Would the HPX370 offer any substantial advantage in getting shallow DOF compared to my Canon XL-H1? Bundled zoom lenses in both cases. My guess is that it would not.

Thanks.

Philip,
Pretty good guess they have the same or similar DOF characteristics as both cameras use 1/3 inch chips.
I will say operationally the 370 is much more like a traditional ENG camera which I prefer over the XLH1 design. Also the recording on P2 is much better than HDV. I am betting you know all this.

Yes, I'm wrestling with my choices. Major project starting before long. I'd like to do in a higher quality format than HDV.

370's form factor appeals to me, but shallow DOF would be missed because I do a lot of interviews.
AF100 holds promise (with DOF as well) but I don't want to gamble with a 1.0 product.
I could attach a Nanoflash to my H1's HD-SDI terminals and get the better file quality, but it would be a total expense. Whereas I could pay part of the cost of a new camera by selling the old one.

Or I could do nothing.

All choices are neither totally appealing nor totally unappealing.

The 370 has the same DOF characteristics as any other 1/3" sensor camera. If you have a long room, you could zoom in all of the way for your interviews to obtain relatively shallow DOF but your camera would probably be 20-30' away from the subject in order to soften the BG to any appreciable level.

You won't be able to get your hands on an AF-100 anyway if you are not on a list already, I am predicting very limited availability through Spring of next year. So the AF-100, unless you got really lucky in getting your hands on one, is moot point anyway.

The AVC-INTRA100 that the 370 records is in a whole other league from HDV. No comparison.

Dan

Yes, I'm wrestling with my choices. Major project starting before long. I'd like to do in a higher quality format than HDV.

370's form factor appeals to me, but shallow DOF would be missed because I do a lot of interviews.
AF100 holds promise (with DOF as well) but I don't want to gamble with a 1.0 product.
I could attach a Nanoflash to my H1's HD-SDI terminals and get the better file quality, but it would be a total expense. Whereas I could pay part of the cost of a new camera by selling the old one.

Or I could do nothing.

All choices are neither totally appealing nor totally unappealing.

As someone who has a Nanoflash with my Canon XL H1S, I can tell you that it is a fantastic system.

If you are comfortable with your current camera and its image, then the Nano takes it quite a few steps further. 220mb+ I-Frame recording with my XLH1S yields fantastic results! I think you'll be very impressed.

But as mentioned, there will be no difference in DOF between these cameras as they both share the same chip size.

Philip, have you considered the Sony Ex 1R /3? They have 1/2" chips and will give better DoF than any 1/3" cam. Both can be had for less than the 370. Of course, they won't have an AVC-i codec, but they'll still be better than any HDV format. If you can spend a little more, there's the Sony PMW 320 with its shoulder form factor.

Personally, I'm looking at the EX line or the Canon Xf305 for my next camera.

Glen, I hadn't thought about those EX Sonys. Now that I do think about them, I realize that the form factor of my XL H1 has really been bothering me, and having a real shoulder-mount camera would be a luxury for me. The higher-end Sony is quite a bit more than the 370, as B&H have the 370 on sale now. (There's also a trade-in offer, but I think selling the old one would gain me about an extra $1K.

I realize that with my budget, anything will be a compromise. I'll be lucky to get half the improvements that are on my wish list.

BTW, anyone have comments about how the 370's OIS would compare to the one in the XL H1?

You can get shallow DOF with the 370 but like all 1/3" chip camera's you need to be quite far back and fully open on the long end of the lens.

I did these tests a few years ago and I love my HPX301 as I am used to shoulder mount camera's. If I was wanting to do big cinematic shallow DOF I would chose a different camera such as the 3700 or RED but that is a different story altogether.

Panasonic AG-HPX301E Test 4 on Vimeo

Gary, your results would be fine for me, even with the limitations you mention.

I find the 301 to be fine for me but there again I don't like too much shallow DOF, I also have the MTF nikon adaptor although that is different and not really shallow DOF just extreme tele.

I did get some good results with a 60mm macro lens though more for close up work.

I am very old skool film so tend to choose the lens for what is required and most of my work has been with 16mm cut-off for TV so it is fairly similar to the 1/3" chipset.

It is interesting that shallow DOF is a big subject these days but I am sure it is more to do with the availability of DSLR's that can do it all the time rather than any great need for it within content creation for mainstream media, besides most actors and presenters struggle to hit their marks anyway so limiting them to a few inches is a no no for most of my work.

I'd like it for location interviews, where the background would be a lot less distracting if it were somewhat unfocused.

You just need to be back a bit further than a 1/2" or 2/3" camera and try and keep the aperture wide open at f1.7 the 1/3" lenses are better wide open anyway and I never go above f5.6.

My ex BBC guru Alan Roberts made this very interesting comment on another board regarding shallow DOF on large chip cameras:

"And that's one of the oddnesses about this trend for large format cameras. You get short DoF only if you use wide apertures, so why get a large format camera (say, the 101, 4/3 inch) and then fit an F/5.6 lens to it? You'll get the same DoF as, say a 2/3 camera with an F/2.8 lens, which would be a lot cheaper anyway, or even a 1/2" camera with a F/2 would give the same DoF"

You could add a Redrock Micro system to it. But the problem is, you'll first have to remove the v-wedge at the bottom of the hpx370, and that's nearly impossible!

Gary, a very memorable and sensible quote!

Ralph, was the lack of a regular threaded mounting hole just based on Panny's desire to sell plates? (At least there's a less expensive but identical version by JVC.)

My HPX301 has a regular threaded hole in the V-wedge plate but I don't think I would like to use anything other than a proper quick release plate, I have two sony ones that cost me £50 each.

I'm using the plate that came with my old JVC HD-110, which works fine. The SONY plates, new, are less than $200, the JVC is $250-270, and the Panasonic (same design, same quality) is $450USD.

That's a simple rip-off.
Ed

So...I'm still not sure. Is there a threaded hole on the bottom of the 370, in case you don't have the accessory plate?

There should be as it will have the same v wedge as the 301.

So...I'm still not sure. Is there a threaded hole on the bottom of the 370, in case you don't have the accessory plate?

Yes, there is a regular threaded hole. But the problem is it almost impossible to remove the v-wedge if you need to attach 35mm adapters, matte box, etc.

See this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/488746-hpx370-v-wedge-can-someone-panasonic-help.html

Looking at all the current and forthcoming options...and I don't mean this to be a flame or overly critical in any way...do you think in the next 2-5 years we'll see relatively few 1/3" pro/semi-pro cameras like the 370, with larger sensors (like AF100) taking over?

No I don't think larger sensor's will take over as not everyone wants or needs shallow DOF, also smaller cameras can be made with the 1/3" chips and they can produce some very good results up to broadcast standards.

I liken my HPX301 to a 16mm film camera as for TV work it has very similar frame size, yes I will get a 2/3" camera if one comes out at lower cost but for shallow DOF I have a RED One available from next year so I wont be jumping to buy a 101.

Shallow DOF is in fashion at the moment as DSLR's are a cheap way of getting cinematic effect but not all programming needs such a style so smaller camera's for doco and features shooting such as the new canons will continue to use small chips.

I agree Gary, shallow DOF is vastly overrated. Sure, it can look cool for the occasional closeup or beauty shot but try shooting a moving musician or athlete in an unrehearsed, documentary situation with a shallow DOF camera, about 70% of your shots will be soft or out of focus.

I shot a documentary piece with my 5D MKII in November, mostly handheld and it was really, really tough to hold focus as I and my subjects moved through the frame. If you have a FF and an AC who has measured marks and actors who are accurately hitting the marks, that is one thing but for a huge majority of people who buy sub-$10,000.00 cameras, they are NOT trying to make a narrative feature, they are simply crafting real life stories without a huge crew and actors and camera assistants.

Shallow DOF is somewhat of a fad. Yes, it has always been a part of the vocabulary of filmmakers but lately it has become a cliche of sorts, too may productions that abuse it when it should be used sparingly. Also seems counter-intuitive that I have this amazing low light capability with my 5D MKII and my 1.4 lenses, yet I have to stop the camera down to about an F5.6 to get any practical DOF for moving subjects. Love shooting with the 5D MKII, but the DOF thing can be very limiting if you don't want everything in the frame to be soft mush.

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Dan

Totally agree with Dan and to add what a lot of people seem to not understand is that cinematic feature type productions will only use shallow DPF when needed, the DOP has a selection of lenses available and will use each lens according to the production requirements.

Certainly on all the features I have worked on have been done this way and to put one lens on a 5D and shoot everything the same way is not how it is done by the big boys!

I thought it was me! I spend my time in low light with lenses wide open and tight so the luxury of NOT having narrow DoF is really nice. Lots of light, f8 or 11 and wider shots are my most happy times!

I've never been a great fan of throwing focus from subject to subject as they speak - and you see this so often now it really annoys me. Great for effect, but so tiresome to watch. I like my eye to be able to stroll around the frame, seeing everything, not have it forced on me to only look at certain feature. I always get left wondering what is was the director didn't want me to see in the background?

How about we all demand that Panasonic make a pro level 1/6" sensor camera. If they can work out a way to get low noise levels and high quality with a 1/6" "microsensor" set, we can call it the Orson Wells camera, everything in sharp focus, all of the time? ;-) All of this focusing nonsense is a PITA anyway!

Let's go against the grain.

Dan

I am with Dan on this but sadly here in the UK the new generation of noo mediah stoodents are being taught that everything should be shallow DOF and this is not becoming more prevalent in mainstream media where it is totally out of place.

Searching for focus seems to be the new style and when added to the wobbly cam it's time to hit the channel button!