Dissapointed in my new HPX170

P

pjlefe

Member
I bought the HVX200 when it first came out and like it a lot except for the weight and the low light sensitivity and noise when using gain which has been discussed here many times. You see, I shoot video of wildlife so packability, weight and low light performance is critical.

I was thrilled to hear about the new sensors in the 200A but the sensors alone weren't going to sway me to plunk down another 5k. What sold me was the smaller size, the low light sensitivity, and the digital zoom which was always a complaint of mine having come from the Canon world with 20x vs. 13x lenses. Every so often I'd find myself in a situation where a digital zoom would come in handy, like last year when I was in Africa and watched a lion catch a lame impala 200 yards away.

So I bought it and today I got my HPX.

I am very dissapointed.

First, I find the sensitivity only marginally better than my original HVX. I did a side by side comparison and while the noise is much improved, the increased low light sensitivity is hardly worth the money. The size is not much smaller either, however it is noticeably lighter. But the thing that really ticked me off and is not in any of the marketing literature is that the digital zoom only works in video mode, not in film mode and only in 1081i. For the life of me I can't figure that one out. Everything I shoot is 24p Film mode. This digital zoom is useless to me.

I am considering returning the camera. IMO - not worth $5k if you already have the HVX200.

I don't mean to sound negative, but I am very dissapointed. I still love the DVCPROHD format and am a loyal Panasonic customer.
 
Cropping in post will achieve the exact same effect as digital zoom. Although you shouldn't even be considering using it in the first place if you are shooting wildlife and are serious enough about the quality to buy a $5K HD camera. Century are making a 1.6X tele-adapter, wait until that comes out and you'll have 21x optical zoom.
 
Why would you want digital zoom anyway? It's always looks pretty crappy to me unless you're going for overly pixelated images. I always thought of it as a novelty. Maybe Panasonic only figures people coming from handycams who are used to shooting with a digital zoom function would use it? dunno.

Coming from Canon to the HPX, I'm pretty darn impressed. I'm not experiencing any of the odd noise issues anyone else is and my cam came with the Spec-Comm fix, so it's running like a champ.
 
the increased low light sensitivity is hardly worth the money
Click to expand...
I don't know how you can say this though. The sensitivity, when taken in context with the noise, yields about a 1.5 stop increase over the HVX200 -- meaning, at the same noise level, the HPX170 is 1.5 stops faster, maybe 2 stops faster. Which means you need 1/3 to 1/4 the light.

Bare sensitivity, ignoring the difference in noise, is 1/2 stop better. Yes that's not a whole lot. But when you factor in the noise difference, it nets out that you can use about 6dB to 9dB of gain and still have the same noise level, and combine that with the 1/2 stop of sensitivity and it works out to 1.5 to 2 stops better. Which is a HUGE improvement.

As for weight, the 170 is incredibly lighter than the 200. I've got a 200A and a 170 right here, and the 170 feels featherweight in comparison.

Digital zoom, yeah, it's pointless. Use it in 1080i video mode and you'll see that you really wouldn't want to use it for anything else.

I don't know why someone would be disappointed in a 170 vs. a 200. The 170 is so much better in so many ways. The color accuracy is better, the image is smoother, it's a little sharper, the camera's lighter, it has way more features, the picture is better in all ways. It's not a massive night-and-day improvement in picture, but then again the 200 was pretty darn good as-is.
 
Yes, I am doing exactly that, and my findings are almost comical right now so I'm trying to make absolutely sure that what's happening is what looks like what's happening... but putting a 200A against a 170, so far, based on what I'm seeing here, I am hella happy that I have the 170.

But I'm not prepared to vouch to exactly what I'm seeing yet because I want to be 100% sure.
 
COOL! Sounds like things are leaning towards the direction that I was hoping for.... When do you expect to have something final ready? Dude, I'm soooo waiting to hear what you "report", you have no idea.

Oh also, are you trying to narrow down what the "better" gamma settings would be when using the 170?
 
I don't disagree with anything said above. On the digital zoom, I rarely used it on my former cameras, but every once in a while it came in handy for capturing a long range wildlife shot. But it begs the question that if it is so useless why did Panasonic build it into the cam in the first place?

My only point was, and still is, that it did not meet my expectations and was not worth the extra 5k for a slight increase in light sensitivity and less noise. I also learned after fooling around a bit more tonight that the Dynamic Range Stretch is yet another feature that only works in VIDEO CAM mode. How many of us shoot Film mode? Probably a lot of us. So yet another reason I am dissapointed.

All of these features swayed me into buying this camera. Finding out that most of them are useless in FILM mode is justifiably dissapointing. Flame away if you like - but that's my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone will flame you, you're entitled to your feelings and thoughts just like the rest.

Me personally, I don't use digital zoom anyway so no biggie for me. The DRS only works when shooting in 60i which sucks but hey..... :)
 
pjlefe said:
But it begs the question that if it is so useless why did Panasonic build it into the cam in the first place?
Click to expand...
A question I asked in my first look article too. It makes no sense and I can't imagine anyone actually using it.

I also learned after fooling around a bit more tonight that the Dynamic Range Stretch is yet another feature that only works in VIDEO CAM mode.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you're doing 60fps slow-mo you can use it. Just not in your 24fps stuff. Would have been nice.
 
Looking forward to your testing, Barry. Was going to do the same this week but ended up with a roof leak that I've been dealing with. I did find a couple t-shirts and some jockey shorts stuffed into my eaves though in my attic. I should have documented that with the HPX ;)
 
if the setting for the digital zoom was set low .like lets say in 1080i mode a 1.3 x that would only knock it around to zoomed in at around 720 with a tighter frame. someone might have used it once in a while. but the way it is now it is just useless.
 
Having used the 171 now for a few days (owned the HVX for 2 years), I can safely say the picture is a big improvement. It just doesn't show itself straight away on all A/B tests.

The sharpness improvement is not to be underestimated.

http://www.vimeo.com/2150821 Look at the keyboard on my A/B here. And the sensitivity. I was using hardly any light at all and it was a dull day. A horrible set-up to show the benefits of the HPX.

I think the new wide-angle is great, makes the HPX so much more a HH camera.

I tell you something, we've got two HVXs and I'm already reaching for the HPX in complete preference.

I think you should give it a bit more time.
 
pjlefe said:
But it begs the question that if it is so useless why did Panasonic build it into the cam in the first place?
Click to expand...
This is just a guess but maybe it's needed for Focus Assist. Isn't that just digital zoom in a small window?
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, but if you're doing 60fps slow-mo you can use it. Just not in your 24fps stuff. Would have been nice.
Click to expand...

Yes, but really DRS is probably going to be used 99% of time in event shooting. Lighting is your DRS in 24fps. Just IMO.
 
I use the DRS circuit all the time with my HDX900, especially outdoors. I'm really sorry that I can't use it in my 170 at 24p, since it is already latitude challenged compared to the 900. I keep DRS on a user switch on my 900 because I use it so often. But, in a controlled lighting environment, it is not needed.

There are times when the DRS circuit does not look natural, such as on highly saturated colors.
 
ROne said:
I tell you something, we've got two HVXs and I'm already reaching for the HPX in complete preference.

I think you should give it a bit more time.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Especially after doing some side-by-side with even a 200A, I think the 170 just looks better. The 200A alone made me want to sell my 200; the clarity of the picture and the better color accuracy were enough. But the feature benefits of the 170 are (to me) irresistible; my 200 was sold the day my 170 showed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top