HVX200A or HPX-170

Barry_Green said:
The 170's lens also represents a couple of years of technological advancement. It remains to be seen how it performs next to the 200, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't just as good. Being wider does mean you'll have a little less telephoto reach though.
Click to expand...

Oh man. So that means a little less advantage for 170 users when trying to get a shallow depth of field? What's the optical zoom on this camera (the 170)? Is it 12x like the HVX?

Does the wider lens really make that much of a difference in shallow depth of field, though? I mean, you said it's SLIGHTLY wider so I'm guessing that means SLIGHTLY more "infinite" depth of field.

Does my "theory" hold any truth?
 
Daygola814 said:
Oh man. So that means a little less advantage for 170 users when trying to get a shallow depth of field?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Two competing factors at work here, there's a wider-angle lens, but there's also a slightly bigger sensor (vs. the 200) so it MAY turn out that the 170 actually has slightly shallower DOF than the 200. It will definitely have less telephoto reach, but the net effect on DOF may actually be shallower.

What's the optical zoom on this camera (the 170)? Is it 12x like the HVX?
Click to expand...
HVX200, HVX200A, HPX170 and HMC150 are all 13x. But the HVX200A has a slightly wider field of view than the HVX200, and the HPX170/HMC150 have slightly wider fields of view than the HVX200A.

Does the wider lens really make that much of a difference in shallow depth of field, though? I mean, you said it's SLIGHTLY wider so I'm guessing that means SLIGHTLY more "infinite" depth of field.
Click to expand...
The difference will be slight. You're talking about 51mm vs. 55mm. But, you're also talking about being closer to the subject for comparable framing, which should cancel out the lesser telephoto reach. I bet the difference will be very slight indeed, but for comparable framing I'm thinking the 170 might actually have shallower DOF.
 
Barry_Green said:
Maybe. Two competing factors at work here, there's a wider-angle lens, but there's also a slightly bigger sensor (vs. the 200) so it MAY turn out that the 170 actually has slightly shallower DOF than the 200. It will definitely have less telephoto reach, but the net effect on DOF may actually be shallower.


HVX200, HVX200A, HPX170 and HMC150 are all 13x. But the HVX200A has a slightly wider field of view than the HVX200, and the HPX170/HMC150 have slightly wider fields of view than the HVX200A.


The difference will be slight. You're talking about 51mm vs. 55mm. But, you're also talking about being closer to the subject for comparable framing, which should cancel out the lesser telephoto reach. I bet the difference will be very slight indeed, but for comparable framing I'm thinking the 170 might actually have shallower DOF.
Click to expand...

That's sounds good! I'm used to my DVX100a anyway, so I'm sure the 13x zoom (sorry, I thought the HVX200 had 12x - my mistake) will be a nice little plus for my shallow depth of field concerns. I still can't believe the 170 has a waveform AND a vectorscope.

Anyways, just out of curiosity, the "bigger sensor" part... Are we getting not 1/3" sensors but maybe like something like 3/11th inch sensors or something? I'm just trying to understand the "bigger sensor" part. Not that it really matters... but yeah... does that mean they're slightly bigger than 1/3"?

Also... when looking at RGB scopes, I noticed that with my DVX footage, I can still pull down values above 100% So, if using the scopes or even the zebras, at what value would the overexposed areas NOT be able to pull down any more values? 110%? Or anything above 100% ON THE CAMERA zebras/waveform is just lost detail?
 
1/3" doesn't mean any actual size, it's just a type of classification. There are already several 1/3" cameras on the market with different sensor sizes; the HVX's sensor is bigger than the JVC's, but smaller than the Canon's, etc. None of them measure anything near 1/3". That's a long discussion we've had before.

But, apparently the sensors in the HVX200A/HPX170/HMC150 are about 7% larger than the sensors in the HVX200.

As for percentages, 110 = clipping, you can usually salvage something at 109.
 
Barry_Green said:
1/3" doesn't mean any actual size, it's just a type of classification. There are already several 1/3" cameras on the market with different sensor sizes; the HVX's sensor is bigger than the JVC's, but smaller than the Canon's, etc. None of them measure anything near 1/3". That's a long discussion we've had before.

But, apparently the sensors in the HVX200A/HPX170/HMC150 are about 7% larger than the sensors in the HVX200.
Click to expand...

Okay cool. That's all I really needed to know about that.

Barry_Green said:
As for percentages, 110 = clipping, you can usually salvage something at 109.
Click to expand...

Okay. I figured that but I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks Barry!
 
Barry_Green said:
1/3" doesn't mean any actual size, it's just a type of classification. There are already several 1/3" cameras on the market with different sensor sizes; the HVX's sensor is bigger than the JVC's, but smaller than the Canon's, etc. None of them measure anything near 1/3". That's a long discussion we've had before.

But, apparently the sensors in the HVX200A/HPX170/HMC150 are about 7% larger than the sensors in the HVX200.

As for percentages, 110 = clipping, you can usually salvage something at 109.
Click to expand...

Which Canon's? The A1 or the H1? Seems like they both have the same sized sensor or the same sensor in general.

I still wish Canon would've antied up and threw out a tapeless workflow solution with the A1/H1 flavor. Oh well. Maybe next year or later this year.

Suckers.
 
I totally like the lens being wider, for me this makes it a more versatile camera for "run 'n gun" scenarios in which you need to shoot in small spaces and such, mainly in "guerrila filmmaking", where you shoot at people's houses or cramped spaces and there's barely space to put the camera in.

I'm really impressed at how Panasonic is just getting everything right with this camera. The NTSC/PAL switch and slightly better LCD would make it a nearly flawless product, but I guess you can't have everything.

Now let's just jope Jan's predictions come true and the camera is in our hands in September, can't wait!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top