-
Does the HPX500 kill the HVX200?
Ok I admit that the premise of my title question is rediculous…
But I gotta say. $30k vs what has cost me $12k to feel totally up and running with the HVX200…
Ok so based on a $15-$20k price difference you can’t even compare them, but I’m going to anyways.
I have to say while I personally acknowledge that the HPC2000 is out there it doesn’t really bother me because I can’t afford it in any way shape or form and my particular clients wouldn’t really want to afford the rental.
But I can tell that a few of them look at the small form factor of the HVX and think that its still a camcorder… The HPX500 fits the expectation and makes me want one to be honest.
But enough of that, The fact that there is a 2/3″ HD lens on there that helps in depth of field critical shots and the bigger chips aiding in added low light sensitivity…
Besides small form factor which is obviously helpful for many situations, I’m ready to trade up.
Is there a reason why I shouldn’t feel that way other than that would mean needing to spend another $20k?
Chris Baldwin
Shoulder High Productions
Media of the World; For the World!
https://www.shoulderhigh.com
ne*********@**********gh.com -
5 Replies
-
No, it doesn’t.
I thought that when a 2/3″ true HD camcorder came out for about $20K, I would jump (sell my Sony Z1 and buy the 2/3″). The 500 looks especially appealing: I’d stretch my budget and buy it, if it seemed as if it would do everything I needed for the next five years. It falls short of that. The 2000 seems just about perfect, but unaffordable.
I agree about the depth of field problem and low light insensitivity of the smaller cameras (at least my Z1). But for the money, I’m probably sticking, hoping that competition will soon drive even more value into the $20K arena.
Chris, I agree and disagree with your observations about size. True, the small form factor is a definite plus in certain situations, but I don’t think that people really care whether you have a shoulder-mount camcorder anymore. In the iPod age, small is cool. And when you see shots of little cameras on various network news magazines, you realize that acceptance is pretty broad.
— Bob C
-
If the HPX500 images look anywhere near as good as the HDX900 then the camera will be a winner.
-
[Pat McGowan] “If the HPX500 images look anywhere near as good as the HDX900 then the camera will be a winner.”
True, Pat. But from what I’ve heard, the HPX500 won’t record the new AVC-Intra codec. Being able to use the most efficient codecs is going to be a big factor. Please tell me I’m misinformed about that.
The reason I’m so anxious to get the best comprssion algorithm has to do with the P2 workflow: shoot, offload, erase, shoot…. I’m at least going to wait until the cards are big enough, and the compression algorithm robust enough, so that I can load up for the day, shoot at maximum quality, and do all the downloading once, after the day’s shooting. I am not even sure I’d want to erase the cards after I’ve downloaded them, until there is confirmation that no data has been corrupted. It happens! Call me nervous, but call me again for the next job.
The extra slot for the fifth P2 card, & the AVC-Intra codec, will make the 2000 more of an all-day camera. Or I could just forget this 500 vs 2000 debate, get an XDCAM, and have archival storage from the start…. “I think I’d better think it through again.”
— Bob C
-
Hi.
I am looking into the HPX500, too – even with my Red reservation, but the lack of AVC-I and full raster imager is a real bummer, so I might just get another HVX. It’s a good little cam with all its limitations. Pays for my Red -;)
Gunleik
-
I too am liking the 500- on paper. If its imaging system matches the 900, it will be a sure winner.
While 4 16GB P2 cards offer a reasonable amount of storage, I’d stick a Firestore on the back. I like the idea of my media being in two places.
– Jim
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up