HPX 170 vs Sony PMW EX1

[BlindProphet]

Hi guys,

I thought I would get some expert help on this matter. A salesperson was really trying to get me to reconsider buying an EX1 and go rather with the HPX 170. He said that out of the box, there is a greater filmic look with the HPX and that with the cheaper price tag, I can buy a 35 mm adapter and get some great quality with it (much better than with a standalone ex1). I have been hearing great things about the EX1 so I want to know your opinion

As for my shooting, I am a film school student who will be working on HD short films for festivals and HD indie features in the near future.

Thanks for all the help.

[Robert Ruffo]

Whenever a salesman tries to talk you into something, you should question his motives - here most probably they have too much stock on the HPX, or the EX1 offers thinner profit margins. It's like how they always try to talk people into buying LCD over plasma - plasma offers better pic quality (generaly) but LCDs offers much higher margins to virtually all retailers, and for the manufacturers as well (plasma is much more expensive to make).

So... That is simply no true. Search here for some good EX1 profiles, and simply program them into your camera (will take less than 30 minutes total) and you will get MUCH better results from an Ex1 than an HPX. It is simply a better camera in all ways, period. In some way, it is a rather dramatic difference.

[Barry_Green]

It is simply a better camera in all ways, period.
No, it is not. Period.

The 170 appeals to some customers, the EX1 appeals to others.

Figure out what it is that you need, and what your budget is.

I agree with Robert that salesmen who push you one way or the other may not have your best interests at heart, or they may just have really strong opinions, but neither is necessarily appropriate for your particular needs.

And consider that if you're looking at any of these cameras plus an adapter, there are much cheaper alternatives that might be appropriate for a film student if your budget is limited, such as a Panasonic GH1 or Canon 7D.

[jeff9329]

Hi guys,

I thought I would get some expert help on this matter. A salesperson was really trying to get me to reconsider buying an EX1 and go rather with the HPX 170. He said that out of the box, there is a greater filmic look with the HPX and that with the cheaper price tag, I can buy a 35 mm adapter and get some great quality with it (much better than with a standalone ex1). I have been hearing great things about the EX1 so I want to know your opinion

As for my shooting, I am a film school student who will be working on HD short films for festivals and HD indie features in the near future.

Thanks for all the help.

What NLE are you using?

Have you considered any of the $3,500 price point cameras?

Also consider the supporting equipment you need for a short film in your budget.

Audio
Lighting
Camera support - tripod/glidecam/etc.

[Chadfish]

Just slow down and do some major research on both cams. Personally I like that the EX1 (Which I have had for a month or so) has native 1920x1080 resolution. The picture profiles give you awesome editibility to get a "look" or perhaps match another camera you are using in a multicam shoot. The audio is very very clean on this camera, which is rare. (Search: "The Skinny on EX1 Audio" by BassPig) The compressed codec (35mbps) is beautiful, holds up in grading (not ad well as 422 of course) and saves a lot of hard drive space - yet you can record uncompressed to an external recorder if you want to go that rout. The stock lens can be servo or FULLY manual - with markings even! DOF shots? You got it with the 1/2" chip right out of the box. Did I say 1/2 inch chip?

I thought about this for a year and a half as I saved most of the money I made doing side jobs with my VX2100. I just couldn't get myself to by other cameras as my camera fund hit 3,500.00 (HMC-150), 4,000.00 (Z5U), 5,000 (HPX-170 / Z7U). I just knew that if I was a little more patient I would get what I really wanted because I wasn't going to let a thousand dollars be the reason I compromised. And so I didn't, and so I am happy.

Not to say anything against the other cameras. I just wanted what I wanted, and it's working for me. Rolling shutter fear has been quelled since I have been using the camera on shoots, and not noticed anything off while shooting in the way I always do. Bummer about flashes... I see the HPX300 has a software fix that makes the flash look normal! I really hope Sony skypes that idea and puts it in your EX1 firmware. But whatever -

Just study study study. Search the title of this thread both with the 170 listed first, and with the EX1 listed first. You'll get lots of opinions. Try not to pay as much attention to what people say AGAINST cameras they don't own. Listen to the raves FOR the cameras they do own.

Cheers.

Chadfish

[Lucere]

BlindProphet, I was in the same boat you are back in Nov. My first cam was a Sony VX2000, my next cam was a DVX100b. I tried really hard to convince myself that the HPX170 would be the perfect next cam for me... Did all the research as Chadfish mentioned. Finally decided that as great as the HPX seems, the pixel shifting and its softness when potentially blown up for a very large sized display was the deal breaker for my needs, and I would go with the EX1 and work around any CMOS issues. My EX1 has been absolutely fantastic and I have not looked back. Again, this was based on my needs, but thought I'd share :)

[Lucere]

Forgot to mention, I did like the way the HPX handled motion compared to the EX. That's the sacrifice I had to make.

[Robert Ruffo]

The HPX handles motion a little better, yes, but this high point does not compare to all that yummy resolution, a great lens, awesome controls, awesome workflow, awesome....

Price is another matter. BUT for under $10 000, I have not tried anything better.

[Buck Forester]

I can buy a 35 mm adapter and get some great quality with it (much better than with a standalone ex1).

This quote made me wince a bit... the EX1 is already higher resolution than the HPX and 35mm adapters will, if anything, degrade quality a bit from there.

I think you're doing the right thing by asking questions rather than listening to a one-sided salesman. I have an EX1 and have never shot with an HPX. I love my EX1 and have also heard great things about the HPX. I think your shooting style and needs would determine which camera is better for you. If you "need" the high resolution of the EX1, which is incredible to see big, that's the ticket. The 1/2" EX1 chips give pretty good DOF control too (obviously not as much as a 35mm adapter but you can still get pretty darn shallow). It's also amazing in low light. The HPX CCD chips will have advantages in some applications and I've also heard it's easier to get a filmic look from the camera with less adjustments. Great work is being done with both cameras.

Like was mentioned, I wouldn't discount the Canon 7D if you get separate audio and a camera support. You'll have your desired DOF options with full HD at a fraction of the cost.

[Fohdeesha]

Forgot to mention, I did like the way the HPX handled motion compared to the EX. That's the sacrifice I had to make.


??

they handle motion exactly the same, both use electronic shutters, at the exact same framerates and shutter speeds. The pixel shifting and uprezzing the hpx does that makes everything look soft and blurry (in my opinion) probably gave the false perception of "smoother motion"

Also, want to get 4:2:2, originating from more color information than the hpx can muster, on your ex1? shoot full raster 1080p then downscale it to 720p. the hpx's 960×540 sensors aren't providing nearly as much color information as the ex1's full raster chips. Everyone says the hpx holds up better to heavier grading, but I have yet to see a single example of it holding up better to grading than the ex1. full raster ex1 footage is extremely robust, and I have graded the crap out of it. Besides, anyone doing any halfway serious grading will be converting to an intermediate uncompressed codec that will interpolate anyways.


Yes, I own an ex1 so I'm obviously a little biased, and yes I will admit out of the box the ex1 looks more videoy than the hpx. But if you take a little time to research and learn basic color grading and proper post workflow, tweak your picture profile a bit, and realize that half the "film look" is simply shooting and lighting like film, you'll be able to get images out of this camera you won't believe. Full raster 1080p images that hold up extremely well to being blown up on huge screens (talk to basspig about that). not 1440x1080 images that were upscaled from even smaller sensors.

When I was camera shopping I was 100% set on the hvx and its gorgeous "film look", then through lots of research and footage samples I changed my mind and realized that look was an out of the box selling point, that can easily be achieved with an ex1 if your heart so desires. I've had the ex1 for a little over a year now and I couldn't imagine shooting with any other camera. (well ok, maybe a red) On a tripod, mounted to a car, suctioned to a garage door, the cameras been an absolute trooper and the footage coming out of it wows me everytime I drop it on my NLE.

[Buck Forester]

they handle motion exactly the same, both use electronic shutters, at the exact same framerates and shutter speeds.

I think the motion reference is the difference in how CCD vs CMOS handles motion.

[Dafilman21]

That is correct Buck CCD and CMOS deal with motion differently I do not necessarily prefer one over the other. Having used the ex1 and the panasonic I feel like either one would be a good tool to use. If you are a resolution junkie then the exl is great and the pana cannot compete.
However if you want the "pana mojo" without trying to hard then go for the hpx, they are both great cams that can get the job done.

Also keep in mind the problems some ex1 owners have been reporting in terms of the build quality of the ex. There have been numerous reports of cracked plastic around the viewfinder and sticky zooms. And their have been problems with Sony prime support and having to pay for things that should be included under the warranty.

Now I have not had any of these problems with the ex1's I have been using but these problems are out there. So like it was suggested earlier do some research and way the pros and cons of each. 2cents

[Buck Forester]

As for me and my household, if it were possible I'd much rather have three 1/2" CCDs in my EX1 than CMOS, everything else being equal.

[jeff9329]

As for me and my household, if it were possible I'd much rather have three 1/2" CCDs in my EX1 than CMOS, everything else being equal.

I would go for the HPX-500 and get the three 2/3" CCDs! But my household would kill me by smashing those 2/3" sensors right on my head.


To the OP, do like everyone says and keep researching. All the cameras have strengths & weaknesses. If money were not an issue, we could all move way up the line (like to a HPX-500 or similar) and have far fewer weaknesses.

Also, you are going to find that while you may only get one camera now, it becomes mandatory really quickly to get a second or even third camera in order to do business. So you are really buying in to a system and all associated costs for that system when you buy that first camera.

In my part time event video business, it just wont pay for more than 2 or 3 $3,500ish cameras and be financially solvent.

[BlindProphet]

Thanks for your input, everybody.

A lot of people said that the answer to my question depends on my shooting style. I want to make films that make it to the screen. Obviously, being able to cut costs like lighting, professional colorizing, would be great, cause then I can focus more on my script, developing my stories, and framing beautiful shots rather than focusing on tech details.

From what I have found, the EX1 comes with a beautiful out of the box image quality. I love that and do not mind having that as my "master" copy, so to say. Once in Final Cut, I'll make all the grading adjustments I need to get the look and feel my story demands of the images and scenes.

Really, I have the money. But I think the EX1 is my best choice because its lightweight and can be used for a variety of shoots, makes great image quality, and has the potential to create films that do have a chance for screenings and festival runs.

Theres still a little unsteadyness in my mind. I've been looking up at the HPX300, and though bulkier, it apparently is a very good camera as well. If the image quality from that camera can be taken from my EX1, then forget it, I am sticking with the EX1

[Chadfish]

Keep in mind that the 300 is still a 1/3" chip camera. Now the 500 - that's another story...

1/3" chips will always be at a disadvantage compared to cameras with bigger sensors - even if they are technically acceptable for some situations. And with the EX1 you can always bypass the 35mbps recording codec and go into an external recorder if you think you need it. You can't get a bigger chip later, just a new camera.

[BlindProphet]

Hey Guys,

Thanks for all your help. Just bought an Ex1 (with only 59 hours on it) off of eBay for $5500.

Deciding my camera was hard enough...now comes the real test. Learning to use it and tell great stories with it :O

[Chadfish]

Cool! What firmware is it?