Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 171
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    43
    Default
    Does anyone else think these new panny's look cheap? I look at it and I just think they missed the mark.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Macau
    Posts
    2,914
    Default
    Initial imopressions from the press:

    Aestheticaly Looks like the HMC-150, but recording to P2.

    Performance wise sounds like the same as the HVX, but with the HD-SDI option.

    My guess is that the HMC, HVX and this HPX 170 share the same 1/3 CCD block. However, this can only be proven with hands-on experience.

    Heard the CCD's are now 1280x720 native pixel shifted. We need Barry, and Adam Witt to do some hands on on these!

    Personal opinion following the competition announcements: disappointed.

    EDIT- And the 5 slot p2 to Express card adapter for 2000 dollars? Come on!
    SÚrgio Perez
    Macanese Director
    http://vimeo.com/user1503556


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member hungrych's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    313
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by poweredbyjolt View Post
    Does anyone else think these new panny's look cheap? I look at it and I just think they missed the mark.
    Yea =P


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by SPZ View Post
    Heard the CCD's are now 1280x720 native pixel shifted. We need Barry, and Adam Witt to do some hands on on these!
    That'd sweet, but I've always laboured under the impression that higher pixel counts mean lower individual pixel sensor sizes, which leads to greater smearing, lower sensitivity, and lower latitude.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Tzedekh View Post
    It can't be that much lower, seeing as how the HMC-150's MSRP will be around $4,500 (which is $500-$1,000 more than most predictions here).
    Well, you gotta learn to read between the words. When the HVX200 was announced, Panasonic said it would be "less than $10,000" -- it ended up being $5995. When the HD100 was introduced, JVC said it would be "less than $10,000" -- it ended up being $6295.

    All they've said is "less than $4500". I doubt it will be $4495! I'm betting on $3995 with a street price of $3495. But if the dollar continues to plunge against the Yen, then maybe it will be $4500 by then. I think they gave vague pricing primarily to protect themselves from further erosion of the exchange rate. But, we'll see in September/October/November, whenever they come out.
    Last edited by Barry_Green; 04-13-2008 at 08:20 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by poweredbyjolt View Post
    Does anyone else think these new panny's look cheap? I look at it and I just think they missed the mark.
    I dunno, I saw the models and I thought they looked slick. Sort of a step back towards the more-mechanical hard edge of the DVX100, less of the bulbous puffiness of the HVX200.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by SPZ View Post
    Personal opinion following the competition announcements: disappointed.
    Disappointed that the competition announced a $13,000 product, and Panasonic announced a $5800 product and a $4500 product? Well, if you want to compare a $13,000 EX3 against a $4500 HMC150 and think they should be the same, then yes I could see why someone would be disappointed. But for 1/3 the price, I think they look pretty cool.

    Apparently Panasonic doesn't intend to "answer" the EX3 with anything other than the existing 2/3" HPX500. As far as answering the EX1, the 170 may be what we get. I'd have to test 'em side by side, but they're claiming increased sensitivity, decreased noise, and lower smear: all of which directly competes against the EX1's advantages. So all you're really left with, image-wise, is a sharper rolling-shutter imager vs. a softer no-rolling-shutter imager (and, oh yeah, it'll probably be about $2,000 less.)

    The Japanese companies seem to really hate to go head-to-head anywhere. The more I learn about them, the more convinced I become that they parcel the market up amongst themselves. Each apparently gets to stake out some territory. Everyone seems content to let Sony have the 1/2" arena all to themselves; Panasonic has claimed the low-cost 1/3" market and the low-cost 2/3". Canon seems to limit themselves to HDV tape, and JVC gets the 720P market.

    EDIT- And the 5 slot p2 to Express card adapter for 2000 dollars? Come on!
    Yeah, I was really hoping for a $500 single-slot device, but that didn't happen.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    5,476
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    The HVX is bigger and fatter and has tape, the 170 is smaller and thinner and lighter and has no tape, and has a few other new features (at least, ones that I could see on the outside. There may be more lurking under the hood, but the one I saw wasn't a functional model).
    True, but will that be enough difference for the consumer? If there isn't one huge selling point that differentiate the two cameras, people will always go for the newer version assuming that it's better. On the other hand, if this is an A1/G1 situation, where the 170 is basically a higher priced version of the "basic" HVX model, then I'm willing to bet that it's not gonna do well. Very few people wanted the pay an extra $2000 for the G1's jackpack, and I doubt they would want to pay just for waveform monitor.
    "Local studio seeking young female actresses for short film in which they definitely will NOT be killed. Lack of identifying scars, dental records, or concerned family a plus. Payment to be discussed after shooting...uh...filming."

    www.hiddendreamsmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    852
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    Well, you gotta learn to read between the words. When the HVX200 was announced, Panasonic said it would be "less than $10,000" -- it ended up being $5995. When the HD100 was introduced, JVC said it would be "less than $10,000" -- it ended up being $6295.

    All they've said is "less than $4500". I doubt it will be $4495! I'm betting on $3995 with a street price of $3495. But if the dollar continues to plunge against the Yen, then maybe it will be $4500 by then.
    Maybe, but "less than $4,500" is a lot more specific than "less than $10,000" -- why not "less than $5,000" or "less than $4,000"? And regarding the dollar's decline relative to the yen, Panasonic could charge $4,500, but then it would be in danger of alienating the huge U.S. market. Of course, we haven't heard the MSRP of the HVX200A. If Panasonic raises the price much above $6,000 when the reported improvements have been underwhelming (not even an LCD flip), then maybe it will go for $4,500 on the 150.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Huy Vu View Post
    True, but will that be enough difference for the consumer? If there isn't one huge selling point that differentiate the two cameras, people will always go for the newer version assuming that it's better. On the other hand, if this is an A1/G1 situation, where the 170 is basically a higher priced version of the "basic" HVX model, then I'm willing to bet that it's not gonna do well. Very few people wanted the pay an extra $2000 for the G1's jackpack, and I doubt they would want to pay just for waveform monitor.
    And if the 170 is higher priced, you may be right. But I'm betting it's lower priced. Panasonic has not, that I'm aware of, ever introduced a new model with a lower model number, and charged more than an existing higher-model number.

    100B: $2995.
    150: "under $4500".
    170: ? Presumably over $4500 and under $5995
    200: $5995
    500: $14,000
    2000: $27,000
    3000: $48,000.

    As the model number goes up, so does the price. I could be wrong, but I think the 170 will be less expensive than the 200A. It just makes sense.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •