I know that HPX500 is in a totally different category than the EX1. However, besides the chip size, body, features and price range, how is the EX1 stack up to the HPX500 as far as image quality/resolution? Will the EX1 get a shallower depth of field with a 35mm adapter than the HPX500 shooting with its stock lens?
Quality of EX1 and HPX500
- Thread starter Lor
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Of course; any camera with a 35mm adapter would get a shallower DOF than any 2/3" camera with a stock lens.
In general overall picture quality they're pretty comparable; the HPX500 has more latitude, the EX1 has more resolution.
In general overall picture quality they're pretty comparable; the HPX500 has more latitude, the EX1 has more resolution.
Barry, when you said EX1 has more resolution, would you mind explain this? I was looking at the HPX500 specs and it does say the HPX500 is able to record at 1080/60i, 30p, 24p which is the same as an EX1. So, how can the EX1 has more resolution than the HPX500?
Barry_Green
Moderator
The recording formats are one thing, the resolved amount of detail is another. The HPX500 doesn't use SD sensors, it uses 620,000 pixel sensors which are quite a bit more than NTSC, but even so, it uses them together as a three-chip block, not individually, and taking into account the spatial offset process, it results in HD images.
You'll find people who want to argue over pixels all day long, but Discovery HD has certified the HPX500 as acceptable for unlimited acquisition, so that should be good enough.
Now, just because it delivers an HD image, doesn't mean that other cameras can't be sharper. The HPX300 and the EX1 both deliver sharper images than the HPX500. Heck, for that matter, so does an HMC40. But there are many, many, many, many things about imagemaking, and about working with a particular camera, that go into it moreso than the ultimate number of discernible pixels in the image.
The EX1 and the HPX500 are in totally different classes, yes. I would say that if you want to compare against an EX1, the HPX300 is the better competitor, since at that point you're talking about equivalent price points and CMOS to CMOS.
You'll find people who want to argue over pixels all day long, but Discovery HD has certified the HPX500 as acceptable for unlimited acquisition, so that should be good enough.
Now, just because it delivers an HD image, doesn't mean that other cameras can't be sharper. The HPX300 and the EX1 both deliver sharper images than the HPX500. Heck, for that matter, so does an HMC40. But there are many, many, many, many things about imagemaking, and about working with a particular camera, that go into it moreso than the ultimate number of discernible pixels in the image.
The EX1 and the HPX500 are in totally different classes, yes. I would say that if you want to compare against an EX1, the HPX300 is the better competitor, since at that point you're talking about equivalent price points and CMOS to CMOS.
basspig
Veteran
According to a review in the Panasonic forum on DVXuser, the HPX500 has 10 f-stops of dynamic range and a sensitivity of F10.
By comparison, the BBC's testing places the EX series Sony's at 11 f-stops and about the same sensitivity. Sony's spec is F10 as well.
It is possible to play with the gamma curves and eek out possibly 12 f-stops from the EX series, but I haven't personally confirmed this. I will say that I have not seen a better picture than that of the EX series. EX3 in particular, because you can put premium glass on it and it really shines.
By comparison, the BBC's testing places the EX series Sony's at 11 f-stops and about the same sensitivity. Sony's spec is F10 as well.
It is possible to play with the gamma curves and eek out possibly 12 f-stops from the EX series, but I haven't personally confirmed this. I will say that I have not seen a better picture than that of the EX series. EX3 in particular, because you can put premium glass on it and it really shines.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I use both of these cameras and if you are shooting 720 the cameras are completely comparable from a resoution point of view.
1080 and the EX shows more detail due to its full raster chips.
The HPX-500 has a more refined image, but has far less menu controls for the image. So you had better like what it is because you can not bend the image very far.
Audio is better on the HPX-500.
I prefer the handling of the HPX-500 as it is a large camera will a real lens.
If you have a set budget, the EX-1 is quite a value at ~$6,000. The HPX-500 with an HD lens will be into the teens.
1080 and the EX shows more detail due to its full raster chips.
The HPX-500 has a more refined image, but has far less menu controls for the image. So you had better like what it is because you can not bend the image very far.
Audio is better on the HPX-500.
I prefer the handling of the HPX-500 as it is a large camera will a real lens.
If you have a set budget, the EX-1 is quite a value at ~$6,000. The HPX-500 with an HD lens will be into the teens.
basspig
Veteran
Other than the fact that the '500 has four audio channels, how else is it better? Does the measures s/n exceed 90dB? Is the low end response 1/2dB flatter? Is it 24-bit/96KHz with preamps that have over 130dB s/n ratio? In the 16/48 world, I can't imagine 'better audio' than the EX series have (with the latest firmware).
Bassman2003
Veteran
Well you got me, I don't have a comeback. I was speaking more from concensus than personal knowledge. I thought the EX had limiters that could not be defeated though.
I am always using the '500 for talking head stuff instead of the EX so I have not really compared them other than knowing the audio from the HPX-500 is really nice.
While I don't have the numbers, I bet others would agree.
I use a Nano flash on both so I am mainly only judging the preamps.
So strike that from the record
I am always using the '500 for talking head stuff instead of the EX so I have not really compared them other than knowing the audio from the HPX-500 is really nice.
While I don't have the numbers, I bet others would agree.
I use a Nano flash on both so I am mainly only judging the preamps.
So strike that from the record
basspig
Veteran
Show me a RightMark Audio Analyzer report for both cameras.. that would be the way to tell.
The limiter on FW 1.1 and up is set properly. On earlier FW versions, it was set 6dB below digital clipping and was interfering with normal audio peaks. On the new version, it's actually an asset, because it prevents gross clipping when you run out of bits (at or above 0dBFS). If you use standard digital recording practices, you'll never have any trouble with the limiter. It's inactive as long as you don't drive the inputs to clipping, which would be bad on ANY digital recording system.
I'm going to be relying 100% on my EX3's audio this Saturday.. I have a client who's son is entering an international piano competition, but she's a single mom and lacks the money to pay for a full-service production. Also she does not want it to look over produced because that might disqualify him to the judges, so I've agreed to bring one camera and run a pair of studio condensers into the camera's audio jacks. That's the budget recital video for $500.
EX's audio is PCM, so whether you use SxS or Nano, it's uncompressed.
The limiter on FW 1.1 and up is set properly. On earlier FW versions, it was set 6dB below digital clipping and was interfering with normal audio peaks. On the new version, it's actually an asset, because it prevents gross clipping when you run out of bits (at or above 0dBFS). If you use standard digital recording practices, you'll never have any trouble with the limiter. It's inactive as long as you don't drive the inputs to clipping, which would be bad on ANY digital recording system.
I'm going to be relying 100% on my EX3's audio this Saturday.. I have a client who's son is entering an international piano competition, but she's a single mom and lacks the money to pay for a full-service production. Also she does not want it to look over produced because that might disqualify him to the judges, so I've agreed to bring one camera and run a pair of studio condensers into the camera's audio jacks. That's the budget recital video for $500.
EX's audio is PCM, so whether you use SxS or Nano, it's uncompressed.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Mark, I know you have done a lot of good work on the EX audio. I would like to compare them as well if I get the time.
The good thing about the Nano is the audio is in 24bit goodness!
The close mic piano recording will be a good test of the preamps. Especially if the condenser is near the hammers.
The good thing about the Nano is the audio is in 24bit goodness!
The close mic piano recording will be a good test of the preamps. Especially if the condenser is near the hammers.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Maybe not in its price range.
And it always depends on how you view.
I've seen 35mm > HDCAMsr to a BARCO DP100 and it annihilates an image from these small-form cameras even though it's only got a tiny bit more resolution. The colour and dynamic range are not in the same ball park.