GH1 vs HPX170

I

Indyreel

Well-known member
The footage I've seen from the GH1 looks awesome, why not use it instead of an HPX170? Sounds too good to be true. But I must be missing something.

Can anyone give me the low down?
 
Why would you use a computer to surf the web, when you can do it on your cell phone?

Why would you use a camera to shoot pictures, when a cell phone has a camera in it?

In other words, there's a world of difference between using a dedicated-for-the-purpose tool, versus using something that's designed for a different purpose. The GH1 is a still camera, that can also record moving images. The HPX170 is a full-on professional broadcast video camera.

So if you want XLR inputs, power zoom, multiple formats, multiple frame rates, 4:2:2 color, intraframe recording, the P2 workflow, remote zoom/iris/focus controls, and video camera ergonomics, you'd want the HPX170.

If you're looking for the cheapest 1080/24p camera on the market that can deliver shallow DOF, and you don't need all the things that a dedicated video camera does, then you'd want the GH1.
 
My thought was that the GH1 was an incredible new invention that rocked the boat. I thought it had better resolution than an HPX170 shooting DVC ProHD and was able to get shallower depth of field without an adaptor, and I thought it was better at delivering virtually noisless video in low light.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Sometimes I get confused with all the different posts.

Thank you.
 
Like Barry said its all in what you plan on using it for.

GH1 Pros

Shallow DOF
Good low light abilities
Less Expensive (in comparison)
Very Portable

Cons

Codec not as good.
Panning "Mud" with fast motion
Less "Pro" features aka XLR, DVCPRO HD, ect.


HPX170 Pros

DVCPRO HD, formats, framerates,
Progressive, good for fast movement
Pro features, XLR, waveform monitor, ect.

Cons

Less good low light abilities,
Need for 35mm adapter for SDOF
Expensive
Less portable
 
Is DVCProHD really that good? It's not a Full HD codec. 720p is 960x720 instead of 1280x720. 1080p is 1280x1080 instead of 1920x1080. The tests that Jack Daniel Stanley did, to me, show the GH1 looks better than the HPX170 at 720p.

I'd argue that the codec being used in the GH1 is better for recording, excluding the possible mud issue. You just need to transcode it to get out of the AVCHD for editing. DVCProHD is an old codec. Just because it's used in the Pro cameras still doesn't make it better.

Pros are usually going to record audio to a separate recording device anyways, so that isn't too big a deal.

Progressive has nothing to do with being good for fast movement. The GH1 is progressive. You just have to remove pulldown, which you also have to do for the HPX170 (in 1080).
 
I tend to agree with Mike. With NeoScene, you get a native 1080p 4:2:2 capture that is pretty good to my eye - maybe not pure 4:2:2 but given the much greater rez of GH1, it's gonna be real close to DVCProHD 4:2:2 off the HPX170.

And resolution, dynamic range and color wise from JDS's test, GH1 is hands down winner, not much of contest to my eye.

And now that I have a Zoom 4Hn, audio is non-issue. Even if I have a camera with good audio, the Zoom beats it handily, syncing is a dream and not running audio cables into a camera is a delight.

By Barry's list, that really leaves the MUD issue, but in my mind, the GH1 is might be a near runaway winner - but not yet. I have not got my hands on one and will reserve "my final answer" until I do
 
Barry, do you think a version of the HPX 170 with the 4/3s sensor of the GH1 is a possibility in the future from Panasonic? I think it would be an awesome cam.
 
I concur. But it's not just the sensor, it's the lens mount as well. Since it's so flexible with adapters there's such a abundance of great lenses that can be fixed to it. With such a version I'd be superduperhappy. Right now I'm superhappy with GH1.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
I concur. But it's not just the sensor, it's the lens mount as well. Since it's so flexible with adapters there's such a abundance of great lenses that can be fixed to it. With such a version I'd be superduperhappy. Right now I'm superhappy with GH1.
Click to expand...
Did your GH1 ever drop frames in 720p/50?
 
Barry_Green said:
In other words, there's a world of difference between using a dedicated-for-the-purpose tool, versus using something that's designed for a different purpose. The GH1 is a still camera, that can also record moving images. The HPX170 is a full-on professional broadcast video camera.
Click to expand...

Again, I get so confused with this site.

Barry says there's a world of difference between the two (in favor of the HPX170) and other senior members are giving me the impression that the GH1 equals or even rivals the HPX170.

I have noticed this in almost every catagory that I've researched here. How is it that opinions can drastically vary on topics that should be much more cut and dry?
 
Indyreel said:
Again, I get so confused with this site.

Barry says there's a world of difference between the two (in favor of the HPX170) and other senior members are giving me the impression that the GH1 equals or even rivals the HPX170.

I have noticed this in almost every catagory that I've researched here. How is it that opinions can drastically vary on topics that should be much more cut and dry?
Click to expand...

Because everyone has a different exact use/need for each camera and different opinions. You have to look at the information (and opinions) in front of you and decide what's best for you and how you want to shoot and what you want your end result to be like. The GH1 is a low cost solution to get an image that has a DOF more like film. Getting that with an HPX170 would cost a lot more. Of course, there's other things to consider.

I'm getting a GH1 so I can get a more film-like DOF, better low-light capability, and sharper picture IMO than my HVX200. I also like the fact that it's a smaller package and less conspicuous which will let me shoot some things differently or that I haven't been able to shoot before. SD cards are a lot cheaper than P2 cards too. The downside... it might be more cumbersome to use (adjusting focus and aperture on the fly for example), no monitoring, and I have to record 2-system sound. There's other pluses and minuses, but those are the big ones for me, and the pluses heavily outweigh the minuses for me. Of course, this is all speculation where I'm concerned. I won't know if I'm keeping the camera until I get it, but if I do keep it the HVX200 is going bye-bye.
 
GH1's rez is def. better than the HPX170 but once again....its all in how your going to use the cam.

I'm shooting short films and music videos and I usually end up adding some sort of film grain or other effect to my HVX footage because it looks TOO sharp (and like HD video) compared to what i want my final product to look like. So gaining rez on the GH1 would not benifit me in that area. But again....its all in your taste and your usage.

I've seen awsome GH1 footage, and I've also seen bad GH1 footage.
 
Indyreel said:
The footage I've seen from the GH1 looks awesome, why not use it instead of an HPX170? Sounds too good to be true. But I must be missing something.

Can anyone give me the low down?
Click to expand...
The week point in using GH1 is the sound. You have no control..
GH 1 missing all external control for light level whit balance.. and so on it´s all in the menu system.
But if you into the nature recording area its some thing for you to look at. The autofocus is extrem with the 14-140 lens this is the firs time if you recording a bird in the sky and you losing it out of frame and the autofocus find i again when its in picture... The OSI is solid like a rock...

I have a 171 and the GH 1 picture have the same color quality they fit easy to mix. in Video production
Think both

If you work as a Journalist in places like Gaza, under war like situations and using the net as a main tool
Start with GH 1, Then you can document the war crime like the falling white Phospors in striking clear video and sell it all over the world.
GH1 is the first product in a new class of reporting device, for reporting at the net, but its not for moovi production like you can do with the 171 if you take 171 to the max level of it´s prestanda
So Think both.
 
I'm getting one because not only is it only $1500, but it comes with amazing glass, and gets really good DOF right off the bat, no adapters.
 
pailes said:
Did your GH1 ever drop frames in 720p/50?
Click to expand...

Nope, not a single one yet. Either in 720 or 1080. Except for the one time when I kept recording while the camera was warning that the battery was running out of juice. About 2 minutes before it auto shut down some oddities in the encoding occurred, exposure flickered and frames were dropped. But that's not really surprising is it? I accidentally did the same with a DV camera once and it took me over an hour to sort the tape sallad out of the camera mechanisms. Don't try that at home kids, remember I'm a professional!

Katten.bjornen said:
GH1 is the first product in a new class of reporting device, for reporting at the net, but its not for moovi production.
Click to expand...

Gotta strongly disagree with you here Cat.bear. GH1 can certainly be used for narrative drama. It's actually already used that way. And more to come, even here in Sweden.

http://vimeo.com/5481513
 
Last edited:
Indyreel said:
Barry says there's a world of difference between the two (in favor of the HPX170)
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything about anything being "in favor of" the HPX170? I pointed out they were different, and I pointed out that a $5,300 camera has a lot more features than a $1500 camera (and, frankly, for the price difference it certainly better have!) I then said "if you need those features, get the 170. If you don't need them, get the GH1."

I did give the example of surfing the web on a cell phone, versus a computer. That's an exactly accurate comparison. A cell phone can surf the web, but not as easily, effortlessly, comfortably, or ... well, using it for that purpose just isn't the same as using a computer! Then again, the cell phone makes better phone calls than the computer does.

I've bought both the GH1 and the HPX170. I know them reasonably well. I think they're both fantastic. Spend some time with them, and see if you come to any different conclusions than I've arrived at.

I have noticed this in almost every catagory that I've researched here. How is it that opinions can drastically vary on topics that should be much more cut and dry?
Click to expand...
Because people have different priorities. For some, the shallow DOF/interchangeable lens issue is the one and only consideration. These would be akin to people who would be happy with a '60's era muscle car. No suspension, no ability to turn or stop, but a huge engine and it roars forward like nobody's business. Give 'em a '67 Mustang and they're happy.

Then there's people who want to be able to do things like, oh, connect their professional microphones... Sync their timecode... shoot variable frame rates... shoot standard-def... monitor what they're shooting... see zebras or a waveform monitor or a vectorscope on the LCD... use a remote zoom controller or a remote focus controller... Pull a chroma key in 4:2:2... interface with other broadcast professionals... shoot multi-camera gigs... the list goes on and on. In a car, those people may very well appreciate good strong straight-line performance, but they also want leather seats and air conditioning, great brakes and tight handling, and a six-speaker stereo system. These are the folks that go for a BMW M5 instead of a '67 Mustang.

Does the BMW cost a lot more? Yes. Does the Mustang win the drag race? Yes, probably. So you pick your flavor.

I'm not "knocking" the GH1. But it's a still camera that shoots video (and sometimes, some exquisitely magnificent video). The other is a purpose-designed broadcast/professional camera. They are inherently different, as different as the Mustang and the BMW M5.

In fact, they're more different than that. The GH1 is a motorcycle, the HPX170 is an M5. Motorcycles are wicked fast and comparatively cheap, and they will indeed get you from point A to point B.

I'm not trying to tell you which is "better". I'm trying to point out how they're different so you can decide which one is appropriate for you.
 
Last edited:
GH1 is the first product in a new class of reporting device, for reporting at the net, but its not for moovi production like you can do with the 171 if you take 171 to the max level of it´s prestanda
Click to expand...

Not quite. You can make the GH1 whatever you want to make it. A reporting camera for the web or a movie camera, is up to the user. It has the capabilities and the quality but is up to the individual to make it work the way he/she wants. Oh, and it also takes nice still pictures.
 
Indyreel said:
The footage I've seen from the GH1 looks awesome, why not use it instead of an HPX170? Sounds too good to be true. But I must be missing something.

Can anyone give me the low down?
Click to expand...

I use the HPX170 because that's what I get paid to rent out and use when I am hired with my gear. No one yet has asked me for a GH1... Though that could soon be changing. Like Barry said, they have very different applications and have been made to respond to different needs and priorities.
 
Mike@AF said:
Is DVCProHD really that good? It's not a Full HD codec. 720p is 960x720 instead of 1280x720. 1080p is 1280x1080 instead of 1920x1080. The tests that Jack Daniel Stanley did, to me, show the GH1 looks better than the HPX170 at 720p.

I'd argue that the codec being used in the GH1 is better for recording, excluding the possible mud issue. You just need to transcode it to get out of the AVCHD for editing. DVCProHD is an old codec. Just because it's used in the Pro cameras still doesn't make it better.
Click to expand...

The point you make confuses two points. One regards the hardware of the camera, and one regards the compression it records to.

DVCProHD is really that good. Its a codec given the Gold Scale on Discovery's delivery scale. I am not looking to pick a fight, but to be fair, DVCPro HD it is a solid codec built into several of the finest camera systems Panasonic has ever built. It has been used as the official acquisition format for two Olympic games and was the format that captured Planet Earth's footage. AVCHD is an impressive format as well, but lets give credit where credit is due and not short change a format that is capable of out-resolving the GH1's crippled AVCHD without a sweat.

With regards to the cameras, its possible the GH1 looks better than the HPX170, though I think the brush reflects the artist's talent, not the other way around... but there are compromises made for the image with the GH1, and Barry pointed out all of them very well. For me, the sticking point is as follows - The workflow for the GH1 has compromises far beyond that of the 170, and lacks several guarantees. The 170 has a larger footprint and a DOF that can't readily be altered. The GH1 suffers from rolling shutter, a long GOP compression scheme that requires transcoding to edit, an audio sync option which isn't up to my needs, and no ability to monitor video.

Mike@AF said:
Pros are usually going to record audio to a separate recording device anyways, so that isn't too big a deal.
Click to expand...

False. Its a big deal. I've been on union shoots where the audio is fed into the camera. They have a boom op and mixer, but the audio and video all end up on the same tape/card. Deal breaker? Maybe not, but big deal because it adds time to post aka costing more money, yes.

Mike@AF said:
Progressive has nothing to do with being good for fast movement. The GH1 is progressive. You just have to remove pulldown, which you also have to do for the HPX170 (in 1080).
Click to expand...

The GH1 has issues with movement two fold. One, the sensor lacks a global electronic shutter creating skewed images when it pans, and two, the long GOP codec in the camera is a crippled version of the full codec, lacking a P frame that helps predict motion for the following frames.

I am not saying the GH1 isn't a great camera, because it is. It is the cusp of film making I couldn't have imagined even 5 years ago. But the HPX170, DVCProHD, and some other slightly older products still have a viable place professionally. And the GH1 will be improved, and refined as Panasonic has done since the days of the DVX, and will grow into a more reliable, unyielding system. But lets not kid ourselves... it's not there just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top