HPX502 vs HPX2100

[Jonny Bravo]

I dont know why would one choose 2100 over a 52 or vice versa .... The price difference is fine but what about the output diff in terms of quality & workability !

 

[Tomas Riuka]

sharper sensor? f13 sensivity?

 

[Andrew McMillan]

502 does have variable frame rates like the varicam, but he's right the 502 is softer than the 2100.

 

[Tomas Riuka]

also light sensivity is f13 by specs compared to f10 on hpx500.

isn't 2700 a true hd camera already ?

 

[STORMDAVE]

HPX2000 (or 2100 in some countries) has an display on the camera for control, a second knob for setting your kelvin and obviously a higher pixel count in the sensor. It also has an HD viewfinder I believe....

 

[Tomas Riuka]

and also a "little"higher price tag

 

[LuckyStudio 13]

Hpx 2000 is an ENG cam, AVC-Intra board is also extra $$$. The Hpx 2000 can also generate proxy files that is very useful for ENG but useless for EPF. For everything non ENG, go with the hpx 2700 or hpx 3700.

 

[Flor!an1989]

Has anybody rated the ISO of the HPX2000? The HPX500's ISO is around 960.

 

[Tomas Riuka]

i think you're mistakin... read somewhere hpx's sensivity to be 560

 

[cheezweezl]

lol, i thought it was 320

 

[Barry_Green]

The 500 is about 960. The 2000 is about the same. I didn't do comprehensive testing but spot-checking up at the Iditarod where I had a 2000 and a 500 together and their sensitivity is very comparable.

 

[Noel Evans]

And for those that are wondering a 960 ISO really kicks ass.

 

[Bassman2003]

And for those that are wondering a 960 ISO really kicks ass.

The HPX-500 is good as far as light gathering, but it is still not as good as my DV cameras (DVC-200s).

 

[Bassman2003]

I would like to change my stance on the HPX-500 and light gathering.

I just changed lenses to the Canon 20x8.5 and now the HPX-500 beats my DV cameras by about 1/2 to 1 stop of light.

Just thought I should clarify.