I'm thinking of purchasing an HPX-500 to use in place of my Sony EX-1. I miss working with a full size camera. Are there any problems with this camera? Anyone care to talk me out of it? Thanks for the counsel.

Yeah, it's not very sharp!
I tried one on a job a few years back and in 1080 up-scaled mode it was sort of OK, but in 720 it was quite mushy.
As usual with Pannys it had nice colours and a gentle feel to it, but there's no getting away from the poor resolution. A lot of people would say that 1280x720 is only semi-HD anyway, but the 500 is far short even of that.
The other really scary thing was how bad the viewfinder was, it was near impossible to judge critical focus, and apparently it's not possible to swap it with a Varicam one for example.
Plus points - it handles just like any other full-size camera, variable frame rates work easily, CCDs so no rolling shutter issues, P2 system works nicely, cheap.
Just my 2p worth.
Steve

Check out the HPX-300 I have the 301E and I am finding it superb, OK 1/3" chips and lenses but the pictures are fantastic and the viewfinder very good.

There is a firmware update coming to help with the rolling shutter and as said the P2 system is superb

It also does full HD at 1920x1080i at up to 100mbs and the native progressive is also very good.

at up to 100mbs

And that's 100 mb/sec AVC-Intra so performs as if it's got an even higher bitrate. So much disappointment that a camera with this codec only has 1/3" chips. Personally I think it's a marketing thing again, as if it had even 1/2" chips it'd eat too much into Varicam terrain.

Steve

I recently bought a 500 instead of the 300 although the 300 is an easier package to buy. As far as the viewfinder you can put the 2 inch SDX-900 viewfinder on the 500 ( I happen to have one) and it is much nicer than the standard one. The 2/3 inch option is very nice. I have a couple of SD lenses which work okay and I am looking around for an HD lens I feel like buying. I think the sensitivity of the camera is much better than the 300 so to me the trade offs balanced slightly in the 500's favor. I also like the fact the camera can shoot both NTSC and Pal with the flick of a switch.

All good points. Didn't know you could put the SDX viewfinder on it, glad it works better, but that tells its own story, the fact that you can put an SD viewfinder on an "HD" camera!

Steve

I've had the Hpx500 for over a year now, I've shot many projects with it. I think it is a superb camera, and I have to disagree with Steve... You're saying that it's pretty much a sub-HD camera, the images are very sharp if you know how to use the focus assist features, but I do agree that the viewfinder could be better, but you can always replace it with a sharper one. I don't really see the need to replace mine as it works fine for me! I also think that wide shots with alot of detail look soft, I think the viewfinder and focus assist features don't help much when trying to focus on high detail wide shots. The medium and close up shots are not that far off from the other cameras. Some other pluses not mentioned are the amazing dynamic range, great low light performance, four channels of audio, 2/3" DoF, rich colors, great motion rendition. I'm not defending my camera I'm just showing my perspective after having used the camera in many different situations. If I had the burden of trying to choose a camera today with all the options available.... I'd probably still choose the 500 or perhaps a rigged out hpx170 with steadicam vest etc... I just think all the nonsense over which camera has the highest rez is a waste of time, all the pro-HD cameras available today are very usable and produce HD images no matter which way the camera processes it internally! My personal preference is with the rich vibrant color and the awesome motion rendition of the Panasonic P2 cameras... Others may see it differently and I respect that! Choose your tool wisely, based on the preference of you and your clients, and go out and produce some awesome engaging material!

Here's an example of some nice sharp Hpx500 images http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfxSdPEKp_s&fmt=22

All good points well made. Agree about colour rendition, dynamic range and all the other stuff, you are right, it's got a lot of good points.
The thing about the viewfinder being exchangeable with a sharper one I'm not aware of, I did ask at the time I used one and was told that you couldn't put an HD one on it, and for long lens, critical focussing I found it virtually useless.
I just found it objectionably soft on a largish HD screeen, and I know many people even say the same about a lot of full 720 line cameras, and it's one reason the EX1 and 3 have so many fans as the pictures are just so hi res and sharp. It's hard to get away from the fact that the 500 is a 600,000 pixel camera, and that's a long way short of even 720 let alone 1080 HD.
Steve

Yeah, I think its 610,000 pixels per chip... I don't know much about the spec details, I just know that it produces a nice subtle but pleasing image!

Cheers,

Thank you all for your keen insights. After more thought this weekend, I think I'm going to just be patient and wait to take a look at the Nano Flash when it becomes available.

I've owned a Hpx500 for a little over a month now and are quite impressed with what you get for the price, I got a very good deal though so it was just over 1500$ more than the 300 kit would be.

Last year i shot an event video with the ex1 and last weekend I did the same shoot with hpx500. The only place where the Hpx lacks a bit are in large overviewing lanscapes when it comes to detail, but in challenging light conditions it will beat the Ex1 with the dynamic range the 2/3" chips offer.

The standard VF are not very good but will get the job done, also as others pointed out you can a add a better SD one.

All in all at this price you will be compromising. The 300 got HD chips, but it's 1/3" and cmos, Ex1 are cmos, mpeg2 with horrible ergonomics and hpx500 are basicly SD chips to sum up the most evident "problems".

If you want almost no compromises you'll end up in the Hpx3000 and 2700 with a good HD lens in almost 70 grand area...

Michael - call Abel Cine in LA, I heard today they have an HPX500 w/ lens for a ridiculous price (the best I've ever heard). G'luck!

Thanks, Jaron. I called and they are sending a proposal for both the 500 and the 300.

I've had my 500 for about 6 months now, and it's a great camera. I love the P2 workflow. I use a very good SD lens, and the images are more than satisfactory. I have no problem with the viewfinder - everything I shoot is in focus. DVCPRO HD, 1080i, 720P, DVCPRO 50, DV, whatever, it does all the formats, all the frame rates. The preset white balance is yellow-ish, so be careful there.
If it's good enough for Discovery HD (Silver), it's good enough for me. But most importantly, my clients love the images. The colors are beautiful.
Perhaps the Sony EX line does make sharper images, but I'll take the 2/3" chip depth of field, no jello-cam, low-light sensitivity and large form factor over that any day. I sold my JVC HD200 for it, and I never looked back.

Just bumped into this article on DV.com. Would love to see those images in NGC HD...!
'Expedition Grizzly': National Geographic Goes on Location with Panasonic and Fujinon (http://dv.com/article/83862)
I want one of those, not the grizzly, but the 42x fujinon lens paired with the Hpx500. Also notice the stock VF on the hpx500. I'll guess the Hpx3000 they mention for closeups will produce better images detail wise, but at the moment there are no good alternatives to the 500 if you prefer 2/3" at its price point.

The 500 is cleared by Discovery Channel for Silver Level acquisition.

There is nothing "sub level HD" from this camera.

I have been using this camera since last Oct. with a Flash XDR.

This is the best setup for this camera imho.

The XDR gives you full raster recording and high bitrates for the cost of some P2 cards (nano flash). I think the DVCPro HD codec actually has a negative impact in terms of detail for this camera.

As far as sharpness, I have the in-camera detail turned down (to avoid edge fringing) and sharpen in post.

720p60 is the framerate & resolution I shoot a lot of stuff at and when I intercut with the EX-1, my eyes always slightly prefer the HPX-500 cam. - Better color and overall image.

Although the EX-1 is used for the wider shots as it will pull more detail at a distance.

I don't believe this would happen in 1080p, but in 720p the HPX-500 has plenty of detail.

The original Varicam was a 720p camera and I think of the HPX-500 in the same way.

I purchased this camera with the $2000 rebate and sold some of the gear in the package, so for $7,250 this camera was a good deal for me.

I have not seen the HPX-300 but I can not spend close to $10,000 for a 1/3" camera.

A quick note on this lens and sorry to swerve the thread. This is an amazing lens but is pretty unwieldy, for less $$$ new the 25x16.5 gives the same range and can be image stabilized with the separate unit,granted the wide end is gone but you gain massively in portability. I'm using the Fujinon on a job right now and its marvelous.

James

Agreed, even better I think is the Canon HJ18x28, my current lens of choice by far.
Steve

I've been reading all the HPX500 bashing since I bought mine two years ago, one of the first in California... As an experienced filmmaker who shot super16 exclusively for 30 years, I can only say that I am very pleased with the 500, and have no intention of switching anytime soon (I have the Fujonon lens, high rez finder - and I also have a 200 as a BU camera).

It's funny, for many years the goal for video was to come as close as possible to replicating film, which, whatever you may think, is not inherently a high resolution medium (unless you have access to a Panaflex Platinum, Zeiss primes and shoot ASA 100 stock with no glass). Panasonic has done a great job creating gamma and matrix menus that come very close, I think better than any of the other manufacturers... And I've owned many, a Sony DSR300, Canon XL-2 and XL H1 - and while I was happy with those (I shoot documentaries BTW) I was very excited when the 500 became available.

Now the quest, fueled by these boards, seems to be for maximum resolution. When I compare the footage from my 500 side-by-side with footage I've shot with my Aaton super16 camera and Cooke 10.4-52mm lens, the Panasonic is noticeably sharper. True, it doesn't offer the dynamic range of film, but the color and resolution are more than comparable. Maybe not with 35, but then I've always preferred the tactile look of 16 anyway.

With other affordable cameras the increase in resolution comes with the price of skew, which has been much discussed on these forums. Personally, I find it way more distracting than the "mushiness" (I don't agree with that evaluation) of the 500, especially for handheld work. Also, I often use a light SoftFX or ProMist to take the edginess off of HD anyway.

I've said it before, camera are tools used to tell stories. The camera should support that approach... I wouldn't want to shoot a big budget western with the 500, but for what I do, it's an excellent camera.

All fair points. I've said the same in the past about getting an HD and the first thing we're asked to do is make it look softer by lowering detail settings, using filters etc.!

I think a good deal of the reason for chasing hi-res images is that's what a lot of the broadcasters will demand. A lot of them are frowning on even full res 720 cameras let alone something that has to use pixel shifting to get there.

Steve

ps I'd rather have a 500 than an EX3 as well.

I think in the BBC review of the HPX500, they said something to the effect that this camera looks better than it has a right to. Keep in mind the spatial offset does give iut resolution that is equivalent to a 1.1M imager. I think that many broadcasters look at content and quality with content first and as long as the quality doesn't distract, it is okay. I have seen a good number of things out there accepted from an HVX200 that was totally done on that camera and the guidelines for the channel involved was that the 1/3" cameras could only be used for 20% of the content. Content is king.

One of the films in our IFP/Digital Filmmakers Grant program debuted at Tribecca. Yes you can make some very nice images. And some of the nicest images we had in out NAB video wall came from the Vancouver Aquarium.

Thanks,

Jan

BBC don't like it much. I spoke to an engineer in regional BBC and he said he didn't think it was up to their standards for HD by quite a margin.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good things about it, and I love Panny gear, but there's no getting away from the 600,000 pixel chips.
Steve

With both BBC's engineers and many other high end broadcasters looking at their scopes and grade I monitors to judge this, of course the 500 will fall short of the more expensive cameras. The 500 are a budget 2/3" HD camera, not a 1080p high end camera as say the hpx3000.

There will always be compromises, even the high end hpx's compromise in their own ways.

BBC don't like it much. I spoke to an engineer in regional BBC and he said he didn't think it was up to their standards for HD by quite a margin.
The BBC doesn't like the EX3's recording format either, classifying it as "standard def" because it's interframe at under 50mbps.


Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good things about it, and I love Panny gear, but there's no getting away from the 600,000 pixel chips.

Yeah, but -- again, Discovery HD rates it at Silver. As an HD camera. So you can count pixels, or you can make images. According to Discovery HD, you can make all the images you want on an HPX500 and they'll be glad to air them, in HD, as it's cleared for unlimited acquisition.

Yeah, but -- again, Discovery HD rates it at Silver. As an HD camera. So you can count pixels, or you can make images. According to Discovery HD, you can make all the images you want on an HPX500 and they'll be glad to air them, in HD, as it's cleared for unlimited acquisition.

I don't get commissions myself, I just shoot the pictures, but I assume that there will be discussions at commissioning stage re equipment to be used, and I get the feeling that for high end projects they'd say no to the 500. A lot of BBC wildlife series are Discovery co pros and I know that the 500 would not be acceptable (Planet Earth, Galapagos, Yellowstone, Wild China etc.) except in special circumstances.

Steve

I read somewhere that BBC doesn't accept super16 anymore either, what a shame... I've been watching re-mastered Hercule Poirot mysteries recently that were shot with the 80s Panavision super16 cameras (basically an Aaton) and they look fantastic on my HD screen...

In the early 70s I shot a documentary feature (ACAPULCO GOLD) with a Bolex and Cine Effects in Hollywood said they wouldn't blow it up to 35 because they didn't approve of that camera. We jumped to a lot of hoops and they finally agreed. Even they admitted afterwards that it looked terrific.

"Broadcast Standards" and "Producer Guidelines" can often be used to eliminate the poor independent filmmaker, that's an even bigger shame.

The reason they don't accept S16 is not due to the quality of the material as shot but how it performs when compressed on broadcast. The grain causes the compression systems all sorts of problems and results in a very yucky image. It is a shame, I shot my last S16 about 3 years ago now and sold my kit, haven't been asked for it since.
Steve

All valid points but I think the times are changing and broadcasters will have to compete with internet delivery that can outstrip their codec problems through airwave TX

That will open up a new way of working that will allow new interesting programmes to be made again and delivered in HD in more efficient ways with lower cost equipment.

The grain causes the compression systems all sorts of problems and results in a very yucky image. It is a shame, I shot my last S16 about 3 years ago now and sold my kit, haven't been asked for it since.
Steve

So that would mean that all of the excellent films, both documentary and a narrative, that have been shot in 16 and super16 over the past 5 decades will not end up being televised because of compression issues? That includes many Bergman films (made for TV), French films, BBC productions, and, personally, most of my resume.

Okay, so if that is true, then I would think an affordable camera, like the HPX500, that delivers excellent images would be a God-send.

I realize that nature broadcasters want the "through a window" clarity that they tout, but many dramatic films and personal documentaries suffer (in my opinion) when they are too crisp.. there is a lack of tactile grittiness that supports the visual need of the story. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was intentionally shot with old studio lenses that weren't color corrected in order to give an impression of looking through the heat of the desert. That is only one example (and one with wide vistas, I might add) of a story demanding something other than maximum resolution.

The 500 has a place in this kind of story-telling. Scopes be damned, it just looks good to me (and I prefer 720/24pn by the way).

I realize that nature broadcasters want the "through a window" clarity that they tout, but many dramatic films and personal documentaries suffer (in my opinion) when they are too crisp.. ).

In not the crispness, AFAIK it gets very blocky because the compression has a hard time dealing with grains as opposed to pixels. It came as a big shock to all of us in the wildlife film game I can assure you, not to mention Kodak!
There has been talk that as compression/transmission equipment improves it could be sorted out, in which case you may find S16 coming back.
Steve

I in which case you may find S16 coming back.
Steve

Steve: Well, although I still own my Aaton and 5 lenses, one an excellent Cooke zoom that was built specifically for BBC production in the early 80's (I bought my camera used in 1989 from a British cinematographer), I will probably never get another budget for a doc in super16 - but I will never sell it - like my hotrodded 1930 Ford that I drive daily.

The point of my comments was in relation to the HPX500, which I feel is an excellent replacement for my Aaton for documentary work. It takes great pictures, handles well (although it's a little too heavy) and doesn't cost an arm and a leg - so I don't have to lose sleep worrying about using it in less than ideal locations, or sending it through luggage.

There are many things to consider when buying a personal camera, and those I've mentioned in these posts are the factors that are important to me - It's not all about resolution, and shouldn't have to be for everyone.

Been using the 500 for quite some time now. Shot lots of different things with it.

Im a parrot so to repeat - wide shots arent the sharpest out there, and the SD viewfinder can sometimes let you down (I use a BTLH80 where possible).

But really there arent any other minus points that bother me. Being 2/3" gives it a versatility that smaller chip cameras lack, case in point being the wide variety of work I use it for. One of the most recent being a on a series called Road to greatness (Australian content) currently airing on Fox Sports in the US in which I shot live action shots, interviews and dramatic promo shots. I rented a Fujinon HA13x4.5 BERM-M48B wide angle - great lens btw, for the shots and they are amazing. I usually use the standard Fujinon HD CAC lens you buy with the camera and the above wide angle blew it away as far as sharpness goes. SO the lens is a big factor. Ive also used the Fujinon CINE Zoom HAc15x7.3F with it and again awesome, much better than the package lens. Regardless, Id say 85% of the time I am shooting with the package lens and it works well.

Please dont go viewing HD footage on a computer screen and saying WOW this is so much sharper and then not compare to see how it will look in the real world on anything from the new OLEDs to a 4:3 TV. The reality is, out there the difference is minimal, compared to your 2560x1600 LCD computer monitor your sitting 2 feet from. I use a 42" bravia on my edit bay and also have a 50" bravia in the loungeroom and an old Panasonic flatscreen tube TV that I run shots through from time to time and the 500 always looks great. And yes, if I am seated within close proximity I can see more sharpness in something like an EX on the 1080 panels in wide shots. But reality is a great thing, as 1080 panel owners arent the majority and even so people just dont sit that close for the most part. The difference I notice more than the sharpness increase you can get from other cams, is dynamic range. Thats something I can see clearly weather I am close or far, weather I am viewing on an old tube TV or 1080 LCD. TO my eyes it makes the greatest impact when comparing to a minor sharpness increase. Would I prefer to shoot on something else? Hell yeah give me a 3000 or 3700 any day of the week. But there are more reasons than mere sharpness for that. But then again Im out there to earn a living, and it makes no sense for me personally to have so much cash tied to depreciating equipment. When in need, I have a great rental house I use.

Im rambling now and all this is just IMO.

Noel: all valid points - I guess one of the reasons that I am such a fan of the 500 (besides the cost benefits you mention and the noticeable dynamic range) is that I tend to shoot more in the mid and long end of the lens. When I shoot wide, it usually an interior at medium to short distances, and the wide (Fujinon) holds up well there.

Also, I try to never close down below 4-5.6... These (CAC) lenses tend to fall apart more at f8 and above. And, as I mentioned, by using a 1/2 SoftFX or 1/4 ProMist, it tends to mask any loss in the lens and makes it look intentional (which, in my case, it usually is).

A lot of BBC wildlife series are Discovery co pros and I know that the 500 would not be acceptable (Planet Earth, Galapagos, Yellowstone, Wild China etc.) except in special circumstances.

Steve
And for those shows any Xdcam gear would also be a no go, even the pdw models would probably not cut it. Although the 720p Varicam did make it into a lot of Planet Earth shots, along with film, hdcam and so on.

As i said before, there will always be compromises, even with high end gear. I still think we thend to lean a bit to much towards the "full hd" consumer nonsense. Of course 1080 chips are fine, but in the end the images count and not the numbers behind. Want 1080 with panasonic's "mojo" rent a hpx3000 or 2700...will leave any xdcam trailing behind in the dust.

I don't get commissions myself, I just shoot the pictures, but I assume that there will be discussions at commissioning stage re equipment to be used, and I get the feeling that for high end projects they'd say no to the 500. A lot of BBC wildlife series are Discovery co pros and I know that the 500 would not be acceptable (Planet Earth, Galapagos, Yellowstone, Wild China etc.) except in special circumstances.

Steve

High end Discovery HD projects are Gold standard. That's reserved for the best HD cameras. As was already stated, the HPX500 is cleared for the middle-tier rating, Silver - just like the EX line. No one here ever said the 500 was a top of the line HD camera. For its price, Silver rating is great.

rent a hpx3000 or 2700...will leave any xdcam trailing behind in the dust.

Not entirely true, do you want to quantify it? The 2700 for instance is definitely less sharp and has less resolution than the PDW700/800.
Steve

Steve, show the res charts to prove this. And when you do this please post all of the settings in the cameras. This just isn't true. If you saw a sample that was less resolution, it is likely that they had turned the detail down.

And BTW, the codec on the 2700 totally rocks at 4:2:2 10 bit, I frame only. A little unlike the long GOP experience on the 700.

Best,

Jan