HPX500 or HVX200+32mmAdapter? at DVinfo.net

Robert Krupka · May 20th, 2007, 05:47 PM

I have the fortunate opportunity to spend some money on cameras to be used in a sports event (kickboxing) and in making narrative films. I was thinking of using 3-4 hvx's with the "A" camera using a 32mm adapter with some nice lenses. Now that I see that the HPX500 packages will cost about the same as say, an HVX with a P+R and a bunch of lenses, I have to give it some consideration.

I see a few of you have had some hands on experience with the 500. How is the DoF with this camera? And to those who've worked with the various adapters out there, are they too much of a hassle to work with in a sport/documentary situation?

Leonard Levy · May 20th, 2007, 07:13 PM

I would not try to shoot sports with a 35mm adapter.
You need to be able to focus on fast moving action for sports that would be extremely difficult.
Low DOF is only goodlooking if you are in focus on the subject.

Robert Krupka · May 20th, 2007, 07:32 PM

I wouldn't try to achieve a low DoF in a sports production either, but I'm sure I could find a better zoom lens for the HVX.

But you're right, a 35mm adapter really shines in narrative filmmaking, which i plan to do also.

Mike Schrengohst · May 20th, 2007, 07:39 PM

The HPX500 is probably a better bet for the kickboxing.
You can get some real nice Canon or Fujinon glass.
And you can change lenses on the HPX500 so
you really would not need an adapter.

Andzei Matsukevits · May 21st, 2007, 11:32 PM

to add, adapters loose light, and In most sport event situations you can't add any extra lights. Plus deep DOF looks much more realistic and is better for sports...

Michael Rapadas · May 22nd, 2007, 12:42 AM

I've shot many of my high school sports events using the HVX200 with a M2 redrock and the shots turn out phenomenal . I would think that it is easier to shoot with an adapter while filming a kick boxing match. The hardest part I've encountered was a Track Meet because different events are in different locations, and with the adapter and all my accessories, the camera is harder to move. Please still consider the HVX200 w/ adapter, you can't go wrong. If you experience trouble with it during a "fast-paced" shoot, then remove it and pack it away. Focusing during a kickboxing match shouldn't be as hard as you think. It all depends what your priorities are: if you like the convenience of having more P2 cards (more capture time) and less hassle, then get the HPX, but if you want to work just a little harder, and shoot a little more carefully/selectively, but get a better, more stylistic (and expensive looking) product in the end, then go with the HVX. I PROMISE you cannot go wrong.

Ali Husain · May 23rd, 2007, 12:57 AM

for live sports events, you mostly want the opposite: as large a depth of field as possible... unless you're shooting arty shots for a movie. :) when was the last time you saw shallow DOF, rack focus, etc. on, say, a football game?

Robert Krupka · May 25th, 2007, 01:11 PM

All excellent points, and I thank-you for your replies.

For the kick-boxing, the hvx+adapter's loss of light concerns me. I'd like to see as much of the crowd in the background as I can, and the 2/3" camera would help with that. Michael, I'm interested in hearing more about your experiences shooting sports with the redrock. Which lens did you use? What kind of sports did you have the most success with?

I also want to use this camera in short docs about the fighters themselves using a similar visual style as the "De la Hoya-Mayweather 24/7" documentary on HBO (which I just read was shot with a Varicam and HVX'es). They were definitely using some arty movie shots and it looked beautiful.

My question here is then about the glass included in the HPX500 packages: can you achieve shallow DoF, pull focus, etc. with it? In Barry's review of the camera, he said that there was noticeable breathing going on with the canon lens. How noticeable? Mike Shrengohst, you mention that I can switch lenses on the HPX anyway, so I don't need an adapter. But does that mean I have to deal with $30,000 HD lenses to get anything worthwhile, or do good and inexpensive primes exist?

I'm leaning towards getting the HPX500 and renting an adapter for it when the opportunity for shooting a feature arises. How much artistry am I losing with the fighter docs is my question(well, one of them anyways :)).

May 20th, 2007, 05:47 PM	#1
Robert Krupka Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 26	HPX500 or HVX200+32mmAdapter? I have the fortunate opportunity to spend some money on cameras to be used in a sports event (kickboxing) and in making narrative films. I was thinking of using 3-4 hvx's with the "A" camera using a 32mm adapter with some nice lenses. Now that I see that the HPX500 packages will cost about the same as say, an HVX with a P+R and a bunch of lenses, I have to give it some consideration. I see a few of you have had some hands on experience with the 500. How is the DoF with this camera? And to those who've worked with the various adapters out there, are they too much of a hassle to work with in a sport/documentary situation?

May 20th, 2007, 07:39 PM	#4
Mike Schrengohst Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 355	The HPX500 is probably a better bet for the kickboxing. You can get some real nice Canon or Fujinon glass. And you can change lenses on the HPX500 so you really would not need an adapter. __________________ Mike Schrengohst dvd.pro@verizon.net

May 22nd, 2007, 12:42 AM	#6
Michael Rapadas Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South San Francisco, CA Posts: 91	I'm for the HVX200 w/ adapter! I've shot many of my high school sports events using the HVX200 with a M2 redrock and the shots turn out phenomenal . I would think that it is easier to shoot with an adapter while filming a kick boxing match. The hardest part I've encountered was a Track Meet because different events are in different locations, and with the adapter and all my accessories, the camera is harder to move. Please still consider the HVX200 w/ adapter, you can't go wrong. If you experience trouble with it during a "fast-paced" shoot, then remove it and pack it away. Focusing during a kickboxing match shouldn't be as hard as you think. It all depends what your priorities are: if you like the convenience of having more P2 cards (more capture time) and less hassle, then get the HPX, but if you want to work just a little harder, and shoot a little more carefully/selectively, but get a better, more stylistic (and expensive looking) product in the end, then go with the HVX. I PROMISE you cannot go wrong.

May 20th, 2007, 07:13 PM	#2
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	I would not try to shoot sports with a 35mm adapter. You need to be able to focus on fast moving action for sports that would be extremely difficult. Low DOF is only goodlooking if you are in focus on the subject.

May 20th, 2007, 07:32 PM	#3
Robert Krupka Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 26	I wouldn't try to achieve a low DoF in a sports production either, but I'm sure I could find a better zoom lens for the HVX. But you're right, a 35mm adapter really shines in narrative filmmaking, which i plan to do also.

May 21st, 2007, 11:32 PM	#5
Andzei Matsukevits Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Tallinn, Estonia Posts: 300	to add, adapters loose light, and In most sport event situations you can't add any extra lights. Plus deep DOF looks much more realistic and is better for sports...

May 23rd, 2007, 12:57 AM	#7
Ali Husain Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 141	for live sports events, you mostly want the opposite: as large a depth of field as possible... unless you're shooting arty shots for a movie. :) when was the last time you saw shallow DOF, rack focus, etc. on, say, a football game?

May 25th, 2007, 01:11 PM	#8
Robert Krupka Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 26	All excellent points, and I thank-you for your replies. For the kick-boxing, the hvx+adapter's loss of light concerns me. I'd like to see as much of the crowd in the background as I can, and the 2/3" camera would help with that. Michael, I'm interested in hearing more about your experiences shooting sports with the redrock. Which lens did you use? What kind of sports did you have the most success with? I also want to use this camera in short docs about the fighters themselves using a similar visual style as the "De la Hoya-Mayweather 24/7" documentary on HBO (which I just read was shot with a Varicam and HVX'es). They were definitely using some arty movie shots and it looked beautiful. My question here is then about the glass included in the HPX500 packages: can you achieve shallow DoF, pull focus, etc. with it? In Barry's review of the camera, he said that there was noticeable breathing going on with the canon lens. How noticeable? Mike Shrengohst, you mention that I can switch lenses on the HPX anyway, so I don't need an adapter. But does that mean I have to deal with $30,000 HD lenses to get anything worthwhile, or do good and inexpensive primes exist? I'm leaning towards getting the HPX500 and renting an adapter for it when the opportunity for shooting a feature arises. How much artistry am I losing with the fighter docs is my question(well, one of them anyways :)).