Looking To Buy HPX 500 What Should I know

Mark Anthony Cedre · December 20, 2007

Hello Everyone, I am looking to buy an HPX 500; anything/what should I know?

The pros the cons, how well will my Fuji 17x lens works with it?

How does it compare to others in its' class or what above its' class does it give it a serious run for the money/compete with?

Additionally, if I were to use my RedRock M2 lens adaptor with nikon still lens (e.g. 85mm 1.8f) would this give me great results to shoot commercials and indi film features....

And finally, does anyone have any footage or (grab)stills of this camera.

Many Thanks "in advance" to all who reply, oh and sorry for the ton of questions.. It is a lot of money for me to invest and just want to be sure of my purchase. Again, Thanks!!!

Kenn Christenson · December 20, 2007

Hello Everyone, I am looking to buy an HPX 500; anything/what should I know?

The pros the cons, how well will my Fuji 17x lens works with it?

How does it compare to others in its' class or what above its' class does it give it a serious run for the money/compete with?

Additionally, if I were to use my RedRock M2 lens adaptor with nikon still lens (e.g. 85mm 1.8f) would this give me great results to shoot commercials and indi film features....

And finally, does anyone have any footage or (grab)stills of this camera.

Many Thanks "in advance" to all who reply, oh and sorry for the ton of questions.. It is a lot of money for me to invest and just want to be sure of my purchase. Again, Thanks!!!

Don't know how well your Fuji lens will work on the Camera. I've got the Canon CAC lens and it's very nice, although the CAC function doesn't eliminate ALL chromatic aberration.

I'd also forget the M2. You'd have to put it in front of your, already, long lens, then put your still lens in front of that - way too much of a hassle to be practical. Just find a way to drop your iris a couple of stops (as David Mullin has suggested, elsewhere) and you'll have your shallow depth of field - the camera IS a 2/3" CCD.

Not to push you away from this forum, but check out DVXUser.com - there are several examples from people who've shot with this camera - commercials and features.

Mark Anthony Cedre · December 21, 2007

Don't know how well your Fuji lens will work on the Camera. I've got the Canon CAC lens and it's very nice, although the CAC function doesn't eliminate ALL chromatic aberration.

I'd also forget the M2. You'd have to put it in front of your, already, long lens, then put your still lens in front of that - way too much of a hassle to be practical. Just find a way to drop your iris a couple of stops (as David Mullin has suggested, elsewhere) and you'll have your shallow depth of field - the camera IS a 2/3" CCD.

Not to push you away from this forum, but check out DVXUser.com - there are several examples from people who've shot with this camera - commercials and features.

Thanks for your reply Kenn, VERY HELPFUL indeed.

The reason as to why I was looking to go with a lens adaptor is due to the fact that the HPX 500 with the Fuji 17x lens provides the comparable effect of a 16mm camera. I really am looking to get 35mm results. I read on another post by Mr. David Mullin who I wish would provide me additional advice as I think he is nothing short of a legendary genuis, read books and articles with the guy in them, he is the best. His quote is below, I wish he could elborate on this sine I am not as inclined as he is. I am looking for stellar film looking results, I know its alot to ask given the equipment I am using.

On a 2/3" CCD camera, you have a similar depth of field to 16mm film. Technically, it is 2.5 stops more depth of field, i.e. once you match distance and field of view by using a shorter focal length on a 2/3" camera rather than a 35mm camera, you'd have to stop down the 35mm camera's lens by 2.5 stops to match the depth of field on the shorter lens on the 2/3" camera.

So if you shoot at T/2.0 on a 2/3" CCD camera, it's like shooting at T/4-5.6 split in 35mm, which is not the end of the world. Even better if you can shoot on some T/1.6 lenses, wide-open, in 2/3" CCD HD. And then you won't have all the problems of using 35mm lenses on an adaptor.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Mark Anthony Cedre

Kenn Christenson · December 21, 2007

Thanks for your reply Kenn, VERY HELPFUL indeed.

The reason as to why I was looking to go with a lens adaptor is due to the fact that the HPX 500 with the Fuji 17x lens provides the comparable effect of a 16mm camera. I really am looking to get 35mm results. I read on another post by Mr. David Mullin who I wish would provide me additional advice as I think he is nothing short of a legendary genuis, read books and articles with the guy in them, he is the best. His quote is below, I wish he could elborate on this sine I am not as inclined as he is. I am looking for stellar film looking results, I know its alot to ask given the equipment I am using.

On a 2/3" CCD camera, you have a similar depth of field to 16mm film. Technically, it is 2.5 stops more depth of field, i.e. once you match distance and field of view by using a shorter focal length on a 2/3" camera rather than a 35mm camera, you'd have to stop down the 35mm camera's lens by 2.5 stops to match the depth of field on the shorter lens on the 2/3" camera.

So if you shoot at T/2.0 on a 2/3" CCD camera, it's like shooting at T/4-5.6 split in 35mm, which is not the end of the world. Even better if you can shoot on some T/1.6 lenses, wide-open, in 2/3" CCD HD. And then you won't have all the problems of using 35mm lenses on an adaptor.

One of the qualities of 35mm is also sharpness. With the amount of glass you'd be using, plus that adapter, you're gong to end up with a MUCH softer image, than just using your zoom lens. I saw a film shot on the Varicam and the Pro35 adapter, not too long ago. True, the film DID have shallower depth of field, but it was also VERY soft looking.

Using the adapter also means you'll be giving up one of the HPX's primary advantages, which is sensitivity.

Mark Anthony Cedre · December 21, 2007

I am finding out little by little that you are correct, unfortunate for me. I just wish there was a fix or a method for getting 35mm DOF with an adaptor or a different lens without going soft on my image. One of the other main reasons (due to the fact that I can not afford a better lens) I am looking to eliminate any breathing that the Fuji 17x (CAC) lens is giving, which is better if I pay high thousands for a real lens. I just don't have that kind of dough. I appreciate your reply, you are truly knowlegable and a wealth of good information. Muchas Gracias!!! aka: Thanks!

BTW, My friend has the equipment I need to accomplish my needs but he won't lend or rent out his stuff. Not even help. Has over 400k in video equip. & toys and NO WORK go fig... But he can afford all that cause he has a PhD --- also known as PAPA HAS DOUGH. Not PhD as in the Academic Degree

Kenn Christenson · December 22, 2007

I am finding out little by little that you are correct, unfortunate for me. I just wish there was a fix or a method for getting 35mm DOF with an adaptor or a different lens without going soft on my image. One of the other main reasons (due to the fact that I can not afford a better lens) I am looking to eliminate any breathing that the Fuji 17x (CAC) lens is giving, which is better if I pay high thousands for a real lens. I just don't have that kind of dough. I appreciate your reply, you are truly knowlegable and a wealth of good information. Muchas Gracias!!! aka: Thanks!

BTW, My friend has the equipment I need to accomplish my needs but he won't lend or rent out his stuff. Not even help. Has over 400k in video equip. & toys and NO WORK go fig... But he can afford all that cause he has a PhD --- also known as PAPA HAS DOUGH. Not PhD as in the Academic Degree

Hey, It's not the money, it's the talent. I used to know the first trombone player for the Dallas Symphony. At the time I was just beginning to learn to play my Uncle's old, used trombone. One night he came over, picked up my trombone and just made it SING!!!

Forget the money - money CANNOT buy you talent. Go make your friend jealous and MAKE YOUR MOVIE. Find a way to make more depth of field an advantage - trust me, I 'd rather have more depth of field and have my subject in focus, than super shallow D.O.F and miss the subject's focus by an inch or two (it's happened to me.) :angry:

Mark Anthony Cedre · December 22, 2007

Hey, It's not the money, it's the talent. I used to know the first trombone player for the Dallas Symphony. At the time I was just beginning to learn to play my Uncle's old, used trombone. One night he came over, picked up my trombone and just made it SING!!!

Forget the money - money CANNOT buy you talent. Go make your friend jealous and MAKE YOUR MOVIE. Find a way to make more depth of field an advantage - trust me, I 'd rather have more depth of field and have my subject in focus, than super shallow D.O.F and miss the subject's focus by an inch or two (it's happened to me.) :angry:

Very motivational, I agree; and you are correct my friend has the toys but no talent. I guess that is why he has NO WORK. I cannot explain how helpful your comments are and making me feel better about my 25k-30k to invest in equipment vs. feeling ashamed that I don't have 400k+ plus to invest. Again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, you really did make my day. I am going to make my movie, I'll finger paint my "Mona Lisa" since I have no brush. In the end, It will be a masterpice.