HPX500 vs EX1 (again!)

I

imagefact

Member
Hey gang,

I'm an HVX200 owner looking to upgrade. No camera is perfect and especially in these price ranges. But I do need to make a choice. The EX1's are right now riddled with manufacturing problems and lesser Codec, but the images look incredible to my eye. Meanwhile the HPX500 is an "approved" broadcast quality 2/3" camera shooting to a higher bitrate - but I gotta tell ya, the images seem really soft in comparison.

So it's the battle between specifications - or final output. I was wondering how many HPX500 users are happy with their resolution or are any of you guys drooling over the sharper images on the newer, full-raster camera? To give you an example of what I'm talking about - see this:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=127599

I'm thinking of getting an EX1 along with an AJA IO HD to capture HDMI out to my laptop during high-end indoor shoots, or the built in codec otherwise. Now let's just for the moment, take these issues OUT of the picture:

1 - Price difference
2 - The EX1's problems with Rolling Shutter and ND back-focus issue
3 - The "Shoulder" vs "Hand-Held" debate

I know all these things and let's assume I don't care about the form factor so much, I'll pop the extra bucks for the better choice, and that I walk into B&H photo and go through cameras until I find one that is operating correctly.... a lot of stuff but...

What I want to know is WHY I should still buy an HPX500? Love to read your thoughts on this, because I'm still tempted.

Thanks in advance for your input.
 
You shouldnt buy the HPX. Grab an EX and there youll be happy with the killer resolution (killer resolution is not me being sarcastic, I think it is).

Its great for a prosumer piece of equipment
 
If the EX-1 didn't have so many damned mechanical problems I'd have one. IMO it pretty much stomps the HVX in regards to overall image quality.

Just a shame that it's got production problems. =\
 
2/3 inch chips are nice
being able use digi primes with out a adaptor
great color matrix

as far as the new sharper image cameras. i would not even think of trading my hpx for ex. the images i have gotten along with what i have seen posted here a just awesome.

Don't get me wrong I have seen the ex-1 footage and it is nice but like Noel said it's nice for a prosumer piece of equipment.
 
I dont own either camera, but the test footage from the EX1 i have seen is ****ING beautiful. Untill the scene starts moving a bit more then normal. Rolling shutter I assume, but damn all I have seen is terrible.
 
Comparing the HPX to the EX1 is a waste of time; they are completely different animals designed for different purposes and shoot completely differing formats.

With respect to resolution or image sharpness, the HPX with good glass outshines the EX1 in every aspect, especially if you use any lens adapter (there's rumor of a Pro35 competitor being introduced at NAB). EX1 sharpness is quite good but like any fixed-lens camera it has incredibly deep DOF characteristics, making it look more like video-camera output.

Second, the EX1 shoots XDCAM, which is a high-birate version of HDV, which means it's the long-GOP nightmare in post. Apple's answer to long-GOP is to ingest into a ProRes timeline, don't know what solution is available for PC's with exception to Cineform. The HPX shoots an i-frame codec, DVCPRO which has proven itself time & time again as a superior codec both in color rendition, NLE workflow handling and especially any keying.

The EX1 was designed as the next-step-up for Z1 shooters who either want a tapeless workflow or a better image, but it's still a handheld camera with all the built-in limits of fixed lens, limited inputs and lack of professional connections. The HPX was designed as the "poor mans" Varicam; full 2/3" inch chipset which allows *all* the professional 2/3" inch lens options and other accessories you just can't use on a handheld camera.

Don't get me wrong, the EX1 is a great camera with much better output than the Z1, but it's no competition for the HPX500 - the closest competitor is the F350/355, but even they are still shooting long-GOP XDCAM.

If Sony had given the XDCAM series HDCAM as the codec, then there'd really be some serious brain-bashing to make a choice, but when you consider all aspects of both systems, DVCPRO coupled with 2/3" inch imagers wins hands down in my book.
 
I've said this before in other posts - resolution is not the only factor to consider when considering a camera... It's a very subjective thing.

I currently have an HPX500, but I am not a Panasonic fan per se... I've owned Sony cameras and Canon cameras and they all have their advantages.

In fact, I've bought a new camera for every new major project I've started for the last 6 years, but I think the 500 will be the last one I'll buy for a while. Why?

The picture just looks good.. for many years the elusive "film look" has been sought after by filmmakers accustomed to telecine transfers from super16.

The footage from the 500, properly tuned, looks more like 16mm film than any affordable camera I've seen. The EX1 has excellent resolution, like an NFL football game shot and broadcast in HD... But, do I want my documentaries to look like a super-sharp sports broadcast? No, I don't..

In fact, I regularly use diffusion, SoftFX and ProMists, to knock down the video look, so I'd hardly be excited about more resolution.

This is my opinion only, as I said above, it is a highly subjective thing.. But when I screened the rough cut of BOYHOOD SHADOWS, my current documentary feature, last week for industry types, the first question they asked was how could I afford film with my budget... I just smiled.
 
By the time you spend the money on hpx500, you can get a Red One cam with good Nikon Lenses (Assuming you do Narrative, Music Videos and not ENG).

Come this NAB, when Panasonic upgrades the hvx200 to its next iteration, there will be even less reasons to get the 5x more expensive hpx500. I have owned the hvx200 and demoed the hpx500, there is a minute picture difference but it is not 5x improvement.

Either way, unless I have a paying job now, I would wait till NAB and see what the Red Scarlet and new hvx200 brings to the table. I hope Panasonic also remembers to upgrade the hpx500, otherwise there will be a lot of unhappy hpx500 owners.
 
The EX feels like a toy. When I demoed it that's all I could think of, this little plastic-y thing in my hands. The HVX stops all over it in build quality.
 
Well, actually DX, there are other considerations. I also own and HVX (which I bought two months after the HPX500), so I know that camera too.

Many here and elsewhere go on and on about the look of shallow depth of field and are spending money and time on adapters (I do, as a matter of fact, also own an M2 for the HVX)... With a 2/3" camera you merely stop down to f2 or 2.8 and have a beautifully defined image. Lens adapters are a pain if you have to work fast.

Also, the 500, although heavy, is designed to be handheld, and the controls are intuitive and ergonmically placed. For example, the (user selected) audio dial is at the front edge of the camera so it can be adjusted without taking your eye from the finder - small but important things like that.

The 500 carries 4 cards, maybe not as important now that the 32s are out, but still a consideration.

Although I prefer to make documentaries, I studied at UCLA to be a DP, and have spent many hours on an Elmac Spyder and on a crane... and I still shoot commercials, usually in 35... I like the look and feel of a "pro" camera... I have a Chrosziel matte box and FF on the HVX, but it still feels like an awkward toy..

Personally I would unload my HVX in a second, but not my 500. I do wish the 500 had dial-in WB similar to the Canons though.
 
It's so nice to hear the voice of 1st-hand experience & real-world considerations amongst the babble of "small cameras are just as good" threads... thank you Mac. We too have a 500 and are looking to buy a 200 (as soon as NAB has come & gone). Two different tools for different jobs.
 
In my opinion there is nothing handy about a handycam.. But the prosumer market has brought many more people into the possibility of independent filmmaking, which is a good thing.

Hopefully those people who are shooting with these cameras will come to appreciate the nuances that a seasoned professional brings to the image-making process. That happened in the late 60's when the single lens reflex became available (Honeywell Pentax)... Everyone was suddenly a photographer, and as a result they came to appreciate photography as an art form.

As I've said often when guest speaking, anyone can take a beautiful picture of a sunset on their vacation - a professional, though, has to take that picture on a particular day at a particular time and deliver it as requested by a client.

Too much BS philosophy, but the democratization of filmmaking means that talented people aren't restricted by financial barriers, so undiscovered talent is more likely to surface and be recognized, which also is a good thing...

Sure is getting to be a ***** to judge film festivals though...
 
Handycam sized camera means 75mm tripod head, lower weight capacity fluid tripod head, steadicam merlin vs steadicam Archer, cheaper 35mm adapter and SLR lenses, cheaper crane, underwater housing, lower weight , cheaper car mount ...etc. Very important consideration for narrative indie filmmakers. ENG shooters wont be able to appreciate the advantages of handycam sized camera.

2/3" camera lens will not give you that shallow 35mm DOF nor will you able to take your camera in tight spaces. The only thing that I wish handycam camera has is TC IN/OUT like the canon G1. Sometimes Less can be More.
 
"Sometimes Less can be More." Yes, sometimes! But you cannot use the same hammer on every nail. Neither full-sized or small-sized cameras are the be-all end-all. We all have different needs in the majority of our work. Which is why though I own a 500, I'd like to buy a 200. But, for the majority of my needs, the 500 is a much better choice than the 200. Your needs obviously dictate the 200 (or similar size-factor). It's pointless to insist that one style is always better than another. You need to use the style that best suits your production workflow & methods.
 
Dxmetal said:
2/3" camera lens will not give you that shallow 35mm DOF nor will you able to take your camera in tight spaces.
Click to expand...

You can definitely achieve a shallow depth of field with a 2/3 camera. Of course, you can push that a little more with a 35mm adapter, but I've been a little wary of adapters because much of the sample footage I've seen people post has had some weird vignette problem or another. Some people seem to think that look is cool, but I'm not one of them, it just feels cheap to me.

Also, when you have an adapter, the camera is no longer easy to take into small spaces, or go handheld.

Anyway, I've been tempted by the EX1 because it's sharp (which gives you a little margin for losing sharpness if you put on an adapter) and because I appreciate a 1/2" chip versus a 1/3" chip. Also, I could buy an A and B EX1 for the price of an HPX500 kit.

My concerns with the EX1 are the long-GOP codec (I hated editing HDV footage, which, admitedly, is supposed to be worse to deal with than XDCAM), and the fact that the camera is very unfriendly for handheld applications, and begs a klutzy shoulder contraption.

I guess if the EX1 was a shoulder mount model, I'd get it for sure. But as it is, I'm hesitant.
 
Dxmetal said:
2/3" camera lens will not give you that shallow 35mm DOF
Click to expand...

Well the DOF is lens dependent also, so a 2/3" lens at 200mm will give a shallower DOF than a super 35 with a 50mm lens, so you cant really just make a blanket statement like that. Both at 50mm is a different story. But using appropriate lenses and set up can give a similar look - but this ISNT film right? But 2/3" isnt in the same realm as 1/3" as far as DOF, and the since we are talking about the HPX specifically, regardless of what Pana brings out in 1/3 or 1/2" sensor / ccd or Sonys EX1 there simply wont be the dynamic range of the HPX, a lucky design quirk.
 
It seems that hpx is better or closer to the correct camera for shooting movies that are more character driven. training day, 3 kings, etc. Those movies tend to be very organic looking or not sharp, but for the clean epic movies like matrix,i robot, etc. They seem to be cleaner maybe the ex would be better for that. With that said the sharpness of the EX can be dialed down and the sharpness of the hpx can be turned up.
 
Nik Manning said:
It seems that hpx is better or closer to the correct camera for shooting movies that are more character driven. training day, 3 kings, etc. Those movies tend to be very organic looking or not sharp, but for the clean epic movies like matrix,i robot, etc. They seem to be cleaner maybe the ex would be better for that. With that said the sharpness of the EX can be dialed down and the sharpness of the hpx can be turned up.
Click to expand...


Sorry Im at a loss?

EDIT: To clarify the EX is a 1/2 inch prosumer fixed lens camera.
 
Last edited:
You couldn't shoot any of those movies with either camera as the principal image gathering device. Maybe crash cameras or shaky cams.
 
As Robert said above, you simply cannot compare the two. They're completely different cameras in completely different markets intended for completely different types of users. It's like comparing a Sea King and a Blackhawk and trying to figure out which one is "better." :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top