-
Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
-
jiri
Thanks for the info.
Rafael -
DVCpro isn’t actually 100Mbps. The datarate at most framerates is far, far less. Panasonic also include the audio in that datarate too. Something that I don’t think Sony do with the 35Mbps specification. I’ll have to do some checking on this.
I used a 500 recently, and I agree fully with Nate. It feels like a big HVX200. The menu adjustments bare this out. If you want to match the 500 to another camera forget it. It doesn’t have any colour matrix adjustment at all, and the vast majority of its menu settings such as detail, gamma etc only go from -7 to +7, much like a prosumer camera like the HVX200. Knee can only be configured as low, medium, and high.
Basically the 350 is 1000 times more adjustable, and that’s without going into the service menus which bring about even more adjustments.
Variable framerate is good on both cameras. Although the 350 is adjustable in single frame increments while the 500 only has set framerates.
The 350 has a 64frame accumulation mode which is great for extreme low light timelapse shots etc.
Low light on the 350 is not as good as the 500. This is an area in which the 500 excels. When I first tested the 350 I didn’t like the noise characteristics. But I have one here now and have found it not to be anywhere near as bad as I remembered it. I shoved it up to +9db, and while there is noise, it isn’t terrible
The 1.5″ viewfinder on the 500 sucks. But on the plus side the 500 has a great focus assist graph function that shows you the edge frequencies. Panasonic came up trumps with that feature.
On the minus side, while the 500 does come with the 1.5″ viewfinder, it doesn’t come with a microphone.
Clip playback on the 500 is fiddly. With XDCAM I am used to be able to instantly playback clips, and if I am shoulder mounting I can quickly delete a clip if it was a flub. You can’t do this on the 500. You have to open a flap and put the camera into a separate playback mode in order to perform operations on the clips.
Both are great cameras. But to be honest I do not believe that they are comparable. They exist in different price brackets for a reason. The XDCAM is simply far more user friendly in operation and far less limiting in setup abilities. The 500 doesn’t even have an adjustable shoulder pad. And because the body on the 500 is so light due to the P2 recording, it becomes very front heavy. You need some heavy batteries to offset it, and the lack of shoulder adjustment compounds this.
-
[Simon Wyndham] “Variable framerate is good on both cameras. Although the 350 is adjustable in single frame increments while the 500 only has set framerates.”
with f350 you will lose resolution[Simon Wyndham] “On the minus side, while the 500 does come with the 1.5″ viewfinder, it doesn’t come with a microphone.”
F330 comes with 1.5′ vf[Simon Wyndham] “It doesn’t have any colour matrix adjustment at all, and the vast majority of its menu settings such as detail, gamma etc only go from -7 to +7, much like a prosumer camera like the HVX200. Knee can only be configured as low, medium, and high”
I do like Panasonic colour more then Sony,especially skin tones.One big plus with 1/2 Sony cameras is: HD lenses are cheaper
https://www.globalmediapro.com/av/index.cgi -
“with f350 you will lose resolution”
Only above the base framerate. For framerates under the base rate (undrecranking) it is at full resolution. To be honest you’d be hard pressed to spot the loss of resolution in overcranking framerates.
“F330 comes with 1.5′ vf”
The original poster of this topic wants a 350, which comes with the 2″ viewfinder.
“I do like Panasonic colour more then Sony,especially skin tones.”
Panasonic colours are very nice yes. But the 350 can be tweaked to whatever you want it to be.
“One big plus with 1/2 Sony cameras is: HD lenses are cheaper”
They are around the same in reality. Look at the price of the wide angle top end 1/2″ lenses.
-
[Simon Wyndham] “Panasonic colours are very nice yes. But the 350 can be tweaked to whatever you want it to be.”
Would you mind to mail me your best file(s).
avro@bigpond.net.au -
I don’t currently own a 350 (I currently own a 510), so I can’t send you any files (although the Sony US site has downloadable files, calibrated to the DSC Labs ChromaDuMonde chart)
https://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamSceneFiles.shtml -
Peter, you are being fed some wrong information here.
Why oh why do people insist that the DVCPRO100 codec is better than the MPEG2 codec; this is total rubish. For your information John, DVCPRO100 DOES NOT record at 100Mbps, it is closer to 48Mbps, read up and learn. Besides, XDCAM HDs35Mbps is more like 100Mbps due to the fact that the MPEG codec is sooooooooo much more efficient.
I think Sony know exactly what they are doing with codecs. The only reason Panny aren’t using MPEG is because they can’t get it to work as well as Sony can so they are sticking with their tried-and-tested method. But believe me, it is NOT better and anyone who says it is, is seriously miss-informed.
As for the ‘distinction in imager size which advantages the Panasonic’ absolute rubbish. The resolution is what you need to be looking at, Sony’s 1440×1080 vs Panasonic’s 960×540 (basically standard def chips with pixel-shift in 3 directions to force a fake HD image).
Panasonic admit this themselves, see here:
https://www.hpx500.eu/technical_advanced_progressive.php?lang=en
2/3rd lenses won’t cost you any more really, Canon just brought out a new range that are only a tiny fraction more than half inch so no argument there either.
How is a 2/3rd lens better than a 1/2″ lens exactly Pete? a 2/3rd lens on a half inch camera will be worse in quality than a 1/2″ lens on a half inch camera. It is possible that a
-
[Nigel Cooper] “Why oh why do people insist that the DVCPRO100 codec is better than the MPEG2 codec; this is total rubish. For your information John, DVCPRO100 DOES NOT record at 100Mbps, it is closer to 48Mbps, read up and learn. Besides, XDCAM HDs35Mbps is more like 100Mbps due to the fact that the MPEG codec is sooooooooo much more efficient.”
I believe you have the numbers wrong here Nigel, but that aside, the reason that many feel the DVCPRO HD codec is better is bacause the frames are recorded independently and thus are not dependent on the next frame. For real information, instead of hearsay leading to what the real data rates are, you should read up on it at SMPTE, it is under SMPTE 314. Efficiency is not always the best thing unless you are in the delivery mode, efficiency can indeed bring about aberrations or shall we say artifacts that are not very desirable when you have a lot of detail and a lot of motion.
[Nigel Cooper] “I think Sony know exactly what they are doing with codecs. The only reason Panny aren’t using MPEG is because they can’t get it to work as well as Sony can so they are sticking with their tried-and-tested method. But believe me, it is NOT better and anyone who says it is, is seriously miss-informed.”
Nigel, frankly you need to go back and test this one again. And the reason Panaosnic is not in the MPEG domain in the production end is because we fell it is better placed in distribution. We do not feel the place for compromise in in the production end of things, which is why we have always tried to deliver an I-frame codec to the production industry. This is what DVCPRO HD is, DVCPRO50 and the new AVC-Intra. The fact that you put out there and say it as if it has rational weight behind it that we can’t get it to work as well as Sony, is ridiculous. We probably have shipped more DVDs and Blu-ray than most other manufacturers out there. We happen to believe long GOP MPEG has its place.
[Nigel Cooper] “As for the ‘distinction in imager size which advantages the Panasonic’ absolute rubbish. The resolution is what you need to be looking at, Sony’s 1440×1080 vs Panasonic’s 960×540 (basically standard def chips with pixel-shift in 3 directions to force a fake HD image).”
Frankly you need another lesson here. You didn’t seem to understand what that reference page was saying. And the CCD count on the HPX is not 520,00 as your numbers would indicate, but rather a 620,000 count. Resolution is not everything if it causes the algorithm to reflect blockies when there is a lot of motion and a lot of detail, like what we were showin at NAB, a small babbling brook scene. The imager size on the 500 does offer a dynamic range that is much nicer and the low light is also better. Does the 350 have more resolution, sure, but it records to long GOP. Being 1/2″ causes certain compromises in the dynamic range and the the lowlight sensitivit, so if you are shooting that scene with that 1/2″ imager and it happens to be one of those real edgy scenes with dramatic lighting you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2″ over the 2/3″.
And what would be that 3rd direction? It is a spatial offset that gains resolution by picking up the areas that are between the pixels of the green CCD in the Horizontal and Vertical Domains. This added resolution is combined with that green channel for the addition of lumininace resolution. CCDs ar analog devices, the image that comes off of them is an analog signal. That is then captured by the camera at a 1080 X1920P image capture, it is handled this way throught the camera processing and then put out to the DVCPROHD algorithm. Am I saying that you get the same as the 1440X1080 Sony, no, but I am saying that it does make for a very pleasing picture and numbers do not tell the entire story. And it can indeed be very competitive.
[Nigel Cooper] “2/3rd lenses won’t cost you any more really, Canon just brought out a new range that are only a tiny fraction more than half inch so no argument there either.”
Frankly the last I looked, unless you are really looking at the bargain basement lenses that no one should be using, the 1/2 vs 23 lenses are virtually the same price. The difference here is that there is compensation characteristics in the Panasonic camera that will work to resolve the Chroma Aberrations that are apparent in the less expensive lenses.
>How is a 2/3rd lens better than a 1/2″ lens exactly Pete? a 2/3rd lens on a half inch camera will be worse in quality than a 1/2″ lens on a half inch camera. It is possible that a
-
Jan, have you ever filmed and complete a production of any kind with ANY camera, or do you spend your life reading tec specs?
Fact is, MPEG Long GoP has one uncompressed frame to relate to, DVCPROHD compresses EVERY frame in a similar way to how JPEG works with photos. Swings and roundabouts.
I’m not going to be drawn into a stupid technical argument with you, I’m sure you have every Panny white paper committed to memory and can quote me all sorts of technical crap that just doesn’t concern me in the least.
I know what I see on a decent HD monitor; that is pretty much the only thing that counts; period.
EVERY I-Frame is compressed. Both Intraframe, Interframe and Long GoP are all compressed, they just do it differently; personally I don’t care about the scientifics unless I can see it in the picture and with pixel-shifting I can most definitely see it on a HD monitor; soft, soft, soft.
AVC-Intra can’t hold up to being compressed/de-compressed 3 times in post. I know people who have done it and it can’t handle being shredded like XDCAM’s MPEG can.
“you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2″ over the 2/3″.”
So the above quote would mean a HVX200 is pretty much useless for independent low budget filmmakers then?
“It is a spatial offset that gains resolution by picking up the areas that are between the pixels of the green CCD in the Horizontal and Vertical Domains. This added resolution is combined with that green channel for the addition of lumininace resolution. CCDs ar analog devices, the image that comes off of them is an analog signal. That is then captured by the camera at a 1080 X1920P image capture, it is handled this way throught the camera processing and then put out to the DVCPROHD algorithm.”
Hmmm, nice and technical again. Doesn’t mean jack to me Jan, I’m concerned with what the picture ‘Looks’ like on a HD monitor and don’t really go by manufactures inaccurate quotes and technical babble; not even Sony’s.
“In general I would bet on the $10,000 lens over the $5,000 any day, same make or different maker. Just been my experience that the more expensive the glass the better.”
Just goes to prove that you have never completed a production. This is rubbish, the Fujinon XS17x5.5BRM is virtually indistinguishable against Canon half-inchers costing twice the price. I’ve compared all Canon and all Fujinon half-inchers for XDCAM HD.
Anyway, just to Clarify. I must reiterate that I frankly don’t care about brands or what it says on the side of the camcorder. Over the past 24 months I’ve owned HVX200, 2 x JVC GY-HD111’s, 2 x Sony Z1’s, Sony DSR570. I’ve hired Digibeta and used XDCAM HD in abundance.
I basically use whatever an individual job calls for. There is not one camera that can do it all.
Corporate video calls for Canon XLH1 or Z1, Weddings call for DSR450, Doco’s could call for Varicam, TV commercials HDCAM SR, feature films a 35mm film Panavision…
I owned the cheap HVX200 consumer camera for just 1 month before ditching it for reasons of image quality and expensive and destructive P2 workflow. I found the JVC GY-HD111 sharper (with the better lens of course) for my personal needs at the time.
I looked long and hard at Panny tape-based cameras before going for XDCAM HD. PDW-F350 suits most of my personal needs at this moment in time. This camera covers a wide spectrum from corporate, informercials, weddings, TV work and much more. And it is relatively cheap too with a workflow that, just works perfectly.
The bane of Panny products is still the dated, obsolete and expensive P2 workflow that simply won’t be around come 2009. Even Panasonic Japan know darn well that they will be announcing the replacement for P2 at NAB 2009.
Old serial/slow/unreliable P2 technology simply can’t survive in today’s world. How Panasonic call it the ‘IT’ workflow is a joke and ironic considering the IT industry has left PC-Card technology behind and moved onto the faster, more reliable, cheaper, more future proof ExpressCard technology.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Panasonic the only company on the planet that use PC-Card technology now?
And I see the CinePorter got canned due to lack of interest. Personally I think it is because they know they would probably only sell a few hundred.
And aren’t Panasonic the only company on the planet making P2 cards?
There is a good reason Kodak, Lexar, Sandis, Fuji etc etc won’t EVER make P2 cards. Because they won’t sell many, just one to each end user. They won’t spend millions of dollars setting up production lines just to sell a few hundred thousand dollars worth of P2 cards. If P2 cards stick around that long anyway.
Panasonic committed to P2 for just 6 years, 4 of them are up, just 2 to go.
Bye Bye P2, you’re days are numbered and anyone who thinks otherwise, well check back in 2009 and I’ll accept your apologies.
Convince yourself all you like Jan and enjoy the pay whilst it is there.
-
Guys,
Thanks for all your responses. I guess the final take-out for me of this thread is….you can’t really get it wrong. I think both cameras are doing a pretty good job given their pricing.
To answer one question about the pricing which I forgot to mention. The Sony is an ex-demo with only 40 hours usage so I can get it with a huge discount. That’s why it matches the Panasonic pricing. Sorry for not being clear on that.I am still not sure which one to buy, so indeed it is going to be a “shoot out” eventualy.
Thnx again to everybody for your help, it’s much appreciated.Peter
Peter Dorr
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up