Sorry, but I really think the days of 960x540 chips are over now that 1920x1080 displays are becoming the norm. I suspect the full resolution chipset of the 300 is an acknowledgement of just that by Panasonic, and is something that I applaud them for. It's just a shame they're 1/3"............
Well, for some types of shooting CMOS just won't be "safe" enough today and 1080 ccds from both Panasonic and Sony we are talking 30 grand for that(or more), or about 25 for 720 chips. I agree that basicly sd chips are not ideal, but that's kind of the compromise to get 2/3" ccds in a hd camera, in the same matter cmos are the compromise to get 1080 on a budget camera. Ofcourse it would be a dream to own a hpx3000 or 2700 instead of a 500, but the list price of those are about five times what i paid for the 500 body.

I'm also a bit afraid that 1/3" would not cut it for some the low light situations i need to shoot in, so 1/2" on the 300 i agree would be nice. But it seems that Panasonics sticking with either 1/3" or 2/3" with Sony being the only one with 1/2" chips. From a business point of view 1/2" might be to close to the larger high end cameras.

In Gray's case, S270 vs Hpx300 the 300 will probably be a knockout just with the codec...hdv vs avc-i.

In Gray's case, S270 vs Hpx300 the 300 will probably be a knockout just with the codec...hdv vs avc-i.
I couldn't make much of a case for the S270 - it's 1 megapixel chips versus 2 megapixel for the for the 300, apart from codec.

But surely the battle is more HPX300 v EX3? Both 2 megapixel chips. EX3 is cheaper, 1/2" chips, and cheaper media, HPX300 is shouldermount. I can't help feeling that Sony may come out with a shouldermount competitor to the 300 (an "EX5"), and if they keep the 1/2" chips and SxS/SDHC media, that will be the one to get.

I couldn't make much of a case for the S270 - it's 1 megapixel chips versus 2 megapixel for the for the 300, apart from codec.

But surely the battle is more HPX300 v EX3? Both 2 megapixel chips. EX3 is cheaper, 1/2" chips, and cheaper media, HPX300 is shouldermount. I can't help feeling that Sony may come out with a shouldermount competitor to the 300 (an "EX5"), and if they keep the 1/2" chips and SxS/SDHC media, that will be the one to get.

I am sure you are right but it was the recording codecs that made me go across to the 301, even if sony do a shoulder mount EX5 with 1/2" it will be 50mbs at best but I suspect 35mbs as that will tie in with the SXS format cards.
I could have got an F355 but it is about twice the price of the 301 and still 35mbs.

.........but it was the recording codecs that made me go across to the 301, even if sony do a shoulder mount EX5 with 1/2" it will be 50mbs at best but I suspect 35mbs as that will tie in with the SXS format cards.
I'd put a lot of money on 50 Mbs, SxS cards are capable of vastly higher bitrates, but 50Mbs would fit in very well with existing product.

My understanding of the history is that 35 Mbs came from the first gen XDCAM discs, which couldn't manage much better than that. But it did mean that Sony could offer file based recording on consumable media. As technology improved, 50 Mbs to disc became feasible, and with it full 1920x1080 recording, 4:2:2, and lower compression. Currently, AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM-HD 50Mbs have full EBU approval for general use for acquisition.

So my guess would be that any SxS shouldermount would be 50 Mbs. The question that raises would be whether it would still be possible to use SDHC cards in such a camera. The cards are certainly fast enough with plenty to spare, and if an ExpressCard-SDHC adaptor came about using PCIExpress (rather than USB) I'd be pretty sure they'd work. As it is, the speed of transfer of clips in camera, and the speeds at which overcrank fails leaves me optimistic that they will still work.

Bear in mind that full "broadcast approval" depends on other factors than codec, and chip size is one. Hence for full broadcast compliance, technically the HPX300 fails due to chip size, the EX due to codec.

See why a £5,000-£7,500 camera with 1/2" chips, recording to XDCAM-HD 50 Mbs or AVC_Intra 100 is so eagerly awaited? :-) And why so many are saying "why doesn't the 300 have 1/2" chips"?

Anyone actually tested the write speed of the SxS cards? I've hear a lot of rumours around what's the real sustained writespeed. Sony's seems kind of awaiting the flashmedia based world when it comes to large broadcast cameras. Xdcam's are approved by EBU and others, but for commercial, drama and what's maybe can defines as a bit "higher" end productions seem to opt for a format that's less compressed. Which seem to be both dvcprohd with the HDX900 and hpx3000 with avc-I.

If Sony where to lunch a Ex5, it will compete directly with the other 1/2" models which I suspect will continue to carry a higher pricetag. That's kind of jeopardizing you own market a bit, and I'm more into Panasonic's use of more efficient new codecs rather than the older mpeg2 even with the fact that Sony are very good with mpeg2.

The acceptance of 1/3" chips I'll guess will differ from country to country, and what customers you serve. Recently did a some helishooting with my Hpx500 for a 30 min show, the rest and most was shot on hvx200. The only issue with 1/3" was the lack of the 2/3" chips wider dynamic range with snow and dark rock/mountains. Professionals users will notice what's what, the regular viewer won't to the degree that you would care.

I'd put a lot of money on 50 Mbs, SxS cards are capable of vastly higher bitrates, but 50Mbs would fit in very well with existing product.

My understanding of the history is that 35 Mbs came from the first gen XDCAM discs, which couldn't manage much better than that. But it did mean that Sony could offer file based recording on consumable media. As technology improved, 50 Mbs to disc became feasible, and with it full 1920x1080 recording, 4:2:2, and lower compression. Currently, AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM-HD 50Mbs have full EBU approval for general use for acquisition.

So my guess would be that any SxS shouldermount would be 50 Mbs. The question that raises would be whether it would still be possible to use SDHC cards in such a camera. The cards are certainly fast enough with plenty to spare, and if an ExpressCard-SDHC adaptor came about using PCIExpress (rather than USB) I'd be pretty sure they'd work. As it is, the speed of transfer of clips in camera, and the speeds at which overcrank fails leaves me optimistic that they will still work.

Bear in mind that full "broadcast approval" depends on other factors than codec, and chip size is one. Hence for full broadcast compliance, technically the HPX300 fails due to chip size, the EX due to codec.

See why a £5,000-£7,500 camera with 1/2" chips, recording to XDCAM-HD 50 Mbs or AVC_Intra 100 is so eagerly awaited? :-) And why so many are saying "why doesn't the 300 have 1/2" chips"?

Good points David but here in the UK some broadcasters are in dire straits and the goal posts will need to be moved if they are to continue producing content at all.
I feel that smaller sensors will be accepted in time if the recording format is up to spec, OK this is not for full drama or high end production but as internet TV rolls out the playing field will change.
In the 80's remember when CCD's first came in and everyone in broadcast said they would never be as acceptable as Tube cameras, things move on and cameras like the 301 will change the accesability of full HD to content producers.

........here in the UK some broadcasters are in dire straits and the goal posts will need to be moved if they are to continue producing content at all.
I feel that smaller sensors will be accepted in time if the recording format is up to spec, ..........
I'm not disagreeing with the first sentence, but doesn't the second presuppose that cheaper cameras are dependent on smaller sensors? In practice, an EX3 comes in at well over £1,000 cheaper than an HPX301, yet still gives you 1/2" chips. Take media costs into account (P2 v SDHC) and the difference becomes much, much more. I'm not saying the EX3 is ideal by any means, but it does signal that a 1/2" camera on shouldermount lines is achievable for possibly even less than a 301 fully loaded with media.
In the 80's remember when CCD's first came in and everyone in broadcast said they would never be as acceptable as Tube cameras, things move on and cameras like the 301 will change the accesability of full HD to content producers.
I remember the time well, and would only say that not everyone by a long way was of that opinion ( ;-) ), though, yes, it certainly was a view expressed by some.

There is a difference here though, which is that the laws of optics state that dof etc considerations mean that 1/3" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with bigger sensors - even if they are technically acceptable, and the lens availability improves.

Hi John,

Just go try out the camera. It really is a great camera for the money.

Best,

Jan

I think I will, thanks.

I concur with Jan. I just saw the final cut of the big project I shot with it and the clients raved about the photography and images in particular. Great camera and an amazing value, I will be buying one sometime this year as well.

Dan

In practice, an EX3 comes in at well over £1,000 cheaper than an HPX301, yet still gives you 1/2" chips.
And an MPEG-2 long-GoP 8-bit recording format. And a handheld shoulder-butt form factor. And no wireless slot. And two channels of audio. There are lots and lots of differences between those two above and beyond chip size!

There is a difference here though, which is that the laws of optics state that dof etc considerations mean that 1/3" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with bigger sensors - even if they are technically acceptable, and the lens availability improves.
Yes, and the same law says that 1/2" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with 2/3" sensors...

You can't just cherry-pick features here and there and come up with an "ideal" system, because each compromise has a significant effect on the overall system cost. If Panasonic had just stuck 1/2" chips in the HPX300, it'd probably raise the price by several thousand dollars, not only for engineering a larger chip block but also for the lenses that go with it. This camera was engineered to a price point, to meet the needs of NBC, which they clearly did, and why all NBC owned & operated stations are using it (and many ABC affiliates are converting as well).

For some people, using an 8-bit 4:2:0 long-GoP recording format, onto an SD card, is an acceptable compromise if it means they get bigger chips out of the deal. For others, that combination doesn't work, they want a robust intraframe professional 4:2:2 codec, and if that means only 1/3" chips, well, that's a compromise they're willing to live with.

Of course, you don't have to compromise, you can have that robust codec on a 2/3" camera, but then it costs $27,000. If all you want to spend is $8,000 then the two major manufacturers are offering you two very, very different ways to spend that money.

Barry,
I think people's wish list for options is often not what manufacturers provide but it is how they comparison shop for cameras. I think the HVX-300 introduces as many new good features as any camera recently while still making me concerned enough about the images coming from Cmos and 1/3 inch imager to hold off from buying one while I have bought an HPX-500 recently. As for the success in getting NBC and ABC to buy them lets see how the crews like them after they are in the field long enough to be compared in all situations? Also news is not always the best place to look for when it comes to quality images as it usually is more concerned about quantity of cameras on the street as well so the price point on the 300 is very appealing to the bean counters.

And an MPEG-2 long-GoP 8-bit recording format. And a handheld shoulder-butt form factor. And no wireless slot. And two channels of audio. There are lots and lots of differences between those two above and beyond chip size!
No dispute about any of that - I said a few posts ago about how the form factor of the 301 was better than the EX. In favour of the 301 I'd also add it's ability to make proxy recordings to separate SDHC cards, which I'd put pretty high up the list.

Yes, there are lots of differences "above and beyond chip size", but it would be cherry picking to say they are all in the 301s favour. Power consumption? Weight? Cost of battery system? Cost of heavier duty tripod because of the higher weight? And, of course, the real biggie aside from chip size is media cost and downloading issues.

The reason I originally posted was in response to Gary Nattrass, to comment that 1/2" chips were preferred to 1/3" more for photographic reasons than sheer "technical quality" pixel counting ones. Depth of field, diffraction etc, to say nothing of lens availability.
Yes, and the same law says that 1/2" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with 2/3" sensors...
Well, as I said a few posts back: "......1/2" sensors aren't ideal but are roughly halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" for dof etc. As I said before, not ideal, but better than 1/3".

So you're right - 2/3" is better than 1/2", but if you can't afford 2/3", surely it's better to go with 1/2" than 1/3"!?!
You can't just cherry-pick features here and there and come up with an "ideal" system, because each compromise has a significant effect on the overall system cost.
I think these forums provide a very valuable feedback mechanism for users to give their opinions back to manufacturers on what they think are good points of design, and what they think are bad. That should give better future product to consumers, and help crystallise manufacturers minds. Hence "cherry-picking" the best features of different models to give a "consumers camera" I feel a worthwhile exercise. And yes, obviously the choices made will have a combined cost implication.

So: my choice would be to model it on a 301 (I especially like the form factor, radio mic slots, proxy ability) and then make it 1/2" and SxS, also able to use SDHC with adaptor if required.

Codec? Both AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM-HD 422 50Mbs have full EBU approval for unrestricted general acquisition, so it'd really have to be one of those. The latter may be the better bet, since it still should be recordable on SDHC cards with the current adaptors. (Ideally, I'd prefer JPEG2000 - also EBU approved - to either of them.)

Cost? The 1/2" chips will add to the cost, the use of SDHC v P2 significantly take away from it, though from the base price of the EX1 I can't see the larger chip size adding too much on. An EX1 with an SxS card is currently less than £5,000 in the UK, so maybe the 1/3" to 1/2" upgrade will be £1-2,000? Media savings should easily offset that.