PDA

View Full Version : HPX300 Price!



ryanweiss89
02-14-2009, 05:46 PM
Not sure if this was already posted, but...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/604725-REG/Panasonic_AG_HPX300_1_3_CMOS_P2_HD.html

BH has it listed at $8,495 with an arrival in April. I'd say that's an extremely fair price.

Definitely a contender for the EX3, IMO the winner, at least on paper that is, but with the release and tests we'll know for sure if it's a "killer".

Lumiere
02-14-2009, 05:49 PM
yeah i saw and posted as well,thats really fair.And b&h listed so late(then other sites).I think they calculated everything and then listed.Hope the price will not change till april:)

Kholi
02-14-2009, 06:15 PM
Can't wait to see Spec-Comm's price. Those are my guys!!! But wow!!!

This price is exactly what I wanted.

Full Shoulder Mount form factor
Avc-Intra
COMES with a lens...

8.5k!!!!

it's on.

Edit: by the way, anyone know if it comes with any cards just yet? I hope we find this info out soon.

Lumiere
02-14-2009, 06:31 PM
I heard a humor,maybe on NAB? Who knows:)

puredrifting
02-14-2009, 07:14 PM
I doubt if they will need to bundle cards to move the cameras. You never know, but I would be surprised. Maybe a short promo with a freebie 16GB card would be nice though. I still haven't figured out exactly why Panasonic USA bundles P2 cards, but only at certain times though. They bundled the 16GB with the 170s and the 170 was very anticipated, a lot of people wanted that camera.

Will be interesting to see. I think it would be a very good way to bury the EX3. The 300 with a pair of 16s or 32s and Sony's sales would plummet.

D

Dan

Bassman2003
02-14-2009, 08:45 PM
I don't see how this is an EX-1/3 killer.

They are both CMOS cameras.

One has a better codec, the other has larger chips.

The EX has an affordable long-form memory solution, the Panasonic doesn't.

They both cost $8,500.

Funny how the conversation about how bad CMOS is changes when a CMOS camera gets produced by the home team.

Just sayin'

puredrifting
02-14-2009, 09:32 PM
Bassman:

I shoot with the EX1 and EX3 weekly and they are great cameras. I have not shot with the HPX300 yet obviously, but it looks like it will surpass the EX3 handily in features other than the CMOS size. Most people would agree that the EX3 is a dressed up EX1 with a sort of shoulder mount and a magnifying glass over the LCD versus a dedicated LCOS viewfinder and flip out LCOS screen, etc.

Just my opinion, having shot with the EX3 quite a bit.

Dan

Kholi
02-14-2009, 10:05 PM
I'm with Dan, completely. I'm excited about the HPX300 regardless of it's jello issue. I've never had a real issue with jello given that the RED produces the same thing.

ChipG
02-15-2009, 12:31 AM
I think it would be a very good way to bury the EX3. The 300 with a pair of 16s or 32s and Sony's sales would plummet.

D

Dan

Yep, it's soo easy to take down your competition in bad times. In good times it's 10x harder. A promo deal now with a 64 gig card would PUNNISH sony's ex-3 market. :Drogar-Love(DBG):

C

Noel Evans
02-15-2009, 02:10 AM
Yes, I tend to agree. But they arent the same price. Add min $1k for a battery solution, at 18watts the cameras power consumption is good, but even so Id recommend at least 3 batteries to get you through a day at around 400 a piece plus charger its getting up there. The EX3 wins the cost battle. But with CAC, AVCIntra, wireless mount, pro ND wheel off the top of my head seems well worth the difference. And please, the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 inch chips is minimal. No doubt Id go AVCIntra 1/3 camera over XDCam EX codec with 1/2. You know everyone perception is different of course. And at the end of the day if you have talent, who cares what you get right?

ryanweiss89
02-15-2009, 05:10 AM
One has a better codec, the other has larger chips.Larger chips? To my eye, the difference between 1/3" and 1/2" chips is too minor to really be a deciding factor, don't get me wrong, The EX1 and EX3's picture has been less noisy then say a 1/3" HVX or HPX, but chip sizes differences like that aren't that great IMO.

I saw an HPX3000 demo, which used AVCintra 100, and it looked great. I would take AVCintra as opposed to a 1/2" chip size

Cees Mutsaers
02-15-2009, 05:19 AM
Hi Kholi,

I tried to inform myself what jello, skew, rolling shutter issues are using the search function but turned up with nothing. Can you explain it, give some example footage and how can you minimize it using a CMOS cam. The HPX300 looks like the cam I am going to buy this summer. I am glad I did not jumped on the 170 train.

thanks in advance.
Cees


I'm with Dan, completely. I'm excited about the HPX300 regardless of it's jello issue. I've never had a real issue with jello given that the RED produces the same thing.

Cees Mutsaers
02-15-2009, 05:33 AM
Mathematical it does make a lot of difference 0.85 mm vs 1.27 mm (yes I am living in a metric country) but I do not know how it turns out in actual footage maybe it increases the light sensitivity by only 10%. I even heard somewere on the forum that 1/3 inch is not the same for every cam producer.


Larger chips? To my eye, the difference between 1/3" and 1/2" chips is too minor to really be a deciding factor, don't get me wrong, The EX1 and EX3's picture has been less noisy then say a 1/3" HVX or HPX, but chip sizes differences like that aren't that great IMO.

I saw an HPX3000 demo, which used AVCintra 100, and it looked great. I would take AVCintra as opposed to a 1/2" chip size

ryanweiss89
02-15-2009, 06:03 AM
Like I said. To my eye, avoiding the technicalities, the footage looks very similar.

13th Judas
02-15-2009, 06:30 AM
I don't see how this is an EX-1/3 killer.

They are both CMOS cameras.

One has a better codec, the other has larger chips.

The EX has an affordable long-form memory solution, the Panasonic doesn't.

They both cost $8,500.

Funny how the conversation about how bad CMOS is changes when a CMOS camera gets produced by the home team.

Just sayin'

it makes me sick aswell especially reading some posts of jan and barry with regards to this new HPX300. imagine how they dislike the rolling shutter issue of the EX. now they are singing a different tune: "if you know the limitation of cmos cameras, you'll be alright". MARKETING :(

Stephen Mick
02-15-2009, 06:55 AM
If the comments of two people on a message board make you sick, you need to get a life and go shoot something with whatever camera you choose.

The fact is that Barry has said all along that if you know how the camera works, you can minimize or avoid situations where the CMOS shutter creates a problem. He's also said that the issue renders some footage unusable, and it's a risk he never thought worth taking with CMOS technology.

So, now we seem to have a camera that offers what may be the best codec out there (Intra), interchangeable lenses, Panasonic color, real shoulder-mount capability and more for under $9K.

When people picked up EX1's the market spoke. Panasonic was smart enough to listen, and yet you complain about it.

Bassman2003
02-15-2009, 07:06 AM
Good points, but I still think larger chips do make a difference.

There is a reason why foks that can afford larger chip cameras buy them, they have a better overall look! More lattitude and depth.

And the jury is still out for on the 10 bit aspect of the AVC-intra codec.

If your NLE is 8 bit, (mine is - Edius), the 10 bit footage will be downsampled to 8 bit and the benefit of more color information will not have as much impact on your final delivered product.

Straight into After Effects (if it can open AVC-intra files) for chromakey work would be a great use though.

I just wish we could get out of this 1/3" chip prodction rut that the industry is in imho. The list of 1/3" chip cameras released over the past four years is staggering.

Sony showed that you can get larger imagers in a small form factor body.

The HPX-300 is a larger form factor, so technical issues should not be the culprit for the smaller imagers.

Stephen Mick
02-15-2009, 07:49 AM
I hear you Bassman, but I think Panasonic may have made a conscious choice to go with 1/3" chips to accommodate the larger market of 1/3" lenses versus 1/2" lenses. They may have also looked at the ergonomics of the EX1 and JVC and decided that even with 1/3" chips, a real shoulder-mountable camera was the way to go.

I agree that larger chips would certainly be a good thing to have, but the beautiful thing about the marketplace we have now is that the options are out there. If you want 1/2" CMOS with interchangeable lenses, go with EX1 or JVC. If you have to have CCD chips, there's the HPX-170 and 500 in 1/3" or 2/3".

The new 300 may not fit everyone's exact needs, but I think it's a welcome addition to a market full of great options. And again, I think it proves that not only was Panasonic listening to the market, but specifically to many of the comments on these boards.

--SM

Paul Kramm.net
02-15-2009, 08:03 AM
what is the difference between HPX500 and HPX300 besides the 2/3 chips.
I have a chance to buy a HPX500 for $7,ooo.
I'm going to try and use my 8.5 X 5.5 2/3 SD lens for now.
I really like the 2/3 chips for the lattitude and depth.

thanks, Paul

Ben 171
02-15-2009, 01:08 PM
Can someone explain in PRACTICAL terms why the difference between AVC Intra 100 compared to other codecs is a bigger factor than that between 1/3 chip to 1/2 or 2/3 chipsize.

As far as I understand chip size governs dof which is obviously an important factor - what differences does AVC Intra make compared to DVCPro HD?

Thanks.

Bassman2003
02-15-2009, 01:15 PM
AVC-intra is a full raster (at 100 Mbps per Barry's review), 4:2:2, 10 bit state of the art codec.

DVCPro HD is not full raster, 4:2:2, 8 bit existing codec.

The most obvious use improvement will be with chromakey work as the full raster and 10 bit color will really help the computer software pull a great key.

It is tough to say how much visually will show up as a difference as they are both 4:2:2 and one needs a 10 bit NLE to take advantage of the extra color information.

AVC-intra offers better image quality at half the memory space needed compared to DVCPro HD.

Hope this helps!

Noel Evans
02-15-2009, 02:11 PM
what is the difference between HPX500 and HPX300 besides the 2/3 chips.
I have a chance to buy a HPX500 for $7,ooo.
I'm going to try and use my 8.5 X 5.5 2/3 SD lens for now.
I really like the 2/3 chips for the lattitude and depth.

thanks, Paul

Well the 300 is going to give you a sharper image on a better codec, nicer LCD and EVF, and a wireless mount, 2 x SDI v 1 on the 500.

The 500 will give you, better latitude, MUCH better DOF control, 4 independant XLR channels. 4 p2 card slots. Many many many many many more lens options (will you use them?)

Hmm thought - Im pretty sure the 300 is going to take the JVC propriety static 35mm adapter - oooooooh, thats interesting. That adapter is extremely sharp and light loss is 0.

Thats really the crux of it.

Noel Evans
02-15-2009, 02:12 PM
Im stealing here.

Over on CML the discussion is where this camera fits in terms of pro vs prosumer

Heres Adam Wilts last post in relation to this and the quote


> But in the end makes some fatal compromises.

Fatal is a mighty strong word!

> The 1/3" sensors are going to be diffraction-limited and less
> sensitive...

Diffraction-limited, sure. But not hugely more than on a 1920x1080
1/2" sensor. It means its sweet spot is around f/2.8-f/4. It's not
the end of the world by any means. If the MOS sensors really do have
the fill factor being promised, then I don't see any fundamental
reason why it shouldn't be possible to get clean, full-HD res images
out of the puppy--not at f/11, sure, but at wider apertures.

The EX1/EX3 use 1/2" sensors. In practice, I don't notice the depth
of field being substantially different than with 1/3" cameras; a bit
better, but not massively so (and I still worry about diffraction
limits when shooting with 1/2" chips). The EX3's recording media are
cheaper, but that's not a huge deal: both SxS and P2 are reusable
media, so it's really a one-time, initial pain.

Don't forget that the HVX300 offers AVC-I recording: full-raster,
4:2:2, 10-bit. That's a huge potential advantage if you need to push
the image around at all in post. And DVCPROHD is a much more get-it-
on-the-air-now-dammit newscaster-friendly codec than long-GOP MPEG-2.

I think the HPX300 is going to make things a LOT more interesting in
the affordable-HD market.

> Sony needs to make an EX-30, low-profile shoulder-held camera with
> EX3 guts.

They already do! But, alas, the EX30 is a tabletop deck for SxS
cards. Low profile, sure, and it has HD-SDI in, but it doesn't
balance on the shoulder any better than an EX3 does. ;-)

The other question, of course, is will Panasonic offer a handycam-
form-factor version with 1920x1080 MOS sensors and P2 AVC-I recording
for half the price.

Adam Wilt / filmmaker, Meets The Eye / writer,
provideocoalition.com / Mt View CA USA

guillaum972
02-15-2009, 02:43 PM
Hmm thought - Im pretty sure the 300 is going to take the JVC propriety static 35mm adapter - oooooooh, thats interesting. That adapter is extremely sharp and light loss is 0.

Thats really the crux of it.

Hello Noel,
have you got more info about this adapter?
thank you.

Guillaume

Kholi
02-15-2009, 02:52 PM
that adapter is locked at a 16mm-ish FOV. That means you're gonna need some wide-ass lenses to get wide shots. That's the reason I'm not interested. And, it only seems to sport a PL mount as well.

IMO the way to go would be Letus' EX-3 Relay mated to a 1/2" to 1/3" Bayonet adapter. You'd still get a wider FOV than the JVC adapter and you would have your choice of lens mounts instead of being locked into either or.

Rolling Shutter -- It is what it is.

AVC-Intra -- It's the cat's ass. The HPX3000 is nothing short of incredible and I'm willing to bet a significant portion of it's unfukwitable image quality is due in part to the AVC-Intra codec.

All that said, as excited as I am to pick an HPX300 up this March (hopefully before I go back to GA to visit!) I want to get my hands on one first. Regardless of what people say/think, I got burned on the HPX170 image. It wasn't what I liked about the HVX200A and still isn't.

So, I'm not putting my money down blindly on anything anymore.

puredrifting
02-15-2009, 02:54 PM
Kholi:

Define "unfukwitable", I gotta know ;-)

D

Kholi
02-15-2009, 02:56 PM
Kholi:

Define "unfukwitable", I gotta know ;-)

D

LOL. Can't be "F'd" with. But you knew that!

By the way, I saw your post considering picking up an HPX300 AND keeping your HPX170. PFFT. Hypocrite!!!

I'm gonna be posting some Letus Relay + HPX3000 and HPX500 footage soon. might get ya more excited about the possibilities. WEEEE

guillaum972
02-15-2009, 03:07 PM
Hehe. Thank you Kholi

Jan_Crittenden
02-16-2009, 04:22 AM
Yes, I tend to agree. But they arent the same price. Add min $1k for a battery solution, at 18watts the cameras power consumption is good, but even so Id recommend at least 3 batteries to get you through a day


Depends on the days shooting. I have had the camera on from about 9-1pm and still had battery left. Now I was not in record, but the guy I sent to Central park to shoot footage was very impressed with the battery life and he owns a 500, which is no slouch here either. And for you Noel, he is looking to add the HPG20 to his kit so that his 500 can shoot AVC-Intra. ;-) Sort of like the coolest AVC-Intra card out there.

Best,

Jan

dan_Y
02-16-2009, 04:40 AM
Depends on the days shooting. I have had the camera on from about 9-1pm and still had battery left. Now I was not in record, but the guy I sent to Central park to shoot footage was very impressed with the battery life and he owns a 500, which is no slouch here either. And for you Noel, he is looking to add the HPG20 to his kit so that his 500 can shoot AVC-Intra. ;-) Sort of like the coolest AVC-Intra card out there.

Best,

Jan


Sorry, Jan, but I don't think you're hitting the spot with HPG20 and HPX500 combo, since HPX500's SDI output is only 8-bit, so there is no benefit in recording AVC-intra (as the resolution of this camcorder is limited by it's imagers).

Barry_Green
02-16-2009, 05:13 AM
it makes me sick aswell especially reading some posts of jan and barry with regards to this new HPX300. imagine how they dislike the rolling shutter issue of the EX. now they are singing a different tune: "if you know the limitation of cmos cameras, you'll be alright". MARKETING :(
What are you talking about? I have said since day one that I don't like the rolling shutter, but that if someone is going to use it they better know the limitations. There are limitations that a rolling shutter imposes on you, and the introduction of the rolling shutter means that a shooter has to know more about what their camera does and how it works, and there are some shots that are going to be more difficult or even just not possible on a rolling shutter camera, vs. a CCD.

That's what I said in my first article published a couple of years ago, and it's what I say today.

Barry_Green
02-16-2009, 05:18 AM
Good points, but I still think larger chips do make a difference.
Certainly.


And the jury is still out for on the 10 bit aspect of the AVC-intra codec.
Why? 10-bit is better than 8 in all ways. I didn't know the jury was even deliberating?


If your NLE is 8 bit, (mine is - Edius), the 10 bit footage will be downsampled to 8 bit and the benefit of more color information will not have as much impact on your final delivered product.
Apparently this is not true. EDIUS is apparently not limited to 10 bit in internal processing, only the hardware boards are limited to 8 bit on output. I've been told that EDIUS maintains the 10-bit nature of the footage throughout editing and if you were to export as an uncompressed timeline you'd get 10 bit. It's only CanopusHQ and the hardware boards that are limited to 8 bit.

I'd love to get some confirmation direct from Canopus about this.


I just wish we could get out of this 1/3" chip prodction rut that the industry is in imho. The list of 1/3" chip cameras released over the past four years is staggering.
1/3" is the way things are going. Budgets are shrinking. When NBC chooses to use 1/3" cameras for all their owned & operated stations, you can be pretty sure that the day of outfitting everyone with huge 2/3" cameras is either over, or drawing to a close.

Jan_Crittenden
02-16-2009, 05:27 AM
Sorry, Jan, but I don't think you're hitting the spot with HPG20 and HPX500 combo, since HPX500's SDI output is only 8-bit, so there is no benefit in recording AVC-intra (as the resolution of this camcorder is limited by it's imagers).


Have you tried it? How do you know this for a fact? I think you might be resting on knowing the numbers and allowing the numbers to shade your thinking and not the reality where the benefit would most clearly be there. Have you seen the manipulation you can do to a 10Bit codec over an 8Bit codec in post? Don't say that it wouldn't help based on the numbers you know. If the resolution of the camera was the only thing, maybe, but frankly DVCPRO HD doesn't record all the resolution this camera has to offer. And 10 Bit in post is very much desired, especially when doing compositing and green screen.

Why do you think when we do camera and codec comparisons we take them to a higher level? It is alwys better to go higher than to stay at the same level or lower.

Best,

Jan

Ducatimark
02-16-2009, 03:30 PM
Jan, are you saying that the HPX500 + HPG20 + Avid Media Composer would make the 500 an even more potent content machine? I'd be glad to volunteer the time in my studio to do a full on comparison between my current set-up of edting DVCPro HD in Vegas and the above mentioned combination and then present my results on DVXuser.

I could do interview, talking head, outdoor, and chroma key shots all in one place with professional lighting and then pull the footage into Vegas and Avid and edit away. I've even got the Boris FX (Red & Blue) progams for doing compositing, titles and effects in Vegas so I could compare the results to Boris FX plug-ins in Avid.

I think I'm pretty representative of the type of person on this forum. I've been shooting an HVX and now an HPX500 as well for over two years and have developed my independent production company around P2. I just rented my own building for a studio in November and now have a place to call home. I make enough to pay the rent, credit cards, contractors, and occassionally, myself. I'd buy an HPG20 in a heartbeat if I thought I could get better performance out of both my cameras. Not to mention all the other benefits that come with the unit.

Thanks for your presence on this board. Even though we're not big fish in the Panasonic Sea, it's nice to be treated like we are!

ChipG
02-16-2009, 03:44 PM
Ducatimark,

I'd be interested in your findings as also yours Jan. I have an Avid, no Vegas but also Edius, if you need any help let me know.

Ducatimark
02-16-2009, 03:53 PM
ChipG -

Where are you located? I've been looking to add Avid and now with the ability to natively edit AVC-Intra it only heightens my interest in both the HPG20 and Media Composer. I can always just send footage to you if we can get an HPG20....

ChipG
02-16-2009, 04:13 PM
I'm in KC but my time will be split 50-50 between LA & KC soon. PM me if you want to send me footage just don't load me down with too much :)

Ed Waters
02-16-2009, 04:50 PM
If Panasonic can put this board in a 8500.00 camera ( 300) How about a board for HPX -500 users on the front edge of P2. We did 20,000 in the early P2 days. Intra should be backwards compatible for HPX-500 users.

jcoxshooter
02-16-2009, 05:35 PM
if i could mod my 500 i would do it today

jjytan
02-16-2009, 08:14 PM
the hpx500 can actually resolve a more. try shooting some PAL dvcpro hd which has 1440H pixels.
what i can do is to capture dnx220 10bit in avid symphony and record dvcpro hd on P2.
avc-intra in avid is amazing.

Bassman2003
02-16-2009, 08:28 PM
Why? 10-bit is better than 8 in all ways. I didn't know the jury was even deliberating?


Barry, I was speaking to 10bit support in desktop NLE systems, not the virtues of a 10bit work environment.

I don't keep up with many NLEs so I don't know if they support 10bit processing.

BTW, I downloaded some 10bit files that were posted on DVInfo by an Abel Cine tech and the footage had quite a bit of noise.

Could this be a setup issue because your review did not mention a lot of noise.

Barry_Green
02-16-2009, 08:41 PM
FCP, EDIUS, and Vegas are all >= 10 bit, as far as I know. FCP's ProRes is 10-bit, and Vegas supports 32-bit IINM. EDIUS is 10 bit internally on all processing, and only 8-bit on export to 8-bit hardware.

I saw a still of the Abel footage that someone was complaining about noise, and it looked hideous. You saw the stills of our stuff, and they sure don't look like that. I have seen noise in some scenarios, primarily when we were shooting sunset shots where there wasn't more than maybe 10 IRE in the entire scene. We wanted clean footage as noise-free as we could get it; I ran detail coring at around +5 and detail -2, with either B.Press or Cine-D gamma (because cine-D looked really good and didn't seem all that much noisier). That, and gain at -3dB.

I can say that noise was pretty much a non-issue in almost all our shooting scenarios. If you dig for it you can find it, which should be no surprise as we're talking about a 1/3" imager here, but I can find the same noise in EX1 footage in the same circumstances. When the light gets really low, and the detail level is high, and the pedestal is high, and the coring is low, and the gain is high, then yes you can make a 300 exhibit some ugly noise -- just like you could with anything else. Overall, the 300 seems on par or cleaner than the 170/200A in most ways. Noise can be exaggerated, or it can be optimized out. Use the right settings and get a decent level of exposure and you can minimize noise to where it's largely a non-issue.

Bokes
02-18-2009, 01:48 PM
How will footage from the 300 compare to a EX1 with a nanoflash?
I have the EX and was considering the flash unit as a way to get 10 bit 4:2:2
But this new panasonic looks nice.

Barry_Green
02-18-2009, 02:08 PM
The flash unit doesn't record 10-bit, does it? I think the NanoFlash will give you the best 8-bit MPEG-2 recording you can get, but it's still going to be 8-bit. Should be significantly better than XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX if you run it at either the 100mbps long-GOP or 160mbps I-frame mode.

thenumber19
02-18-2009, 08:34 PM
that adapter is locked at a 16mm-ish FOV. That means you're gonna need some wide-ass lenses to get wide shots. That's the reason I'm not interested. And, it only seems to sport a PL mount as well.

IMO the way to go would be Letus' EX-3 Relay mated to a 1/2" to 1/3" Bayonet adapter. You'd still get a wider FOV than the JVC adapter and you would have your choice of lens mounts instead of being locked into either or.

Rolling Shutter -- It is what it is.

AVC-Intra -- It's the cat's ass. The HPX3000 is nothing short of incredible and I'm willing to bet a significant portion of it's unfukwitable image quality is due in part to the AVC-Intra codec.

All that said, as excited as I am to pick an HPX300 up this March (hopefully before I go back to GA to visit!) I want to get my hands on one first. Regardless of what people say/think, I got burned on the HPX170 image. It wasn't what I liked about the HVX200A and still isn't.

So, I'm not putting my money down blindly on anything anymore.
How did you get burned on an HPX170 image? What does the picture lack compared to the HVX200a???

Paul Kramm.net
02-20-2009, 09:37 AM
Look out B&H in New York.....there price is $8, 495.00.
Later, Paul

monkeyking
02-20-2009, 12:03 PM
grey market?

editorforhire
02-20-2009, 12:07 PM
It looks awesome. However, the price of P2 cards is a bit off-putting. You'll spend another $3-4,000 on P2's! Yikes!

MrBill
02-20-2009, 02:38 PM
grey market?


B&H in NYC is not grey market. They are an authorized dealer who buys in
volume :).

I have bought much equipment there and their service is outstanding!

Barry_Green
02-20-2009, 02:39 PM
It looks awesome. However, the price of P2 cards is a bit off-putting. You'll spend another $3-4,000 on P2's! Yikes!
Or you could buy three 4GB cards for $500 from someone in the marketplace right now...

Barry_Green
02-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Look out B&H in New York.....there price is $8, 495.00.
Later, Paul
All dealers are required to advertise a price no lower than $8495. That's the so-called "MAP" price, or the "Minimum Advertised Price". Anyone who advertises it for a penny less than the MAP risks having their dealership revoked.

Dealers are free to sell it for less than the MAP, but they cannot advertise it for less than the MAP.

JohnnyD
02-20-2009, 06:18 PM
What happened to the post with the quote for the 300 from a store in San Diego?

Is there a rule about quoting prices on DVXuser? I see quotes all the time.

So, why did it get axed?

JohnnyD

Barry_Green
02-20-2009, 06:32 PM
Because it got the dealer in trouble, and was posted without their knowledge.

Jan_Crittenden
02-20-2009, 06:47 PM
What happened to the post with the quote for the 300 from a store in San Diego?
Is there a rule about quoting prices on DVXuser? I see quotes all the time.
So, why did it get axed?

It posted a PDF quote to a specific customer that may be construed as if it were a quote to any customer. This would violate the MAP program and thus it was removed to protect that dealership. Granted it may have been posted without the dealer's knowledge, however it put that dealer in an unfavorable light. If you wish to work with that dealer you should contact directly.

Hope that helps,

Jan