HPX 170 compared to XF300. Which would you consider?

[Jonathan Levin]

Steve,

Looking at Panasonics press release, it looks like you'd still have to invest in optics. So that price is PLUS lens(es). Unless they have a Nikon mount, I'm not sure I could afford to do this.

Have to see toward the end of the year.

The weight issue of the 300/305 could be something to consider, since I am sort of old and horrible, but mentally still 24 YO.

Jonathan

[Steve Wolla]

I think at NAB Panny said it (AF100) would ship with a lens but cannot swear to that.

They did make a point how the camera would be able to use adapters so that owners of Canon and Nikon glass could use them. The only question about that is if there would be any "cropping" factor when adapting these lenses.

I don't mean to sound that I am advocating this cam too much, its just fascinating to me the number of choices that are open to us now.

[Guy McLoughlin]

Originally Posted by Steve Wolla

Not to further complicate matters, but Panny also has that new AF-100 cam based on their 4/3's CMOS chip that really looks to be a killer, at a price of around $6K, or so they were saying at NAB....it is due out September-ish, I believe.

The delivery date mentoned at NAB for the Panasonic AF100 was "End of Year 2010", so we might have to wait another 7 months before it arrives.

I honestly expect it will blow-away pretty much everything else in the prosumer price range, because we are now talking about a camera with a sensor almost the same size as the RED ONE, with interchangeable lenses, built for video, selling for about $6K. When the AF100 arrives, there will be no other prosumer camera like it.

...My personal opinion on the XF300/305 camera is that it should have been out 3 years ago, when the prosumer solid-state market was still fairly new. ( it's too late and costs too much money for what it offers )

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

Originally Posted by Steve Wolla

Not to further complicate matters, but Panny also has that new AF-100 cam based on their 4/3's CMOS chip that really looks to be a killer
choice is good!

I love the look of short depth of field (I'm a stills photographer with a 20 year old addiction to fast lenses), but would not want to shoot commercial or ENG video with a 'big' sensor.

It is liberating to be 'back' on a real video camera after the EOS 5D Mark II

Nick.

[Dave Mercer]

Originally Posted by Nick Wilcox-Brown

I love the look of short depth of field (I'm a stills photographer with a 20 year old addiction to fast lenses), but would not want to shoot commercial or ENG video with a 'big' sensor.

It is liberating to be 'back' on a real video camera after the EOS 5D Mark II

Nick.

Hi Nick.

Am looking at a new camera to replace my venerable Sony A1E. Have been thinking of either the SOny EX1R or more recently, the Canon XF300. I do videojournalism for international news broadcast out of Latin America. I would like to move into docs as well - current affairs style (lots of handheld), not set up with lighting, etc.

The new Panny sounds great but your comment suggests that ENG work would be troublesome with a 4/3" sensor. Why is that? Focussing issues?

Many thanks. And apologies for the newbie question.

Dave

[Brian Woods]

Originally Posted by Dave Mercer

Hi Nick.

Am looking at a new camera to replace my venerable Sony A1E. Have been thinking of either the SOny EX1R or more recently, the Canon XF300. I do videojournalism for international news broadcast out of Latin America. I would like to move into docs as well - current affairs style (lots of handheld), not set up with lighting, etc.

The new Panny sounds great but your comment suggests that ENG work would be troublesome with a 4/3" sensor. Why is that? Focussing issues?

Many thanks. And apologies for the newbie question.

Dave

Depth of focus will be very thin with this size sensor, yes. If you've got to shoot quick, and you've only got 1 chance to get the shot, it would be very risky to depend on a camera like this. Also, chances are they're aren't going to solve the rolling shutter issue with the large single cmos, so expect a good amount of jello in handheld shots. Not to mention all the additional gear you'll need to carry with you to make shooting with a camera like this as versatile as shooting with a smaller chip camcorder (follow focus, rails, additional lenses, etc) - you can bet lenses that aren't native m4/3 won't be able to auto-focus, and most won't have any kind of OIS. This isn't a camera for run 'n gun shooting - even in the AF100 brochure given away at NAB this year, Panasonic says it is "designed for stable camera work." For docs & ENG, I think you'd be much happier with a smaller-chip camcorder and maybe a cheap dslr (GH2?) as a secondary cam for those 'beauty shots.' :)

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

Brian, you've said it all for me. Absolutely correct.

Dave, not a problem, the only way is to ask, I have done it plenty myself.

My ideal solution for the type of work you are looking at would be a 1/3" or 1/2" camcorder and a DSLR for arty shots or to give an edge to the features work. Obviously, I like my Canon gear, but take your pick of what works for you. Careful setup will allow the intercutting of two cameras effectively.

DSLR / Big sensors have their place and 'the look' is wonderful, but trying to keep ENG stuff in focus would be scary. With a wide open lens, DoF can be measured in mm.

Not sure if you mean Panny DSLR or Camcorder? DSLRs have not got enough resolution on the rear screen to focus accurately at normal magnification, even with a Z-Finder or similar. Magnification is not possible during shooting and therein lies the issue. If you go Panny 4/3 camcorder, presumably a monitor could be used, but the restricted DoF would still be a pain, + cumbersome. In the past, news crews did it (with film), but they did not have the audience looking for the pixel perfect focus that people expect now on their HD screens.

Hope this helps somewhat?

Nick.

Talking restricted Depth of Field etc, this was a shot from the XF300, taken out of the factory section of the Morgan piece. Quality is close to a DSLR still and the B&W gives it a slightly more edgy look.

[Alister Chapman]

I'm not sure were going to get it, but imagine how sensitive a 4/3" or S35 sensor could be if it only had 6 million great big pixels (assuming 1920x1080 bayer) as opposed to the 18 or 24 million small pixels of a DSLR sensor. The potentially 3 fold increase in sensitivity would allow the use of smaller apertures which would help reduce the shallow DoF for shoots where you don't desire it. However I think in the rush to bring out 4/3" cameras the manufacturers are simply going to re-purpose DSLR type sensors rather than developing all new video sensors.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Nick Wilcox-Brown

There seems to be quite a difference between the two. The Canon still does not have an accurate price, but likely to be around $6500, more expensive than the Panny at around $4500.

A few weeks after you wrote that, the best information seems to be that the UK price of the Canon will be somewhere under £6,000 (ex VAT), and the current price of the HPX171 is about £3,500. Trouble is, that HPX171 price is without any memory, and until you buy P2 cards it's virtually useless. I'd reckon you'd need at least two hours worth of recording time, so for two 64GB P2 cards don't expect much change from £1,500. So the comparison now becomes about £5,000 v "somewhere under £6,000".

I could go on. Both are capable cameras shooting 4:2:2, but the Canon is 'now technology' as opposed to 1998 technology, and is broadcast capable at 50Mbs.

Not just broadcast capable, but there are now many threads in this forum pointing out how the Canon XF305 has been approved for BBC HD usage - the HPX171 isn't, and falls far short of the minimum spec in many ways. From sensor resolution through to codec. Although the HPX may be 4:2:2, that's based on a sub-sampled luminance raster, so even that isn't as good as it may first appear.

Take all that into account, and my feeling is that the price difference is very small consideing the vast improvements it brings, and I'd expect the Canon to hold it's second hand value far better.

As far as the AF100 goes, it's been announced that it will be AVC-HD, so don't expect broadcast approval without an external recorder like the nanoFlash. I fully endorse what Alister says in the last post. A camera with a sensor like this COULD be very nice if the sensor was purpose designed. All the indications are it will make use of an existing still camera design, and apart from not getting the sensitivity it might, will also therefore likely have aliasing issues as well.

And for docs and handheld work, forget it. Even Panasonic are saying it won't be suitable for that.

[Dave Mercer]

Originally Posted by Nick Wilcox-Brown

Dave, not a problem, the only way is to ask, I have done it plenty myself.

My ideal solution for the type of work you are looking at would be a 1/3" or 1/2" camcorder and a DSLR for arty shots or to give an edge to the features work. Obviously, I like my Canon gear, but take your pick of what works for you.

Originally Posted by David Heath

As far as the AF100 goes, it's been announced that it will be AVC-HD, so don't expect broadcast approval without an external recorder like the nanoFlash. I fully endorse what Alister says in the last post. A camera with a sensor like this COULD be very nice if the sensor was purpose designed. All the indications are it will make use of an existing still camera design, and apart from not getting the sensitivity it might, will also therefore likely have aliasing issues as well.

And for docs and handheld work, forget it. Even Panasonic are saying it won't be suitable for that.

Thank you kindly David and Nick. Your advice is very helpful.

Now it appears the choice comes down to either the EX1R or the Canon XF300. I've read the debate between the two camera's on image quality and light sensitivity. However, I'm curious which has better in-camera stabilization, or more precisely which will be superior for handheld work. I'm leaning towards the Canon .... but can get a better deal on the Sony.

Any advice on which of the two is superior for ENG-style work as a reporter/producer/cameraman?

Cheers!

Dave

[Alister Chapman]

I think it's things like this that we just don't know yet, it's too early to tell. I doubt there's much in it. The Canon has a bigger zoom range and the LCD design appears a little better as it is usable from both sides, but what all that translates to in the field is another question, on e best answered after a few weeks on a busy shoot.

[Jeff Anselmo]

Hi Folks,

Very informative thread here, as started by Jonathan!

@Jonathan--Did you eventually decide which cam to get? A Panasonic HPX170, Sony EX1R, or the Canon XF300?

I'm in a similar boat, as we're preparing the upgrade to HD (whew, finally :)

I've had the good fortune to have a friend lend me his 170 for several days. And I've shot mainly backyard footage with it, mostly of our dogs playing around, and the wife gardening. I do have to say that the 170 is easy to handle, very light (compared to our XL2!), and easy to edit with (natively on Premiere Pro CS5). I've even burned a blu ray (my first one--whoop!) using Encore, and it looked pretty darn good on the 52" screen.

I have not made the decision to buy the 170 yet, but aside for the reasons mentioned, other videographers in my area use the P2 workflow. And I can easily integrate with them, i.e. multiple cam shoots.

But I'm not in a hurry, waiting on you kind folks how you use your new XF cams, and how you relate your experiences with it. Hope to make a decision in the next few months. Here's hoping I make the right one :)

Best,

[Brian Woods]

Image stabilization is a huge factor for me as well. The Canon has what it's calling "a newly designed SuperRange Optical Image Stabilization system (lens shift) with three modes: Standard, Dynamic and Powered," which I've heard very good things about. My XF300 arrives tomorrow, I'll do some tests with the different modes vs no OIS at full zoom and post the results.

[Dave Mercer]

Cheers Brian. Looking forward to it. One guy I've spoken with says the Canon's OIS is sensational. He tested the three modes in a variety of situations. I'll be interested in hearing your opinion, and seeing the results.

Would be interesting to see how the Canon compares to the EX1R.

[Tom Bostick]

Originally Posted by Brian Woods

Image stabilization is a huge factor for me as well. The Canon has what it's calling "a newly designed SuperRange Optical Image Stabilization system (lens shift) with three modes: Standard, Dynamic and Powered," which I've heard very good things about. My XF300 arrives tomorrow, I'll do some tests with the different modes vs no OIS at full zoom and post the results.

please please please post raw samples :D