Is smaller better?

EDV

EDV

Well-known member
Just a common sense observation,

If the HPX170 is smaller and lighter than the HVX200...won't that be a disadvantage when trying to impress a client?
I mean, let's face it, most clients know very little about video technologies, and many of them will always think

smaller camera = budget video, maybe amateur
big camera = expensive TV equipment

so why keep making them smaller?
So that is less heavy?
Please....I've just spend a small fortune on the HVX plus a few thousands on additional gear, and you think I'm gonna go handheld? Good one!
If I want light, I'll just shoot with my cell phone thank you.
Most HVX users who are serious about the type of projects they take on would likely be thinking "Steadycam" , "Fig Rig", "Dolly", "Crane" or at least "Tripod".
And lets face it, a tiny camera would sure look ridiculous on any of these.
 
Get the HPX 170 and wear some really big shoes.

I had the HVX 200 and now I have the HPX 170. Hand held shots are part of the beauty of this class of camera for me... but even if I never shot hand held I'd get the HPX for its evolutionary advances. It's not so much smaller that a client would notice once it's on a good tripod with a bunch of obviously expensive accessories clinging to it.
 
Last edited:
I'd miss the beefiness of the HVX200/200a. Anyways, I'd be using it mostly with an adapter so its compactness really goes out the window. I still want one, but for the many other things that it has that the 200a doesnt.
 
The 170 isn't much smaller. It's lighter, but not smaller. From the tone of your post it almost makes it sound like you're thinking the 170 looks like an HV20 as compared to the HVX. In reality, the 170 is almost as big, a casual observer would definitely see them as being in the "same class." The great thing about the 170 is that it's so much lighter, and better balanced. But it's not dramatically smaller.
 
As an HPX170 owner I can say it's not much smaller at all. I agree with Barry when he says: "a casual observer would definitely see them as being in the same class"..........
 
It may not be much smaller, but cameras in this range (Canon, Sony, Panasonic, etc.) ARE getting smaller. Fast forward 5 years from now and they might be MUCH smaller. I think that's okay for consumer-level cameras but not for pro-gear.
 
EDV said:
If the HPX170 is smaller and lighter than the HVX200...won't that be a disadvantage when trying to impress a client?
I mean, let's face it, most clients know very little about video technologies, and many of them will always think

smaller camera = budget video, maybe amateur
big camera = expensive TV equipment
Click to expand...

Two of our local TV stations have at least 1 HVX200, and one of them has completely switched out all of their Panasonic DVCPro50, shoulder mount monsters with the 200s.

If we switch to the 170 or 200 (we currently shoot with the AJ-PD900--google it to see the size), people will think, "Wow, they use those small cameras just like the TV crews! They must be big budget!". :)

Besides, our clients are impressed with their final product, not the cameras. If camera size is all they base our skills on, we're in big trouble. :)
 
Bingo.

Bingo.

PerroneFord said:
Put some rails and a Mattebox on it. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

A client who objects to a HPX170 for the reasons stated, will also not be impressed by the HVX's diminutive size. These are both small cameras, whatever size difference between them is irrelevant. If you want to impress your client, move up to a 2/3 inch camera and be done with it.

Otherwise, Perrone's dead on. Dress it up with the fore mentioned gear.

As for me, I really look forward to shooting my HPX handheld. For it's size, the HVX is a pig in the weight department.
 
I wish it were smaller. I don't have anyone to impress but myself, and I'm the one who has to carry it - lighter, more compact and nimble would make more sense to me.
 
show up to a shoot with an old (but big) betacam and an hpx 170. the general public (and often clients) will tend to perceive the hulking camera as the higher-end one.

funny thing, back when i shot with an XL2, i would get stopped on the street by passers by all the time. since ive been shooting with the hvx200 and now the hpx170. it happens much less frequently...
 
depends on what you are shooting though.
Uneducated coprorate clients are impressed with 15 year old betacams but shooting reality and getting bites from people who are not talent is impossible due to the deer in the headlightsism tv cameras cause.
Wanna catch reality, you have to just be a dude with a camcorder, not tv.
 
That's so true. The XL1 got a lot more attention due to it's space ship design and that blazing red color on the cam... I'm happy to not draw too much attention, but also very happy to mock the news crews that lug around a betacam. Several of our networks here have gone with 200's, but the old guard holds out and/or often goes for the larger cams...


I liked that story about Keifer Sutherland not being able to act to the little cams on 24, then the next day they brought out the same little cam but with a big mattebox and problem solved.. I do think that a large appeal to the mattebox and other accesories is the client appeal.


A really nice HD monitor is also a big selling point.....
 
Justyn said:
That's so true. The XL1 got a lot more attention due to it's space ship design and that blazing red color on the cam... I'm happy to not draw too much attention, but also very happy to mock the news crews that lug around a betacam. Several of our networks here have gone with 200's, but the old guard holds out and/or often goes for the larger cams...


I liked that story about Keifer Sutherland not being able to act to the little cams on 24, then the next day they brought out the same little cam but with a big mattebox and problem solved.. I do think that a large appeal to the mattebox and other accesories is the client appeal.


A really nice HD monitor is also a big selling point.....
Click to expand...

A cardinal rule- cameras should never be orange and white.... Apparently Canon didn't learn a thing from the Ikegami TK76.
 
EDV said:
Just a common sense observation,

If the HPX170 is smaller and lighter than the HVX200...won't that be a disadvantage when trying to impress a client?
I mean, let's face it, most clients know very little about video technologies, and many of them will always think

smaller camera = budget video, maybe amateur
big camera = expensive TV equipment

so why keep making them smaller?
So that is less heavy?
Please....I've just spend a small fortune on the HVX plus a few thousands on additional gear, and you think I'm gonna go handheld? Good one!
If I want light, I'll just shoot with my cell phone thank you.
Most HVX users who are serious about the type of projects they take on would likely be thinking "Steadycam" , "Fig Rig", "Dolly", "Crane" or at least "Tripod".
And lets face it, a tiny camera would sure look ridiculous on any of these.
Click to expand...

Most of my clients stopped being impressed by big cameras quite a while ago but I am sure that there are still some unenlightened ones out there. I guess it all just depends on what sorts of projects you shoot.

The HPX170 is just slightly physically narrower but is slightly taller than the HVX200 but it is a bit longer also. The dimensions of the HPX are 7 1/8'' high x 6 1/8'' wide x 15 3/4” long. The HVX is 7-1/16” high x 6-5/8” wide x 15-3/8” long. The HPX170, largely because of its weight, simply feels smaller but in reality, it is only slightly narrower and is taller and longer.

Dan
 
I felt the HVX beeing too small and consumer looking (well ...after all, it´s a consumer camera).

But if you bolt all the goodies on it, it´s getting better to impress clients.

I know I should impress clients with the product, but If they have the feeling they get ripped because you charge them pro prices for home video equipment you get bad vibrations on the set.

Rails, big lens and a big arse mattebox does help a lot.

Frank
 

Attachments

  • r3.jpg
    r3.jpg
    76.8 KB · Views: 0
  • r4.jpg
    r4.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 0
Do you really consider a $5K+ camera consumer? Prosumer, maybe, but hardly consumer.

If your client's feel cheated because you aren't hauling around a 35 lb Betacam, they need to focus more on their final product and less on what people think of them during their shoots.

I've always thought this business would be the perfect business to be in...if it wasn't for the clients!! :)

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