HPX170 vs PD170

EDV,
many DPs have told you now, that if you lack any skills as a DP or operator, you´ll probably end up with crappy footage.
You also seem to know that both cameras will give better results when lighting is controlled.

A lot of TV stations have adopted the HVX as their VJ camera, shooting primarily under available light conditions.
The PD150 started it, the DVX took largly over and the HVX is now commonly used.
The HVX simply put is the newer and better camera.
Yes, the 150 will be a little fatser f-stop wise, but that´s it.

If you you´ll be your own DP, than you´ll have to learn the basic skills of cinematography.
If you have these basic skills, you´ll be more happy with the HVXs SD image and a "forgiving" scene file.

If you don´t want to learn the skills, I´ll ask again, why bother with the handling of a 170 at all?
 
I have to admit my skills in videography have not yet reached the lofty heights of some of the other people in this board. I am also learning photography, hoping this would eventually lead me into cinematography ( I want to end up doing music videos ), but at the moment I'm just trying to develop my storytelling skills.
Anyway, since other people on this thread have taken the trouble to post examples of their HVX work I thought it was time I posted something of mine.

Here's the HQ version. Just select Source MPEG4 where it says "select a format"

http://eliman.blip.tv/file/1140340/

I basically wanted to see if I could take a seemingly boring subject and turn it into something interesting. I've done longer projects, I just haven't put them online yet.
 
EDV said:
The price difference between the HVX and the PD170 is not that great actually (one is around $4000, the other one around $5000)
Click to expand...

I'm not certain where you are - but in the US you should be able to get a PD170 for almost half the cost of an HVX200a.

A new HVX200a is $5195
A new PD170 is $2799


You get the same problem on the PD170, but it seems the HVX magnifies the effect and makes it more obvious.
Click to expand...

Again, I really think you're getting more into the difference between shooting in SD vs HD than you are the specific differences between these two cameras.
 
dantewaters said:
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.
Click to expand...
But have you used an HPX170's LCD? Which is the one that this thread was about? I'd say you're going to find it plenty adequate even without using the magnified focus assist.
 
Barry_Green said:
But have you used an HPX170's LCD? Which is the one that this thread was about? I'd say you're going to find it plenty adequate even without using the magnified focus assist.
Click to expand...

That's actually one of the main things keeping me from getting a monitor at this stage.
 
Right.

And besides, it's a false dichotomy anyway . . . if I didn't use the 200 or the 170 (or whatever) and was going to use a Mini-DV camcorder, I'd pick the DVX100, hands down, over the PD170. No question whatsoever, ESPECIALLY if you want to do anything remotely cinematic.
 
David Jimerson said:
And besides, it's a false dichotomy anyway . . .
Click to expand...
Completely agreed. Why should the choice be between the PD170 and the HPX170? The DVX does everything the PD170 does and a whole lot more, and a whole lot better (especially audio), so if you're limited by budget, why not ask whether you should be getting a DVX100 instead of a PD170?

If you really, really wanted an HPX170, but were budget-limited to the point where you were actually considering dropping all the way down to a (of all things) PD170, then why not set your sights on an HMC150? As long as you don't need DV tape, the 150 would seem to be the ideal middle ground. And if you do need tape, get the DVX.
 
Don't forget also, the PD-170 is the second worse sounding camcorder ever made. The PD-150 was the worst and began numerous class action lawsuits against Sony for not even acknowledging that the camera had sound problems.

Good in low light, and not a bad lens but other than that, not very good camcorders at all. Sony sold many tens or hundreds of thousands of them based upon the goodwill in the marketplace that was built with the VX-1000 and the TRV-900, both of which I owned and both were overall much better cameras.

The DVX should definitely go down in history as a classic, groundbreaking instrument. I am editing a video I shot three years ago with the DVX and man, with good lighting, the DVX makes REALLY pretty pictures!

Dan
 
Why not delve into the treasure trove and pull out a VHS-C camera or a 3/4 umatic for that matter...


Personally, I've fostered a jack of all trade's kind of career. Having DP'd a bunch, done sound, art department, directed.. produced and edited more crap than I care to count..... ALL for the glory of being able to do things regardless of budget. That's where you want to aim for... that sweet spot of being autonomous so your no budget 170 stuff looks like the bees knees...


cheers
 
HPX170 or HMC150

HPX170 or HMC150

Which would you get? Why?.... are there many other differences other than the
P2 vs SD.

Let me know, Thanks
 
Do you need variable frame rates? I Frame Codec? Uncompressed audio? Those start the list.

What sort of wrk do you do? What sort of computer do you have?

Best,

Jan
 
Personally, I think temporal compression in source media is just a very bad idea that should never have come about.

Get the 170.
 
Jim Simon said:
Personally, I think temporal compression in source media is just a very bad idea that should never have come about.

Get the 170.
Click to expand...
The 170 is the better camera, no doubt. Many more features than the 150. Which is also why it's more expensive.

The compelling argument for the 150, vs. the 170, is price tag. The compelling argument for the 170 over the 150 is features and capabilities.
 
thanks.. i mainly do short films and have recently been increasing the amount of freelance work.
Im running on a MacBook pro but it only has 1g of ram... not that much of a problem so far.
I have been shooting on an HVX-200 for about a year now (our college has 16 zacuto kits) and i am completely in love with panasonic.

I am figuring to get my own as soon as possible for freelance work around cleveland.

Variable frame rates is a major factor in getting a camera and i read about the 170 being great for 35mm adapters which i also plan to buy.
 
The more my business mind takes over... couple with my Scottish blood, the more the 150 seems like a steal for longform shooting, which I'm doing more and more of lately. Then if I shoot 60p, I can get pretty decent slow-mo in post. A 32 gig card, which will allow me to record for 3 hours is like 350 bucks. That's amazing. I'd buy 3 and never have to offload during a day shoot again... all for the price of one P2 card that'll give me 80 minutes..



Jan and all.. do you think it would match up to the HVX in terms of look.. sharpness, image, low-light, etc? That's what I need most right now.. a 2nd cam for interviews, et. cheers
 
To the HVX200A, yes. To the original HVX200? It'll look better in terms of sensitivity and noise. Sharpness will be about comparable. All the same image controls are there. But you'll be getting 4:2:0 color sampling and interframe compression. In 720p mode it'll be a great match, in 1080 mode, maybe not as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top