HPX 500 vs HVX200A?

evolvnyc

evolvnyc

Well-known member
So B&H has the HPX on sale for $9,999.00 and this is in addition to a mail in rebate, bringing the cost of the camera to $7,999.00 (This, of course, does not include a lens.) A friend and I are starting a production company and we have a few clients already. The company will exist to allow us to use the equipment to shoot our own personal work (docs and shorts.) We were in the market for an HVX or the new Sony, but this seems like such an amazing deal, I wonder if it would be worth the extra money? Not knowing anything about the HPX, I wanted to seek advice here. Obviously we're getting a much better image quality and more options, but since the HVX is acceptable for most broadcasters, is it foolish to waste the money? What exactly are the +'s and -'s of doing this for a small production company that will be producing broadcast work and feature length docs for theatrical release? All thoughts appreciated. Thanks!
 
Extend you research. With batteries, tripod, and minimum accessories the HPX package will go for around 28K, if you need an wide angle lens 40K.
If the price is OK you can consider the other +s and -s.
 
Well, the batteries and accessories will be an added expense for either camera, and we plan on renting lenses as needed or buying a used one. I'm aware of the cost issues, I was hoping to better understand the differences between the cameras themselves and the results they produce.
 
I'm afraid I can't speak from experience, but I do know that the HPX has 2/3" sensors, as compared to the 1/3" sensors on the HVX200A. You'll get better lowlight results from the HPX.
 
After shooting with HPX500, HVX200, HDX900, HPX3000, and Varicam, I have to say that I am not very impressed with the HPX. It is a good value with the B&H deal plus rebate, but as others have noted, it fits into a strange area between the prosumer and professional cameras. The image is better than the HVX but is definitely not as good as the HDX900 or HPX2000. Unless you need the shoulder-mount form factor(it does tend to make people take you more seriously), I would say you are better off going with the HVX200a or waiting for an HPX170. Spend the extra dough on something like a dolly or jib arm to increase your production values.

Of course, all of the accessories you would be getting with your HPX could be used with a different camera later if you were to upgrade, so that is something to consider. Also, those items(lens, tripod, mattebox, etc.) tend to hold their value better than a camera does.

I don't have any experience with the PMW EX1, so I can't compare it to any of the Panasonic cameras, let alone recommend it, but the footage I have seen looks great, and you may see the 1/2" sensor as a nice compromise between the HPX and the smaller cams.
 
I agree and disagree. Sure it doesnt go as far as a HDX or the 3000. But I think it delivers well and shoots above itself. I dont think its in a strange area, its a pro tool at a great price. In this format I more familiar with Sony than the other panasonics and it holds up well. I prefer the audio on the 500 thats for sure. Not as much res, but not far off. Certainly the color options arent all there and its only has gamma presets, but with the way shooting is these days, if you give yourself plenty of latitude in the shot, you can post grade it however you like. And where that isnt possible say for ENG, theres enough to get the image you need. The 2/3" ccds are black and white compared to the 1/3", not just in DOF - but the dynamic range.

As maxwell said, if you go for the 200a or 170, you wil lose these options, but still have a bagful of money to put toward production tools.
 
Considering that the HPX500 uses the HVX200 imagers at 960x540, you can't compare it to the 720p native imagers on the HDX900 and the Full HD native imagers on the HPX3000.

I will say this though, I just bought a 40" Sony Bravia XBR4 LCD and the HPX500 footage I shot looked great for the camera's price point. It looked better than some of the professionally shot HVX200 footage, obviously due to the larger CCD's. For $8,000 (After rebate) the camera body cannot be beat. Nobody has an ENG style HD camera at this price point. Not sure even Sony would try getting an ENG XDCAM HD camera at this price point.

One thing that kind of bugs me about the HPX500 is some of the noise on black areas, but that's going to be there no matter what due to the small size of the imagers
 
STORMDAVE said:
Considering that the HPX500 uses the HVX200 imagers at 960x540, you can't compare it to the 720p native imagers on the HDX900 and the Full HD native imagers on the HPX3000.

I will say this though, I just bought a 40" Sony Bravia XBR4 LCD and the HPX500 footage I shot looked great for the camera's price point. It looked better than some of the professionally shot HVX200 footage, obviously due to the larger CCD's. For $8,000 (After rebate) the camera body cannot be beat. Nobody has an ENG style HD camera at this price point. Not sure even Sony would try getting an ENG XDCAM HD camera at this price point.

One thing that kind of bugs me about the HPX500 is some of the noise on black areas, but that's going to be there no matter what due to the small size of the imagers
Click to expand...

They are not the same imagers as the HVX: The HPX500 imagers (and I hope Barry or Jan comes to clarify this) are 2/3 (much bigger than the HVX's 1/3), have a much better signal to noise ratio (compared to the ORIGINAL HVX200, not the "a". Not sure about how it compares to the newer model.) It is said that the chips are slightly higher resolution natively. (960v6xx, if I remember correctly- It is said the chips are based on the SDX900 chips, Panasonic's former SD 2/3 best seller camera ).
 
I've been shooting professionally with the HVX for a year and a half and just took delivery last week of the HPX. I've matched it up with a Fujinon 16X SD lens (A series) that costs about $350 on eBay. Not the perfect solution, but considering the gains in low light performance and dynamic range, I consider it the best investment I've made yet. The HVX is a great way to learn and has made me money, but the HPX is much more the real deal.

If I were starting at the begining knowing what I know now, I would get the HPX and gradually build your setup to have accessories that adapt to the ENG large camera requirements (tripod, head, batteries, everything). I've got a great package with the HVX, Letus Extreme, etc... (see my website) but I believe I can really sell the HPX's capabliites to my customers. I know that it's not full raster HD, but it is HD nonetheless and looks fabulous on a 42" screen at a tradeshow or in Flash on a client's web site. I'm just doing my first broadcast work and I'm confident that it will perform for the level of client I'm after. With you being new, chances are you are doing the same thing and won't be working for Discovery anytime soon.

Just be prepared for the raft of stuff you'll need to get the business going - lights, stands, monitor, computers, audio gear, shooting space, etc...

Good Luck!

Mark G
www.newmediadevcorp.com
 
STORMDAVE said:
Considering that the HPX500 uses the HVX200 imagers at 960x540
Click to expand...
Oh, come on. The HVX200 is 1/3", the HPX500 is 2/3". The HPX500 isn't "960x540", it's 620,000 pixels each (almost 2 million pixels total).

Not sure even Sony would try getting an ENG XDCAM HD camera at this price point.
Click to expand...
Sony's XDCAM HD ENG camera is twice the price.

One thing that kind of bugs me about the HPX500 is some of the noise on black areas, but that's going to be there no matter what due to the small size of the imagers
Click to expand...
They're 2/3" chips.
 
Thanks you guys, really helpful. We indeed already have most of our accessories as we've both been doing this for years already. The sale at B&H seemed almost too good to be true so I wanted to make sure there wasn't something we were missing...
 
Then you'd be crazy not to take advantage of the sale. My kit came from Spec-Comm with the tripod plate and and a decent Porta-Brace bag. I think it's a steal for the money, and the 2/3' chips make a huge difference. I've already put the HVX and HPX side by side with the same settings in a dimly lit room and I was shocked at how much better the HPX was. I showed my brother (who is a still photagrapher and helps with shoots) and he was amazed at how much better it gathered light and how great the picture is compared to the HVX.

That's my last .02 cents on this. Got togo fill out my rebate form!
 
Cheapest sony 2/3" HD cam is the pdw700 at B&H street price $28,499.95 body only.

Good thing is I have a feeling ( coz of the current state of the economy), that Panasonic is going to extend/offer the $2000 hpx500 cash rebate again.
 
Last edited:
200A rocks pretty hard, man. Much harder than the 200 ever could or ever would. It took MUCH deliberation for me to come to decide that I would rather have an HVX200A/HPX170 + Ultimate or EX-1 + Ultimate for versatility and outstanding image quality in a smaller package (and smaller dollar amount) over an HPX500. But it depends on the work and what you can justify.

But all that aside, the 200A is pretty friggin' nice. You should get your hands on one personally and judge which one you like side-by-side. IMO the 200 is not representative of the 200A's image quality.
 
Barry_Green said:
Oh, come on. The HVX200 is 1/3", the HPX500 is 2/3". The HPX500 isn't "960x540", it's 620,000 pixels each (almost 2 million pixels total).


Sony's XDCAM HD ENG camera is twice the price.


They're 2/3" chips.
Click to expand...

Err the HPX500 is 2/3" but it is does not have a native 1280x720 imager that the HPX2000 & HDX900 have. I'm not talking about the CCD size, but the pixel count of the imager.

If I'm not mistaken, this post (which you wrote) even has you saying the same thing.

I know XDCAM HD ENG cameras are twice the price, that's why I said "I doubt Sony will release one" because Panasonic is beating them in this price range.

Either way I really like my HPX500. It's an amazing deal. I might be getting a second one, but this time with an HD lens.
 
We don't know the pixel count as far as its arrangement; we only know the total count per chip which is 620,000.

What I was correcting was when you said "it's the same imagers as the HVX200"; it may use a similar spatial offset technique but the imagers are 4x as large and have something around 20% more pixels on them.
 
Weird, I did a lot of research and alot of "good sources" said it uses the same imager except that it has larger CCDs. I'll try to find those "good sources". But thanks for clarifying, Barry.

So no one knows the native resolution of the HPX500 that it shoots at (minus spacial offsetting)? Maybe Jan can chime in. Doesn't really matter, but it's interesting to know.
 
In short I'd say: the HVX200 is a prosumer tool that wants to be real camera. The HPX500 is a real camera - the smallest of the bunch, but it's a real camera!

2/3" chips (forget about 35mm adapters, you already got the DOF of 16mm film!),
a real lens - the Fujinon stock lens is pretty nice with super-soft quickzoom and a very acceptable wide angle, 7.6mm on 2/3" beats the 4.5mm on 1/3 by quite a bit!
Shoulder mount - not only does it look sexy, it also gives you the freedom to shoot much better without a tripod, and longer (remember the HVX is quite heavy for a handheld!)
The image quality beats the HVX's on first sight, even if you just compare SD on a normal TV set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top