HPX170 Lens Wobble Improved

Angelcyk said:
I've been following this post since the begining and Jan and Barry are saying it's always been the same design and Dino and some others have been saying the wiggle is worse than previous generations. As someone who's looking to buy the 170 (and this is really the big question)..... is will Panasonic cover any damages due to a fault from this wiggle in the 5 year warranty????

I would assume that if Jan and Barry are correct then Panasonic would have no problem covering this in the warranty since it's never happened before.
Click to expand...

I have said it before, the wiggle is caused by a shock-mount design. It is a feature, a safe-guard. It is not a problem. There is no damage that could come to this camera by this being in there. It is similar to the other cameras, but not the same as it is a different camera. It may be that the the 170 has more wiggle than the 200 because the engineers thought there would be more potential to hit the lens because people would be trying out new things. Who knows when I hear back, it won't be until next week, and I will let you know. But it is a feature, not a liability.

Just common sense says that if something is bigger it is going to be harder to move. The 170 is more the size of the DVX than it is close to the HVX, thus my comments about the the HPX170 build being more similar to the DVX. They all are solidly constructed, they all have aluminum/magnesium die cast chassis, and the 170 has a 5 year warranty.

Hope this helps,

Jan

Best regads,

Jan
 
Dino said:
Yes, all we've seen is spin by two people who don't own an HPX170, but make a living from Panasonic products. I've had enough election year spin, I don't need to read more on this forum. My concerns have been dismissed out of hand by a person who has limited technical knowledge, being a salesperson, and another who makes money writing books about Panasonic products.
Click to expand...


Hi Jeff,

I am not a sales person I am the product manager for the USA for this product. I am a member of the design team on this product. And my technical knowledge is not limited, although I am not an engineer. What I did not have in front of me are the cameras in question. I happen to be in Denver visiting my father and not in NJ where I would have done exactly what my engineers did, check it out. I never noticed that there was a shock mount there. I did not dismiss your concerns, I sent the question back to NJ and they came back with an answer. The answer being that the shock mount is all part of the design. Why it is different from one camera to another is that perhaps the engineers felt the design needed to be changed for some reason or another. The rest of what I said about hanging the adapters off the front of the camera still holds, I have seen people come into the service center with their camera in two parts, the support has to be there.

Secondly, Barry is a pretty sharp guy and he wouldn't be able to make any money off his writing if indeed he was not on the ball and pretty much correct about how the camera works. I mean who would want to read a book that was full of inaccuracies and wrong information. I know I certainly would not want to buy it and put one in every single box that is a US camera.

When the engineers get back to me next week, I will post that as well.

This is not spin, I am a pretty straight shooter, most of the long term folks on this board can attest to this.

Been there, done that. I have no time for Panasonic fan boys or shills.
Click to expand...

Well, I can say that I am not a fanboy, as I am a woman, but I am a fan of the little camera, and I can say that I think the HPX is a fabulous little camera. Again I am working hard to not be upset that you have dissed myself and Barry, who probably knows the operational side of the camera better than anyone on this list. The HPX170 was basically designed by the group of people on this list with me being the filter to the factory design team, go look at the list of wants in the HVX200A want list on this very same board. I have been in this industry for now 35 years, I am not a shill, I have worked for Panasonic for 21 of those years. And we as a company are nothing like Sony other than we do both produce electronics.

If there were a problem, I would have said so. Look under the HPX500 forum for the 5600K green shift thread. Virtually the very first post I made there acknowleged the problem and while it took longer that I even would have suspected to find and put in the fix, we got a fix.

So when I say that the shock mount is not a problem it is not a problem, why it varies from one camera, 170 to DVX to HVX, to another is probably attibutable to the fact that the parts between the cameras are different or the design team implemented something new that they thought would work better. When they get back to me I will post that as well.

Hope this helps,

Jan
 
davetronic said:
That fact alone deserves rigorous investigation by panasonic and a user-oriented approach to the potentiality this could be an issue with THIS model. unfortunately what i think we're getting for the most part thus far is generally a denial of the fact there could be an issue in order to calm fears and protect sales.
Click to expand...


The investigation is that the shock mount is different and there is nothing worng with the camera or the design. You can choose to think that you are just getting words here but the engineers that I have looking at this back in NJ are some of the best in the industry, I would want them on my team any day things start to go wrong. This shock mounting is not an issue and when I get further information back from the factory I will post it but it is not an issue.


i understand nobody wants to start a wildfire of quality rumors at panasonic. but i really believe the best way to handle that would be genuine concern for what i feel is a valid point that's been brought to panasonic's attention, and some assurances that there will be every effort to make it right if it turns out to need attention AFTER TESTING before simply dismissing it under the banner of a 'lighter, smaller' or 'same as the rest' PR statement.
Click to expand...

If there were something wrong with it we would make it right and there is a 5 year warranty on the camera. And the camera is smaller, and llighter than the HVX. This is not a dismissal, it is telling you that this is a part of the design.


whether or not it's a major issue may be up in air until there can be more information from users and panasonic (assuming they will move in the direction of the previous comment), but whether or not it's got more play isn't debatable at this point.
Click to expand...

Can you put the shock absorbers from your Lincoln Town car on a Miata? Do these two respond a little differently when driving over bumps? The fact that you are thinking that the two cameras regardless of size should be the same, makes as much sense as the Miata/Town Car shock absorbers. They don't have to be the same, they just have to work for that body, and I believe that is what we have here.

Hope this helps,

Jan
 
I dont own the hpx170, but based on my experience, it is NOT a good idea to hang any weight on the front of your lens without proper support. 35mm adapter setup is heavy and when you coupled that with a mattebox + filters, 35mm lenses, you are simply putting stress into a delicate part of your camera (the optics). Anything that attaches to the lens of my camera HAS TO BE FIRMLY SUPPORTED BY THE RAILS. NO EXCEPTION.

I have seen big 2/3" b4 ENG lens that was optically damaged because the owner has been using a screw on wide angle converter on the front of this camera for a long long time (he shoots for car dealership, so he needed the wide angle for the inside shot of the vehicles). As you all know, all the element glasses in a lens (hpx170 has 13) are engineered to be highly precise. A continuous stress on the lens from the weight of his wide angle adapter is the cause of the demise for his expensive 2/3" b4 ENG lens. For his application, we adviced him to get a super wide angle lens instead.

Furthermore, to all you brave mavericks out there, you should known that the first batch/iteration of any product is not going to have a smooth road ahead. To be fair, I have never heard of lenses that needed shock mounted and shock supported, besides a steadicam. I also hardly see the need of a FF on the stock lens on a 1/3" sensor camera, you can hardly rack focus to anything with that deep DOF.
 
Dxmetal said:
Furthermore, to all you brave mavericks out there, you should known that the first batch/iteration of any product is not going to have a smooth road ahead. To be fair, I have never heard of lenses that needed shock mounted and shock supported, besides a steadicam. I also hardly see the need of a FF on the stock lens on a 1/3" sensor camera, you can hardly rack focus to anything with that deep DOF.
Click to expand...

Hi, The HPX is not an experiment. It is a fully working camera and this shock mounting is not an issue. The DVX and the HVX have it as well. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean that it didn't exist. Heck I didn't know that it existed until yesterday, but then I have not grabbed a lens and tried to wiggle it back and forth.

As far as an FF on the 1/3" yes it can prove to be useful and you can actually set your camera to the subject matter and utilize the FF capabilities. Seen it many times.

Best,

Jan
 
Heya Jan,

Not saying that the hpx170 is an experiment or a toy, but based on my previous experience, there are always bugs that needed to be ironed out on ANY first batch product. Hpx200 with the battery tab, EX1 with everything physically possible under the sun, Canon XH-A1 with bad CCD .....etc. Just curious that, if it is indeed a shock mount feature, how come it was not mentioned on the Panasonic brochure and also how would a side to side lens shock mount aid in the design and usage of a camera (I am not trying to be cynical but I really want to know/learn about a lens shock mount feature) as I cannot see the reason I want my front lens element to be able to move side to side. Perhaps we will get the answer from Osaka early next week.

p/s: I always find that 1/3" sensor camera is almost* useless for rack focusing, unless the subject is very far away from each other. Isnt this why we have to deal with the PITA 35mm adapter. If you can make 1/3" sensor camera do what you needed it to do, then more power to you, as I really have no more patience to deal with 35mm dof adapter and its compromises :(
 
Dxmetal said:
Heya Jan,
Hpx200 with the battery tab,
Click to expand...

That is an HVX200. There was a problem and the warranty covered that. It became redesigned and anyone that broke theirs had it fixed under warranty. I have yet to have any of my original HVXs break, but that does not negate the issue, it was fixed. The battery tab is a unique example as well as the number of thes that we have replaced in comparison to the number of cameras our there is less than 10%. It really is a balance on this one of design and the individual using it. But that does not mean we didn't redign it. The Shock Mount is nothing like that.


Just curious that, if it is indeed a shock mount feature, how come it was not mentioned on the Panasonic brochure and also how would a side to side lens shock mount aid in the design and usage of a camera (I am not trying to be cynical but I really want to know/learn about a lens shock mount feature)
Click to expand...

As for the feature, let's say that you are walking with the camera and not watching carefully that which is near the camera and you inadvertently hit the lens with a counter or the leg of a tripod or a large rock. Having the lens give a little on a side-to-side is a good thing. They probably didn't think of it as a feature in engineering but rather a safeguard. There are a number of things that I insisted go into the brochure that fell into this category, and as I said above, I didn't know this was in there, but it has been a part of every DVX(over 60,000 on the B series alone) and every HVX, a similar number and now on the HPX.

as I cannot see the reason I want my front lens element to be able to move side to side. Perhaps we will get the answer from Osaka early next week.
Click to expand...

It is for the accidental bump protection.

Best,

Jan
 
jan - i appreciate you responding to comments specifically. and i do appreciate that you are taking steps to find out more information from your engineers be they in NJ or Osaka.

but respectfully, your rationale for the HVX being stiffer doesn't seem to be consistent with some of your other statements. on one hand, if the HVX stiffness accompanies the fact it's bigger, than why does the HPX exhibit MUCH more play than the DVX when it's bigger than it (which i'd argue is the case, by a margin)?

if it's simply that this camera is different from either the DVX or HVX and has it's own design specs, why would panasonic engineer more play in the shock mount for this camera? were there a rash of repairs on the previous cameras because they kept getting knocked into things? did they see this as an improvement? and if so, why? these are the questions i have.

i would think engineering any additional movement at the lens would be negated as much as possible, not increased unless there were very strong rationale and lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest it was essential.

again, as to whether this is a major issue that affects image quality will have to be determined by how this play does / does not affect the image when used with a follow focus. i agree with everyone else that there's no effect when i mount an adapter properly and connected it to rail support. but i also know there's much more movement in comparison with the DVX or the HVX.

why?
 
davetronic said:
but respectfully, your rationale for the HVX being stiffer doesn't seem to be consistent with some of your other statements. on one hand, if the HVX stiffness accompanies the fact it's bigger, than why does the HPX exhibit MUCH more play than the DVX when it's bigger than it (which i'd argue is the case, by a margin)?
Click to expand...


Because it is a different camera, designed at a different time. Nothing more sinister than that.

if it's simply that this camera is different from either the DVX or HVX and has it's own design specs, why would panasonic engineer more play in the shock mount for this camera? were there a rash of repairs on the previous cameras because they kept getting knocked into things? did they see this as an improvement? and if so, why? these are the questions i have.
Click to expand...

Because they felt that to do it a different way might be better. Again nothing more than that.


i would think any movement at the lens would be negated as much as possible, not increased unless there were very strong rationale and lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest it was essential.
Click to expand...

Actually it may be as simple as the lens for the HPX is sufficiently different that they cannot use the same one as the one for the DVX. The body barrel on the HPX is different. They may have found new material that was better in their opinion. Keep in mind this shock mount should not come into play during recording but rather when it makes an inadvertant knock against something.


again, as to whether this is a major issue that affects image quality will have to be determined by how this play does / does not affect the image when used with a follow focus. i agree with everyone else that there's no effect when the adapter is mounted properly and connected to rail support. but i also know there's much more movement in comparison with the DVX or the HVX.
Click to expand...

But it shouldn't have any impact on the camera's ability to take pictures.

why?
Click to expand...

Maybe they will tell us, maybe they won't be able to. But I would suspect it would be one of the theories from above.

Best,

Jan
 
My 100B does not really do this.
But I have to say I have great respect for Barry and Jan. I have met both in person and discussed cameras. They were both quick to point out when something was less then desirable or there was a feature they did not like on the panny cameras. Both have always been very straight forward in my experience, so I will take their word until I see some footage of this being a REAL problem.

It is different then my 100B. The image for me casts the deciding vote. Can anyone post footage where this side to side motion negativity affects the captured image?

I have seen the Vimeo post of the lens wiggle. Can someone post video of the camera shooting, while they manipulate the shock mount feature, pulling focas on the camera's focus ring, and with a 35mm adapter on supports. I am not a camera designer so I can not say if this is a good or bad design. All I care about is getting a solid image.

Regardless of how this ends up, you must achnowledge it is great that a Panasonic designer is personaly answering our questions directly on these boards. I apprecitae your support Jan, and I appreciate everyone else who alerted us to this little lens mystery.


GIVE US FOOTY
 
Jan,
I also respect and appreciate the heck out of you and Barry. Both of you have answered countless questions and have made this community whole.

I am concerned as I noted in a previous post that it appears that there is different amounts of play WITHIN the HPX170 product line. Some users have claimed that their cameras have no play. While mine certainly exibits almost as much play as the vimeo video, it strikes me a wierd that mine is not the same as the vimeo video.

Being that this is a feature, what about the ones that exibit no play. Are those defective?
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Because it is a different camera, designed at a different time.

Because they felt that to do it a different way might be better.

Actually it may be as simple as the lens for the HPX is sufficiently different that they cannot use the same one as the one for the DVX. The body barrel on the HPX is different. They may have found new material that was better in their opinion.

Maybe they will tell us, maybe they won't be able to. But I would suspect it would be one of the theories from above.
Click to expand...

jan please understand that the 16 pages of previous explanations that ranged from - the bigger the body the stiffer the lens should be, the lighter the body the looser it is and the more like the DVX it should be - increased concerns rather than alleviated them when each proved to be inconsistent.

that said, i'm glad we've finally gotten to your current explanations and hope that your team can tell us WHY it has more play - and that it's absolutely intentional to that degree, and that user experience will prove that this is a non-issue.
 
Earlier on this thread there was a video of someone wiggling the lens of the 170. I'm just curious to know if you were to look inside the viewfinder and see if the picture is also wiggling. So far people reported the wiggle but there hasn't been one report of this effecting the picture.

There just seems to be alot of panic on this forum about a "potential problem" but nothing has effected a single frame. If so, please let us know but until then I think we're just jumping the gun. (then again this just is just my POV)
 
Not to add fuel to the fire but yes, the image shifts when the lens wiggles.

BTW, I've stopped worrying about this for now and have been enjoying the great features of this awesome little camera. For me they've been:

1) Waveform monitor; just no better way to set exposure. Should be a standard on cams from here on out...
2) Vectorscope; just no better way to set white balance. Should be a standard on cams from here on out...
3) Focusing aids; work better than I had hoped for.
4) Dual monitor outs; one for me and one for whomever else...
5) Four channel sound.
6) Much better with lowlight.
7) Recallable scene files.
8) Tapeless workflow; pop the P2 card out and right into my laptop...
9) Stunning picture with beautiful color rendition.

Lots to be thankful for and until I run into a real problem, I'm going to continue to stop losing sleep over it for now and just be happy shooting ...

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
lets quit the straw-man arguments and get to the bottom of this with more footage from the cam during the "wiggle"
 
Jan,

I sincerely appreciate your being so available on these forums, I know it is time consuming and can be frustrating. I apologize for dissing you. It felt like you were being defensive before taking the time to look into the issue. I'm glad you took my advice from my PM to you to run this by the engineers and am happy that you are relaying information as you get it.

Barry is also a fantastic resource for all of us, I think I was more irritated with him dismissing my concerns without even seeing a production model HPX170. I am sure you and Panasonic will do the right thing and look forward to hearing from the engineers in Osaka.

I think I am very sensitive to how a manufacturer's rep. deals with potential issues because I have dealt with Sony for what seems a lifetime. Didn't mean to paint you with the same brush.

Thanks for your hard work.
 
Leo Versola said:
Not to add fuel to the fire but yes, the image shifts when the lens wiggles.
Click to expand...


This is what concerns me... an example would be using the HPX on a car mount system driving and having wind pushing against the lens/hood causing image shifting or vibration.

Another question is if it is indeed a shock mount, why only side to side and not up and down as well?

I am planning on getting one, just kinda concerned right now.
 
Forget this "wiggle" business, I've found something far worse!
When you tip the camera there's a loud kinda "clunk" from inside the body! What the heck is going on there!? Terrible build quality.

Loving the cam so far! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top