Where Are The HPX170s?
- Thread starter David Saraceno
- Start date
dantewaters
Well-known member
Yea Jasmine is great she helped me get my 200A a few months back...
DCERVENKA
Well-known member
I wonder if it's a problem with the 170? Have you tried to mount any of the other Century Optics Bayonet mount lenses for the DVX100 on the 170?
.
Last edited:
alexdias
Well-known member
Same story as Frisco, have only nice things to say about Spec-Comm.
Maybe we were the only few that had canceled their reservations ;-)
After a few weeks with the EX-3, although I'm very happy with many aspects of this camera, I'm considering the 170 as 2nd option.
Complex world of cameras and codecs...
Maybe we were the only few that had canceled their reservations ;-)
After a few weeks with the EX-3, although I'm very happy with many aspects of this camera, I'm considering the 170 as 2nd option.
Complex world of cameras and codecs...
ethansigmanproductions
Active member
we had the same problem two days ago. seems bayonet mount to be slightly different from dvx setup. they also offset the mount point on the bottom of the camera that will make it difficult to mount many hvx baseplates cause the rails won't line up with the lens. i have a zacuto setup which should be laterally adjustable to accomodate.... though i haven't tried yet.....
Luis Caffesse
Admin
DCERVENKA
Well-known member
I wonder if Jan or Barry can address this?
If the bayonet mount is different from the DVX100/A/B does this mean we will have to wait until Century Optics releases lenses with the new mounts?
Leo Versola
Well-known member
Rats, arrrggghhh!!! My camera arrived ahead of schedule this morning and I'm stuck in jury duty all day :-Mad(DBG):
That is weak. Barry said in an old post that he put the lens hood of a DVX100 on the HPX170 and I was hoping to use my Century DVX100 Bayonet mount lenses on the HPX170.. Century Optics please get on your game and come out with the HPX170 Bayonet mounts ASAP!!
Barry_Green
Moderator
I can confirm that I have made the DVX's lens hood fit on an HPX170/HMC150, and vice versa. That doesn't necessarily mean that the bayonets are fully compatible, but they're at least close enough that the lens hoods could be exchanged.
I only have HVX Century lenses, so I couldn't try any DVX lenses on the HPX170/HMC150.
I only have HVX Century lenses, so I couldn't try any DVX lenses on the HPX170/HMC150.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Hi,
Any lens suitable for SD is not suitable for HD. I would not put any lens designed for the DVX onto the HPX, even if it did fit easily.
Best,
Jan
Any lens suitable for SD is not suitable for HD. I would not put any lens designed for the DVX onto the HPX, even if it did fit easily.
Best,
Jan
DCERVENKA
Well-known member
Thanks Jan!
Just curious.. how does the glass differ between a SD and HD lens? Especially in a single element lens like the Wide Angle from Century Optics?
I tried to pull the specs from CO to see if I could learn something new, but I just found the following tech drawings (**). The width of the HVX vs. DVX lens looks the same, but there is no additional specs on the glass itself. Perhaps a Century Optic's Rep (I remember seeing him post here before) can address the glass differences and when the new lenses will be available for the 170 (currently there is no listing or announcement on their website)
** It also looks like someone at Schnieder got a little lazy and copied the tech-drawing from the DVX100, reused it for the HVX and just changed the mm for the height, but forgot to change the "inches" measurement.... [SIZE=+1]105 millimeters = 4.13385827 inches [/SIZE]dooooh!
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
It is the resolution passing quality of the glass, not the basic glass measurements.
If it can't pass the resoultion, it can't.
Best,
Jan
If it can't pass the resoultion, it can't.
Best,
Jan
Dino
Veteran
That's a new one. In the past, I've heard from sources like Fujinon, that HD lenses use different coatings, another one was HD lenses have the elements polished four times instead of two. Then Fujinon has told me that the difference between HA, XA, ZA(or whatever the newest HD glass series is called) is how many quality control steps are done in manufacturing.
I think it's all marketing hyperbole, and especially at an HVX200A/HPX170 level.
I own Fujinon's best SD broadcast glass and HA series HD glass. Can't see the difference, in fact my HA18X7.6 has more CA than my A8.5X5.5 wide angle and is softer in the corners. That's an $18K piece of glass, but so were my 5.5 wide angles from the '90's.
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely differences between lenses, sometimes
within the same brand/model, but the "HD" badge is not one of them from what I can tell, and certainly wouldn't be a concern of mine with 1/3" palmcorders.
Ironically, the HVX200A/Leica branded fixed lens is the ONLY camera I've ever
seen with NO CA whatsoever. I think Panasonic is using CAC with that camera,
which is a great circuit. Meanwhile, super highend Zeiss Digiprimes sometimes have CA issues--what do you want for a six figure set of primes?
hdimages.ca
Well-known member
hey jan heads up . the dvx100 1.6 century lens was never sold as a hd lens but uses the same quaility glass that the 1.6 i bought for the fx1 i had . the tests on the 1.6 dvx 100 was almost the same as the hd version for the fx1 glass . great quaility glass but was never sold as hd. i talked to century today about there plans . they are reconfiguring a new zoom through wide because the extra wide angle of view of the hpx170. the 2x will be simalar to the hvx200 2x . after the deliver the run of new lens ,then they might do a hvx to hpxin house mount swap . but only after caught up on the 2x sales. century makes great stuff. they said mid november for release date. ... i am going to machine the dvx100 baonet fiting to work but still needs the proper distance from camera to focus properly. will find out soon. ... hope this is helpfull,
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
Maybe, maybe not. I use a cheap $30 Tiffen UV filter on my HVX, and I can't tell the difference between footage shot with it on vs with no filter at all. But I've read countless posts swearing up and down that you have to buy a higher end $200 UV filter in order to avoid degrading the image. I tend to take those people at their word -- if they can tell the difference, than $200 is totally worth it. I can't tell, so I don't bother.
Just like the "HVX isn't true HD" arguments, it all boils down to the footage -- if the results look good to you (and / or your clients), than that's all that matters.
That said, basic logic suggests that it takes better glass to provide a better picture. But what if you were using the HPX to shoot standard def? In that case, I think everyone could agree that being able to mount DVX accessories would be worthwhiile.
----Director----
Member
Ive wired together a 64 gig card, it cost me around 300 to put together 100 of that was trail and error, I have only had one file corrupt thankfully it wasnt something special since 07. Ive heard of a company in japan that has a cf plugin adaptor that requires a thumbdrive the operate for around 75 us dollars, does anyone no more on that??
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
I have been in the Schneider offices and we have tried on a number of pieces of glass. There is a difference between SD glass and non HD glass. The DVX glass is not the same quality glass as that of the HVX WA. The HVX WA doesn't work on the HPX as it introduces a different distortion but passes the resolution. So I stand behind my original statement and say that the DVX glass should not be used on the HPX as you will not get the best performance out of it.
Best,
Jan