new camera: Panasonic AG-HPX250

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Kevin McRoberts

Why bother putting in 1/2" chips if you can get the same or better performance and quality from a 1/3" chip?.

Has anybody ever got the same or better performance as 1/2" from a 1/3" chip? (At least when comparing cameras from the same era.)

The laws of physics make it very unlikely, certainly if you compare like with like.

We've been over the ground many times, but (*all else equal*) the 1/2" chip will have a fundamental sensitivity advantage of more than 1 stop, will give DOF halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" chips, and will have a better usable aperture range before you get diffraction softening. (The Canon XF300 range seem to overcome the latter by some optical trickery, but their approach is unlikely to ever work for an interchangeable lens camera.)

[Gary Nattrass]

Well from my own point of view I can live with a one stop difference, doing work for UK broadcasters inc the BBC my 1/3" chip HPX371 is BBC approved out of it's box (as is the XF305) where all the sony 1/2" camera's I would have to add more hardware (and cost) to make them acceptable.

I can now do 80% of my work with just the HPX371, if I need more DOF or capabilities then I hire the 2/3" HPX3700 or 3100 as they still use the same P2 record format and codecs.

[Sanjin Svajger]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

I would say that the performance of the 1/3" chips is very good, but a similar 1/2" chip would be better. This includes less noise reduction due to the chips being so amped up (HPX-370)...

And this got me thinking. The 370 with all it's noise reduction failed. Even so that Panasonic had to release an update which reversed the camera to the previous model (picture wise) the 300. So if the 250 is going to have the same chip set as the 370 or 300 for that matter I wonder what will they do about the noise "problem".

If they do nothing and the picture will be the same as in the 300 then the 250 will be behind the EX series and the canon XF series in picture quality (regarding noise. otherwise I'm not to judge...). The only plus will be the AVCintra codec. And even this great codec is still 10bit and is wasted on such a "noisy" picture...

[Gary Nattrass]

Noise was never a problem in PAL with the 301 it was mainly the NTSC cameras that had problems, and from what I have seen the 371 is just as good as the EX ser if you use it right!

There are too many pixel spotters who don't know how to use these cameras properly and expect them to do wonders in the dark, it's mainly the DSLR brigade etc and if you use any camera with decent lighting it will perform very well. You need to know the cameras limitations but anyone who dials in +12db and above and think it will be Ok is asking for trouble.

[Sanjin Svajger]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

...from what I have seen the 371 is just as good as the EX ser if you use it right!

All that I saw were pictures from other shooters and reviews... So I can't judge from my own experience. But wasn't the 301 judged for bad noise? And because of that they released the 371 that would rival the EX series in noise performance (the 301 didn't). But that failed and had to be reverted to the 301. So as I understand it the 371 with the update is noisier than the EX series. Yes?

I'm not saying it's a useless camera - just objectively thinking about noise performance between this cameras and which one is going to have the lowest noise...

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

............and if you use any camera with decent lighting it will perform very well. You need to know the cameras limitations but anyone who dials in +12db and above and think it will be Ok is asking for trouble.

Yes, but the HPX301/371 is marketed strongly towards news/documentary/actuality filming, and they are precisely the areas where it may not be possible to use decent lighting. In a whole raft of scenarios, ANY lighting may be impractical or unwise. It's either use gain, or go home early.

The 301 may work OK in good light - but be at a disadvantage as soon as the light levels start to go down. As Sanjin says, nobody is saying the 301 is a "useless" camera - but it is at a disadvantage compared to 1/2" or 2/3" cameras. And if you need to dial in 12dB with it to get exposure, with a comparable 1/2" camera you'd get better results at 6dB! With a 2/3" camera, you'll get better exposure at 0dB, than with the 371 at 12dB. (All else equal.)

Originally Posted by Sanjin Svajger

And this got me thinking. The 370 with all it's noise reduction failed. Even so that Panasonic had to release an update which reversed the camera to the previous model (picture wise) the 300. So if the 250 is going to have the same chip set as the 370 or 300 for that matter I wonder what will they do about the noise "problem".

Which is a very good point. We'll have to wait and see how the 250 performs in practice, but if I was thinking of getting one, I'd look very hard to see if it exhibits any of the "ghost noise trails" that plagued the 371.

The Canon is 1/3" - but is helped to come close to EX performance by lens design - a fast lens, with optical design that overcomes some of the worst iris diffraction problems. What will the HPX250 lens be like for maximum aperture? None of the so far released information seems to mention this (AFAIK), which may not bode well.

[Sanjin Svajger]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Yes, but the HPX301/371 is marketed strongly towards news/documentary/actuality filming, and they are precisely the areas where it may not be possible to use decent lighting. In a whole raft of scenarios, ANY lighting may be impractical or unwise. It's either use gain, or go home early.

The 301 may work OK in good light - but be at a disadvantage as soon as the light levels start to go down. As Sanjin says, nobody is saying the 301 is a "useless" camera - but it is at a disadvantage compared to 1/2" or 2/3" cameras. And if you need to dial in 12dB with it to get exposure, with a comparable 1/2" camera you'd get better results at 6dB! With a 2/3" camera, you'll get better exposure at 0dB, than with the 371 at 12dB. (All else equal.)
.

My thoughts exactly!

I do agree with Garry to. About the DSLR crowd. But yes - this camera is aimed at news - eng production (and corporate maybe).

[Gary Nattrass]

Well personally I never use my HPX301/371 above +6db and as it has an f1.6 lens and CAC as opposed to the EX1/3 & 320 f1.9 I doubt if there is any practical difference between the two chip sizes, I certainly havent had to go home early on any job I've done and have shot in all sorts of lighting conditions including dusk and night shoots.

The ENG shoulder mount form factor is for me way better than the EX range and it is far more pro like than the sonys and the audio switches are far better, it also has five year warranty.

It may be marketed as a news camera in the USA but not here in the UK and I have used mine on everything from news thru doco, to live OB's and indie feature films, as said it's fully BBC approved for full HD shooting out of the box so that is good enough for me as it gives the camera real credibility in the UK.

The HPX250/251 should be a good camera too and with the canon will certainly sony will have to consider putting a 50mbs codec on their next generation of mid range cameras to replace the EX1/3 & 320.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

.....it has an f1.6 lens and CAC as opposed to the EX1/3 & 320 f1.9 I doubt if there is any practical difference between the two chip sizes

No, there is a significant difference - I've seen one side by side with a 320. It would seem that the intrinsic difference should be a stop because of the chip size difference - in practice it should be more because of the boundaries between photosites not scaling in proportion. Hence for equal resolution, then although a 1/2" chip may have twice the area of 1/3", then each photosite in the 1/2" case will be more than twice the area for 1/3"

The latter factor roughly seems to null out with the f1.6/f1.9 lens difference (which is less than half a stop) - leaving an actual difference between the cameras of roughly a stop. (It's a while ago, but I seem to recall that at 0dB they both seemed to expose at roughly the same f stop, but as gain was added, the 301 showed noise worse than the 320. The conclusion was that at 0dB the 301 had a worse s/n figure than the 320. That's not to say it would be a problem as such - but would mean you could only use a lower gain for the same degradation.)

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

certainly sony will have to consider putting a 50mbs codec on their next generation of mid range cameras to replace the EX1/3 & 320

Yes, I agree. If they did, there'd be no argument. You'd be having your cake and eating it.

[Gary Nattrass]

Thanks David and I take your point as you have had the advantage of seeing them side by side.

I had to make the choice for my camera system two years ago and went for the 301(371) mainly as the P2 system was common to the 301/371 2700 and the 3700 that I hire in for the serious work.

I also consulted Alan Roberts and his testing and the 301 was the camera for me as sony didn't have the 320 or 500 out then, they didn't even have the 800 out so my choice was made on the system rather than pure noise and technical considerations but Alan's report said it was acceptable and as it turns out two years later the 371 is now BBC approved out of the box.

I still await the 600/601 from panasonic and if it happens that will give us the large sensor sub £10k camera to compete with the 320/350 and 500 from sony but with the same P2 system that I have bought into.

[Sanjin Svajger]

Has anybody read or seen anywhere what's the filter diameter on the lens?

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Sanjin, the filter thread diameter on the Panasonic AG-HPX250 is 72mm. Hope this helps,

[Stephen Mick]

Hey, Chris! Are you sure about this, and if so, where did you get the info? Having handled the camera at NAB, it really seemed larger than 72mm, more like the 82mm of the HVX.


Nevermind…just saw it on the Panasonic PDF. Interesting.

[Chris Hurd]

I might as well attach that brochure here...

[Shaun Roemich]

Is it just me or is that PDF SERIOUSLY garbled?