Is the HPX500 noticeably sharper than the HVX200??

[k2director]

I have an HVX200, and like the camera, but am always a little envious of the tack-sharp look that HDV cameras such as the Canon A1 or even the HV20 are able to achieve. HDV cameras just look a little sharper to my eye, and their pictures feel more akin to what I see on Discovery HD theater.

Anyway, now I'm thinking about getting a bigger/better camera, and the HPX500 is definitely an option. I know its 2/3 chips deliver less noise and more dynamic range, but has anyone noticed how much sharper the HPX500's picture is over the HVX? I've heard everything from "noticeable" to "marginal". I'd hate to spend $20K+ and have the same sharpness as the HVX200, when sharpness isn't its strongest point.

Otherwise, I might consider an HPX2000 or Sony F350 (but I'd prefer to stick with Panasonic).

Any help appreciated!

[DerrickTempleton]

the lens quality of the hvx is off-putting and amateurish to some DPs. Better quality in the canon a1 lens (it's a canon, of course). I've assisted on a few shoots with the HPX500 so I've only seen what it looks like on the field monitor (panasonic BT-LH1700WP), but I would say the main difference is the low light and shallow DOF you achieve with 2/3 chips, not sharpness (compared to the hvx).

[caspian00]

I have the HPX and I would have to say its sharper specially on close ups/micro & when shooting 1080. Now it could be because of the better lens but the detail is very nice. I've worked with HDV and I agree it does have sharp images as well but the HPX to me has more detail (obviously).

[dolby]

Anyway, now I'm thinking about getting a bigger/better camera, and the HPX500 is definitely an option. I know its 2/3 chips deliver less noise and more dynamic range, but has anyone noticed how much sharper the HPX500's picture is over the HVX?

Without a doubt, the HPX is sharper.

These two grabs were taken one day apart in the same setup.


HPX-500


HVX-200

[Barry_Green]

That HVX shot just looks out of focus.

The HPX500 is sharper, no doubt. The amount of increase does depend to some degree on the lens used; better glass delivers better results.

[dolby]

That HVX shot just looks out of focus.

The HPX500 is sharper, no doubt. The amount of increase does depend to some degree on the lens used; better glass delivers better results.

I thought so too and went back and checked it twice. It was as sharp as that camera would get.

If I can get the time I will do side by side comparison. Those clips were not done to compare sharpness, just for color matching.

[DC]

I thought so too and went back and checked it twice. It was as sharp as that camera would get.

Very strange. That shot really does look out-of-focus. I know, from personal experience, that I can get fairly sharp footage from my HVX200 (and also with a 35mm adapter).

The best way is to test the two cameras side-by-side. Then you'll really be able to sort it out.

[MotionFx]

AND.. she changed her necklace, so its all off anyway.. jeez!

[k2director]

Thanks for the replies, all.

Dolby, yea, the HVX image did look a little out of focus to me too. However, if you *do* get a chance to do side-by-side comparisons, I'd love to see anything you've got.

And naturally, I understand that better glass = better sharpness. But at least initially, I'd probably be using the HPX with the Fujinon lens in one of Panasonic's lower-priced packages.

I'll also try to do some tests if I can at a dealer like Abel Cine in LA, and see what I get. If possible, I'll post results...

[dolby]

OK, here are the grabs from this afternoon of the same shot and lighting.

And yes....the HVX is as sharp as I can get the focus.

HPX-500


HVX-200