Journalism is all well and good, but I don't make my living shooting news stories. Most TV news photogs use whatever their TV station provides for them. Yes, TV news is quite happy with 35mbps, but does Panasonic expect the HPX600 to work beyond journalism? And the 600 will work just fine for TV news.

For the record, the local stations in my city use:
JVC HM 700/750s
Panasonic HPX 170/370s
Sony EX1, PMW 320s, maybe a 350 thrown in.
And an odd assortment of Beta SX and Panny SD cams.

The last shoot I was on specifically mentioned a requirement for a minimum 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec camera. I suspect that's why the PMW 100/150/200s have such a codec, to appeal to a broader market.
I know it seems I am obsessed with a "broadcast" codec, but I believe this will future proof any new camera. Should I purchase a camera soon, I want at least a 50mbps codec.

The big question is, does the HPX600 offer twice the performance of the HPX370, since it will cost at least twice as much? Again, we're back to that sensor.
Actually, if 35mbps is a good enough codec (and I certainly don't deny that it is), then the JVC HM600 looks like a heck of a good deal. It's sensitivity is F11 (almost an F12) at 2000lux, which puts it on par with 2/3" cameras. It has all the pro connections you'd need. And it's cheap!

BTW, if the 600 can compare to the 2700, that's a very good thing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 2700's images. If the 600 can truly match it for performance, then that makes it a hell of a good camera.

I know it seems I am obsessed with a "broadcast" codec, but I believe this will future proof any new camera. Should I purchase a camera soon, I want at least a 50mbps codec..
I doubt it's ever possible to totally future proof any purchase, but recording codec is only half the story. I don't disagree with your desire for 50Mbs XDCAM as a minimum, but it's of little use in future proofing if the front end performance isn't up to (ideally beyond!) current state of the art. And you can always use an external recorder - there is NOTHING that can be later done about chipset, processing etc.
The big question is, does the HPX600 offer twice the performance of the HPX370, since it will cost at least twice as much? Again, we're back to that sensor.
Yes, and which is why the specifics of it are so significant. Assuming it's a single 1920x1080 (which I'm 98% sure of), and assuming comparable CMOS technology to the 371, it's pretty certain that whilst the HPX600 will be nearly a stop more sensitive, it will be substantially inferior to the 371 for such as resolution and chroma aliasing. Swings and roundabouts, but in certain key aspects it will almost certainly be much lower performance than the 371.
BTW, if the 600 can compare to the 2700, that's a very good thing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 2700's images. If the 600 can truly match it for performance, then that makes it a hell of a good camera.
The only thing wrong with the 2700's images is if true 1080 performance is specified by your client, because the 2700 is a 720 camera, period. Yes, if will give a 1080 output, but only a maximum of 720 resolution. It's only got 1280x720 chips.

And true 1080 is now being expected as routine, taken for granted. The 2700 was state of the art when displays were typically 1 megapixel, but 1920x1080 is now the norm, part of the requirement for full broadcast acceptance. With the Sony F5/55 coming on the scene, expect 4k to be increasingly specified for acquisition, at least at the higher end. I don't see 4k displacing 1080 for a long time, but it does mean that any camera which can't even do close to full 1920x1080 can in no way be seen as "future-proofed". The 371 may be considered more future proof than the 600!!

Well, I went to a demo of the HPX600. My first impressions are: really nice camera. Light for its size. Picture looked sharp with good color rendition.

As far as the single sensor; the salesman didn't know a lot about it as far as specs. I can't tell you if it's like a Canon C300 sensor, or if it's a native 1920x1080 - before the Bayer filter.
After all this time, I finally saw a HPX600 in the flesh at an exhibition, and I can't say I was impressed. In terms of quality it would be wrong to describe it as "bad" - but it was undeniably worse than other cameras displayed side by side, even much cheaper ones with 1/3" chips. In another thread Sam Lee says "That explains why it's so muddy looking....." - maybe a bit harsh, but I know where he's coming from.

When compared to the PMW320/350, I also found it striking how inferior the viewfinder on the HPX600 was.

And the description with it seemed to indicate that the sensor is indeed a single 1920x1080 chip - not 4k - so all that shouldn't come as a surprise. As such, with all the current buzz about 4k, how it can be described as "future-proof" is quite beyond me. It's not even capable of full 1080 HD!
Honestly, I don't really understand how Bayer filters affect sensors (besides adding color). I suspect the reason for a single sensor (and hinted at by the salesman) was to keep the price low.
The story I've now heard is that it came about more to keep the WEIGHT low, rather than the price. The story goes that marketing badly wanted to be able to promote it as the lightest 2/3" camera, and were told by engineering that it could only be achieved with a single chip, not three chip - so hence the HPX600 was born. In practice, it only makes it an ounce or two lighter than a PMW350 - barely noticeable in normal use - but with considerably poorer performance in a number of respects. Who thought that was a good compromise!?!

One version of the story explains it away as a misunderstanding. Something like the engineering side specifying it would need a single 1920x1080 chip to meet the weight target, the non-technical side not realising that didn't mean full 1080 performance before signing it off! Is that part of the story true? It's what I was told, and all I can say is that it would explain why it is single chip (to the mystification of many) and why something of an air of mystery seems to hang over it. It was born as an embarrassing mistake! It's the only explanation I've heard that explains the known facts, so unless anybody knows better, I'm inclined to believe it.

This video says it's a 3Mpixel sensor chip (listen at about 2:25).

HPX600 EN - YouTube

Does that mean it has about 2300x1300 pixels? Does that mean it slightly over-samples for 1920x1080?

I couldn't compare it to a PMW320/350. My friend has a 350, but I haven't used it in a while. I honestly don't remember which of the cameras had a better EVF.

As far as weight, David, you say the difference between the cameras is one or two ounces. According to Sony and Panasonic's own websites, the 350 (body only) weights 7lbs, 1oz, whereas the 600 weighs 6lbs, 2 oz. That's one ounce shy of a pound in difference. I'd call that more than barely noticeable.

This review says about the image:

"The new 2/3-inch single-MOS sensor with F12 sensitivity and a 59dB S/N ratio is very quiet, with little noise apparent in the darkest shadows"

- and then says the image is very clean:

"Owing to the camera’s very clean images, high performance optics are imperative."

Review: Panasonic AG-HPX600 P2 Camcorder | Studio Daily (http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/02/review-panasonic-ag-hpx600-p2-camcorder/)

So, take that as another's opinion on the camera. But no doubt, Panasonic had to cut some corners somewhere to bring the price down. It's no HPX3100.

As far as the story of the camera being an embarrassing mistake, well, that seems pretty incredible. Panasonic went through a heck of a lot to make the camera, market it and sell it to have it all based on a "misunderstanding." Perhaps the story is true, but I'd really need evidence to believe that wild claim.

This video says it's a 3Mpixel sensor chip (listen at about 2:25).

Does that mean it has about 2300x1300 pixels? Does that mean it slightly over-samples for 1920x1080?
Interesting, because what I saw was a vendors information card - the video you link to is an official promotional video from Panasonic, so I would expect it more likely to be correct. Some posts back I said (about the sensor)"Realistically, there are only three fundamental options - 1920x1080, 3840x2160, or somewhere around the 3.5 megapixel mark (as the F3)." and there are very good technical reasons for it having to be one of those. If the video is correct, it's closer to the third option, though a little on the low side compared to other Bayer chips specifically intended for deriving 1080. (Such as the F3 and the Alexa)

If so (and I'd like to see chart results to be absolutely sure), then yes, resolution figures will be better than for a single 1920x1080 chip - but still won't be as good as a 3chip 1920x1080 design. The figure generally taken is that actual luminance resolution will be about 80% max of the chip dimension - so here about 1840x1040 as a limiting figure. But that's only part of the story - a lot depends on the downconversion, and it's also ignoring the chroma aspects. It's acknowledged that in resolution/aliasing aspects the F3 isn't as good as a 3 1920x1080 chip design - and the F3 chip is higher than 3 megapixel.

But really, it's in terms of sensitivity that single chip must lose out to three chip. All else equal, a single chip design is going to be over a stop down compared to three chip. That's an inevitability of the light lost in Bayer filtration. A necessary evil maybe in large sensor cameras, but for 2/3"....?
As far as weight, David, you say the difference between the cameras is one or two ounces. According to Sony and Panasonic's own websites, the 350 (body only) weights 7lbs, 1oz, whereas the 600 weighs 6lbs, 2 oz. That's one ounce shy of a pound in difference. I'd call that more than barely noticeable.
Sorry - I think I may have been misled by comparing one weight with v/f, one without. But even so - they are body only weights, equip the camera with v/f, batteries and a 2/3" lens (let alone camera light, radio mic receiver etc) and they'll both be somewhere of the order of about 15-16lbs? As such, the weight difference still wouldn't make me feel it worth the performance hit that single chip brings.

Also bear in mind that the video you linked to makes it clear that many of the advertised features are only available via extra cost and an extra circuit board. Start adding those and expect the 400g weight difference to diminish substantially.
This review says about the image:

"The new 2/3-inch single-MOS sensor with F12 sensitivity and a 59dB S/N ratio is very quiet, with little noise apparent in the darkest shadows"

- and then says the image is very clean:

"Owing to the camera’s very clean images, high performance optics are imperative."

So, take that as another's opinion on the camera.
Yes, but the same review also says: "......applying plenty of noise reduction to produce noise-free images with a concomitant loss of shadow detail" and even low amounts of noise reduction can bring as many problems as it solves. I remain very sceptical about using a stops worth of noise reduction to try to make up for a stops inherent sensitivity disadvantage. If images are "clean" due to noise reduction it's not necessarily a good thing.
As far as the story of the camera being an embarrassing mistake, well, that seems pretty incredible. Panasonic went through a heck of a lot to make the camera, market it and sell it to have it all based on a "misunderstanding." Perhaps the story is true, but I'd really need evidence to believe that wild claim.
Well, stranger things have happened, and there have been real howlers made by manufacturers in the past. (Remember the V2000 video format? Built by Philips and Grundig, and each had a model on sale before basic lip sync incompatabilities between the machines was brought to their attention by a consumer!) But if the chip really is 3 Megapixel (and not 1920x1080) I'm now less inclined to believe the "mistake" version of the story, the weight aspect is far more plausible as a reason for being single chip though. And I still don't feel the weight saving is worth the performance hit.

Well, after reading all this thread on the (empty cased) HPX600 , i'll keep using my old trusty SPX800 till it dies, shooting 50mbs in SD it still gives great images since 2005, all networks I feed vision too still love SD over HD.
lots of news broadcast these days (from downunder here) is from you-tube or some dudes iphone no doubt that is the same the world over.
Production gear is different, but less of them about these days, "Bean counters run the game"

Not to get too far off subject but I frequently shoot for some major three letter broadcast networks and they frequently request my shoot in dvcam mode on my pdw-f350. They don't even want HD most of the time.

Not to get too far off subject but I frequently shoot for some major three letter broadcast networks and they frequently request my shoot in dvcam mode on my pdw-f350. They don't even want HD most of the time.

I shot for a three letter network and they also requested SD, but in 16:9 format.

Well, after reading all this thread on the (empty cased) HPX600 , i'll keep using my old trusty SPX800 till it dies, shooting 50mbs in SD it still gives great images since 2005, all networks I feed vision too still love SD over HD.
lots of news broadcast these days (from downunder here) is from you-tube or some dudes iphone no doubt that is the same the world over.
Production gear is different, but less of them about these days, "Bean counters run the game"

I in fact still use SDX900 (DV50 tape version of the P2 SPX800) from time to time. It is arguably the best natural low-light performing camera I have ever used even in 2013 standards. With HPX3100, 3700, low light is just not as good (in the same Film Like 2 gamma mode). I have to bring extra PAs with couple of 1x1" LED light panels to add more ambient light. 9 dB on the SDX900 is relatively very low in grain vs 3 dB on the HPX3100 and HPX3700. However, the SDX900, HDX900, HPX2000, HPX3000 series all have that higher end premium look. It's a dramatic difference in quality when A/B comparing with HPX500, HPX600.

The rental rate is still pretty high on legacy SDX900s. So there's still value in them for those who don't need 1080p.

Hi Sam,

yes lots of older gear still giving great service, and as stated earlier shooting DVCPro25 my old SPX800 it ingests fast, encodes fast, and is still great quality when up-loaded via FTP. (IMO)
sadly I only get a call for HD shoot about once a year, sure there are others who shoot nothing but HD, but not for me, plus clients only want to pay a minimum so why invest more $'s for no gain.
many shooters near me are using cheap DSLR rigs instead of investing in Traditional broadcast cams.

Absolutely no regrets whatsoever in investing high quality 2/3" HD lenses and zoom controller. Good luck shooting type of events in which servo tracking of a subject is needed. I shot a week long fashion show. No CMOS rolling shutter or any other shortcomings. I couldn't pull it off w/ dSLR. the 16-bit see saw servo zoom with variable speed is indispensable for fashion runways, parade, sports, etc.. where one needs to track the subject and remain almost near perfect framing and focus.

I also have dSLRs only for certain type of production. They're great for dramatic works, but not for heavy live event tracking type of shot. The big problem here is the focal range. With dSLR, you can get 24-70, then 70-200 mm lens only. There's a 24-300, but it's just not good. It's a must to have at least 2 bodies, 2 lens, 2 ops to cover the same as a single 2/3" cam w/ a 22x or 25x lens. dSLR needs multi cam ops to get the job done. 25x is more suitable for wildlife. W/ 2/3" HD and a 22x HD lens, I can get roughly 24mm-620 mm (35mm equivalent) f/1.8 w/ minimal breathing and incredible sharpness and clarity throughout the zoom range.

Agreed, Sam. There are still many uses for the 2/3" camera. I just did a 3-day shoot with 2/3" cams and it looked great. Big sensor cams would have been a pain to use. The F800 is still one of the top rental cams.

There are many times when I wish I had a smaller sensor, servo zoom camera to go along with my FS100. There are needs for both.

A bit dated, but Panasonic scored a good sales day with the HPX600:

News: Denali Media Holdings Makes Alaska-Sized Purchase Of Panasonic AG-HPX600 P2 HD Shoulder-Mounts And AK-HC1500G HD Cameras For Anchorage CBS Affiliate : Panasonic HVX - HPX (P2) (http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/193/884866)

Seventeen is a lot of cameras.

Otherwise, there's frustratingly little info and reviews on this camera. It was announced at Nab 2012, and I've only seen 2 video samples, plus the little I was able to shoot at a demo.

Hmmm maybe the sony 400 has killed it dead in the water before it even got to be used.

I certainly would be looking at a 400 rather than a 600 now even though I already have P2.

I also have leftover P2 cards, B4 lens and batteries from my old HPX500. I wouldn't mind putting them to use again, hence my interest in the 600.

But the PMW400 sure looks nice. I wonder what the price will be, with an EVF. I'm betting the 600 is cheaper, price wise. But with one chip, it ought to be.

Both cameras can upgrade to future higher HD formats - AVC/Ultra for the 600, XAVC for the 400.

The question is, which HD format is most requested by clients, P2 or XDCAM? I think XDCAM wins. And if Sony replaces the EX3 and/or PMW320 with a true shoulder-mount "PMW300," in the $8-10,000 range? I can live with 1/2" chips.

Or how about go with a Canon C300? Decisions.....

A bit dated, but Panasonic scored a good sales day with the HPX600:

News: Denali Media Holdings Makes Alaska-Sized Purchase Of Panasonic AG-HPX600 P2 HD Shoulder-Mounts And AK-HC1500G HD Cameras For Anchorage CBS Affiliate : Panasonic HVX - HPX (P2) (http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/193/884866)

Seventeen is a lot of cameras.
Whether or not it was really a good sales day depends on what price got agreed. ;-) It's no secret that manufacturers will do deals at knock down prices if the market demands it - better some money and return than nothing, and it can be good PR to show an actual sale.......

What happened here I have no idea, but I second Glens comment about "there's frustratingly little info and reviews on this camera". I read into that that it's simply not selling, people just aren't interested. In which case, if you're buying 17 units, and you pay anything remotely near list price, you need to sack whoever did your negotiations.......... :-)

Reading back over this thread, the HPX600 is most compared with the PMW350 for very good reasons, not least that they're of similar price. {EDIT - Just checked prices and the HPX600 now seems to be about £2,000 MORE than a PMW350 for a like for like package! Don't be misled by the HPX600 base price - it doesn't include a viewfinder.} There's little doubt that 3 chips give the PMW350 a big advantage in the front end, but undeniably the HPX600 had a fully acceptable codec - the 350 is only fully approved for "journalism". As Glen earlier put it:
The last shoot I was on specifically mentioned a requirement for a minimum 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec camera. I suspect that's why the PMW 100/150/200s have such a codec, to appeal to a broader market.
I know it seems I am obsessed with a "broadcast" codec, but I believe this will future proof any new camera. Should I purchase a camera soon, I want at least a 50mbps codec
And as Gary points out, the PMW400 means you can now have your cake and eat it. Broadcast codec and superior front end to the HPX600. It's just what everybody writing in this thread last year was hoping for. And XAVC as well.

From what has been said, it's expected the PMW400 will go on sale for not much more than the PMW350, maybe even still undercutting the HPX600. In that case, then either Panasonic are going to have to substantially drop the price of the HPX600, or the only reason left to buy it will be if a user has to fit in with a P2 workflow, end of story.

As for which format is most requested, then in the UK I'd say it's currently XDCAM by a mile - and with cameras from Canon and JVC being codec compatible, that trend is only likely to increase. Think it's similar in Europe, don't know about elsewhere.

I already did a price check on the HPX600 and the PMW350 in the US, comparing similar packages. They were about the same price. In that case, I would have gone for the 600 for the better codec.

But IF the 400 is going to sell at near the same price as the 350, then it will be a really good package. Unless, of course, you're already heavily invested in P2.

As far as Panasonic giving a good price on the seventeen cameras sold, that's possible. I'm sure the BBC got a really good package deal from Sony when they sold them 200 PMW350s, or when JVC sold them over 500 HM650s. That doesn't mean the cameras suck, or the manufacturer is desperate to dump their stock, it's just good business.

I already did a price check on the HPX600 and the PMW350 in the US, comparing similar packages. They were about the same price. In that case, I would have gone for the 600 for the better codec.
It varies depending what package you're comparing, but using B&H prices for a package of camera, v/f and lens then the HPX600 is $19,500 ( Panasonic AG-HPX600 Camcorder with AG-CVF15 AG-HPX600PJF B&H )and a PMW350K is $18,400 ( Sony PMW-350K XDCAM EX HD Camcorder w/16x Zoom Lens PMW-350K B&H ) - the gap is much greater with the UK pricing I've seen. If you have to buy memory for either, then remember it's also a lot cheaper per hour with XDCAM, which swings the relative pricing even further in favour of the PMW350.

I suspect that allowing for exchange rates we're seeing the PMW350 price dropping in anticipation of the PMW400, which adds weight to the expectation that the HPX400 is likely to be very comparable in price with the HPX600.
But IF the 400 is going to sell at near the same price as the 350, then it will be a really good package. Unless, of course, you're already heavily invested in P2.
Maybe - but all solid state memory only has a certain guaranteed life span. If your P2 cards are already 4-5 years old, then a new camera may outlive them, which could be an unwelcome expense a few years further on.

The only real reason why I'd buy a HPX600 would be if a major client insisted on 2/3" and shooting P2, and I couldn't afford a higher end camera.

If you have to buy memory for either, then remember it's also a lot cheaper per hour with XDCAM, which swings the relative pricing even further in favour of the PMW350.
If your P2 cards are already 4-5 years old, then a new camera may outlive them, which could be an unwelcome expense a few years further on.

The only real reason why I'd buy a HPX600 would be if a major client insisted on 2/3" and shooting P2, and I couldn't afford a higher end camera.

The new micro P2 cards are cheaper than SxS cards. You'd need an adapter for the 600, but you'd only need 2. Then, you can buy as many micro P2 cards as you wish. And they are good for the new AVC/Ultra codec. But they do have a 5-yr life span, which I believe is similar to the SxS-1 cards.

P2 cards have a very long lifespan. The originals are good for 100,00 uses or so. I think the cheaper E models are good for 10,000 uses. I cannot imagine ever using one until it stops working.

But there's the final issue: will clients be asking for P2? Panny has their whole professional line geared toward P2. Perhaps the cheaper micro P2 cards will make P2 more popular, who knows?

And I know you like to compare the PMW350 to the HPX600, but in my opinion, they're not in the same league. Simply put, the 600 has a broadcast codec, the 350 does not. News organisations may not care, but other clients do.
Some clients will insist upon a broadcast codec. I've lost a client because my camera wouldn't do AVC/Intra 100. If I'm going to spend upwards of $20,000 on a new camera, I want that higher end codec, without a damn external recorder. I'm sorry, but the 350 won't do it for me, even if it has better imaging sensors. The 400, however, appears to be the game changer.
(Of course, the 600 may also fail broadcast standards because of its single sensor, but I haven't heard anything yet. In that case, neither the 600 or the 350 is an option to me.)

Also, as far as price, the 600 has digital zoom as a standard feature. To get that, the 350 costs $19,740: Sony PMW-350K XDCAM EX Camcorder w/16x Zoom & PMW-350KCE B&H

And the 600, with a $200 dongle, can connect through Wifi. The 350 is not Wifi capable. But the 400 will also have this feature.

And I know you like to compare the PMW350 to the HPX600, but in my opinion, they're not in the same league. Simply put, the 600 has a broadcast codec, the 350 does not. News organisations may not care, but other clients do.

If I'm going to spend upwards of $20,000 on a new camera, I want that higher end codec, without a damn external recorder. I'm sorry, but the 350 won't do it for me, even if it has better imaging sensors. The 400, however, appears to be the game changer.
The PMW350 was the obvious comparison last year, but I'm not really advocating it now - not with the PMW400 round the corner. Yes, as you say, it's a game changer.

At the moment, there's no definitive pricing on the PMW400 - just strong rumours that it will be roughly what the 350 was. Hence my references to the 350 in the last couple of posts were more to get some sort of pricing idea, I think the PMW400 is a far better bet than either the PMW350 or the HPX600, and I'm happy to make that very clear.
Also, as far as price, the 600 has digital zoom as a standard feature. To get that, the 350 costs $19,740: Sony PMW-350K XDCAM EX Camcorder w/16x Zoom & PMW-350KCE B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761588-REG/Sony_PMW350KCE_PMW_350K_XDCAM_EX_Camcorder.html)
Not sure I understand when you say "digital zoom"? What makes the above link different to what I quoted is that it comes as standard with a CBK CE01 - but that's a digital extender as in "can be used via a cable" - it enables the camera to be used via a 50 pin plug as a studio camera. Nothing to do with the zoom. Sony CBK-CE01 50-Pin Camera Interface and Digital CBK-CE01 B&H

Not sure I understand when you say "digital zoom"? What makes the above link different to what I quoted is that it comes as standard with a CBK CE01 - but that's a digital extender as in "can be used via a cable" - it enables the camera to be used via a 50 pin plug as a studio camera. Nothing to do with the zoom. Sony CBK-CE01 50-Pin Camera Interface and Digital CBK-CE01 B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761584-REG/Sony_CBK_CE01_50_Pin_Camera_Interface_and.html)

From B&H:
With the inclusion of the CBK-CE01 50-pin Interface, the PMW-350K gains further functionality. Its Digital Extender function allows a 2x doubling of image size with virtually no loss in image quality.

The XF305 I had also has digital zoom, but honestly, the same thing can be done in post. I don't think it's much of a benefit, but I suppose it has its uses. I never used it.

From B&H:
With the inclusion of the CBK-CE01 50-pin Interface, the PMW-350K gains further functionality. Its Digital Extender function allows a 2x doubling of image size with virtually no loss in image quality.

The XF305 I had also has digital zoom, but honestly, the same thing can be done in post. I don't think it's much of a benefit, but I suppose it has its uses. I never used it.
Hmmm, point taken!! I have to say I'd never have thought that buying an interface kit to give a 50pin interface capability for studio use would give a digital zoom facility by the way! Especially since a studio is likely to be the last place where you're going to need a digital zoom anyway!

I'm also very sceptical of the " virtually no loss in image quality" claim as well, and that applies to the facility on any camera. Normal advice (even in the consumer world) is "turn any digital zoom off" - as you say, it is something that if it has to be done, is better done in post.

HPX600+VF+AF lens = 16,5k€
PMW350+VF+Lens = 12,3k€
I'm getting my prices from CVP. And the 350 is 4k€ cheaper! No way would I buy an HPX600 with that kind of an price difference.

The PMW350 has 3 chips and it has hyper-gammas, honestly in this day and age I would never ever buy a new camera that hasn't got nice and smooth highlights roll-off. It just bafels me that Pana is still advertising the normal rec709 cine-gammas. IMHO Pana is to protective of theirs higher end models and that's what's killing them.

So the PMW350K is cheaper, it has a nice, proven lens (I have little faith in Panas "AF lens"), it has 3 chips, it has hyper-gammas. I don't care if the HPX600 has internally a better codec because "everything" else is sub par. You can always attach an external recorder to the 350 (AJA ki pro mini really attaches it self nicely to the back of the camera) and get much better results no matter what codec Panasonic brings to the 600 in the future.

HPX600 really surprised me: it's price and it's capabilities.

So go buy the PMW350.
Sheesh, this is a thread about the HPX600. The 350 has its own thread.
And I still prefer the internal codec of the 600.

So go buy the PMW350.
Sheesh, this is a thread about the HPX600. The 350 has its own thread.
And I still prefer the internal codec of the 600.

Glen I was just contributing to the discussion about HPX600 place in the market, nothing else. Same stuff that I wrote has been written just a few posts above mine, so what did I do wrong?:)
I personally don't really care about one or the other. I'm trying to prove that the HPX600 price point is in my opinion misplaced.

Sheesh, this is a thread about the HPX600. The 350 has its own thread.
Surely any buying decision follows two basic steps. Firstly, does any product fit the amount of money you're prepared to spend, and is it at all fit for purpose? Assuming the answer to that is "yes", then it's sensible to further ask if there's any competition that will either do the same job more cheaply, or a better job for the same price?

And that's the relevance of all this talk of firstly the PMW350, and now the PMW400...... We're not talking about PMW350/400 detailed characteristics for their own sake, rather as the obvious competition - is it a better buy?
And I still prefer the internal codec of the 600.
And no real argument there compared to the 350, though the front end differences (in favour of the 350) are evident on raw viewing, codec differences only make any difference down the chain. The HPX600 also has points in it's favour in terms of networking/upload ability in some circumstances. But the PMW400 answers all those criticisms, and additionally still beats the HPX600 hands down in respect of front end performance. In which case, why on earth even still bother to consider the HPX600, unless the PMW400 is going to be more expensive? When I buy a camera I just want best value for money, I don't care which manufacturer gets my money.

And the relevance of Sanjin's post about the 350 pricing is that the 400 is not expected to be more expensive, quite the opposite. Heck, you earlier wrote:
But the PMW400 sure looks nice. I wonder what the price will be, with an EVF. I'm betting the 600 is cheaper, price wise. But with one chip, it ought to be.
We're trying to give you the answer to your pricing questions! It seems you just want to find in favour of the HPX600, even though all the evidence is against it! Valid though the "the 600 has a better codec than the 350" point may be, even that gets blown out of the water when compared with the 400.

Until we see an actual price, it's all speculation as to which camera - the HPX600 and the PMW400 - is a better value for the money, or for each person's needs, or which gets "blown out of the water."
We'll know soon enough.

As for me, as I've stated here numerous times, I'm already invested in P2. Of course the Panny makes more sense for me. That's why I post in this thread, to gather more info.

And I never brought up the comparisons to the Sony cams, because I never considered buying the PMW350. Others have done that. I've responded (foolishly) to the comparisons, usually as they matter to MY needs. And as far as my needs, I was never interested in the PMW350, with or without an external drive. I never asked for a comparison, never will.
Now, it's fair to compare the 600 and 400 cameras, as I feel they'll compete for the same business, but I'm posting here to get info about the 600 camera, not the Sonys. They do have a separate forum for that, see below.

So, if you have any new info about the HPX600, please post it here.
If you have any new info on the Sonys, please post it here:

Sony XDCAM EX CineAlta Forum at DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/)

If you want to start an HPX600 vs PMW-350/400 thread, go ahead and create one.

That said, I am done responding to any more posts about the camera comparisons in this thread. It serves no purpose for me.

Until we see an actual price, it's all speculation as to which camera - the HPX600 and the PMW400 - is a better value for the money,............
It's a matter of record - not speculation - that the PMW400 will market "pricewise, close to a PMW350". That's straight from Sony - Sony Professional: NAB 2013 - Introducing the new PMW-400 camcorder : Sony Professional (http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/broadcast-nab13-pmw-400-1304) , about 3 minutes in. Not an exact price, but good enough to start drawing some conclusions from. (Yes, for the 400, not the 350.)
I'm already invested in P2. Of course the Panny makes more sense for me.
If you take Sanjin's prices, and assuming the PMW400 is close to PMW350 prices, it may make sound economic sense to ditch the P2 cards and go SxS.

Think about it. Using Sanjin's figures there's a Euro 4,000 difference between those packages. Using the same supplier as Sanjin, a 64GB SxS card is well under Euro500 - and that's about 2 hours recording at 50Mbs. Let's say we want 8 hours total recording time, so still less than Euro2,000 - less than half the price difference between the two packages!

In other words, even after getting 8 hours worth of SxS cards, you're still saving over Euro2,000 compared to getting the HPX600 package and still have your P2 cards to sell.

As for new info about the HPX600, then the trouble is there isn't any! I've asked around, and nobody I know is even bothering to give it formal testing - it's been dismissed at an early stage. Make of that what you will. I'd dearly like to see the results on a zone plate out of curiosity, just to settle once and for all just what the chip is - but nothing. The assumption from informal viewing is 1920x1080, and there's a few things to back that up, but no definitive answer. Someone I know did try to ask a direct question, but no luck with any answer.

I agree with David here and as a panasonic user I have been given little information about the 600, my 1/3" chip HPX301 and 371 are due for replacement next year so it may be time to go back to sony as the 400 ticks a lot of the boxes for me.

For info a lot of people are already using the 350 for broadcast and the 35mbs codec is generally accepted for sport and news operation as the EX1 and 3 are also very popular.

Speaking of popular:

The Sony PMW-300, the EX3 replacement has finally arrived! XDCAM 422 and XAVC! | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2013/06/the-sony-pmw-300-the-ex3-replacement-has-finally-arrived-xdcam-422-and-xavc/)


I'm keeping an eye out for this bad boy!

........my 1/3" chip HPX301 and 371 are due for replacement next year so it may be time to go back to sony as the 400 ticks a lot of the boxes for me.
By next year it's highly likely that Sony may have upgraded the PMW320 in a similar way to all the other 35Mbs cameras in the range.

Price wise, that's likely to be far less than a PMW400 (or HPX600) yet may still tick enough boxes if 2/3" isn't a necessity?

In fact, price wise probably very comparable with a HPX371 - but 1/2" sensors versus 1/3". Which will give it a stop advantage in terms of sensitivity, dof and diffraction limiting.

Folks, from what I just learned, an HPX600 with the AVC-Ultra upgrade will be capable of 1080/60P!
That's quite an upgrade.

Recently I had an opportunity to test the Panasonic HPX600. I shoot for a team competing in the Pirelli World Challenge Sports Car series in North America. The rules for video at the track are more or less no tripods so its very run and gun like. I had to use clips that I wont use in the clients video for this particular race but wanted to post some basic clips to show some aspects of what this camera looks like. Especially since there is next to no real footage on the internet.

I did no CC. I only adjusted exposure on a few clips with no color boost etc. The camera is in Cine-V mode, 24p and AVC INTRA 50. I shot INTRA 50 because I only had a 16gig P2 card and had to make it last.

For me I wanted to see how the skewing would be for panning and following cars. I couldnt use those shots in this as those will be used for the clients video. Previously my ENG camera was the JVC 700/750 which is CCD so panning wasnt an issue at all. I also have been using my AF100 for the last year covering racing and the client LOVES that look. So it was interesting to shoot with an ENG camera again, to say the least.

This weekend I plan to actually go out and do some night shots and garden shots, contrast etc etc.

Hope you enjoy.

Myles

PANASONIC HPX600 TEST CLIPS on Vimeo

Myles,
Thanks for the video! Your footage looks great. especially some of the "test subjects." ;-)
For run-n-gun, a shoulder mount can't be beat.

I'm looking forward to seeing more video from you.

So, how do you like the camera? I got to play with one at a demo, and I really liked it. But that was only for an hour, stuck in a room. I'd like to hear you thoughts on using one in the field, for a paying client. How does it compare to the JVC? Is it about the same weight?
How did you get the 600? Is it a rental?

Thanks Glen. I actually really like it. Like most I read about the unit being a single C-MOS etc and of course I had my doubts about C-MOS and Skewing and remembered the HPX300 skewing issues. So I shot a few clips and immediately uploaded them to see and was surprised. For me its hard to take a camera on a gig and doubt its abilities so with some reassurance of decent performance I took it with me. I also shoot with the AF100 and are realizing now in post that the 2 cams work well together.

Its typical Pani build and quality. The feel of the camera is robust. The 17x lens was nice to use after shooting with 25mm and pulling focus 24/7. Its also nice to run and gun in a single weekend and shoot those 2 styles back to back. I shot indoor in various lighting situations and the camera tackles those very easily. I Was most surprised with the pop of the color. The AF100 tends to be flat and then I color grade. This camera had a nice amount of color "pop", if you will and that was nice when shooting the colorful cars.

The only thing that I missed was an actual LCD. Getting low shots was a little difficult without it.

I'm interested to see how this does back to back against the HPX 3100 since its CCD and slightly older.

Once I'm done my current edit I will share the video.

Myles Williams

Firstly Miles, nice camerawork, but with having been shot in AVC-Intra 50 and allowing for vimeo compression, I suspect they may tell us more about your craft abilities than technicalities?

Looking back at this thread, I've been one of the critical voices, but that is in relative terms. It's not a case of if the HPX600 is "good" or "bad", more one of whether anything comparable is available which is either the same quality but cheaper, or better and the same price? I wouldn't expect anything costing over $15,000 to yield results which could be even remotely described as "bad" - not in the hands of a good cameraman, anyway!

And look back, and the PMW400 was seen as the obvious comparison. On June 11th, Glen Vandermolen posted:
Until we see an actual price, it's all speculation as to which camera - the HPX600 and the PMW400 - is a better value for the money, or for each person's needs, or which gets "blown out of the water."
We'll know soon enough.
Well, now we do know. A month ago, I'd been working on the basis of statements that the PMW400 would be close to PMW350 pricing, and hence speculating would be similar in price to the HPX600. I was wrong. By over $2,000. But......

B&H are now listing pricing and delivery dates for the PMW400 - end of August, and $17,350..... yes $17,350 for camera/v/f/lens package. That compares with their list of $19,500 for the HPX600, also as a camera/v/f/lens package. See Sony PMW-400K 2/3" XDCAM EX HD Camcorder with Lens PMW-400K and Panasonic AG-HPX600 Camcorder with AG-CVF15 AG-HPX600PJF B&H


So the HPX600 is well over $2,000 dearer than a like for like PMW400 package - and it's single chip versus three chip! It's not a case of an alternative being better or cheaper - it's a case of better AND cheaper!!

David, i knew you'd show up.
Please quit trolling the Panasonic threads. Go buy a Sony 400. Make yourself happy.
This is a thread about the Panasonic HPX600. For those who wish to share information about the HPX600. Do you understand that concept?

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS INSIST UPON INVADING THESE THREADS AND TRYING TO SELL SONY CAMERAS??????

We know, you think Panasonic sucks. We got that. I swear, do you have some kind of bizarre fixation against Panasonics? God, you're so predictable!

Did we ask for a comparison? Did you see anyone ask you for a comparison?
If we want info about the PMW400 we can go to the Sony sections.

WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT PANASONICS!! THERE ARE MANY POSTS YOU'VE MADE ON THAT SAME SUBJECT, OVER AND OVER!! WE CAN JUST LOOK THEM UP!
WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Please take your Sony info to the Sony sections - please!!!!
Let us discuss the HPX600 in peace!

Thanks David for the kind words! I dont own the HPX600 and I am aware of the PMW400 coming. As a Sony F3 owner I am curious how well the "400" will match to the F3. I know, I know,..ti should be able to be matched without too much work, but man the Abel Cine scene files in the AF100 match very well with the "600" and that without much effort. As an occasional Steadicam op the auto focus on the PMW 400( hiding behind a sofa now) does appeal to me some what in a semi run & gun scenario when shooting WIDE in the pit lane and not being able to really focus etc. A common shot is a tight, low shot of the wheel of a car to pit out and then hold it as goes down the pit lane. very hard when pulling focus on a large sensor and not easy with a 15lb camera on a Scout while watching for other cars coming in at the same time. So there are a "few" times when autofocus saves the day.

Other than that the 3 chip of the Sony in theory should be solid as we all know from the PMW350.

I will say I like the look and feel of the Fujinon lens on this HPX600.

I did shoot a few things in AVC INTRA-100 and I can honestly say I see the difference in detail in the blacks and shadows etc. I took some footage into the broadcast trailer and viewed a few simple clips and WOW......its impressive.

So no....I have no plans to get big brothers to both AF100 and F3's. I have to choose one of the other. The AF100 and F3 are easy to match for a cooking show I produce so they have to stay. I am now feeling like I "need" a 2/3" ENG camera in the stable. Its either that or get a 18-85 prime zoom and I cant stomach that. ...not at this stage.........
..Yet !

Mw.

David, i knew you'd show up.
Please quit trolling the Panasonic threads. Go buy a Sony 400. Make yourself happy.
This is a thread about the Panasonic HPX600.

Fixed that for you !

I'm sorry, Myles.
Please, continue with your thoughts and experiences with the HPX600. You're one of the few on this forum who've actually has real time with one.

Oh no worries. For me coming from a JVC 700/750 which is a 1/3inch CCD chip to this 2/3inch just made me realize how much I wish I had sprung for say a USED HPX500 back in 2010 when I bought the JVC.

I like this camera very much. Its low light performance is also impressive but I have nothing to show for that claim/opinion.

I head out next week so I should be able to get more shots and post.

Hope that helps people get a better feel for the camera. This is my first time giving feedback to other shooters on a new camera. Normally I am reading on here about a camera that I want to buy getting OTHERS feedback !

Myles

I used to own an HPX500. It was a pretty good camera, but the uprezzed CCD chips didn't give the sharpest picture. In fact, I sold the camera when I was able to view the images on my (then) new 57" LCD TV. I was disappointed. I sold it and bought a Canon XF305, which had a very sharp picture.
But I did make money off the 500, and that's what really mattered. It was a bit heavy to shoulder mount!

I kept all of my P2 cards, Canon B4 lens and my batteries, so you can see my interest in the HPX600. All I need is a camera body and EVF and I'm GTG.

Please post more updates and videos, and good luck with your shoot!
BTW, your racing videos on Vimeo look awesome!

And are you renting the camera, or testing it for someone?

We know, you think Panasonic sucks. We got that. I swear, do you have some kind of bizarre fixation against Panasonics? God, you're so predictable!
Glen, I really think you should reflect before you post, and you may like to consider whether you should edit your previous post - you're not doing yourself any favours. As for "we know you think Panasonic sucks", then well, it's not true, and I thought I'd made that clear in my last post, let alone the previous ones. I'll try again. I said "I wouldn't expect anything costing over $15,000 to yield results which could be even remotely described as "bad" - ........ That is far, far from describing the HPX600 (let alone Panasonic in general) as "it sucks".

One thing which really irritates me on forums is that debates so often descend into black and white terms, and that is normally nonsense. If cameras got marked out of ten, I may give the HPX600 7½, may give the PMW400 8 or 8½, and I've tried to give solid reasons for why I think how I do. Yes, I think the PMW400 has the edge - but that is nowhere near like saying "this camera sucks" or thinking it grounds for describing me as "having some kind of bizarre fixation against Panasonics", and it's ridiculous to say so.

I'm referring to slightly different shades of grey, not black and white references, and please don't try to present anything I say as such.
Did we ask for a comparison? Did you see anyone ask you for a comparison?
Glen, whatever you think, when you're considering the technical merits of any camera, then comparisons are inevitable and (at least IMO) valuable. It's not just me, and as reference Sanjin Svajger was drawing comparisons in post 73, Gary Nattrass also thought comparisons were relevant (post 79).

Same with many other products, cars or whatever. Individual product reviews can only tell you so much, direct comparisons I find so much more useful from a potential purchasing point of view. So "performs well in low light" tells you what? Nothing really, and depends heavily on what any reviewer has been used to beforehand. "Performed a stop better than the xyz" is far more descriptive and useful.

And really, it's quite amusing that you yourself start your last post with talk of an HPX500 and then an XF305!! One moment you talk of only wanting to talk directly about the HPX600, period - the next moment you're talking comparisons yourself!

Please quit quoting me.
Go away. Please.
We're talking about the Panasonic HPX600 here. You're interrupting Myles. Let him finish.

you guys crack me up. It reminds me of the automotive forums !

Myles

Sorry again, Myles.

Did you get any shooting in this weekend with the 600?

I am editing most of this weekend. I will wait until the wifey dozes off and maybe try to skip out with the camera. I'm 6'3 but normally when I do some night shoots I take my friend who was a Seal with me as a precaution. No Seal tonight means risking things with a camera thats not mine !

We'll see though.

M.

LOL!
I don't know what's more dangerous - venturing into an area without your SEAL protection, or an angry wife!
Take it easy out there!

The places in Baltimore to get good night shots are deserted. Not like detroit, but no one really around. So when you do see someone its not a good thing I have learned.

If the weather is decent tomorrow I will try to get out and get some shots.

M.

NIGHT SHOTS

PANASONIC HPX600 NIGHT SHOTS on Vimeo