Buy an HPX 170 or an HVX 200A?

B

Blutarski

Active member
First of all thanks to the contributors on this site. I have gotten all my knowledge and information through this message board, it has been an invaluable learning tool. Four years ago the DVX was recommended on this site and I purchased one because of it. I have never had any problems with the camera. I learned a lot with it and was happy with the purchase.

However I will be shooting my first feature at the end of this year. I have $3000 to purchase a new camera + the sale of the DVX. I have purchased equipment through the years such as a 35mm adapter, Matte box, follow focus, set of prime lenses etc.

I believe the time is now to go HD but I am confused as to what I should purchase next. I'm not a big fan of the SLR craze. I believe while the initial purchase would be cheaper, in the long run it will cost the same as a fully functional camera. I like Panasonic products so I have narrowed it down to the HPX 170 or the HVX 200A.

This is where I'm having the problem. Which one of these cameras has a superior image quality? Are the functional options comparable between the two? How about P2 workflow? I have the academic version 5.1.4 of FCP and I cannot update this version, I would have to shell out an additional $1000 for the newest version. Will my FCP be able to handle the P2 workflow? Why is the HVX cheaper by $800, is it obsolete in comparison to the HPX?
 
Blutarski,
FCP 5.1.4 will work just fine with P2 (although you may want to purchase raylight, so that FCP can work with the MXF files "natively"). You will probably find that the change in workflow from tape to P2 is pretty easy and will not look back once you get used to it. Most importantly in the discussion, how are you going to archive your footage? Think about this in advance. If you are shooting in HD on the HVX/HPX, it will require somewhere in between a GB per minute and 2 1/2 minutes per GB depending on the mode you shoot in.

As for the differences between the two models, the main questions is will you need to shoot SD on tape? If so, go for the 200A. If not, then I would probably recommend going with the 170. Both have increased low light performance and better grain structure than the original 200. Both have similar ergonomics, although the 170 is lighter. Other important additions on the 170 are a wider lens and SDI output. Look at Barry's article for more information: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/12


Jason
 
It looks like you are really strapped for cash. You really need to consider the HMC 150 (avchd).

If you had the cash or credit, an upgrade to FCS 3 and the HPX170 would be mandatory.
 
Blutarski,

Like Awakened said, the HVX has a tape drive, but note that it is only works for DV SD. So if you are going HD, then the tape drive doesn't mean much.

The IQ of the two cams should be equal since they use the same codec and imager. I can't say if one lens is slightly better than the other.

For me, the most important features difference is the focus and exposures aids which are better on the HPX. I believe the flip out lcd is better also. This stuff is really important everytime you turn on the cam.

Grant
 
In the choice between HVX200A and HPX170, the only question to ask is: do you need SD DV tape? If not, forget the HVX200A. The HPX170 has the exact same chips, a slightly sharper image, many more features, and it's smaller and lighter and a lot more ergonomic.

The recommendation for the HMC150 is also intriguing, but given the OP's request to stay with 5.1.4, P2 may make more sense for him.

Blutarski, have you looked at the AF100? Coming out in about six months or so, it's a dedicated video camera with all the SLR goodness too. If you can only buy once, and you can afford to wait, it might be interesting -- but again, it'd need an upgrade of your editing software.
 
Hello everyone, Thanks for the replies. I have thought about the upcoming release of the AF 100. However I have read rumors that the starting price will be in the area of $6,000. In addition a new version of FCP will set me back another $800 to $1000. A $7000 investment is a little steep at this point, unless the rumors are false as to the 6K starting price.
The idea of doing a feature with my DVX is still a possibility. I hate to let it go, it has been a good camera. However I understand everything is going in the HD direction. The idea of renting annoys me to no end. The fees they charge here in LA are ridiculous. I feel like I'm being ripped off every time I have rented.
I look at this next purchase as an investment in my future. Maybe the price will drop on the HPX when the AF 100 comes out? Or the rumored starting price of the AF100 will be lower? I can definitely save an additional 2K in the next six months. It will mean shooting the feature on the DVX now however. I have no intentions on delaying my plans just to purchase a camera.
I bought my DVX when the original HVX had recently hit the market. I would still be using the HVX if I had bought it back then. Now I could be in a similar situation. Will the AF 100 be a drastic improvement upon the HPX 170? If so I will wait.
 
Last edited:
The only "drastic" improvement that we can really count on, is in the ability to deliver film-style shallow depth of field. Any other expectations are probably speculation, but the AF100 should basically be an HPX170 with 35mm film-style DoF. And that opens up a world of creative expression options. You can achieve much of that with a Letus/Brevis/SG Pro on your DVX though.

The DVX is a great camera and many films have been shot on it, including big-screen theatrical releases and Oscar nominees. It is pretty long in the tooth at this point, and it's possible to get very good cameras that are much sharper, but ... well, this is a personal decision that only you can make.

The major benefit to the DVX in this particular scenario is -- you already have it, it's owned and paid for, and any money that you do have can go on the screen instead of into equipment. And while it may go against a whole lotta grain to say this here, I'll say it anyway -- we've long since passed the point of "good enough" for filmmaking. The DVX is "good enough". It was good enough to make an Oscar-nominated documentary called "Murderball", it was good enough to make an Oscar-nominated doc called "Iraq In Fragments", it was good enough to make a Sundance "Best Cinematography" winner called "November" (and, I guess I should point out, "Murderball" was also a winner for Sundance's "Best Cinematography" award, in the documentary category).

Would I shoot a feature on a DVX today? Not if I had an HMC150 available, or an HPX170, or an AF100. But if I didn't have those available, and I had a DVX, well, why not? Yes there are other sharper cameras. So?

Okay, so, SHOULD you shoot a feature in today's market on a DVX? Only if you think the DVX is the right choice for this particular picture. If you need a crisp, sharp, shallow-DOF image on the bigscreen, the DVX is not the best choice for that. If you're aiming for DVD release, the DVX is totally fine for that. If the right choice comes down to -- well, I could shoot today, or I could save for six more months to buy more-expensive equipment that won't really make any difference to the overall impact my film will have -- then that makes a pretty good case for going forward with a DVX now.

If you're worried about potential impact on the viability of distribution -- that's a legitimate concern, except that practically no micro-budget indie gets distribution anyway, so why stress about it? If your film is good enough that a distributor wants to distribute it, they won't care what it was shot on. If your film's choice of whether it's going to get distributed or not, hinges on whether you shot it on HD or not, then you really should have tried to make a better film in the first place.

But, with that said, many distributors may indeed ask you for an HD master. You can try up-rezzing DVX footage to comply with that, but it'll never be as sharp as HD-original footage in the first place.

Then again, last micro-budget picture I saw in the theater was "Birdemic". Know what it was shot on? Neither do I. Nor did I care, nor did anyone else in the theater, nor did the distributor. And heck, the "film" was projected off a standard-def DVD.

Of course, if you're in LA, consider that there's probably ten thousand HVX200s, HPX170s, and EX1s out there. Somebody you know has to have one of those, and may be willing to do a very-inexpensive rental or even loan it to you, who knows?

I guess all I'm saying is -- if the overall quality of your film depends on what you shot it on, you aren't ready to make a film. If it's a great film, nobody will bat an eye that it was shot on a standard-def DVX100. And if it's a mediocre film, nobody will care one iota that it was shot on an Arri Alexa. But obviously, you should do the best you can, in every category. If you can get a better camera, you should. It's not something to panic over, but you should put your best foot forward in every category -- actors, script, director, cinematographer, sound, camera, art direction, all of it. Just weigh what you can do against the budget you have, and make the smartest decision.
 
The HMC 150 is affordable to me now and is a definite possibility as well. In regard to the quality of the script an the actors involved I am quite confident in turning out a quality film. Brandon thank you for your gracious offer. I'm sure it was given with the best of intentions. Good luck with your career.
 
The 150 is a substantially superior camera to the DVX in just about every way. You will give up a little bit of sensitivity (500 ISO instead of 640) but everything else is just gravy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top