HVX200 vs HPX170 - which one

D

djkoz

Well-known member
I am about to upgrade my DVX100A to a HD camera. I am seriously looking at the AC160, but before I finally decide I would like to get a better feel for the HVX200 versus HPX170 and P2 cards.

I could be shooting weddings, lectures, and creating some documentaries and a little ENG, so ease of use, good low light performance and quick auto focus are requirements. I hope to get some of the video published on television. So, my questions:

1. Why might I want to choose the HVX200 over the HPX170, or visa versa?

2. I use Vegas Pro 11. Does Vegas natively support these camera's output? and what editing problems might I expect if I shoot in the highest quality mode?

Thanks,

Dan
 
1. The only reason to consider an HVX200 over an HPX170, is if you need DV tape recording. Other than that, the HPX170 is just better in pretty much all ways.

2. Not whatsoever. The only way to use Vegas with a P2 camera is by going to www.dvfilm.com and buying Raylight.
 
Thanks, Barry. As always, your advice is most appreciated.

I had written to you over a month ago seeking advice on which camera to buy and you suggest the AC130 or AC160. I was all set to buy the AC160 when I stumbled upon a thread implying there may be an issue with auto focusing in some situations. This may or may not really be a problem but it did get me looking at other options.

I initially stayed away from the P2 technology because of the cost, but I discovered that it is now possible to get used HPX170 for around $2200. Even though I would have to buy the expensive P2 cards and, I believe, a P2 card reader, it may still be cost effective to go this route over the AC160.

As I mentioned in addition to weddings, lectures and documentaries, I may have the opportunity to create some content that will get shown on the local PBS station, so I am concerned about "broadcast quality", whatever that is. And who knows, maybe one of the documentaries might make it into a film festival or two. Frankly, for ease of use and Vegas editing I think I might prefer the AC160 over the HPX170. But, if you were in my position - one HD camera - which would you go for? the AC160 or the HPX170.

Again, thanks for your advice.

Dan
 
The AG-AC160 is going to be better in low light, use economical SD cards for storage, and has a tremendous lens on the front end (22x zoom with macro). The HPX-170 is going to be grainier in low light, only has a 13x zoom, and shoots to more expensive, but far more reliable, P2 storage (and the DVCPRO HD codec is more easily edited with than AVCHD which is highly compressed).

Because the HPX-170's zoom lens is only 13x and doesn't have a macro mode, the autofocus will be faster. That's the tradeoff for having such of a less "all-in-one" lens like the AC160 has.

Here's some footage I found on Vimeo (I haven't actually watched these, I just did a quick search).




I couldn't find any AC160 wedding clips, just tests.

Here's one I shot with the HPX-170. It's not a wedding, but it showcases event videography with the 170 in 1080p24:

 
Last edited:
Hello,

I am in the same situation, i.e. I need a camera to shoot a tv show and short films to be send to film festivals. I was thinking of buying aghpx 170, but then found about canon FX100, which is also cheaper and can shoot in infrared, but I think it has problem with auto-focus. See this link http://philipbloom.net/2011/07/09/video-review-of-the-canon-xa-10-xf100-and-xf105/

I would like to know your opinions about these two cameras and what camera, in general, would you recommend for my purposes of shooting?

Thanks in advance.
Alex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top