HPX170 vs 5D

hyphygreek

hyphygreek

Well-known member
So my friend insists that I get a 5D over an HPX170... So i wanted to see opinions on this. I'm getting into shooting nightclub events, a few commercials, a few music videos, but this camera will be used for short films a lot. So pretty much a well rounded camera that can work in all those fields.

ps I know this is the HPX170 posts but please try not have bias. THANKS!
 
This has been hashed out to death on these boards. Those two products are pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum.

5D is great at low light and super-shallow DOF. It can, in the right hands, make beautiful footage. And it takes killer stills. And it uses interchangeable SLR lenses. And it's a little cheaper, at $2699 for the body.

But that's about where the advantages stop. Onboard sound recording is lousy, it has extreme moire and aliasing, and it only shoots at 24p and 30p. You'll be dealing with jello and other CMOS rolling shutter issues, double-system sound with a separate audio recorder, and it's pretty lousy at wide shots. Close shots or shallow-DOF shots are where it shines (and shines very brightly!) Wide shots, blech. And for monitoring, it only gives you about an SD signal output. No autofocus during video, no useful zooming during video, OIS only if the lens offers it, etc. Doesn't even have a headphone jack. And you can't record more than 12 minutes in any one take, so things like interviews or events will be more complicated (it doesn't even offer timecode). And it occasionally overheats. Remember, it's not made to be a video camera, it's a stills camera that has a video feature on it.

HPX170, on the other hand, is a professional video camera, so it has many more features aimed at shooting video. Zebras and a waveform monitor for judging exposure, professional monitoring options including HD-SDI and component, power zoom and autofocus, variable frame rates, 720p and 1080p and 1080i modes, slow-mo and fast-mo effects, viewfinder and separate LCD, interval recording, loop recording, timecode and the ability to sync timecode for multi-camera productions, professional XLR inputs, phantom power support, high-quality audio recording, manual audio level control, and hey - a headphone jack so you can monitor your audio! Firewire streaming to a computer, 4:2:2 color, intraframe encoding, etc.

I think in all ways, for recording video, the HPX170 is the product that's more appropriately engineered for that job. But what you're not gonna get from it, is the shallow-DOF look. Just isn't gonna happen, unless you bolt on a 35mm adapter. And that's a dealbreaker for a lot of folks. That's pretty much the deciding factor you should be considering first and foremost -- how important is that shallow-DOF look to you? Because that one answer will go farthest towards helping you decide between these two.

So the 5D is a little cheaper, but then you have to buy a few things to make it shootable for video (at the minimum, something like a Zfinder, an audio recorder, and a CF card). And you'll see lots and lots of folks buying handheld shooting rigs, because you pretty much can't shoot telephoto or even medium shots on a DSLR handheld, without the jello interfering; you really need some sort of brace (even if it's just a $60 SPider Brace).

So for a minimal basic shooting kit, it'll end up costing close to the same price as an HPX170.

If you think about the 5D as a "video camera", it's sunk. Instead, think about it as a "digital bolex". Just like a Bolex, which had limited runtime, no ability to record sound onboard, etc... think about the 5D like that. You wouldn't want to go shooting lectures or events on a Bolex, you'd find the HPX170 far more suitable to those jobs; well, same thing with these. Technically yes, someone could try to shoot an event on a 5D, but -- why? There are much more suitable products for that job.

So it really comes down to a question of convenience vs. shallow DOF. If you are willing to jump through the hoops a DSLR asks of you, in order to get the amazingly cinematic shallow DOF shots it can deliver, then it's the right product for you. If you cannot jump through those hoops (your workflow or what you're shooting just won't allow for it, or you just don't feel like it) and you're willing to live with the deep DOF of the HPX170 (or put up with the hassles of using a 35mm adapter on it), then -- get the 170.
 
We are really moving away from "which camera" to "Which Cameras" should I buy.

The cameras available today are so inexpensive and produce such great shots that I really believe we will never see one camera to rule them all.

I own a 170 and 7D. They both go out equally. I love them both and I hate them both. When I use each one for its strengths I always have a blast shooting with them.

Truthfully I would get a second hand HPX170 and a 7D or T2I w/ a nice fast zoom like 16-50 F2.8.

I have moved from a which camera per project work flow to a which camera per shot work flow.I am doing a gig now where 90 percente is 7D and 10 percent is HPX170. It looks great and I got to use each camera for their strengths.

get em both.
 
barry and jason pretty much summed it up. there are a LOT of common "video camera activities" that a DSLR just isnt suited for. remote zoom and iris control being the two key ones for me.

i do a lot of jib work. and there just isnt a cost effective (if at all) way to control zoom, focus and iris on a 5D perched 8' up on a jib.

i have an hpx170 myself and recently sold my brevis 35mm adapter rig to get a 5Dmkll because i thought it would be less of a hassle. the more good things i read and saw about the 5D made me start thinking id sell my 170 as well and just get an ultra-tricked out 5D setup. in fact i was just moments from putting my rig up on the forum here. but then i did a quick inventory of the work i do and thought about the jib. and that stopped the presses right there.

here is my suggestion to you. if you ever do ANY traditional video work (ENG, run and gun, events, etc) a 5D wont work well for you. get the hpx170.
AND if you NEED that cinematic DOF and low light stuff, instead of getting a 35mm adapter rig, just get a 5D for that. it will be give or take the same price as an adapter rig, a whole lot less involved and will work WAY better in low light
 
Last edited:
barry, you should just keep a text file with your post in it so you can just copy and paste every time this question has asked. Might save you from the carpal tunnel :)
 
I own an HPX-170 and a T2i (550D). To be honest, the 170 has been my bread and butter, while the T2i has given me some impressive looking "demo" material (so far). It's also helped me start learning the technicals of photography, and for that I'm grateful.
 
Totally agree with all the folks here. I have multiple cameras for many reasons; right now my main combination would be an HPX170 or HMC150 with a GH13 for the shallow DOF shots.
 
Sounds good to me guys thanks. I was also told to get an fx1 and a t2i. This is a hard decision. I have the clients to do work but I can't rely on my school and my friends to get the camera from.
 
in many respects, the new hpx 370 outclasses the 500 nowadays in just about every way, one would think barry would be all over dat avc intra ^^
 
Really, Barry? I figured you'd be primarily working with a decked out HPX-500 or something similar.
Click to expand...
Only when something like that is called for. I prefer the smaller size and form factor of something like the 170 or 150 most of the time. And it's all subject to going on the ol' ebay once the AF100 arrives! :)
 
xmephestox said:
in many respects, the new hpx 370 outclasses the 500 nowadays in just about every way, one would think barry would be all over dat avc intra ^^
Click to expand...
The 370 does indeed offer a compelling cost to peformance ratio. The 500 outperforms it in sensitivity and in having no rolling shutter and in shallower DOF, but in pretty much all other ways the 370 has the advantages, and the 370 is much less expensive. If I was still shooting ENG or corporate, I'd be hard pressed to justify spending more than the 370 costs. Although I must say ... the forthcoming HMC80 looks *very* tasty. Full-size shoulder-mount, with HMC40 imaging, XLRs and BNCs, and probably $2500 street price... the camera market is crazy right now.

But yeah, my eyes are all on the AF100 right now. That looks like the ultimate combination of cinema-style shallow DOF and video-camera functionality and features and ease of use.
 
hyphygreek said:
Barry should I wait for the af100?
Click to expand...
Well, that all depends on what you're doing. I always say: if you need something now, buy the best available right now, and go put it to work.

If you don't NEED it now, why buy now? There'll always be something faster/better/cheaper/etc down the road.

So -- if you can wait, then that means you don't actually need it now, right? So why buy? Why not wait until you need it?

On the other hand, what could you do with something betwen now and then? Because, just because you buy something now that doesn't "lock you in" to anything! If what you really want is an AF100, but it's not gonna be out for six months, that doesn't mean you have to twiddle your thumbs for six months. You can buy a GH1 or a 7D or an HPX170 or an EX1 or whatever right now, and put it to work for six months between now and then, and then sell it on ebay when the AF100 (or Scarlet or whatever it is that you really want) finally comes out.
 
No updated announcements at all; it's all still the same as from at NAB, so "under $6,000" and no mention of a kit with lens.
 
So one of my dads friends knows the deadliest catch guys who live in Sacramento. So I'm going to see what they think and some of other sources and ask your final opinion for my type of work Barry. Thanks a lot for the help you're the man.
 
Barry_Green said:
Only when something like that is called for. I prefer the smaller size and form factor of something like the 170 or 150 most of the time. And it's all subject to going on the ol' ebay once the AF100 arrives! :)
Click to expand...

Wow, we're so much on the same page here it's ridiculous!

Barry_Green said:
The 370 does indeed offer a compelling cost to peformance ratio. The 500 outperforms it in sensitivity and in having no rolling shutter and in shallower DOF, but in pretty much all other ways the 370 has the advantages, and the 370 is much less expensive.
Click to expand...

I do like the specs on the 370, but if I had the money, I'd pick a 500 just because it uses CCDs. Couple that with the new Red Rock M3 and you'd have quite a rig to produce some stunning images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top