HPX170 Lens Wobble Improved

davetronic said:
the reports of there being no issue with some cameras points more and more to a bad batch.
Click to expand...

I've tested 6 cameras and the lens play was the same. In my opinion some people have apparently no issues because they focus with their fingers always on the bottom of the ring.

I usually focus in this way and in a first moment I have had no issues. After reading the thread I've tried other ways of focusing and I have had the same issues of the posted clips.

Gary
 
Deaniweenie said:
stick cardboard shims into the lens (wonder how that affects the warranty).
Click to expand...

The experiment was only to demonstrate that it easy to reduce the play and that the reason of this play is a too large slot between the lens and the camera (perhaps too much rubber in the shock mount design), anyway I don't see any reason to affect the warranty: is your warranty affected when you tape the focus ring using 35mm adapters?

Gary
 
Hi Guys,
I wish I had final news, but this latest wrinkle seems to have complicated things. I too wish I had an HPX170 that had a serial number on it but even that seems to be inconsistent. Be assured that we are indeed investigating and the shock mount while a safety feature should not allow the camera to do this. So the good news in all of this is that some don't do this as Brian pointed out up above. Wish I had the definitive, but hang tight till we hear back from Osaka. As Barry pointed out I am traveling and have mucho responsibility during the day time so I won't be back until tomorrow evening so try to be patient. We will make it right on all the cameras.

Best,

Jan
 
Barry and Jan, thank you. I'm sure everyone is feeling relieved and confident now that the thread is being taken seriously and not dismissed as a 'non-issue'.

Thank you both for your valued support.
 
Wow..... It's great that there is a Panasonic Rep right here on the forums and the resident expert who wrote the book! That is awesome online support.

That said, I don't have the 170 but I'm very interested in the camera for many reasons. I'm not a get married to one camera kinda guy. I like to play the field and use the proper tool for the job.

I don't buy into this "Shock Mount Lens" Theory. If it's true, It's some fuzzy backwards engineering that doesn't make a bit of sense for an innovative company like Panasonic.

It would be much smarter to develop soft mount lens hoods and such to absorb shock.

frisco
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Hi Guys,
Be assured that we are indeed investigating and the shock mount while a safety feature should not allow the camera to do this. So the good news in all of this is that some don't do this as Brian pointed out up above.
Click to expand...


I've tried 6 HPX171 since now and ***all*** have the same amount of play. I can now add that the same play is also noticeable on 4 HMC151.
The reason seems the same in both cameras: in the slot between the camera body abd the lens there is a rubber ring that needs to be increased in thickness of about 1mm.

Anyway ALL cameras I tested had the same amount of play, both ***HMC151 and HPX171***. The differences that are reported depend, in my opinion, by the way of focusing of each of us: I can post a video in which I'm focusing full zoomed in 2 different ways: if i touch the ring laterally the image shakes, if I focus touching it on the bottom the image is stable.

For me now all is clear: they must only change the thickness of a rubber gasker

I apologize again for my broken english, but after two days of tests on several cameras these are my results and I wanted to report: they are simply wrong with the thickness of a rubber piece

Regards

Gary
 
Looks like you have done your homework. I don't dought your findings at all. I just want to bring up that it could have the proper size rubber ring and a wrong size in the machine step that the ring rides in.

frisco


Gary Senda said:
I've tried 6 HPX171 since now and ***all*** have the same amount of play. I can now add that the same play is also noticeable on 4 HMC151.
The reason seems the same in both cameras: in the slot between the camera body abd the lens there is a rubber ring that needs to be increased in thickness of about 1mm.

Anyway ALL cameras I tested had the same amount of play, both ***HMC151 and HPX171***. The differences that are reported depend, in my opinion, by the way of focusing of each of us: I can post a video in which I'm focusing full zoomed in 2 different ways: if i touch the ring laterally the image shakes, if I focus touching it on the bottom the image is stable.

For me now all is clear: they must only change the thickness of a rubber gasker

I apologize again for my broken english, but after two days of tests on several cameras these are my results and I wanted to report: they are simply wrong with the thickness of a rubber piece

Regards

Gary
Click to expand...
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Hi Guys,
I wish I had final news, but this latest wrinkle seems to have complicated things. I too wish I had an HPX170 that had a serial number on it but even that seems to be inconsistent. Be assured that we are indeed investigating and the shock mount while a safety feature should not allow the camera to do this. So the good news in all of this is that some don't do this as Brian pointed out up above. Wish I had the definitive, but hang tight till we hear back from Osaka. As Barry pointed out I am traveling and have mucho responsibility during the day time so I won't be back until tomorrow evening so try to be patient. We will make it right on all the cameras.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

Thank you Jan for taking this seriously. I hope we hear back soon.
 
Good work guys! I have to lock mine down tonight to test it out. I've been using the camera but only on hand held stuff so tonight will be my first true test.
 
Here's another angle to consider, and I am wondering if long term DVX/HVX users have experience with this: does the shock mount material alter in its resiliency with age? It's conceivable that the shock mount material might become less resilient over time, which in the case of the HPX170 could turn out to be advantageous. Not suggesting that waiting a few years is a solution, just curious if there is any observation of the physical materials of the older shock mounts subtly changing to a firmer feel over time. I seriously doubt that this is what people are observing with their previous generation cameras, just curious if there is any subtle alteration of the material over time and whether the engineers might have been attempting to accomodate for that.

Perhaps we can just stick our HPX170's in the freezer before using them...
 
Originally Posted by Steve Smull
Perhaps we can just stick our HPX170's in the freezer before using them...

Jay Rodriguez said:
lol

let us know how that works out for ya :)
Click to expand...

* Don't try this at home kids, you wouldn't want condensation forming in your camera from chilling and/or thawing it too rapidly!

Reducing the temperature of the material could alter its characteristics enough to demonstrate how it reacts with a different density. It wouldn't be scientific enough to provide a solution but it might give a hint. Has anyone tried these tests in cold weather? That could provide some interesting input.

And hey, I'm in Denver, maybe I won't have to send mine in 'til April :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
I was just kidding with my comment above but if you're seriously considering doing that then you're a brave soul my friend.
 
Thank you Jan.

Gary, Mine moves MORE when I focus from the bottom. The lateral pulling to one side or the other from a 6 o'clock finger placement is what causes mine to shift.
 
I just tried my HPX 170 and my DVX100 locked down. Both have some movement while applying very slight pressure - not a tap - to the side of the focus ring, the HPX moving a slight bit more.
 
I have the hpx with a brevis on the front and haven't noticed any wobble.

There is this mysterious clunk when I turn the camera off and tilt it back and forth though... Man. What a shoddy camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top