Is the HPX500 noticeably sharper than the HVX200??

To be honest for my eyes the difference is rather small and much smaller than in the Bicycle stills !!! Probably Barry optimised the settings on the HVX to a much better extent :-)) I even have the feeling that there is a kind of software sharping in the HPX picture, looks even a bit unnatural !!! Does the HPX have a little bit more blue fringes on the green ball left top corner than the HVX
 
Dolby: Thanx for starting this with your pix (cool bike, by the way).. In the bike picture there is much more shadow detail, ie in the foam of the case in the background, so there must be some difference in the settings, but the resolution difference, confirmed by Barry's more closely related samples, is startling to me - and he wrote the book!.. I would say there is a considerable difference...

I just bought an HVX as a backup to my HPX500 two weeks ago and, although I have been shooting a lot with both during that time, I haven't taken the time to do a side-by-side comparison of the same scene. Kinda scary, to be honest - don't know if I even want to... at least it doesn't glare at you in normal documentary shooting..
 
Oh, and another point worth mentioning.. These HPX500 samples are using the CAC lenses which are considered "cheap" by HD standards... So it looks like these lenses are doing okay...
 
Yeah, with better glass there should be an even more noticeable difference (which, hey, if you spent 4x as much for the camera you'd hope there'd be a difference!)
 
As a prior HVX owner, I would have to agree the HPX500 is sharper, cleaner, faster, and
has more latitude. I also have the 16x7.7 no doubler. The other added bonus is that clients feel like they are getting more bang for the buck with the onboard lh80 and
big mattebox. This camera is a great performer and I can't wait to get some digiprimes on it. Here I come T1.3


Barry,

When r u writing an HPX500 book and when can we expect it.
You the man.

Sponester
 
I just finished a music video shooting HPX as primary and HVX as 2nd camera.

The director didn't care for the footage of the HVX and quickly made the HPX the only camera except where the HPX was too big to use.

I own both cameras and with high end glass, there is just no comparison. Like with the footage posted here by Barry, the HPX is clearly better even with cheap glass.

But it really is a silly question to begin with. It's like asking if a Ford 350 (huge pickup truck) has a btter payload than a Ford Ranger (small pickup truck) Of course it does, and that's why you pay a LOT more for it than the Ranger.

I paid 13,500 for my package. subtract 4k for the cards it brought and 300 for the plate and that makes teh cam only cost a little over 9k

The question people have to ask is if the cam is worth 9 to 10k. Not compare it to a bunch of differently priced cams. I think it's worth it. In the last week I shot two gigs with it, 1 in NTSC and one in PAL. What other cam in that price range will do that for me and give me that high a quality image?

I still haven't put it through the ringer, but I'm happy with it so far, accepting it for what it is.

as far as comparing it to the 2000, again, that's like comparing the Ford mustang to the Ford GT40. You get what you pay for folks, life has always been that way, and will always be that way :)
 
TimurCivan said:
in this case, the light sensitivity alone is worth the extra money to me.
Click to expand...
The light sensitivity and the shallower DOF are both huge bonuses; it's amazing how much more sensitive the 500 is vs. the 200, it gets comparable brightness in 1/3 the light. And having four channels of audio, with four XLRs and four audio pots, is magnificent. And if you like power zoom, there's no words that can describe how much nicer a professional zoom motor is over the HVX's three speeds.

But the breathing in the cheap lenses can be annoying, so it's not always 100% improvement. And the HPX500 is massive compared to the HVX200, of course -- it's still lightweight for a full-size camera, but for those coming from the world of DVX/HVX it's going to be an adjustment. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
But the breathing in the cheap lenses can be annoying, so it's not always 100% improvement.
Click to expand...

Once you stated you liked the Fujinon over the Canon, but that you hadn´t done any side by side comparision, yet. Did you accumulate more experience with the lenses since then? Is there any difference in breathing, contrast and resolution?
 
With the fuji lens you can focus on the furthest object and then rack the focus with the macro ring and have no breathing at all. The rack is only good for a few feet though.
 
dolby said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you using to focus ? A chart ?

Both of the examples of the HVX look soft, soft, soft.
 
joe 1008 said:
Once you stated you liked the Fujinon over the Canon, but that you hadn´t done any side by side comparision, yet. Did you accumulate more experience with the lenses since then? Is there any difference in breathing, contrast and resolution?
Click to expand...
I haven't had a chance with multiple lenses side by side. So far with the brief experience I've had with the Canon w/2x, vs. the Fujinon w/2x, I'd buy the Fujinon. This Canon w/o 2x seems a tad better than the Canon w/2x though. But that's just really an overview impression, not based on scientifically comparing the lenses against each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top