HPX170 Lens Wobble Improved

[Dino]

I am very sad to say that after some brief test shots with my HPX170 and Letus Ultimate/Nikon primes, I will have to return the camera. There is a horrendous amount of play/slop between the body and zoom ring. When mounting a 35mm DOF adapter, it is exacerbated, causing a huge side to side/up/down shift, especially with a follow focus.

This is certainly more evident with the weight of a 35mm DOF adapter/prime lens, but even a wide angle adapter or matte box could be an issue. I hope this is just this HPX170, but would like to know if anybody else has noticed slop between the body and zoom ring? This is not an issue I had with an HVX200A or EX1.

UPDATE:

The lateral play in the HPX170 lens is quite evident at long focal lengths when trying to manually focus. This is a problem when just trying to use the camera in a normal way. The image shift if very obvious and would ruin any take. Below are some sample clips from forum members:

http://homepage.mac.com/segarza/hpx170/imageshift.movhttp://vimeo.com/1873268
http://itchyhousefilms.com/films/tap.mov
http://www.pitchproductions.com/HPX/...test-small.wmv (http://www.pitchproductions.com/HPX/HPXlenstest-small.wmv)

[Daniel.Valle]

uh-oh.

well, I still don't own a DOF Adapter, but I hope there's a workaround here.

[Dino]

Even without a 35mm DOF adapter, but with a follow focus and on-lens matte box, this front
end play could be a big problem. The image shifts from side to side while focusing, really incredible how sloppy this camera is between body and zoom ring. I am in shock.

[Luis Caffesse]

Hm, this could be bad.
I haven't been able to mount my Letus just yet - have to get a step up ring for it.
As soon as I do, I'll test it out - but I'd be interested to hear from anyone else using an adapter.

[Jay Rodriguez]

are u saying this is visible in the footage? on the lcd? not sure what u mean....

if it's in the footy, can u post some of it?

[alexdias]

This can be a problem to a lot of potential users.

But it surprise me, since with the DVX100 (which has the same 72mm size lens) was never a problem.

[soarprod]

is that because of the single mount point of the letus? I wonder if it will affect SGPRO users like myself.

[DM_rider]

I set my redrock and micro x up on my hpx and had no problems. But, it's a completely different system.

I do notice the movement though now that I look at the camera... eh...

[Danielisnotadrummer]

It's probably just your particular camera then. Because mine is fine

[DM_rider]

It's probably just your particular camera then. Because mine is fine

you don't have side to side movement in the lens? if you don't, maybe this is a problem that only a certain batch of cameras share.

[Daniel S. Williams]

No mine's rock steady man.

[Danielisnotadrummer]

Yeah same here. I dont see any problems


but then again, I have the brevis

[Brian@202020]

I hooked up my Extreme with no problems.

[Dino]

I have now put a second support under the Letus Ultimate, this one with a screw into the adapter, whereas I didn't before. I am very happy to say that all is good with the world!
The 170/Ultimate combination is as stable as with a 200A or EX1 now--but that doesn't mean there isn't too much play between the zoom ring and body, it's just that the Letus support is holding it in place as far as side to side or vertical movement.

Anybody with Letus Extreme or Ultimate, please let me know your results with the HPX170.

[Leo Versola]

Unfortunately, yes. I have the same problem and I'm pretty sure every HPX170 will exhibit this problem.

To verify if your lens has this problem, the easiest way to test is:

1) Lock the camera down on a tripod
2) Focus on an object
3) Grab the lens shade with two hands; one on each side and gently rock it right to left; you will see the image shift on the LCD. Then, look at the lens while doing this and you will see the 'slop' Dino is referring to.
4) Try the same thing only up and down; much less movement in this direction.

I can see where this will cause problems with 35mm adapters but possibly negligible with ones that mount like the SGPro or RedRock where they lock solidly to the rails.

I can also see that it will be worse when using a follow focus due to the added torque and less so if manually focusing by hand on the 35mm adapter.

Hmmm, what to do, what to do? I plan on using mine extensively with an adapter and cannot have the image shift AT ALL while racking focus during a shot.

All the HVX200a and EX-1 owners... Are you absolutely sure your lenses don't do the same thing? I'm guessing not since it would have been uncovered fairly quickly just as this was...

[Kholi]

People who are saying that it's not happening please test his method out. I would think that it might be due to snorkel up on adapters and not having proper bracket/support that's included with the Letus Extreme and Ultimate...

But, if it's inherent to the HPX170 then I think I'm glad I postponed my purchase.

[Dino]

Kholi,

I use snorkel up mostly. I hadn't used a screw between the support and the Ultimate. None came with two supports-one that came with the Ultimate, the other with the V2 system. I'd like to get a knurled thumb screw to make it easy to install. Do you use a screw that goes through the support, into the adapter?

I think this issue with the HPX170 is serious and want to know if there are differences between cameras. This is my first palmcorder, I've been using 2/3" cameras for 25 years,
but I find this lack of precision shocking. I had front end slopiness with the Ultimate, but
once I really torqued every allen head, things came good--but I don't know how to fix this
HPX170 issue.

[Kholi]

Yeah, it honestly sounds very scary. Not something I want to be dealing with but, it could also come from snorkeling up. Although Leo says he gets it without an adapter.

I use, and have always used, a support beneath my Adapters. Extreme or Ultimate, they both had/have a threaded bolt that connects the rod support so that no weight what-so-ever is on the front assembly of my camera. I also always go snorkel down, my reason for sticking with the Redrock setup.

More people chime in on this. I'm a few days off of setting up my order again.

[weixiang623]

i know what you guys are saying, but when my LEX is mounted, with the Z-Rizer (snorkel-up position) it's rock solid, and follow-focus does not mess up the image

[davetronic]

i haven't tested mine with my ultimate tonight, but will do so tomorrow and report. as far as the support goes, i wouldn't dream of mounting the ultimate with the hvx or hpx without the bracket it came with. in fact, it's the first thing i do as it also clears up any horizon alignment issues from the get go.

[Dino]

i know what you guys are saying, but when my LEX is mounted, with the Z-Rizer (snorkel-up position) it's rock solid, and follow-focus does not mess up the image

Willis,

Are you using a screw to go through the lens support into the Letus? If so, take
out the screw, and if you have a follow focus, you won't believe the twisting and
shifting side to side the whole camera will exhibit while focusing. The image in the viewfinder or monitor has horrendous side to side shifting. I think the screw makes all the difference with the lens support.

[Leo Versola]

Well, if I hadn't just sold my Extreme I could have tested it. But, I do think that if the adapter is firmly seated in place and doesn't move, it would be a non-issue.

However, for the folks who plan to use a follow focus natively on the HPX170 focus ring, it will definitely prove to be problematic... Perhaps the solution might be to use something like the VariZoom Lens Controllers instead.

[Kholi]

Willis,

Are you using a screw to go through the lens support into the Letus? If so, take
out the screw, and if you have a follow focus, you won't believe the twisting and
shifting side to side the whole camera will exhibit while focusing. The image in the viewfinder or monitor has horrendous side to side shifting. I think the screw makes all the difference with the lens support.

To be honest, you shouldn't be using it without the screw if it's the part I'm thinking about. that's what it's there for.

[Dino]

To be honest, you shouldn't be using it without the screw if it's the part I'm thinking about. that's what it's there for.

If that's the case, why didn't Letus provide a screw? I have two of the new supports, one that came with the Ultimate, one that came with the V2 Rods.
No screw either time. A blue knurled thumb screw would have been the right way
to do this.

Regardless, I think Panasonic has a big problem on their hands. As Leo mentioned, trying to use a FF with the built-in lens will be a disaster. This is
not good. My first ownership experience with a palmcorder and it's a piece of sh--.

[Kholi]

I actually had a screw with both of my rod support brackets. Hmmm.

[Luis Caffesse]

Hopefully someone can slap a FF on one of these soon and check it out.

I'm going to try to get a step up ring tomorrow so I can test my 170 out with the Extreme.

[weixiang623]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/weixiang623/IMG_0245.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/weixiang623/IMG_0246.jpg

the Z-Rizer doubles as a bracket. no need for screws.

[Dino]

I actually had a screw with both of my rod support brackets. Hmmm.

Interesting. I'll have to ping Aaron. Have you spoken to Hien about the B4 Relay
recently. I read it won't be out until the end of the year. Bummer.

[Dino]

Willis,

That is similar to the Letus riser, it is curved for the adapter to sit on, but that didn't come close to stopping the side to side play. The screw is absolutely necessary with the Letus V2
Rods. The 170 front end is way to loose otherwise. Have you gone through full focus travel
with something like an 85mm prime?

[weixiang623]

Jeff,
When it sits on the Z-Rizer, it sits on pretty tight, I made sure of it by adjusting the baseplate a little lower so I can lift a millimeter up and let it sit tight on the rizer with no play, also i'm doing little adjustments with it right now, but the way the z-rizer is shaped, it does not allow the adapter to move. ill post pix soon.

[wgzn]

i did the wiggle test on my 170 and sure enough. there is about 1/32" of wobble left to right, but none vertically.

havent hooked my brevis up to it yet. but when i get to the studio tomorrow morning im riggin it up.

[Dino]

Willis,

Please try pulling focus with your FF and watching a monitor or viewfinder. Hopefully you're Z-Riser is holding everything tight, but the V2 setup must use a screw or I'm screwed!

[Dino]

i did the wiggle test on my 170 and sure enough. there is about 1/32" of wobble left to right, but none vertically.

havent hooked my brevis up to it yet. but when i get to the studio tomorrow morning im riggin it up.

Yes, this is exactly what I've got. I've never seen a lens in my life with play like that. Utterly shocking for a supposedly professional camera.

[weixiang623]

the Z-Rizer holds everything tight, no play whatsoever, even when pulling focus

[weixiang623]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d101/weixiang623/IMG_0249.jpg
i don't know why i'm posting this, but it doesn't matter if it's snorkel'd up or down, as long as it sits tightly , there should be no play

[David Shawl]

I also have the wiggle on my lens. It's the first thing I have noticed that seriously looks loose. Also my Remote Control had a smudged button text label...

Both these issues are minor for me at the moment, I love the camera...but I do plan to use 35mm adapters and Follow Focuses on this camera..

[Dino]

That's great Willis. Now try it without the support bracket, but with the FF if you can rig it that way. I want to know if all 170's have the play between the zoom ring and body.

[DM_rider]

That's great Willis. Now try it without the support bracket, but with the FF if you can rig it that way. I want to know if all 170's have the play between the zoom ring and body.

I'm hoping that it's just part of the construction and that it wont get progressively worse. Otherwise, Panasonic could have a large amount of warranty work heading their way if the lens starts loosening up over time.

[Dino]

I'm hoping that it's just part of the construction and that it wont get progressively worse. Otherwise, Panasonic could have a large amount of warranty work heading their way if the lens starts loosening up over time.

Any looser and the pieces would have to be picked up with a dust pan. The word
precision does not come to mind here.

[weixiang623]

yes the lens is loose on the body, from the zoom ring on. =/ with the support bracket, it will work, just remember to use the support bracket when using a 35mm lens. Aside from that, I'm actually hoping panasonic will take care of this issue in warranty.

[David Shawl]

I have posted a video of this wobble / lens play on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/1873268

[soarprod]

that is very telling

[weixiang623]

yeah... =/ let's hope panasonic warranties that...

[Paul Llewellyn]

I have it on mine as well. But, it is also there on the HVX200 just not quite as loose as that.

[mrbrycel]

Damn, now I'm worried. I was planning on buying an HPX170 soon, and renting out a letus for a shoot this quarter. Would it be wiser to go with the 200a?

[Gary Senda]

I have posted a video of this wobble / lens play on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/1873268

On my HPX171 there isn't so much play as in your video. It is 1/4 of what I can see on Vimeo.

Anyway, this is a letus problem and not an HPX problem: it is simply absurd that the camera lens must hold the adapter, even partially. I have an SGPro and this is not an issue with that adapter because tle adapter is a solid rock with the support and the camera doesn't hold a single gram of the adapter weight. The camera must simply 'watch' into the adapter.
This is the reason for what I've accurately avoided to buy the letus and for the same reason I will not never buy the SGBlade.

With the SGPro my rig is solid as a rock: no wobbling during pans and no risk for my camera lens. I've tried also with a long 300mm lens, follow focus and mattebox: all works perfectly.

This is a confirmation I've made a good choice.

In addition, using this camera with an adapter is fantastic and make it more easy: the focus bar works perfectly for backfocus, the underscan/overscan LCD function avoid any vignetting, uou're not obliged to use a flip module and if you switch the focus ring to iris you don't need to tape it.

For my SGPro system this camera is a great upgrade: now I can shoot perfectly focused without using an external monitor: what else should I ask?

Gary

[cameralover]

I'm hoping that it's just part of the construction and that it wont get progressively worse. Otherwise, Panasonic could have a large amount of warranty work heading their way if the lens starts loosening up over time.

Would the 170's warranty actually cover this?

[Jan_Crittenden]

Gentlemen,

I would not put this amount of weight on the front end of this camera without support. The adapter is too heavy to be supported without something other than the camera holding it there. The play you are getting is indicative of the stress you are placing on it. This camera is smaller, and like the DVX100, you need to support what you are hanging off the front end. The HVX is bigger and can withstand a little more, but frankly I wouldn't put this much weight out there on the HVX without support on it it either. I have seen the camera a lens become two separate pieces. It isn't a warranty repair. That lens adapter should sit in front of the lens without the least amount of support coming from the camera.

Hope this helps in your evalutions and setup of the camera with the adapters.

Best,

Jan

[Jay Rodriguez]

Ok so for you adapter fellas, is this problem occuring while support is in use?

[Jan_Crittenden]

Ok so for you adapter fellas, is this problem occuring while support is in use?

From what I am reading from the above and fron a PM, there is no support. IT needs support. It is too heavy to hang off the front of the lens by itself.

Best,

jan

[Leo Versola]

Gentlemen,

I would not put this amount of weight on the front end of this camera without support. The adapter is too heavy to be supported without something other than the camera holding it there. The play you are getting is indicative of the stress you are placing on it. This camera is smaller, and like the DVX100, you need to support what you are hanging off the front end. The HVX is bigger and can withstand a little more, but frankly I wouldn't put this much weight out there on the HVX without support on it it either. I have seen the camera a lens become two separate pieces. It isn't a warranty repair. That lens adapter should sit in front of the lens without the least amount of support coming from the camera.

Hope this helps in your evalutions and setup of the camera with the adapters.

Best,

Jan

Jan, what you've said is true about hanging something heavy off the front of the camera. However, my concern (and others) is how it will perform when a follow focus unit is used natively with the camera lens and without a 35mm adapter.

I suspect the lens will be prone to some amount of image shifting while using the follow focus; it will remain to be seen and I sincerely hope this isn't the case.

It will be a shame if a number of 3rd party accessories can't be used with the 170 due to this condition because so far it's been a fantastic camera.

//Leo

[Jan_Crittenden]

Jan, what you've said is true about hanging something heavy off the front of the camera. However, my concern (and others) is how it will perform when a follow focus unit is used natively with the camera lens and without a 35mm adapter.

I suspect the lens will be prone to some amount of image shifting while using the follow focus; it will remain to be seen and I sincerely hope this isn't the case.

It will be a shame if a number of 3rd party accessories can't be used with the 170 due to this condition because so far it's been a fantastic camera.

//Leo


I had a FF unit from Red Rock on it last week, no issue. It is the extraodinary weight that is being applied by the 35mm adapters that are causing the issue here. The FF is on a set of rods attached to the underside of the camera. This is not an issue.

Best,

Jan

[Leo Versola]

I had a FF unit from Red Rock on it last week, no issue. It is the extraodinary weight that is being applied by the 35mm adapters that are causing the issue here. The FF is on a set of rods attached to the underside of the camera. This is not an issue.

Best,

Jan

Excellent news, thanks very much for the info.

[SFX]

Footy? What is a footy? (and by the letter "u" do you mean the English word, "you"?)


are u saying this is visible in the footage? on the lcd? not sure what u mean....

if it's in the footy, can u post some of it?

[DM_rider]

I had a FF unit from Red Rock on it last week, no issue. It is the extraodinary weight that is being applied by the 35mm adapters that are causing the issue here. The FF is on a set of rods attached to the underside of the camera. This is not an issue.

Best,

Jan

that's good to hear.

I'm just curious though. Could this movement become a bigger problem down the road as far as build strength goes? I'm just worried that it may be something that gets worse and worse over time and use. I could be completely wrong, it just worries me, and I'm sure it worries other owners of the camera as well. I'm going to hope that it's not that big of a deal and the lens will be just as strong and solid a year down the road from now. But something like that can really start to worry people.

[Leo Versola]

Footy? What is a footy? (and by the letter "u" do you mean the English word, "you"?)

I'm not sure if it's a dry sense of humor or a true question but here goes anyway:

1) Footy = Footage as in camera footage

2) u = You as in the English pronoun

Just some camera slang and typewriter shortening going on...

Cheers,

[Dino]

I need to be very clear:

AT NO POINT DID THE CAMERA HAVE TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE LETUS. THIS IS NOT A LETUS ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A 35MM ADAPTER ISSUE IF THE WEIGHT OF THE ADAPTER IS BEING SUPPORTED BY RODS.

This is SIDE TO SIDE play, if it was caused by weight, it would be vertical sagging. It is due
to leverage/torque from the length and mass of an adapter made much worse by a follow focus which puts side pressure at the end of the "lever".

I am disheartened that a Panasonic product rep. is already stating warranty policy before this issue has been looked into or understood properly.

I have done nothing differently than what I've done with a 200A or EX1, neither of which had the issue, at least not visible in the image during focusing.

Take off the 35mm adapter and just hold the lens hood and move it side to side--there will
be an alarming amount of play. It is just made more apparent when focusing a long adapter with the side pressure of a FF at the end of it. It is NOT about the camera having
to support the adapter weight.

[Jay Rodriguez]

Footy? What is a footy? (and by the letter "u" do you mean the English word, "you"?)


Yeah, footy = footage and u = you. :thumbup:

[Jay Rodriguez]

I'm not sure if it's a dry sense of humor or a true question but here goes anyway:

1) Footy = Footage as in camera footage

2) u = You as in the English pronoun

Just some camera slang and typewriter shortening going on...

Cheers,

Oh, lol, thanks Leo. Didn't see your post before I responded to him.

[frobozz]

I need to be very clear:

AT NO POINT DID THE CAMERA HAVE TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE LETUS. THIS IS NOT A LETUS ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A 35MM ADAPTER ISSUE IF THE WEIGHT OF THE ADAPTER IS BEING SUPPORTED BY RODS.

This is SIDE TO SIDE play, if it was caused by weight, it would be vertical sagging. It is due
to leverage/torque from the length and mass of an adapter made much worse by a follow focus which puts side pressure at the end of the "lever".


That vimeo video of this posted a page or so back is pretty scary... and shows exactly what you're referring to. If I had a still camera lens that wobbled that much I'd be looking for whether it was the lens or mount that needed repair, and soon.


Duncan

[Dino]

On my HPX171 there isn't so much play as in your video. It is 1/4 of what I can see on Vimeo.

Anyway, this is a letus problem and not an HPX problem: it is simply absurd that the camera lens must hold the adapter, even partially. I have an SGPro and this is not an issue with that adapter because tle adapter is a solid rock with the support and the camera doesn't hold a single gram of the adapter weight. The camera must simply 'watch' into the adapter.
This is the reason for what I've accurately avoided to buy the letus and for the same reason I will not never buy the SGBlade.


This is a confirmation I've made a good choice.

Gary

Gary,

You are completely wrong. Letus provides support from rods like every other 35mm DOF adapter. It's just that I wasn't screwing the support and the adapter together. My mistake, I didn't get screws from Letus, so thought it wasn't necessary. Indeed, it wasn't with a 200A or EX1. It most certainly is with a 170.

I predict that this will be an ongoing issue with the HPX170 when people try other accessories on the camera like clip-on matte boxes, wide angle adapters,
follow focus--although the closer the accessory is to the camera, the less lever
action is applied side to side.

Did you ever stop to wonder how all those Letus adapters out there have not
had this problem with other cameras?

[Jan_Crittenden]

I am disheartened that a Panasonic product rep. is already stating warranty policy before this issue has been looked into or understood properly.

I have done nothing differently than what I've done with a 200A or EX1, neither of which had the issue, at least not visible in the image during focusing.
.

This camera has more in common with the DVX100 than it does with the HVX as far as how the build is. I have used a FF system and there is no problem. I have used the focus ring without any FF and there was no problem. I cannot imagine how you would or why you would exert side to side pressure on the lens in normal use. I have been traveling with the camera for the last couple of months, and I have had several of the consultants that we work with use the camera somewhat extensively. It has not come up as an issue.

I did mention the warranty issue as when the DVX100 was used with the larger adapters, and the lens separated from the body, people were surprised byt the fact that it was not covered by warranty. The HPX is a smaller camera, it does not have the same build as the HVX, it is a pound light and is more like a DVX.

Best regards,

Jan

[davetronic]

i want to be as calmed by this situation as anyone does, but jan, telling us that it's simply not the 'build' of the HVX and is lighter, etc. certainly doesn't make anyone feel good about things. obviously it's not a massive camera, but that doesn't relieve panasonic of build quality.

a camera that exhibits the wobble in the video (and yes i have one and it does the same thing) should be corrected. period. i've been a solid HVX owner since the first shipment, and it honestly makes me more than nervous - disappointed - that there is this much play.

grab yours and check it out - there's a tremendous amount of play with VERY LITTLE pressure needed. again, this is an issue that needs to be corrected, not excused because 'it does not have the same build as the HVX, is a pound light and is more like a DVX."

[Dino]

Jan,

Let's take 35mm adapters and follow focus out of the equation. Why would the build quality of the HPX170 lens be less robust than an HVX200A lens? More to the point, why is there less precision with this camera which streets for the same price and doesn't even have the cost of a tape transport involved?

I don't think people buying this camera were expecting lower build quality. Just because something weighs less does not mean it is poorly built. I also mounted my TV Logic 7" monitor, which is lighter than a BT-LH80, and the whole handle had deflection which is a bit of a worry.

A follow focus can exert force on a lens, especially when getting to the end of focus travel.

Again, at no time have I put weight on the end of the lens. I've been a DP for over 25 years, I'm sure most people on this forum don't remember Ikegami HL-79 cameras, or Sony BVP-30 BETACAM dockable cameras. It's not my first rodeo, just my first ownership experience with what seems to be a "toy" camera, even by other palmcorder standards. A shame, because it is a brilliant little camera in every other respect.

[Jan_Crittenden]

I have sent this thread on to Osaka, I will let you know what they say.

Best,

Jan

[Dino]

I have sent this thread on to Osaka, I will let you know what they say.

Best,

Jan

Jan,

Thank you!

[cameralover]

why is there less precision with this camera which streets for the same price and doesn't even have the cost of a tape transport involved?

Thank you for stating this.

[davetronic]

thank you jan. please keep us posted.

[Jan_Crittenden]

YOu need to look at this camera in comparison to the DVX100 build and you will find that it is simiular. As far as not havin a Tape drive, you are right, it does't but it does have HD-SDI, it has three different focus assists, it has the ability to go to pre-rec from the user buttons, it can input metadata on the camera, it has a dedicated switch to toggle to the Iris mode, it is a full pound lighter. The build quality is sound, it is just a smaller camera.
Best,

Jan

[wgzn]

I wouldn't put this much weight out there on the HVX without support on it it either. its not an issue of weight. if you have rods holding up the adapter.

my fear is not so much with an adapter but with a follow focus. just by the nature of how that works its putting some lateral torque on the focus ring/lens.

im going to do various tests this afternoon. and if the thing moves under normal use. camera is going back first thing monday. we simply cannot have this happening

i really hope that my other thread about overall cheap build quality isnt another clue to the core of this issue. i so would have paid an extra $500 or more for a camera with better build quality

[wgzn]

The build quality is sound, it is just a smaller camera.

i hate to be argumentative but that's is absolutely NOT true. for the reasons i posted in my thread about build quality. brittle p2 door, ridiculously small lcd latch. not to mention the non-locking lens hood. its pretty obvious to me that a lot of cost-saving and or time-saving measures were taken.

and mentioning all the great technological features doesnt mean a hill of beans if the mechanics of the camera cant hold up.

[wgzn]

this is an interesting discussion as far as responsibility goes. the 35mm market is kind of an esoteric one and i dont know that a manufacturer would obligated to support such application. but id say that a follow focus (either friction wheel or geared) is a pretty long-established probable accessory and if a cameras engineering doesnt provide support for it - id say we have a problem.

[I, Filmmaker]

It seems as though we got a MUCH improved image, with newer sensers, at the expense of build quality. Still though, not enough to send me over into the EX1 camp.

[Segarza]

I just received my HPX170, I'm worried if it will hold up for aerial shoots, which I do frequently. That would be a clear example of side pressure on the lens being exerted by wind.

[Dino]

We need to know if there are tolerance differences from camera to camera. I am surprised that Barry Green or Adam Wilt didn't notice this, but they were testing pre-production cameras
which might have had more precise tolerances than production cameras?

[I, Filmmaker]

Dino, My HPX170 does seem fairly sturdy. I don't seem to be getting the side to side motion you were able to get. Maybe some cameras have a higher tolerance?
Certainly an interesting issue

[Dino]

my fear is not so much with an adapter but with a follow focus. just by the nature of how that works its putting some lateral torque on the focus ring/lens.


Thank you. I thought this would be obvious to any DP.

[I, Filmmaker]

Maybe I'm not pushing hard enough on the lens. How hard are you pushing to get this play?

[CW-35]

Is it okay that the "lens" does wiggle like this in terms of normal use? I just tried mine & definitely wiggles like the video.

Does the HVX200 do this? I am going to take a look at my DVX100 later today for comparison as well.

[Deaniweenie]

When I saw all the preproduction pictures of the 170 I thought it looked a bit 'cheap' but put that down to prototypes and hoped that the production models would be better. I have handled a 170 and immediately got the impression (comparing it to my HVX) that it is a poor quality product. Panasonic have rapped up all the features we asked for in the body of a toy. Why? I'm sure that most of us would indeed, pay extra for a better camera body.

I was about to place my order for a 170 but frankly, this post has scared the hell out of me and I won't be ordering one until this issue has been resolved by Panasonic.

Panasonic, I hope you are hearing this...it is unacceptable!!! You had an opportunity here to make something really special. I hope you haven't blown it, but if you have, you have only yourself to blame.

Weenie.

[I, Filmmaker]

Mine seriously is fine. I am convinced it's not ALL hpx's.

Mine has a small miniscule bit of play but NOTHING like that video he posted

[Luis Caffesse]

Won't be able to check mine with the Letus until later today.
But checking it simply by hand, my 170 seems to have roughly twice as much play as the HVX200 I still have sitting here.
(again, we're talking side to side, not vertical. Vertical both are solid)

[CW-35]

okay, what's the deal? The lens on the 170 that I have in front of me does not look like this image:

http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pg_ag-hpx170_side.jpg

I have a some sort of washer ring between the zoom tab & the body and a gap as in the video that someone posted... and mine wobbles...

How is this gap going to handle dust in terms of getting into the lens element & such. That was an issue with my DVX100 and it doesn't have this.

[Kholi]

From the video, I can't see in any situation where the camera is supported properly and the adapter is supported properly that it would cause an issue.

Still... wow.

[I, Filmmaker]

but MINE IS FINE

as I keep saying

SOO

I think it's not EVERY camera.

Might be a specific factory defect you guys, not an inherent camera defect for all cameras

[Paul Llewellyn]

but MINE IS FINE

as I keep saying

SOO

I think it's not EVERY camera.

Might be a specific factory defect you guys, not an inherent camera defect for all cameras

But, mine is a HPX171E. A slightly different model and it has it.

[CW-35]

so what about the gap that is there in the lens between the camera body & the washer thing?

I had to send my DVX100 in twice to have dust removed from the inside of the lens and it didn't have a gap like that leading into it...

oh my.

[I, Filmmaker]

This is certainly a frusterating issue. It's strange that mine seems to be fine. I even tried applying more pressure. I mean side to side I would say the play is equivalent of the hvx nothing major. up to down it's rock steady

[alexdias]

Hopefully we'll have this issue addressed by Panasonic soon.
I don't want to sound too dramatic but it looks pretty bad from here.

[Paul Llewellyn]

I have NO movement up and down. But the side to side is more than the HVX.

[delaro]

but MINE IS FINE

as I keep saying

SOO

I think it's not EVERY camera.

Might be a specific factory defect you guys, not an inherent camera defect for all cameras

my HPX171e has got that too. You seem to be the only one .... maybe you should ask your seller to replace it .....

[alexdias]

Just want to make it clear that for me it's crucial to use this camera with mattebox _clip on version, so it's ergonomic suitable and lighter for handheld_ and in some cases 35mm adaptors.

[scorsesefan]

okay, what's the deal? The lens on the 170 that I have in front of me does not look like this image:

http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pg_ag-hpx170_side.jpg

I have a some sort of washer ring between the zoom tab & the body and a gap as in the video that someone posted... and mine wobbles...

How is this gap going to handle dust in terms of getting into the lens element & such. That was an issue with my DVX100 and it doesn't have this.
That image you linked to was a pre-production mock-up I believe. If you want to compare it to a production model check out Adam Wilt's HPX review.

[CW-35]

That image you linked to was a pre-production mock-up I believe. If you want to compare it to a production model check out Adam Wilt's HPX review.

You are correct, the images on his site do match what my camera looks like.

Can someone possibly speculate about the potential dust issue in terms of that gap that is there?

[Deaniweenie]

It may not be affecting all the cameras but what if you get one that it is affecting, will the shop exchange it? How many times will they exchange it if you keep getting one that is affected. Will Panasonic sort it under warranty? Doesn't seem like they will. They are saying "that's the way it is, it will be fine don't worry" When really they should be saying "sorry, it will be sorted in production cameras from now on"

People are talking about the general build quality not being very good. Seeing the severity of the lens issue doesn't instill any confidence in the camera as a whole. My HVX is rock solid and is worked very hard indeed. However, it does lack some functionality and sensitivity. I (and I'm sure everyone else) was looking forward to the 170 being everything the HVX wasn't but in a quality package like the HVX.

The question I would like answered by Panasonic is why have they made the camera like this? What is the motivation? Why have they let us down? Are they trying to give the EX camp a helping hand.

It would appear that Panasonic didn't have enough confidence in their product that if it was a few hundred quid more expensive it would sell. If they don't have the confidence in it, why should we.

Come on Panasonic, get your finger out and give us back the quality we have come to expect. You have drooped the ball, now pick it up and get it in the net!

Weenie

Weenie.

[wgzn]

guys, i think enough as been said about this. and were starting to get off-track (comparing a retail model to promo images? come on..) its clear that there are issues. let's stop the panic-frenzy and wait for the panasonic folks to get back to us

[Deaniweenie]

wgzn, I think you need to read my post about promo images again. Why is it that people on here always read the wrong things into what is being written. READ WHAT I BEING SAID!

Weenie

[CW-35]

guys, i think enough as been said about this. and were starting to get off-track (comparing a retail model to promo images? come on..) its clear that there are issues. let's stop the panic-frenzy and wait for the panasonic folks to get back to us

Sorry, if you are referring to my post, I didn't realize that is a promo image that I refered to as it looks exactly like my camera with the exception of where the lens meets the camera body.

And it is on topic as the "wiggle" that the lens definitely has is being created by the gap that is there.

That is what my questions relate to.

[Jay Rodriguez]

READ WHAT I BEING SAID!

Weenie


Hmmmm, care to translate? :huh:

[Deaniweenie]

Any anyway, this is one of the most serious issues I have ever come across on DVXuser and deserves to run until we are happy.

We as users will suffer because of this issue and Panasonic will suffer from a drop in sales.

Weenie.

[Barry_Green]

I don't have a 170 yet, but I do still have my HVX200 and tried the side-to-side wobble and yeah, it does it. Does it pretty much exactly like that vimeo video.

Explain to me again why I care? I can't use an adapter with it? Oh wait, I've been using an Extreme and an Ultimate for over a year. I can't use a follow-focus with it? Hmm, I've got a Vocas FF that I've had and used for two and a half years.

Is this perhaps a case of something being blown out of proportion? I'd wager every HVX ever sold has had this "slop" and we never noticed because it's a non-issue. Is it really worse on the 170? I never noticed it on the 170 or 150, and I used my Letus Ultimate on the 150 without incident.

Guys, try it with your HVXs. If a hundred thousand HVXs have been sold and used over the last 3 years with NO COMPLAINTS AT ALL, it seems to me that the HPX170 having the exact same type of construction should be a non-issue, rather than a "showstopper".

[Gary Senda]

Sorry, but for me this is not an issue. I never charge on a lens more than the weight of a screw filter. This is a precaution I normally use with all cameras and for this reason I've choosen a 35mm adapter completely indipendent from the camera lens. I hate also clip matteboxes for the same reason. If you don't charge weight on the lens there's no problem and charging weight on the lens is simply a thing to not do, in my opinion.

The play on my lens is very limitated and seems physiological and I have no issues using adapters or follow focus with every kind of movements

Gary

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi,

The engineerrs in NJ have been looking at the camera and they said, hey let's look at the 200, the 200A, and the DVX100, the A, and the B and what they have determined is that they all do this. It is a shock mounted design. Since it has not been an issue since the introduction of the DVX back in 2002, I do not believe it will be an issue now. We won't hear back from the factory engineers until Monday, but right now I think this is a non-issue.

Thanks,

Jan

[DC]

Thank you, Jan, for looking into this and so quickly. :) Seems to also confirm Barry's thoughts on the matter.

[Barry_Green]

Funny Jan, just above you I ran the same test and found out the same thing. My HVX and DVX both have the exact same design and do the exact same thing. It's a non-issue.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi,

Just heard back from NJ. They looked at the 200, the 200A, the DVX100, the A, the B and the HPX170. Their conclusion is that it is part of the design. The lens is shock mounted and all the cameras all have it, be it to varying degrees. Since this has been part of the design from day one on the DVXs going back to 2002, I do not believe it is an issue. When I hear back from Japan I will let you know what they say about the design.

Best,

Jan

[I, Filmmaker]

Jan and Barry, thank you for your needed clarification on this issue.


It's a non issue, guys. Just don't hang adapters off your camera. SUPPORT THEM

[danny dale]

Just tried this wiggle test on my HVX200 and it's nothing like David's camera... they got a shipment here at Omega Broadcast so I'm hoping to check one out in person.

[Jan_Crittenden]

We need to know if there are tolerance differences from camera to camera. I am surprised that Barry Green or Adam Wilt didn't notice this, but they were testing pre-production cameras
which might have had more precise tolerances than production cameras?

If anything the tolerances are less on the production line samples.

Thanks,

Jan

[Dino]

I don't have a 170 yet,

Is this perhaps a case of something being blown out of proportion?

it seems to me that the HPX170 having the exact same type of construction should be a non-issue, rather than a "showstopper".

Funny, I could have sworn I woke up this morning to Jan saying the HPX170 is NOT built like the HVX200 or 200A. Which one is it? Which one of you is right?

Barry, are you in the high-end video equipment rental business? I am, and I know my clients, and I know this lens play is going to be an issue as soon as somebody mounts a follow focus.

However, if you or Panasonic are willing to pay me any lost rental revenue due to client complaints about this issue, I am willing to take a chance. Otherwise,
please let me and my clients be the judge of what will and won't be acceptable.

By the way, just because previous Panasonic cameras have front end play does not make it acceptable or excusable, in my opinion.

[DM_rider]

As long as the side to side movement doesn't worsen or cause any problems later down the road, I could care less. From the sound of it, it most likely will not turn into a bigger problem.

[Dino]

Sorry, but for me this is not an issue. I never charge on a lens more than the weight of a screw filter. This is a precaution I normally use with all cameras and for this reason I've choosen a 35mm adapter completely indipendent from the camera lens. I hate also clip matteboxes for the same reason. If you don't charge weight on the lens there's no problem and charging weight on the lens is simply a thing to not do, in my opinion.

The play on my lens is very limitated and seems physiological and I have no issues using adapters or follow focus with every kind of movements

Gary

Gary,

Once again, this is not about putting weight on the lens in the case of every 35mm DOF adapter I've seen--they all have rod support. It is about lateral play
that is exacerbated by the longer length a DOF adapter adds and lateral pressure a follow focus exerts at the end of the length/mass, which is connected, although not supported by the camera's built-in lens.

I know English is probably a second language, but I would ask you and others to please read carefully the previous posts.

[Barry_Green]

Funny, I could have sworn I woke up this morning to Jan saying the HPX170 is NOT built like the HVX200 or 200A. Which one is it? Which one of you is right?
Take a look at the actual cameras. It's obvious that they both use the same design.


Barry, are you in the high-end video equipment rental business? I am, and I know my clients, and I know this lens play is going to be an issue as soon as somebody mounts a follow focus.
To each his own. People have been using follow focuses on the HVX200 for three years now with no problems.

This is not new to the design. It's been this way for six years with no complaint. Why don't you at least try it out before declaring that it's a major showstopper problem?


Otherwise, please let me and my clients be the judge of what will and won't be acceptable.
Is anyone taking that right away from you? You're certainly entitled to find whatever acceptable to you. But to shout fire in a crowded theater, when there's absolutely nothing different related to a time-tested design, is not something any rational person would want to encourage.

The design is what it is. It's been this way for six years at least, and if I had a PD170 or GL2 or XHA1 to compare against, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they use the same basic design.


By the way, just because previous Panasonic cameras have front end play does not make it acceptable or excusable, in my opinion.
And that is your right. Go ahead and return it. Nobody minds how you conduct your business. I just don't want people turning this into an unholy poopstorm when the actual fact of the matter is that it's been a complete non-issue for at least the last six years and there's nothing new about the 170 or 150 that's any different (in this respect) from the tried-and-true 200 and 100 series, if not others.

[CW-35]

I just don't want people turning this into an unholy poopstorm when the actual fact of the matter is that it's been a complete non-issue for at least the last six years and there's nothing new about the 170 or 150 that's any different (in this respect) from the tried-and-true 200 and 100 series, if not others.

I just compared the lens looseness my 4 day old 170 to my six year old DVX100A, and the looseness of the 170 is dramatically more obvious than that of the 100. No, I would never have noticed this with the 100 at all but yes, its pretty obvious with the 170.

I am guessing the increased looseness comes from the washer like item between the "lens" & the camera body & the measurable physical gap that is there now.

What is your guess on dust entering there in terms of it making inside the lens element?

This is really a big issue for me as I had problems with my 100A & dust.

[Barry_Green]

I compared the vimeo video it to my four year old DVX100B and my three-year-old HVX200, and they exhibit about the same amount of wobble (the DVX a little less, the HVX exactly the same).

[Gary Senda]

Gary,

Once again, this is not about putting weight on the lens in the case of every 35mm DOF adapter I've seen--they all have rod support. It is about lateral play
that is exacerbated by the longer length a DOF adapter adds and lateral pressure a follow focus exerts at the end of the length/mass, which is connected, although not supported by the camera's built-in lens.

I know English is probably a second language, but I would ask you and others to please read carefully the previous posts.

No weight on the lens = no lateral play when you move the camera. Is there lateral play when you pan without adapter? I think no, isn't it?

If there's a lateral play there's part of weight on the lens: this in physics.

The letus I've tried was not fixed on the support and in that way a fraction of the weight of the adapter is on the lens: isn't it?

Try to fix the adapter firmly on the rod support and the issue disappears.

Gary

[Sneakle]

I have the wiggle on my new 170. I don't know that I'm worried about it as long as it doesn't become loose. The term "wiggle" gives a false impression. It's a tight fit; but if you apply enough side pressure you can move it.

I don't know if the explanation that it is "shock mounted" will fly too well. Shock mount just the side to side but not the top to bottom?

[Dino]

Barry,

I did try it and it blew my mind. I recommend you try a production HPX170 yourself.

Regarding construction being identical between 200A and 170, please tell that to Jan. I never said the body or lens(hard to know where one starts and the other stops) were not
built the same, she did.

I have learned a lot from you about these little cameras, and appreciate your efforts. However, I would NOT have brought this up had I not encountered this issue yesterday on a shoot where I was doing some pickup shots for a project I started with the 200A and the EXACT Letus V2 Rods/Ultimate rig. Same matte box, follow focus, adapter support. I did NOT have the wild side to side image shift while focusing with the 200A. Not a hint of it,
ditto an EX1 I've tested on the same rig.

Overall, this thread does not reflect your and Jan's positions. With all due respect, you do have ties to Panasonic, directly or indirectly in which you gain monetarily from, do you not?

Why don't you wait until you get a production HPX170 into your hands before telling us what is and what is not an issue? Better yet, I'd like to get about half a dozen of these together and see if there are differences in the amount of play between cameras.

I want nothing more than to be able to keep the camera I have been waiting a long time for and have invested in a lot of accessories in. It is a fantastic form factor for the Ultimate.

I had thought the purpose of these forums was to relate actual experiences when shooting
with these tools, based upon three decades of running a rental facility and being a DP, without being told my experience is a "non-issue".

[Dino]

Try to fix the adapter firmly on the rod support and the issue disappears.

Gary

I did and it took care of the issue, as I posted last night. We need people to try
follow focus systems on the 170 built-in lens. Hopefully it will not be a problem, but I have my doubts.

I was incredibly relieved when I added a second support and a screw through the
support and into the Ultimate and things became solid. That does not explain why, with only one support and no screw, an HVX200A was just fine.

[Gary Senda]

That does not explain why, with only one support and no screw, an HVX200A was just fine.

As I've already said you (I apologize for my broken and poor english, but it is my third language) I have never made this even with camera that seemed very solid. If there's a little amount of weight on the front of the lens it works as a lever so at the base of the lens the final weight i 3-4 times. In addition there are also ***inertial*** issues and al these forces works togheter in the attachment poin of the lens.

I apologize again for my english, but I hope now I was able to explain my tought. My philosophy in setting up rigs is: all the accessories weigth on the support and not on the camera, even when it seems rock solid

Regards

gary

[Dino]

If there's a little amount of weight on the front of the lens it works as a lever so at the base of the lens the final weight i 3-4 times. In addition there are also ***inertial*** issues and al these forces works togheter in the attachment poin of the lens.

I apologize again for my english, but I hope now I was able to explain my tought. My philosophy in setting up rigs is: all the accessories weigth on the support and not on the camera, even when it seems rock solid

Regards

gary

Gary,

I totally agree with you and have learned that the adapter must be bolted to
the rods, not just supported weight wise. Now I just hope those using wide
angle adapters and follow focus units and clip on matte boxes will be okay, but
based on your approach, they will not. And again, I agree with you.

[Gary Senda]

Now I just hope those using wide
angle adapters and follow focus units and clip on matte boxes will be okay, but
based on your approach, they will not.

I've tried with my follow focus and there are no problems and I don't think that using follow focus will causes issues and perhaps never additional lens. Consider the lever: when your letus was not fixed to the support it worked as a long lever. Wide angle adapters are shorter and this means less lever effect. Consider also that the minimal focal lenght of this baby reduces a lot the need of a wide angle adapter: 28mm equivalent in 16:9 aspect ratio with a very minimal barrel and without all the problems of the additional lens is a great feature.
Finally, I can agree with you, this 'play' can disappoint someone who has just spent 5000 USD, but it could be a good reason to avoid potentially dangerous settings for any camera.

I'll forward you the results of my test on this point

Regards

Gary

[Dino]

For anyone who thinks I over stated this issue, I'm sorry. I was most interested in
finding out others experience. I'm used to finding issues and having a manufacturer tell me there is no issue(Sony), only to see a service bulletin generated about it a few months later.

Of course, one person's burning issue is not necessarily on somebody else's priority list, but it's still nice to be able to know about it.

[snpx]

i have the wiggle with my hpx171e, too.
the wiggle is much more than on the dvx100b and hvx200.

thats my expirience and i find it not acceptable.
the gap also is not acceptable, i expect an issue with dust inside the lens...

i do not think, its a idea of shock protection of the lens.
i would like to hear the trues about it, please.

[Gary Senda]

Why dust in the lens? The wiggle is between the lens and the body of the camera.

How could dust penetrate between the lens elements?

Gary

[snpx]

ok sorry my bad english.

the end of the lens in direction of the ccds.

[Jan_Crittenden]

The shock mount is part of the design of the individual camera. There are only differences between the cameras because the cameras are different , but they all have the shock mount design.

The build quality is sound and is smaller which is why I compared it to the DVX instead of the DVX. Are they as solidly built yes, but the size and weight does change things, but there is a 1 year parts and labor on the DVX and the HVX but a 5 year on the HPX.

Best,

Jan

[DC]

I haven't yet tried my HPX170 with my Brevis rig, but I have my preconceptions. I can't imagine any kind of wiggling would show itself if your components are properly fastened and supported.

In theory (from past experience with the HVX200 and soon-to-be experience with the HPX170) . . . my adapter is secured tightly to a mount and the camera is secured tightly to the plate. This is all secured tightly to rails. I can't imagine any kind of (reasonable) longitudal or latitudal stress would make the lens wiggle. This is the whole point of having rails and support. So, I can't imagine how a follow focus on a 35mm lens would cause this wiggle if the proper (common sense) precautions were exercised when assembling the rig.

Now, I'm not doubting that some of you may be experiencing this wiggle issue, but I have to question the way in which you are using these components. Therefore, I would stress (no pun intended) to make sure that your rig is securely built so as to not allow for any wiggle.

Just my thoughts so far . . .

[Gary Senda]

the end of the lens in direction of the ccds.

I don't think so. If I move the lens I can feel a 'rubber sensation' where the lens twiggles; probably there's a rubber gasket: the camera has a 5 years warranty and I don't think that panasonic engineers are so stupid to permit the dust to penetrate between the lens and the CCD in a 5 yrs. warranty camera.
Rubber probably works as a shock mount and this wiggle reduces the risk to break the camera in that point in case of a collision.

It has sense

Regards

gary

[timbook2]

I have posted a video of this wobble / lens play on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/1873268

I saw the video, thanks for sharing this! I will try it on my DVX100BE tomorrow. And thanks for Panasonic coming here and posting. Could there be models that wiggle more and less? I do see some force is needed to produce the wiggle and doubt that a follow focus should have so much pressure on the ring. Nevertheless the wiggle looks worrysome.....

[Jan_Crittenden]

I saw the video, thanks for sharing this! I will try it on my DVX100BE tomorrow. And thanks for Panasonic coming here and posting. Could there be models that wiggle more and less? I do see some force is needed to produce the wiggle and doubt that a follow focus should have so much pressure on the ring. Nevertheless the wiggle looks worrysome.....

The wiggle is not worrysome. It is there to accept a shock should you inadvertantly hit the lens. It has been on all of our palmcorders on the professional side since 2002. It is a SHOCK-Mount. It is fine.

Thanks,

Jan

[CW-35]

Okay, I just sat down a DVX100A, an HVX200 & the HPX170 side by side & an (EX1 for good measure.)

The 100 has little to no movement, the HVX200 & the 170 are very similar in terms of their construction & looseness, BUT, my 170 is considerably looser than the HVX200. What is disconcerting about the 170 is the physical gap that is there which clearly contributes to the looseness.

As best I know, the lens is not a sealed element on a camera like this. I had to have my DVX100 serviced twice to have dust removed from the inside of the lens element.

Jan Crittenden, do you think there is going to be a dust issue with this vulnerable area of the camera?

Jan Crittenden, does the 5 year limited Panasonic warranty cover dust inside the lens ?

Thank you.

[delaro]

The wiggle is not worrysome. It is there to accept a shock should you inadvertantly hit the lens. It has been on all of our palmcorders on the professional side since 2002. It is a SHOCK-Mount. It is fine.

Thanks,

Jan

i prefer to have it like that in fact, because i'm always a bit worried with the adapter hardmount. I prefer to have this little play because it's never 100% perfectly aligned and when i screw it i don't want the adapter to force too much on the camera lens.
One question Jan, is the lens of the camera firmly attached? because i made a mistake and pushed the adapter with its lens cap against the lens of the cam. is there a possibility that i made it moved a bit or no chance at all? i can't stop thinking that my hpx is not perfect anymore ^^

[atlfilmguy]

I tried the wiggle test on my HVX and on my new HPX. They both move side to side, HOWEVER the HPX is close to twice the movement.

I never noticed this with the HVX, I hope it does not hurt the functionality of the HPX.

I understand it seems to be a "performing at spec" issue with panasonic, but I am worried that it is so much more than the HVX.

There must be some point where the play is just too much. And I am concerned that the HPX may be closer to the threshold than the HVX.

[Angelcyk]

I've been following this post since the begining and Jan and Barry are saying it's always been the same design and Dino and some others have been saying the wiggle is worse than previous generations. As someone who's looking to buy the 170 (and this is really the big question)..... is will Panasonic cover any damages due to a fault from this wiggle in the 5 year warranty????

I would assume that if Jan and Barry are correct then Panasonic would have no problem covering this in the warranty since it's never happened before.

[CW-35]

As someone who's looking to buy the 170 (and this is really the big question)..... is will Panasonic cover any damages due to a fault from this wiggle in the 5 year warranty????


Yes, I really need to know the answer to this while I can still return my camera. My fear, as I have posted about 10 times to day to no response, is that this gap between the lens & the body is going to allow dust to come into the camera.

Will the limited Panasonic 5 year warranty removing dust from either inside the camera or the lens?

[Dino]

Doing an informal, unscientific count on this thread of HPX170 owners who have no wiggle issue totals 6. Those who have enough wiggle to be a concern and/or more than their HVX200 or DVX100 total 11.

Obviously a small sampling, but I think it's fair to say that the issue does exist and many believe it to be worse than previous Panasonic palmcorders which are built the same way, with the same shock mounting system.

[snpx]

maybe a good idea to start a poll?

[weixiang623]

Jeff, I hope you counted me as one of those that have wiggle, because... it does =/

[I, Filmmaker]

It is a SHOCKKK MOUNT people.

Not to be disrespectful but...

It's made to absorb SHOCK!


Would you be this upset if the your car moved up and down after going over a bump, as a result of the car struts absorbing the shock? No because they're meant to be SHOCK ABSORBERS.


it's cleary not a hard mount. It's not MEANT to be.

[Dino]

Jeff, I hope you counted me as one of those that have wiggle, because... it does =/

Hi Willis,

No, I thought you were not having any issues and your Zacuto riser was holding the adapter firmly. That would make 12 to 5, the former in the "wiggle" category.

I think it's important to note that a 35mm adapter, even when bolted to the rails, is still part of a camera system--it is connected to the camera and the prime lens,
adapter and camera/internal lens all make up a system. Therefore, this system is only as good as its weakest link. In this case, that would be the "shockmount" HPX170 lens.

[davetronic]

since this morning i've done a side by side with the DVX, HVX and HPX. the HPX has a SUBSTANTIAL amount more play in comparison to either of the other cameras.

so regardless of the fact the shock mount is intentional, it's definitely different in it's tolerances from the other cameras it's been no issue with. that fact alone deserves rigorous investigation by panasonic and a user-oriented approach to the potentiality this could be an issue with THIS model. unfortunately what i think we're getting for the most part thus far is generally a denial of the fact there could be an issue in order to calm fears and protect sales.

i understand nobody wants to start a wildfire of quality rumors at panasonic. but i really believe the best way to handle that would be genuine concern for what i feel is a valid point that's been brought to panasonic's attention, and some assurances that there will be every effort to make it right if it turns out to need attention AFTER TESTING before simply dismissing it under the banner of a 'lighter, smaller' or 'same as the rest' PR statement.

whether or not it's a major issue may be up in air until there can be more information from users and panasonic (assuming they will move in the direction of the previous comment), but whether or not it's got more play isn't debatable at this point.

[Dino]

It is a SHOCKKK MOUNT people.

Not to be disrespectful but...

It's made to absorb SHOCK!


Yeah. I wonder why Panavision has not adopted the "Shock Mount" technology with their lenses? Or Zeiss or Angenieux or Arri or Fujinon or Canon or Schneider or Nikon. They must not get it.

[Dino]

since this morning i've done a side by side with the DVX, HVX and HPX. the HPX has a SUBSTANTIAL amount more play in comparison to either of the other cameras.

a user-oriented approach to the potentiality this could be an issue with THIS model. unfortunately what i think we're getting for the most part thus far is generally a denial of the fact there could be an issue in order to calm fears and protect sales.

before simply dismissing it under the banner of a 'lighter, smaller' or 'same as the rest' PR statement.


Yes, all we've seen is spin by two people who don't own an HPX170, but make a living from Panasonic products. I've had enough election year spin, I don't need to read more on this forum. My concerns have been dismissed out of hand by a person who has limited technical knowledge, being a salesperson, and another who makes money writing books about Panasonic products.

Consider the source. I remember having a meeting with Sony broadcast sales,
a group that would look right at home at a used car lot. I was concerned about
dead pixels in the then new CCD cameras. The response I got was, "no other clients have complained about this". I then produced letters from every rental
house in the SF Bay Area. Their response was, "well, nobody in Europe has complained about this". Not too long afterwards, Sony built a pixel masking circuit into their CCD blocks. I'm sure it wasn't due to any product problems.

Been there, done that. I have no time for Panasonic fan boys or shills.

[I, Filmmaker]

then hey, instead of creating a further firestorm Dino, just take back the camera. And stick with your 2/3 inch cams.

[I, Filmmaker]

The point is the HPX produces AMAZING images. and when used with a rail system and support it's suburb. Just hooked my Brevis up to it.

[atlfilmguy]

I, FIlmmaker,
I saw on another post and here that yours is not doing the wiggle at all. Have you grabbed it like the person did in the vimeo video and give it a similiar tug?

I find it very wierd that there are some that have the wiggle and some that do not.

If it is truly a FEATURE (shock-mount) of the camera you would think that people with a non-wiggle HPX would be upset and demand to have a proper wiggle one.

[I, Filmmaker]

Well, mine is fairly steady. Yes, it does have a small bit of wiggle, but it feels like it's meant to absorb shock; it doesn't at all feel poorly designed, In my opinion.

now the 150, there's ALOT of wiggle on that. I tried it out in the shop today.
Definitely more than the 170.

But that's besides the point.

If you're not constantly TRYING to produce this wiggle, than you won't notice it.

Simple as that.

[atlfilmguy]

Cool, thanks for your quick reply.

I want to think mine is as steady as it should be, I want it to be the awesome camera I have waited to buy for my adapter use. But like a lot of others this has me worried, down the road too.

I was just under the impression that yours and others had NO play.

Thanks for the clarification.


REALLY looking forward to Monday when Jan hears back from Osaka.

[I, Filmmaker]

The problem here is that everyone saw that video and now the whole forum's up in arms about it...they're all sitting around grabbing there lenses and pushing and pulling them, trying to produce wiggle.

[I, Filmmaker]

hey, FILMGUY, even if there's a little play, WHO CARES!?

The image is incredible on this cam. Much better than i expected. The clarity of the image and the low noise is really a huge improvement. and three stops more sensitive.

SO good for adapter use. Looks GREAT with my Brevis.

[David Shawl]

I posted the video to help figure out a solution, most of us didn't know about this shock mount. I'm glad Jan cleared up why it's there.

I, Filmmaker: Where did it say that it was a three stop increase in sensitivity?

[scorsesefan]

Checked out an HPX today at Abelcine in NY, and their floor model HPX didn't exhibit any unusual play (lateral or vertical). I asked the salesman, Matt, about the issue and he said that he hasn't heard anything about it as of yet... I did notice that the build quality seemed a little "iffy" compared to the HVX. The body (especially along the top) seemed a little "hollow". Not sure if I'd want to drop this cam, but the images look awesome!

[DM_rider]

I think what most users are looking for is re-assurance that dust or more movement later on will not be an issue. Or, if it will become a problem, Panasonic will fully cover repairs to fix anything that may come along with the side to side play in the lens. Just saying it wont be a problem doesn't seem to do it for most people. We want a full explanation on what this movement is actually there for other than, "it's a shock mount." I don't blame people for feeling concerned about this, $5200 is not a small chunk of change.

I just think it's hard to swallow the idea that the lens is meant to move this much. Many users, including me, have never seen side to side movement like this on any other camera before.

Personally, it feels cheap, and I want to be 100% insured that it's not, however that may be.

If the movement really is meant to be there, then there should be no problem in giving a detailed explanation why. Also, why do some HPX's seem to have more play than others? If this shock mount is a tech feature, shouldn't it be pretty uniform across the board?

I don't want to come off as bashing the camera, I love it. But, as a concerned consumer, I just want re-assurance, and I think most everyone else would agree. Call me stupid or ignorant, I just want to make sure that my $5200 was spent on a solid camera.

[wgzn]

i just tested mine. my lateral play is near if not the same as the vimeo video posted. BUT i tested it on my zacuto rails with both a friction wheel on the stock focus ring and a brevis and indifocus and there was no noticeable wiggle in the lens or the image.

i dont see - as of first test, why quality and properly configured 35mm adapters or follow focus setups would be subject to issues from the scenario

[David Shawl]

When I made the vimeo video I used a light to medium force to move the lens from side to side. It didn't take much to get movement out of it. Aside from that, I don't think it will affect any of my shooting at all.

[Gary Senda]

This wiggle has been evidenced using an unsafe 35mm adapter settings and now is evident only if you look for it. Isn't it?
The typical 'rubber sensation' of the shock mount is evident evident when you move the lens, isn't it?
The lens twiggles but is firmly tightned fo the body of the camera, isn't it?

So, sincerely, I don't understand all this alarm

Gary

[twerp]

Jan Crittenden, do you think there is going to be a dust issue with this vulnerable area of the camera?

Jan Crittenden, does the 5 year limited Panasonic warranty cover dust inside the lens ?

Thank you.

i would LOVE for this to get answered. i purchased my 170 today and am now terribly worried.

EDIT: i wish scarlet would hurry things up :D

EDIT 2: i couldn't sleep so i braved the two flights of stairs to where i keep my hvx200. i wiggled the hell out that thing. absolutely no play. steady as a rock. i guess when my 170 gets here next week i'll have to wiggle it. i just hope my mom doesn't walk in on me wiggling my 170... (:

[weixiang623]

This wiggle has been evidenced using an unsafe 35mm adapter settings and now is evident only if you look for it. Isn't it?
The typical 'rubber sensation' of the shock mount is evident evident when you move the lens, isn't it?

that's a lot of "evidence"

[Jan_Crittenden]

Originally Posted by CW-35
Jan Crittenden, do you think there is going to be a dust issue with this vulnerable area of the camera? does the 5 year limited Panasonic warranty cover dust inside the lens ?


There should be no issue with dust inside the lens as there is no way that the dust can get in, and so yes it would be covered. While it looks like there might be, there is not. It is the same sort of rubber grommeting in there that there is in the other cameras. there hasn't been an issue there, there won't be one here. Now dust in the external controls like the focus ring or the zoom would not be, but inside the camera yes.

Best,

Jan

[Jan_Crittenden]

I've been following this post since the begining and Jan and Barry are saying it's always been the same design and Dino and some others have been saying the wiggle is worse than previous generations. As someone who's looking to buy the 170 (and this is really the big question)..... is will Panasonic cover any damages due to a fault from this wiggle in the 5 year warranty????

I would assume that if Jan and Barry are correct then Panasonic would have no problem covering this in the warranty since it's never happened before.

I have said it before, the wiggle is caused by a shock-mount design. It is a feature, a safe-guard. It is not a problem. There is no damage that could come to this camera by this being in there. It is similar to the other cameras, but not the same as it is a different camera. It may be that the the 170 has more wiggle than the 200 because the engineers thought there would be more potential to hit the lens because people would be trying out new things. Who knows when I hear back, it won't be until next week, and I will let you know. But it is a feature, not a liability.

Just common sense says that if something is bigger it is going to be harder to move. The 170 is more the size of the DVX than it is close to the HVX, thus my comments about the the HPX170 build being more similar to the DVX. They all are solidly constructed, they all have aluminum/magnesium die cast chassis, and the 170 has a 5 year warranty.

Hope this helps,

Jan

Best regads,

Jan

[Jan_Crittenden]

Yes, all we've seen is spin by two people who don't own an HPX170, but make a living from Panasonic products. I've had enough election year spin, I don't need to read more on this forum. My concerns have been dismissed out of hand by a person who has limited technical knowledge, being a salesperson, and another who makes money writing books about Panasonic products.


Hi Jeff,

I am not a sales person I am the product manager for the USA for this product. I am a member of the design team on this product. And my technical knowledge is not limited, although I am not an engineer. What I did not have in front of me are the cameras in question. I happen to be in Denver visiting my father and not in NJ where I would have done exactly what my engineers did, check it out. I never noticed that there was a shock mount there. I did not dismiss your concerns, I sent the question back to NJ and they came back with an answer. The answer being that the shock mount is all part of the design. Why it is different from one camera to another is that perhaps the engineers felt the design needed to be changed for some reason or another. The rest of what I said about hanging the adapters off the front of the camera still holds, I have seen people come into the service center with their camera in two parts, the support has to be there.

Secondly, Barry is a pretty sharp guy and he wouldn't be able to make any money off his writing if indeed he was not on the ball and pretty much correct about how the camera works. I mean who would want to read a book that was full of inaccuracies and wrong information. I know I certainly would not want to buy it and put one in every single box that is a US camera.

When the engineers get back to me next week, I will post that as well.

This is not spin, I am a pretty straight shooter, most of the long term folks on this board can attest to this.



Been there, done that. I have no time for Panasonic fan boys or shills.

Well, I can say that I am not a fanboy, as I am a woman, but I am a fan of the little camera, and I can say that I think the HPX is a fabulous little camera. Again I am working hard to not be upset that you have dissed myself and Barry, who probably knows the operational side of the camera better than anyone on this list. The HPX170 was basically designed by the group of people on this list with me being the filter to the factory design team, go look at the list of wants in the HVX200A want list on this very same board. I have been in this industry for now 35 years, I am not a shill, I have worked for Panasonic for 21 of those years. And we as a company are nothing like Sony other than we do both produce electronics.

If there were a problem, I would have said so. Look under the HPX500 forum for the 5600K green shift thread. Virtually the very first post I made there acknowleged the problem and while it took longer that I even would have suspected to find and put in the fix, we got a fix.

So when I say that the shock mount is not a problem it is not a problem, why it varies from one camera, 170 to DVX to HVX, to another is probably attibutable to the fact that the parts between the cameras are different or the design team implemented something new that they thought would work better. When they get back to me I will post that as well.

Hope this helps,

Jan

[CW-35]

There should be no issue with dust inside the lens as there is no way that the dust can get in, and so yes it would be covered. While it looks like there might be, there is not.

Thanks for this clarification.

[Jan_Crittenden]

That fact alone deserves rigorous investigation by panasonic and a user-oriented approach to the potentiality this could be an issue with THIS model. unfortunately what i think we're getting for the most part thus far is generally a denial of the fact there could be an issue in order to calm fears and protect sales.


The investigation is that the shock mount is different and there is nothing worng with the camera or the design. You can choose to think that you are just getting words here but the engineers that I have looking at this back in NJ are some of the best in the industry, I would want them on my team any day things start to go wrong. This shock mounting is not an issue and when I get further information back from the factory I will post it but it is not an issue.



i understand nobody wants to start a wildfire of quality rumors at panasonic. but i really believe the best way to handle that would be genuine concern for what i feel is a valid point that's been brought to panasonic's attention, and some assurances that there will be every effort to make it right if it turns out to need attention AFTER TESTING before simply dismissing it under the banner of a 'lighter, smaller' or 'same as the rest' PR statement.

If there were something wrong with it we would make it right and there is a 5 year warranty on the camera. And the camera is smaller, and llighter than the HVX. This is not a dismissal, it is telling you that this is a part of the design.



whether or not it's a major issue may be up in air until there can be more information from users and panasonic (assuming they will move in the direction of the previous comment), but whether or not it's got more play isn't debatable at this point.

Can you put the shock absorbers from your Lincoln Town car on a Miata? Do these two respond a little differently when driving over bumps? The fact that you are thinking that the two cameras regardless of size should be the same, makes as much sense as the Miata/Town Car shock absorbers. They don't have to be the same, they just have to work for that body, and I believe that is what we have here.

Hope this helps,

Jan

[LuckyStudio 13]

I dont own the hpx170, but based on my experience, it is NOT a good idea to hang any weight on the front of your lens without proper support. 35mm adapter setup is heavy and when you coupled that with a mattebox + filters, 35mm lenses, you are simply putting stress into a delicate part of your camera (the optics). Anything that attaches to the lens of my camera HAS TO BE FIRMLY SUPPORTED BY THE RAILS. NO EXCEPTION.

I have seen big 2/3" b4 ENG lens that was optically damaged because the owner has been using a screw on wide angle converter on the front of this camera for a long long time (he shoots for car dealership, so he needed the wide angle for the inside shot of the vehicles). As you all know, all the element glasses in a lens (hpx170 has 13) are engineered to be highly precise. A continuous stress on the lens from the weight of his wide angle adapter is the cause of the demise for his expensive 2/3" b4 ENG lens. For his application, we adviced him to get a super wide angle lens instead.

Furthermore, to all you brave mavericks out there, you should known that the first batch/iteration of any product is not going to have a smooth road ahead. To be fair, I have never heard of lenses that needed shock mounted and shock supported, besides a steadicam. I also hardly see the need of a FF on the stock lens on a 1/3" sensor camera, you can hardly rack focus to anything with that deep DOF.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Furthermore, to all you brave mavericks out there, you should known that the first batch/iteration of any product is not going to have a smooth road ahead. To be fair, I have never heard of lenses that needed shock mounted and shock supported, besides a steadicam. I also hardly see the need of a FF on the stock lens on a 1/3" sensor camera, you can hardly rack focus to anything with that deep DOF.

Hi, The HPX is not an experiment. It is a fully working camera and this shock mounting is not an issue. The DVX and the HVX have it as well. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean that it didn't exist. Heck I didn't know that it existed until yesterday, but then I have not grabbed a lens and tried to wiggle it back and forth.

As far as an FF on the 1/3" yes it can prove to be useful and you can actually set your camera to the subject matter and utilize the FF capabilities. Seen it many times.

Best,

Jan

[LuckyStudio 13]

Heya Jan,

Not saying that the hpx170 is an experiment or a toy, but based on my previous experience, there are always bugs that needed to be ironed out on ANY first batch product. Hpx200 with the battery tab, EX1 with everything physically possible under the sun, Canon XH-A1 with bad CCD .....etc. Just curious that, if it is indeed a shock mount feature, how come it was not mentioned on the Panasonic brochure and also how would a side to side lens shock mount aid in the design and usage of a camera (I am not trying to be cynical but I really want to know/learn about a lens shock mount feature) as I cannot see the reason I want my front lens element to be able to move side to side. Perhaps we will get the answer from Osaka early next week.

p/s: I always find that 1/3" sensor camera is almost* useless for rack focusing, unless the subject is very far away from each other. Isnt this why we have to deal with the PITA 35mm adapter. If you can make 1/3" sensor camera do what you needed it to do, then more power to you, as I really have no more patience to deal with 35mm dof adapter and its compromises :(

[Jan_Crittenden]

Heya Jan,
Hpx200 with the battery tab,

That is an HVX200. There was a problem and the warranty covered that. It became redesigned and anyone that broke theirs had it fixed under warranty. I have yet to have any of my original HVXs break, but that does not negate the issue, it was fixed. The battery tab is a unique example as well as the number of thes that we have replaced in comparison to the number of cameras our there is less than 10%. It really is a balance on this one of design and the individual using it. But that does not mean we didn't redign it. The Shock Mount is nothing like that.



Just curious that, if it is indeed a shock mount feature, how come it was not mentioned on the Panasonic brochure and also how would a side to side lens shock mount aid in the design and usage of a camera (I am not trying to be cynical but I really want to know/learn about a lens shock mount feature)

As for the feature, let's say that you are walking with the camera and not watching carefully that which is near the camera and you inadvertently hit the lens with a counter or the leg of a tripod or a large rock. Having the lens give a little on a side-to-side is a good thing. They probably didn't think of it as a feature in engineering but rather a safeguard. There are a number of things that I insisted go into the brochure that fell into this category, and as I said above, I didn't know this was in there, but it has been a part of every DVX(over 60,000 on the B series alone) and every HVX, a similar number and now on the HPX.


as I cannot see the reason I want my front lens element to be able to move side to side. Perhaps we will get the answer from Osaka early next week.

It is for the accidental bump protection.

Best,

Jan

[davetronic]

jan - i appreciate you responding to comments specifically. and i do appreciate that you are taking steps to find out more information from your engineers be they in NJ or Osaka.

but respectfully, your rationale for the HVX being stiffer doesn't seem to be consistent with some of your other statements. on one hand, if the HVX stiffness accompanies the fact it's bigger, than why does the HPX exhibit MUCH more play than the DVX when it's bigger than it (which i'd argue is the case, by a margin)?

if it's simply that this camera is different from either the DVX or HVX and has it's own design specs, why would panasonic engineer more play in the shock mount for this camera? were there a rash of repairs on the previous cameras because they kept getting knocked into things? did they see this as an improvement? and if so, why? these are the questions i have.

i would think engineering any additional movement at the lens would be negated as much as possible, not increased unless there were very strong rationale and lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest it was essential.

again, as to whether this is a major issue that affects image quality will have to be determined by how this play does / does not affect the image when used with a follow focus. i agree with everyone else that there's no effect when i mount an adapter properly and connected it to rail support. but i also know there's much more movement in comparison with the DVX or the HVX.

why?

[Jan_Crittenden]

but respectfully, your rationale for the HVX being stiffer doesn't seem to be consistent with some of your other statements. on one hand, if the HVX stiffness accompanies the fact it's bigger, than why does the HPX exhibit MUCH more play than the DVX when it's bigger than it (which i'd argue is the case, by a margin)?


Because it is a different camera, designed at a different time. Nothing more sinister than that.


if it's simply that this camera is different from either the DVX or HVX and has it's own design specs, why would panasonic engineer more play in the shock mount for this camera? were there a rash of repairs on the previous cameras because they kept getting knocked into things? did they see this as an improvement? and if so, why? these are the questions i have.

Because they felt that to do it a different way might be better. Again nothing more than that.



i would think any movement at the lens would be negated as much as possible, not increased unless there were very strong rationale and lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest it was essential.

Actually it may be as simple as the lens for the HPX is sufficiently different that they cannot use the same one as the one for the DVX. The body barrel on the HPX is different. They may have found new material that was better in their opinion. Keep in mind this shock mount should not come into play during recording but rather when it makes an inadvertant knock against something.



again, as to whether this is a major issue that affects image quality will have to be determined by how this play does / does not affect the image when used with a follow focus. i agree with everyone else that there's no effect when the adapter is mounted properly and connected to rail support. but i also know there's much more movement in comparison with the DVX or the HVX.

But it shouldn't have any impact on the camera's ability to take pictures.


why?

Maybe they will tell us, maybe they won't be able to. But I would suspect it would be one of the theories from above.

Best,

Jan

[Jason Adams]

My 100B does not really do this.
But I have to say I have great respect for Barry and Jan. I have met both in person and discussed cameras. They were both quick to point out when something was less then desirable or there was a feature they did not like on the panny cameras. Both have always been very straight forward in my experience, so I will take their word until I see some footage of this being a REAL problem.

It is different then my 100B. The image for me casts the deciding vote. Can anyone post footage where this side to side motion negativity affects the captured image?

I have seen the Vimeo post of the lens wiggle. Can someone post video of the camera shooting, while they manipulate the shock mount feature, pulling focas on the camera's focus ring, and with a 35mm adapter on supports. I am not a camera designer so I can not say if this is a good or bad design. All I care about is getting a solid image.

Regardless of how this ends up, you must achnowledge it is great that a Panasonic designer is personaly answering our questions directly on these boards. I apprecitae your support Jan, and I appreciate everyone else who alerted us to this little lens mystery.


GIVE US FOOTY

[atlfilmguy]

Jan,
I also respect and appreciate the heck out of you and Barry. Both of you have answered countless questions and have made this community whole.

I am concerned as I noted in a previous post that it appears that there is different amounts of play WITHIN the HPX170 product line. Some users have claimed that their cameras have no play. While mine certainly exibits almost as much play as the vimeo video, it strikes me a wierd that mine is not the same as the vimeo video.

Being that this is a feature, what about the ones that exibit no play. Are those defective?

[davetronic]

Because it is a different camera, designed at a different time.

Because they felt that to do it a different way might be better.

Actually it may be as simple as the lens for the HPX is sufficiently different that they cannot use the same one as the one for the DVX. The body barrel on the HPX is different. They may have found new material that was better in their opinion.

Maybe they will tell us, maybe they won't be able to. But I would suspect it would be one of the theories from above.



jan please understand that the 16 pages of previous explanations that ranged from - the bigger the body the stiffer the lens should be, the lighter the body the looser it is and the more like the DVX it should be - increased concerns rather than alleviated them when each proved to be inconsistent.

that said, i'm glad we've finally gotten to your current explanations and hope that your team can tell us WHY it has more play - and that it's absolutely intentional to that degree, and that user experience will prove that this is a non-issue.

[Angelcyk]

Earlier on this thread there was a video of someone wiggling the lens of the 170. I'm just curious to know if you were to look inside the viewfinder and see if the picture is also wiggling. So far people reported the wiggle but there hasn't been one report of this effecting the picture.

There just seems to be alot of panic on this forum about a "potential problem" but nothing has effected a single frame. If so, please let us know but until then I think we're just jumping the gun. (then again this just is just my POV)

[Leo Versola]

Not to add fuel to the fire but yes, the image shifts when the lens wiggles.

BTW, I've stopped worrying about this for now and have been enjoying the great features of this awesome little camera. For me they've been:

1) Waveform monitor; just no better way to set exposure. Should be a standard on cams from here on out...
2) Vectorscope; just no better way to set white balance. Should be a standard on cams from here on out...
3) Focusing aids; work better than I had hoped for.
4) Dual monitor outs; one for me and one for whomever else...
5) Four channel sound.
6) Much better with lowlight.
7) Recallable scene files.
8) Tapeless workflow; pop the P2 card out and right into my laptop...
9) Stunning picture with beautiful color rendition.

Lots to be thankful for and until I run into a real problem, I'm going to continue to stop losing sleep over it for now and just be happy shooting ...

Cheers!

[soarprod]

lets quit the straw-man arguments and get to the bottom of this with more footage from the cam during the "wiggle"

[Dino]

Jan,

I sincerely appreciate your being so available on these forums, I know it is time consuming and can be frustrating. I apologize for dissing you. It felt like you were being defensive before taking the time to look into the issue. I'm glad you took my advice from my PM to you to run this by the engineers and am happy that you are relaying information as you get it.

Barry is also a fantastic resource for all of us, I think I was more irritated with him dismissing my concerns without even seeing a production model HPX170. I am sure you and Panasonic will do the right thing and look forward to hearing from the engineers in Osaka.

I think I am very sensitive to how a manufacturer's rep. deals with potential issues because I have dealt with Sony for what seems a lifetime. Didn't mean to paint you with the same brush.

Thanks for your hard work.

[danny dale]

Not to add fuel to the fire but yes, the image shifts when the lens wiggles.


This is what concerns me... an example would be using the HPX on a car mount system driving and having wind pushing against the lens/hood causing image shifting or vibration.

Another question is if it is indeed a shock mount, why only side to side and not up and down as well?

I am planning on getting one, just kinda concerned right now.

[twerp]

lets quit the straw-man arguments and get to the bottom of this with more footage from the cam during the "wiggle"
quoted for truth

[Paul Llewellyn]

Forget this "wiggle" business, I've found something far worse!
When you tip the camera there's a loud kinda "clunk" from inside the body! What the heck is going on there!? Terrible build quality.

Loving the cam so far! :)

[snpx]

the 'clunk' is totally normal. the hvx and dvx has this, too. nothing to worry about.

[atlfilmguy]

He was joking

[snpx]

haha

[timbook2]

The wiggle is not worrysome. It is there to accept a shock should you inadvertantly hit the lens. It has been on all of our palmcorders on the professional side since 2002. It is a SHOCK-Mount. It is fine.

Thanks,

Jan

Hi Jan , first thanks for the answer. I took my DVX100BE today and tried to wiggle: no wiggle. I was not able to move the lens sideways or up&down. Of course I did not want to place extreme force on the lens. I did however place the same strain as I could perceive from the video showing the movement. From the postings of the other HPX and HVX owners I see there is more SHOCK-Mount loosenes than in the old DVX. I hope to see some footage soon to see if the shock mount looseness affects the image.
If it doesnt, Panasonic has no problem.....if it does, I am sure Japan is going to take this serious.
Once more: thanks for joining the discussion! Its very uncommon and appreciated.

[Deaniweenie]

then hey, instead of creating a further firestorm Dino, just take back the camera. And stick with your 2/3 inch cams.

To I Filmmaker, there is no doubt that the 170 has a problem. More and more users are going to experience the problem and find themselves disappointed with the camera.

Your answer is to tell Dino to return his camera and basically 'get lost' and stop whining.

If this is the answer then there is little point in having this forum. No-one will feel like they can confidently air there worries, and more to the point, Panasonic will not be encouraged to improve future cameras.

I am an HVX owner and was intending to be an HPX owner but I am now holding on until we get a definitive answer to this issue.

Also, the responses from Panasonic and, I have to say Barry have I feel, damaged the credibility of this forum and indeed, Panasonic.

I look forward to my confidence in both being rebuilt by Panasonic taking action over this issue.

Weenie.

[TheMusician]

Everybody please step back and take a breather. We are not going to hear anything new until next week when Jan gets ahold of Osaka so everybody is shouting in vain and saying some pretty hurtful things in the meantime. And please don't forget that if you had a Sony or Canon camera and had an issue, there is no Sony/Canon representative to help address the issues on this forum. You should have seen the nightmares that the EX1 had at the begining of its lifecycle and there was nobody to talk to about it. It is a privilege to have a voice from Panasonic here that can actually call Osaka and talk directly to them for us. Jan has done what she can for now and has assured us that she will be doing more at the beginning of the week. Panasonic actually LISTENS to this forum, check out how many features they gave to us from the request thread. Please don't say anything that we are all going to regret because you cannot wait until Monday.

[Deaniweenie]

The Musician has said it. Lets wait and see and hope there is a happy ending to all this.

Weenie.

[twerp]

i shoot mostly 'hardcore' and 'metal' bands music videos. i move the camera from side to side quite a bit to achieve that 'metal' video look. is this wobble going to affect me swinging my 170 around? i guess i'll find out next week when it arrives. i'm mad scared =|

maybe i'll send it back and get me a 200a. grrrr.

[dcnblues]

...Regardless of how this ends up, you must achnowledge it is great that a Panasonic designer is personaly answering our questions directly on these boards. I apprecitae your support Jan...

Amen! I've really enjoyed the quality of this board, and having a Panasonic rep reply to concerns, immediately, about their hot new product really reinforces my positive impression of the company, and of their products. Some companies just 'get it.' Most don't. The good will this engenders is a major factor in my purchase decision. And I've been doing a lot of research over the past few years. I think this camera is the one.

For the first twelve pages of this post, I was worried more about dust in the camera body than motion problems. My concerns have been put to rest.

And for a board having so many experts, I'm surprised there's been so little discussion about the new lens on this camera. I'm not an expert, but I have some idea of the compromises and precision that must go into getting a lens with both this zoom range and decent high-def optics. It doesn't surprise me a bit that it might be a bit more fragile / precise than previous designs, and that engineers would look into the impact / G-load that would knock something loose internally. And try to match a shock mount to that specific target.

Making the rubber mount 'wiggle factor' different from previous cameras.

Bottom line is that this whole issue seems much more likely to be deliberate engineering than cheap manufacture.

I may hold out for the first professional reviews of production units, but will probably buy the camera. And I'll be fully informed about it, thanks to the all the experts on this board (Barry and Adam Wilt and Jan in particular). Thanks again.

[Gary Senda]

dcnblues, I agree with many of your arguments.
I've tested my camera and I've no reason to be worried.
- the wiggle is about 1mm
- to make the lens play you must apply a significant force on the lens hood, that works as a lever. To obtain the same wiggle pushing directly on the lens you must double the force
- when lens moves you have the clear sensation the lens is firmly attached and anchored to the body, with the interposition of something made of rubber
- if there is rubber between the lens and the camera body this can only reduce the risk of dust inside

In my opinion the reason of the shock mount is that the camera has a large lens hood. As I've said it works as a lever because it is very big and without a shock mount every little collision of the hood is a great stress for the attachment point of the lens.

I've tested the camera for hours and I've not seen a single issue due to the wiggle: I've panned as quickly as I could, I've handhelded out of the car window to simulate a cameracar, I've shaked the camera, I've used it with a 35mm adapter, a 300mm lens and the follow focus. No visible issues in my footage.
On the other hand this lens is fantastic: I have never seen before a wide angle like this on a palmcorder. At the moment I prefer to enjoy my camera and not to be worried for a wiggle that probably is only a safe mount and without percepible consequences.

Regards

Gary

[ChrisA]

Jan,

I am concerned as I noted in a previous post that it appears that there is different amounts of play WITHIN the HPX170 product line. Some users have claimed that their cameras have no play. While mine certainly exibits almost as much play as the vimeo video, it strikes me a wierd that mine is not the same as the vimeo video.

Being that this is a feature, what about the ones that exibit no play. Are those defective?

Probably because some people are grabbing the lens and wiggling it a lot harder then others are, I doubt everyone is able to or wants to exert the exact same amount of force. And the camera in the vimeo video already had a 35mm adapter incorrectly mounted to the lens which could well have exacerbated the movement thereafter.

[Leo Versola]

Again, not to fuel the fire but the only time I can detect any movement in the lens is at full zoom and while trying to rack focus. You've got to have a gentle and smooth touch.

However, at a 35mm equivalent of 368mm, any movement whether it's from the tripod, the camera quick release plate or anything else that it could be attributed to is evident. I've used 400mm lenses on other cameras outdoors and even a slight breeze would cause movement in the image even when firmly locked down on a tripod.

On another note, I was panning back and forth and noticed that the image would lag just a tad bit every now and then. I thought to myself, what the ????, not another item to be concerned with...

However, after some cursory troubleshooting, I narrowed the cause down to having the OIS enabled. Upon disabling the OIS, I could not reproduce the effect at all. So, when locked down on a tripod, you're definitely going to want to disable the OIS to avoid this particular instance from happening.

Definitely not something to freak out over...

Come to think of it, I vaguely remember this being mentioned in another thread; I'll have to look for it.

[Gary Senda]

Again, not to fuel the fire but the only time I can detect any movement in the lens is at full zoom and while trying to rack focus. You've got to have a gentle and smooth touch.


It is very difficult at this focal lenght to distinguish if the movement you detect is due to the lens wiggle or it is due simply to the lens touching. As you have said at more than 350mm of focal lenght even a gentle touch can cause a significative shake in the framing. My lens absolutely don't wiggle for a simple focus changing or for touching the barrel

Regards

gary

[Jan_Crittenden]

i shoot mostly 'hardcore' and 'metal' bands music videos. i move the camera from side to side quite a bit to achieve that 'metal' video look. is this wobble going to affect me swinging my 170 around? i guess i'll find out next week when it arrives.

You will not notice it at all. I have had one in my hands for the last couple of months. I have had a follow focus on it and not. This is really a non-issue. Of this, I am convinced. The design is a part of all of the cameras, but it is implemented differently on each of the cameras.

Best,

Jan

[Erik Olson]

Jeff Regan's signature camera photo shows an example of a rig you absolutely should not fly. There is no support beyond the adapter, which will always translate a significant amount of force via cantilever laterally on the lens where it meets the adapter.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/image.php?u=14592&type=sigpic&dateline=1220281127

Not that this is what he is talking about, but I see this more and more often on these DOF rigs. At minimum, there should be a mattebox support riser to relieve the cantilever situation.

I've seen some image shift on the HVX200 when using the gearless follow-focus from indiFOCUS when the wheel is forced too hard against the focus ring. This is not an issue with any geared solution - at least not that I've ever seen. The DVX/HVX/HPX form-factor cameras have an almost frictionless focus ring, and this certainly will alleviate play for most users.

Again, if you are not exerting side to side or top to bottom force on the lens by improper mounting of DOF adapters (e.g., any hard mounting without additional DOF / lens support risers), this slop in the shock mounting should not be an issue.

e

[Erik Olson]

As an aside, when is Panasonic going to start building focus rings with both the tactile ridges and a film pitch ring? I can't imagine that most of their prosumer / pro market customers wouldn't appreciate the feature?

e

[Dino]

Erik,

I set up my adapter rig exactly as Zacuto did in their NAB booth, except they were using a Letus B4 Relay and HPX500, and their own rods/support. I used this setup with the 200A and EX1 with no issues.

Due to my experience with the HPX170 lateral lens play, I have added a second support
under the adapter, closer to the taking lens and there is now a screw going through the support and into the adapter.

Are you saying that a prime lens should also have its own support?

[DC]

FWIW, I have posted some more of my comments about this here here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1423568&postcount=9

[Segarza]

Hey guys!

I just had a chance to play with my new HPX170 and I'm profoundly disappointed. The problems stated in this thread are not being blown out of proportion. I set my two HVX200's and HPX170 side by side. And the HPX lens has significantly more wobble or play. Just like the vimeo video. The HVX200s' lens play, on the other hand, is imperceptible. On the HPX170, image shifting is more than evident by mid to full telephoto. I locked the HPX170 down on a tripod, full telephoto and applied the slightest of pressure to the focus ring (not even the lens hood) and the image shifted significantly. As a reference or comparison point I applied the same pressure to the HPX's mic and camera shake was minimal. Applied the same pressure to the tripod handle and again camera shake was minimal compared to the image shift when applying slight pressure on the focus ring. Tried the same experiment mid telephoto and same results, although the shifting was less noticeable, it was still significant.

I then proceeded to do the same experiment with the HVX200's, and there was no image shifting, only minimal to imperceptible camera shake.

In my opinion this is a serious design flaw. I do quite a bit of aerial photography, and after this test would never consider taking the HPX170 up. The wind would exert enough pressure on the lens to cause image shifting.

[Angelcyk]

I guess there's nothing that can be done until we here back from Osaka.

[aurantaurant]

DINO,


Forgive me, English is my 5th language...

Because you're not used to using these types of cameras with an adapter, there is going to be a learning curve for you to figure everything out. The problem you're describing...



... The image shifts from side to side while focusing...

Is due to the OIS being enabled on the camera. If you're using an adapter or you are zoomed all the way in without the adapter, you're going to get the side-to-side jump. I dealt with this myself when I first started using my adapter.

I watched your video and went "Oh F me... now im not buying that crap" Then i tested my HVX and it does the same thing.

Turn off the OIS and it will be fine. My HVX200 has the same side-to-side play on the lens and I've won two oscars with my Redrock and HVX (just kidding) Not kidding about the side-to-side play though. It's the same as your Vimeo video. I've never had a problem.

Another alternative would be to sell me your defective HPX170 for around $3000 seeing as Panasonic's warranty won't cover this issue... making your 170 essentially worthless. Feel free to PM me if you want to sell it. MOOOOOOhahahahahaha!!!!

-Chowder.

[Joe Lawry]

Wheres chris hurd when you need someone to close a dead thread, wait wrong forum.. heh

[atlfilmguy]

Joe, Do you really think this is a dead issue?

[wgzn]

i do. several of us have tested it and its a non-issue

[Segarza]

Well, I wouldn't take anybody's word. Try it for yourself, lock the camera down on a tripod, zoom all the way in or even mid-way, focus and see if it's a non-issue. And this is without any kind of adapter in front of the lens or OIS.

I'll post some footage later today.

I'm certain Panasonic reps would appreciate a changing the title of the thread, but potential buyers that might be affected by this issue would even be more thankful.

[Dino]

DINO,
Is due to the OIS being enabled on the camera. If you're using an adapter or you are zoomed all the way in without the adapter, you're going to get the side-to-side jump. I dealt with this myself when I first started using my adapter.

I watched your video and went "Oh F me... now im not buying that crap" Then i tested my HVX and it does the same thing.

Turn off the OIS and it will be fine.

-Chowder.

I turned OIS off before even mounting the adapter. It has never been on.

That is NOT my video, it was posted by another owner.

This thread documents many owners who feel like the play is more than on previous Panasonic palmcorders.

We have not heard from Osaka, we have not heard from owners using Follow Focus on the built-in lens at a long focal length.

Yet, there are forum members who insist this is a non-issue, want me to change
the thread title, a well regarded expert who proclaimed the play to be exactly the same as the "identically built" previous cameras, without even having seen
a production HPX170, and of course the Panasonic rep. has evolved this front
end play into a feature, one that has been there on previous cameras for years, but was unknown until a few days ago.

If the moderators want to change the thread title or choose to lock up the
thread, that's their choice, it's their forum.

[Segarza]

I'm getting considerable image shifting in regular operating mode when spinning the focus ring :( mid to full telephoto range. Like I said earlier, did a side by side test with my two HVX200's and no image shifting whatsoever under the exact same circumstances. I love the camera's image quality and all the other perks, it's just that once you offer a customer a certain standard of quality, in this case build quality, Panny can't lower the quality.

I'd rather have a solid reliable build than many of the other new features. I don't think I'll return the camera, but I'll never do any aerial shoots with it, or shoot handheld where I might need to zoom in past mid focal range.

[atlfilmguy]

Probably because some people are grabbing the lens and wiggling it a lot harder then others are, I doubt everyone is able to or wants to exert the exact same amount of force. And the camera in the vimeo video already had a 35mm adapter incorrectly mounted to the lens which could well have exacerbated the movement thereafter.


What about the fact that some report NO play at all. Are their cameras defective?

I would not want to wiggle hard either, but some have said there is not any play when they try to make it wiggle.

I am waiting also until Osaka speaks, but I still would like to hear about this difference within the HPX line. It seems wierd to me.

[Angelcyk]

For those of you who say it is a non-issue, I wondering if you mean that this "wiggle" has never effected a single frame and never will?

I'm also wondering if there was just a bad batch of cameras sent out and those of you who think the "wiggle" is a problem just happened to get this bad batch? Not sure........ we'll just have to see what Osaka says about it.

[Deaniweenie]

It is interesting that the official Panasonic line on this issue is that it is a design feature, a shock mounted lens in fact. But if that is the case, why are some forum members saying their cameras have no play at all. It sounds like if it is indeed a design feature, it works intermittently from camera to camera.

This thread should not be closed and the title should not be changed. If either happens, the freedom of speech of forum members will be eroded away.

[Deaniweenie]

Forum members are dismissing this problem as a 'non-issue'. It clearly is an issue, the camera clearly has a problem.

Panasonic have handed the baton to Sony. Lets hope it's only temporary.

[Gary Senda]

I've just spent more than 4 hours in my dealer showroom.

We have tested 5 cameras of his batch. These are the results:

1. the amount of the play is exactly the same in all cameras: no differences
2. HVX200 adn DVX100 have a similar play, but it is less pronunciated; anyway both cameras have the same kind of play (lateral and not upside-down)
3. we have tested all kinds of devices you can put on a camera lens (additional lenses, follow focus, mattebox, 35mm adapters etc) and we have made a camera car simulation also
4. we have tried to operate normally moving focus ring (or simply touching the lens) with full zoom

in ALL these tests we've not seen any issues on recorded clips

The lens moves but we've not recorded any issue and we've tried on 6 cameras (mine + 10 in the shop).

Additionally, in the shop there were other people interested to HPX and they've bought the camera after seeing our tests: for all them this was not an issue or a reason to not buy the camera.

This is my experience and the results of the tests.

Regards

Gary

[Gary Senda]

(mine + 10 in the shop)

ops... five. I wanted to try on 10 cameras, but the dealer didn't want to open 10 packages

Gary

[Deaniweenie]

Gary, this thread is about the HPX170 not the HVX or DVX. Did your test involve the HPX or not?

[DC]

This wiggle is generally only an issue for people obsessing over it. Yes, you can wiggle the lens by exerting enough stress on the shock mount. Under normal and proper use, this wiggle is a non-isssue.

For those shooters that want to use it under extreme wind pressure while riding in helicopters, I can't attest that there won't be a problem. For the rest of us . . . relax and enjoy the cam. There is no need for unnecessary flaming of the company and product when "clearly" there has been no problem discovered, but merely a characteristic of the camera that by official accounts is a "feature" of the camera. Anyone that finds contention with that fact is taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance (which I find unfair).

Unless the Osaka people state anything to the contrary, and because of my personal experience with the HPX170 as well as others' testimonials, I will continue to take the position that there is no design flaw with this camera. And this is not to say that some HPX170 cameras have no defects; that is generally up to the individual HPX170 owners to determine and report to Panasonic.

[Gary Senda]

Gary, this thread is about the HPX170 not the HVX or DVX. Did your test involve the HPX or not?

Test was performed on 5 HPX171e, european model of HPX170

Gary

[alexdias]

Right now I believe it's hard to take any definitive position on this situation.

I certainly respect Barry, Jen and all others that have been, over the years, incredibly helpful and knowledgeable, but I don't think users experiencing problems with the "wiggle" are just "creating waves" in an otherwise excellent camera release.
I've been following the thread from the beginning and Dino and others also seemed very cautious and knowledgeable.
Jen has mentioned taking the "issue" to Osaka so we'll see what they have to say.
With time there will be many other users expanding and sharing their own experiences.

I'll wait a little longer to cast any verdict.

[Segarza]

Under normal and proper use, it IS an issue. Just try focusing using index finger and thumb while in mid to full telephoto range. Voila! Image shifting... considerable image shifting. No excess force or anything, a regular rack focus. And this is without ANY lens attachment or OIS. Just a plain HPX170 mounted on a tripod.

The wiggling/wobbling "feature" or whatever you want to call it is nowhere near the HVX200's or the DVX100a's.

As for me, it's not a question of whether Osaka acknowledges the flaw or defective batch, it's about WHAT are they going to do about it. Had a hard time deciding between the EX1/EX3 and HPX, jello-cam was the decisive factor and now I've got panny version of jello-cam on my HPX!

Wish I were more patient and had waited for the HPX170A.

[henry cho]

gary and others who don't see the moving lens as a problem, can you please do segarza's test and put the camera on a tripod, zoom to 80-100% telephoto, and perform a rack focus between two objects? is there any visible movement in the image?

i'm reading a lot of stuff that isn't very helpful or pertinent, and everyone's tests seem inconsistent. segarza's test is simple, and should nail whether the "shock mount" lens is going to be a problem. i'd really like to know before i plonk down money on this camera.

[Gary Senda]

In this moment I'm focusing at full telephoto: the image is firmly stable.

I've tried focusing at full telephoto with other 5 HPX: no issues

My experience is very very different from yours

Regards

Gary

[Gary Senda]

gary and others who don't see the moving lens as a problem, can you please do segarza's test and put the camera on a tripod, zoom to 80-100% telephoto, and perform a rack focus between two objects? is there any visible movement in the image?

Absolutely NO: 6 cameras tested. No issues in normal operations.

I should like to see the 'issued' clips

Gary

[DC]

Under normal and proper use, it IS an issue. Just try focusing using index finger and thumb while in mid to full telephoto range. Voila! Image shifting... considerable image shifting. No excess force or anything, a regular rack focus. And this is without ANY lens attachment or OIS. Just a plain HPX170 mounted on a tripod.

I have. And I have not discovered any problem whatsoever.

If some people are having the problem and others aren't, this leads me to believe one of two things:

1. Improper use by the user

or

2. Manufacturing defect (which is NOT the same as a design flaw)


For the sake of argument, let's assume it's the latter. Perhaps some people simply have a defective batch of cameras? If this is the case, I would have to assume Panasonic would cover that. However, a shock mount design alone has not yet been proven to be a design flaw across all HPX170 cameras.

[Segarza]

I'm hoping too it's a manufacturing defect. I'll post my clips tonight... i'll try to post both HPX clips and one of the HVX's recording me while doing the test.

[DC]

I, too, hope this issue is definitively resolved and SOON! For everyone's sake! :D

[Segarza]

Ok guys here's some footage, quick test...

http://homepage.mac.com/segarza/hpx170/imageshift.mov

First rack focus. Then I gently tapped the int microphone, as a reference to see how much of the movement during the rack focus is due to camera shake and how much accounts for the image shifting. Then I gently tapped the focus ring. You be the judge!

[Beat Takeshi]

So you expect to see image shift like that when you rack focus?

[Segarza]

I was really gentle when I rack focused... Not that I would normally use excessive force, but I didn't have to worry about it. Now I do. Using a follow focus would probably be much better.

[atlfilmguy]

Ok guys here's some footage, quick test...

http://homepage.mac.com/segarza/hpx170/imageshift.mov

First rack focus. Then I gently tapped the int microphone, as a reference to see how much of the movement during the rack focus is due to camera shake and how much accounts for the image shifting. Then I gently tapped the focus ring. You be the judge!


In my work I have times when I rack focus fast with the stock camera using my hand, not any device.

This worries me.

Performing my own tests tonight. I will post my observations as well.




I like the idea of this board being a discussion, and as long as there is no abuse or threats I do not think any thread should be closed. There are many users concerned about this and the best way to hash it out is to have a wonderful place like this to discuss it. I am so glad to have this board and that Jan, Barry , ETC are here to be part of the discussion.

[BXL]

I Really, Really want this baby... I guess nobody wants to hear their shiny new camera has a flaw... I refuse to get anything else than panasonic now that I'm shifting to HD... we need to acknowledge however that Segarza's vid DOES show a shifting on the image... being a design flaw or a faulty cam... the image DOES move...

[Gary Senda]

According my way of focusing I have not had any issue, but perhaps the result depends also by the way of operating of each of us.

Anyway I've made a little experiment and I have reduced to ***zero*** the play of the lens in a couple of minutes.

The lens moves only laterally and not upside-down and the slot between the barrel and the camera body is about 1mm or less. I've made two little semicircular profiles of 1mm black cardboard and I've slipped them in the slot: 1 on the right and 1 on the left. The lens didn'tt move. Then I've used a toothpick to remove the cardboards, without any damage for the camera.

Perhaps people that cannot live with the shock mount could try: you need only a cardboard of adeguate thickness and if you use a black one it is not visible.
In other words, it is very easy to fix this play if you cannot live it.

Anyway I prefer to have a shock mount: the technician of my camera dealer has clearly said that is well known that the risk of lens damage in case of collision is reduced in panasonic cameras because the shock mount.

Regards

Gary

[Sneakle]

I locked mine down and zoomed in tight. Unless you have a really feather touch, it's impossible to manual focus without moving the frame. But if you roll the focus from the bottom you're ok. I like everything else about it, but.....sheeez. I guess you can count me in the anti-shockmount crowd. The shim idea sounds promising, if done by Panasonic.

[Gary Senda]

But if you roll the focus from the bottom you're ok.

Yes, because the lens has only a lateral play. I normally used to focus from the bottom, so for me there's no problem, even fully zoomed.
Perhaps the correct way to focus with this camera is from the bottom: every instrument has its characteristics... and for those who cannot live with this 'play' two simple shims can be the solution.

:-)

We could conclude in this way: for some people this is a non-issue, for the other people, who cannot live with this play, there will be surely a simple way to fix the "wiggle"

Gary

[BXL]

Panasonic HPX170, delivered with battery, charger, 16G P2card, Barry Green's book, 5 year warranty and two black cardboard bits... sorry, just a joke, couldn't help it...

[Gary Senda]

DVXuser Shop could sell the kit: 2 ***professionals*** shims for only 5 USD and they could be included in Barry's book, too

:-)

[BXL]

would they ship to Europe? I hope so!

[Segarza]

Couple of drops of super glue ought to fix it! or just set it to Autofocus! why bother manual focusing! hehe

[Gary Senda]

[quote=Segarza;1424531 or just set it to Autofocus[/quote]

when fully zoomed this is not a so bad idea, also with a camera without lens play

[Beat Takeshi]

I think the lens should not move at all when you touch it shock mount or not.

[Steve Smull]

DVXuser Shop could sell the shims...and they could be included in Barry's book, too
:-)


The shims could BE Barry's book. "Addendum: remove back cover, trim to fit lens"

[atlfilmguy]

I just performed a test similiar to Segarza's with the HPX170 and the HVX200.
Results:

HPX170 - There is movement in the image EXACTLY like the experiment performed by Segarza. I tried every way I could to get it to stay steady and could only do it at a VERY slow and feather touch turn of the foucus wheel from both sides with both hands.

If you adjust focus at full or mostly full telephoto you will get lateral movement in the image. I tried to start at the top, the bottom, and the side and had movement from each position.

I even tried to pull focus using my finger on the top or the bottom of the focus ring for the same focus pull, the shift was equal in both directions.

HVX200- No movement. The only way to get the HVX image to move was to grab the lens cover and pull and push pretty hard. Focus, no matter how fast or hard I manipulated the focus ring did not change the image at all.


CONCLUSION,
The lateral movement seen in the image of the HPX170 will render the idea of pulling focus with the stock camera useless. To get the shallow depth of field with the stock camera to make pulling focus worth it you need to zoom in to the point that the lateral movement is distracting.

In light of this the HPX will only be useful to me and others as a 35MM adapter camera.
I am troubled that this camera is basically half of the camera I bought because of this issue.

Even though this shock mount has been referred to as a feature and is used properly in the HVX and DVX lines, it is OVERDONE in the HPX170 line and needs to be addressed. A fully functional camera should be able to focus at full telephoto with no image movement.

This is painful for me because I really wanted this camera to be the camera for me.

[Angelcyk]

I'm really trying to see how this is a non-issue but I just don't see how the lateral image shifting should be considered a "feature" or part of the "design".

[BXL]

well, I think in light of this sad event we can only wait for news from Panasonic... no more trying to block the sun with one hand my fellow dvxusers... it's clear now that THERE IS A PROBLEM... as much as we might want to deny it

[BXL]

i feel like on a lottery

[BXL]

bummer, I was so looking forward to this camera

[Stephen Mick]

Not a problem with my 170. I compared the shots between my HVX200 and the 170 (no 35mm adapter attached) and the images look rock solid.

I don't ever plan on hanging a DOF adapter off my camera, so I'm not worried.

--SM

[Deaniweenie]

Panasonic need to hold their hands up to this and come clean. They have got it wrong and will do themselves no good by trying to hide this problem behind the story of 'a design feature'. Who on earth would design a camera that produces wobbly images.

For people who keep insisting that there is no problem and it's a 'non-issue', look back through this thread (and other current threads) and see the wealth of evidence that there is a serious issue with this camera. The very fact that Panasonic have acknowledged that the lens moves on the 170 is proof enough that there is an issue. If Panasonic say that the lens moves then the doubters should also acknowledge there is an issue. This camera is all about the image it produces and at the moment it produces a wobbly image unless you focus from below or stick cardboard shims into the lens (wonder how that affects the warranty).

The evidence is building by the minute and will damage the reputation of the P2 system unless Panasonic take action, quickly. Panasonic will save face and instill confidence back in loyal users and users new to P2 if they announce a solution for current owners and a modified future 170.

Come on Panasonic, do the right thing before it's too late.

[Stephen Mick]

It's a non-issue with my camera, but might be an issue with yours.

Wait, you do have a 170, right?

[dcnblues]

Ok guys here's some footage, quick test...

http://homepage.mac.com/segarza/hpx170/imageshift.mov

First rack focus. Then I gently tapped the int microphone, as a reference to see how much of the movement during the rack focus is due to camera shake and how much accounts for the image shifting. Then I gently tapped the focus ring. You be the judge!

Am I missing something here? I'm light on experience, but this looks like footage shot from a camera on a very light tripod, or no tripod at all.

Also, we are talking about using the manual focus ring, so this shouldn't be an issue using a remote. Is that correct? Can someone verify this?

[Segarza]

It's a non-issue with my camera, but might be an issue with yours.

Wait, you do have a 170, right?

Lucky you, did you test your camera mid to full telephoto? Wide-open is barely, if, noticeable.

[Segarza]

Am I missing something here? I'm light on experience, but this looks like footage shot from a camera on a very light tripod, or no tripod at all.

Also, we are talking about using the manual focus ring, so this shouldn't be an issue using a remote. Is that correct? Can someone verify this?

The HPX170 was mounted on a Sachtler SADV8SB2S DV-8SB/2D Aluminum Tripod System (Supports up to 26.5lbs)

The HPX170, according to specs, weighs 5lbs with battery.

And yes, the rack focus was conducted manually. Shouldn't be a problem using a remote, or remote focus control.