HPX500 vs XF300/305 at DVinfo.net

Glen Vandermolen · December 18th, 2010, 09:08 PM

Anyone have a chance to use these two cams? Which would you prefer?

Robert Turchick · December 18th, 2010, 11:22 PM

apples and oranges...I don't really see these two being compared as they are so completely different.
The only thing you probably could compare is the final picture quality.

I cant really speak for the Panny picture quality but based on the specs, I have no doubt it's great. I've used all the panny cameras from the 200 down to the hmc40.

As for the XF, every time I use it I know I made the right decision for the money spent. I can't really find anything to complain about other than the on/off switch. I prefer the smaller form factor and attach part of my dslr rig if I need to shoulder it. The image stabilization and face detection AF mode are just awesome. Using CF cards is a major plus to me as they are much easier on the wallet than P2. I load mine with 2 top shelf San Disk 32gb cards and I have a 3 more 32gb and a few 16gb for the price of a couple of big P2's. Then there's the fact that the CF cards are easy to transfer to any computer with a simple card reader. The only advantage of P2 to me is with FCP there's no need to transcode. Though since I can edit natively with the Canon's MXF files, not that big a difference.
Picture-wise, it's got an edge over the EX1r which I think it was aimed at. And it blows the lens off the hvx200 which I have a lot of time on. Seems the 500 is several notches above the 200 so as I mentioned, that might be a fair comparo pic-wise. But since everything else is so different, I think your first decision would have to be form factor. And then that other minor difference, price. You could get a XF300 and a XF100 for the price of the 500. And that is a deal I'd take but only cause I prefer smaller cameras.

Sanjin Svajger · December 19th, 2010, 05:11 AM

I've edited HPX500 material and seen some raw XF300 fotage. The XF is sharper. The HPX has more dynamic range and a more pleasing picture. I wouldn't use the HPX for 1080p broadcast. In my opinion the 720p is the sweet spot for the HPX.

December 18th, 2010, 09:08 PM	#1
Glen Vandermolen Space Hipster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,596	HPX500 vs XF300/305 Anyone have a chance to use these two cams? Which would you prefer?

December 18th, 2010, 11:22 PM	#2
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	apples and oranges...I don't really see these two being compared as they are so completely different. The only thing you probably could compare is the final picture quality. I cant really speak for the Panny picture quality but based on the specs, I have no doubt it's great. I've used all the panny cameras from the 200 down to the hmc40. As for the XF, every time I use it I know I made the right decision for the money spent. I can't really find anything to complain about other than the on/off switch. I prefer the smaller form factor and attach part of my dslr rig if I need to shoulder it. The image stabilization and face detection AF mode are just awesome. Using CF cards is a major plus to me as they are much easier on the wallet than P2. I load mine with 2 top shelf San Disk 32gb cards and I have a 3 more 32gb and a few 16gb for the price of a couple of big P2's. Then there's the fact that the CF cards are easy to transfer to any computer with a simple card reader. The only advantage of P2 to me is with FCP there's no need to transcode. Though since I can edit natively with the Canon's MXF files, not that big a difference. Picture-wise, it's got an edge over the EX1r which I think it was aimed at. And it blows the lens off the hvx200 which I have a lot of time on. Seems the 500 is several notches above the 200 so as I mentioned, that might be a fair comparo pic-wise. But since everything else is so different, I think your first decision would have to be form factor. And then that other minor difference, price. You could get a XF300 and a XF100 for the price of the 500. And that is a deal I'd take but only cause I prefer smaller cameras. __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

December 19th, 2010, 05:11 AM	#3
Sanjin Svajger Major Player Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Slovenia Posts: 356	I've edited HPX500 material and seen some raw XF300 fotage. The XF is sharper. The HPX has more dynamic range and a more pleasing picture. I wouldn't use the HPX for 1080p broadcast. In my opinion the 720p is the sweet spot for the HPX.