Is the Hvx still the HD version of the dvx?
- Thread starter weezhum
- Start date
snowleopard
Well-known member
Too many factors, and unanswered questions, but I'll give it a shot.
Are you looking to make $ with your gear? Have fun? Learn? What are you mostly shooting, subject wise? What is your budget? Will you be looking to record hours at a time of footage? Or is an hour here and there a lot to you?
If you're simply an average guy like me, happen to have around $4,000 or so to drop, and don't look to make a day-to-day living with the camera, then sure, an HVX200a is a great upgrade. Especially if you're very comfortable with the DVX100. But so is the HPX170, or HMC150. I don't own any of these, but have used the DVX100 hundreds of times, and the HVX a few, and am in the market like you for an HVX or HPX or HMC. One thing I can tell you is that now is a very good time to buy a used HVX200, HVX200a, or even HPX170. The reason being is that with the AF100 looming on the horizon, and zeal for DSLRs by low budget indies, there are an inordinate amount of people dumping HVXs. If you keep your eyes open, and wits about you, you can find some great deals out there on quality used cameras with low use. Halo1000 is actually selling an HVX205 (same as 200A) right here in this forum. The caveat is that if you're looking to generate steady income in the months to come you're going to be trumped by a lot of AF100 owners. But if you're like me and already have a decent job and just want an all-round cam that you might pick up some cash from on a job here or there, now's a good time to buy.
If you need a bigger camera and plan to do more professional work, and have about $10k to spend, I'd wait for the AF100 (due in about two months). The only Panasonic cam in this line-up I don't care for is the HMC40.
Also consider the Sony EX-1, Z5u or Z7u. The Canon XF300, or XF100 which will be released in a couple months. If you're looking to still shoot to tape as HDV, I'd consider a used Canon XH-A1. JVC also sells the GY-HM100 which is very small, and the HM-700 and 790, which are shoulder mount.
Give us some more info, and you'll get more answers from people more pro than me.
Are you looking to make $ with your gear? Have fun? Learn? What are you mostly shooting, subject wise? What is your budget? Will you be looking to record hours at a time of footage? Or is an hour here and there a lot to you?
If you're simply an average guy like me, happen to have around $4,000 or so to drop, and don't look to make a day-to-day living with the camera, then sure, an HVX200a is a great upgrade. Especially if you're very comfortable with the DVX100. But so is the HPX170, or HMC150. I don't own any of these, but have used the DVX100 hundreds of times, and the HVX a few, and am in the market like you for an HVX or HPX or HMC. One thing I can tell you is that now is a very good time to buy a used HVX200, HVX200a, or even HPX170. The reason being is that with the AF100 looming on the horizon, and zeal for DSLRs by low budget indies, there are an inordinate amount of people dumping HVXs. If you keep your eyes open, and wits about you, you can find some great deals out there on quality used cameras with low use. Halo1000 is actually selling an HVX205 (same as 200A) right here in this forum. The caveat is that if you're looking to generate steady income in the months to come you're going to be trumped by a lot of AF100 owners. But if you're like me and already have a decent job and just want an all-round cam that you might pick up some cash from on a job here or there, now's a good time to buy.
If you need a bigger camera and plan to do more professional work, and have about $10k to spend, I'd wait for the AF100 (due in about two months). The only Panasonic cam in this line-up I don't care for is the HMC40.
Also consider the Sony EX-1, Z5u or Z7u. The Canon XF300, or XF100 which will be released in a couple months. If you're looking to still shoot to tape as HDV, I'd consider a used Canon XH-A1. JVC also sells the GY-HM100 which is very small, and the HM-700 and 790, which are shoulder mount.
Give us some more info, and you'll get more answers from people more pro than me.
I went from the DVX to the HMC. They are indentical when holding them and you really feel that you know how everything works on it. The SDHC cards are also quite cheap and easy to carry around. The P2 cards are much more expensive allthough they're falling in price as we speak.
The HVX gives you slightly better picture and less noise, the HMC, when set up wrong, easily gives you some extra noise. The HPX is amazing, not as heavy as the HVX, same body as the HMC and great HD quality (yet again they need P2 cards).
The HVX gives you slightly better picture and less noise, the HMC, when set up wrong, easily gives you some extra noise. The HPX is amazing, not as heavy as the HVX, same body as the HMC and great HD quality (yet again they need P2 cards).
Weez,
The big question in the Panna lineup, is whether you want or need to go with P2 workflow. The P2 workflow is more reliable, more expensive, and has a better codecs (IMHO). P2 workflow has more room to grow and is more accepted professionally. The AVCHD cams are less expensive, have nearly equivalent IQ, so for most uses are plenty good enough. The HMC150 is probably the closest cam to the DVX. The new AF-100 is the wild card, with interchangeable lenses, but still records to AVCHD. By the time you got one setup, it would be more expensive than any of the others by quite a bit.
Grant
The big question in the Panna lineup, is whether you want or need to go with P2 workflow. The P2 workflow is more reliable, more expensive, and has a better codecs (IMHO). P2 workflow has more room to grow and is more accepted professionally. The AVCHD cams are less expensive, have nearly equivalent IQ, so for most uses are plenty good enough. The HMC150 is probably the closest cam to the DVX. The new AF-100 is the wild card, with interchangeable lenses, but still records to AVCHD. By the time you got one setup, it would be more expensive than any of the others by quite a bit.
Grant
singleframe
Well-known member
HVX's are going for $2000 on eBay. pretty amazing price, if you ask me.
DGW
Well-known member
Good price, indeed. But mostly that is for the original HVX and not the 200A. The 200A is much improved over the original and I have not seen any of those for that price (at least by what I consider a reputable seller). I personally would not spend that on the original version, but maybe some would.
snowleopard
Well-known member
But $2500 for one in good shape with a few extras is still a very good price on a very good camera. Though in my research I determined that the extra $500 beyond that for the 200a, or a little more for an HPX170 was well worth it. But that's just me. For many, the original HVX200 is an awesome machine.
Grant - I've never owned a 40. The features and specs aren't enough to interest me personally. But for the price though they are indeed a great deal. Better than the JVC GY-HM100 whose specs I'd say are similar, but $1000 more, though the JVC is drag and drop right into FCP, which is a really nice feature. But someone without a lot of cash, and not too worried about 1/4" chips or very low light, the HMC40 is a great upgrade to HD from the DVX.
Grant - I've never owned a 40. The features and specs aren't enough to interest me personally. But for the price though they are indeed a great deal. Better than the JVC GY-HM100 whose specs I'd say are similar, but $1000 more, though the JVC is drag and drop right into FCP, which is a really nice feature. But someone without a lot of cash, and not too worried about 1/4" chips or very low light, the HMC40 is a great upgrade to HD from the DVX.
Snow,
I purchased a 40 as a B-cam to a HPX170. And though I prefer the 170, I find myself reaching for the 40 much more than I would have thought. The two cams cut together well. Not trying to troll here, but I am not sure what features and specs you mean. The cam has less switches and buttons and more menu control, the lens isn't truly wide angle, and the previously mentioned flaws such as the VF, and low light issues which are negatives. But I can tell you the cam will knock my 170 off its tripod with IQ in well lit circumstances, I can slip it in a sling pack and walkabout without needing a shoulder replacement, and it is relatively inconspicuous in a crowd. The 40 isn't the solution for everything, but is does bring tremendous value and a set of features that are pretty awesome for a handycam on steroids.
Grant
I purchased a 40 as a B-cam to a HPX170. And though I prefer the 170, I find myself reaching for the 40 much more than I would have thought. The two cams cut together well. Not trying to troll here, but I am not sure what features and specs you mean. The cam has less switches and buttons and more menu control, the lens isn't truly wide angle, and the previously mentioned flaws such as the VF, and low light issues which are negatives. But I can tell you the cam will knock my 170 off its tripod with IQ in well lit circumstances, I can slip it in a sling pack and walkabout without needing a shoulder replacement, and it is relatively inconspicuous in a crowd. The 40 isn't the solution for everything, but is does bring tremendous value and a set of features that are pretty awesome for a handycam on steroids.
Grant
Well, it certainly is wickedly sharp, but there's more to image quality than just that.
snowleopard
Well-known member
How is IQ being defined here? I'd like to hear someone like Barry, or someone else who has used both the HPX170 and HMC40 give an evaluation/comparison. It seems impossible to me that the HMC40 would have a superior image in most situations to the HPX170. It just doesn't add up.
Barry_Green
Moderator
First of all, on HVX vs. HPX170 -- no question, get the 170. Unless you absolutely have to have a tape drive, or shoot in sub-freezing weather and need to do a lot of manual focus in freezing/sub-freezing temperatures.
Second, on image quality -- the HMC40/HMC80 do a pretty darn outstanding job in bright daylight. In broad daylight, I think many/most folks would prefer the razor-crisp HD coming out of the smaller cameras. But when the light starts to go down, they trade places quickly and the 170/150 can deliver much cleaner, better images than the HMC40/80 when there isn't enough light. The HPX170/HMC150 are about 500 ISO, the HMC40/80 are about 50 ISO. So yeah, 10x as much light is necessary for equivalent brightness; in low light the 170/150 just slay. In daylight, the 2.2mpix sensors and clean smooth imagery of the smaller cameras does pull ahead. Then there's CMOS questions; as "the last great CCD cameras" the 170/150 are immune to CMOS complications. The 40/80 get the great sharpness, but they are subject to skew/partial exposure/flash banding etc.
Second, on image quality -- the HMC40/HMC80 do a pretty darn outstanding job in bright daylight. In broad daylight, I think many/most folks would prefer the razor-crisp HD coming out of the smaller cameras. But when the light starts to go down, they trade places quickly and the 170/150 can deliver much cleaner, better images than the HMC40/80 when there isn't enough light. The HPX170/HMC150 are about 500 ISO, the HMC40/80 are about 50 ISO. So yeah, 10x as much light is necessary for equivalent brightness; in low light the 170/150 just slay. In daylight, the 2.2mpix sensors and clean smooth imagery of the smaller cameras does pull ahead. Then there's CMOS questions; as "the last great CCD cameras" the 170/150 are immune to CMOS complications. The 40/80 get the great sharpness, but they are subject to skew/partial exposure/flash banding etc.
snowleopard
Well-known member
Thanks Barry. As I noted in the other thread as well, I determined the HPX170 is worth the extra money to me. And as I stated in several threads, some people may say it's splitting hairs, but I like CCDs and 4:2:2.
Good point though in that someone jumping up from a DV100 that shoots in a lot of daylight would probably be more than happy with the HMC40/80, especially at that price point.
Good point though in that someone jumping up from a DV100 that shoots in a lot of daylight would probably be more than happy with the HMC40/80, especially at that price point.
Al MacLeod
Well-known member
"Then there's CMOS questions; as "the last great CCD cameras" the 170/150 are immune to CMOS complications."
Think ccd chips have run the course?
Think ccd chips have run the course?
Jason Adams
Section Moderator
Its hard to buy a bad camera these days. We surpassed good enough a few years ago. These are all good cams and some really smart folks have pointed out some pros and cons of some of the leading sub 5K dollar cams. The most important factor when choosing a camera is application.
What are you going to do with this thing. Shoot the kids soccer games and star wars fan films on the weekend, or maybe you have a stack of scripts you want to bring to life, depositions for lawyers, local documentary project? I would choose a different camera for all of those scenarios. As your evaluating whats out there you ultimately have to decide what fits your application.
For what its worth I own an HPX170 and I can tell you I have been more happy with that camera then any camera I have used in the decade or so I have been working professionally. I intend to run the wheels off that thing. I have 60D and will pick up an AF100 but I will keep the HPX for as long as I can. Its great.
What are you going to do with this thing. Shoot the kids soccer games and star wars fan films on the weekend, or maybe you have a stack of scripts you want to bring to life, depositions for lawyers, local documentary project? I would choose a different camera for all of those scenarios. As your evaluating whats out there you ultimately have to decide what fits your application.
For what its worth I own an HPX170 and I can tell you I have been more happy with that camera then any camera I have used in the decade or so I have been working professionally. I intend to run the wheels off that thing. I have 60D and will pick up an AF100 but I will keep the HPX for as long as I can. Its great.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, but for small-chip cameras, yes. CCD is still dominant in the 2/3" arena, there are practically no 2/3" broadcast cameras from any of the major manufacturers using CMOS, they're almost all CCD.
But for little chips (1/2" and smaller) yeah, we're probably not going to see any more CCDs. You just can't get the resolution, and the pixel density, and the sensitivity, all together, on a small chip.
DCTBradJohnson
Active member
In this debate everyone seems to forget the 170's waveform monitor, vectorscope, and all of those variable frame rates you can get. I use my waveform monitor on just about every shot, and it is such a helpful tool. The other big difference, is the lack of color depth you get from the avchd codec. With the 170/200a you get much better colors in my opinion due to the DVCPROHD. Plus with the 170 there's the HDSDI port which unlocks the world of uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 which looks gorgeous.
Spent last night at a local 48 hour horror film festival. The top five films were all shot on DSLR's and the 170. I had a choice in pre production whether I would use my 170, or my AC's 5DMii. I went with the 170 for better colors, and the sneaking suspicion the judges might get bored of the excessive use of shallow DOF, and annoying aliasing of the image. I took home second place, losing to another team who shot on the 170.
Spent last night at a local 48 hour horror film festival. The top five films were all shot on DSLR's and the 170. I had a choice in pre production whether I would use my 170, or my AC's 5DMii. I went with the 170 for better colors, and the sneaking suspicion the judges might get bored of the excessive use of shallow DOF, and annoying aliasing of the image. I took home second place, losing to another team who shot on the 170.
Brad,
The HMC40 does have a WFM.
David J,
There IS more to an image than sharpness like color etc, but I have done side by sides of both the 170 and 40 and with the caveat of ample light, the AVCHD codec 40 holds up really well. I wouldn't profess to preach to you as you are very experienced, but I would suggest that the 40 deserves attention from folks with a limited budget or a need for a light guerilla cam. I don't do interior work with flashbulbs going off and haven't really seen any CMOS negatives in my work. No doubt the 40 is a much more limiting cam than a 170. But after using both side by side, I find they play well together and the 40 has uses which the 170 cannot fulfill. As with so many situations, different tools are appropriate with some grey ground where they crossover. My biggest gripe with the 40 is getting good focus with the flipping flipout and VF. Older eyes are my downfall.
Checkout my pack rig for the 40. Note that this is a pretty small SLR sling pack. I use a monopod for a walking stick. The whole kit is very light.
Grant
The HMC40 does have a WFM.
David J,
There IS more to an image than sharpness like color etc, but I have done side by sides of both the 170 and 40 and with the caveat of ample light, the AVCHD codec 40 holds up really well. I wouldn't profess to preach to you as you are very experienced, but I would suggest that the 40 deserves attention from folks with a limited budget or a need for a light guerilla cam. I don't do interior work with flashbulbs going off and haven't really seen any CMOS negatives in my work. No doubt the 40 is a much more limiting cam than a 170. But after using both side by side, I find they play well together and the 40 has uses which the 170 cannot fulfill. As with so many situations, different tools are appropriate with some grey ground where they crossover. My biggest gripe with the 40 is getting good focus with the flipping flipout and VF. Older eyes are my downfall.
Checkout my pack rig for the 40. Note that this is a pretty small SLR sling pack. I use a monopod for a walking stick. The whole kit is very light.
Grant
Attachments
snowleopard
Well-known member
Nice, compact kit there Grant. The 40 may not do all I want, but it is a very good deal price wise, and a lot of power in a small package.
Good story Brad. I see the same things you do. I recently watched the final episode of House that was shot on a 5D. I was expecting all sorts of DOF shots, but really I saw only one rack focus shot in the entire episode, that's it. It was just overall very well shot and 99% of it could have been shot on just about anything; film, 5D, 7D HPX170, etc. It was cinematic skill from the crew that made it work.
Good story Brad. I see the same things you do. I recently watched the final episode of House that was shot on a 5D. I was expecting all sorts of DOF shots, but really I saw only one rack focus shot in the entire episode, that's it. It was just overall very well shot and 99% of it could have been shot on just about anything; film, 5D, 7D HPX170, etc. It was cinematic skill from the crew that made it work.