hpx170 owners: how much better is your hpx170 than the hvx200/200a?

R

robfilms

Veteran
i owned the hvx200 but never loved it.

p2 cards were/are expensive.

i found focusing difficult w/o an external monitor which then limited mobility.

in comparison to my dvx100b, it ate up light.

and now, i'm shopping for another camera and thinking about a previously owned hpx170.

i read the reviews when the camera was released.

i know the devotion the camera has developed on this forum.

but i wanted to know from hpx170 owners-

why is the hpx170 better than the hvx200/200a?

thanks in advance to those who care to share.

be well

rob
 
ive owned both:

hpx170 is WAY less noisy and considerably better in low light

hpx170 has a better LCD and has a couple of focus-assist features

hpx170 has hd-sdi out

lacking the tape mechanisms, the hpx170 is considerably lighter

i consider the P2 price argument to be a non-issue. the time and hassle i save not having to log and capture tapes pay for my P2 cards in just a few uses.


as a side note. the hvx200A is effectively an hpx170 with an SD tape capability.
 
Seconded. I went HPX and I use an HVX-200A every now and then and I like it a lot better. I just feels more professional during use.

And P2 is the format of choice for me. Wish the AF-100 used it (I know, I know, hear that beaten horse winnie some more)
 
Had an original HVX200, then replaced it with an HPX170. The HPX170 is substantially better in so many ways. wgzn pretty much summed it up. The 170's sharpness is about the same as the HVX's, but the noise is so much better, and the color accuracy is a lot better. But what I really enjoyed about the HPX170 is the ergonomics were much better, and there were tons of nice little features (like last-clip-delete) that just made it more enjoyable to use. And the SDI output is at least seven hundred thousand times better than the component video output jack on the HVX.

The HVX200A has the imaging improvements of the HPX170, but none of the other improvements.
 
thanks all for sharing

barry-

u did a bootcamp at abel cine here in nyc (what feels like a million years ago!) and that was what convinced me to purchase my hvx200.

unfortunately, as mentioned i never really enjoyed working with the camera.

now u good folks who have responded (again, thanks) suggests that many of my concerns with the hvx200 were solved with the hpx170.

can i focus-using focus aids-without the need of an external monitor?

in run & gun mode-can i trust the lcd for color accuracy? (is the lcd or vf hi-def?)

in run & gun mode-is the auto focus to be trusted (i know, i know but as a last resort!)

i do alot of talking heads, often in front of a black duvateen-w/the ex1/ex3 the whole black ir issue was a headache. how does the hpx170 handle shadows/darkness?

i guess what i'm asking is there much noise in the blacks? (i thought there was with the hvx200)

once again, thanks to any who care to share.

be well

rob
 
Gary Huff said:
I still need a fixed-lens camera for certain kinds of shoots, so I'll be holding on to mine for now.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and if I didn't also have an HMC150 I would have kept the 170. Didn't need both, and the 170 commanded a higher resale price, so it's the one that went. :thumbsup:
 
robfilms said:
can i focus-using focus aids-without the need of an external monitor?
Click to expand...
Focusing is the same on the HPX170 as it was on the HVX200. Same focus aids, same magnified focus. What's different is that the LCD looks much crisper for focus purposes, the peaking is much nicer, so it is easier. But you still need to use the magnified focus assist to assure getting sharp focus.

in run & gun mode-can i trust the lcd for color accuracy? (is the lcd or vf hi-def?)
Click to expand...
Neither are high-def, and I wouldn't trust any on-camera LCD for true color accuracy.

in run & gun mode-is the auto focus to be trusted (i know, i know but as a last resort!)
Click to expand...
It's pretty good in 60i/60p mode, but it's too slow in 24p mode to be of much real use. So it depends on what mode you're shooting in. Autofocus performance is the same on the HPX170 as it was on the HVX200.

i do alot of talking heads, often in front of a black duvateen-w/the ex1/ex3 the whole black ir issue was a headache. how does the hpx170 handle shadows/darkness?
Click to expand...
Never really tested it for that. I don't think we've ever seen a complaint about it here on DVXUser, so maybe it's not an issue?

i guess what i'm asking is there much noise in the blacks? (i thought there was with the hvx200)
Click to expand...
There has been a substantial reduction in noise in the HPX170, as compared to the HVX200. What noise remains, you'll see in the blacks, but it's much cleaner than the HVX200 was.

Overall, it's an improvement, definitely -- but it's not a total reinvention. You should definitely try it out before committing to buy, if you were already not that thrilled with an HVX200...
 
Neither are high-def, and I wouldn't trust any on-camera LCD for true color accuracy.
Click to expand...

my 170 lcd was pretty close right out of the box. my clients arent as picky as some may be. but generally (within a reasonable margin of perception) what i see on my lcd is what i see on set on my lh1700 and what i see on cable/broadcast tv
 
Oohh and P2, so good. Editing with that is way better than pro-res imo. So easy to edit.
 
Barry_Green said:
Agreed, and if I didn't also have an HMC150 I would have kept the 170. Didn't need both, and the 170 commanded a higher resale price, so it's the one that went. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Barry,

So would you say the HMC150 would be a better complement to the AF100/GH2 rather than the HPX170? I'm torn between getting an AF100 or a GH2 with either anHMC150 or HPX170...hmm..choices...
 
Well, it depends on what you need each camera to do. The HMC150 shoots the same format as the AF100, if that matters; it means you'd only need one workflow (for SDHC cards) instead of two (for P2 and SDHC). The AF100 has both HDMI and HD-SDI, so it could share monitors with either (HMC150 is HDMI-only, HPX170 is HD-SDI only). The HMC150 and HPX170 are largely the same camera, except for the recording format. The HPX170 does variable frame rates and standard-def, the HMC150 doesn't do either, but it's also quite a bit cheaper than the 170. The HMC150 and AF100 both do timecode sync'ing through their video out ports, so they'd be compatible in that way; you can't sync timecode between the AF100 and HPX170.

The GH2 is a totally different animal, completely entirely as different as could be. I think the GH2 complements the AF100 nicely, in that it's so tiny, and shares lenses, and it does stills, and it has the ETC mode, all things that make it a nice complement. But it's not a regular video camera, if you're needing a servo-zoom CCD-based ENG-appropriate camera, the 170 or 150 would be a much better choice than the GH2.
 
Another thought for a B-Cam for a AF-100 would be the HMC40 or 80. Both are CMOS, and both shoot AVCHD. Of course the 40 and 80 have a light disability, but they have lots of great features too. I have been surprised how well the HMC40 cuts with a 170.

Grant
 
Barry,

Been of the fence of a used HPX170 or an HMC150 as an ENG camera. I see used HPX170's w/ 2 P2 cards in the low $3000's...very tempting over an HMC150. Is the Warranty even transferrable? But also saw the AF100 being better utilized as an ENG camera using a Bebob or Varizoom controller w/ the 14-140mm lens....One thing's for sure...I will definitely be picking up a GH2!
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, it depends on what you need each camera to do. The HMC150 shoots the same format as the AF100, if that matters; it means you'd only need one workflow (for SDHC cards) instead of two (for P2 and SDHC). The AF100 has both HDMI and HD-SDI, so it could share monitors with either (HMC150 is HDMI-only, HPX170 is HD-SDI only). The HMC150 and HPX170 are largely the same camera, except for the recording format. The HPX170 does variable frame rates and standard-def, the HMC150 doesn't do either, but it's also quite a bit cheaper than the 170. The HMC150 and AF100 both do timecode sync'ing through their video out ports, so they'd be compatible in that way; you can't sync timecode between the AF100 and HPX170.

The GH2 is a totally different animal, completely entirely as different as could be. I think the GH2 complements the AF100 nicely, in that it's so tiny, and shares lenses, and it does stills, and it has the ETC mode, all things that make it a nice complement. But it's not a regular video camera, if you're needing a servo-zoom CCD-based ENG-appropriate camera, the 170 or 150 would be a much better choice than the GH2.
Click to expand...

barry-

thanks for the explanation.

i really wasn't thinking hmc150 but you make some good points.

"hmc150 and hpx170 are largely the same camera"

so low light capabilities are similar between hmc150 and hpx170?

with the hdmi out would anyone hang a nanoflash off a hmc150 for 422 or why bother?

my work goes on client websites, is distributed via dvd and is shown in large venues.

how does the footage compare between hpx170 and hmc150 on a 55" plasma? or even on a larger screen?

how does the footage compare between hmc80/40 and hmc150 on a 55" plasma? or even on a larger screen?

as always, thanks to any and all who care to share.

be well

rob
 
robfilms said:
so low light capabilities are similar between hmc150 and hpx170?
Click to expand...
Identical. Same chips, same image processing, same lens, same menu structure.

with the hdmi out would anyone hang a nanoflash off a hmc150 for 422 or why bother?
Click to expand...
I doubt many people would put a $2900 recorder onto a $2800 camera, but if they did, it would work and deliver 4:2:2.

how does the footage compare between hpx170 and hmc150 on a 55" plasma? or even on a larger screen?
Click to expand...
Extremely similar. If there's an advantage, it'd go to the HPX170, which records 4:2:2 in-camera, and is an intraframe codec - which makes it immune from any long-GoP issues. If money is no object, unquestionably get an HPX170. It has more features, a more robust codec, better color sampling, etc. But the HMC150 exists specifically for those for whom money is an issue. It gives you largely the same camera, in a much less expensive recording format.

how does the footage compare between hmc80/40 and hmc150 on a 55" plasma? or even on a larger screen?
Click to expand...
Depends on the available light. The HMC40/HMC80 are substantially sharper, especially on wide shots. Much sharper. But when the light goes low, the HMC150 slays. It can get equivalent brightness in 1/10th as much light as the 40/80 can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top