Sell me on it

Hey guys, I'm just stating what i saw, and even what the pany rep himself said after seeing this, along with a host of other people, one being an hpx 500 owner that seemed a little upset after seeing a $5000 camera looking very equivalent in image quality to his $17,000 camera.

In terms of depth of feild, most people doing narative work uses an adapter, so that becomes a non issue for those who light their films.

I don't think neither of these cams will do substantialy better than the other when it comes to big screen blow ups, do to them being the same resolution. Now that hpx 2000 is a whole other story. I almost peed myself when I saw the images coming from that one.

Panny basicly put the hpx 170 into a bigger body and ponded off on people for another $15,000 IMO.

A 200a or 170 with a letus ultimate will put you in a similiar league as the 500 unless your in low light, and even then under the same lighting conditions we had when this test was done, the grain on the 500 was close to the 170.
 
Well I'm glad I have a 170 and brevis setup. :) j/k.... I'm sure they both hold up the same under well lit environments but the 500 would clearly be the winner in low light. Besides, the adapters (including my brevis) introduce grain which the 500 wouldn't when achieving good DOF in good lighting..
 
grains realy not an issue with an sgpro, and to be honest, the sgpro seems to smooth any perceivable grain out on my canon a1.
 
I dont think they pawned it off on anyone. i new when i got the camera it was very closely related to the hvx. After getting the 500 my 200 only worked one time in 6 months so I sold it. If i remember it has been called the hvx's big brother. I personally will get a 170 for a second camera but from what I have seen it will not make me put my 500 on the shelf.
 
reem12 said:
Panny basicly put the hpx 170 into a bigger body and ponded off on people for another $15,000 IMO.
Click to expand...

crap!! you're right. the 500 is just a 170 in a bigger box. panny really screwed me with this one. oh well i guess i could look at the bright side.....

better low light performance
less noise
better dynamic range
chips that are 4x the size of the 170's chips.
better dof without a wonky adapter
4x xlr inputs
not being stuck with a crappy lens
4x p2 slots
a pro 12v battery system that runs most pro accessories as well
i can rent it out for twice as much as i could a 200 or 170

and i must say it's nice to be taken seriously when i pull out my camera. no "pro-sumer" label on the 500....

with the rebate i got my 500 for $8000. i spent another $800 on the lens and $800 on batteries. so altogether i got in under $10k.

i guess when i think about it, i didn't get screwed at all.....
 
cheezweezl said:
crap!! you're right. the 500 is just a 170 in a bigger box. panny really screwed me with this one. oh well i guess i could look at the bright side.....

better low light performance
less noise
better dynamic range
chips that are 4x the size of the 170's chips.
better dof without a wonky adapter
4x xlr inputs
not being stuck with a crappy lens
4x p2 slots
a pro 12v battery system that runs most pro accessories as well
i can rent it out for twice as much as i could a 200 or 170

and i must say it's nice to be taken seriously when i pull out my camera. no "pro-sumer" label on the 500....

with the rebate i got my 500 for $8000. i spent another $800 on the lens and $800 on batteries. so altogether i got in under $10k.

i guess when i think about it, i didn't get screwed at all.....
Click to expand...


Good one..... I don't regret getting the 500 one bit, i love the camera! :beer:
 
I own the 170 and love it but if the two shows I am pitching are bought, I will be the first in line to buy a couple of HPX500s. The DSP and colorimetry may be similar but having the ability to put a high quality lens on the 500 puts it in another league as far as sharpness, latitude and ability to record a better looking signal in low light.

Actually this is encouraging, it means that my 170 will probably intercut quite nicely with the 500 footage so I will always have another option for a smaller, less obtrusive camera for those times when that is needed.

I agree, it is somewhat ridiculous to say that the 170 is as good as the 500. The llst above proves that. Oh yeah, and shooting a small crew, fast moving tv show with a Letus rig? Good luck. As much as I love the image, 35mm adapters are a hack and an ergonomically nightmarish one at that. Love my Letus but I would be much happier with a 2/3" killer quality lens on an 500 for tv production. Simpler, quicker, easier to use and more reliable. And definitely able to take more abuse.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top