Biggest drawbacks of HPX171

[blockrocker]

Hi!

I'm seriously considering buying this camera, but first I would like to know what kind of potential problems I might face and what I will propably be missing the most because of not choosing a more expensive camera.

So if you have experience of this camera, please list a few of the biggest drawbacks for it. The good stuff I can find easily from the internet, but what are the worst features?

Thanks!

 

[David Saraceno]

Pricier doesn't equal better.

It would be helpful to list what else you are considering and a better comparison would result.

 

[blockrocker]

Pricier doesn't equal better.

It would be helpful to list what else you are considering and a better comparison would result.

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that price doesn't necessarily equal better.

I'm not looking that much for a comparison but more to just hear what features you dislike the most in HPX171.

When I bought a HV20 I was disappointed in the rolling shutter wobble (which makes motion tracking very hard) and the poor focus ring/focus information. I'm looking for similar disappointing things from the HPX.

Maybe I should ask, what were the biggest disappointments for you in the HPX171? What kind of features do you miss the most?

 

[TedRR]

This may not effect many people, but I would miss the mini-DV deck that our 200's have. We have paid for our HVX 200's just off that capability. And I never thought I'd use the deck part of our HVX's.

As mentioned above, to help you get better feedback, you might want to list the type of shooting you plan on doing. There are many great cameras on the market today.
The best determination of what is a limitation or weakness of a camera depends on what you want it to do.
Kind of like a sports car sucks at 4 wheeling. :happy:

 

[blockrocker]

This may not effect many people, but I would miss the mini-DV deck that our 200's have. We have paid for our HVX 200's just off that capability. And I never thought I'd use the deck part of our HVX's.

As mentioned above, to help you get better feedback, you might want to list the type of shooting you plan on doing. There are many great cameras on the market today.
The best determination of what is a limitation or weakness of a camera depends on what you want it to do.
Kind of like a sports car sucks at 4 wheeling. :happy:

Thanks for your reply!

I'm looking for an all-around camera mostly for making company films. I would like it to have a full frame format (like p2) for more convenient editing and I like the p2-workflow. What is really important for me is the ability to motion track the footage properly as I plan to do a lot of motion tracking. Also I would like to be able to have shallow depth of field, but I quess that might be something I have to forget about if I get the HPX171? Or is it possible to somehow get a narrow DOF from it?

 

[David Jimerson]

Thanks for your reply!

I'm looking for an all-around camera mostly for making company films.

The 171 will be quite good and quite versatile for that.

I would like it to have a full frame format (like p2) for more convenient editing

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate some?

What is really important for me is the ability to motion track the footage properly as I plan to do a lot of motion tracking.

Do you mean with the camera in a motion-control rig, or do you mean in post, in After Effects or something similar?

If the first, then you've got no worries. If the second, any camera can be fine for this; it's a matter of providing enough information in your frame in order to do it, and that's more technique than camera. In any case, the 171 will provide plenty of detail for this use if you shoot the footage properly.

Also I would like to be able to have shallow depth of field, but I quess that might be something I have to forget about if I get the HPX171? Or is it possible to somehow get a narrow DOF from it?

You can do it either by moving the camera back, moving your subject away from the background, opening the iris to full, and zooming in . . .

Or you can do it with a 35mm lens adapter.

 

[blockrocker]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate some?

I'm not very good with the technical stuff, but I like p2 because it's pretty fast to edit in comparison to HDV. I think this has to do with HDV (and AVCHD) being GOP-based formats while P2 can record frames "individually" instead of grouping them together.

Do you mean with the camera in a motion-control rig, or do you mean in post, in After Effects or something similar?

If the first, then you've got no worries. If the second, any camera can be fine for this; it's a matter of providing enough information in your frame in order to do it, and that's more technique than camera. In any case, the 171 will provide plenty of detail for this use if you shoot the footage properly.

I meant the latter (post production motion tracking). I'm asking this because it turned out that my HV20 is practically useless for motion tracking because of it's rolling shutter. I think HPX171 has that too like most CMOS cameras (right?) but maybe it works better than in HV20? Have any of you done motion tracking with footage shot with hpx170?

You can do it either by moving the camera back, moving your subject away from the background, opening the iris to full, and zooming in . . .

Or you can do it with a 35mm lens adapter.

Thanks for this information. I was a bit worried whether I could use these kind of adaptors with this camera, but I quess it's possible! Is there any specific 35mm lens adapters that I could take a look at? How much should I be prepared to spend on those?

Thanks for your help guys!

 

[David Jimerson]

I'm not very good with the technical stuff, but I like p2 because it's pretty fast to edit in comparison to HDV. I think this has to do with HDV (and AVCHD) being GOP-based formats while P2 can record frames "individually" instead of grouping them together.

Ah. You're talking about intraframe recording (as opposed to long-GOP interframe) -- yes, that's better. The color is better than HDV, too, in HD or DVCPRO 50.

I meant the latter (post production motion tracking). I'm asking this because it turned out that my HV20 is practically useless for motion tracking because of it's rolling shutter. I think HPX171 has that too like most CMOS cameras (right?) but maybe it works better than in HV20? Have any of you done motion tracking with footage shot with hpx170?

No, the 171 uses CCDs and there is no rolling shutter.

Thanks for this information. I was a bit worried whether I could use these kind of adaptors with this camera, but I quess it's possible! Is there any specific 35mm lens adapters that I could take a look at? How much should I be prepared to spend on those?

Thanks for your help guys!

There's lots of info on this on the site -- do searches for "letus" and "redrock" and that should get you started.

 

[vic777]

Also I would like to be able to have shallow depth of field,

forget depth of field .... just use the tool to get great, sharp, in focus, images. Don't waste tons of time on light robbing, time wasting, stupid, unnecessary adapters.

 

[blockrocker]

forget depth of field .... just use the tool to get great, sharp, in focus, images. Don't waste tons of time on light robbing, time wasting, stupid, unnecessary adapters.

Why do you think a narrow depth of field is stupid and time wasting? In my humble opinion nothing screams home video as much as digital video with everything in focus at all times. Narrow depth of field gives much more depth to the images and it helps the viewer to focus on the important part of the picture. If you always have everything in focus, then it's much harder for the viewer to know what the important thing in the picture is.

 

[wgzn]

Is there any specific 35mm lens adapters that I could take a look at? How much should I be prepared to spend on those?

the adapter itself (most of which are give or take $1000) is only a SMALL part of the picture. if you go the 35mm adapter route youre going to need the adapter itself AND rails AND a follow focus AND lens support AND lenses AND (probably) a mattebox. you simply wont get a truly functional adapter rig for less than about $3500 and thats a pretty basic rig.

pretty much ALL of the adapters you'll find will do a good job. but they ALL have their good and bad points and all have their own "look" - its really a matter of what looks best to you and which fits better into your workflow.

here are some of the more popular adapters to look at:
http://www.redrockmicro.com/
http://shoot35.com/
http://www.cinevate.com/website/index.php
http://www.letusdirect.com/?gclid=CP6sn4aHnJsCFR0SagodQiOtpg
http://cinemek.com/

 

[wgzn]

forget depth of field .... just use the tool to get great, sharp, in focus, images. Don't waste tons of time on light robbing, time wasting, stupid, unnecessary adapters.

man, thats a really narrow-thinking and pretty unhelpful thing to say.

your point that adapters require more light, more time to set up and more pre-planninng (or a ton of photograhic knowledge) is accurate. but saying they are unnecessary is totally subjective. YES. they are often used gratuitously and ad nauseum. but if used properly and tasefully they can really make a lackluster, boring production much more visually appealing.

 

[blockrocker]

the adapter itself (most of which are give or take $1000) is only a SMALL part of the picture. if you go the 35mm adapter route youre going to need the adapter itself AND rails AND a follow focus AND lens support AND lenses AND (probably) a mattebox. you simply wont get a truly functional adapter rig for less than about $3500 and thats a pretty basic rig.

pretty much ALL of the adapters you'll find will do a good job. but they ALL have their good and bad points and all have their own "look" - its really a matter of what looks best to you and which fits better into your workflow.

here are some of the more popular adapters to look at:
http://www.redrockmicro.com/
http://shoot35.com/
http://www.cinevate.com/website/index.php
http://www.letusdirect.com/?gclid=CP6sn4aHnJsCFR0SagodQiOtpg
http://cinemek.com/

Thank you very much for this information, I had no idea that spending the 1000$ wouldn't get me a fully functional setup. So besides the adapter do I have to purchase a separate lense for it? Is the follow focus compulsory to have or just more convenient?

 

[wgzn]

So besides the adapter do I have to purchase a separate lense for it?

i hate to scare you, but if you have to ask this question. you are way NOT ready to go the adapter route.

all a 35mm adapter is (very basically) is a device that allows you to attach 35mm SLR camera lenses and thus provides depth of field control to your video camera. the rear of the adapter attaches to the fixed lens of your video camera and the front of the adapter has a lens mount to accept your choice of nikon, canon, pentax, etc lenses.

the fun part is there are literally a TON of lens options out there. the less fun part is that not just any lens is going to work. there are specific features that make a lens better or worse for use with an adapter. the upside is that there are as many good lenses out there for $200 as there are for $2000 so every trip to your local used camera shop is now an adventure!

as far as what you absolutely NEED to use an adapter:
to my knowledge the cinevate brevis is the ONLY adapter that does not REQUIRE a baseplate and rails to work. you will however learn very quickly that it DOES REQUIRE a baseplate and rails to work WELL.

i started my adapter adventure a little over 2 years ago with just my brevis and a decent 50mm nikkor lens. i thought i was off to the races.

WRONG.

i learned quickly that there was too much play in the setup and needed the solidity provided by rails, lens support and a follow focus to get the shots that i was looking for.

so, to put it simply. YES. in order to succesfully use a 35mm adapter setup you will NEED at LEAST the following:
- adapter
- baseplate and rails
- lens support
- follow focus

and we havent even discussed image flip. adapters by nature, vertically flip your image. so if your adapter is "flip-enabled" you will also need a riser (cheap, but adds another set of variables) OR if your adapter is NOT "flip-enabled" you'll need an external monitor setup that will allow you to flip the image.

oh yeah. you also WILL NEED an external HD monitor as the built in monitor on the camera IS ABSOLUETLY NOT ACCEPTABLE for critical focus with an adapter setup. so add AT LEAST another $500 for this.

my goal here is to make it clear to you that the 35mm adapter journey is NOT a simple nor cheap one.

 

[wgzn]

another thing to consider with an adapter setup is lenses. you cant simply get a single good lens and be done with it. with an adapter, you are now in the world of a still photographer. and look in the bag of any good still photographer they will have an assortment of lenses.

the optimal lens for adapter applications is a prime (meaning fixed focal length) lens. which means no zoom function. so for a decent multi-use kit you'll want a variety of lenses. in my kit i have a 35, 55, 85 and 105. these 4 lenses were well over $1000 and i STILL NEED MORE.

you CAN use a zoom lens but adapters suffer from something called "light loss" which basically means you lose between 1/2 to 2 stops (depending on adapter brand) in usable light. so you really need as fast a lens ("fast" meaning LOW f-stop) as you can find. and fast zoom lenses tend to be pretty spendy. most good fast zooms START at about $1200

 

[blockrocker]

Ok, thanks for helping out. After reading this it seems like I won't be having narrow DOF in a while then. I quess I need to start seriously saving some money again.

 

[wgzn]

dont let me discourage you too much. there is a LOT to learn. but the information you need is very easy to find. im pretty sure ALL the manufacturers i mentioned above have forums on their sites. i learned a TON just by reading the forums, asking questions and looking at sample footage.

and check the marketplace here, there is always someone (who either became dissilusioned or simply wants to upgrade) selling all kinds of adapter and accessory stuff.

i had mine for sale as a turnkey setup on the forum for a while back, but everybody wanted me to piece it out so i just ended up keeping it.

 

[blockrocker]

Ok thanks for that!

One more question entered my mind: What are the first (cheapest) cameras that don't need an adapter in order to use a 35mm lense? I'm assuming there are some more expensive digital cameras that can mount that kind of lenses without adapters right? Or am I totally lost again?

 

[wgzn]

What are the first (cheapest) cameras that don't need an adapter in order to use a 35mm lense?

NONE.

yes. it would seem youre lost again. video cameras arent by definition manufactured to be used with 35mm lenses - PERIOD. the whole 35mm adapter world is a third-party effort and VERY SMALL market (relative to the total number of general video camera buyers)

now there are 35mm SLR (digital still) cameras that now have video capability and thats a LOT cheaper way to go. but the general consensus seems to be that the workflow is kind of a pain and though they do, at first glance, prodcue pretty images they arent quite ready to replace a true video camera

 

[blockrocker]

NONE.

yes. it would seem youre lost again. video cameras arent by definition manufactured to be used with 35mm lenses - PERIOD. the whole 35mm adapter world is a third-party effort and VERY SMALL market (relative to the total number of general video camera buyers)

now there are 35mm SLR (digital still) cameras that now have video capability and thats a LOT cheaper way to go. but the general consensus seems to be that the workflow is kind of a pain and though they do, at first glance, prodcue pretty images they arent quite ready to replace a true video camera

Ok, it's good to know this stuff finally. Thanks for clearing things out.

What I wonder is why can SLR cameras attach these lenses more easily than video cameras? Is there some fundamental difference between them that makes a video camera not suitable for these lenses?