HPX170 vs PD170

[EDV]

Before you disregard this comparison as utterly absurd let me explain myself.
The Sony PD170 would be a BETTER choice for some, not just because it's cheaper, but because it will let you do more.
Buying a HVX or a HPX170 only works if you've got access to a G5 or equivalent, and are ready to spend thousands more in P2 cards and other accessories.
Did I mention the need to hire a DP and have a lighting budget?
I've seen countless short films and videos on this board and I know what the HVXs are capable of producing. In the hands of an experienced DP, and in cleverly lit conditions, the HVXs produce some spectacular visuals. But take these two factors away, and the HVXs can also produce some awful opaque visuals, or at the other end of the spectrum, some way overexposed-over lit visuals. The PD170 on the other hand, will produce more consistent, predictable results, and handle all sorts of difficult lighting conditions well. It is, of course, possible to get awful images with the PD170 as well, but my point is, most of the time you don't need a DP or an expensive lighting set. You can get consistently good visuals without much of a budget. And in this business consistency = reliability = satisfied clients.
Feel free to disagree.

 

[n8ture]

I've seen crap come from both cameras as well as great looking footage.

I edit my HVX footage on a 1.67GHz G4 Powerbook. Works just fine.
I also have a Sony PD-150 and it's a pain in the a s s to sit there and wait an hour to dump an hour of footage. Heaven forbid if I get a timecode break and have to start all over again.

The HPX will come with a 16 gig card free in the box. Sure P2 is expensive but I remember spending a couple hundred at a time buying mini-DV tapes as well.

The HPX170 will have predictable results as well. Like any camera it's a tool and if you don't know how to use it well, you won't get the best out of it.

My PD-150 sits in it's case unused and has been that way since I got my HVX. Can't wait for my 170 to get here.

Consistency and reliability is your responsibility. Either camera will give it to you.
If you're saying that the PD170 is a better camera because you don't have to work with it to shoot good quality stuff than you're probably going to lose gigs because you're not putting in the effort to be anything more than average. What separates the ho hum for the great is their ability to get all they can from their camera and put in the effort to go beyond what everyone else is doing.

 

[Barry_Green]

There is no conceivable circumstance where a PD170 could produce an image superior to an HPX170. None.

If you want to deliver a DV tape to your client at the end of the shoot, the PD170 could do that. Or if you simply can't afford the HPX170, then the PD170 might be in your budget. But other than those two reasons, there is no conceivable imaginable circumstance where a PD170 could be considered in any way equal to or superior to what an HPX170 could do.

 

[Jockomo]

I'd gladly trade my PD170 for your HPX170.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Probably no need to add to the posts here...but I couldn't resist.

The Sony PD170 would be a BETTER choice for some, not just because it's cheaper, but because it will let you do more.

As Barry mentioned - the only thing the PD170 would allow you to do that the HPX170 doesn't is record to DV tape.
On the other hand, the only thing the PD170 will record to is DV tape.

Then again, if you need to record to DV tape you could always go for an HVX200 or 200a - and still have the options to do much more with the camera.

Buying a HVX or a HPX170 only works if you've got access to a G5 or equivalent, and are ready to spend thousands more in P2 cards and other accessories.

First off - completely not true.
You can edit DVCProHD footage on much less than a G5.
Most people's minimum specs say a 1ghz G4 or above (on the Mac side, I'm not well versed on the PC side of things).
That's now a nearly 7 year old computer that can be gotten for under $300.
Not saying I'd want to run that system (any more than I'd want to go back to a PD170).
But that's the bare minimum.

And while there is no need to spend "thousands" more on accessories - sure you could spend more.
Then again we're talking about a camera whose base price is almost twice what the PD170 costs.
We're also talking about a camera that shoots 1080/720/480 DVCproHD/50 and DV.

So in the end - why wouldn't it be more expensive?
It should be more expensive.
The HVX200 can literally do everything the PD170 does - and much more.
And the HPX170 does everything the HVX200 does but shoot to DV tape.

These are not exactly apple to apple comparisons.
So comparing their prices doesn't even make much sense.
(actually comparing these cameras at all doesn't make much sense to me).

Did I mention the need to hire a DP and have a lighting budget?

Huh?

I suppose you're saying that because the PD170 can shoot in lower light conditions without introducing as much noise?
If so, that is a very very different thing from saying you need a DP and have to have a lighting budget.

I've shot countless things with my HVX with all available light - no DP, and a crew of one person (me).
Here's just one example: www.austinconnoisseur.com

You can get consistently good visuals without much of a budget. And in this business consistency = reliability = satisfied clients.

As someone else already mentioned - that is possible with any camera.
The onus falls on the person behind the camera to deliver consistency.

Both cameras can deliver good images.
But give the HVX200 or the HPX170 to the same person - and they will create better images everytime than they would with the PD170.
No question. No contest.

Feel free to disagree.

Will do.

 

[Spartacus]

(...)but my point is, most of the time you don't need a DP or an expensive lighting set. You can get consistently good visuals without much of a budget. (...)

Why bother with a PD170 then? Just get one of these "Youtube-Cams" with direct upload and don´t forget that radioshack microphone on sale right now...:huh:

 

[wgzn]

you've got access to a G5 or equivalent

thats complete B.S.! i edit DVCPROHD on my old 1.0ghz powerbook G4 in the field all the time with zero problems.

the original post sounds like sour-grapes to me...

 

[mainstreetprod]

Luis-

Just looked at the Lamberts BBQ clip at the link you posted and was impressed by the visuals you were able to get in available light. I'm pretty sure I could not accomplish that with my HVX, assuming that restaurant was lit like most I have been in. Any settings secret that might help? Do you have
a 200A or original 200?

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Luis-

Just looked at the Lamberts BBQ clip at the link you posted and was impressed by the visuals you were able to get in available light. I'm pretty sure I could not accomplish that with my HVX, assuming that restaurant was lit like most I have been in. Any settings secret that might help? Do you have
a 200A or original 200?

It's the original 200, that was shot sometime last year.
It was awfully dark in there - but right on the edge.
And we shot in the afternoon - so we had some decent natural light coming in through the windows. For the interview it was just a case of putting him in a decent spot.

Some of those shots (quite a few in fact) were bumped up in post too - don't forget that.

 

[TR16MM]

Very nice work~

 

[EDV]

There is no conceivable circumstance where a PD170 could produce an image superior to an HPX170 [...] there is no conceivable imaginable circumstance where a PD170 could be considered in any way equal to or superior to what an HPX170 could do.

Okay. First of all, I never said that the PD170 could produce nicer footage than the HVXs. If all you care about is getting the "film-look", with outstanding colors and resolution, irrespective of cost, the HVX wins hands down.
But if you're (like many of us on this board) limited by budget considerations (I am only referring to ADDITIONAL expenses here, ie. hiring a DP, renting some lighting equipment, buying a $1200 P2 card) the HVX would probably not be your best choice. Sure, you can do a music video, and even a short film with the bare HVX, but unless you are a DP yourself, it will have that dark, opaque "if only we'd lit that scene properly" look for the most part. You can get away with using ambient light sometimes, but if you're going after "the film look", there's no way around it: you gonna need a lighting budget. Even if you only spend a few hundred $$ per project on lights, that creates the need for other things, such as a field monitor ($2000 +).
I'm assuming here you won't go near 35mm adapters and multi-camera shots.
By the time you've done your first project (ie. a short film), you'll find that, eventhough it looks great, the HVX puts limits on the amount of projects you can do, because the costs are so high.
Had you chosen the PD170, you could have probably done 5 documentaries with the same budget! That's what I meant when I said the Sony PD170 will let you do more!
And please don't compare the PD170 with those "youtube cams". The PD170 may not have "the film look", but it still has the "broadcast" look.

 

[Steve Laramie]

I will agree that an average wedding videographer would be happier with the pd170 vs the HVX

 

[dantewaters]

I see what you are saying...

The PD can deliver shots with bare minimum tools.
I have owned a VX2100 which is basically the
same camera minus the XLR connectors. I will say however that any 1/3 chip camera will look flat with colors and all, when compared to their 2/3 chip brethren.
There is a place for 35mm adapters (even on a PD170).

Lighting is key to any production (even outside in broad day light) or I should say controlled lighting. Anytime you shoot without that control you run the risk of a bad shot, and who wants that when they are being paid to do quality work? (be it $300 or $3000)


Bottom line cameras aside, it is all about your passion, and the time/skill you put into your work. There are folk who overexpose/underexpose (even on a PD170), and it looks like crap but I wouldn't for a second blame the camera, because in the end a camera can do nothing without it operator not even RED/THE VARICAM.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

If all you care about is getting the "film-look", with outstanding colors and resolution, irrespective of cost, the HVX wins hands down.

Between those two cams, sure.
But if all you care about is getting the 'film look' with outstanding colors and resolution, irrespecitve of cost, then I suppose you'd shoot on a RED One, or something else at that level.

I'm not trying to be ridiculous here - just pointing out that essentially all you're saying is that if you don't have a lot of money you might be better off with a PD170 than an HVX170. And considering one costs half of the other, I can't disagree with you if those are the budget constraints.

There is a reason I got an HVX200 instead of an HPX500.
Is there any instance where an HVX200 is going to be better? No.
But I could afford one and not the other.

But if you're (like many of us on this board) limited by budget considerations (I am only referring to ADDITIONAL expenses here, ie. hiring a DP, renting some lighting equipment, buying a $1200 P2 card) the HVX would probably not be your best choice.

I'm not certain where you got this idea that you need to hire a DP everytime you shoot, or rent a ton of lighting gear. I think that's what most people who responded are reacting to.

Can you shoot with a PD170 without a full crew and lighting gear - of course.
Can you shoot with an HVX200 without a full crew and lighting gear - of course.

Will both cameras look better with a full crew and lighting gear - of course.

I'm not trying to be hard headed here - I just don't see where you got the idea that an HVX requires so much additional equipment.

You can get away with using ambient light sometimes, but if you're going after "the film look", there's no way around it: you gonna need a lighting budget.

In the previous page I linked to some of the work I've done with a bare HVX and zero lighting. That was 12 episodes of a web series shot over the course of a few months, all shot by one person with nothing more than an HVX, a tripod, and a lav mic.
I would say you can definitely get away with using ambient light more than just 'sometimes.' Do those episodes look as good as they possibly could? Of course not.
But do they look decent? I think so.

And as far as if you're going for the 'film look' - well of course you're going to need a lighting budget irrespective of what camera you're shooting on.
Getting a cinematic look is all about lighting (and set design, but that's another topic).
Nevermind the fact that the PD170 is interlaced only - so you're going to have an even tougher time getting a 'film look' out of it.
In this scenario perhaps a better comparison would have been the differences between a DVX100 and an HVX200.

Even if you only spend a few hundred $$ per project on lights, that creates the need for other things, such as a field monitor ($2000 +).

How does spending money on light create the need for a field monitor?
I'm not really proud of this - but I've never once shot with a field monitor with my HVX - both when shooting with a lighting package and without.

All I've ever used is the cameras LCD screen - and as bad as people say it is, the focus assist works perfectly well.

Again - would I rather shoot with a monitor? Of course.
But is it a necessity? Not by a long shot.

I'm assuming here you won't go near 35mm adapters and multi-camera shots.

I've done both.
And I've done both at once...
so again, definitely possible.

By the time you've done your first project (ie. a short film), you'll find that, eventhough it looks great, the HVX puts limits on the amount of projects you can do, because the costs are so high.

Once the cost of the camera is spent - I really don't see the costs of shooting with an HVX anymore expensive than shooting with a PD170, save for maybe hard drive space needed for the footage. But at that point you aren't talking about the difference between the HVX and the PD170 specifically - you're just talking about the difference between shooting SD and HD (which really seems to be more what your point is, I guess).

And if all you're saying is that shooting in HD can be more expensive, then sure I guess I agree with you. But that didn't seem to be what you were getting at originally.

I don't mean to get into a big debate here - I simply don't want others who are coming here to learn to read your original post and be left with the impression that shooting HD or with the HVX200 is out of their reach. Many of the things you stated simply seem exaggerated and blown out of proportion. We may agree to disagree - but I feel the proof is in the pudding, and there are numerous examples on this board and others of people doing great HD work with the bare minimum of resources on the HVX and other cameras in that pricerange.

And please don't compare the PD170 with those "youtube cams". The PD170 may not have "the film look", but it still has the "broadcast" look.

I know that wasn't aimed at me - but just for the record, I shot with a PD170 for years.
It's a totally solid and reliable camera, and definitely more than good enough for broadcast.
As far as I'm concerned it's the best DV camera Sony ever put out.
It's far from a 'youtube' cam. But on the other hand, SD is also far from HD.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Very nice work~

Thanks.
:thumbsup:

 

[dantewaters]

All I've ever used is the cameras LCD screen - and as bad as people say it is, the focus assist works perfectly well.

Again - would I rather shoot with a monitor? Of course.
But is it a necessity? Not by a long shot.

I would say I have to disagree here...
Call me inexperience, but for live (uncontrolled events a monitor is a must) because pressing focus assist, to see how sharp ya subject is can really become a pain especially if you are run an gunning.

But I wont say it is the pitts just for live run and gun it can be a bit tedious, the only other option is auto focus, but who wants to really do that for pro work?

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I would say I have to disagree here...
Call me inexperience, but for live (uncontrolled events a monitor is a must) because pressing focus assist, to see how sharp ya subject is can really become a pain especially if you are run an gunning.

But I wont say it is the pitts just for live run and gun it can be a bit tedious, the only other option is auto focus, but who wants to really do that for pro work?

I'm totally with you - it does become a pain, and it is tedious....
...but it is doable (in my opinion anyhow).

At least, I've done it.
Is it enjoyable? Not really.

I guess I just feel like the benefits of shooting with the HVX outweigh the pain of using the focus assist. Of course that's because we're talking about shooting HD.
But if we wanted to go back to a more 'apples to apples' comparison - if I were shooting DVCPro50 on the HVX there would be no need to use the focus assist.

So I really think the issue being brought up here is the difference in cost and effort between shooting HD vs. SD -
and that's a very different topic than PD170 vs. HVX200 (or HPX170).

 

[talteregor]

I agree with what everyone is saying on this thread but I think you are all missing the red flag here. This guy says you need a DP with one camera and not with the other. Hello...I've been a DP for quite a few years, and over that time I've shot with everything from the PD150, to the dvx, and the F900. Even the F900 can look like crap if it's not lit well or operated properly.

To say that you can get away without understanding how light works and just shoot without those skills is like when digital first came out and everyone was saying "see you don't need a DP you don't need to light it but it looks like film and is great" I have to say the difference between quality footage has little to do with the camera but the capability of the DP/operator behind it.

If you don't want to hire a DP, guess what, you just became it (or whomever you handed the camera too). Start studying the craft and you'll start appreciating what a DP can bring to the table. In the mean time your images will improve as well.

 

[cheezweezl]

to the op: why are you on such a shoestring budget? obviously you would want to shoot with the best camera you can. and no question the hvx200 or hpx170 blows away any dv cam. so why are you choosing to settle for such a low amount of money that the pd170 is your ceiling? wouldn't you rather shoot with good lighting? wouldn't you like to have a talented dp at your side? raise your game a little and you will be glad you did.

this agression will not stand, man...

 

[EDV]

to the op: why are you on such a shoestring budget? [...] wouldn't you rather shoot with good lighting? wouldn't you like to have a talented dp at your side?

I would. I also wouldn't mind a $3000 field monitor, a 35mm Letus adapter and several thousand dollars worth of Nikon lenses. But I am realistic. That's just way over my current budget. The price difference between the HVX and the PD170 is not that great actually (one is around $4000, the other one around $5000), it's the "extras" that have me worried.This thread has "shed some light" on whether the extras are truly necessary, but I still have my doubts. I guess I've seen too many short films where the HVX footage was really dissappointing (even if the cinematography was excellent) because it had relied on natural light. You get the same problem on the PD170, but it seems the HVX magnifies the effect and makes it more obvious.