Panasonic HC-VXF1 Camcorder: How did it perform with wildlife in the field?

In my post of 28 August 2018 I explained how I my Sony AX53 had failed when nearly new and why I decided to replace it with the Panasonic HC-VXF1. I also pointed out how the Panasonic compared with the Sony in my hands.

I have now used the Panasonic for wildlife at sea and on land. I am just as impressed with it then as I was at the beginning, especially the arrangement and control of the menu system which is vastly superior to the Sony effort. In many ways it is the ideal travel camcorder.

The only area in which I have found it to be less good than the AX53 is the autofocus under certain and unpredictable conditions. Even in good light on occasion, the camera has not focused on the bird or mammal in the centre of the frame but has picked on a patch of ground further away. In one case, the focus point it picked was a patch of grass in good light, in another, the pebbles of a beach. I just could not get the camera to autofocus on a cicada sitting on a tree trunk; again it eventually settled on the background. My impression was that, although I obviously did not have an AX53 with me to compare, the Panasonic's contrast-detection AF was not quite so good as the Sony's, although the latter does not get it right every time.

Another user I know has found the same problem with even a large antelope in the centre of the frame being ignored and focus being established on the background well to the left or right.

The answer, some my remind me, is to switch to manual focus but speed is often of the essence. Birds and mammals may be in view for only a matter of seconds and by the time several buttons have been pressed and a ring turned, the opportunity may have gone.

My Sony AX700 which has phase and contrast detection autofocus on its larger sensor does not suffer the problem of the contrast-only autofocus camcorders. It is perhaps unlikely that on-sensor phase detectors can be installed on the tiny sensors installed in the camcorders at the lower end of the market. However, there is a trade off between weight and sensor size so I may well keep my Panasonic for those occasions when I do not wish to or cannot carry anything heavier.

Cameras: Why Not a Square Sensor?

Those of us brought up with the square format of 6 x 6 or 4 x 4 cm film can remember the delight of not having to move the camera. Printing to any size of paper (either landscape or portrait) was routine should the composition, or customer, demand it.

With modern sensors, the same number of pixels could be arranged as a square rather than as a 1.5:1 rectangle. The area of coverage on the film plane would be the same so there would be no question of having to have a difference in lens mount or focal length. The result would be as shown in the following diagram: a 29.4 x 29.4 mm sensor rather than a 36 x 24:

A Square vs a conventional Rectangular Frame Size
The red and blue frames have identical areas and therefore
the same number of pizels

Shock, horror may be your response—we would lose pixels along the horizontal. Yes, you would but not that many. My D810 would have 6011 x 6011 instead of 7360 x 4912, for example. But—shock horror—the camera would be bigger. Yes, it may have be be taller by 5.4 mm but it could be shorter horizontally by the same amount—and think of the ergonomic advantages whether hand held or mounted on a mono- or tripod.

The Micro Four-Thirds sensor goes some way towards a square format (1.3:1) but the manufacturers did not go the whole way.

Would I buy a ‘full-frame’ camera with a square sensor, smaller horizontally but larger vertically? Yes. Will one ever be manufactured? No chance. As I said, I never cease to be amazed by the ways of photographers still alive and well with the technological legacies of the 1950s.