comparing 170 to 300 on certain criteria
- Thread starter jimstamos
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, there is nothing in any way similar about the 170's chipset to the 300's. The 170 is a spatial-offset CCD block, the 300 is a full-raster CMOS block. The only thing about them they have in common is the size of the chips (1/3").
My ratings put the HPX300 at about 320 ISO, and the HPX170 at 500.
My ratings put the HPX300 at about 320 ISO, and the HPX170 at 500.
Although I have not made any calibrated measurements, I own both an HPX 170 and HPX 300 and with no gain whatsoever, the HPX300 seems somewhat more light sensitive in available, low light environments than the 170? Of course, this is only an observation made with both cameras sitting side-by side in the same room but to my aging eyes, the difference appears more than subjective. That said, I never cease to be amused by all of the hubbub about "low light sensitivity." How many people are actually doing clandestine videography with large, shoulder mounted cameras? And if such secretive work were within one's aegis, the mere size of a shoulder mounted camera would undoubtedly negate its low light abilities. When a subject or scene is properly lit the issue becomes entirely moot. Of course, there are situations where proper lighting is not always possible and certain ENG scenarios might demand the absence of an artificial light source but it would be truly interesting and informative to determine the frequency of such situations.
Last edited:
My tests, other than low light, put the image quality of the 300 significantly cleaner and a more appealing picture.
Not to say that the 170 was bad; it wasn't. But the 300 was better; clearly
Not to say that the 170 was bad; it wasn't. But the 300 was better; clearly