Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by Helmut Kobler on May 20, 2008 at 10:02:17 pm
The 3000 also has the Varicam Film Rec mode and can reduce chromatic abberation when used with a compatible lens. But the 2000 is a better perforer in low-light (or no light, virtually). It has some features that news crews appreciate, like a digital super zoom, too.
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by Helmut Kobler on May 21, 2008 at 1:06:06 am
The 2000 is definitely a fine camera in its own right!
As for asking why someone would get the 3000 over the 3700: Panasonic has said that the 3700 would come in around $60,000, which is a $15K markup over the 3000's price. For that $15K, you get variable frame rates up to 30fps (but not 60 for slow mo!), and dual HD-SDI outs, and 4 audio inputs instead of 2.
FOr me, none of that is worth an extra $15K, especially when the 3000 delivers the same amazing full raster image.
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by simon Morgan on May 21, 2008 at 6:31:33 pm
Has anyone tested the cameras side by side? I have shot with the HPX3000 and noticed a marked difference when using the AVC Intra 100 codec versus the DVCPRO HD codec. Just wondering how much you notice the AVC Intra board with the HPX2000?
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by Bobby Holbrook II on May 21, 2008 at 7:51:04 pm
I attended HD Expo's P2 conference in Dallas and they had every Panasonic camera set up for anyone to test,go through the menu,the whole nine yards. I also brought my 2000 along to possible get a few tricks and pointers from the instructors. I compared there 2000 (with AVC Intra 100, shooting AVC 100) against my 2000 (no AVC Intra board ,shooting DVCPRo HD) and in my opinion the difference was drastic. Over all the picture was cleaner, more crisp and more impressive then the DVCPRO HD. My camera now has the AVC Intra Board.
Chief Editor/Cinematographer
P2 University Grad.
Holbrook Multi-Media
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by simon Morgan on May 21, 2008 at 9:25:42 pm
I noticed the exact same thing with the 3000 camera. I shot the same subject in DVCPRO HD, then set the camera to AVC 100... the difference was remarkable-like you say.
I am looking at either buying the 2000 or the 3000 in the next week or so... is there much difference to the eye in the pictures made by the 2 cameras? I understand the difference in chip sets etc etc... but I am an editor that goes by look and feel! I have a HPX500 and know that the image they create with pixel shift is great... sure it's not a full 1920 x 1080 pixel camera like the sony, but the camera still looks great. So I know that pixel size isn't everything... especially now Panasonic is releasing the new Varicam 2700 as a 1280 x 720 chip camera!
If you were at the expo, were you blown away by the difference in image between the 2000 and 3000, or can you only tell when you have them matched up next to each other? I was very impressed by the 3000, but I have been very impressed by the HDX900... The only reason I was thinking of the 2000 was the $20,000 price difference and the fact the 2000 in AVC will create a nicer image than the 900 in DVCPRO HD.
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by Bobby Holbrook II on May 21, 2008 at 11:07:18 pm
I was in the same position as you when purchasing the camera, 3000 or 2000.?.? At the time I had not any reference footage b/t the two and after my own research and investigating I went on the word of the company I was buying it from, which claimed there's very very very little difference in the picture quality.
Well while attending the Expo I realized I had been had. Most people/clients would not be able to tell the difference but being an editor/cinematographer the difference was clear. I would be so bold to say that the two differed as much as 16mm does to 35mm. Over all though I have shot really great stuff on the 2000 as well as the 3000 and one major factor I think when choosing is the type of work you do the most and the final output of the project.
Chief Editor/Cinematographer
P2 University Grad.
Holbrook Multi-Media
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by simon Morgan on May 22, 2008 at 1:03:16 am
Thanks for your help... I may be limited by the $20,000 difference in price... and although I'm sure I'll be able to tell the difference, my partner is always reminding me about what our clients need as a pose to what we think they need!
One question about the 2000... how is that super gain function. I've heard some great things about it, but others say they'd never use it. We shoot wildlife at dusk/dawn... would it work in that situation?
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by simon Morgan on May 23, 2008 at 2:12:32 am
Just got my first look at the HPX2000 with AVC Intra card today... I must say the AVC intra makes the camera a lot cleaner. It does make nice pictures for sure, but it can't really compete with the HPX3000 (in my eyes) now that I've been able to see them both first hand. The HPX3000 is definitely a flagship camera, and now I can see what all the fuss is about. It may be even worth the extra $20,000! I am going to shoot some more with the 2000 over the weekend before I make my final decision, but at least in preliminary testing, the 3000 kicks ass.
Re: HPX 3000 vs 2000 by Jeremy Garchow on May 23, 2008 at 3:12:12 am
[simon Morgan]"The HPX3000 is definitely a flagship camera, and now I can see what all the fuss is about. It may be even worth the extra $20,000! I am going to shoot some more with the 2000 over the weekend before I make my final decision, but at least in preliminary testing, the 3000 kicks ass."
I have to agree. The 2000 is a great camera too, but the 3000 is really really nice. 1080psf24N is sweet. No pulldown. i also agree that AVCIntra is a remarkable improvement over DVCPro HD.
Waiting to see what the new Varicams have in store though...
