Of course a DigiPrime will beat the HVX lens (or, at least, it certainly should).
But the biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's reliving the arguments of the past, where people made sweeping proclamations based on some specs, while disregarding the actual observable evidence we have in front of us. How can you say the HVX lens won't hold up? We have evidence that the DVX lens (the "standard-def" lens on the standard-def DVX) does a fine job of resolving a high-def image, delivering higher resolution images than the HD lenses on the HD100 and Z1, and by a decent margin. That's already been demonstrated by Andromeda, the footage already exists. So to assume that the HVX's even-better Leica Dicomar won't be up to the task seems presumptuous at best. Let's look at footage before you say the footage won't hold up!
I mean, I was one of the biggest arguers about lenses being the limiting factor for small HD cameras; it simply did not mathematically add up that we'd be getting decent-performing lenses on these small cameras. But you know what? The lens on a $925 Canon HV20 delivers a high-def image. There's no way it should, but it does. It doesn't matter that we don't understand how, all that really matters is that it does it. I have no doubts that the HVX lens will be PLENTY adequate to the task. And sooner or later we'll have actual images and photographic evidence that will answer the question definitively, so why stress about it? It either will or it won't, but if the last couple of years have taught us anything it's that "theory" gets its *** kicked by "reality" every single day.
