New HPX3100 P2 camera due in October

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

29,800? Steve wins!

My guess, is, if the price is accurate - and my source sells Panasonic gear - I expect the actual street price to be a bit lower. Conjecture only...maybe $27,000?

[Robin Probyn]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

In fact it's always been a bit questionable exactly where the 3700 fits in - it doesn't do slow motion (if you want that you need the 2700). So that leaves you with all the frame rate standards (24, 25 and 30P) which the HPX3000 does too, and the only thing extra you then get is the ability to shoot at things like 16fps and 27fps, 11fps etc. - who the hell needs that?!
Steve

haha yes good point.. Iam sure my situation is the same as many HDX900 owners.. tape for good or for bad is on the way out.. still work for it.. used it today .. but sooner or later I need a tapeless camera.. really only two choices that will start making money straight away.. 800. XDCAM or P2.. for the market Iam in.
I dont want to deal with down loading cards but have had more requests for P2 than XDCAM (pretty much zero,although I thought it would take over the world).
I think for my market its going 1080p native... and I dont know why but Iam getting requests for P2 and not XDCAM.. that leaves 3700 or 3000.. both quite big and eat batteries.. 3100 looks a good product.. slo mo will have to be done in post.. time lapse.. maybe 3100 has this function HDX900 does or Stills camera.. or nanoflash..
I dunno but 3100 seems a good deal?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

I've heard $29,800 for the HPX3100, about $4,000 for the viewfinder.

So by the time you add the cost of P2 cards, and allowing for fluctuation in street prices, that does mean that to all intents and purposes, the 3100 and the PDW700 will be effectively the same price.

Which is "best"? Personally, I think that's a silly question. The PDW700 gives superb results as far as quality is concerned, I expect the 3100 to be the same. If you need 720p, the PDW700 is the obvious winner (as Steve points out.), Disc based recording may be seen as a good thing - or a bad thing. It depends what you're doing. It still gives file based workflows and forms it's own backup - but at the expense of power consumption, size and weight. There are differences between the cameras - but I wouldn't like to say either is the "best" - not if the cost is the same.

But is this the only 2/3" camera to come from Panasonic this IBC? There seems to be a gaping hole in their product range below the 3100, nothing around the £10-15,000 mark in the UK (complete with basic lens and viewfinder), nothing to directly compete with Sonys PMW350. I'm not trying to say the PMW350 is as good as a 3100 or the PDW700, but it's vastly cheaper, and still pretty good. Surely Panasonic can't be just abandoning this bit of the market?

[Steve Phillipps]

With the 3100 you get 10 bit vs 8 bit recording too.

It's a good question though, and one I was going to throw out there - if they were exactly the same price which one would you choose? It'd be a tough one, but for anyone needing slomo the PDW700 with 720/60P would surely win.

Robyn, I'm sure the 3100 will have timelapse capability and pre-roll, they all seem to now.

Steve

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by David Heath

But is this the only 2/3" camera to come from Panasonic this IBC? There seems to be a gaping hole in their product range below the 3100, nothing around the £10-15,000 mark in the UK (complete with basic lens and viewfinder), nothing to directly compete with Sonys PMW350. I'm not trying to say the PMW350 is as good as a 3100 or the PDW700, but it's vastly cheaper, and still pretty good. Surely Panasonic can't be just abandoning this bit of the market?

Well, there's the HPX500. It's also not as good as the 3100 and the PDW700, but for the price, it's a fine camera. I suppose Panny might update it one day.
And if you hurry, the great deal offered on the HPX2700 can't be beat. $19,995 plus trade in? Darn good deal.

[Steve Phillipps]

I think I might agree with David before he even posts a response - the HPX500 has less than a third of the resolution of the PDW700 or PMW350. A lot of people argue that even 720 resolution is borderline for HD, but the HPX500 is nowhere near even that. Viewfinder is awful too. Other than that it is as you say a really nice "proper" camera, timelapse, pre-record, variable frame rates etc., it's just way behind the times as a serious consideration IMHO.
Steve

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

With the 3100 you get 10 bit vs 8 bit recording too.

It's a good question though, and one I was going to throw out there - if they were exactly the same price which one would you choose? It'd be a tough one, but for anyone needing slomo the PDW700 with 720/60P would surely win.

Robyn, I'm sure the 3100 will have timelapse capability and pre-roll, they all seem to now.

Steve

I would pick the 3100, but then I have P2 cards and I don't care for the disc format.
Can slo-mo only be done in the 720 setting? All the cameras Ive used had to do slo-mo in 720.

Edit - or am I thinking of time lapse?

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

I think I might agree with David before he even posts a response - the HPX500 has less than a third of the resolution of the PDW700 or PMW350. A lot of people argue that even 720 resolution is borderline for HD, but the HPX500 is nowhere near even that. Viewfinder is awful too. Other than that it is as you say a really nice "proper" camera, timelapse, pre-record, variable frame rates etc., it's just way behind the times as a serious consideration IMHO.
Steve

You make a good point, Steve, especially about the viewfinder. I have considered upgrading from my 500. I posted in another forum how I lost a job to an HPX370 because it has the AVC-intra 100 codec. A 2/3" camera losing out to a 1/3" camera - bummer.

I know it pixel-shifts, or whatever the technology is, so it doesn't have true HD CCDs. But the 500 has been cleared for full acquisition for Discovery HD Silver, so it's not all that bad of an image.

[Glen Vandermolen]

One more point:

Couldn't you add a Nano Flash drive to the PDW350 and get 4:2:2 color and at least a 50mbps data rate? Don't Nanos use CF cards? That would be quite a potent package.

[Jeff Regan]

Slo-mo derived from 1080/30P is not pretty. 720/60P is the proper approach. As far as the gaping hole in the Panasonic line, the HPX2700, the true Varicam, is a low $20K camera--yes, it's 720P native, but the HDX900 has been delivering 1080P recordings since 2006 with many happy clients, and the 2700 is better in every way with a full sample, 10-bit codec.

The reality may very well be that a 2/3" native 1080X1920 CCD camera isn't feasible at the PDW-350 price point. Sony saved money by going CMOS and a low bit-rate, Long GOP, 4:2:0 codec. The HPX3100 is a very different animal, albeit with most likely a higher price. I was probably being too optimistic thinking a low $20K price was feasible for the 3100.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

Can slo-mo only be done in the 720 setting? All the cameras Ive used had to do slo-mo in 720.

Edit - or am I thinking of time lapse?

No I think you were right, it is slomo you're thinking of. It's not that it can only be done in 720 it's just that there are very few sensibly-priced cameras that will do more than 30fps in 1080 (Sony SRW9000 with option boards being one example). For proper slomo you need at least 60fps really and it's only in 720 that most cameras these days can do it. This is why there is a market for the HPX2700 - people in wildlife and other areas can't live without slomo, even if it means sacrificing resolution.

Yes, you can add a Nanoflash to the 350, and I think it's an area where Sony are winning, ie that Panny have the better codec but a lesser chip in a lot of lines - with the Sony you can add a Nanoflash to even up the codec stakes, but Panny can't ever even up the chip side of things as you're stuck with the one that's in the camera.

Steve

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

I know it pixel-shifts, or whatever the technology is, so it doesn't have true HD CCDs. But the 500 has been cleared for full acquisition for Discovery HD Silver, so it's not all that bad of an image.

I think it's a case of time moving on. It may indeed have been "not that bad of an image" when first released and up against the competition of it's day - but it's now up against a raft of new cameras as competition. It's also now more likely to be shown on full 1920x1080 plasma screens, rather than the lower resolution ones which were the norm when it was first released.

That's really the point I was making - wouldn't we have expected to see it's replacement by now? The 3100 looks good, but are we not going to see any other 2/3" camera from Panasonic this IBC?

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

As far as the gaping hole in the Panasonic line, the HPX2700, the true Varicam, is a low $20K camera.......

Are you sure that price isn't a typo? I've just checked, and the UK street price for a 2700 is about £25,000 (with v/f, but no memory or lens!) quite a bit more than for a PDW700. I've never seen a package of it with a bundled lens for anywhere remotely close to the £10-15,000 range I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

The reality may very well be that a 2/3" native 1080X1920 CCD camera isn't feasible at the PDW-350 price point.

I'm sure you're correct. But that then means do I pay well over £20,000 (with no lens), or about £13,500 (with lens) and not worry about CMOS. If you're doing mid-range drama, the extra may be worth it - so get a 3100 or PDW700 - but for a lot of other work it just isn't.

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

Sony saved money by going CMOS and a low bit-rate, Long GOP, 4:2:0 codec.

Well, yes, and a lot of money! I wouldn't try and pretend that a PMW350 is as good as a 3100 (or a PDW700) in absolute quality terms - but it's vastly cheaper, and far more than good enough for most purposes.

Glen - you are absolutely correct about the nanoFlash, and I believe a lot of people do just that. But I don't really like extra bits hanging off the camera - not when there seems to be no technical reason not to have 50Mbs XDCAM 422 coding in camera. Hence the wish of a great many people for a PMW350 with the fully approved codec, even if it costs a bit more.

[Jeff Regan]

David,

The HPX2700 P2 Varicam has a special $19,950 trade-in price through September 30 in the US. It has been on offer off and on since October of 2009. It is an amazing camera for the money. My clients do a whole lot of green screen and most don't want a 4:2:0 codec, so that leaves out the 350 unless using an external recorder. Getting away from an external recorder is the reason I got out of my HDX900/Firestore setup(yes, a nanoFlash is a better solution than FireStore) and went for the 2700. I've got 6.7 hours of internal record time at 720/24PN with a 10-bit, 4:2:2, I-Frame codec, using 32Gb P2 cards(2x that with 64Gb cards).

Many of my clients looking for a 2/3" camera won't take the XDCAM EX codec seriously, especially for compositing work. Of course there are some who demand a native 1080 camera, at which point I sub-rent an HPX3700. The 3100 would fit some of my client's needs admirably at a lower day rate than a 3700, theoretically.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

The HPX2700 P2 Varicam has a special $19,950 trade-in price through September 30 in the US. It has been on offer off and on since October of 2009.

Well, I'm not sure what conclusions can be reached from special offer prices as a basis for comparison, and I assume that only applies in the US anyway?

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

My clients do a whole lot of green screen and most don't want a 4:2:0 codec, so that leaves out the 350 unless using an external recorder. .... Many of my clients looking for a 2/3" camera won't take the XDCAM EX codec seriously,

I find it extremely odd that they don't want a 4:2:0 codec - but are happy with 1 megapixel chips upsampled to 1080! Good green screen depends on good resolution in the luminance signal as much as chrominance performance. (And good lighting etc being even more important than either.) Yes, the ideal is 1920x1080 chips and 4:2:2 recording - but if I had to sacrifice one or the other, I'd keep the chip resolution and accept 4:2:0.

But as Steve said - at least you have the option of an external recorder with a 350, you don't have any option of external chips with a 2700.

[Jeff Regan]

David,

I have DP clients and editors who won't shoot green screen with XDCAM EX. I have an EX1, but they won't go for it when compositing. I recently had a DP tell me he'd rather do green screen with a Canon 7D than with XDCAM EX. He's more technical than many DP's, writes a lot on the internet and for magazines.

Nobody has ever complained about green screen with a 2700 using AVC-Intra 100. A 720P full raster recording at 10-bit, 4:2:2, I-Frame, with lots of latitude works just fine for the waist up head shots on green screen shot commonly.

As far as the 2700 trade-in price, I can only speak to the market I'm in, which is the US. There are now several 3700's/ 2700's in the SF Bay Area in large part due to the trade-in deal on offer for over a year, off and on. There are no Sony 350's, 1/2" or 2/3", no 700's, and one 800 in our rental market.

I just got back from shooting some amazing Native American tribal dances, shooting daytime exteriors and night time fire lit exteriors. The 2700 in Film-Rec 600%, AVC-Intra 100 at 720P, provided some very natural images, even at 9db gain in the latter case. The ability to do 48 frame overcranking in camera really added a nice aesthetic for some scenes. The camera held the fire as far as color and there was some highlight detail retained as well, while still providing good shadow detail and mid-tones, even before grading. I'm sure an Arri Alexa could have done better, but I am pretty impressed with what was captured by the P2 Varicam.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video