(Page 2 of 2 pages for this article  <  1 2)

Filed under: Cameras •compression •GentryMedia Sister Sites •ProVideo Coalition •Hardware •

Review: Panasonic AG-AC160 and AG-HPX250 1/3” 3-MOS camcorders

Performance

Optics

The lens is a capable performer with very few compromises.

It goes wide enough (28mm equivalent) that I never felt the need for a wide-angle adaptor; I was able to capture views of automobile drivers, from seatback to steering wheel, with the camera handheld in the passenger’s seat. With a 22x zoom ratio, it has plenty of telephoto reach, too.

You’ll see mild barrel (fisheye) distortion fully wide, changing to mild mustache distortion (barrel in center, pincushion at outer edges) from 10% to 35% of the zoom range, diminishing to essentially rectilinear at 65% onwards. In no case is the distortion troublesome; in normal shooting it’s not even detectable unless you’re focusing on architecture.

The maximum aperture ramps considerably, from f1.6 fully wide to f3.2 at 85% of the zoom range, roughly halfway between 27mm and 86mm—after which it seems to open up a bit, perhaps 1/4-1/3 stop. At that same point, evenness of illumination starts to fall off: from entirely flat at the wider end, to a gradual and even falloff of perhaps 1/2 a stop at the edges. It’s not visible unless you’re looking for it on a WFM. And of course, these are full-wide-open artifacts; if you’re shooting at f4 to start with, neither ramping nor vignetting will be observable at all.

There’s only a tiny touch of green/magenta chromatic aberration at full wide angle, and only if you’re actively looking for it. These cameras use built-in chromatic aberration correction, and it works extremely well.

The lens is a varifocal, not a parfocal or “true” zoom; a servo system maintains focus while zooming. Switch off the zoom motor and snap-zoom quickly—half a second from end to end, or faster—and the focus will blur for a few frames before recovering, but normal-speed zooming is fine, with no focus drift or blurring observable.

Power zoom speeds range from about 3.5 seconds to 30 seconds. Given the extreme zoom range, that means that even the 30-second speed has a fairly hard bump starting and stopping; easing into a dead-slow zoom creep isn’t something to count on. Having said that, I found the zoom rocker to be surprisingly controllable in real-world run’n’gun shooting, with eases in and out of normal zooms being both smooth and readily repeatable.

These cameras give you multiple choices for focusing:

• Full manual: you’re in control. If you need cine-style repeatability from the servo-driven mechanism, you can use a mechanical follow-focus with hard stops, or the Bebob Foxi focus/iris remote control.

• Full auto: The camera drives focus, but you can always override it with the focus ring, alive and enabled at all times.

• Manual, with momentary auto: a short press of the PUSH AUTO button hands focus control to the camera, for as long (and only for as long) as you hold the button down.

• MF ASSIST: MF assist mode, settable in the menus, fine-tunes manual focus by using autofocus momentarily once you stop turning the focus ring to refine your setting. Once focused to the camera’s satisfaction, MF ASSIST shuts off, leaving the focus fixed until you once again turn the ring. MF ASSIST only searches within a narrow range of positions, so it won’t diverge suddenly from your desired focus zone; by the same token its fine-tuning requires you to get focus reasonably close in the first place.

I found MF ASSIST to be a mixed bag. Most of the time it works very well, but sometimes it may disagree with you on where focus should be set. At one point I was trying to focus on a particular detail of the body of another camera, but there was a shinier, more contrasty highlight on the camera’s lens—I focused carefully on the camera body, then MF ASSIST just as carefully pulled focus back an inch or two to the shiny highlight, every time I tried the shot.

It’s the same risk you run with full-time autofocus:  are you and the AF system of the same opinion? If you find that you and your camera always agree, then MF ASSIST will be a valuable part of your arsenal; if you and your camera frequently “think different”, then full manual with the occasional tap on PUSH AUTO will likely suit you better.

Autofocus works well overall, though like all autofocus systems it’s subject to “hunting” back and forth around a desired focus point. That hunting doesn’t visibly affect the focal point, which remains crisp and clear. Instead, out-of-focus element in the scene can “breathe”, pulsating in their out-of-focusness at about a 1 Hz rate. It’s not typically noticeable unless such elements are bright and contrasty, and again, it’s an artifact of autofocus hunting common across many cameras.

The optical stabilization is on a par with that of other fixed-lens Panasonics: functional and helpful, if perhaps not quite as steadying as the similar stabilization in Sony and Canon handhelds.

Overall, I found this lens to be much less limiting than most built-in zooms: it goes wide enough, stays rectilinear enough, and maintains an evenness of illumination, such that I never felt that I needed to avoid any part of the zoom range, nor did I ever wish I had supplementary lenses.

Resolution and Detail

The cameras use three 1/3” MOS sensors with 1920x1080 active photosites. They resolve 1000+ TVl/ph, and have balanced H and V resolutions. These are no-nonsense, no-excuses, full-resolution HD camcorders.

Pixel-for-pixel sample from the HPX250, AVC-Intra 100. (Left half of chart used, as right half was slightly out of focus!)

Pixel-for-pixel resolution sample, AC160, PH1080/24p recording.

Charts from the two cameras look slightly different: I had the 250 level with the chart, but the 160 was slightly tilted, which may be a factor in the differing appearance of the high-frequency gratings. They also appear to differ in their sharpening processes; both cameras were at default detail settings when I shot the charts.

Differing detail: 250 above, 160 below. The 250’s enhancement seems to prefer darker edging than the 160 does, yet the 160 seems to be more “enhanced” overall. These 3x-magnified excerpts are taken from the same still frames as the 1:1 chart extracts above.

On the 160, detail at -7 appears to be fully off while detail +7 is rather edgy. Detail -7 on the 250 seemed generally comparable to detail 0 on the 160; I was never able to fully remove detail from the 250. Yet the detail rendering is rather different between the two cameras; the 160 appears to sharpen mid-to-high frequencies a bit more aggressively than the 250 does for any given setting.

Practically speaking, this winds up being one of those number-of-angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin distinctions. With the cameras at comparable detail-level settings, I wasn’t able to discern any any obvious difference in detail rendering between the two cameras when shooting real-world scenes.

In any event, I frequently found myself stopping playback of real-world 160 footage and marveling at the sharpness, resolution, and naturalness of the rendering; there wasn’t a trace of the jaggedness, “screen-door” rendering, moiré, aliasing, or other artifacts of lesser 1/3” camcorders. As far as spatial rendering is concerned, I’d happily intercut footage from either of these cameras with clips from full-HD 1/2” and 2/3” camcorders; it’s that crisp, clear, and clean.

Across the different recording formats available, test charts from these cameras look pretty much like the test charts from the AG-HPX370, with the main differences being a more rectilinear rendering (the 22x lens on these camcorders showed less distortion than the 17x on the 370) and less green/magenta aliasing on the downsampled SD pix, which I attribute to less chromatic aberration from the 22x lens (Panasonic’s C.A.C. only corrects aberrations horizontally, leaving any vertical chromatic aberration free to make mischief with test-chart downsampling).

One aspect of shooting HD with 1/3” sensors is that, for optimal results, you need to keep the iris at or wider than f/4, maybe f/4.8. At smaller apertures, diffraction sets in and robs you of resolution, softening the image (see the pix in the 370 review for graphic examples). The four-position ND switch on these cameras makes it easy to ensure a wide aperture in almost any situation, though a bright day on snow or in the desert might require adding more ND filters in front of the lens.

However, Panasonic has not seen fit to provide a menu setting limiting how small an aperture auto-iris can set, so you’ll want to be actively monitoring the iris setting to ensure sharp imaging even when the camera is calling the shots. Many Sonys, by comparison, offer a minimum-auto-iris setting, and they’ll use gain and/or shutter speed to compensate as needed when the light gets too bright—or they’ll let the image get overexposed. It’s just something to be aware of if you value your fine detail.

Sensitivity and Noise

The 250, like the 370 before it, touts “P.A.P. (Progressive Advanced Processing), a 3D adaptive processing technology.” The camera offers two modes: P.A.P. 1 with full, temporally-recursive noise reduction; and P.A.P. 2, which uses less (if any) interframe data.

P.A.P. 1 offers a stop more sensitivity in progressive shooting than would otherwise be available, but at the expense of some motion trailing in shadow areas, occasionally visible in low-key scenes. It’s similar in appearance to the “lagging shadows” sometimes visible with noise reduction in some LCD monitors or DVD players.

I was able to see the lagging shadows in a few very dark shots using P.A.P 1, though normally it wasn’t an issue. Shooting P.A.P 2, I never saw the problem, nor did the 160 ever show it (not surprising, as the 160 does not use P.A.P.).

I rate the 250 (in P.A.P 2) and the 160 at ISO 400. With P.A.P 1, the 250 jumps to ISO 800. That’s in progressive modes; shooting interlace, the 250 seemed to be 1/3 stop (P.A.P 1) or 2/3 stop (P.A.P. 2) more sensitive, while the 160’s sensitivity didn’t change at all. Normally, you’d expect interlace to have twice the sensitivity of progressive (usually, two scanlines are read out in parallel in interlaced, and combined; this is done to reduce interfield twitter, and has the side effect of doubling sensitivity). The sensitivity changes on the 250 imply that P.A.P. is definitely boosting progressive ISOs, but the lack of change on the 160 is puzzling. Perhaps the 160 is always scanning in progressive, and interlacing later on in its processing chain? In any event, it’s clear evidence that the 160 and 250 take different approaches to image processing.

Both cameras offer gain settings from 0dB to 18dB in 3dB steps, settable on the three-position gain switch, as well as 24dB and 30dB “super gains” available on a user-assignable pushbutton. Image noise is just barely visible at 0dB; getting a perfectly clean 1920x1080 image out of 1/3” chips is still beyond the bounds of practicality—but these Panasonics are as clean as any other 1/3” camera I’ve seen with comparable resolution. As gain is boosted, noise increases too (see the HPX370’s gain-boost pix), but it maintains an isomorphic, film-grain-like appearance at all times. I avoided gain on older Panasonics because I found their noise unappealing, yet with the 160 I often found myself shooting at +6dB or +12dB and being perfectly happy with the way the images looked.

CMOS Artifacts

The sensors use rolling shutter readouts, and I measured frame-readout time as about 1/60 sec from top to bottom in both cameras, comparable to the HPX370 or the Sony PMW-EX1. Yes, there’s jellocam: worse than on a RED or an Alexa (cameras costing much more, of course), but better than on the HPX300, Canon DSLRs, GoPros, and freakin’ iPhones—often way better. Some degree of jellocam is the price we currently pay for high-resolution, low-noise sensors in such small sizes.

On the flip side, the 3-MOS sensors don’t show any of the vertical smear on bright highlights that CCD sensors suffer from.

Tonal Scale, Gammas, and Knees

These cameras offer the same gamma presets as other Panasonics, with several “standard” gammas and two “cine” gammas with lower midtones.

• HD Norm, the default gamma for HD shooting.

• Low, a similar gamma with slightly darker midtones.

• SD Norm, the default for standard-def, carried over from the original DVX100.

• High, curve with slightly brighter midtones than HD Norm.

• B. Press, like Low but with shadows crushed a bit more.

• Cine-Like D, a flatter, darker curve optimized for dynamic range.

• Cine-Like V, like D, but with somewhat snappier midtones and more of an S-curve in the shadows and highlights.

All the gammas have knees, and as on the 370, the 250 and 160 knees have an S-curve-like compression profile with a less pronounced inflection point than traditional knees have. The result is a smoother transition from the normal part of the tonal scale into the compressed highlights, as well as a softer highlight clip.

It’s not a log, cinegamma, or hypergamma curve, but it’s not as harsh as the typical video knee is; it’s more of a compromise setting between the two. It’s a bit more clippy that Sony’s cinegamma and hypergamma curves, but it retains chroma saturation well up into the highlights, which many folks find to be a desirable tradeoff. As on the 370, this S-curved knee reduces the abrupt hue shifts in the affected highlights, and overexposed skintones are equally smoothly handled in all gamma curves.

In auto mode, the camera sets the knee point; you can also select Low, Mid, or High knees, which kick in at 80%, 90%, and 100% respectively (except in the 160’s cine-like gammas, which do not offer manual knee control).

While the ultimate clipping point seemed fairly consistent across the gammas, the cine-like gammas appeared to hold usable detail in the highlights about half a stop longer than the normal gammas. Additionally, the 250’s option of a Low manual knee in cine-like gammas let me capture another half stop of highlight detail on my Stouffer density-wedge test target.

Yes, that’s a bit hand-wavy. Unfortunately, I had uneven illumination when shooting the Stouffer wedge, which I didn’t discover until after I had returned the cameras to Panasonic, so I can’t quote hard numbers for latitude, highlight headroom, and the like. I was able to eke out ten stops from the 370; the 250 has the same sensors and processing as the 370, so we can infer that the 250 most likely has the same latitude. The 160 looked very comparable in my side-by-side tests, though its lack of a manual knee in cine gammas (possibly due to that camera’s 18-bit processing, compared to 20-bit for the 250) may cost it half a stop overall—still very respectable for a 1/3” camcorder.

If you need more latitude still, both cameras offer three levels of Dynamic Range Stretch. Like the Shadows & Highlights adjustments in Photoshop or Aperture, DRS uses local contrast adjustment to bring up shadows and hold down highlights. Overdone, DRS can show diffuse dark halos around bright objects and light halos around dark ones; it’s a powerful tool but one requiring discretion in its application (Panasonic warns that unless you have a scene with strong contrast and deep blacks, DRS may introduce noise into unnecessarily-lifted shadows).

DRS off (top), DRS on at level 3 (bottom).

DRS is unavailable in 1080p modes on the 250, though it’s there on the 160.

Color Reproduction

Panasonic’s famous four color matrices are present on both cameras:

• Norm 1, the default color matrix.

• Norm 2, a slightly more saturated look.

• Fluo, which boosts reds for shooting under fluorescent lights.

• Cine-like, stronger saturation, suitable for the darker images of cine-like gammas.

Not to beat a dead horse, but again I refer you to the HPX370 review for visual comparisons.

Additionally you have control over global saturation, phase, color temperature (warmer or cooler, with separate tweaks for white balance A and white balance B), and pedestal.

Panasonics tend towards neutral, natural, pleasing colors overall, and these cameras follow in that tradition. When I play back clips I’ve shot with these cameras, the playback has the same colors I saw in the scene. Really, is there any higher praise for a camera’s color rendering?

If there’s anything to complain about with Panasonic colorimetry, it’s that overexposed highlights hold a bit too much saturation for my tastes—though the soft knee of this generation of cameras makes the effect less troublesome than on older Panasonics (and bear in mind that I’m a fan of Sony’s cinegammas, which aggressively roll off saturation in highlights, so you may well find my kvetching to be overwrought).

Audio

The 250 captures four channels of 48 kHz, 16-bit, uncompressed audio, two from the built-in mikes, and two from the XLRs. The two inputs you select with the on-camera controls go to channels 1 and 2; the remaining two go to channels 3 and 4 using AGC. It’s a handy thing to have when you’re using the XLRs; the built-in mikes provide “scratch tracks” on 3 and 4, and provide handy backups in case your offboard mike batteries die, or your wireless mikes take an RF hit or a cellphone squitter, or a cable comes unplugged, or any of the other misfortunes possible with location audio.

The 160 captures two channels as Dolby digital compressed or as LPCM uncompressed, both with 48 kHz sampling and 16 bits of depth.

I recorded long stretches of dialog and rang cowbells in a quiet room while recording both kinds of audio on the 160. Listening to playback with Sony MDR-F1 ‘phones, I’m hard-pressed to hear the difference between ‘em. It may be the case that the PCM tracks are a bit more “spacious” and “open”, or it may be the case that I’m hearing what I expect to hear because I know which tracks are which. In any event, the difference (if any) is small, and I wouldn’t hesitate to use the Dolby Digital tracks in real-world productions if I had no other choice.

The built-in mikes do a good job, with relatively little handling noise coming through except in quiet passages. Power zooms at top speed were faintly audible, while slower zooms weren’t noticeable unless I listened for them.

Panasonic’s audio quality has been a strong point since the days of the DVX100. Tracks are clean and quiet, and the camera’s peak-end limiters are very good, compressing overly-loud transients without obvious distortion. I’d have no qualms about recording production audio on either of these cameras.

Monitoring, Playback, and Offloading

Both cameras offer HDMI, HD-SDI, and composite video outputs. The HDMI and SDI outputs can be set for HD or for downconverted SD playback, with the SD output letterboxed, center-cut, or anamorphically squeezed.

Both cameras share the peculiarity that enabling SDI prevents the EVF from being used when the LCD is open. With SDI on, you can only use the EVF with the LCD closed, even if you’ve set the EVF to be always on.

The two cameras allow live output and playback on their 1394 (FireWire) ports when a DV format is selected (standard-def on both cameras, and DVCPRO HD on the 250 only). AVC-Intra and AVCHD are not supported on 1394.

Both cameras offer thumbnail displays of images with detailed metadata screens and various manipulation options. Normal and high-speed playback are possible, as is single-frame advancing (and reversing on the 250; due to the long-GOP nature of AVCHD, the 160 can only go backwards in half-second increments).

Clip thumbnails on the HPX250.

Clip properties as shown on the HPX250.

Each item in the right-hand column has its own metadata popup.

Clip thumbnails as shown on the 160.

Clip properties for an AC160 clip.

One of several pages of metadata for an AC160 clip.

Connecting the cameras as USB devices lets their cards mount on the computer as standard storage devices, so you can copy their files off or ingest their clips in your favorite NLE. The 160 switches to “PC mode” as soon as it’s connected to a computer, whereas the 250 waits until you manually switch into PC mode (and it has a separate LED for that state on its handgrip, as we saw above).

In my tests, both Final Cut Pro 7 and Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 saw the clips from either camera and imported them with ease.

The 250 also has a USB host port, letting you connect a USB drive or Panasonic’s P2 STORE unit directly to the camera and offload P2 cards to individual partitions on the storage device, with no computer needed.

The 160’s SDHC cards can be slotted into any Mac or PC SDHC card reader and downloaded directly. The 250’s P2 cards require a P2 card reader or a PCCard (PCMCIA) slot; if the latter, you’ll need Panasonic’s P2 card device driver for Mac or Windows, freely downloadable from Panasonic’s support site.

Other Features

Variable Frame Rates - Both cameras offer VFR recording. The 250 offers 17 steps of VFR from 1-30 fps in 1080p, and 25 steps from 1-60 fps in 720p. The 160 provides 22 steps from 2-60 fps in 1080p—it’s the first affordable camera I’m aware of offering full-res 1080p 60 fps slo-mo—but doesn’t allow VFR in 720p. Available frame rates are typically 2 to 6 fps apart: 1,2,4,6,9…,48,54,60 fps on the 250, and 2,6,9,12,...,48,54,60 fps on the 160.

In 50Hz mode, the maximum frame rate is 50 fps instead 60 fps (on the 250, 1080p’s max rate drops from 30 to 25 fps). 

Scene Files - these cameras put their imaging tweaks, including frame rates, gammas, pedestal, color controls, detail, and the like, in Scene Files. Six scene files are selectable using a rotary dial, making it easy to define several presets and switch between ‘em at a moment’s notice. Scene files can be saved to SD cards, too, for backup and for transfer between cameras.

Digital Zoom - the cameras offer 2x, 5x, and 10x digital zoom, assignable to a user button. They look as good as any digital zoom does.

Flash Band Compensation - The 250 (but not the 160) is able to detect a flash going off in the picture, and stitch together the parts of the two flashed frames (or fields) into a coherent whole, compensating for the half-on/half-off split frames caused by rolling shutter capture. I discuss FBC in detail in that danged 370 review.

Area Tracking - The 160 steals a play from the still-camera playbook, letting you position a target area onscreen and monitor the contents thereof, using it for focus (either autofocus, or just setting the active area for the focus bar readout), auto-iris, Y GET (spot meter reading), focus and iris together, or focus and Y GET together. It’s just like moving the focus/metering point in the viewfinder of a DSLR. You use the FUNCTION joystick below the LCD to position the target, and click the joystick in to set it. It’s very useful when your subject is framed off-center, and the programmability of the control—it can drive focus and/or iris directly, or just display focus and exposure data for you to track manually—gives it great versatility.

AREA mode on the 160. The yellow target is the currently-measured area, while the white target to its upper right is the shows the currently-selected area. Pressing the joystick in will start measuring the selected area.

Face Detect - The 160 pushes the envelope even farther with automatic face tracking. If the camera detects a face, it’ll set exposure and focus on that face, and follow the face around the frame.

It works quite well as long as you understand its limitations. Contrasty faces are easily seen, but those with less-defined details, like that of a white-haired old lady with silver-rimmed glasses, need to fill more of the screen before the camera will detect them. As long as the camera sees a face, it holds focus and exposure consistently, but if that face turns away, or gets too small, or gets too close to the edge of the picture, the camera falls back on its normal focus/exposure modes, and you may see the exposure pump up or down as a result.

Detail Settings - both cameras give you control over the detail level, a separate vertical detail level, and “skin detail” to remove added sharpening on skin tones.

Genlock and Sync - The 250 offers full genlock and timecode sync capabilities, making it a natural for frame-locked multicam shoots. The 160 lets you jam-sync timecode, but it doesn’t offer genlock synchronization.

Power and Charging - Both cameras run for well over three hours on their stock batteries, and both come supplied with AC adapters.

Battery chargers for the AC160 and the HPX250.

HPX250 battery and charger, left; AC160 battery and charger, right.

The AC160 uses a stylish charger that doubles as an AC adapter, using a battery eliminator that plugs into the camera where the battery normally resides.

The HPX250 uses the same style of charger that other DVX/HVX/HPX cameras do, but unusually for this camera family, it doesn’t serve as the AC adapter. The 250 ships with a separate adapter, one that also uses a battery eliminator—but with a cable that’s not quite long enough to let the adapter brick rest on the floor when the camera is five feet up on a tripod!

The HPX250’s AC supply, left hanging by its too-short cord.

It’s a silly mistake; you’d think that an AC supply’s battery eliminator cable would be designed specifically for tripod-mounted usage, but it looks like nobody actually tested such a setup before committing to a production run.

Having a separate charger and AC adapter does mean that you can charge the 250’s battery while simultaneously running the camera on wall power.

What about the AC130?

The AC130 is a “de-featured” version of the AC160, lacking the following:

• 50Hz/60Hz switchability: you can get a 60Hz model or a 50Hz model, but you can’t switch standards on the 130 as you can on the 160. 

• Linear PCM audio: the 130 only records Dolby digital compressed audio.

• VFR: the 130 doesn’t offer variable frame rate recording.

• SDI: the 130 doesn’t have an SDI terminal, only composite and HDMI.

On the flip side, it’s $900 less expensive, or about 20% cheaper. If you don’t need “worldcam” flexibility, SDI, LPCM, or VFR, why pay for them? Alternatively, the 130 makes a great “B camera” for a 160, with the same basic performance, same media, and same interface.

In Use

I admit to a certain jaded resignation when Panasonic sent me these cameras: I expected them to perform well technically, but I’m not a fan of the “handycam” design for big cameras. Once cameras get past a certain size, weight, and side-heaviness, they cease to be comfortably handholdable, and the whole raison d’être for the form factor disappears. For me, that size, weight, and imbalance limit is typified by Panasonic’s original DVX100.

A DVX100 alongside an HPX250.

While riding in a car with the AC160, I photographed other cars at full telephoto (a good test of the optical image stabilization), the driver of the car I was riding in (a great test of wide-angle capability) and all manner of roadside scenes. The camera was indeed big and bulky; aiming it towards the driver meant that it spanned half the passenger’s seat.

Yet I found it unusually well-balanced despite its bulk: that laterally-offset battery compartment moves the center of gravity closer to the handgrip, so there’s less off-center weight rolling the camera off to the left. Longitudinally the camera is perfectly balanced, and the handgrip’s contours afford a stable and reasonably comfortable grip.

As we drove through sun and shadow, exposure changed dramatically. The four-position rotary ND switch made it trivially easy to select exactly the right ND filter to keep the iris in its sweet spot, with no false moves, fumbling, or mistakes—something no other camera has ever allowed me to do. I started to regard this camera with more respect.

I used the camera in a run’n’gun style, handholding for long periods. Run’n’gun is a demanding test of a camera’s operation, as you have to react to changing situations in real time, without rehearsal and without the luxury of poking around in the manual. I fully expected to be annoyed with the AC160 after five minutes or so, with its considerable weight fatiguing my wrist and its various buttons and dials frustrating rather than facilitating the smooth execution of my shots.

It didn’t work out that way. The weight, while noticeable, was well-enough balanced that it didn’t become an issue. Much of the fatigue I feel in long handheld operations is due not so much to the weight itself, but to its (often poor) distribution. With the camera’s center of gravity so close to my wrist, thanks to the offset battery well and the curvature of the handgrip, there wasn’t a lot of torque required to hold the camera straight and level. The resulting reduction in tension was dramatic; I didn’t need to use the “death grip” I usually employ with large handhelds.

And the controls? When flying small aircraft, the ideal condition is one in which the controls are said to be “well harmonized”: it takes the same amount of perceived effort to deflect the plane in pitch, roll, or yaw. When driving a car, you similarly want all the control forces to be Just So: pedal pressures should be light enough that you’re not tired from mashing down the accelerator, yet heavy enough that you’re not straining to keep your foot from mashing it down too far; the steering should be effortless and responsive, but not so sensitive that the car skitters across the road at the merest touch of the wheel.

The AC160 is like that: every important control requires just the right amount of force. The lens rings are light enough that they’re easily and smoothly moved without disturbing the aim of the camera, yet they’re stiff enough that they aren’t inadvertently moved should your fingers brush them lightly (and they’re all readily distinguishable by feel, too). Important buttons are easily findable by touch, and firm enough that you won’t trigger them by accident, yet you can activate them with a gentle pressure.

I’ve already praised the four-way ND selector; let me praise it again for the sureness of its feel, the ease of its operation, and the security of its click-stops.

Panasonic has finally fine-tuned their four-way joysticks so that they offer precisely the right resistance in each dimension: I was able to make up/down/left/right selections without false moves and without accidental center-pushes, and at the same time I made center-pushes without inadvertent up/down/left/right moves.

The zoom rocker had just the right resistance, range of travel, and repeatability that the zoom lens did precisely what I expected it to do.

Little things, all of them, and yet they add up to a Big Thing: not once in my shooting did I fumble for a control, push the wrong button, bump the wrong lens ring, or grumble at something for preventing me from doing exactly what I wanted to, when I wanted to do it (aside from that danged self-locking shutter dial, that is).

Part of it is the harmonization of the controls, part of it is the stress reduction of holding a well-balanced camera, and part of it is the versatility and capability of the camera itself: its wide and entirely usable zoom range, good low-light capability, helpful OIS, and informative viewfinder displays. I spent less time fighting with the camera to work around weaknesses and balky controls, and more time just shooting. Any time a camera stays out of your way and lets you focus on image-making, that’s a Good Thing. That these cameras record such technically excellent images only makes them more attractive.

Yes, I would have liked an EVF with higher magnification, and I had to play hide-and-seek with DIAL SEL status messages hidden by the WFM. These cameras aren’t perfect, but they’re the most user-friendly handycams I’ve seen so far.

Conclusion

The HPX250, AC160, and AC130 are 1/3” 3-chip handhelds that deliver excellent, no-excuses image quality, combined with surprising usability and operator friendliness.

All these cameras combine true 1920x1080 sensors with a very good 22x zoom, providing crisp and clean pictures over a range of focal lengths from a satisfyingly wide angle through an ample telephoto. Aside from a two-stop light loss at the telephoto end, the lens does nothing to discourage you from exploiting its full range: sharpness, distortion, color fringing, and evenness of illumination are well-controlled throughout. Audio quality is also very good, with clean recordings and excellent peak limiters.

The 250 captures clips in 10-bit, 4:2:2 AVC-Intra, or the entire range of SD and HD DVCPRO formats. It records on P2 cards, known for ruggedness and reliability.

The 130 and 160 capture 8-bit, 4:2:0 AVCHD (and standard-def DV) to SDHC cards instead (for those worried about SDHC reliability, these cameras let you record to both cards at once).

The 250 and 160 offer “worldcam” flexibility and variable frame rates. The 160 is notable for providing VFR in 1080p all the way out to 60fps.

If you don’t need worldcam flexibility, LPCM audio, or VFR, the 130 gives you the same image quality, lens, and operational controls as the 160 does, for $900 less.

There’s rolling-shutter “jellocam”, and you have to avoid apertures smaller than f/4 for best sharpness, but the former is the current tradeoff for affordable, low-power, full-res MOS sensors, while the latter is an unavoidable consequence of shooting full HD with 1/3” chips. From an image quality standpoint, these cameras are at the top of the 1/3” class.

Yes, they’re big; yes, they’re bulky. Yet they’re surprisingly comfortable to handhold and to operate, thanks to a balanced layout and operator-friendly controls.

These cameras combine excellent image quality, versatility, and superb usability. They should be on the short list for anyone looking for affordable handheld camcorders.

Pros

• True 1920x1080 sensors; crisp and clean HD images.

• Excellent 22x zoom with a wide-enough wide angle.

• 1080i, 1080p, 720p, and standard-def recording.

• AVC-Intra recording (250 only).

• Variable frame rates (160, 250) including 1080p60 (160 only).

• Worldcam 50Hz/60Hz switchability (160, 250).

• Panasonic’s natural colors and soft knee.

• Good sensitivity; film-grain-like noise at high ISOs.

• Nicely balanced; easier to handhold than they should be for their size.

• Well-harmonized control layout, textures, and forces.

• Best ND selector control ever.

• 1/4” and 3/8” tripod and accessory sockets.

• Good selection of viewfinder readouts and data displays.

• Focus bar; EVF peaking (250); EVF DTL plus focus-in-red (130, 160).

• Area Tracking and Face Detect (130, 160).

• Full 10-bit output on SDI (250).

• Six-pin 1394 / FireWire port for DV-format connections.

• Full genlock and timecode sync (250).

Cons

• Small EVF image.

• Status messages hidden behind WFM / Vectorscope (130, 160).

• Focus Assist magnification not available while recording (250).

• Shutter dial self-locks after 10 seconds.

• EVF tends to flip closed if any pressure is put on it.

• EVF Peaking controls buried in menus (250).

• Battery eliminator cable too short (250).

Cautions

• MOS sensors with 1/60 sec rolling shutter.

• 160: VFR only in 1080p, not 720p.

• Image tweaks are more limited than on higher-end cameras.

• Although they handle well, these are still big, bulky handheld cameras.

• For best sharpness, iris needs to be kept at f/4 or wider.

• No SDI, only HDMI (130).

• No genlock (130, 160).

• Free-spinning servo focus and iris rings require third-party remote control for consistent, repeatable control.

More Info

Panasonic Global’s HPX250 info.

Panasonic USA’s HPX250 page.

PDFs of the HPX250 manuals  (European version).

An AG-HPX250 FAQ by Panasonic Japan.

Video: Panasonic’s Steve Cooperman discusses the HPX-250.

Panasonic Global’s AC130 / AC160 info.

Panasonic USA’s AC160 page, with PDFs of the operating manuals.

Panasonic USA’s AC130, with PDFs of the operating manuals.

Interesting commentary, including a tip on using PUSH AUTO while in autofocus for faster focusing, which I didn’t try because I had sent the cameras back before I read it!

P2 utility software downloads.

AVCCAM utility software downloads.

The Bebob Foxi is an affordable, repeatable cine-style follow-focus and iris control for all Panasonics with a focus/iris port. Bebob also makes the Zoe zoom controller.

Varizoom makes video-style remote focus/iris/zoom controllers for Panasonics.

Disclosure: Panasonic sent me an HPX250 and an AC160 for review, and I returned them to Panasonic at my own expense.

A tip of the hat to Jeff Regan at Shooting Star Video for the loan of two P2 cards, without which I wouldn’t have been able to record anything from the 250.

I purchased SHDC cards for the 160 with my own funds; they’re being repurposed in other cameras.

No material connection exists between me and Panasonic, Bebob, Varizoom, Shooting Star Video, or B&H Photo. No one has offered any payments, freebies, or other blandishments in return for a mention or a favorable review.

Panasonic reviewed an early draft of this article for technical accuracy. Any remaining errors are mine alone.

(Page 2 of 2 pages for this article  <  1 2)

Adam,
Another excellent review.
And I say this after having reviewed the AC160 myself and I had to laugh every time we came to the same exact conclusion… the balance of the camera, using the battery to pull weight toward the hand (so does adding the shotgun holder & a mic), usefulness at wide angle, good image all the way through the zoom range, that the built-in stabilizer is good, but not as good as a Canon, that you can actually snap-zoom on this camera, manual focusing in auto mode (although I never had the camera disagree with me on focus like you did), the slow auto-focus (should have been a con in your list), that the DRS can be pushed too far, that using it was very easy & natural, etc, etc.

Of course, your review was far more thorough and well worth the read. Thank you for all your work here. But now, for some reason, I feel the need to go and read about that danged 370.

With your permission, here’s my take on the AC160 as well:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-panasonic-agac160

Posted by IEBA  on  01/29  at  07:09 PM

---

Thanks for the great review.  This is by far the best review I’ve read to date.  I’m still undecided as to which of these cameras to buy.  The current promotion from Panasonic for the 250 does makes it more appealing but makes me wonder what Panasonic has up its sleeve for NAB this year.

One correction.  The AG-AC160’s HD-SDI output is only 8 bit 4:2:2.

Thanks again for the comprehensive review.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/29  at  09:00 PM

---

“The AG-AC160’s HD-SDI output is only 8 bit 4:2:2.” So noted; verified with Panasonic; article updated. Thanks!

Posted by Adam Wilt  on  01/30  at  07:14 PM

---

Nice review Adam. As much as DSLRs and large format sensor cameras are the rage these days due to their shallow depth of field, at the end of the day not every workflow demands that look. In fact, docs, event work and sports are really needing deep depth of field where nailing focus is critical and there’s no second take.

If anyone reading this is looking for training for the 160/130 I have a course available here- http://www.callboxlive.com/products/panasonic-ac130-ac160-guide

Thanks again- Noah

Posted by Noah Kadner  on  02/26  at  09:31 PM

---

Thanks Adam, for this great review!

Marc

Posted by Damiaan  on  03/08  at  09:55 AM

---

One point I wish Panasonic would modify is the way the zebras work. If you set a fairly low first onset point, then you have to have either a single band of striping (up to second onset) OR have zebraing on everything from first onset up to peak white. (Albeit with achangeover from zebra 1 to 2.)

The alternative way is to have one zebra stripe from (say) 85%-90%, then no stripe from 90-100%, then the second zebra be active for everything at peak white.

The big advantage of the latter system is that it tells you both about the lower IRE band and also what is at peak white, but otherwise gives a far less cluttered image. To avoid the clutter most people only seem to use the lower zebra band with Panasonic cameras - which I think is a waste.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/15  at  12:49 PM

---

Hi Adam;

Wow - another fabulously well-written review. I can’t thank you enough.

I’m now into the 5th month of a nightmarish adventure of trying to find my first “Pro” videocam. My standard of comparison is my trusty Sony HDR-CX550V (aka the HXR-MC50U). It was my first cam, and although I lucked out, it’s amazing performance has been an inadvertent source of frustration for me, because I’m finding the cam’s I have tested in many ways don’t measure up to it.

I have purchased , tested, rejected and returned: three separate Sony NX70s (horrible CA, soft focus), a Sony NX5U (solid cam but too much CA for a $5K cam and soft-images compared to the 550V), and a Sony VG20 (that was just a silly stab in the dark, plus I hated the shallow DOF).

So, now I am seriously considering the AC160. In particular, I’m intrigued by the claims of Chromatic Aberration Compensation.

I have a few questions.

I saw there was a firmware upgrade that enabled 1080 60p (as opposed to 60i). I grew to love the 28 Mbps PS 1080 60p mode on the NX70. Can you confirm the AC160 has the true 1080 60P? If yes, how does the codec handle the extra info at a mere 24 Mbps?

What about the direct output to bypass the AVCHD compression? Is it 4:2:2 10-bit, or just 4:2:2 8-bit? Is it available on the HDMI output or only on the SDI out? (I’m very confused about SDI vs HDMI; my goal is to use something like an Atomos Ninja to capture full 1920x1080 output without the long GoP compression. Any insight greatly appreciated).

Is the top zoom rocker variable in any way? (On the NX5 it was, very nice and buttery)

If I get the Panny it will be first time I have owned any cam other than a Sony. I’ve grown to love Sony, and in particular the Sony PMB utility that stitches together multiple 2GB clips into a single contiguous whole. So, this would be venturing into a new world; kind of nervous.

Thanks!

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/23  at  08:55 AM

---

I’m considering buying the AC-160, but that tiny EVF image deters me. What on earth is Panasonic thinking?
Does anyone know of an adapter or substitue lens that can magnify the EVF image?
Also, is there a larger eyecup available that works better with eyeglasses?
Thank You!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/25  at  10:27 AM

---

Davideo;

Until Adam has a chance to respond, you might be interested in this excerpt from a blog written by Kunihiko Miyag, Directory of Pro Video at Panny. He pretty much promises that the AC160 will have full 1080 60p via a firmware upgrade!

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2011/11/30/update-on-the-three-brothers-panasonic-130-160-250/

I share your freakout about the EVF. If I get one, I’ll be experimenting with a magnifying lens - this might be as easy as attaching a reading glasses lens right to the silly EVF.

One other thing has me worried - the specs list one meter as the minimum focus distance. This is way to far - for ENG use, people are not going to keep one meter from the camera. I sure hope the spec is wrong - it would be bizarre to have to pull back so far from the subjects; no other camera I have ever owned or tested has this problem.

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/26  at  07:51 AM

---

I was considering an extra lens as you mention. Or possibly just replace the existing lens.
I think the 1m min focus is at max zoom. Most lenses I’ve seen will focus down to a couple inches at max wide angle.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/26  at  08:02 AM

---

Steve:
Also thanks for the URL to Panasonic update info!
Davideo

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/26  at  08:10 AM

---

I had it focusing down, way closer than 1 meter when I used it. (my review linked above)

Posted by IEBA  on  03/26  at  08:51 AM

---

Regarding the 60p firmware, my Panasonic contact says, “it is the H.264 update to 28Mbs.  Just like any of the current consumer cameras that are doing 60p.  The update on the site is not this update, it will be up around NAB or shortly thereafter.” So it’ll be an upgrade to AVCHD 2.0, as described in the second table at http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html.

The E-E outputs are 4:2:2, 8-bit, and they are not compressed. Both HDMI and SDI are supported; I recorded successfully from both outputs using an AJA IO HD.

The top zoom rocker has three switch-selectable speeds. It is not a variable rocker.

The 1 meter M.O.D. is at full telephoto. As you zoom wider, you can focus on things pretty much down to the point where they’re touching the lens.

As to the tiny EVF image, I agree: a 3rd-party fix might be just the ticket. Since the same EVF is shared across the 130, 160, and 250, maybe someone like Steve Weiss at Zacuto would consider making an aftermarket eyepiece with a whopping great big magnifier in it. Might be worth asking him!

Posted by Adam Wilt  on  03/26  at  11:33 AM

---

Excellent news. And responses. ! In as much as we’d like Panny to offer a higher data rate on these camcorders (especially with 1080p60) they probably really need to play by the AVCHD rules for licensing. And thee cameras aren’t hackable like the GH1/2 are.

Posted by IEBA  on  03/26  at  12:43 PM

---

Thanks, Adam (and others). That is very good news about the M.O.D. Whew. Will be watching closely and biting my nails as NAB approaches.

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/27  at  09:37 AM

---

Hi;

I’ve been reading the operation manual for the AC160. It is not clear on one point: is it possible, in manual mode, to independently combine auto operation for some items, while keeping others manual? For example, can I fix the iris at F4, but have the camera use auto-shutter, and/or auto-gain? (this would allow me to keep the iris at the sweet spot but not have to fiddle as much with the ND filters).

Thanks,

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/27  at  02:50 PM

---

AFAIK there is no auto-shutter and auto-gain in manual mode. But you can get what you want by turning off auto-iris in AUTO mode instead; then everything except iris will be automatically controlled.  AUTO mode can be configured to automatically control only those parameters you select; see page 88 of the Advanced Ops manual for details

Posted by Adam Wilt  on  03/27  at  03:10 PM

---

Sorry I can’t illuminate the answer either. It’s been about 6 months since I had it in my hands. Those details are best answered by your local, or a national, Panasonic Pro sales rep.

Posted by IEBA  on  03/27  at  04:59 PM

---

Hi Adam, and others,

Sold my HPX 171 and was planned to buy the Panasonic 160.

At the dealer where I studied the camera, and was nearly to buy this one. (thanks to your review).
There I saw also the Canon XF300 (for me new)
Also studied it. Now a bit confused.
I didn’t find a good review of it, an as far as I saw, uou didn’t either reviewed it. For a reason?

My work is mostly handheld,
I wear reading glasses (yes I’m already 49;-)
and I was surprised bij the big lcd screen and also bigger EVF, than the 160

Best regards,

Marc

Posted by Damiaan  on  03/28  at  05:21 AM

---

I tested the XF-300 and I really liked it.
My review is here.(http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/News/Feature/In-the-Field-Canon-XF300-422-HD-Camcorder-70240.htm)

Unfortunately, the focus of that article was more a test of the XF codec and the 4:2:2 color space than the camcorder itself.

Key differences is the 4:2:2 XF codec at 50 Mbps.
The XF300 won’t do 1080p60 AFAIK
Considerably better image stabilization on the Canon.
I hate internal batteries.
Both use dual cards and support mirroring or spanning.
I think the balance was better on the lighter Panny.
Jackpack is “optional” on the XF300 by buying the XF305 instead.

It’s been a long while - the review was published in September, so I must have had the camera in June of 2010.

I think it’s still a very worthwhile camcorder and would love to see Adam’s take on it.

Posted by IEBA  on  03/28  at  05:36 AM

---

If I might amplify on Antony’s comment above re: Canon XF300. Have not tested, but have studied it from afar for the last 6 months.

It has many great features, such as the large 4” LCD that stows under the handle and and swivels to either side. Everyone raves about the quality of the glass, low coma, low CA. 18x zoom is pretty good. The Codec is a big selling point, and the raw clips I have found and downloaded look pretty good. 1080 60p is probably not possible with the current hardware, and the shorter GoP format of the codec would result in much larger files at 60p compared to 30p. The AVCHD format, with long GoP can handle 60p compared to 30p without a much higher bit rate, because the delta between two frames separated by 1/60th of a second is not very big.

CF cards are more expensive. With the Panny, you can use inexpensive SDXC cards that go all the way up to 2 TerraBytes. For example, a Lexar 128 GB card can be had for about $160.00.

The MPEG-2 format at 50 Mbps will probably be acceptable by broadcasters; they will not like the Panny/Sony AVCHD files.

Only you can decide if all the goodies are worth the $8K + the cam and the cards will cost ....

Hope this helps,

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/28  at  11:18 AM

---

As a point of interest, those CF cards that are more expensive can usually dump off data much faster. SD cards are just starting to get close to CF speeds, and those cards are just as expensive.

If you’re going to use honkin-big cards, consider the back end and how long it takes to get the data off the card.

Posted by IEBA  on  03/28  at  11:32 AM

---

Forgot the link: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/reader_report_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9392

Posted by IEBA  on  03/28  at  11:33 AM

---

I haven’t reviewed the Canon XF-series cameras because I haven’t had them available for review!

In the few short times I’ve spend with the XF300 and XF305, I’ve appreciated the big LCD and their various focusing aids, but I found them to be a little bit too big, heavy, and unbalanced for comfortable handheld work. But that’s just a first impression; I haven’t had the opportunity to try using them for more than about two minutes at a time.

Posted by Adam Wilt  on  03/28  at  12:53 PM

---

Thanks IEBEA, Steve and Adam, for your replies!

I’ll visit the camera dealer and will test both of them an extra time and then decide. I’ll take your advice with me in my decision.

I’ll let you know!

Marc

Posted by Damiaan  on  03/29  at  05:11 AM

---

Hi Adam and everyone;

As part of my pre-purchase evaluation of any camera, I like to call the Pro Support line and gauge the quality of the tech support. Although it was a little difficult getting a call back from Panny Level 2, once I did the engineer was knowledgeable and did some additional research when I asked him questions he could not answer on the 1st pass, and then replied via email. Here are portions of the response:
—- Panny response mail #1——-

Differences between the HDSDI and HDMI outputs
HDMI uses 4:4:4 sampling
HDSDI uses 4:2:2 sampling

This camera does have CA Correction but it cannot be changed.

Look for a press release from Jan Crittenden on Sunday the 15th for additional info on upgrades.

Regards,

Panasonic System Communications Company of North America

—-

I followed up with this:
Your info on the HDMI vs HD-SDI is very encouraging - but also intriguing and begs some questions.

First, am I correct in assuming that the HDMI output is not AVCHD (as was implied on the Panny web page? (Perhaps someone needs to tell the Panny webmaster about that)

Second, although I am still confused by 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2, it would seem that 4:4:4 is superior - contains more information and requires higher bandwidth. I’m basing my conclusion mostly on this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

The reply:
—- Panny response mail #2———
Correct, the AVCHD is a codec, and its only purpose in life is to reduce the amount of video information, (without loosing to much picture quality) so that it doesn’t require as much memory for storage and bandwidth when transmitted over a wire.

Correct with 444 all luminance and chroma information is preserved, With 422, half of the chroma info is thrown away because the human eye cannot detect the subtle differences, and most applications don’t require that much information.

—-

So, if the engineer was correct, the HDMI is 4:4:4 ?!?

Any thoughts?

BTW, I had hoped to go to NAB, but it is not going to happen .. $150.00 for just a exhibit floor pass! (Unless someone can comp me one ... hint )

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/05  at  08:45 PM

---

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Audio.2Fvideo, HDMI supports RGB at 4:4:4, and YCrCb at 4:2:2. Unfortunately I have no way of telling which format the camera was sending to my display, so I can’t say for certain what it was outputting.

Posted by Adam Wilt  on  04/05  at  09:11 PM

---

Hi Adam;

Well, partly based on the promises of Panny to provide the $300.00
hardware upgrade that will take a regular AG-AC160 to the AG-AC160A
with expanded/TurboFocus, but mostly on your review,  I went ahead
and ordered one from B&H. It is supposed to arrive on Monday.

The price was good and I’m taking the chance that $300.00 plus what I
paid will still be less than the cost of a new AC160A in June. Panny
Pro support is saying that both the hardware upgrade and the free
firmware upgrade to AVCHD 2.0 1080/60p will be available in late May.

I’m a little nervous about having to send it in to a “factory service
center”. Any experience or info about that? I’m also worried that even
though I pay for the upgrade that will supposedly make it an AC160A,
there will still be something missing compared to a true AC160A. For
example, what if the new “true” AC160A fixes the EVF magnification
problem? What if future firmware upgrades for the “true” AC160A won’t
work on one that has the $300.00 factory upgrade?

I can’t get Jan Crittenden-Livingston to respond, and Panny Pro
Support can’t answer that question. I’ll need to have a fim answer
before my B&H return window closes. If you could ping your Panny
contacts about this I would be very thankful!

One more question - in your AC160 review you stated that it had 1000
TV lines true resolution. How did you measure that?

Thanks,

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/23  at  04:18 PM

---

“...what if the new ‘true’ AC160A fixes the EVF magnification
problem? What if future firmware upgrades for the ‘true’ AC160A won’t work on one that has the $300.00 factory upgrade?” If I may quote Louis Jaffe, in the front of Michael Shamberg’s seminal work, “Guerrilla Television”,

“There are some things which are impossible to know. But it is impossible to know these things.”

Seriously: ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances. That’s freedom, isn’t it?

“you stated that it had 1000 TV lines true resolution. How did you measure that?” I looked at the zone plates, reproduced on page 2 of the article, and made a judgment that I could get to at least 1000 TVl/ph before detail extinction or aliasing set in. It’s a bit of a judgment call as the chart uses square-wave brightness variations instead of sinusoids (thus it shows CTF instead of MTF, and with a bit of high-frequency aliasing on all edges), but I looked at both static and slowly-moving images, and made my best estimate.

Posted by Adam Wilt  on  04/23  at  05:17 PM

---

Well, I sent back the AC160.

It had a show-stopper problem I never anticipated - the zoom servos are horribly loud, when any zoom speed other than a slow creep is used!

I had never heard anything like this. Conceivably the unit I had was faulty, but I don’t think so.

The whine was so loud that it even came through on the recordings when using an external mic on a separate stand 6’ away. This made the camera useless for any serious recordings of classical chamber music. It also really bugged me on ENG stuff -  whirrr, whirrrrr with every zoom. I’m speculating this cam uses a gearmotor of some kind to drive the lens, where the Sony’s I’ve used have a stepper motor. Puzzled butI just could not stand the whine.

The image quality was very good, and the face detection worked well. I had no real problems with the auto-focus, although it was a bit slow at the long end in dim light. Also, I had no objections to the EVF - it could have a bit more magnification, but it is useable. It came with the Barry Green book.

Some things I might have lived with had the zoom been quiet:

* The build quality is worse than I had anticipated, even having been warned. The rings felt a bit scratchy, not silky like the rings on a Sony NX5. The buttons are cheap and rattled at the slightest shake. The plastic housing felt thin; taps on the cam created a hollow sound that also came through on the recordings. The bottom plastic base, where the tripod attaches, in particular felt and sounded thin and
cheap. I know Panny is supposedly trying to save mass, but it made me want to open up the case and line the housing with DynaMat to suppress the hollow sounds. In general it just felt cheap compared to what I have grown used to with Sonys.

* The handle zoom rocker is not vario. I knew about this before I bought it but it bugged me more than I thought it would.
* Instead of a lever-action dust cover, there is a misplace-able lens cap.
* The cooling fan noise is audible in quiet environments.
* I had problems with quick white-balance, i.e. when pointing it at a
card. The joystick knob when set to one-push did not seem to work reliably. I’d prefer a dedicated one-push white balance button.
* The cam has more noise in low light than the NX5, but not a lot more.
* The manual focus-assist seemed annoying. I never did figure out how to leave the cam in Auto-everything mode and still have full manual focus. I’m sure there is a way, but Panny makes it hard to get to.
* The position of the LCD is not optimal - it needs to be up on the handle.

Given all this, I did not want to keep it and have to hassle with the $300 factory upgrade. So I sent it back. I guess if there is nothing
else I can find by the time the AC160A comes out, I might try one of those. But I will not be enthusiastic, and for nearly $5K I was expecting a LOT more.

Sad,

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/01  at  03:14 PM

---

I have a whole mess of footage I shot with an AC-160 with a lav mic about 5 feet away, and the on-board camera mic providing a scratch track. I never heard the zoom at all. Fast zooms, slow zooms.

I don’t know of a handle zoom rocker that _is_ vario. Only one speed. Unless you put a Varizoom up there.

The cover for SD cards is a lever action, non removable door on steel hinges. So I don’t know what you had.

I agree about the lightweight plasticky housing, and I didn’t try tapping it to see if the audio transmitted, but it really sounds like you got a lemon otherwise. I was very happy with my camera, and, aside from my being used to how a Sony is arranged, and some menu idiosyncrasies, I didn’t want to send mine back.

With your permission, here’s my take on the AC160 as well:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-panasonic-agac160

Posted by IEBA  on  05/01  at  05:01 PM

---

Hi Anthony;

The NX5 I tested had a vario handle zoom rocker, and the new JVC
GY-HM600U handle zoom rocker will also be vario. It really adds to
functionality. I realized while testing the AC160 that I just can’t
use a rocker that is not vario - it bugged me more than I thought it
would.

I was talking about the lens dust cover, not the SD cards cover. The
AC160 has a lens cap. I really prefer the lever-operated lens caps,
such as the ones on the NX5, the NX70, and what will be on the JVC
GY-HM660U. I don’t want to have to put the lens cap on a leash, it
will blow around in the wind and bang on the tripod or the camera. If
I end up getting an AC160A, I will have to buy a lens hood from an NX5
or similar and then use a Dremel tool and epoxy to jury-rig the hood
onto the AC160!

I don’t think that all the buttons on my AC160 were defective. All of
them rattled.

If the zoom on my AC160 was defective, then the defective part was the
noisy gears. With the servos engaged, and when I moved the zoom ring
by hand (I know that I am not supposed to do it that way but I did
this to try to isolate the problem), I would still hear the noise.
That means it was a gear sound, not a motor sound.

I will admit I am very sensitive to camera noise. I record a lot of
classical performances, chamber and symphony music. I need very large
amounts of audio dynamic range, 70 dB or more. Most people do not hear
the noise that will ruin a recording for me. I play my stuff back on
an old but very high quality Yamaha / Bang and Olufsen system, VERY
loud. I expect no noise during quiet passages and no distortion when
the sound is loud to the point of near hearing-damage. The AC160 I had
fell far short of that - not just with the zoom noise, but also the
cooling fan.

It was not as quiet as my cheapo CX550V, so I’m not asking the impossible.

Steve

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/04  at  08:28 AM

---

The zoom noise and the rattly buttons I all chalk up to the camera mics picking up noise that is traveling through the body of the camera. I checked my footage with a Sennheiser mic mounted in the Mic holder and the audio was clean, I was doing similar fast & snap zooms as you did.

Here’s my clip: http://youtu.be/RDBDmMfkRBQ

I agree that better internal microphone insulation ought to be used in a camcorder designed for this market. Would it be a deal breaker for me? Not at all. There are just too many things that I like about this camcorder.

For me, the lens cap is a non issue. I clip it to the hand grip. Takes one second, and zero Dremel work/ hacking/ epoxy.

As for the classical performances- the audio portions of all these cameras are crap compared to a dedicated, uncompressed, high bit rate audio recorder for a couple hundred bucks. If you’re playing your classical concert video performances back on audiophile systems, then go the extra three feet and record good audio at the source.

Don’t complain about all the audio limitations by the cheap condenser mics, noisy preamps, low dynamic range, heavy compression, low bit-rate audio captured in a prosumer camcorder. It’s a jack of all trades- master of none.

Good luck in picking the right tools for your needs.

Posted by IEBA  on  05/04  at  01:02 PM

---

You tube didn’t like that clip.
Here’s a different upload:

http://youtu.be/WJQ4z3St2Vw

Posted by IEBA  on  05/04  at  01:50 PM

---

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: