HPX170 for weddings?

[TheMusician]

I never thought that the HVX200 was a good wedding camera because of its noise and low-light characteristics. With its improved sensitivity and lower noise, do you think that the HPX170 would make a good wedding camera, or would you opt for an XH-A1 or EX1 because of their low -light capabilities? Thanks for any thoughts.(not concerned about tape/P2 and record times, just camera performance)

[Barry_Green]

The 170 has much better low light performance than the XHA1, and is on par with the EX1 (unless you're using 1080i on the EX1).

For longform recording though, if you're already comfortable with the idea of using a 4:2:0 long-GOP recording system, I'd consider the HMC150 instead. It'll have the same visual performance as the HPX170 but records about 5x as much footage per gigabyte, which might come in handy during a lengthy wedding ceremony.

[DavidBeier]

I LOVE Panasonic and their cameras but they're probably least suited to wedding videography and event videography in general. You pay what you pay for the HVX and HPX because they are really designed for a more professional shoot with a more film-like environment. They stink in low light and the recording times are short with P2. If Weddings are going to be your main thing, I'd really suggest you go with something more suited to that.

Even though I DESPISE the camera, the Sony Z1 was a great choice if all you did was weddings because of it's lack of expense, HDV tape option, and fantastic low-light capabilities.

If you plan to do other stuff along with weddings, things like commercials, industrial videos, music videos, or narrative films; then getting an HPX and trying to make it work for weddings would be worth it. If all you're really thinking is weddings then go with another camera.

[Noel Evans]

Personally I would have thought the 170 would hit the wedding crowd by storm, read Barrys article and check the features. Maybe you should just shoot 720 to a 160gb firestore and then you get a lot of footage.

[Steve Laramie]

I never would have thought the HVX was bad for weddings. Is it really THAT bad?

[puredrifting]

I'm trying to understand the Z1 in low light? I shot with one for two years, always thought it was worse than the HVX in low light, it's not even as sensitive.

Dan

[Steve Laramie]

its 1lux better

[Bassman2003]

Actually, the 150 seems like the best option for weddings with its long record times and affordable media.

We will see how the AVCHD looks at the different bitrates.

[TheMusician]

Well here is my thoughts out loud on what I am needing. In the Spring I am hoping to shoot a commercial for my new business. Because it would be a controlled shoot, my thought was for an EX1. But rolling shutter is still an issue for me in other areas. I guess I would prefer to get a second or third generation CMOS camera where most of the wrinkles have been ironed out - but I am a big fan of the EX1 image. I recently was asked to do a wedding by some friends on the East coast for this Fall. I don't want to buy a camera just for a wedding, but there is no rental company nearby. Ideally, I would like to buy a camera and use it for the wedding and a couple of other projects, and then sell it and apply the money towards a Scarlet next Spring to shoot my commercial.

- An EX1 should handle the low-light situations in a wedding brilliantly and would be good for a commercial - but I am worried about it's rolling shutter during flashes at the wedding.

- An HPX170 should be just as sensitive as the EX1, would have no rolling shutter to worry about with flashes, and could shoot a commercial, but I am concerned about its noise levels in low light.

So, I thought I would ask the masses and get their opinion about using a 170 for weddings, although weddings are not my bread and butter and I won't be doing many. Maybe I should base it on resale value since whatever camera I pickup, I will be selling next Spring.

[Bassman2003]

As far as noise in the shadows.

If the 170 is as sensitive as the EX-1, then you should not have to use any gain, and the image should be clean throughout the aperature range.

I need to see the images side by side, but the 170/150 seem like a better tool for weddings as they cost less and weigh less.

The flash problem is a problem for me as I really don't like the look of the half exposed frames.

[Barry_Green]

- An HPX170 should be just as sensitive as the EX1, would have no rolling shutter to worry about with flashes, and could shoot a commercial, but I am concerned about its noise levels in low light.
In progressive mode, the noise level is about the same as the EX1. EX1's probably cleaner in 1080i, but in progressive they should be very comparable.

[TheMusician]

Thanks for all the replies and thoughts on this guys. Barry, I remember reading a EX1 review by Adam Wilt where he claimed he was measuring a full 10 stops of latitude(probably charts, not real world) Have you or anyone taken the time to do a rough latitude test on the HVX200A which I am sure will be the same as the HPX170? If the black are clean enough and the highlights roll smooth enough, I think the HPX170 could be the better option for me since it is $1500 dollars cheaper, and then sell it when Scarlet arrives.

[Barry_Green]

Using a 13-stop chart, I counted 10+ stops on an HPX170 on a waveform monitor. The 200A should perform identically.

[TheMusician]

All I can say is WOW - that is truly impressive. Thanks for reporting that.

[Barry_Green]

Keep in mind though, that's chart testing, and real-world may not reflect that. On the Red One they've charted 11.3 stops, but in real-world situations most people are reporting about 9 stops. So similar may apply to the HPX170/HVX200A: the chart unquestionably shows a clear 10 stops and even maybe 10.5, but real-world observations may be more like 8.5.

[Bassman2003]

I read this info in your HPX-170 review and I still can't wrap my mind around this. - 10 stops from a $4,500 video camera.

I use 1/2" chip DVC-200s and from what I recall, the camera has about 5 stops..?

Is this correct? it sounds low...

If so, things have progessed a lot in a short amount of time.

[Barry_Green]

Never used a DVC-200, I don't know what they're capable of.

[jrmiller_entertainment]

I use the HVX200a for weddings and never had a complaint about low light. I bought the 200a because I shoot a lot of freelance for a wedding company that demands we shoot on dv tape but I also wanted P2 for other freelance work. Use a good light like this one http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66924-REG/NRG_56004_56004_Varalux_Pro_DC.html and your low light problems should not really be an issue. It works well at a distance plus if you do interviews it won't over power the subjects.

so according to barry the hpx should be the same in low light as the 200a which does the job in my opinion.

[Conrad Radzik]

I use the HVX200a for weddings and never had a complaint about low light. I bought the 200a because I shoot a lot of freelance for a wedding company that demands we shoot on dv tape but I also wanted P2 for other freelance work. Use a good light like this one http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66924-REG/NRG_56004_56004_Varalux_Pro_DC.html and your low light problems should not really be an issue. It works well at a distance plus if you do interviews it won't over power the subjects.

so according to barry the hpx should be the same in low light as the 200a which does the job in my opinion.
How does the P2 workflow work out for you?

[Timothy Harry]

I am editing a 3 cam HVX200 wedding for a friend who has stage 4 cancer. at the last minute we decided to rent a 3rd HVX and do the shoot in HD. We shot at 1080i 60 and all I can say is wow! The workflow is easy, syncing the cameras timecode via the remote (not using firewire) was simple, and it all lines up and looks incredible. I had been doing a lot of weddings on my HVX, but all were SD in DV50, or on minidv. We shot the ceremony on firestore, and for the reception we had 3 16GB P2 cards and 1 8GB P2. I shot it all on those cards with no problem. All in all a great way to do it, and the best part is there was not a lot of time spent digitizing footage etc. Should have this beast done by the middle of next week, and will try to post clips. Although it is probably the most expensive aproach to wedding / event video, it sure is the easiest way.

[JitCam]

i probably wouldnt use my hvx200 for weddings because of the low light issue.. i just wish panasonic would not have come out with an hvx200 until it fixed the low light problem.. i feel a bit like an idiot now that the hvx200a is out, i know things are constantly being improved.. but low light is something of a basic in an expensive camera.. i think it should have never been an issue, anyway apart from that.. i love my hvx its an amazing camera is all other aspects..

[corycross]

howwww about sony hvr-z7u? best in my opinion.. films to cf cards..

[ProfessorU]

i probably wouldnt use my hvx200 for weddings because of the low light issue.. i just wish panasonic would not have come out with an hvx200 until it fixed the low light problem.. i feel a bit like an idiot now that the hvx200a is out, i know things are constantly being improved.. but low light is something of a basic in an expensive camera.. i think it should have never been an issue, anyway apart from that.. i love my hvx its an amazing camera is all other aspects..

The HVX is rated at 320ASA, as sensitive as the RED One, for example. The 200a only adds a 1/2 stop, it's not like the HVX200 is garbage now!

I have seen the HVX200 used as a "second-unit" style wedding doc cam, and it did amazingly well. Getting full-frame slow motion can be really slick on a DVD.

[puredrifting]

i probably wouldnt use my hvx200 for weddings because of the low light issue.. i just wish panasonic would not have come out with an hvx200 until it fixed the low light problem.. i feel a bit like an idiot now that the hvx200a is out, i know things are constantly being improved.. but low light is something of a basic in an expensive camera.. i think it should have never been an issue, anyway apart from that.. i love my hvx its an amazing camera is all other aspects..

You obviously never shot with a BVP-70 back in the day. Top line camera with killer images, about an ASA 200. Very slow as were most of the older technology.

None of the sub-$10,000.00 cameras do what I would term great in low light. You need bigger chips, which are present in broadcast cameras. Even the EX-1, which is better slightly than the HVX-200a and HPX-170, isn't what I would call GREAT in low light.

Dan

[FBAS]

You obviously never shot with a BVP-70 back in the day. Top line camera with killer images, about an ASA 200. Very slow as were most of the older technology.

None of the sub-$10,000.00 cameras do what I would term great in low light. You need bigger chips, which are present in broadcast cameras. Even the EX-1, which is better slightly than the HVX-200a and HPX-170, isn't what I would call GREAT in low light.

Dan


I don't know the BVP 70 but I have been shooting a lot with the Sony DXC-D30. I don't have the ASA, but they were at least 2 stops better than the HVX200. You hardly ever needed gain at all, while with the HVX200 my lowest gain setting is 9dB when I shoot for tv - you have to use it as soon as you shoot in a tungsten-lit surrounding. Normal room lighting, not extremely dark. You never needed gain for these situations with the D30...
I can remember when it was really dark I sometimes used 6dB gain so that I could use 2.8 instead of full open, because with full open the DOF was just too shallow for wide shots. LOL, good old times...

[JitCam]

The HVX is rated at 320ASA, as sensitive as the RED One, for example. The 200a only adds a 1/2 stop, it's not like the HVX200 is garbage now!

I have seen the HVX200 used as a "second-unit" style wedding doc cam, and it did amazingly well. Getting full-frame slow motion can be really slick on a DVD.



i agree 100%! my main complaint is just that a camera in the price range of the hvx in my opinion should not have low light problems.. and for panisonic to come out with a 200a model shows that it was a concern for a lot of people.. apart from that i know the capibilities of the hvx and how you can get very very professional looking pictures from it, i use it mainly for short films and scenery footage in which it does an amazing job & i constantly receive comments on how great the quality of the footage is.

[Kholi]

The HVX is rated at 320ASA, as sensitive as the RED One, for example. The 200a only adds a 1/2 stop, it's not like the HVX200 is garbage now!

I have seen the HVX200 used as a "second-unit" style wedding doc cam, and it did amazingly well. Getting full-frame slow motion can be really slick on a DVD.

There's a lot more to the 200A/170 that totally redefines the camera's image, but let's talk lowlight:

1/2 a stop faster and (this is an odd way to measure but...) about 6 to 9dB cleaner means the HVX200A is theoretically 1.5 stops or so faster than the HVX200 when considering noise, which is an issue.

You could shoot CineD and 6dB of gain all day and never realize that your gain is on. This is such an extreme situation for the HVX200 but for the 200A and 170 it'll be incredibly common I bet.

I wouldn't hesitate, now, to shoot a Wedding with a 35mm Adapter and HVX200A. In CineD and with 9dB of gain if I needed to eck the extra light So long as the taking lens was moderately fast, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I personally wouldn't with an HVX200 but the 170 and 200A? No doubt.