HVX200/HPX170 VS the world

"true hd" "full hd" yadda yadda... just a bunch of spec-speak and only a little more concern to most users than the now antiquated "broadcast quality"

pixel stretching, line doubling, reduced color sampling, booger eatin, booty scratchin, eatin dirt, just about EVERY camera under $100k is going to compromise something, somewhere. and there is always going to be some wiley sales guy, or spec-drunk college instructor. whos gonna say one camera is better because it's "true 1920x1080" without concern that it uses longGOP compression, a rolling shutter, clumsy codec or has inferior color sampling.

i've yet to hear of any cable channel or production company who wouldnt accept footage from an hvx/hpx except maybe IMAX ; )
Click to expand...

Thx! This has helped tremendously!

HPX or HVX? I want to purchase two cameras...
 
wgzn said:
people tend to get drunk on specs. particularly this spec. from where i sit. if you have to ask the question, it shouldn;t be a decision making factor'
Click to expand...
I have to agree completely. I once too was a little drunk on that when HD started to be common...until I actually started using the cameras and looking at footage and realized that factors like oh, lighting, camera settings, etc, had a much larger factor than hair splitting specs fueled by fanboys and advertising rhetoric.

As I said before, we've long ago passed the point of "good enough". It's more pragmatic to choose a camera today based on things like features you're likely to use for what you shoot, ergonomics, system compatibility, how you appraise the picture quality, etc.

HPX or HVX? I want to purchase two cameras...
Click to expand...
Discussed a lot on here. Biggest factor is if you're going to need to shoot long subject matter. Say, a 3-hour wedding. A baseball double header, a multi-band concert. That's the area where the 170 is "weaker" because of the need for large, expensive P2 cards, and storage. Otherwise, I personally think the camera looks better than anything else in this class, which is why I bought one. It also has superior features to the HMC150. Though the HMC is an awesome camera in it's own right.

One other thing to keep in mind is that you can always buy/borrow/rent more P2 cards and HD space. You can't ever upgrade the HMC to 4:2:2 or the features of the HPX without buying a new camera.

The time to buy either an HPX or HVX200a is now. The AF100 is out and hot, and you're likely to be able to find a high quality lightly used HPX (or HVX) from a reputable seller quite easily at a very reasonable price. The only reason not to purchase an HPX is if the majority of your work is filmic in nature, and you must have a bigger chip for DOF control. If that's the case, save for the AF100. Otherwise, the HPX is likely to be able to do anything you want. I can't remember hearing about anyone who purchased one and not been impressed by the picture quality beyond exceptions, or regretted buying it.
 
Last edited:
here's an example of how happy this guy is with his 170:

ive been talking on various threads about this exact subject. and it never once occurred to me to sell my 170 kit and get an af100.

; )
 
Either would I. Granted, less than 10% of what I shoot is filmic, and I don't really make money from that. But if I were to head that direction I'd buy/rent an AF100, and still keep my HPX.
 
cbox121 said:
I just did some research on the cannon XH-A1S... this shoots in full 1080p? 1920x1080.
Click to expand...
It does not. It uses interlaced sensors, and a prefiltering video format. The result is 1440x1080i, or its "frame mode" of 1440x1080p, which is some sort of using interlaced sensors to create a progressive picture. It is substantially lower resolution in 1080p mode than it is in 1080i mode.
 
im definitely now entertaining the idea of selling my 170 kit...
170
3 16gig cards + panasonic usb card interface
3 batteries + charger
fitted pelican case
all cables, books, manuals, etc...

hmmmm...
 
i just never thought about it before...

my 170 does fine and i rent/borrow a 5d/7d for filmic stuff... but if i can get $4k for my 170 kit, it's only going to cost me a $grand+lenses (lenses being a never ending source of capital drain) for an af setup.

interesting proposition... anybody interested?
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
...but if i can get $4k for my 170 kit,...
Click to expand...
Having just spend several weeks price shopping, I'd guess you may be waiting a while for a sale.

Do you really need an AF100? I thought you were one of the people happy with 4:2:2 and DVCPRO HD? Bit if that's what you want, I say go for it!
 
from what i see on ebay. for my full kit. people are getting $4-$5k...

no. i dont "need" an AF. i LOVE my 170. but its just gear...
i just figure if i can stay on the leading edge and have some fun with lens options - without breaking the bank. why not ; )
 
Well, I got almost that much, and didn't pay that much. But hey. If you can sell it for $4k plus, and are up for trading up, go for it! I mean, it's not like you'd be selling the HPX170 to buy an old Sony Z1. :Drogar-Shock(DBG):
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top