Estimated life span of our favorite cam.

[arrestthisman]

This is kind of an open-ended question, but I'm interested in what people here think about the useful life span of the HVX200.

In other words, how many years until it it reaches moore's law (for cameras)?

In a computer forum you could give specs and ask the same question and, of course there would be plenty of different opinions, but you know, "yeah a macbook pro now should last a good 2 years maybe 3."

That's kind of what I'm after here.

I'm guessing it'll be about 3-5 years before it's time to move on; on the other hand, the picture is so damn good, for my purposes, unless I were commissioned for a medium budget feature (... and even then....) I don't see why I'd need any better. The look is perfect to me.

Perhaps this is one of those cams that will stay around for the aesthetic alone. We haven't quite reached that yet in digital. But look at lynch with the PD-150 for inland empire. That was the image he wanted.

I wonder if down the road DPs will be picking up the DVX100 for its softness for certian stories?

 

[mainstreetprod]

Everyone assumes electronics have a short life span, but I bought my Sony VX-1000 in 1996 just after it came out. Ten trouble free years later (late last year), I sold it, , to get the HVX. Net cost per year of ownership about $200. The VX image still rivals any DV camera out today, and is better than some. I think the HVX is a groundbreaking landmark camera just like the VX and won't be outmoded quickly. No one should feel a need to sell it just because something comes out with a few more bells and whistles.

 

[arrestthisman]

Good example. I forgot about the VX1000.

I think the HVX is one of those killer cams that will be around for a while.

I guess what bugs me is that it is a nerve racking time to buy with all of the transition going on. That said, the picture is remarkable, and I believe far above any other camera in its class, and with hydra coming, will be a formitable device for many years; but it's nice to hear others' opinions on the matter.

Since electronics is based on science, and science based on fact, the grey areas, I think make me(us?) more uncomfortable.

Thank god for flashable firmware, and 5 micron pixels on the CCD array!

 

[RE1000]

VX1000, excellent example. I bought a VX2100 in mid 2004, thought it was good but not "great", so I sold it and got a VX1000, which is a way older camera. The VX1000 picture looks way better than the VX2000/2100 IMO. Way, way better white balance, chips, and just the image in general looks better. The 2000/2100 has better focusing, zoom, lowlight and other things but the final image on the 1000 always looks better to me. (and most other people)
As long as the camera is great and produces a great picture, that's all that really matters and that will dictate the life of the camera. I think the HVX200 is going to be this generations VX1000.
VX1000 came out in 1996 and i'm using it now, I shot with it yesterday!

 

[TwistedLincoln]

For computers, I've always told people that they never become outdated, until you start changing what you use them for. If it works for a particular purpose when you buy it, it will continue to work until it breaks, or you start wanting to do the latest and greatest with it.

For cameras, I'd say something similar: they never become outdated, until you change how your distributing your footage. You can still get by with a VHS cam if your end product is being distributed on YouTube... The DVX was considered top of the line, until people started wanting to publish in HD. Those that don't care about HD still use the DVX without regrets. I suspect that the HVX will still be useful for most of us for quite some time, as I don't see anything better than HD coming in the near future.

Of course that doesn't mean there aren't better cameras (or computers). Sometimes it makes sense to upgrade just because you can -- if a new camera has a better workflow, or better low-light performance, or if a PC will do the same job you're doing now only faster, upgrading can add to your efficiency and help you get more done.

But if you're determined to stick with a particular technology, you can usually do so, provided you don't change how you use it.

Oh, and provided that you don't care what others think of you... I don't care if your publishing on YouTube, I'm gonna poke a little fun at anyone who walks around with a tapeless black and white camera connected via a cable to a 30lb circa 1980 VCR...

 

[TedRR]

For computers, I've always told people that they never become outdated, until you start changing what you use them for.

Ooohhh, I like how you said it, just didn't quote the whole thing, but well said.

I got 10 years out of our BetaCam as well. Held off on all the newbies/technologies. NO HDV!
The HVX, being able to record any flavor/framerate, including mini-DV, was all the futureproofing I needed. I've been following this for 30 years.

Not saying I won't get another camera some day before I retire, but the HVX will hold enough $$$ value if "my needs changed" that I'll be in great shape.
Good luck with your decision.

 

[Ted Spencer]

The HVX is what I think would fairly be called "low end pro" as opposed to "consumer". Professional products are as a rule *much* slower to die in the replacement cycle. They don't sell nearly as many of them as consumer products, so the replacement cycle has to be longer for them to make money on it.

Even the DVX, which is arguably a little less "pro" has already had a long and stable life with only a couple of relatively minor updates, and it's still very much alive and well. I think th HVX will be viable for quite some time to come.

Upcoming P2 card size increases, especially 32MB and up will breathe more life into it as well. Imagine, perhaps as soon as next year, a dual 128MB P2 card equipped HVX: almost 4 1/2 hours of *nonstop* 1080! Almost 11 hours at 720!

I think that's when the HVX will fully come into its own...

 

[TimurCivan]

the only place ican see the HVX falling into trouble is the introduction of AVC-Intra.

If the industry standard shifts to AVC intra in a few years, the hvx's DVCPROhd may seem Antiquated. though im sure support will still exist, the Music video/Commerical field will mostlikely want to shift to the "shinier/flashier" AVC intra image. it can hold 1920x1080 full raster, and is VERY efficent.

I HIGHLY doubt the HVX will recieve an AVC Intra firmware update. I dont even think its possible. but other than that concern, i think my hvx will remain the leader of my arsenal for at least 3 -4 more years.

 

[Domis Entertainment]

Well...

I know a guy who still plays his atari videogame machine...

I also know a guy who uses a very old 8mm camera in some of his experimental film work....

Someday...DVCPROHD will be like 8mm film....it may take 100 years or more...but it is still interesting to think that history has proven that even our most modern creations can be rerepresented with updates and new features.

 

[harddrive]

the only place ican see the HVX falling into trouble is the introduction of AVC-Intra.

AVC-Intra offers comparable quality for a reduced bitrate, so at the 1/3" level "only" DVCProHD is more of an inconvienience (shorter run time/GB than AVC-Intra) than anything else. The 100Mbs version of AVC-Intra is only likely to be relevant on higher end cameras.

More of a threat for the future (codec wise) will be the advent of wavelet based compression schemes such as JPEG2000, and Red Code. They stand up to repeated compressions far better than block based ones like AVC or MPEG2, and I'd predict are far more likely to become future industry standard than AVC-Intra. (See http://www.coax.tv )

As far as the original question goes, then most broadcasters plan around a 7-10 year span for technology. For individuals it's more tricky - you need to offer what your client asks for. So nowadays that could mean that a Betacam is more useful than DVCAM or an HVX if the client demands it!