HVX200A/HPX170 VS SONY EX1 for COASTLINE FOOTAGE

S

skipioafricanus

Member
Greeetings,

A few months back I was going to purchase an hpx170 for a project which would profile the great scenery of the Northern California Coast. Project logistics changed but now I am back in the market for a camera.

I was set on purchasing the HPX170 or the HVX200 but after reading the forum it appears that the EX-1 could be the best bet if my I my shots are stationary and I pan slowly. Is this so?

How about the lens on the camera?

Is there any significant difference between the hpx170 or hvx200a for this application. This footage will primarily be used for the web but may go on TV.

Thanks for everybodys input.

Skipioafricanus
 
The EX1 gathers fine detail in wide landscapes better than the HPX/HVX do. But if it's for web video, do you need that? By the time it's scaled down, compressed, and put on the web, an HMC150 will probably deliver an image indistinguishable from an EX1, and you'd be saving about $3,000 by going that way.

If you need the sharpest possible video, the EX1 is currently the sharpest camera in its price bracket. If that's not your overriding concern, you should be fine with an HMC/HPX/HVX product and will spend less.

There's no significant difference between the 170 or 200a for the purposes you're talking about. The 170 is the more advanced camera as far as features, and it does have a wider lens so it can take wider-angle shots, and it costs a little less; the 200a has the DV tape drive which you probably don't need, so between those two I'd go with the 170.
 
Barry_Green said:
The EX1 gathers fine detail in wide landscapes better than the HPX/HVX do. But if it's for web video, do you need that? By the time it's scaled down, compressed, and put on the web, an HMC150 will probably deliver an image indistinguishable from an EX1, and you'd be saving about $3,000 by going that way.

If you need the sharpest possible video, the EX1 is currently the sharpest camera in its price bracket. If that's not your overriding concern, you should be fine with an HMC/HPX/HVX product and will spend less.

There's no significant difference between the 170 or 200a for the purposes you're talking about. The 170 is the more advanced camera as far as features, and it does have a wider lens so it can take wider-angle shots, and it costs a little less; the 200a has the DV tape drive which you probably don't need, so between those two I'd go with the 170.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your inputs Barry. Your reply makes sense... the cost savings for the hmc150 would be enormous. But I have to be honest and am confused by the dialogue in the forum for "hmc150 vs hpx170". I have not seen the best hmc150 clips yet. Any recommendations of top quality professional posts by panansonic enthusiasts would be appreciated.

Skipioafricanus
 
skipioafricanus said:
Thanks for your inputs Barry. Your reply makes sense... the cost savings for the hmc150 would be enormous. But I have to be honest and am confused by the dialogue in the forum for "hmc150 vs hpx170". I have not seen the best hmc150 clips yet. Any recommendations of top quality professional posts by panansonic enthusiasts would be appreciated.

Skipioafricanus
Click to expand...
Clarification! I mean top quality video posts! I appreciate everybodys opinion!

Skipioafricanus
 
I had an ex-1 for awhile. Mine had some chromatic aberration on the edge of whites and any white that was starting to blow out...

not too bad but definitely visible...

I haven't used my HPX enough yet to see if it does it though.

guess i should go ahead and try that...
 
I'm shooting landscape stuff, N. California coast stuff too, with my EX1 and it is freakin' incredible. We went to Big Sur a few weeks ago and I shot McWay Falls as it plunges on the beach (this waterfall http://www.flickr.com/photos/buckforester/151758309/sizes/o/ <--- still shot, not from my EX1) and it was like a "living postcard". The waves crashing in, a beautiful sunset, all so crisp and razor sharp in 1080p. Sometimes I'll just play that clip on my big screen while I'm in my office while doing other work, it's so relaxing.

For the web the EX1 wouldn't make any difference obviously, but when you say "tv" it depends on whether it's high-def broadcast or not, then it will most likely make a difference, both in acceptance by a broadcaster, and I suspect the 1/2" chips do make a resolution difference (admittedly I've never seen the HVX/HPX or HCM150 on a big high-def screen so I don't say that with personal experience). All I can say is, "WOW!" when I'm watching this footage big. And that's what I'm going for since I'm not a story teller with words, I let the beauty of natural places tell a visual story. The footage from the EX1 is a great way to do it. Static shots and slow pans are the bees knees with this camera, the WOW! factor for landscapes doesn't work as well with this camera when there's much movement beyond slow pans, in my experience. At this resolution it doesn't take much movement on a static landscape for the sharpness to drop.
 
I like all the cameras when they are seen by themselves, but when compared against each other, the EX1 seems like the best image.

If you want to save money, the HMC150 is a great deal that can not be overlooked.

If you are the type of guy who is rarely satisfied with the image due to looking at commercial footage, and wondering why you are not getting similar results, then you will eventually want an image like an EX1 or better.

Some say the panasonic footage is "soft", I would call it lacking in DETAIL.
You can make an EX1 soft with detail, but you can't make a panasonic HVX, HPX or HMC camera sharp with detail.

You don't need that to tell a story, make a movie or get anything picked up by a distributor.
You only need that if you are the type of person who is not satisfied when they look at footage and want more.

I just saw some EX1 footage on a HD plasma set, and WOW was tht something that will stick with me for a while.

Some call the EX1 footage overly sharp, I could say that at times, on lcd type displays, but on a plasma all that oversharpness seems motion picture smooth.
 
Sharpness gets confused with detail by many.

You can take a 720x480 SD image and make it sharp. This does not imply it will have as much captured detail as a 1920x1080 image.


This aside, it's obvious that Panasonic has a hit on their hands with the HMC150.
It's a great price and offers decent image quality with inexpensive media.
 
I spoke with an F900 owner today who said that he can barely tell the difference between footage he shoots on the F900 and the EX1. Even though I own and love my HPX170, if I were mainly shooting landscapes, I would prefer the EX1 image.

I hate interlaced footage but I shot a doc in Monument Valley with the Z1 a few years ago and even though it was HDV and interlaced, the footage did look pretty kick ass, I have to say. You need sheer resolution for shooting landscapes IMHO.

Dan
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I spoke with an F900 owner today who said that he can barely tell the difference between footage he shoots on the F900 and the EX1.
Click to expand...

The EX1 is the camera that doesn't limit to 1440 lines horizontal, the F900 does.
I agree Dan, the EX1 is the better tool for wide shots than an HVX200A/HPX170 palmcorder.
 
Skipioafricanus,

I live near the beach about 30 miles north of Big Sur and have shot the coastline for many years with all types of cameras and formats. Earlier this year I was hired to do a coastline shoot with an EX1 that was sent to me to use. I was very happy because I wanted to get rid of my Sony Z1 and thought the EX1 was the answer. The 1/2 inch chip and the great lens were some of the things I wanted. The EX1 certainly has the sharpness but after shooting for a week with it I was very disappointed with it's ability to shoot water even at the high quality setting. You can see artifacts in the water. It gets a little soft when you pan or something passes through the frame quickly. It has very good latitude but that and the sharpness was not enough to make me buy it. I also shot a few times with an HVX200 on the same day from the same spot and every time I picked the Panasonic for overall picture quality. I recently got the HPX 170 and to my eye, it easily makes a better image for this kind of work than the EX1. To me, it's no contest. The EX1 is an excellent camera but the format is not. That's my two cents.

Bob
 
Bob88 said:
The EX1 is an excellent camera but the format is not. That's my two cents.

Bob
Click to expand...

The format is changeable. There are already folks shooting it at 1080p24 100 Mbps 4:2:2. Yes, you have to buy a separate recorder, but I did that with my DVX too. No biggie for a pro.
 
On a critical note…

Nobody talks about shooting style anymore. Do people still have that thing called “style”? It seems like all we have left to talk about in relation to an image is sharpness, bit rate, resolution. I’d like to hear more about innovative approaches to shooting landscapes, not simply copying the clarity and sharpness of calendar photos, which is great if that’s your goal, I guess, but it’s dismal as art. For me, the goal in shooting a landscape would not be to use a camera that produces the identical look of another camera, but to use a camera to produce a look that is all your own. But then I guess that would take a sense of style, which is harder to come by than the feats of technology.

I hope my comments don’t derail the conversation. Feel free to ignore my peevishness and carry on.
 
PerroneFord said:
The format is changeable. There are already folks shooting it at 1080p24 100 Mbps 4:2:2. Yes, you have to buy a separate recorder, but I did that with my DVX too. No biggie for a pro.
Click to expand...

Very true,
I'm buying the nanoflash when available. Heck it only costs around the price of two 32GB SxS cards and it will use inexpensive CF cards.
 
Stevet said:
Very true,
I'm buying the nanoflash when available. Heck it only costs around the price of two 32GB SxS cards and it will use inexpensive CF cards.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And it will record in formats that make all these complaints simply disappear. For a reasonable price. And if you want uncompressed HD recording, add a few grand and you're there. Shooting uncompressed native 1080p just like the F900R for under $12k including the media.

Want interchangeable lenses? Add $4000 for the EX3 and the Nikon mount. Wonder how long before a PL mount comes along.

Scarlet may be the only thing that can touch these cams at $15k. And these are ready right now.
 
PerroneFord said:
And if you want uncompressed HD recording, add a few grand and you're there. Shooting uncompressed native 1080p just like the F900R for under $12k including the media.

Want interchangeable lenses? Add $4000 for the EX3 and the Nikon mount. Wonder how long before a PL mount comes along.
Click to expand...

The MPEG 2 based external recorders you reference are not uncompressed, the
Sony F900R is compressed HDCAM with 3:1:1 colorspace, like any HDCAM camcorder.

The Nikon lens mount and non-existent PL mount for an EX-3 does not offer 35mm
field of view, a 35mm DOF adapter would be needed for this.
 
Dino said:
The MPEG 2 based external recorders you reference are not uncompressed, the
Sony F900R is compressed HDCAM with 3:1:1 colorspace, like any HDCAM camcorder.
Click to expand...

They are not *yet* uncompressed. Uncompressed support has been stated for the XDR, but not the Nano, hence my comment about having to step up with a few more grand. And yes, I am aware the F900R is HDCam, thanks. However, it also offers two SDI ports so it can also output uncompressed 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.


Dino said:
The Nikon lens mount and non-existent PL mount for an EX-3 does not offer 35mm field of view, a 35mm DOF adapter would be needed for this.
Click to expand...

I did not say it would offer a 35mm field of view. Pretty tough to do with a 1/2" imager. However, a nice set of digiprimes will close most of that gap nicely. If one wanted to get all the way to a 35mm FOV, then yes, an adapter would be required.

Not sure why you're trying to slam me for things I neither said nor implied.
 
You can see artifacts in the water.
Click to expand...

Hey Bob, just out of curiosity, what kind of artifacts did you see in the water, and under what conditions? That's something I haven't experienced yet. I'm with you on the motion pans though.

I'd like to hear more about innovative approaches to shooting landscapes, not simply copying the clarity and sharpness of calendar photos, which is great if that’s your goal, I guess, but it’s dismal as art.
Click to expand...

mpalmer, I doubt anyone shoots just 'postcard' shots. But as one shoots various ways, that's just another good 'shot' to have in the mix. Vidoes are obviously made of lots of cuts... unless someone was just wanting a 'mood' background on their HD tv, such as "Sunrise Earth: Discovery HD" no one is gonna sit around and watch the same scene for an hour. Is it someone's 'style' to point a camera at a scene for an hour? But that scene, razor sharp, would be a great clip in a flick. That seems pretty obvious, so maybe your point was lost on me as I read it. That would be like saying, "the HVX is great for shooting a fast car scene" and the reply would be, "I'd like to hear more innovative approaches to shooting a car scene, not simply shooting the cliche car chase, which is great if it's your goal but it's dismal as art". ??? Unless I'm off track, we're talking about the camera and the abilities of the camera, not "artistic approaches to making movies" by an individual filmer. That might make a good subject for another thread though, but the original question was about the 'camera' and the 'lens' in terms of quality and ability of capturing the beauty of landscapes. I think the person, and not the camera, has more to do with the sense of 'style'. Anyway, just had to throw that in, ignore it if you want, I'm just rambling. Ha!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top