Not only is it a much higher end camera (as Steve says) but my understanding is that it records to optical disc, not SxS cards. Though it's interesting that in the link above the media isn't specified any more. Maybe it will have grown a couple of SxS slots by launch!?

Currently, to upgrade your HPX2000 (the only camera that is currently upgradeable) You have to have a new PC board installed into the camera. The HPX3000 comes with this PC board.

Currently being the word here, said PC board is to large to fit inside a hand held camera, or so i have read. However.. this of course will change over time.

I was at a panasonic conference last night where they showed the HPX3000.

I was told by the reps that AVC-I in 50 mbps is comparable to DVCPROHD at 100 mbps, and the 100 mbps flavor of AVC-I is comparably close to D5/HDCAM SR quality. AVC-I is also a full raster 1920 codec, the same as the new EX codec and HDCAM SR.

Sony really did do their homework when designing/implementing the Ex 1. They took everything I hate about the HVX200 and made it better.

- Much better resolution.
- Much cleaner picture
- Much better in low light
- Better depth of field
- Much better LCD screen
- Better lens design
- Better recording times per GB


The HVX200's main advantage is the better compression with the DVCPro HD codec however when your HD footage isn't true HD does that really matter? A full 1920x1080 image versus the squeezed 1280x960 (I hope I'm getting my numbers right) 1080i footage is a deal breaker for me. 4:2:2 color or not the HVX200 has a soft picture and the DVCPro HD format suffers because of it.

And after all if the XDCam HD format is good enough for the Discovery Channel than it's good enough for more. The footage posted so far looks gorgeous and once the vignetting issues are worked out (reminds me of the JVC split screen problem) then I'll definitely be looking at purchasing this camera.

I'm currently shooting a documentary with the HVX200 and from now on will only be shooting interviews. I'm holding off until next year to possibly get my hands on this camera for wide shots of different places.

I am a huge fan of Panasonic cameras, especially with their gorgeous color matrix/gamma but I think they are quaking in their boots with this release. They are going to have to release the next HVX with a 1/2" chip and AVC-Intra with a clean image or they may have some problems. No more excuses for the noisy picture...at least if they want to offer the new HVX at the old one's current price tag. The EX 1 really is a workhorse! We really should be comparing this camera to the HPX500.

I just had my first run with an EX1 tonight and found it to be a much more pleasant experience than trying to use the HVX200. With the latter I had a terrible time getting recorded clips to play in Windows, but with the EX1 that worked on the first try no problem. File transfer speed was also quite good: we clocked it at about 10:1 (ten minutes of footage per minute) on my Dell Latitude laptop with a 5400 RPM hard drive. Kudos to Sony for developing a file-based video workflow which works smoothly - the clip browser software could be better, but it's functional.

I would hardly call 35mbit EX1 footage unusable. There will be a lot of people who will make a lot of money from EX1 footage.

Thomas, I don't have EX1.

I have V1U which is lower bitrate mpeg2 compression.

Fast pans or fast movement in-frame almost always produces very bad blockiness and image tears, which is unusable. Otherwise the camera is great, so I wish Sony used the fantastic Cineform codec instead of mpeg2 to record the video.

EX1, according to renowned reviewer Adam Wilt, also produces fast movement artifacts. This shatters my hopes that higher-bitrate 35Mps mpeg2 compression of EX1 would be radically better than V1U's.

Cineform however delivers every the time. I just don't see why not put it on-camera instead of mpeg2.

We've all read his review....
He clearly states his saw a problem with "radically jumpy, earthquake-like shakycam work." Not under useable footage was there an issue. He also never stated that if he was using the 35mb codec.

Using 35mb, I've tried the "shake the camera to death" and all I saw was motion blur, no macroblocking whatsoever.

Also, Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition.

According to this article they did approve the F350 for 100% acquisition:

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=144

I'm not saying they approved the EX1 (its lens capabilities may be the limiting factor) but they at least found that the XDCam format holds up well for satellite broadcast. Perhaps Discovery HD has different specs in the states?

Let me clarify what I wrote:
If it was not up to their standards, "Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition"

at 35mbps/720p i definitely could not see any macroblocking. i didn't run enough wild, wavy footage at 1080p, but in the few seconds i had, i didn't see any in that mode either.

i had it aimed at a waterfall with dense contrasty, colored bushes in the background and waved it around. a similar test with the hv20 broke up the codec very consistently (i can't remember if i did that with the xh series cameras). xdcam at 35mbps is really very good.


the worst problem i have with this camera is the rolling shutter distortion, which makes the intentionally handheld-look footage hard to get without jelly-like warping. it also causes noticeable warping on changes of direction in tripod pans. as an aside, i also don't like the motion blur. the panasonics have a smoother, smudged look that i prefer.

i'm surprised there aren't more complaints about the rolling shutter because it's visible on most quick global motion, even without freezing the picture. forget lamposts bending or flashes crossing frames (lol), try panning left then right: at the point where the motion changes direction, the warping reverses and makes the distortion obvious in the moving footage.

to be fair, i saw an instance of distortion like that in the original red "crossing the line" movie at nab. a biplane aerial shot went up then down: squish. nobody else had pointed that out. maybe i'm just sensitive to it. motion blur to me looks natural because you can get that if you just move your eyes around, but--my brain at least--doesn't squish and unsquish the image when i move my eyes around.

the camera looks utterly fantastic though on static shots.

to be more fair this camera looks fantastic on a lot more than just static shots:

the rolling shutter distortion is only practically apparent AT THE POINT where the whole image is accelerating globally in one direction (the camera is beginning or ending a rotation, or translating up-down or sideways quickly), or where the image's global acceleration is changing direction on itself.

if the camera is in continuous motion and not accelerating, you won't notice it. if objects in the image are moving around, but the camera, the whole image isn't, you probably won't notice it.

my guess is that rolling shutters are here to stay and we'll just have to learn to shoot around them.