-
HVX300 vs. HVX500 white paper
I am looking for a detailed review of the HVX300 and HVX500 to help with our choice between the two. We are ready to retire our D600.
-
16 Replies
-
Hi John,
Don’t think that there is such a paper anywhere. They are very different cameras with a huge difference in price. If you are looking for a camera that will give you the same or better lowlight performance as your D600 then I would say you should go with the HPX500.
Any other concerns or needs?
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, HPX500, HPX300, HPX170, HVX200A
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
Our local dealer stocks the 300 but not the 500, so we can’t see side by side.
Our challenge is how our business has evolved in the past 15 years. We compete in two markets. For a long time the D600 was the ticket for entry in a Beta SP town. Top of the line glass and a Macie setup and we were golden. Today we compete against 100B and 200A on lower-end SD projects, so we bought a 100B. Love it. Use it on SD projects all the time where we mix 100B on b-roll and D600 on stand-ups. For higher-end projects we rent a 3000.
Time to lay down on the couch.
We have decided to go all P2, but still see two-level (3 really) camera offering. 100B for single-man lower-end work, Beta SP for those few clients who still demand a tape right out of the camera and a rented 2000 or 3000 for high-end projects. What is missing for us is the workhorse in the middle that the D600 used to fill. (Once the D600 requires over $2K of service it is toast). The tough question …… is that work-horse a 300 or 500 ?
When using 2000 or 3000 we shoot -3. Both are much better better at 0 than D600 at low-light. 100B is +3 in same situation. But there is an obvious better look with 2000. Part of the challenge is that light sensitivity is more important on lower-end work. Usually use Arri 200 Pocket par HMI on high-end projects.
Do you have any information of users who have bought HPX500 and used top quality (ten year old) broadcast glass for SD work ? Is that a valid compromise in a cost driven situation ?
-
Hi John-
The BBC has white papers on the hpx500 (not sure if they do on the 300 yet). https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml
It’s a tough call: the 500 is 2/3″ CCD w/four card slots. The 300 is 1/3″ CMOS w/two card slots but does AVC-intra 100, is 10-bit full-raster 1920 X 1080, and also has a wireless slot. I think a side-by-side look, is in order 🙂
Regards,
Dave J -
We have done a side by side by side. 300, 500, and a 3000.
The 300 is a great 2nd camera for the 500. However we were using the 18×4.2 lens not the 17x that comes with it. We also have the ACM-17 to switch between lens if we ever need to. Can you tell the difference yes. Can you tell after the upconversion to 1080i ?
The 300 is a great 2nd or insert camera, We have done a few music events where the 300 is the on stage camera with the 18x and the 500 has the 22x lens. The work flow,timecode,etc work fine. Both have the Vari frame rates.
We tested all three cameras on a 24 Panasonic LCD. We rent the cameras. The 300s go out alot more then the 3000.300 blacks v 500 blacks = 300 not quiet as strong in the black department. But for 10k, it looks great.
-
Hey John-
Coming from a fine 2/3″ SD camera like the 600, I would definately lean toward the 500 with it’s 2/3″ imagers. That little extra available control over your depth of field really means alot for professional work, especially if you’re working with ENG-style lenses.
As for SD glass, I used a high-end SD wide zoom with my HDCam (full 2.2m 1080 imager) for a couple of years and all I ever got was repeat calls for more. The picture looked fantastic on the air (HGTV and Food Network shows) and everyone was quite happy. However, that SD lens I used was only two years old at the time…not ten.
In the case of the 500, with it’s pixel-shifted SD chips, I would bet that your SD lenses would get you by until you can afford to make the jump to proper HD glass. Be sure to get a good HD monitor and test the lenses carefully. Some will do better than others. I know…that’s heresy for some here, but the real world sometimes gets messy. Personally, I’d use a dirty coke bottle for a shot if it got me the look I wanted…it’s all about the result.
Funny, a lot of “indy filmmakers” seem to gravitate toward the HPX500…not just for the price, but because they think the picture has a slightly softer, more “filmic” look than many other 2/3″ HD cams out there. You might really want to rent one and do some tests before you run that credit card….good luck!
J Cummings
Cameralogic/Chicago
cameralogic.tv
HDX-900/HDW-730S/DXC-D50 -
As an owner of the HPX-500, It will get you very far.
Steve Eisen
Eisen Video Productions
Board of Directors
Chicago Final Cut Pro Users Group -
I saw your Panasonic trade in post. Do they offer a like deal on any other models ? 2000 ?
-
Hiade in offer is only on the 3700.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, HPX500, HPX300, HPX170, HVX200A
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
This is a funny thread. Think about how far we’ve come in just a few years…
He’s considering upgrading from a $50K SD cam to a lower-end $11K HD camera…and either one will pretty much kick the stuffing out of that “old” Betacam.
I mean…how cool is that?
J Cummings
Cameralogic/Chicago
cameralogic.tv
HDX-900/HDW-730S/DXC-D50 -
As I research the HPX500 and HPX300, I notice that the 500 does not offer AVC-Intra or Proxy, even with the add in cards. But the 300 supports AVC Intra natively and Proxy with the add in card. Is this up to date information ?
Since AVC Intra does have some real advantages as does the Proxy, the lack of these features does seem to make the HPX 500 a bit behind the times.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up