Hey Everyone,
Just wanted to give a heads up that we've posted a bunch of footage and stills from a shootout we did over the weekend between these two cameras. It's not all encompassing or completely scientific, we just put both cameras next to each other and pointed them at the same scene, with out of the box presets on both cameras. I think what we got is pretty interesting, so check it out!

Here's the link:

http://www.pairofhands.net/Ex1%20vs%20HVX%20Shootout.html

Great comparo, Matt,

This is stuff people have been waiting to see; and it's not always necessary to have studio-controlled "scientific" methods to show clear distinctions between cameras.

As anyone who's read my posts over the years knows, I've always been one of the most vocal and staunch believers/users in the HVX200 and I'll always be, but in all honesty it's hard not to be impressed with the Sony. It's certainly a step-up and away from the Z1.

It's pre-post advantages are clear: At least 1-1/2 and in certain situations as much as 2 stops more light sensitivity (which is what I found with the pre-production model) and more detail. The only other major difference between the two is the HVX has a warmer default white balance whereas the Sony is cooler, but that distinction has been the same throughout both product lines - Sony's have always had cooler default WB. That's neither here nor there because both cameras have the ability to customize the entire gamut of color/gamma/saturation output.

What's interesting is that while there is obviously more detail in the EX1 the noise characteristics aren't as drastically different as I've seen with other tests, and I'm not sure what to attribute that to.

So while this may not have been scientific or studio-controlled I'd consider this a solid comparo. Thanks for sharing, Matt and good job.

I would like to see a shootout between the Sony EX1 and the HPX500....

Hey Everyone,
Just wanted to give a heads up that we've posted a bunch of footage and stills from a shootout we did over the weekend between these two cameras. It's not all encompassing or completely scientific, we just put both cameras next to each other and pointed them at the same scene, with out of the box presets on both cameras. I think what we got is pretty interesting, so check it out!


Hi Matt,
Great work, I believe that to get the best images that suit your needs, (for your market) you have to look in the price bracket that provides you with the best "bang for buck", I currently have a Sony DSR570 and a Panasonic SPX800. No doubt there are many shooters that will use these smaller cams as you have tested and will make their own purchasing decisions.
It comes down to , the look you/your clients want, the more you pay the more you get.
In my experience the Current Panasonic's have more realistic image quality than the Sony, i've owned many Sonys from U-mats to SVHS,Beta/SP then the smaller DV'c to DVCam , I recently moved to the Panasonic because of bang for Buck, and the image Quality my clients demand. not to mention the P2 format V tape/ Disc and even HDD on camera.
I only wish everyone would make SDI in/out as a standard fitting on everything video, there's too many connections and too many formats out there IMO.
Cheers
Tom K

At least 1-1/2 and in certain situations as much as 2 stops more light sensitivity (which is what I found with the pre-production model)
How are you measuring that? I just spent a day and a half with both cameras, and I put up my charts and used a waveform monitor and, when both cams are set to render the image comparably (meaning same basic gamma, same recording format, same shutter speed, same everything) the EX1 has a 1/2-stop sensitivity advantage. Not 1.5, certainly not two stops, but half of one stop. I was surprised as anyone, but now I understand why Adam Wilt said it was about ISO 320 -- because it is.

Now, if you want to add in gain to equate the noise levels (because the Sony is a lot cleaner) then yes, I could see your point; you could go to 6dB and have about the same noise level, and then you'd have a 1.5-stop advantage. But without gaining up, no way -- it's 1/2 stop faster.

What's interesting is that while there is obviously more detail in the EX1 the noise characteristics aren't as drastically different as I've seen with other tests, and I'm not sure what to attribute that to.
There's a lot more detail in the EX1 picture, and less noise -- it has that "looking through a window" quality to it, at least on static shots. Moving shots, it loses a lot of fine detail (not due to the codec, not due to motion blur, but I think it's due to the active noise reduction). Noise is less, about 6dB to 9dB, I'm not quite sure which.

Sharper? Yep. Faster? Yes, some. Rolling shutter issues, yep. Skew? Yep. Wobble? Yep. Partial exposure? Yep.

But there are some things you don't see in a still-frame comparison -- like the fact that if you want to play a clip back on the HVX, you have about a 1.5 or 2-second wait. On the EX1, it's 14 seconds. 14 SECONDS. And to get back to camera mode, it's 2 seconds on the HVX, and 11 seconds on the EX1. That's a huge hit to take in the middle of your workflow; if you decide to check on a clip, you're at least 25 seconds away from being able to make another shot. I don't know how ENG guys are gonna like that.

Other things -- stupid things -- like the Mic sticking out about two inches past the front of the lens. How are you going to mount a mattebox? I tried to put my Vocas on, it wouldn't even get near the lens. And if you do put a mattebox on, how would you get at the filters? No way could you use top-loading filters, you'd have to buy a side-loading mattebox. And handheld ergonomics? It's *impossible* to hand-hold that EX1 with one hand, you *must* use two. I can't see how anyone could use the EX1 with one hand for more than a few seconds. Just not possible.

There are lots of pluses and minuses to each product, a prospective buyer is just going to have to determine which "pluses" matter most to them, and which "minuses" they aren't concerned about.

I would like to see a shootout between the Sony EX1 and the HPX500....

Why? You're talking about a $6500 handheld fixed-lens camcorder versus a $20,000 (with lens) 2/3" interchangeable-lens broadcast camera with four XLRs, TC IN/OUT, and all that goes with it. I can't fathom what customer would possibly be wanting to choose between those two products.

How are you measuring that?........when both cams are set to render the image comparably (meaning same basic gamma, same recording format, same shutter speed, same everything) the EX1 has a 1/2-stop sensitivity advantage.

Now, if you want to add in gain to equate the noise levels (because the Sony is a lot cleaner) then yes, I could see your point; you could go to 6dB and have about the same noise level, and then you'd have a 1.5-stop advantage. But without gaining up, no way -- it's 1/2 stop faster.
But if you're comparing two camera sensitivities, then surely "same everything" SHOULD include noise levels? For exactly the reasons pro camera sensitivities are quoted something like "2000lux, f8, S/N 52dB". The first two figures there imply the ASA rating by themselves, but that's easily changed by varying the gain, the S/N figure then itself changing.

For a given level of noise that a user finds just acceptable, it sounds like the EX will indeed be 1.5-2 stops faster than an HVX for anybody working in low light situations. In this respect, the comparison 12dB gain up images in the original link are worth comparing.

We all know HVX202 is noisy at low light. Compared with Sony EX1 - the image is cleaner on the Sony. However, if I put the HVX202 video through the Neat Video filter to get rid of the noise, is the final product still comparable with Sony EX1 at the same camera setting?

I really hate any web-based comparo thread; the moment anyone has an opinion one way or the other it introduces controversial and less-than-productive commentary. And my initial response about this thread seemed to have opened up pandoras box of email commentary, both pro and con.

So let me simplify and clarify a few things about my original commentary:

From the perspective of a cameraman, I like the Sony. It has nice controls, nice displays and does it's job of *acquisition* as well as any of the sub-10k handheld-HD cams. And it does have that Sony "looks a bit like video" sharpness to it, which by itself isn't always a bad thing - especially for sports.

But the caveat with the EX1 - indeed any HDV/XDCAM camera is that it's still 4:2:0 color and long-GOP format, which both have serious implications in post. And if that weren't the case, then Apple wouldn't have spent millions on it's proprietary Intermediate Codec (AIC), AJA/Apple wouldn't have created ProRes 422 and the AJA IO, Cineform, Convergent Design and a host of others wouldn't have created ways of converting long-GOP and into an "I-frame" codec. Why Sony want's to stick with long-GOP for the XDCAM line and not give it HDCAM is beyond me - and I really couldn't care less.

So while I like the Sony for what it is, I would still not recommend it over the 200 or any other Panny camera for the simple fact that all Panny cameras (pro market) are using the best possible codec that's currently available. And who knows, maybe the next iteration of the HVX200 will even allow AVC-Intra, which will take things so far beyond what XDCAM is capable of it will be a no-contest scenario.

You guys can enjoy debating the technical weaknesses between the two cameras - knock yourselves out - but the simple fact is, that just like every other piece of equipment on the planet, each device has it's pro's and it's cons. Pick the device that fits your budget, your needs and gets the support backing from it's manufacturer. For me and my money, that's been a solely Panasonic thing for almost 6 years, and for good reason.

Why? You're talking about a $6500 handheld fixed-lens camcorder versus a $20,000 (with lens) 2/3" interchangeable-lens broadcast camera with four XLRs, TC IN/OUT, and all that goes with it. I can't fathom what customer would possibly be wanting to choose between those two products.

Well start to "fathom" it. I am a customer who is deciding between the two. An HPX500 with lens can cost around $14k - $15k. $20k maybe at retail or if you're getting a crap deal.

The issues is here that it's really the next step up from an EX1 price wise. Have you seen a camera out there that can be acquired for $10k - $12k that is HD and is a step up? I Haven't. So logically, if I want to get something more than the EX1 has to offer, what else would I be looking at?

For what use though? That's what I don't get -- I mean, are you saying that the form factor and interchangeable lenses and all that stuff don't matter to you? If so, ... well, okay, but I would suspect that you'd be in the minority of customers looking for that type of product. I don't often encounter people who would consider two such radically different products, at such extremely different price points. It's like comparing a pickup truck to a motorcycle, they do very different jobs (even though yes, technically both are personal transportation vehicles). The differences are so extreme as to usually make one or the other the obvious choice for the job you need done.

You're talking about a $6500 rolling-shutter 1/2" CMOS handheld two-channel long-GOP 4:2:0 fixed-lens HD-only camcorder, vs. a $20,000 2/3" CCD interchangeable-lens 4-XLR shoulder-mount intraframe HD/SD camcorder. It's like they have pretty much nothing in common, other than that they're both camcorders and they're both HD.

An HPX500 with lens can cost around $14k - $15k. $20k maybe at reatil or if you're getting a crap deal.
That's about $5,000 less than I've seen it listed anywhere else. I was quoting B&H package pricing when I said $20k -- and that was the cheapest of their packages (which I guess they don't offer anymore...) What kind of lens are you talking about? Where can you get a complete kit for $14k?

But if you're comparing two camera sensitivities, then surely "same everything" SHOULD include noise levels?
But without quoting the s/n ratio it makes comparing that quite difficult. And noise affects each differently. So should you include noise levels? Probably, which is why I did. But if you just quote 'em as noise-compensated, then someone else is going to come along and say that they tested it and got entirely different results. There's no real way to satisfy everyone here.

If you took 'em both outside and pointed 'em at the same scene, at 0dB, the EX1 is going to stop down 1/2 stop more than the HVX. That's the obvious, easy-to-see distinction. If you're comfortable leaving your EX1 permanently in 6dB of gain, you could see a stop of increased response. I didn't test to see if using gain impacted the dynamic range at all. If there's no drawback (other than a little bit of noise) then maybe that's what you'd want to do. But for those who don't want to do that, I quoted 0dB comparisons.

As somebody who just invested $25k last year in an F350, it appears to me the resolution and sensitivity of the EX1 is just as good, possibly better. I know I prefer the way the CMOS sensors on the EX1 go into clip MUCH better. Bums me out a little, but the EX1 *is* almost 2 years newer. Things move fast round these parts.

CMOS sensors are a new ball game; for a given size they sure seem superior to CCDs.

Anyway, speaking on picture quality alone (and not usability issues between full size and the EX1), I'm not wondering how the EX1 can compete with the HPX.

For what use though? That's what I don't get -- I mean, are you saying that the form factor and interchangeable lenses and all that stuff don't matter to you? If so, ... well, okay, but I would suspect that you'd be in the minority of customers looking for that type of product. I don't often encounter people who would consider two such radically different products, at such extremely different price points. It's like comparing a pickup truck to a motorcycle, they do very different jobs (even though yes, technically both are personal transportation vehicles). The differences are so extreme as to usually make one or the other the obvious choice for the job you need done.

We do event production, advertising and some corporate training videos and documentary style films. The form factor does matter to us as we have always had shoulder mounted cameras, but the price and features of the EX1 are very enticing. Thyat's why we are even considering the EX1. Interchangeable lenses are not a huge concern. If we went with the HPX500's, we would probably get the lower end lenses anyways and rarely change them. Obviously, the EX1 has a fixed lens, but it seems to be comperable to some of the lower end interchangeable lenses anyways. But at least it's a "real" lens with similar controls to that of ENG lenses.

We need a camera that is going to be versitile - able to handle the wide range of projects that we are doing. We're not made of money as most people and companies are not, so we were looking at the EX1 as a very viable solution to save money and allow us to get more cameras up front.

As different as you make the two cameras sound, Bill, in all reality, they have a lot in common. Other than interchangeable lenses, form factor, chip size, etc, all of that can be adapted into a good workflow either way that you go. Yes, they both shoot video and both do HD, which is what we need. We do not have incredibly demanding customers that require certain cameras, otherwise we would be looking on a much higher scale.

But with all of that said, what do YOU think the next step up from an EX1 would be? In my opinion, you'd be looking at a full size XDCAM or going to the HPX500. It's that simple. We had JVC for awhile, which was fine, but shooting 25mbs to tape is obviously not where the future is headed and presents a lot of scalabiity problems.


You're talking about a $6500 rolling-shutter 1/2" CMOS handheld two-channel long-GOP 4:2:0 fixed-lens HD-only camcorder, vs. a $20,000 2/3" CCD interchangeable-lens 4-XLR shoulder-mount intraframe HD/SD camcorder. It's like they have pretty much nothing in common, other than that they're both camcorders and they're both HD.

I fully understand that there are going to be differences in the camera. What we are concerned with is image quality at 1080p. Period. We can adapt to the workflow as you have to with most new camera purchases these days. But we need to shoot, edit and deliver in 1080p for 90% of our projects with our advertising systems. So what I am trying to find out is what the image quality is comparitively between the 2 cameras. They both use very different methods of achieving the same thing, and I don't think it's an absurd question.



That's about $5,000 less than I've seen it listed anywhere else. I was quoting B&H package pricing when I said $20k -- and that was the cheapest of their packages (which I guess they don't offer anymore...) What kind of lens are you talking about? Where can you get a complete kit for $14k?

Look, Sony markets and labels this camera as a "Cinealta" camera. If they are claiming that it's going to be up in a higher class of cameras as far as imaging goes, what's so bad about comparing them to a higher class of cameras? I see everyone always comparing the EX1 to the HVX200, or the Canon XL-H1, which I will agreee are in the same price classification, but I want to know about image quality, plain and simple.

As far as getting the HPX500 for $14kish, If you do your homework, the deals are out there. I'm talking Body and lens only. Obviously a battery is going to add to the cost, as will it with the Sony. P2 Cards are priced about the same as SxS cards, so there won't be much difference there.

The point to all of this is, if I want to take the next step up, it looks like the HPX500 is the way to go. But I want to be convinced of why I should go either route. Will the image quality of the EX1 be just about as good as the HPX500? I don't know. That's why I am asking.

But without quoting the s/n ratio it makes comparing that quite difficult. And noise affects each differently.

If you took 'em both outside and pointed 'em at the same scene, at 0dB, the EX1 is going to stop down 1/2 stop more than the HVX. That's the obvious, easy-to-see distinction.
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that one shouldn't then draw the conclusion that this means the EX is therefore 1/2 stop more sensitive than the HVX. An inherent sensitivity improvement can translate into a higher ASA rating for a given gain setting, and/or a lower base noise figure. What you describe only shows up the former.

I also agree that measuring noise figures numerically is difficult without sophisticated equipment (and yes, "noise affects each differently") but it's easy enough to take each camera into a darkish room, add gain until an equivalent amount of degradation is present in each case, then see how the relative apertures compare, or how well exposed if both are wide open - and this seems to have more real world relevance in terms of relative sensitivities than ASA ratings at 0dB. Not very scientific, maybe, but should give a reasonable idea how they would compare on a shoot in low light levels.

In practical terms, what Robert originally described (1.5-2 stops difference) seems typical of what most people have found.

We do event production, advertising and some corporate training videos and documentary style films. The form factor does matter to us as we have always had shoulder mounted cameras, but the price and features of the EX1 are very enticing. Thyat's why we are even considering the EX1.
Okay, I see where you're coming from now...


But with all of that said, what do YOU think the next step up from an EX1 would be? In my opinion, you'd be looking at a full size XDCAM or going to the HPX500. It's that simple.
Logically, yes, the HPX500 would be the next step, as it's the lowest-cost 2/3" HD camcorder. On a simple basis of what's next-most expensive, you're looking at the XLH1 or HD250, both of which are 1/3", and then the HPX500. But the HPX500 is such a large jump in price, it just seems strange to me that someone would consider a camera that costs 1/3 as much to be an alternative, that's all.

What we are concerned with is image quality at 1080p. Period.
If that's all you care about, you'll probably find that the EX1 and HPX500 are about the same sensitivity and the EX1 will resolve somewhat more detail with less noise. The HPX500 is most likely going to have wider dynamic range and it's probably going to exhibit better contrast and it's definitely going to have shallower depth of field. The HPX500 is going to be immune from rolling-shutter issues and the EX1 is subject to them; you'll have to decide whether that's a factor, a big factor, a dealbreaker, or a nonissue to you based on how you intend to use the products and what type of footage you intend to be acquiring.

These predictions are based on having extreme familiarity with the HVX, quite extensive familiarity with the HPX500, and recent fairly in-depth experience with the EX1. But it is not based on a side-by-side because I haven't put an HPX500 against an EX1.

We can adapt to the workflow as you have to with most new camera purchases these days. But we need to shoot, edit and deliver in 1080p for 90% of our projects with our advertising systems.
I would strongly recommend trying to spend a few hours with each system, especially under the tutelage of someone who knows how to use them, so you can see how the workflow will work (or won't work) for you. The workflow and workability of the footage is perhaps the biggest differentiating factor between these two systems (SxS and P2).

but I want to know about image quality, plain and simple.
But what you ask is not so easily answered. It seems easy, but there's so much that goes into it. Image quality for what? Shooting a talking-head interview in a controlled environment? The EX1 would shine at doing that (as would an HPX500). Shooting a press conference with photographer's flashes going off all around you? The EX1 is going to show a lot of black bands that the HPX500 just won't -- the HPX500 will perform consistently, but the EX1 performance may vary based on what it's asked to shoot. Shooting fine-detail scenes? The EX1 looks great in still shots, but there are circumstances that can result in overloading an MPEG-2 codec such that what you're seeing live on the monitor isn't the same as what you get in the recorded footage. So you have to know how these systems work, and whether what you intend to shoot will work well with the new developments of CMOS/rolling shutter and MPEG-2 long-GOP. Some things work flawlessly with them. Some most definitely don't. With a CCD and an intraframe compression system you'll never run into any of those types of issues. With a rolling-shutter long-GOP system, you may. You may not, or you may, it all depends on the type of things you're shooting. These new technologies have changed the way shooters have to work with their gear, and some shots that you'd think would be just fine may instead turn out to be difficult or even not possible under certain conditions.

So you can't just say "which has better image quality". (well, I mean, of course you can ask that, but giving a comprehensive answer is very difficult.)

As far as getting the HPX500 for $14kish, If you do your homework, the deals are out there.
But from who? That's the point -- there are liars and scam shops all over the place who advertise preposterous prices. I've seen scam shops listing the HPX500 body for under $9,000. Sorry but that just isn't legit, there's no way you're going to get the body only for a price like that. So -- have you at least verified that the resellers you're researching are legitimate authorized Panasonic resellers? If not, you may be setting yourself up for an unpleasant transaction.

The point to all of this is, if I want to take the next step up, it looks like the HPX500 is the way to go. But I want to be convinced of why I should go either route. Will the image quality of the EX1 be just about as good as the HPX500? I don't know. That's why I am asking.
On a still-life, yes it probably will, maybe even better. In your real-world shooting circumstances? It depends. I know people hate that answer but it's the only answer that can be given.

The point to all of this is, if I want to take the next step up, it looks like the HPX500 is the way to go. But I want to be convinced of why I should go either route. Will the image quality of the EX1 be just about as good as the HPX500? I don't know. That's why I am asking.

You also have the F335 which will come in at around $15K without variable frame rates. If you need variable frame rate, then this wouldn't be an option.

-gb-

You also have the F335 which will come in at around $15K without variable frame rates. If you need variable frame rate, then this wouldn't be an option.

-gb-

Variable frame rates will not be a necessity, just 1080. For SD, we just currently downconvert in post with very nice results.

As for the 335, from B&H's pricing, it looks like just the body is $15k w/o a lens. Ouch. With the cheapest lens, still comming in around $21k.

And Barry,
Big 10 Media has HPX555's for $9k brand new, which are supposed to be identical to the 500. I'll have to check if they are an authorized dealer, but I have dealt with them before and they are extremely reputable. Throw a lens on top of that and you're in the $14k - $15k neighborhood. We have existing AB Batteries, so no biggie there. Honestly, we would probably skip the P2 and just use a DTE solution for recording. The HPX500 firewire port will output ANY of it's formats (the EX1 will only do 25Mbs out its firewire, don't really want to sacrafice quality). Besides, the P2 media and the SxS media are about the same price, so it's a wash there.

This is a hard decision for me. I think I'm going to do a search for some more HPX500 footage and anylize it again. From what I saw before, it looked great and I do prefer the form factor. Then again, I prefer the price of the EX1 obviously. We'll see what happens.

Kit, my understanding is the HPX555 is the Japan territory/released model. Not sure how the warranty, if at all, is dealt with. Great price!

I see some good comments here about usability, but not much acknowledgement that the EX1 images are obviously clearer in scenes with a lot of detail - which is one of the primary objectives of an HD camera. As far as sensitivity is concerned, the question there for some of us is how dim a scene you can shoot with an acceptable amount of noise, and there again the EX1 appears to have a useful advantage. Add in lower cost of memory per hour of recording time plus faster transfer to a laptop, and the EX1 is looking good for long-form recording. Editing the footage shouldn't be a problem thanks to the intermediate codecs mentioned earlier, but how long it will take to convert to those formats is worth asking.

Overall the EX1 looks very promising for some users but won't appeal to everyone. In any case, more competition is good and will hopefully prompt Panasonic to step up them offerings.

Kit, my understanding is the HPX555 is the Japan territory/released model. Not sure how the warranty, if at all, is dealt with. Great price!

Yes, I believe it is, but supposedly it is identical to the 500, just the name is different, just like they do with any other camera. It is supposed to do pretty much ALL of the current formats, including 24p. 25p and 30p.

Records in 1080/60i, 50i, 30p, 25p and 24p; in 720/60p, 50p, 30p, 25p, and 24p; and in DVCPRO50, DVCPRO and DV
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=112115&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AG-HPX500

Now the only one thing I would be very mildly worried about is the format of the SD recording. Not that we would probably EVER use it, but I'm wondering if the SD is PAL or if it is switchable. Like I said though, we would probably never use it and if we went with the EX1, it would not have SD anyways. We just downconvert for our SD projects.

I was doing a search and found out the the HPX500 and 555 are PAL/NTSC switchable. Very nice.

Problem would be the warranty. I have 555 because I'm in Japan. I checked and Pana says grey marketed 555 won't be covered by the warranty.

That really is a bummer. I was looking forward to saving a bit of $$$. I guess the $10,500 at B&H might have to do, but I'll call some dealers and see if anyone can do better on the 500. If you guys know of any deals, please let me know.

I still am not 100%, but I have been checking some stores and a few sites and it looks like I may not even be able to get the EX1 by the end of January when we plan to purchase.

I will also most likely call Panasonic and see is the warranty for the 555 will in fact be void if it's out of their coverage area. If they will cover it, I don't mind sending the camera to Japan IF I have to. Big 10 Media supposedly has offices in Japan too, so it may not be "Gray Market" after all.

Thanks

That really is a bummer. I was looking forward to saving a bit of $$$. I guess the $10,500 at B&H might have to do, but I'll call some dealers and see if anyone can do better on the 500. If you guys know of any deals, please let me know.

I still am not 100%, but I have been checking some stores and a few sites and it looks like I may not even be able to get the EX1 by the end of January when we plan to purchase.

I will also most likely call Panasonic and see is the warranty for the 555 will in fact be void if it's out of their coverage area. If they will cover it, I don't mind sending the camera to Japan IF I have to.

Thanks

Just remember, we have a policy of directing all where to buy discussion from DVINFO sponsors. If you choose to go elsewhere, that would be a shame because the sponsors make this place available. The other place you mentioned sells gray market. I've seen them discussed on other boards with respect to other equipment (also gray market). Best bet when you're dropping this kind of cash is to do the right thing so that you have warranty coverage without any hassle.

I understand that you might have to resort to other than normal channels to get on the wagon, but it will be painfully expensive if something goes wrong. My F350 had a problem with the shutter control board at 3 months of age. That's when you're glad to have a full warranty to back you up.

Just a thought,

-gb-

Just remember, we have a policy of directing all where to buy discussion from DVINFO sponsors. If you choose to go elsewhere, that would be a shame because the sponsors make this place available. The other place you mentioned sells gray market. I've seen them discussed on other boards with respect to other equipment (also gray market). Best bet when you're dropping this kind of cash is to do the right thing so that you have warranty coverage without any hassle.

Agreed. And if I were to purchase a US product, it would most likely be from one of the sponsors, as they pretty much all have been in the past. If you say they are gray market from this company, then I believe you and it ends there. I'll have to resort to other means of getting a deal.

I understand that you might have to resort to other than normal channels to get on the wagon, but it will be painfully expensive if something goes wrong. My F350 had a problem with the shutter control board at 3 months of age. That's when you're glad to have a full warranty to back you up.

Just a thought,

-gb-


HD aquisition is very tough and pricey right now. Is this camera going to be good enough in the coming years? Honestly I don't know. That is why I am thouroughly investigating everything. But if I could get a product and all I had to do is send it to Japan instead of the US to save $3000 (we're planning to purchase 2), it seems like it would be worth it IF something went wrong. Shipping to Japan would'nt be so bad to save $3000. But if it is ifact a gray market product and I won't have a warranty, there is no way I would do it.

I'm just honestly to the point where I don't know what I'm going to do, but I do have to do something by the end of the month here. All the cameras have their ups and down, their good and bad. The EX1 does not give me all the features and shooting style that I really want or need (although it will usually work). And their availability is questionable. The HPX500 or 555 seems like it would be the way to go but will obviously be more expensive, but I hear so many pros and cons to the sensors and the image quality. IMHO, it looks great and I would most likely be very happy with it, especially that it's a full size camera like what I am used to. And the full size XDCAM looks great, would probably work perfectly, but it seems like it's even more money than the Pani ($5k - $6k more). I wish I had $20k + to spend per camera but I simply cannot afford that. We need multiple cameras (minimum 2) and I just want to make sure I'm going to at least have something left in the bank when I am done.

So I really just don't know. I'm fresh out of ideas. I just think it's really unfortunate that there is such a large gap going from a "handicam" size to the pro stuff. I've done the JVC route for long enough and really was not satisfied with the image quality. Looking to upgrade but like everyone, looking for a good deal on something that can last me a long time.

Gray Market means it's imported into a territory for which it was not intended. So if that company has offices in Japan, and they're authorized dealers in Japan, and they sell HPX555s in Japan, that's all fine and dandy.

But if they bring those same units here and try to sell them here (in the USA) then they'd be gray-market imports. No warranty coverage by Panasonic USA, although you may have warranty coverage in Japan. Panasonic USA offers a five-year warranty so it would seem a good idea to get it from a USA-authorized dealer if you're a USA customer.

Hey Barry,
Yeah, that's basically what they told me. They have an office here and in Japan and said there is still a 5 year warranty on them if I were to purchase, the downside being I would have to ship it back to Japan IF there was an issue. I'm somewhat torn right now....I have decided to go with the 500/555, but my thinking is that I can save $1500 per camera (buying 2 for the time being, possibly more in the future), which is a total savings of $3000. I know the chances of something going wrong are pretty slim, especially that we really take care of our gear and it lives in it's case unless being used by myself or one of my very trusted and experienced staff. To ship it back overnight to Japan, it's aout $150 each way via Fed Ex, so I feel like I can live with that for the cost savings. It would cost $$$ to ship it in the US anyways, so to me, the money saved is worth it. It's a fairly well established dealer, So I dunno....

Matt:

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this - very nice job.

However, I'm obviously confused about comments on quality. In every aspect of image quality (resolution, dynamic range, noise), the EX1 is not just better but substantially better. The only area of debate could be color rendition but given how configurable each cam is, I don't see this would be an easy matter to resolve without deep testing for days. Plus, it's a trivial matter to correct in post whereas resolution, dynamic range, noise are non-trivial issues.

The EX-1 does have the rolling shutter issue - certainly something to consider for event and news shooters. Also, for those that like to shoot with one hand handheld, it's off balance (but I find anything larger than a HV20 not ideal to shoot with one handed, so that's minor in my book).

If you took 'em both outside and pointed 'em at the same scene, at 0dB, the EX1 is going to stop down 1/2 stop more than the HVX. That's the obvious, easy-to-see distinction.

Well isn't that weird because the EX1 is slightly better in low light than the king of low light the PD170.

Well isn't that weird because the EX1 is slightly better in low light than the king of low light the PD170.

Yeah, I have great respect for Barry but I see way more than 1/2 stop difference in this test and the other footage out there. I have neither camera though and maybe it's how people are testing then drawing conclusions.

Adam Wilt is due to post a full performance review in a month or two. We'll see what his numbers are.

one argument is that a $7.5k camcorder cannot be as good as a $20k camcorder, and that to compare them is crazy.

another argument is that the $7.5k camcorder is engineered so well that it's compareable and, for some people, actually better then the $20k camcorder. then the price of the $20k camcorder is the thing that is crazy.

if you don't care about interchangeable lenses (some people don't); if you don't care about shallower depth of field, or extra pro doodads and connectors (some people don't), and if you don't care about shooting intentionally shakey handheld footage or doing vfx work (some people don't), then there is the possibility that the cheaper camera is actually a better one.

i agree with barry and all the various ultra-experienced people on this board though: in the end you should take the camera out in the real world and shoot with it and see if you like the experience and the result.

Yeah, I have great respect for Barry but I see way more than 1/2 stop difference in this test and the other footage out there. I have neither camera though and maybe it's how people are testing then drawing conclusions.

Adam Wilt is due to post a full performance review in a month or two. We'll see what his numbers are.

I hadn't done any quantitative testing, but I can say that when comparing the two cameras side by side that there was a significant difference in sensitivity and low light performance.

I'm not saying that you'll get pristine images from the EX1 under adverse conditions. But you'll have a better chance at getting a usable image under low light conditions than you would with a less sensitive HVX.

I already own an HVX and use it a lot. And when the EX1 comes in, I'm keeping the HVX. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and one can do things better than the other as Barry pointed out.

I'm hoping to accelerate the two toward each other in a magnetron so they collide at the speed of light. They'll fuse themselves into the perfect camera with no disadvantages. :-)

I hadn't done any quantitative testing, but I can say that when comparing the two cameras side by side that there was a significant difference in sensitivity and low light performance.

I'm not saying that you'll get pristine images from the EX1 under adverse conditions. But you'll have a better chance at getting a usable image under low light conditions than you would with a less sensitive HVX.

I already own an HVX and use it a lot. And when the EX1 comes in, I'm keeping the HVX. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and one can do things better than the other as Barry pointed out.

I'm hoping to accelerate the two toward each other in a magnetron so they collide at the speed of light. They'll fuse themselves into the perfect camera with no disadvantages. :-)

Having both is really powerful.

I'm just reporting the testing results as tested, and I listed the method so anyone can freely replicate the results. When configured to equivalent gamma and equivalent recording mode and equivalent shutter speed, there's a half-stop difference in sensitivity.

Now, that was at proper exposure levels; is there some sort of "sliding scale" when the light gets lower? Is there some sort of nonlinear response? I don't know, I didn't try that.

As for equalizing the noise level -- let me try to address this differently. There's a school of thought that says that the only way to compare sensitivity is to use + or - gain to equalize the noise levels, at which point you'll have the "true" sensitivity. Fair enough, and I can see that point. But then there's the perspective of actually using the camcorder; when the zebras are telling you what to set your iris at, that's your real-world sensitivity, and the noise is a separate issue. And here's a monkey wrench to compound the issue: what about film? What if you shot on a 1970's 200T film stock -- what's its sensitivity? Why, it's 200 ISO. But what if you shot on 2008's Vision2 200T? What's its sensitivity? It's also 200 ISO. Yes there's a massive difference in the grain structure, but the *sensitivity* is the same. Should the 2008 shooter go about underexposing 800T stock and pushing it in post-processing to get equivalent grain? You treat 200T stock as 200T stock, and respect that each has its own grain signature, right?

I don't know... it seems like to discard one sensitivity figure as inaccurate just because it's inherently noisier than another is just not legit. Some technologies are grainier than others, but the rated ISO for proper exposure shouldn't change just based on grain levels.

Other things that influence the sensitivity include the gamma curve -- on an HVX, you get about 320 ISO when using HD NORM gamma, and you get about 250 ISO when using CINELIKE-D. And then there's shutter speed and the "off" position -- I wonder if some people, especially those who are less experienced on the HVX, are getting caught by that. If you set both to "shutter off" you're actually choosing different shutter speeds! On the HVX, "shutter off" is not like any other camera's "shutter off" setting; "shutter off" on most cameras means "don't use any sort of shutter", so 30P at "shutter off" = 1/30th exposure; 24p w/"shutter off" = 1/24th, etc. On the HVX, "shutter off" means "use the default shutter speed", and that means 24p = 1/48th, 30p = 1/60th. If someone did a comparison with "shutter off" they'd actually be hampering the HVX by a stop, artificially.

With that said, no doubt the EX1 is more sensitive and noticeably cleaner in grain. You can go to at least 6dB, and maybe as much as 9dB, before equalling the grain of the HVX at 0dB. I should test the dynamic range to see if there's any effect caused by gaining up though; you may be lopping off a stop of highlight performance by gaining up.

For "low light", one would have to configure both of them equivalently and then put 'em in a "low light" setting. That's not what I did. I compared them on proper exposure to get a sensitivity reading.
With that said, even though there's only

As for equalizing the noise level -- let me try to address this differently. There's a school of thought that says that the only way to compare sensitivity is to use + or - gain to equalize the noise levels, at which point you'll have the "true" sensitivity. Fair enough, and I can see that point.
That's the point I made earlier - though video industry practice is to quote f stop at a given lux level (normally 2000), AND quote noise level.
And here's a monkey wrench to compound the issue: what about film? What if you shot on a 1970's 200T film stock -- what's its sensitivity? Why, it's 200 ISO. But what if you shot on 2008's Vision2 200T? What's its sensitivity? It's also 200 ISO. Yes there's a massive difference in the grain structure, but the *sensitivity* is the same.
Good point. But then the ISO rating is a function of stock and development, and to a certain extent forced development techniques mean that any given stock can be rated at varying ISO figures - the 200 ISO figure may be seen more as a "for best results" figure. Which raises an interesting thought. What if the modern stock was rated at 800 ISO, and force processed to get proper exposure? Conceivably, the grain structure may now be similar to the 70's stock with normal development, so maybe there could be some validity in considering it a higher inherent snsitivity?
I don't know... it seems like to discard one sensitivity figure as inaccurate just because it's inherently noisier than another is just not legit. Some technologies are grainier than others, but the rated ISO for proper exposure shouldn't change just based on grain levels.
I see what you mean, but it may be true more for film than video, where altering development has a lot of other effects than simply increasing grain. Which is why a given stock is given a fundamental sensitivity to get the best gamma, colourimetry etc. With video (and digital stills), that's much less the case as noise can be traded for ISO over quite a wide range. In practice, there will be a minimum ISO that it won't be possible to go below - the output of the chips will limit regardless of light input without giving a 100IRE signal. Max ISO should only be limited by noise levels.

With that said, no doubt the EX1 is more sensitive and noticeably cleaner in grain. You can go to at least 6dB, and maybe as much as 9dB, before equalling the grain of the HVX at 0dB.

If that's all, then you can take the grain out with Raylight MXFX (new product) http://dvfilm.com/MXFX

I've been getting a lot of emails about this thread and the whole "which is better" nonsense, so let me address some things that again, many may not realize.

First, I want to point out that as I mentioned elsewhere I'm no longer a Panny consultant and no longer have insider information or access to all the tech data as I once did. For that, Barry is your guy. He's always been better at drilling down technicalities than I anyway.

I also want to point out that this thread is exactly what Sony's ad campaign was designed for: Creating measurebator-type debate over technical details that does a great job of hiding the realities of working with long-GOP 4:2:0 formats.

In point of fact, the EX1 and indeed the entire line of XDCAM cameras are great cameras, and they produce really good looking imagery on acquisition. Heck, every DV/HD/HDV camera made today create good looking images - in camera! That's never really been the issue with any camera, it's how to work with it in POST where the realities of any system show's it's true nature.

And that's the greatest caveat for XDCAM/HDV: Long-GOP 4:2:0 does have serious drawbacks when trying to work in any commercial production environment, whether it's reality TV, broadcast ads, features etc., there are issues with image quality, transport and codec handling.

The simple fact is, that while XDCAM is a higher bitrate of HDV it still falls apart when doing any sort of keying (compositing) and especially where multiple layers are involved the "conform" process is a killer. These workflow and codec handling issues have spawned half-a-dozen third party products to convert or modify the long-GOP codec into something easier to work with and less prone to "bitrate conversion failure" as I've heard engineers refer to it. But you'll never see any of these weaknesses in any of the example videos posted by the manufacturer; indeed everything that's been posted as "beauty footage" from any of the XDCAM lineup does not contain any compositing or other image types that would show its' obvious weaknesses, it's just straight video albeit from exotic locations and dramatic subject material.

So the question becomes, why would you want to work with a system that either forces you into a codec conversion process or, has obvious and visible weaknesses when applying it to a commercial workflow?

The EX1 has a visibly cleaner-looking image than the HVX - when it comes to noise artifacts and overall sharpness; those two characteristics alone can be attributed to the larger, native HD chip. But what you can't get around is the fact that even in it's most perfect operating scenario, where you don't have to worry about rolling shutter issues or what type of chip it is (CMOS vs CCD) the EX1 is still a long-GOP 4:2:0 camera. Period, end of story. And if you want to have as trouble-free a workflow as DVCPRO then you have to spend more money - and time - converting XDCAM into either DVCPRO or ProRes or any other I-Frame codec just so renders and compositing isn't painful and breaks up visually.

Is the EX1 a nice camera: you bet. Can it create great looking images: of course. Is it going to be as easy to work with as the HVX200: no way.

Lastly, it's worth noting that the little HVX200 in either DV50 or DV100 uses a better color space than any current XDCAM body, or even the F900 Cinealta series. Yep, HDCAM is 3:1:1 color boy and girls - the HVX in the above modes is 4:2:2. So a camera that costs less than $6k shoots a better color space than a $90k body.

If you allow yourself to not become brainwashed by the glossy measurebator Sony campaigns then you'll see the light.

Well said Robert and I totally agree.

When all of the shooting is said and done, we still have to edit and composite this stuff.

Love DVCProHD for post!

Dan

Robert: you make some good points, but one could say they amount to more "measurebation" around the issue of color space. It's true there are workflow trade-offs in starting with a GOP-based recording format versus a non-GOP one, but it's not a big deal to convert to non-GOP formats for editing purposes. If that's not sufficient then of course you'd have to do something else, which in this case means a trade-off between overall image quality versus recording format. Personally I'd prefer more real resolution with better DOF and sensitivity versus less of same with a slightly simpler workflow, but that's me. If you like the DVCProHD recording format then the HVX200 is still a good choice for the price.

Regarding sensitivity comparisons, what matters for people I know is how dim a scene they can shoot and still get an acceptable image with minimal noise. For that the EX1 is getting a lot of attention from those who haven't been happy with previous inexpensive HD cameras on this point. This may not be possible to express with numbers because noise doesn't look the same from camera to camera, so it's partly subjective whether the way noise looks is acceptable.

Personally I wasn't entirely thrilled with the EX1 in dim lighting, but it does seem to be a useful improvement over previous options. And as we've discussed before this partly depends on your ability to get the most out of a particular camera by adjusting various settings, so direct comparisons are difficult. But the bottom line is that people who want maximum low-light capability in an inexpensive HD camera are looking seriously at the EX1 as their best choice.

Having read this entire thread, there is still a use for both cameras.

I use 1/2" chip Panasonic DV cameras and would like to stay with Panasonic for my HD upgrade, but I feel they have taken the wrong path using upsampled imaging devices for their cameras. Or it is time they introduced some new models.

And to speak to the earlier posts, I would compare the EX-1 and the HPX-500 together because you Can compare their image quality. The EX-1 has been shown to look as the 335/355 cameras which are as expensive as the HPX-500.

I am torn because I feel in a few years, the HPX-500 will look long in the tooth with it's low rez sensors. And $20,000+ is a huge investment compared to the DV days, so the camera will be with me for a while.

What I am struggling with (as I am sure everybody is) is that the cost bar for a "pro" looking or precieved image quality camera has been raised from $5,000-8,000 (DV) to $20,000 (HD).

I don't really think that cutomers are ready to pay four times the price for their projects.

After using 1/2" chip cameras, I vowed to never use a lesser size chip, but that is a lot more expensive these days.

So the EX seems to shine from a few points - light gathering, resolution, and price.

What I am struggling with (as I am sure everybody is) is that the cost bar for a "pro" looking or precieved image quality camera has been raised from $5,000-8,000 (DV) to $20,000 (HD).

I don't really think that cutomers are ready to pay four times the price for their projects.

After using 1/2" chip cameras, I vowed to never use a lesser size chip, but that is a lot more expensive these days.

So the EX seems to shine from a few points - light gathering, resolution, and price.

My question to you is simple: Have you seen any HVX project, or TVC, in HD, either broadcasted or on a big screen? Chances are you have, but don't really know it was HVX.

The Departed, Cloverfield, Letters from Iwo Jima and others have shots done with the HVX. DId you notice on these movies it was done on this camera? Of course not.

Its simple: These new HD cameras- the HVX, Sony EX, and the higher end HPX and F330 are excelent cameras, and produce broadcast quality pictures. I've personaly shot internationaly broadcasted comercials 90% shot with the HVX, and they where quite succesfull.

Broadcast will be 1080i for the near (and forseable) future - 10-15 years? - more than enough time to recoup your investment and make plenty of money!

HVX+ Professional Grading+ Production values= fantastic HD product. The same goes to the others.

But, believe me when I say that the Panasonic cinegamma and film look is something that requires an excelent colorist and grading talent to achieve in post.

Great post.

What would you say if the HVX was to be used without grading and a lot of post attention?

I use color correction for all of my footage, but I would like to have a camera that does not "need it", not saying the HVX needs it as I have not used it.

My other big hangup for an HD upgrade is lattitude, or dynamic range in the image.

How does the 4:2:2 and a 1/3" chip compare to a 4:2:0 and a 1/2" chip?

What would you say if the HVX was to be used without grading and a lot of post attention?

I use color correction for all of my footage, but I would like to have a camera that does not "need it", not saying the HVX needs it as I have not used it.

My other big hangup for an HD upgrade is lattitude, or dynamic range in the image.

How does the 4:2:2 and a 1/3" chip compare to a 4:2:0 and a 1/2" chip?

The HVX, in my view, is that camera in the price range that requires less CC to achieve a filmic, dinamic look. Sony EX, Canon, JVC included. You can manually change the other cameras parameters, but even though you can get similar results, the fact is that you'll need measuring tools, like vectorscopes or waveforms to see if your "corrected" colours are broadcast legal- but remember that the footage you cc in camera is while watching either the on camera LCD or a Monitor connected to either HD-SDI or Component, which means its prior the Camera compression. The colors suffer after compression, and what you get is different from what you saw in the monitor on the first place. You can control "tame" the colors back in post, but your question was about the camera that required less CC and grading, right?

The default HVX settings provide a broadcast safe, dinamic and filmic picture (this is in my view, of course.)

As for Dinamic range, Cine D on the HVX gives fantastic dinamic range for a 1/3 CCD camera. Prior to the EX, it was the benchmark. I sincerely haven't tested the EX in an open air environment, so couldn't see how it really works in dinamic range. Heard it was impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if it was better than the HVX- dinamic range is one of the advantages of CMOS technology.

As for DOF, here's where the EX shines. I had a brief test with the EX, and achieving shallow DOF was fantastic. DOF was my biggest battle with the HVX on my recent short film, and it was also a factor that influenced the creative concept of much of our commercial work: We had to take into account that achieving shallow DOF on an HVX was limiting. With the appearance of 35mm adapters and adding a separate focus monitor this can be solved- but is a lot more limiting in terms of handheld use, support gear use and a big budget increase. (which is what I did.)

The EX is a good cam from what I saw. The Shallow DOF is a big improvement over 1/3ccd's, low light is incredible. However, the out of the box picture is pure video, PD170 HD style. Messing with the menu, putting the camera on Cine and selecting 24p gave the picture a small boost, with somewhat more saturated and contrasty picture- the tint to the picture looked like the cinematone of the z1- but still far from the film like look you get from the HVX in either Cine V or Cine D. Can you tune this on the very costumizable picture profile settings- yes, but with much work.

Like someone else said, there was something off on the 24p footage when something was moving. What was it I don't know. But I would suggest people to check out the progressive 25/24p movement before they buy.

The vignetting issue discussed wouldn't be a deal breaker, for me.

If it was today, if I needed a new camera, I would probably rent an HPX. Since I'm an HVX operator for almost 2 years, I really know how it works and since the HPX basically is an HVX with 2/3 chips and interchangeable lens in a shoulder mount form factor, I'm confident I could achieve excelent results with little practice time (of course, having worked with older shoulder mount gear also helps, like how to back focus, etc.).

The HVX successor should be introduced this year. I would really wait to see what Panasonic's answer to the EX and possibly the RED Scarlett is. I did this back when the Z1 was introduced, and am happy I did the right choice.

Well I am rooting for Panasonic, but I wish they could give a little clue about what they have in store because my time frame for purchase might be soon.

I see the EX as a second or third generation camera in this prosumer HD market.

The HVX could almost be considered first generation even though it has obviously held its merit.

I feel confident that Panasonic's next generation will be a great tool as I have always felt they offer a lot of value with their products.

Hey Everyone,
Just wanted to give a heads up that we've posted a bunch of footage and stills from a shootout we did over the weekend between these two cameras. It's not all encompassing or completely scientific, we just put both cameras next to each other and pointed them at the same scene, with out of the box presets on both cameras. I think what we got is pretty interesting, so check it out!

Here's the link:

Ex1 vs HVX Shootout (http://www.pairofhands.net/Ex1%20vs%20HVX%20Shootout.html)

That's a serious beat down. Isn't the HVX being phased out?

That's a serious beat down. Isn't the HVX being phased out?

What I find strikingly different is the shot that shows really fine detail, such as the hair on the bearded figurine (Santa?). With the EX1 you can see individual hairs. With the HVX it looks like it's not quite in focus.

How about comparing EX1 to HPX172 instead of HVX202?

How about comparing EX1 to HPX172 instead of HVX202?

Yes, it's an unfair comparison. The Sony shouldn't be compared to an old generation panny.