Re: Hpx 600
 

Interesting, Pete!
Thanks for the pics. There does seem to be a lot of room in the camera, although I've never opened up any of mine for comparison. No adjusting the image is an odd thing. I can't wait to hear about your testing conclusions.
I wonder why the crews wouldn't take it out - a color viewfinder? They better get used to it. Most all cameras have that now. I sure wish I had one back in my TV news days. Also, many cameras have ND filters that are not 5600K. That's not a big issue to me.
As an ex TV news photog, I can appreciate the light weight and low battery consumption. When I first started in the business, we used 3/4" tape. My entire rig - camera (tubes), recorder deck, battery belt, spare batteries, etc - weighed 45 lbs! I cannot imagine working under those conditions again.

Compared to a 3100 - yeah, I'm not surprised the 600 isn't as versatile. I'm seeing how the 600 is aimed more toward photojournalism than high end productions like the 3100.

But still a mystery on the single sensor. Hmmm.

Well, I hope to see one shortly. I will shoot some video with it, although I will be stuck in a single room.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Wow, that is indeed a very clean interior, then again Panasonic is claiming this camera to be future-proof, the the idea is to have room for upgrade boards and such...

The settings sound about as limited as what I'm stuck with for the 370. Actually, it sounds to me like the 600 really is just a 2/3" 370, which was basically hand-held tech in a shoulder-mount.

At 13,300 for the body, vs. 20,000 for the 3100, I'm guessing the savings will be significant for some people who don't need the advanced features.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Yeah, that's a known problem with HD cameras, you should never use the internal SD functionality, maybe a high quality outboard HD -> SD processor would do it. If you need optimal SD quality, get an SD cam, shooting native resolution is always best.

Shooting HD though, I haven't seen any camcorders look as nice as an HPX3xxx series, it's about as close as you can get to the look of a large-sensor film camera.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Well, I went to a demo of the HPX600. My first impressions are: really nice camera. Light for its size. Picture looked sharp with good color rendition.

As far as the single sensor; the salesman didn't know a lot about it as far as specs. I can't tell you if it's like a Canon C300 sensor, or if it's a native 1920x1080 - before the Bayer filter. Honestly, I don't really understand how Bayer filters affect sensors (besides adding color). I suspect the reason for a single sensor (and hinted at by the salesman) was to keep the price low. I wonder - are we seeing the last of the 2/3" shoulder mount cameras?

The camera acts like a wifi source, and you can send the video to a smart phone or a tablet. That's a pretty neat feature.

Understand that this is more of a TV news and reality program camera. It's not a digital cinema camera, and it's not a Varicam. We didn't get into adjusting the image, but it's not as flexible as a Varicam.

That's all for now. Ask me any questions you have.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I really find this pretty incredible, that such a fundamental specification is not freely available. Especially considering the level of (irrelevant) technical detail that they do go in to in the spec.
[eg "AVC-Intra100/DVCPRO HD:
Y: 74.1758 MHz, PB/PR: 37.0879 MHz (59.94 Hz)
Y: 74.2500 MHz, PB/PR: 37.1250 MHz (50 Hz)

DVCPRO 50: Y: 13.5 MHz, P PB/PR: 6.75 MHz
DVCPRO: Y: 13.5 MHz, PB/PR: 3.375 MHz"] :-)
The general conclusion seems to be that as nothing is published, expect the worst! It would be wrong to say that a single 1920x1080 Bayer would give "bad" performance - but it will be substantially worse than 3 2/3" chips.
For given sensor dimensions and size, the performance differences of a 3 chip design and single chip with Bayer mask are very well understood and very predictable. Firstly, with a Bayer mask, light gets absorbed in the filter - with a beam splitter all the light passing through the lens gets used. The difference is at least a stop, probably a bit more, so it follows that this camera must be at least a stop less sensitive than you'd expect from a 3 chip design using the same basic chip.

With three chip there will be a red, a green and a blue photosite for every one of the 1920x1080 pixels - one in each chip. With single chip Bayer, each pixel will only have a red, green OR blue value - the other two colours at that site have to be "guessed" by interpolation (deBayering). It's also well known that good deBayering will give about 75% of the luminance resolution that you'd expect if three such chips would used.

As a crude rule of thumb, for resolution purposes, a single chip Bayer of (say) 2 megapixels will give resolution performance equivalent to three chips each of about 1 megapixel. (Assuming full deBayering.)

And no, I don't think we are seeing the end of 2/3" shoulder mount cameras, nor 3 chip. Though after seeing the F5 and F55 recently, expect such to take away some of the old 2/3" market. The F5/55 manage to be both large sensor and shouldermount.
But come back again to the PMW350 - also intended primarily for news and reality! Virtually the same price as the HPX600 - but with an uncompromised three chip design. Very similar weight, better power consumption. If it's really to save cost, single chip is a silly way to do it.

An alternative would be to go to a three chip 1/2" design, still with 1920x1080 chips. In that case, you'll also get a sensitivity drop of a stop, but no loss of resolution. And look how much a PMW320 costs....... :-) If cost of the camera is important, there are better compromises than going from 3 to 1 chips in a camera of this nature.

It's also worth comparing the HPX600 with Panasonics own HPX371. The single chip aspect will mean the HPX600 is only going to be less than a stop more sensitive than the 371 - not the 2 stops that 3 chip would have meant. And the 371 will be much sharper than the 600, and not be as prone to chroma aliasing

Re: Hpx 600
 

You sure are hung up on those PMW 320/350s, David! Great cameras, to be sure. But I still want a broadcast-spec codec.
That's why the PMW 200 sure looks tempting: 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec, three 1/2" CMOS chips, all the pro connections you could want - nice!

I want to see the HPX600 run through a resolution test. I'm curious to see the results. Panasonic has been rather coy about that sensor.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Ahhh, it's because they are such the obvious comparison, especially the 350. Virtually exactly the same price, 2/3", and CMOS with solid state recording, even very similar weight, power consumption etc. And it's largely due to the 350 being that price and three chip that I don't think cost is a valid reason for why the HPX600 is only single chip.
Yes, I agree I'd love to see the HPX600 on a chart out of curiosity, but nobody I know with the facilities seems interested enough to even be bothered properly testing it. (And make of that what you will!)

Realistically, there are only three fundamental options - 1920x1080, 3840x2160, or somewhere around the 3.5 megapixel mark (as the F3). The first two have the advantage of simpler processing (especially 3840x2160), the latter two have the ability to give full 1920x1080 output. There are good reasons to believe it's not using the latter method, and the fact that Panasonic are not trumpeting that it is quadHD (read in the same way as the C300) leads me strongly to believe it's a single 1920x1080. That also ties in with the quote from the Panasonic rep earlier about performance similar to a HPX2700.

(And even if it was 3840x2160, then whilst the resolution would be full 1080, it would still be down a stop in sensitivity compared to a three chip design.)

Re: Hpx 600
 

LIke I said all sony has to do is plop a full broadcast codec onto a 350, call it a 450 and bingo you have cornered the news market! they could even do a (320) aka 420 as a lower cost option.

I still wound not buy one though or a 600 as I have been using an HPX301 for nearly four years in SD and HD for news and doco coverage with no complaints.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I don't deny I'd like to see the 50Mbs codec in the 320/350 - as long as it's AS WELL as the 35Mbs. But for news etc, it doesn't seem to matter too much - it seems that many such organisations are actively PREFERRING 35Mbs to 50 for such as news.

The advantages of being able to use SD cards, and the faster transfer of smaller file sizes are seen as more significant than the absolute quality.

And remember that according to the EBU guidelines, 35Mbs XDCAM IS a fully approved broadcast codec - with the "journalism" caveat.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I have to agree David 35mbs is ample for news operations, most of the sat uplinks we use are only 18mbs Mpeg4 anyway and I know several people who already use the 320/350 for news.

I recall when Dvcam first came out and it was deemed non broadcast and DV had to be transferred to digi beta for mainstream use, times change and the codec on most HD camera's is far superior to Dvcam anyway.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Journalism is all well and good, but I don't make my living shooting news stories. Most TV news photogs use whatever their TV station provides for them. Yes, TV news is quite happy with 35mbps, but does Panasonic expect the HPX600 to work beyond journalism? And the 600 will work just fine for TV news.

For the record, the local stations in my city use:
JVC HM 700/750s
Panasonic HPX 170/370s
Sony EX1, PMW 320s, maybe a 350 thrown in.
And an odd assortment of Beta SX and Panny SD cams.

The last shoot I was on specifically mentioned a requirement for a minimum 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec camera. I suspect that's why the PMW 100/150/200s have such a codec, to appeal to a broader market.
I know it seems I am obsessed with a "broadcast" codec, but I believe this will future proof any new camera. Should I purchase a camera soon, I want at least a 50mbps codec.

The big question is, does the HPX600 offer twice the performance of the HPX370, since it will cost at least twice as much? Again, we're back to that sensor.
Actually, if 35mbps is a good enough codec (and I certainly don't deny that it is), then the JVC HM600 looks like a heck of a good deal. It's sensitivity is F11 (almost an F12) at 2000lux, which puts it on par with 2/3" cameras. It has all the pro connections you'd need. And it's cheap!

BTW, if the 600 can compare to the 2700, that's a very good thing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 2700's images. If the 600 can truly match it for performance, then that makes it a hell of a good camera.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I doubt it's ever possible to totally future proof any purchase, but recording codec is only half the story. I don't disagree with your desire for 50Mbs XDCAM as a minimum, but it's of little use in future proofing if the front end performance isn't up to (ideally beyond!) current state of the art. And you can always use an external recorder - there is NOTHING that can be later done about chipset, processing etc.
Yes, and which is why the specifics of it are so significant. Assuming it's a single 1920x1080 (which I'm 98% sure of), and assuming comparable CMOS technology to the 371, it's pretty certain that whilst the HPX600 will be nearly a stop more sensitive, it will be substantially inferior to the 371 for such as resolution and chroma aliasing. Swings and roundabouts, but in certain key aspects it will almost certainly be much lower performance than the 371.
The only thing wrong with the 2700's images is if true 1080 performance is specified by your client, because the 2700 is a 720 camera, period. Yes, if will give a 1080 output, but only a maximum of 720 resolution. It's only got 1280x720 chips.

And true 1080 is now being expected as routine, taken for granted. The 2700 was state of the art when displays were typically 1 megapixel, but 1920x1080 is now the norm, part of the requirement for full broadcast acceptance. With the Sony F5/55 coming on the scene, expect 4k to be increasingly specified for acquisition, at least at the higher end. I don't see 4k displacing 1080 for a long time, but it does mean that any camera which can't even do close to full 1920x1080 can in no way be seen as "future-proofed". The 371 may be considered more future proof than the 600!!

Re: Hpx 600
 

After all this time, I finally saw a HPX600 in the flesh at an exhibition, and I can't say I was impressed. In terms of quality it would be wrong to describe it as "bad" - but it was undeniably worse than other cameras displayed side by side, even much cheaper ones with 1/3" chips. In another thread Sam Lee says "That explains why it's so muddy looking....." - maybe a bit harsh, but I know where he's coming from.

When compared to the PMW320/350, I also found it striking how inferior the viewfinder on the HPX600 was.

And the description with it seemed to indicate that the sensor is indeed a single 1920x1080 chip - not 4k - so all that shouldn't come as a surprise. As such, with all the current buzz about 4k, how it can be described as "future-proof" is quite beyond me. It's not even capable of full 1080 HD!
The story I've now heard is that it came about more to keep the WEIGHT low, rather than the price. The story goes that marketing badly wanted to be able to promote it as the lightest 2/3" camera, and were told by engineering that it could only be achieved with a single chip, not three chip - so hence the HPX600 was born. In practice, it only makes it an ounce or two lighter than a PMW350 - barely noticeable in normal use - but with considerably poorer performance in a number of respects. Who thought that was a good compromise!?!

One version of the story explains it away as a misunderstanding. Something like the engineering side specifying it would need a single 1920x1080 chip to meet the weight target, the non-technical side not realising that didn't mean full 1080 performance before signing it off! Is that part of the story true? It's what I was told, and all I can say is that it would explain why it is single chip (to the mystification of many) and why something of an air of mystery seems to hang over it. It was born as an embarrassing mistake! It's the only explanation I've heard that explains the known facts, so unless anybody knows better, I'm inclined to believe it.

Re: Hpx 600
 

This video says it's a 3Mpixel sensor chip (listen at about 2:25).


Does that mean it has about 2300x1300 pixels? Does that mean it slightly over-samples for 1920x1080?

I couldn't compare it to a PMW320/350. My friend has a 350, but I haven't used it in a while. I honestly don't remember which of the cameras had a better EVF.

As far as weight, David, you say the difference between the cameras is one or two ounces. According to Sony and Panasonic's own websites, the 350 (body only) weights 7lbs, 1oz, whereas the 600 weighs 6lbs, 2 oz. That's one ounce shy of a pound in difference. I'd call that more than barely noticeable.

This review says about the image:

"The new 2/3-inch single-MOS sensor with F12 sensitivity and a 59dB S/N ratio is very quiet, with little noise apparent in the darkest shadows"

- and then says the image is very clean:

"Owing to the camera’s very clean images, high performance optics are imperative."

Review: Panasonic AG-HPX600 P2 Camcorder | Studio Daily

So, take that as another's opinion on the camera. But no doubt, Panasonic had to cut some corners somewhere to bring the price down. It's no HPX3100.

As far as the story of the camera being an embarrassing mistake, well, that seems pretty incredible. Panasonic went through a heck of a lot to make the camera, market it and sell it to have it all based on a "misunderstanding." Perhaps the story is true, but I'd really need evidence to believe that wild claim.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Interesting, because what I saw was a vendors information card - the video you link to is an official promotional video from Panasonic, so I would expect it more likely to be correct. Some posts back I said (about the sensor)"Realistically, there are only three fundamental options - 1920x1080, 3840x2160, or somewhere around the 3.5 megapixel mark (as the F3)." and there are very good technical reasons for it having to be one of those. If the video is correct, it's closer to the third option, though a little on the low side compared to other Bayer chips specifically intended for deriving 1080. (Such as the F3 and the Alexa)

If so (and I'd like to see chart results to be absolutely sure), then yes, resolution figures will be better than for a single 1920x1080 chip - but still won't be as good as a 3chip 1920x1080 design. The figure generally taken is that actual luminance resolution will be about 80% max of the chip dimension - so here about 1840x1040 as a limiting figure. But that's only part of the story - a lot depends on the downconversion, and it's also ignoring the chroma aspects. It's acknowledged that in resolution/aliasing aspects the F3 isn't as good as a 3 1920x1080 chip design - and the F3 chip is higher than 3 megapixel.

But really, it's in terms of sensitivity that single chip must lose out to three chip. All else equal, a single chip design is going to be over a stop down compared to three chip. That's an inevitability of the light lost in Bayer filtration. A necessary evil maybe in large sensor cameras, but for 2/3"....?
Sorry - I think I may have been misled by comparing one weight with v/f, one without. But even so - they are body only weights, equip the camera with v/f, batteries and a 2/3" lens (let alone camera light, radio mic receiver etc) and they'll both be somewhere of the order of about 15-16lbs? As such, the weight difference still wouldn't make me feel it worth the performance hit that single chip brings.

Also bear in mind that the video you linked to makes it clear that many of the advertised features are only available via extra cost and an extra circuit board. Start adding those and expect the 400g weight difference to diminish substantially.
Yes, but the same review also says: "......applying plenty of noise reduction to produce noise-free images with a concomitant loss of shadow detail" and even low amounts of noise reduction can bring as many problems as it solves. I remain very sceptical about using a stops worth of noise reduction to try to make up for a stops inherent sensitivity disadvantage. If images are "clean" due to noise reduction it's not necessarily a good thing.
Well, stranger things have happened, and there have been real howlers made by manufacturers in the past. (Remember the V2000 video format? Built by Philips and Grundig, and each had a model on sale before basic lip sync incompatabilities between the machines was brought to their attention by a consumer!) But if the chip really is 3 Megapixel (and not 1920x1080) I'm now less inclined to believe the "mistake" version of the story, the weight aspect is far more plausible as a reason for being single chip though. And I still don't feel the weight saving is worth the performance hit.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Well, after reading all this thread on the (empty cased) HPX600 , i'll keep using my old trusty SPX800 till it dies, shooting 50mbs in SD it still gives great images since 2005, all networks I feed vision too still love SD over HD.
lots of news broadcast these days (from downunder here) is from you-tube or some dudes iphone no doubt that is the same the world over.
Production gear is different, but less of them about these days, "Bean counters run the game"

Re: Hpx 600
 

Not to get too far off subject but I frequently shoot for some major three letter broadcast networks and they frequently request my shoot in dvcam mode on my pdw-f350. They don't even want HD most of the time.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I shot for a three letter network and they also requested SD, but in 16:9 format.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I in fact still use SDX900 (DV50 tape version of the P2 SPX800) from time to time. It is arguably the best natural low-light performing camera I have ever used even in 2013 standards. With HPX3100, 3700, low light is just not as good (in the same Film Like 2 gamma mode). I have to bring extra PAs with couple of 1x1" LED light panels to add more ambient light. 9 dB on the SDX900 is relatively very low in grain vs 3 dB on the HPX3100 and HPX3700. However, the SDX900, HDX900, HPX2000, HPX3000 series all have that higher end premium look. It's a dramatic difference in quality when A/B comparing with HPX500, HPX600.

The rental rate is still pretty high on legacy SDX900s. So there's still value in them for those who don't need 1080p.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Hi Sam,

yes lots of older gear still giving great service, and as stated earlier shooting DVCPro25 my old SPX800 it ingests fast, encodes fast, and is still great quality when up-loaded via FTP. (IMO)
sadly I only get a call for HD shoot about once a year, sure there are others who shoot nothing but HD, but not for me, plus clients only want to pay a minimum so why invest more $'s for no gain.
many shooters near me are using cheap DSLR rigs instead of investing in Traditional broadcast cams.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Absolutely no regrets whatsoever in investing high quality 2/3" HD lenses and zoom controller. Good luck shooting type of events in which servo tracking of a subject is needed. I shot a week long fashion show. No CMOS rolling shutter or any other shortcomings. I couldn't pull it off w/ dSLR. the 16-bit see saw servo zoom with variable speed is indispensable for fashion runways, parade, sports, etc.. where one needs to track the subject and remain almost near perfect framing and focus.

I also have dSLRs only for certain type of production. They're great for dramatic works, but not for heavy live event tracking type of shot. The big problem here is the focal range. With dSLR, you can get 24-70, then 70-200 mm lens only. There's a 24-300, but it's just not good. It's a must to have at least 2 bodies, 2 lens, 2 ops to cover the same as a single 2/3" cam w/ a 22x or 25x lens. dSLR needs multi cam ops to get the job done. 25x is more suitable for wildlife. W/ 2/3" HD and a 22x HD lens, I can get roughly 24mm-620 mm (35mm equivalent) f/1.8 w/ minimal breathing and incredible sharpness and clarity throughout the zoom range.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Agreed, Sam. There are still many uses for the 2/3" camera. I just did a 3-day shoot with 2/3" cams and it looked great. Big sensor cams would have been a pain to use. The F800 is still one of the top rental cams.

There are many times when I wish I had a smaller sensor, servo zoom camera to go along with my FS100. There are needs for both.

Re: Hpx 600
 

A bit dated, but Panasonic scored a good sales day with the HPX600:

News: Denali Media Holdings Makes Alaska-Sized Purchase Of Panasonic AG-HPX600 P2 HD Shoulder-Mounts And AK-HC1500G HD Cameras For Anchorage CBS Affiliate : Panasonic HVX - HPX (P2)

Seventeen is a lot of cameras.

Otherwise, there's frustratingly little info and reviews on this camera. It was announced at Nab 2012, and I've only seen 2 video samples, plus the little I was able to shoot at a demo.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Hmmm maybe the sony 400 has killed it dead in the water before it even got to be used.

I certainly would be looking at a 400 rather than a 600 now even though I already have P2.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I also have leftover P2 cards, B4 lens and batteries from my old HPX500. I wouldn't mind putting them to use again, hence my interest in the 600.

But the PMW400 sure looks nice. I wonder what the price will be, with an EVF. I'm betting the 600 is cheaper, price wise. But with one chip, it ought to be.

Both cameras can upgrade to future higher HD formats - AVC/Ultra for the 600, XAVC for the 400.

The question is, which HD format is most requested by clients, P2 or XDCAM? I think XDCAM wins. And if Sony replaces the EX3 and/or PMW320 with a true shoulder-mount "PMW300," in the $8-10,000 range? I can live with 1/2" chips.

Or how about go with a Canon C300? Decisions.....

Re: Hpx 600
 

Whether or not it was really a good sales day depends on what price got agreed. ;-) It's no secret that manufacturers will do deals at knock down prices if the market demands it - better some money and return than nothing, and it can be good PR to show an actual sale.......

What happened here I have no idea, but I second Glens comment about "there's frustratingly little info and reviews on this camera". I read into that that it's simply not selling, people just aren't interested. In which case, if you're buying 17 units, and you pay anything remotely near list price, you need to sack whoever did your negotiations.......... :-)

Reading back over this thread, the HPX600 is most compared with the PMW350 for very good reasons, not least that they're of similar price. {EDIT - Just checked prices and the HPX600 now seems to be about £2,000 MORE than a PMW350 for a like for like package! Don't be misled by the HPX600 base price - it doesn't include a viewfinder.} There's little doubt that 3 chips give the PMW350 a big advantage in the front end, but undeniably the HPX600 had a fully acceptable codec - the 350 is only fully approved for "journalism". As Glen earlier put it:
And as Gary points out, the PMW400 means you can now have your cake and eat it. Broadcast codec and superior front end to the HPX600. It's just what everybody writing in this thread last year was hoping for. And XAVC as well.

From what has been said, it's expected the PMW400 will go on sale for not much more than the PMW350, maybe even still undercutting the HPX600. In that case, then either Panasonic are going to have to substantially drop the price of the HPX600, or the only reason left to buy it will be if a user has to fit in with a P2 workflow, end of story.

As for which format is most requested, then in the UK I'd say it's currently XDCAM by a mile - and with cameras from Canon and JVC being codec compatible, that trend is only likely to increase. Think it's similar in Europe, don't know about elsewhere.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I already did a price check on the HPX600 and the PMW350 in the US, comparing similar packages. They were about the same price. In that case, I would have gone for the 600 for the better codec.

But IF the 400 is going to sell at near the same price as the 350, then it will be a really good package. Unless, of course, you're already heavily invested in P2.

As far as Panasonic giving a good price on the seventeen cameras sold, that's possible. I'm sure the BBC got a really good package deal from Sony when they sold them 200 PMW350s, or when JVC sold them over 500 HM650s. That doesn't mean the cameras suck, or the manufacturer is desperate to dump their stock, it's just good business.

Re: Hpx 600
 

It varies depending what package you're comparing, but using B&H prices for a package of camera, v/f and lens then the HPX600 is $19,500 ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/906083-REG/panasonic_ag_hpx600pjf_ag_hpx600_camcorder_with_ag_cvf15.html )and a PMW350K is $18,400 ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/657503-REG/Sony_PMW_350K_PMW_350K_XDCAM_EX_HD.html ) - the gap is much greater with the UK pricing I've seen. If you have to buy memory for either, then remember it's also a lot cheaper per hour with XDCAM, which swings the relative pricing even further in favour of the PMW350.

I suspect that allowing for exchange rates we're seeing the PMW350 price dropping in anticipation of the PMW400, which adds weight to the expectation that the HPX400 is likely to be very comparable in price with the HPX600.
Maybe - but all solid state memory only has a certain guaranteed life span. If your P2 cards are already 4-5 years old, then a new camera may outlive them, which could be an unwelcome expense a few years further on.

The only real reason why I'd buy a HPX600 would be if a major client insisted on 2/3" and shooting P2, and I couldn't afford a higher end camera.

Re: Hpx 600
 

The new micro P2 cards are cheaper than SxS cards. You'd need an adapter for the 600, but you'd only need 2. Then, you can buy as many micro P2 cards as you wish. And they are good for the new AVC/Ultra codec. But they do have a 5-yr life span, which I believe is similar to the SxS-1 cards.

P2 cards have a very long lifespan. The originals are good for 100,00 uses or so. I think the cheaper E models are good for 10,000 uses. I cannot imagine ever using one until it stops working.

But there's the final issue: will clients be asking for P2? Panny has their whole professional line geared toward P2. Perhaps the cheaper micro P2 cards will make P2 more popular, who knows?

And I know you like to compare the PMW350 to the HPX600, but in my opinion, they're not in the same league. Simply put, the 600 has a broadcast codec, the 350 does not. News organisations may not care, but other clients do.
Some clients will insist upon a broadcast codec. I've lost a client because my camera wouldn't do AVC/Intra 100. If I'm going to spend upwards of $20,000 on a new camera, I want that higher end codec, without a damn external recorder. I'm sorry, but the 350 won't do it for me, even if it has better imaging sensors. The 400, however, appears to be the game changer.
(Of course, the 600 may also fail broadcast standards because of its single sensor, but I haven't heard anything yet. In that case, neither the 600 or the 350 is an option to me.)

Also, as far as price, the 600 has digital zoom as a standard feature. To get that, the 350 costs $19,740: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761588-REG/Sony_PMW350KCE_PMW_350K_XDCAM_EX_Camcorder.html
And the 600, with a $200 dongle, can connect through Wifi. The 350 is not Wifi capable. But the 400 will also have this feature.

Re: Hpx 600
 

The PMW350 was the obvious comparison last year, but I'm not really advocating it now - not with the PMW400 round the corner. Yes, as you say, it's a game changer.

At the moment, there's no definitive pricing on the PMW400 - just strong rumours that it will be roughly what the 350 was. Hence my references to the 350 in the last couple of posts were more to get some sort of pricing idea, I think the PMW400 is a far better bet than either the PMW350 or the HPX600, and I'm happy to make that very clear.
Not sure I understand when you say "digital zoom"? What makes the above link different to what I quoted is that it comes as standard with a CBK CE01 - but that's a digital extender as in "can be used via a cable" - it enables the camera to be used via a 50 pin plug as a studio camera. Nothing to do with the zoom. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761584-REG/Sony_CBK_CE01_50_Pin_Camera_Interface_and.html

Re: Hpx 600
 

From B&H:
With the inclusion of the CBK-CE01 50-pin Interface, the PMW-350K gains further functionality. Its Digital Extender function allows a 2x doubling of image size with virtually no loss in image quality.

The XF305 I had also has digital zoom, but honestly, the same thing can be done in post. I don't think it's much of a benefit, but I suppose it has its uses. I never used it.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Hmmm, point taken!! I have to say I'd never have thought that buying an interface kit to give a 50pin interface capability for studio use would give a digital zoom facility by the way! Especially since a studio is likely to be the last place where you're going to need a digital zoom anyway!

I'm also very sceptical of the " virtually no loss in image quality" claim as well, and that applies to the facility on any camera. Normal advice (even in the consumer world) is "turn any digital zoom off" - as you say, it is something that if it has to be done, is better done in post.

Re: Hpx 600
 

HPX600+VF+AF lens = 16,5k€
PMW350+VF+Lens = 12,3k€
I'm getting my prices from CVP. And the 350 is 4k€ cheaper! No way would I buy an HPX600 with that kind of an price difference.

The PMW350 has 3 chips and it has hyper-gammas, honestly in this day and age I would never ever buy a new camera that hasn't got nice and smooth highlights roll-off. It just bafels me that Pana is still advertising the normal rec709 cine-gammas. IMHO Pana is to protective of theirs higher end models and that's what's killing them.

So the PMW350K is cheaper, it has a nice, proven lens (I have little faith in Panas "AF lens"), it has 3 chips, it has hyper-gammas. I don't care if the HPX600 has internally a better codec because "everything" else is sub par. You can always attach an external recorder to the 350 (AJA ki pro mini really attaches it self nicely to the back of the camera) and get much better results no matter what codec Panasonic brings to the 600 in the future.

HPX600 really surprised me: it's price and it's capabilities.

Re: Hpx 600
 

So go buy the PMW350.
Sheesh, this is a thread about the HPX600. The 350 has its own thread.
And I still prefer the internal codec of the 600.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Glen I was just contributing to the discussion about HPX600 place in the market, nothing else. Same stuff that I wrote has been written just a few posts above mine, so what did I do wrong?:)
I personally don't really care about one or the other. I'm trying to prove that the HPX600 price point is in my opinion misplaced.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Surely any buying decision follows two basic steps. Firstly, does any product fit the amount of money you're prepared to spend, and is it at all fit for purpose? Assuming the answer to that is "yes", then it's sensible to further ask if there's any competition that will either do the same job more cheaply, or a better job for the same price?

And that's the relevance of all this talk of firstly the PMW350, and now the PMW400...... We're not talking about PMW350/400 detailed characteristics for their own sake, rather as the obvious competition - is it a better buy?
And no real argument there compared to the 350, though the front end differences (in favour of the 350) are evident on raw viewing, codec differences only make any difference down the chain. The HPX600 also has points in it's favour in terms of networking/upload ability in some circumstances. But the PMW400 answers all those criticisms, and additionally still beats the HPX600 hands down in respect of front end performance. In which case, why on earth even still bother to consider the HPX600, unless the PMW400 is going to be more expensive? When I buy a camera I just want best value for money, I don't care which manufacturer gets my money.

And the relevance of Sanjin's post about the 350 pricing is that the 400 is not expected to be more expensive, quite the opposite. Heck, you earlier wrote:
We're trying to give you the answer to your pricing questions! It seems you just want to find in favour of the HPX600, even though all the evidence is against it! Valid though the "the 600 has a better codec than the 350" point may be, even that gets blown out of the water when compared with the 400.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Until we see an actual price, it's all speculation as to which camera - the HPX600 and the PMW400 - is a better value for the money, or for each person's needs, or which gets "blown out of the water."
We'll know soon enough.

As for me, as I've stated here numerous times, I'm already invested in P2. Of course the Panny makes more sense for me. That's why I post in this thread, to gather more info.

And I never brought up the comparisons to the Sony cams, because I never considered buying the PMW350. Others have done that. I've responded (foolishly) to the comparisons, usually as they matter to MY needs. And as far as my needs, I was never interested in the PMW350, with or without an external drive. I never asked for a comparison, never will.
Now, it's fair to compare the 600 and 400 cameras, as I feel they'll compete for the same business, but I'm posting here to get info about the 600 camera, not the Sonys. They do have a separate forum for that, see below.

So, if you have any new info about the HPX600, please post it here.
If you have any new info on the Sonys, please post it here:

Sony XDCAM EX CineAlta Forum at DV Info Net

If you want to start an HPX600 vs PMW-350/400 thread, go ahead and create one.

That said, I am done responding to any more posts about the camera comparisons in this thread. It serves no purpose for me.

Re: Hpx 600
 

It's a matter of record - not speculation - that the PMW400 will market "pricewise, close to a PMW350". That's straight from Sony - Sony Professional: NAB 2013 - Introducing the new PMW-400 camcorder : Sony Professional , about 3 minutes in. Not an exact price, but good enough to start drawing some conclusions from. (Yes, for the 400, not the 350.)
If you take Sanjin's prices, and assuming the PMW400 is close to PMW350 prices, it may make sound economic sense to ditch the P2 cards and go SxS.

Think about it. Using Sanjin's figures there's a Euro 4,000 difference between those packages. Using the same supplier as Sanjin, a 64GB SxS card is well under Euro500 - and that's about 2 hours recording at 50Mbs. Let's say we want 8 hours total recording time, so still less than Euro2,000 - less than half the price difference between the two packages!

In other words, even after getting 8 hours worth of SxS cards, you're still saving over Euro2,000 compared to getting the HPX600 package and still have your P2 cards to sell.

As for new info about the HPX600, then the trouble is there isn't any! I've asked around, and nobody I know is even bothering to give it formal testing - it's been dismissed at an early stage. Make of that what you will. I'd dearly like to see the results on a zone plate out of curiosity, just to settle once and for all just what the chip is - but nothing. The assumption from informal viewing is 1920x1080, and there's a few things to back that up, but no definitive answer. Someone I know did try to ask a direct question, but no luck with any answer.

Re: Hpx 600
 

I agree with David here and as a panasonic user I have been given little information about the 600, my 1/3" chip HPX301 and 371 are due for replacement next year so it may be time to go back to sony as the 400 ticks a lot of the boxes for me.

For info a lot of people are already using the 350 for broadcast and the 35mbs codec is generally accepted for sport and news operation as the EX1 and 3 are also very popular.

Re: Hpx 600
 

Speaking of popular:

The Sony PMW-300, the EX3 replacement has finally arrived! XDCAM 422 and XAVC! | XDCAM-USER.COM


I'm keeping an eye out for this bad boy!