300 vs 500 for sports/race track footage/doc

[sonic freak]

How well would the 500 cut with the 300?

I just shot 1/2 of a TV doc on a new mustang at a track in Texas (on the HPX500) and I need to shoot the next 1/2 soon. I was considering buying the 500 for such jobs but the 300 is attractive (price and native 1080).

At the track I wasn't on the long end of the lens a lot, but when I was the shots are KILLER, panning FAST when the car was speeding around an oval.

A lot of my stuff is talking heads, but sometimes I get cool jobs shooting cars going 150mph..

I'm getting the vibe that the 500 would be a little better for sports. Am I wrong?

Thanks

 

[alexdias]

The CMOS sensor will give you some very annoying problems on those fast pans.
Other than that pretty much everything is killer on the 300.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Depends on how fast and long the pans are.

If the jello effect is slight enough it might actually enhance the shot giving a feel of more speed.

To much jello effect and the viewer will be "WTF!?!?!?"


Best thing to do is shoot what you need to now with what you have and if you get the chance to try the 300 test it out and see what you think.


Of course please let us know as well! :thumbsup:

 

[Noel Evans]

A lot of my stuff is talking heads, but sometimes I get cool jobs shooting cars going 150mph..

I'm getting the vibe that the 500 would be a little better for sports. Am I wrong?

Thanks

You are not wrong - the 500 is excellent for fast action. In addition, a lot more DOF control on a standard set up on the 500 will give you a little more artistic play on a talking head, 1/3" is 1/3" and regardless of a professional type fujinon lens, it wont be any different than shooting on say a 170 in this respect. And Im not sure how you work, but when theres a lot of action going on I dont want to be working the iris and focus at the same time (I can - but every few seconds is a tough gig), so moving to different light levels, the 500 will hold more due to its dynamic range.

300 is a fair bit cheaper, that could be attractive in this case. Especially in the current economy where it may take a little longer to remake your spend.

Sorry Im still not on the whole bandwagon about a little resolution increase. Even saying that, I would shoot the 2700 / 3700 over the 500 any day of the week, but you get so much more than just increased res.

 

[kyle_doris]

In my humble opinion, I'd stick with the 500 for that project. Only because i'm assuming you end up having to shoot a lot of things full telephoto. If most of the shots were at wide angles than I think it would be a toss up, with the 300's new capabilities possibly being more beneficial. If you started with the 500 and are planning on a lot of pans at full telephoto, go 500.

For talking heads, go 300. I think the 300 will rock it out for interviews. I think it will be a hot camera for those types of projects.

just my opinion.