 series pannys.
I too came from 2/3s land and bought a 370 a little over a year ago. It's ok, has made me money. Want the Best image quality money can buy!
 
I can certainly relate to this syndrome. It took me years to move on from my Sony D-130/PVV3 combo to buying an AF-100 and HPX-370 cameras. At work, I use the studio's HPX-2000. I really wish the 370's finder was larger and allowed for use from a foot away, as I occasionally do with the 2000. Having a 2x extended lens, that is also wider, would also be nice. But it's not all bad! The standard lens supplied with the 370 is very useable. It's nicest feature is that it doesn't loose two stops when fully zoomed in (like the $23K Fuji lens does on the 2000.). The images are very compatible between the 2000 and 370. The 370 is much lighter, uses way less power and feels good on the shoulder. The 370 looks professional and can handle most situations. You all know the CMOS shortcomings that would make the 370 camera undesirable in a paparazi situation. FUEL TV, ESPN and FOX Sports are among a slew of news stations which have adopted the 370. The 370 does for under $10K what the 2000 does for $60K. While it may not be perfect nor a 2/3", purchasing the 370 makes for a sound business decision. The $50k in savings can be used for therapy to learn to accept the 1/3" chip set.
 
Sometime this year, I hope to buy a shoulder mount cam, and of course the370 is attractive for iq and price, among other reasons already mentioned. Though it would be a step backwards in iq and codec, a used hpx500 is still an appealing option; it is a 2/3 ccd, and matches the codec of my hpx170. A used hpx500 can be had for about the same price as a 370. Would any of you give up intra and full raster of the 370 to have a lower resolution 2/3 ccd cam? Just being the devils advocate here.

Grant
 
The 4/3" AG-AF100 is about $4k. The least expensive 2/3" I see on Pana's site is over $10k.

What gives?
 
I would love a 2/3" cmos native 1080p version of the hpx500 to be announced at NAB. The cheapest 1080p 2/3 panny cam on sale here is just under £20,000 without lens, i love my 371 but it would be nice for a little less dof and noise and maybe one of the film rec gammas.
 
fde101 said:
The 4/3" AG-AF100 is about $4k. The least expensive 2/3" I see on Pana's site is over $10k.

What gives?
Click to expand...

A 3-CCD with prism camera costs more than a consumer stills based single CMOS sensor, not to mention broadcast 4:2:2, 100Mbps, I-Frame codec, P2 recording hardware, CRT viewfinder, metal body, 12V power supply, etc.
 
ggrantly said:
Sometime this year, I hope to buy a shoulder mount cam, and of course the370 is attractive for iq and price, among other reasons already mentioned. Though it would be a step backwards in iq and codec, a used hpx500 is still an appealing option; it is a 2/3 ccd, and matches the codec of my hpx170. A used hpx500 can be had for about the same price as a 370. Would any of you give up intra and full raster of the 370 to have a lower resolution 2/3 ccd cam? Just being the devils advocate here.

Grant
Click to expand...

I used to have an hmc151 which although only 1/3" was ccd and pixel shifted like the 500, I thought its image was nice until i saw how much sharper my 371 was. The 500 is heavier than the 370 series but is ccd,dvcpro hd and 2/3", 370 is cmos, avcintra and 1/3". You need to decide whether you'd prefer the 500's slightly softer image but better ability to throw the background out of focus (and no rolling shutter) vs native 1080p better codec but less headroom to throw background out and possibility of shutter artifacts if your shot is moving quickly. One thing i find with the 371 in bright sun is im running at F4- F5.6 with full nd and if i close down any more i will run into diffraction. The 500 should be more tolerant of this so that is a plus. I have seen 500 footage on youtube and it looks great but not as sharp as the 370.. Its really up to you to decide which is more important for you im afraid.
 
Garion, you hit it on the head. For most of my work, thus far, the extra resolution isn't needed. I suspect the 500 would perform better in low light. The weight and size of the 500 is larger. One big advantage for the 500 is the much greater variety of lenses and 4 channels of audio. I know choosing the 500 over the 370 is going backwards in a lot of ways, but the 500 does have some distinct advantages. Ah decisions.

Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top