HPX2000 have you used one?

[FOXPhotog911]

If so, what did you think of the weight?

Mine is about 3 metric tons heavier than my 300a or my AJ-810! :) Seriously though, is it heavy to anyone else?

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

[svp]

Yea, we have them and they are very heavy but still a pretty good camera. I know I'm the odd man out when I say this but I like the extra weight. I find it much easier to hold a steady shot off shoulder when using the heavier camera. The lighter cameras are so front heavy, due to the lens, that your arms are holding all the weight, making it very difficult to hold steady shots. Just my opinion.

[FOXPhotog911]

You have the HPX2000? Which shop? I'm with you about the weight of cameras and being able to hold steadier.

My concern is less about my shots and more about the long term health of my spine. :)

Thanks!

[shootist]

yup...hpx2000 here.

much heavier than the sony dnw7 sx camera i had before.

and i run double anton bauers on the back to balance a much heavier lens as well.

[svp]

Overall, I really like the cameras, despite the weight. I still don't really like P2 but I've learned to work around the shortcomings of the format. One thing I really like about the P2 is how much you can manipulate the look of the video with relative ease using all the great menu functions. I still don't like that you can't rename a clip in the camera. I also don't like that the LCD isn't widescreen. If they couldn't use a bigger screen, that's fine, but when shooting HD or SD 16:9, the image should be letterboxed in the screen instead of squeezed.

[Trybe One]

Overall, I really like the cameras, despite the weight. I still don't really like P2 but I've learned to work around the shortcomings of the format. One thing I really like about the P2 is how much you can manipulate the look of the video with relative ease using all the great menu functions. I still don't like that you can't rename a clip in the camera. I also don't like that the LCD isn't widescreen. If they couldn't use a bigger screen, that's fine, but when shooting HD or SD 16:9, the image should be letterboxed in the screen instead of squeezed.


you need to update your cam... call panasonic rep.
the 16x9 issue is resolved on the viewfinder. you really should learn metadata. using the metadata fucntions you can rename the clips before you shoot and after the shoot.

Yes the camera is heavy try shooting with a wide eye attachment and a linx wireless on it...talk about a workout...

[Shootblue]

Try an older F-900 with even just the typical attachments sometime. You won't complain nearly as much.

[shootist]

Overall, I really like the cameras, despite the weight. I still don't really like P2 but I've learned to work around the shortcomings of the format. One thing I really like about the P2 is how much you can manipulate the look of the video with relative ease using all the great menu functions. I still don't like that you can't rename a clip in the camera. I also don't like that the LCD isn't widescreen. If they couldn't use a bigger screen, that's fine, but when shooting HD or SD 16:9, the image should be letterboxed in the screen instead of squeezed.

i can get widescreen on the LCD when shooting HD but not SD....(squeeze only)

[FOXPhotog911]

Try an older F-900 with even just the typical attachments sometime. You won't complain nearly as much.

About that... Last week I asked one of our "former" photogs (read:editor) his thoughts on the HPX2000. He said that the new camera is the closest thing to the "condo-cam" dockable beta that he used to carry.

I don't even want to think about the behemoth to which you refer. *shiver*

[FOXPhotog911]

Overall, I really like the cameras, despite the weight.

Have you found that the low light sensitivity is not what you would expect? I was surprised that this cam to be more in line with the 300a than the AJ-810. My 810 was great in low light. This one is not as sensitive.

I do have to say I LOVE ME SOME P2, though. The workflow, once troubleshot, is very quick and flexible in the field.

Any ideas why the HPX2000 is so heavy and power hungry (~45W!!!) yet the HPX500 is MUCH lighter and 20W?? (Don't even go by Panasonic's specs... they are um, up to interpretation let's say.)

:)

[svp]

To be honest, I haven't used the cam in low light situations so I really can't say. I used the AJ-610 at my last job. The HPX2000 has alot more flexibility in controlling the video but, so far, the AJ-610 seemed to produce more crisp, cleaner images. Keep in mind that the differences are minimal, yet noticable to me. I like both cams with regards to picture quality. The thing I really love is having the color LCD screen. I don't use it for framing or monitoring when shooting interviews. I still use the viewfinder for that. But I have found the LCD very useful when you want to tweak or experiment with you color temp. The only drawback is, to get an accurate reading, you have to look at the LCD at eye level. Looking at that LCD from an angle seriously changes the perception of the video.

I do want to let everyone know of something I didthat really worked well.

1. Last week, we had the suspicous vehicle by the Capitol that had the streets shut down. That was right outside our building. My cam was set up, shooting through the window, on the truck and we were using it for live shots. I was shooting on filter 3.
Once it started getting dark I changed to filter 1, making everything look blue. Rather than zoom in on a white car or something to white balance, I just pushed the button to white balance and, surprisingly, the cam white balanced perfectly. NO WHITE NEEDED. I was amazed that it worked. Perfect color.

2. We were doing interviews in the Russel Senate building rotunda. There was no place to plug a light in, so we set up by one of the windows to use the natural light. The problem was that the subject was going to be lit with natural light but the background was lit with tungsten. I used filter 3 with my shutter set at 120. Again, I did not white balance on white. Instead, I pulled back wide on the room and just flipped the white balance button. The room color was perfect. Once the Senator was in place (he looked pale in the shot) I just flipped on my top light. Not for light, but to add a skin tone color to his face. When we got back and loaded it into the edit bay I was amazed. With the exception of no hair light, you would have thought I had lights on him. It looked great. All of these would be NO NO's but sometimes just experimenting will give you results you don't think are possible.


When I was in OKC, there was a blogger that always commented on my live shots, saying the reporter looked like she was in the studio. Well, my secret was I never used anything on her but my top light with a softbox on it. I'd set up a light on the background but only use the toplight on her. This put just a little light on her face and allowed me to iris up almost all the way so we never had a dark background. Standing there, it didn't look like you could even see her, but the shots looked great. Once again, just an experiment that paid off big.

[Run&Gun]

Try an older F-900 with even just the typical attachments sometime. You won't complain nearly as much.

Original F-900, Fuji HA 22x7.3(as big as the 900 body by itself and almost 7 lbs!), wireless Rx, downconverter, and wireless video!!! It would almost take your breath away after just a few minutes on your shoulder...

FOX, try an inversion table. I just got one yesterday and the first time on it, I felt my back/spine decompressing. When you run around with a heavy camera on your shoulder, $150 bucks to try to keep your back/spine healthy is nothing.

[FOXPhotog911]

FOX, try an inversion table. I just got one yesterday and the first time on it, I felt my back/spine decompressing. When you run around with a heavy camera on your shoulder, $150 bucks to try to keep your back/spine healthy is nothing.

Really!?! That sounds very much like something I could get interested in very quickly.

Thanks!!!