HVX200A, Z7U and HPX-170 newb questions

D

dogmydog

Member
Hey fellows,


I'm thinkin about switchin my dvx100a to a HD cam. But i'd like to try to solve some questions 1st with u guys, if possible.

1- How much does a HVX200 with a 35mm adapter and lenses weight, aprox? How bout a HPX-170 with the same stuff? I ask this cause i have a steadycam that can handle cameras untill 3kg (6.6 lbs).

2- The Sony Z7U can use Canon 50D lenses with an adapter (not the 35mm one)? Like, does buying a Z7U with interchangable lenses excludes the need for a 35mm adapter? Cause i'm buyin the adapter just to use my Canon 50D lenses....

3- My worst complain about the DVX100A is that it needs too much light. I shoot shows and events with low lighting and the results are rly nasty. But I also shoot short movies that are awesome with the DVX, so I'd like to trade for a HD camera that could go both ways...

Sorry for the newb question, ppl and ty for all the help!
 
get a 170 and forget about 35mm adapters.
(my opinion ... 35mm adapters waste light for no good reason ... you want shallow depth of field ... shoot wide open, with filters if necessary ... spend extra money on sound and lights)
write a good script.
get dynamite actors.
 
1- How much does a HVX200 with a 35mm adapter and lenses weight, aprox? How bout a HPX-170 with the same stuff? I ask this cause i have a steadycam that can handle cameras untill 3kg (6.6 lbs).
Click to expand...
the hpx170 is about 1lb lighter than the hvx200. but even at 4.2lbs, add rails, adapter and lens (not to mention a followfocus and mattebox) youre going to eclipse 6.6lb pretty quickly

in my opinion, the hpx170 is by far the best HD camera out there for the money. each one has its own plus and minus points. but for me, rolling shutter makes the sonys a non-starter for me.

and unlike vic i AM a fan of 35mm adapters. youre simply NOT going to get the same depth of field any other way. YES, they do take some work. YES, they do eat light. but in many situations, its simply the only way to get the desired effect. but also be aware, depth of field can ruin a shot just as fast as make it. - use appropriately.
 
Last edited:
dogmydog said:
Like, does buying a Z7U with interchangable lenses excludes the need for a 35mm adapter?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish with an adapter. If you just want to use Canon lenses, then no, you wouldn't need the 35mm adapter. But if you want the shallow-depth-of-field look that a 35mm adapter gives, then yes you will still need that. Just because you can physically mount a Canon lens doesn't mean that it'll give you that "35mm" look. You need a field-of-view adapter to get that look.
 
to VIC: The PD-170 is awesome for the jobs with low light, but im happy with the texture of my DVX, for that. Anyway, i think ur right about the script and actors! I just have to go HD, sooner or later.

to wqnz and Barry: thanks for the enlightment! I have also a Canon XTI, and I shot with the 50mm 1.4 getting awesome results with the shallow DOF. In what way the 35mm Adapter would give me better results than that? And its possible to fit Canon lenses into the Sony Z7U?

Thank you all for the replies!
 
Putting a Canon lens on your video camera *with* a 35mm adapter, will give you the same depth of field as you're getting with the XTI.

Putting a Canon 50mm lens on your video camera *without* a 35mm adapter, will give you identical depth of field to the stock lens (when that stock lens is zoomed to 50mm). So you really gain pretty much nothing, except an f-stop or two of wide-open performance.
 
Because the insides of the videocam work differently then the Canon XTI. I see...
Ty Barry, I wanna be like u when i grow up, hehe. Ur my american idol!

Last but not least: Does the HPX-170 or the HVX200 come close to the results of the PD-170 on low light?
 
the hpx170 is way better in low light then the hvx200... is it what the pd170 is, not quiet, but I havn't shot with that camera in a long long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top