Considering Buying an HVX...

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-known member
I couldn't help but notice the essential firesale of HVX200's out there. Ebay, Craigslist, etc. Most from what appears to be very reputable sellers. Many good deals for camera, +P2 cards, plus batteries, etc. for about $2500, sometimes less. I talked to a friend who works in a sales/rental place and he says everyone is dumping everything in order to shoot Canon 5Ds with prime lenses. That type of shooting doesn't interest me that much, and if it did, I'd just rent. So...

I'm thinking about picking up one of these HVXs. I like the HVX more than any of the others in it's class (Canon A1, Sony Z5, V1, JVC HD250, even HMC150), and arguably more than the EX1. I guess because of the DVCPRO HD and 4:2:2. For me the majority of work I do is stuff like events, sports, interviews, stock, fun videos, etc. I like the idea of a camcorder that just works when you pick it up and plug a mic in, as opposed to having to deal with DSLRs and their issues, regardless of how great their picture is. If I make a "film" I harbor no illusion that I am Martin Scorsese, and believe content and proper shooting/lighting/good audio make a great film with any camera anyway, and Barry's statement that we long ago passed "good enough".

So, why wouldn't I buy one of these? Or if I do, what to look for in a used HVX? Anyone care to share any thoughts?
 
I would only purchase the 200A model (not just the original 200) and I'd also look to see how much more the HPX-170 is, which is, in my opinion, and even better camera than the HVX.
 
Why the 200A and not just the 200? What are they key differences? Keep in mind my general shooting (listed in OP).

The 170 sees to be going for about $3500, $1000 more than the 200.
 
The 200A has a revised chipset that gives it a half-stop more sensitivity and less noise and better smear reduction and truer colors. It's a nice upgrade, and if the choice was a 200 vs. a 200A for a few hundred more, I'd def go for the 200A.

Hey, the 200's a great camera, used by major directors and indie filmmakers alike -- if it does what you need, it's really kind of a steal at those price points. I definitely prefer the 170 over the 200 or 200A, but $1,000 is a lot of change, that's a 50% price increase from what you're talking about.
 
Thanks for the info guys. That Bloom review was very helpful. One thing though, he says the 171 is about a stop and a half more sensitive. Does he mean over the 200, 200a, or 170? I am guessing form Barry's statement he means 1.5 over the 200, which would mean 1.0 over the 200a. $3300 would be more than reasonable for a 170, but I'd have to weigh it against my needs. Most of what I shoot will be for myself, not for hire, as I have a job these days and am doing little freelance anything with the economy and all.

Yes, it just seems like a great time to buy one of these, especially these in the P2 line. I just think because of the DVCPRO HD 4:2:2, this camera is going to produce better footage that holds up longer than some of the HDV competitors. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are others who feel otherwise.

Any more input from anyone I'm happy to listen. I won't be buying for a few weeks at the soonest anyway.
 
ive owned an original hvx200 and now have the hpx170. i greatly prefer the 170. better low light, less grain, LIGHTER, smaller. hdsdi out. better lcd, focus assist. waveform monitor... the list goes on. the hvx200A and the hpx170 are however - very similar as far as image quality,

I talked to a friend who works in a sales/rental place and he says everyone is dumping everything in order to shoot Canon 5Ds with prime lenses.
Click to expand...
maybe his customers are. but unless you ONLY shoot feature type work. that would be pretty dumb. a DSLR is NOT a replacement for a traditional video camera. two different tools for two different uses.
 
snowleopard said:
One thing though, he says the 171 is about a stop and a half more sensitive. Does he mean over the 200, 200a, or 170?
Click to expand...
Not sure what Philip meant, but the 170(171) isn't 1.5 stops faster than any of those. It's the same speed as the 200A, and 0.5 stops faster than the original HVX200.

Now, the 200A/170 also are lower noise than the original HVX200. So maybe what he was meaning is -- you can add 6dB of gain to the 200A or 170, and they'll be about as noisy as the original HVX was, so for the same amount of noise it can be 1.5 stops faster? I'm not sure if that's what he meant, but I think a reasonable argument could be made for that.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep an eye out for most likely the 200A.

a DSLR is NOT a replacement for a traditional video camera. two different tools for two different uses.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree with that completely. But it seems that so many people are flocking to them as a "do all" camera just because it can produce a great picture. Cinematic, shallow DOF, etc. I love that look too. But that doesn't mean that much to me when I'm interviewing someone, or shooting bicycles at the local race, ski patrol instructionals, kittens to put on a website, etc.
 
But it seems that so many people are flocking to them as a "do all" camera...
Click to expand...
saddest thing is that nothing could be further from reality. one day, some kid is gonna slap his shiney 7D on the end of a jib and realize - how do i control the zoom from down here? and realize that he should have kept his hvx200 ; )
 
Barry_Green said:
Not sure what Philip meant, but the 170(171) isn't 1.5 stops faster than any of those. It's the same speed as the 200A, and 0.5 stops faster than the original HVX200.

Now, the 200A/170 also are lower noise than the original HVX200. So maybe what he was meaning is -- you can add 6dB of gain to the 200A or 170, and they'll be about as noisy as the original HVX was, so for the same amount of noise it can be 1.5 stops faster? I'm not sure if that's what he meant, but I think a reasonable argument could be made for that.
Click to expand...

the 170 has to be a little better in lowlight than the 200a, I just had a shoot in the dark at a beach with both models and when I used my 170 I was blown away by how much brighter it was than the 200a. By the way, the books completely awesome!!!
 
This has me wondering now. Are the people who talk about how great he HMC150 is in low light compared to (older/other Panny cameras) comparing it to the HVX200, or the 170? It can’t be as good in low light than the 170, can it? That makes no sense to me.
 
xqzt said:
the 170 has to be a little better in lowlight than the 200a, I just had a shoot in the dark at a beach with both models and when I used my 170 I was blown away by how much brighter it was than the 200a. By the way, the books completely awesome!!!
Click to expand...
The 170 and 200A have exactly the same chipset and, according to my tests, perform the same in terms of sensitivity. Are you sure you weren't comparing a 170 against an original 200?
 
snowleopard said:
Are the people who talk about how great he HMC150 is in low light compared to (older/other Panny cameras) comparing it to the HVX200
Click to expand...

Yes
, or the 170? It can’t be as good in low light than the 170, can it? That makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
It's the exact same as a 170 in low light, because it's the exact same camera hardware. Only major difference is the recording format. The 170 and 150 are pretty much identical in lens, chips, processing, everything -- it's just that the 170 records to P2, and the 150 records to SDHC. And the 170 has a lot more features, like standard-def and variable frame rates and HD-SDI and such. But as far as imaging performance goes, they're the same.
 
Thanks for clearing that up.

No matter what I end up buying, I'm also buying your corresponding book.

:Drogar-SunGlass(DBG
 
Barry_Green said:
The 170 and 200A have exactly the same chipset and, according to my tests, perform the same in terms of sensitivity. Are you sure you weren't comparing a 170 against an original 200?
Click to expand...

Positive. I was shooting with the 200a with a bit of gain, when I switched over to the 170 I did not need any gain and the image was still brighter. Both these cams were on the same scene files(with proper adjustments to ped & detail). Same shutter 180d. The one difference was that the 170 had a macro lens adapter on it(can that increase light sensitivity? I would think the latter, but I could be wrong, maybe it was magnifying the light?)
 
What was your gain set to? I'm pleased with how high you can set the gain on the 170 and not have a storm of noise across the picture.
 
I am very pleased with noise performance with gain as well. The thing was shooting with the 200a I needed the gain and with the 170 in the same basic scenario, no gain.

I just got the 170 a few weeks ago and I am absolutely in love with this thing. Anyways, happy shooting!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top