hvx 200 vs hvx 200a

R

Ronster

Well-known member
so i did a shoot out between an hvx 200 and an hvx 200a

here is the link:

http://vimeo.com/2946160

unfortunately there is compression when you compress it down to an internet site.

I put both cameras side by side under the exact same light ( I wanted to see it in a low light situation, this is why the images look dark)

both cameras menus were 0 out. I shot cine-like v on both. Cine like.
720p 24pn

I white balanced both cameras to a white card in the room. No filters were on either camera

I shot both cameras at 180 degree shutter and shot at an f 2.0 on the wide and f 2.8 on the tighter shots. I made sure both cameras had the exact same iris and settings.

The very last shot was both cameras wide open and zoomed all the way out. That was to see how much brighter the hvx 200a was to the hvx 200 when fully opened up at 0db

Another part of the test was I took the db up from 0 to +12


My personal results:

The two cameras look very similar

both shooting at an f 2.0 on the wide shots and an f 2.8 on the tighter shots; the hvx 200a was slightly brighter even when set exact

The noise was the most notable difference, the 200a was less noisy

The more you went up in db the more noticeable this was...the 200a at 12db was still decent while the 200 was very noisy. At +3b both cameras were still pretty close but as you go up you see the difference between the two. Even at 0db you see more noise in the 200.

I felt the 1/2 stop difference reported between the 2 cameras was accurate when I opened up both cameras and zoomed out. It seemed like about a 1/2 stop difference between the two cameras.

I would definitely feel more comfortable using the db in the 200a than the 200. That said I now am more willing to use the +3db and +6db on the hvx 200. It still looks pretty good.

My main reason for doing this was to see the difference between the two cameras and if it were worth it to sell the hvx 200 for an hvx 200a. I think if almost all your work is in low light it might be a good idea. I feel if both cameras have sufficient light you don't really see the difference. So perhaps for a documentary type person the 200a might be more beneficial. I felt the two cameras matched well. The 200a had a bit better of an accurate look when I white balanced on cinelike v, cine like. While the 200 in the same settings had a bit more of warm color to it even after white balancing.

Again these are just my findings. If I could get a great deal on my hvx 200...I would maybe sell it and buy the 200a, but if I couldn't get a good deal I would keep my hvx 200.

Ronster
 
Thanks for the comparson.
A bit hard to judge because of compression but I get the picture (pun intended).

I usualy use tons of light with the HVX. It loves light.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
Thanks for the comparson.
A bit hard to judge because of compression but I get the picture (pun intended).

I usualy use tons of light with the HVX. It loves light.

Frank
Click to expand...

i just watched the test on my imac 24 inch and it was a bit hard to tell some of the subtle differences

I guess on that vimeo screen you could blow it up full screen and although it would look compressed maybe you could see which one looks a bit darker and more noisey??????

honestly I saw very little difference. I think the thing that threw me off a bit was that when I white balanced...the 200a was able to grab a more accurate or true to life color palette. That and the 200a having less noise were the main two differences. When I did the final test of zoomed out and all the way open I would say there was hardly a 1/2 a stop difference between the two cameras. So the benefit really is in the less noise.

All and all if you are working in very low light situations that is where the 200a will be beneficial. But not incredibly beneficial.

Your basically talking a 1/2 a stop and a little less noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top