HPX300/370 vs Canon 5D

Cees Mutsaers

Cees Mutsaers

Veteran
Beside the shallow DOF and maybe the higher light sensitivity of the D5 are there any other advantage of the D5 over a HPX300. What are the drawbacks of a D5 ? As far as I know the D5 is H.264 and 4:2:0 and has no XLR inputs. Does it shoot progressive (as far as I understand only 25 fps and not 50 fps). How are the rolling shutter issues compared to the HPX300? Gives the D5 or in general a 35 mm sensor cam a more sharp image?
 
Last edited:
Cees Mutsaers said:
How are the rolling shutter issues compared to the HPX300? Gives the D5 or in general a 35 mm sensor cam a more sharp image?
Click to expand...

I shot a short film with an HPX370 and I was going to use a 5d for a couple shots where I wanted shallow focus, but the dynamic range of the 5d couldn't match the HPX's (which surprised me, I had thought the difference wouldn't be noticeable). The HPX also resolves far more detail (real detail, not sharpening applied to the image ala 5d), but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Rolling shutter is vastly better on the HPX. We were shooting relatively low light, and the HPX did fine...might've been different if it were darker, but on the other hand the 5d devolves into ugly digital looking noise, whereas the HPX has pleasant film grain style noise.

5d has size and shallow DOF on its side. And it can take better stills.

The 5d generally has a really nice overall look to the images. The HPX has its own really nice look too though, so this one kinda comes down to personal preference.
 
5 d has shallow DOF and can have a beautiful look for portraits, but it also has too many faults you have to work around. Then when you get to post , the range possible for grading is really far more limited than the AVC i footage you get out of either the 300 or 370.
 
I started this thread because someone was telling that HDSLR is the future and cams like the HPX are surpassed/old fashion. To be honest I never researched HDSLR's untill yesterday evening (and only very quickly) so I wanted to know what the general feeling was about this "new" type of filming tool.
 
HDSLR's for shooting video will hopefully will be dead in a few weeks. Too bad they aren't already.

If you need a decent FF still camera, stand by to buy some Canon 5d's because once the large sensor video cams come out, I think they'll be a dime a dozen.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
I started this thread because someone was telling that HDSLR is the future and cams like the HPX are surpassed/old fashion. To be honest I never researched HDSLR's untill yesterday evening (and only very quickly) so I wanted to know what the general feeling was about this "new" type of filming tool.
Click to expand...

The HDSLRs have faults for sure... but most people on this site are pissed off that their expensive elitist cameras don't look so good anymore (but that's technology for you). So I'd take the opinions on here with a grain of salt, but most every site has some bias. I recently used a HPX 5000 and a 7D to shoot and outdoor sporting even and I can tell you that when properly adjusted (with a custom profile) I could expose for allot more with the 7D. Call it DR or not, 7D no doubt has more exposure range, latitude's a different story though, because once you clip the whites... they're gone forever. Not to mention it was all deep focus and it turned out fine without any artifacting (you'd really have to hunt for them). Again, they're all good cameras though. The HPX's do resolve more detail... but they look like video... HDSLR's are softer but look like 35mm film. It all depends what you're shooting. I would never use a DSLR for a documentary... and I would never use a HPX for a music video or short narrative.

The reason HDSLRs haven't "dropped dead" is because besides film and Red... nothing comes close to the "feel" of the footage. In terms of "look" and "feel" the HDSLR's stomp most things dead.

But yea, HPX's are old fashion. Even when not comparing them to HDSLRs. They are giant monstrosities with tiny sensors. The future is large-sensor, modular, and hand-held... look at the new Epic and Scarlet... Epic's shooting 120fps in 5k RAW in a package not much bigger than a DSLR. There is no reason for giant shoulder-mount cams anymore. They're simply counter-productive to the film-making process.

BTW... You should probably just rent both cameras and try them for yourself first... You're not going to get a straight-up answer from anyone, especially here.
 
Last edited:
bwhitz said:
The HDSLRs have faults for sure... but most people on this site are pissed off that their expensive elitist cameras don't look so good anymore (but that's technology for you). So I'd take the opinions on here with a grain of salt, but most every site has some bias. I recently used a HPX 5000 and a 7D to shoot and outdoor sporting even and I can tell you that when properly adjusted (with a custom profile) I could expose for allot more with the 7D. Call it DR or not, 7D no doubt has more exposure range, latitude's a different story though, because once you clip the whites... they're gone forever. Not to mention it was all deep focus and it turned out fine without any artifacting (you'd really have to hunt for them). Again, they're all good cameras though. The HPX's do resolve more detail... but they look like video... HDSLR's are softer but look like 35mm film. It all depends what you're shooting. I would never use a DSLR for a documentary... and I would never use a HPX for a music video or short narrative.

The reason HDSLRs haven't "dropped dead" is because besides film and Red... nothing comes close to the "feel" of the footage. In terms of "look" and "feel" the HDSLR's stomp most things dead.

But yea, HPX's are old fashion. Even when not comparing them to HDSLRs. They are giant monstrosities with tiny sensors. The future is large-sensor, modular, and hand-held... look at the new Epic and Scarlet... Epic's shooting 120fps in 5k RAW in a package not much bigger than a DSLR. There is no reason for giant shoulder-mount cams anymore. They're simply counter-productive to the film-making process.

BTW... You should probably just rent both cameras and try them for yourself first... You're not going to get a straight-up answer from anyone, especially here.
Click to expand...

The HPX500 is an old camera. The HPX370 is light years beyond in technology and produces gorgeous footage. And honestly I'm not a huge fan of the look of the 7d. The 5d is nice and I can accept a preference for it, but the 7d is really not in the same class. Having come from shooting on the 5d I was really disappointed with the video I got from the 7d. Not a chance I'd pick a 7d over the HPX370 unless I really really really needed shallow focus.

Not to mention the high-end HPX's are the same kind of cams used to shoot Planet Earth...Panasonic's pretty good at filmic images (let's not forget why the DVX was such a big deal). Anyone really being honest with themself knows the main strength of DSLR's is the big sensor allowing shallow DOF...the look of the image is a lot more subjective. It's alright if you're okay with clipping highlights, but I can't underexpose to roll off highlights on DSLRs like I can on the HPX370.

I would honestly reverse what you said...I'd much rather use a DSLR for docu work because of its size and because most people think you're taking stills, not video. For music videos and narrative work I move the camera a lot which can be a real problem on the DSLRs because of their slow sensor read time. Also: no on-board XLR. Also: HPX is already a very comfortable shoulder mount cam, so no need to deck it out with complicated accessories. Also: Professional exposure tools.

I don't own any camera. I have access to a variety of tools and just make the best decisions I can for each project. It's hard to justify buying an expensive camera when better ones keep coming out.
 
Just choose the right tool for the right job. HPX 301/371= News, "Run`n´Gun" etc., 7D/5D= Scenic Work, Music etc.. Of course, Cameras like the AF100 or the new Sony PMW-F3 are really interesting and opens a new Dimension to us. But sometimes i dont want shallow DOF, need a Zoom-Lens with Wipe and safe Backfocus etc... for News etc... So i think both kinds of Cameras have a right to exist and the new big-chipped ones will not replace "Old fashioned" ones like the HPX.
 
Personally I mainly use my HPX302 for the audio inputs... in most cases I find the shot from the 7D and GH13 are better....

Ask the same question in the 5D and 7D thread and see where it ends up....

Anybody want to buy a HPX302....

Cheers
 
I don't think its a versus question. These cameras have different strengths. I just shot a doc on an uninhabited island in the middle f'ing nowhere with 14 principal characters. The 370 was a dream for that project and I have a long list of reasons why. If I had to shoot the same thing with a 5D I would have thrown it off the reef and the list of reason why would be quite lengthy and sound.

So its not either or. I love the 370 and I plan to keep it as my workhorse camera, something I can pick up and shoot without resorting to franken rigging . I also plan to have a large sensor camera in stock for those kinds of projects......
 
Gabrobot said:
The HPX500 is an old camera. The HPX370 is light years beyond in technology and produces gorgeous footage. And honestly I'm not a huge fan of the look of the 7d. The 5d is nice and I can accept a preference for it, but the 7d is really not in the same class. Having come from shooting on the 5d I was really disappointed with the video I got from the 7d. Not a chance I'd pick a 7d over the HPX370 unless I really really really needed shallow focus.

Not to mention the high-end HPX's are the same kind of cams used to shoot Planet Earth...Panasonic's pretty good at filmic images (let's not forget why the DVX was such a big deal). Anyone really being honest with themself knows the main strength of DSLR's is the big sensor allowing shallow DOF...the look of the image is a lot more subjective. It's alright if you're okay with clipping highlights, but I can't underexpose to roll off highlights on DSLRs like I can on the HPX370.



I would honestly reverse what you said...I'd much rather use a DSLR for docu work because of its size and because most people think you're taking stills, not video. For music videos and narrative work I move the camera a lot which can be a real problem on the DSLRs because of their slow sensor read time. Also: no on-board XLR. Also: HPX is already a very comfortable shoulder mount cam, so no need to deck it out with complicated accessories. Also: Professional exposure tools.

I don't own any camera. I have access to a variety of tools and just make the best decisions I can for each project. It's hard to justify buying an expensive camera when better ones keep coming out.
Click to expand...


I dare ANYONE to look at this Music Video and tell me it is not AMAZING = Shot on 7d/t2i/16mm

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?228599-MUSic-ViD-with-7D-16mm-Remote-Helicopter-t2I

Embrace technology people, DSLRs are the present and future
 
I own a 300 and a 7D. Both are great cameras. Both have good and bad things about them. If you need shallow depth of field the 7/5D is great, on the down side if you use it to shoot a shot with deep depth of field you will get a lot of moire which sucks to fix if you can. Also the 5/7D will skew and jello if you even breathe on it. And audio is not good.

The 300 is great for shoulder mount (which I also own a rig for the 7D). Setting up a shot in a run and gun situation is a BIG up for the 300, getting focused and exposed takes longer on the 7D. The 300 is 10 bit which is great for the color fidelity and works way better on chroma screen than the 7D.
On the down side unless you are shooting long the 300 is not going to give you that limited depth of field.

Both are great tools and you just have to know the strong and weak points of each to choose the right one for the job you are working on.
 
I own both a 5D and Hpx 300. I believe if you know their strengths and weaknesses they are both great cameras in the right hands and situation.

If you want easy operation and quick change in focal length, various frame rates built in, ND filters and a better codec HPX.

I have a zoom's for 5D so not that big a deal for focal length changes but not everyone does.

If you want easier audio recording and focusing options, HPX.

I use H4zoon for separate audio recording and sync in post. Without a sound man it can be challenging, I thought I was rolling on an interview a while back and got nothing.

If you want just about everything in focus, HPX.

5D really gives you control over what is in focus on screen, an amazing tool when it comes to that.

If you want a film look, or cinematic look, hands down 5D.

The HPX even at its long end of the lens doesn't give you as nice DOF as the 5D does.
I can get nice DOF at 200 mm with the 5D 4 feet from the subject, I need twice or three times the room to get close to the same results with an HPX and it doesn't look as shallow.

They are different tools for different looks and jobs, they cut fairly well together. I can tell them apart even in wide shots because I've used them together so much. Most people I show them to can't right away. You can place a 5D in some cramp quarters and get shallow DOF that you can't with HPX. Try mounting a HPX onto a car to get driving shots, or tight shots of someone driving or a sound bite in a car. It can be done but it require far more rigging and stabilizing equipment.

I won't be buying an AF100 anytime soon, the Lenses I use on the 5D don't work presently.
The money it takes for anyone who is on a budget will still sway them to the DSLR's.
4,500 for the body VS 2,500 plus lenses is significant to a lot of people.

As far as picking one up for nothing, have you checked the resale value of the HPX 300?

This is just my humble opinion on the subject.
:happy:
 
ccastro said:
If you want a film look, or cinematic look, hands down 5D.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but have you tweaked the settings on your HPX? Because I just shot part of a short film and was playing around grading a couple shots and I was really happy with the soft tonal changes in the image. I turned off noise reduction (hate the artifacts that show up), turned detail enhancement completely off, used the cine gamma plus DRS (was shooting everything in 720 anyway because of slow-mo) and brought the blacks up a bit. Then I made sure to underexpose somewhat for the most part to avoid too much clipping in the overcast sky.

Edit: Keep in mind that with the 10-bit color space, a flat gradable image is sheer joy to work with!
 
Hi Gabrobot, I have tweaked my settings and I still like the look I get from the 5D, believe me if I could get the same look from the HPX I wouldn't use the 5D. Don't get me wrong, under the right settings and circumstances the HPX gives most cameras in its price range a run for their money.

The 5D requires much more work and gear, can you PM me your settings, I'd love to try them out.
 
When you say "nice DOF" you probably mean "shallow DOF". So it would be nice that everyone uses the latter else people think that you mean high DOF (which means that everything is sharp in the frame).

ccastro said:
I own both a 5D and Hpx 300. I believe if you know their strengths and weaknesses they are both great cameras in the right hands and situation.

If you want easy operation and quick change in focal length, various frame rates built in, ND filters and a better codec HPX.

I have a zoom's for 5D so not that big a deal for focal length changes but not everyone does.

If you want easier audio recording and focusing options, HPX.

I use H4zoon for separate audio recording and sync in post. Without a sound man it can be challenging, I thought I was rolling on an interview a while back and got nothing.

If you want just about everything in focus, HPX.

5D really gives you control over what is in focus on screen, an amazing tool when it comes to that.

If you want a film look, or cinematic look, hands down 5D.

The HPX even at its long end of the lens doesn't give you as nice DOF as the 5D does.
I can get nice DOF at 200 mm with the 5D 4 feet from the subject, I need twice or three times the room to get close to the same results with an HPX and it doesn't look as shallow.

They are different tools for different looks and jobs, they cut fairly well together. I can tell them apart even in wide shots because I've used them together so much. Most people I show them to can't right away. You can place a 5D in some cramp quarters and get shallow DOF that you can't with HPX. Try mounting a HPX onto a car to get driving shots, or tight shots of someone driving or a sound bite in a car. It can be done but it require far more rigging and stabilizing equipment.

I won't be buying an AF100 anytime soon, the Lenses I use on the 5D don't work presently.
The money it takes for anyone who is on a budget will still sway them to the DSLR's.
4,500 for the body VS 2,500 plus lenses is significant to a lot of people.

As far as picking one up for nothing, have you checked the resale value of the HPX 300?

This is just my humble opinion on the subject.
:happy:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top