Technically Sony when using multiple digits in the names has had even numbers very often. (a 400 in both DVCAM and Betacam, a 600 plus the 500 to name but a few) Now in the single digit names I don't remember any even numbered Sony cameras.

I don't think they've ever quoted an S/N number on any of the AG series (DVX100, HVX200, HPX170, HMC150, or HPX500). I may be wrong, but I don't remember seeing it, it seems like it's just something they don't do.

As for max f-stop, I assume you mean minimum iris opening (as in, how wide-open can I get this lens?) It's f/1.6, IIRC.

i mean i expect them to leave the sdhc ability to record on the camera, but yes you cannot overcrank to sdhc.

Video reviews HPX301
 

After reading the first few pages of this thread, I thought I would post some reviews by Philip Bloom, and lo and behold here you are. Thanks for the nice reviews Philip.

Philip Bloom CVP TV: Review of Panasonic HPX 301e

Being quite charitable to the HPX 301, still a very good review of this camera, but after seeing footage for this camera panning I believe I'll stay away from it.

SonyEX3 review.
Sony XDCAM EX3 review HD on Vimeo

Currently I'm looking for a camera to shoot outdoor footage, mostly wild life and scenery at 3 nature perserves. There will be some indoor shooting of lectures and interviews as well. I like the picture the EX3 makes but am concerned about the CMOS problems. I'm considering going to the Panasonic HVX200 for safety. Thoughts?

If they don't release an EX4 and choose EX5 instead it will be because 4 is an unlucky number in Japan. Notice we had Z5 and Z7.

The 300, or rather 301E looks like a great camera. I am very impressed that Panasonic have worked on a firmware that solves the issue with stobing flashes and the CMOS. Jan has also said over on DVX User that they are also looking at the CMOS skew thing as Barry Greens' tests appear to show that it has around 70% more skew in 24p mode, but slightly less skew than the EX in other modes.

Frankly in all my shooting with any CMOS sensor, even my initial tests with my new cute little Sanyo WH1 knockabout camera, I've never had an issue. Zooming in a long way and having lots of high frequency vibrations can cause a problem, and having an extreme telephoto with lots of panning and tilting following birds for example might cause an issue too.

Ive just ordered a 301 and the skew and cmos doesnt bother me as I am away of it and dont push the camera too much.
I also shoot everything in 1080i 50i and do 25p in post so that will not affect me either, looking forward to testing it when it arrives next week and I also have four 32gb E cards coming too.

I have always been a big sony fan but this 301 is such a flexible camera that I have bought one, it can do SD all the way up to avcintra 100 so is covering a lot of ground in one camera, OK its 1/3" chips but at the end of the day I feel that will be the least of my worries as I am used to the S270 now.

Let us know what you think once you get some shooting under your belt Gary. Personally I find the 300/301 an amazing camera and a great value IF your work doesn't rely on the limitations that the camera has.

Dan

Hpx 300
 

Choosing a sub $10k camera is turning out to be a little more difficult than expected. At first I assumed I'd be getting the HPX300 or HVX200. But it's not so cut and dried.

My preception is the AVC - 100 fromat is a bit of a waste on the HPX300 with 1/3 sensors, although it has excellent features. I've also heard the noise and cmos issues are worse than EX1/3. Image quality on the EX3 and sdhc recording may win the battle.

Hi John,

Just go try out the camera. It really is a great camera for the money.

Best,

Jan

My take on it is from a broadcast perspective so I need a shoulder mount camera that has a robust shooting format and offers some compatibility with broadcast specs.

The EX-1 and 3 are not shoulder mount and the SDHC card route just isnt robust enough for my liking. OK SXS is better but the flash raid on the P2 cards is more to my liking, it is also what my ex colleagues at Talkback Thames are using on The Bill and the BBC use avc intra 100 as their archive format.

I also have an S270 HDV/Dvcam camera so wanted to keep everything in 1/3" The applications for my kit dont need large sensors and besides once it is in the mac's it is all pro res 422 and the chip size becomes irrelevant.

Hi Gary,
Are you saying that if you shoot with a 1/3 you vision looks better in Pro res 422 ?.
Hmmmm, interesting prospect.
Cheers

No I am not saying that at all, it is just that I use pro res as my master format so once video is in the box it is irrelevant what the chip size was, I also have a canon HF11 too so it makes sense having everything on 1/3" chips.

OK the laws of physics says that a 1/2" and 2/3" chip set will be better quality than 1/3" but I am interested in making programme content not what chip is better than another, I leave that to the camera dept!

Hi Gary,
Excuse my ignorance,
I shoot DVCPro50 SD and edit in FCP, what advantage could there be by using a Pro-res sequence, unless your mixing in some other vision/graphics/etc created in another format.
Cheers

No advantage at all but as I understand it when the video from the P2 on the 301 is loaded into FCP in log and transfer it goes to pro res 422 or pro res 422 HQ

Certainly the canon HF11 loads in pro res 422 once the clips are transfered to the scratch capture disk as I have already used it this way.

I had been just using the S270 in HDV and loading the video via clipwrap but I seems to now make sense to have everything on my mac drives in pro res 422 and edit the sequence in that format.

I also master to pro res 422 at 1080i 25p

Does that make sense I havent got the 301 yet but that is what I am proposing as a workflow.

Hmm, Interesting concept, Good luck with it. I'd do some tests and see if that is best way to go.
I use differing sequence settings depending on what the project is. ie, TVC's I use 10bit uncompressed, General events I simply use DVCPro50, personally there's little difference between them in pic quality that most punters can't see, except the file size of a 30sec TVC in 10bit is over 700meg, and a 30sec TVC in DVCPro50 is a mere 220 meg.
that's a huge saving in HDD space... if your doing lots of projects and they are long form that's an important factor to consider.
Cheers

I agree it may be that pro res 422 may eat my drive space, it may be better to go DVC pro 50 for most jobs as you say. The good thing about the P2 platform is that you can choose so many different codecs depending on the job in hand and I look forward to seeing what is best.

The laws of optics are what's relevant here and for a given aperture it's the chip size that will govern depth of field. Hence the arguments against 1/3" chips in a relatively expensive camera are more photographic than to do with "technical quality" - and will remain relevant regardless of any transcoding to such as ProRes. There's also the issue of lens availability.

Even 1/2" are seen as an unwelcome compromise compared to 2/3" for dof reasons, but for a camera at this price point 1/3" are just seen as a step too far down by many.

The EX cameras may not be seen as satisfactory if you want a shouldermount, but another possibility may be the 350 XDCAM. Not full 1920x1080 chips true, but better from the photographic point of view. And solve the archiving issue of rushes, just keep the discs.

350? Apart from the PDW700/F800 the rest of the Xdcam HD lineup are 1/2" sensors, so not much difference with regard to DOF there. And with the F355 you are very close to HPX2000, and that's really a no-brainer.

If 2/3" are a favoured option, go with the 500 and live with the compromises, I did and glad I skipped at least 1/3" when it comes to shooting low light. .

I disagree - 1/2" sensors aren't ideal but are roughly halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" for dof etc. As I said before, not ideal, but better than 1/3". The real point I wanted to get across in answer to Gary though is that the lack of enthusiasm for 1/3" (in a fairly expensive camera) is less to do with technical quality, more to do with photographic imaging and the artistic side. No amount of post or codec conversions will ever solve that.
Sorry, but I really think the days of 960x540 chips are over now that 1920x1080 displays are becoming the norm. I suspect the full resolution chipset of the 300 is an acknowledgement of just that by Panasonic, and is something that I applaud them for. It's just a shame they're 1/3"............

My 301 arrived today so I will be doing some tests soon, as for the 1/3" DOF the type of projects I do do not require huge DOF cinematic type pictures so it is fine for my use.

What sold the 301 to me is the 1920x1080i 50i at 50 or 100mbs certainly on initital set-ups it is a lot more of a pro camera than the S270 I have.

I have some nice settings to dial in too to give me similar picture profiles to those used on the BBC planet earth ser.

Well, for some types of shooting CMOS just won't be "safe" enough today and 1080 ccds from both Panasonic and Sony we are talking 30 grand for that(or more), or about 25 for 720 chips. I agree that basicly sd chips are not ideal, but that's kind of the compromise to get 2/3" ccds in a hd camera, in the same matter cmos are the compromise to get 1080 on a budget camera. Ofcourse it would be a dream to own a hpx3000 or 2700 instead of a 500, but the list price of those are about five times what i paid for the 500 body.

I'm also a bit afraid that 1/3" would not cut it for some the low light situations i need to shoot in, so 1/2" on the 300 i agree would be nice. But it seems that Panasonics sticking with either 1/3" or 2/3" with Sony being the only one with 1/2" chips. From a business point of view 1/2" might be to close to the larger high end cameras.

In Gray's case, S270 vs Hpx300 the 300 will probably be a knockout just with the codec...hdv vs avc-i.

I couldn't make much of a case for the S270 - it's 1 megapixel chips versus 2 megapixel for the for the 300, apart from codec.

But surely the battle is more HPX300 v EX3? Both 2 megapixel chips. EX3 is cheaper, 1/2" chips, and cheaper media, HPX300 is shouldermount. I can't help feeling that Sony may come out with a shouldermount competitor to the 300 (an "EX5"), and if they keep the 1/2" chips and SxS/SDHC media, that will be the one to get.

I am sure you are right but it was the recording codecs that made me go across to the 301, even if sony do a shoulder mount EX5 with 1/2" it will be 50mbs at best but I suspect 35mbs as that will tie in with the SXS format cards.
I could have got an F355 but it is about twice the price of the 301 and still 35mbs.

I'd put a lot of money on 50 Mbs, SxS cards are capable of vastly higher bitrates, but 50Mbs would fit in very well with existing product.

My understanding of the history is that 35 Mbs came from the first gen XDCAM discs, which couldn't manage much better than that. But it did mean that Sony could offer file based recording on consumable media. As technology improved, 50 Mbs to disc became feasible, and with it full 1920x1080 recording, 4:2:2, and lower compression. Currently, AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM-HD 50Mbs have full EBU approval for general use for acquisition.

So my guess would be that any SxS shouldermount would be 50 Mbs. The question that raises would be whether it would still be possible to use SDHC cards in such a camera. The cards are certainly fast enough with plenty to spare, and if an ExpressCard-SDHC adaptor came about using PCIExpress (rather than USB) I'd be pretty sure they'd work. As it is, the speed of transfer of clips in camera, and the speeds at which overcrank fails leaves me optimistic that they will still work.

Bear in mind that full "broadcast approval" depends on other factors than codec, and chip size is one. Hence for full broadcast compliance, technically the HPX300 fails due to chip size, the EX due to codec.

See why a £5,000-£7,500 camera with 1/2" chips, recording to XDCAM-HD 50 Mbs or AVC_Intra 100 is so eagerly awaited? :-) And why so many are saying "why doesn't the 300 have 1/2" chips"?

Anyone actually tested the write speed of the SxS cards? I've hear a lot of rumours around what's the real sustained writespeed. Sony's seems kind of awaiting the flashmedia based world when it comes to large broadcast cameras. Xdcam's are approved by EBU and others, but for commercial, drama and what's maybe can defines as a bit "higher" end productions seem to opt for a format that's less compressed. Which seem to be both dvcprohd with the HDX900 and hpx3000 with avc-I.

If Sony where to lunch a Ex5, it will compete directly with the other 1/2" models which I suspect will continue to carry a higher pricetag. That's kind of jeopardizing you own market a bit, and I'm more into Panasonic's use of more efficient new codecs rather than the older mpeg2 even with the fact that Sony are very good with mpeg2.

The acceptance of 1/3" chips I'll guess will differ from country to country, and what customers you serve. Recently did a some helishooting with my Hpx500 for a 30 min show, the rest and most was shot on hvx200. The only issue with 1/3" was the lack of the 2/3" chips wider dynamic range with snow and dark rock/mountains. Professionals users will notice what's what, the regular viewer won't to the degree that you would care.

Good points David but here in the UK some broadcasters are in dire straits and the goal posts will need to be moved if they are to continue producing content at all.
I feel that smaller sensors will be accepted in time if the recording format is up to spec, OK this is not for full drama or high end production but as internet TV rolls out the playing field will change.
In the 80's remember when CCD's first came in and everyone in broadcast said they would never be as acceptable as Tube cameras, things move on and cameras like the 301 will change the accesability of full HD to content producers.

I'm not disagreeing with the first sentence, but doesn't the second presuppose that cheaper cameras are dependent on smaller sensors? In practice, an EX3 comes in at well over £1,000 cheaper than an HPX301, yet still gives you 1/2" chips. Take media costs into account (P2 v SDHC) and the difference becomes much, much more. I'm not saying the EX3 is ideal by any means, but it does signal that a 1/2" camera on shouldermount lines is achievable for possibly even less than a 301 fully loaded with media.
I remember the time well, and would only say that not everyone by a long way was of that opinion ( ;-) ), though, yes, it certainly was a view expressed by some.

There is a difference here though, which is that the laws of optics state that dof etc considerations mean that 1/3" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with bigger sensors - even if they are technically acceptable, and the lens availability improves.

I think I will, thanks.

I concur with Jan. I just saw the final cut of the big project I shot with it and the clients raved about the photography and images in particular. Great camera and an amazing value, I will be buying one sometime this year as well.

Dan

And an MPEG-2 long-GoP 8-bit recording format. And a handheld shoulder-butt form factor. And no wireless slot. And two channels of audio. There are lots and lots of differences between those two above and beyond chip size!

Yes, and the same law says that 1/2" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with 2/3" sensors...

You can't just cherry-pick features here and there and come up with an "ideal" system, because each compromise has a significant effect on the overall system cost. If Panasonic had just stuck 1/2" chips in the HPX300, it'd probably raise the price by several thousand dollars, not only for engineering a larger chip block but also for the lenses that go with it. This camera was engineered to a price point, to meet the needs of NBC, which they clearly did, and why all NBC owned & operated stations are using it (and many ABC affiliates are converting as well).

For some people, using an 8-bit 4:2:0 long-GoP recording format, onto an SD card, is an acceptable compromise if it means they get bigger chips out of the deal. For others, that combination doesn't work, they want a robust intraframe professional 4:2:2 codec, and if that means only 1/3" chips, well, that's a compromise they're willing to live with.

Of course, you don't have to compromise, you can have that robust codec on a 2/3" camera, but then it costs $27,000. If all you want to spend is $8,000 then the two major manufacturers are offering you two very, very different ways to spend that money.

Barry,
I think people's wish list for options is often not what manufacturers provide but it is how they comparison shop for cameras. I think the HVX-300 introduces as many new good features as any camera recently while still making me concerned enough about the images coming from Cmos and 1/3 inch imager to hold off from buying one while I have bought an HPX-500 recently. As for the success in getting NBC and ABC to buy them lets see how the crews like them after they are in the field long enough to be compared in all situations? Also news is not always the best place to look for when it comes to quality images as it usually is more concerned about quantity of cameras on the street as well so the price point on the 300 is very appealing to the bean counters.

No dispute about any of that - I said a few posts ago about how the form factor of the 301 was better than the EX. In favour of the 301 I'd also add it's ability to make proxy recordings to separate SDHC cards, which I'd put pretty high up the list.

Yes, there are lots of differences "above and beyond chip size", but it would be cherry picking to say they are all in the 301s favour. Power consumption? Weight? Cost of battery system? Cost of heavier duty tripod because of the higher weight? And, of course, the real biggie aside from chip size is media cost and downloading issues.

The reason I originally posted was in response to Gary Nattrass, to comment that 1/2" chips were preferred to 1/3" more for photographic reasons than sheer "technical quality" pixel counting ones. Depth of field, diffraction etc, to say nothing of lens availability.
Well, as I said a few posts back: "......1/2" sensors aren't ideal but are roughly halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" for dof etc. As I said before, not ideal, but better than 1/3".

So you're right - 2/3" is better than 1/2", but if you can't afford 2/3", surely it's better to go with 1/2" than 1/3"!?!
I think these forums provide a very valuable feedback mechanism for users to give their opinions back to manufacturers on what they think are good points of design, and what they think are bad. That should give better future product to consumers, and help crystallise manufacturers minds. Hence "cherry-picking" the best features of different models to give a "consumers camera" I feel a worthwhile exercise. And yes, obviously the choices made will have a combined cost implication.

So: my choice would be to model it on a 301 (I especially like the form factor, radio mic slots, proxy ability) and then make it 1/2" and SxS, also able to use SDHC with adaptor if required.

Codec? Both AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM-HD 422 50Mbs have full EBU approval for unrestricted general acquisition, so it'd really have to be one of those. The latter may be the better bet, since it still should be recordable on SDHC cards with the current adaptors. (Ideally, I'd prefer JPEG2000 - also EBU approved - to either of them.)

Cost? The 1/2" chips will add to the cost, the use of SDHC v P2 significantly take away from it, though from the base price of the EX1 I can't see the larger chip size adding too much on. An EX1 with an SxS card is currently less than £5,000 in the UK, so maybe the 1/3" to 1/2" upgrade will be £1-2,000? Media savings should easily offset that.