Is it foolish to buy an HP170 right now?

B

bmillz

Member
I'm a big fan of the HVX200, been using it at companies for years. I really would like to get a camera of my own and don't want to get on the DSLR bandwagon. There are other interesting choices popping up like the Panasonic AF100 and Sony FS100...(And a bit older, and pricier: Sony EX-1)

I would hate to buy the HPX170 camera now, only for Panasonic to release an upgrade or new camera that would kill it. I feel like the HPX170 has been around a while.

I thought the AF100 would be "the one". But, I've had friends who used the AF100 indoors and said there's quite a bit of noise and that the SD card compression isn't the best....Someone even had to reshoot their whole project.

Anyways, what do you guys think? I could get a new one for around 3,400 on Amazon and a 64gb card for around 650. So, figure around $4k. It'd be a huge investment for me, so I want to make sure I think this through!

I appreciate your help!
 
The AF100 has zero noise when it's used and set up properly. Seriously, zero noise.

The HPX170 has been around a while, yes, and there is a new version coming, the HPX250. But the HPX250 will be $5,995 and you can get the HPX170 for $3400 or so.
 
Here's how much noise there is in an AF100. I tested every single ISO setting and show them all, including at magnified settings to magnify the noise.
 
Plus, while I'm at it -- if you like the HVX200, you could get a used one for very little. I think used they're going for $2000-$2400, something like that range...
 
there is very little reason to dislike an hpx170 right now. ive had one for about 3 years now. and have loved every minute of it.
that new hpx250 is coming out as its newer big sibling. but like barry says, its nearly $6k. you can pick up a used 170 now for $3k or so.

from a flexibility and general aesthetic standpoint, (and at the price) about the only thing to seriously rival a 170 (in my opinion) would be a DSLR. but they make extremely s**tty VIDEO cameras ; )
 
Last edited:
A new HPX170 for $3400 is a steal. I paid $4700 for mine two years ago. Except for a few minor complaints I can see it lasting me several more years. I have had many compliments on how good the footage looks. The HPX250 looks to be really nice but at $3,000 more I don't think you are going to see that much image improvement over the HPX170. Also for some subject matter CMOS may be the inferior to the CCDs of the HPX170.
 
If it's a good instrument to shoot the kind of work you're being paid to shoot, it's not a bad investment.
 
Thanks so much for your feedback on this. I definitely wasn't trying to be provocative with that subject line. I've preferred the look of Panasonic Cameras ever since the DVX100. Always felt warmer to me. The HVX quickly became a favorite, but the HPX170 seems like a streamlined, slightly better and tweaked version of that. My buddy actually let me borrow his AF100 tonight, so I'll get a chance to mess with it.

Basically, I direct a lot of web content and I think the HPX170 is totally fine for that. I'd love a camera that I could also shoot more cinematic short films with. I had a short at Sundance that the DP shot with a 35mm adapter (on an EX-1) and I suppose an HPX170 can achieve a similar thing if I got an adapter. Ideally, it'd be a camera that could tackle both sides of the equation. The HPX seems like a pretty great deal right now. And the 250 (which I wasn't aware of) seems to be more in competition with the EX-1 at that price point, yeah?
 
Any other cam that equals or exceeds the overall quality of the HPX170 will cost a lot more. AF100 with lenses and maybe a external recorder, HPX250, Canon 305, EX1 or EX3, maybe a few others I have forgotten, will all cost substantially more $$. All of them have a potential to have sharper IQ, but the 170 is a real workhorse for general projects with all the features you really need.

Grant
 
Barry,
Nice job on the iso test, looks really good, thank you.

The 170: I owned one for awhile and loved it. It is a heck of a deal. The 250 has CMOS chips and the 170 is CCD. I miss my 170, sold it to buy a 370.
 
and I suppose an HPX170 can achieve a similar thing if I got an adapter.
Click to expand...
YUP! and with all the dslr hubub these days, you can get some bad-assical deals on adapters right now. i just sold off my (hpx170 configured) sgblade rig for $725 a couple weeks ago
 
I've used the VX1000, XL1, XL1se, XL2, PD150, HVX200 (nonA) and HPX170. If you're going from HVX200 to HPX170 you will appreciate the slightly smaller form factor and that it is lighter. Once you rig it up any extra weight saved counts. The HPX170 is slimmer too, and has better output options than the HVX200. What actually made me decide to dump my HVX200 and get the HVX170 is the fact it has a built-in waveform monitor. Histogram is pretty useless compared to the power of a waveform monitor, so if you are a fanatic for good exposure you will definitely appreciate this tool.

Part of my decision to dump the HVX200 and go HPX170 was also for 35mm adapters. In the end, my whole rig weighed 22lbs and was nice and narrow, again I appreciated the weight savings. I also used the same 35mm adapter on both camera (HVX200 and HPX170) for a while to compare them and no doubt the HVX170 was a brighter imager and cleaner. As for the 250, not sure you really need all the extras it has to offer and with the dropped price of the HPX170 as low as it is, it is a steal for what it does. The codec is great for grading too without falling apart.

As for comparing larger sensor cameras, the HPX170 with or without an adapter will give you the best of both worlds. Not true once you completely cross over to the AF100 or any other larger based cameras. You will need a way to focus, you will need lenses, rails, etc.. etc...

In the end, if you're getting paid and your clients don't care what you shoot with then pay for the tools that are enough to do your job - in th end something else better always comes along.
 
I am very happy with my HPX170. Upgraded from a DVX100 about 6 months ago. Yes, the new 250 will be an improvement in some aspects, but unless you are shooting something that pretty much requires a 10-bit image, I see no need to upgrade. There are some other nice ergonomic and system features, but I got my 170 for $3500 last month. $4100 after two 32GB P2 cards. Since then, both the camera and card prices have dropped a bit.
 
Hey video Atlanta. As an owner of both a 170 and now a 370, how do you think they stack up? Could be useful info for those of us deciding between the 250 and the 170 since the 250 and the 370 share so much functionality. Your insight would be much appreciated!
 
One thing that has always had me stick with P2 is the codec... I feel a lot of people overlook this. Its 422 and can hold up pretty good with gentle grading. So you either get a HPX170 or step up to 250 or 370 like others have suggested, but it's like $3k more.
 
Also, don't let the cost of P2 cards scare you off. There are great deals out there on used cards. I just bought a R-series 16GB card last week for $200. I will probably pick up a couple more R series since they are pretty robust and don't have the E-series use limit.
 
The 370 dissapoints some with the CMOS - The 250 is the replacement for the 170. Full raster and AVCintra are wonderful BUT,..
 
The Panasonic AC130 should also be considered once it's out and I'll retail for $4,000. Same imaging chips as the HPX250, no HD-SDI output and records to AVCHD rather than AVC-Intra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top