HPX170 Lens Wobble Improved

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

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

Thanks,

Jan
 
Barry_Green said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Gary Senda said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dino said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
Dino said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
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".
 
Gary Senda said:
Try to fix the adapter firmly on the rod support and the issue disappears.

Gary
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dino said:
That does not explain why, with only one support and no screw, an HVX200A was just fine.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top