would you still buy an HVX200?

I wouldn't rule out the 150 if I were you. It's virtually the same camera as the 170 and much less hassle as you don't need to keep offloading all the time. From what I have seen the footage from the 150 is the same quality as the 170 as well, ok, it's not 422, but it is higher resolution. It's easy to edit once transcoded into ProRes.
 
Hi there -

I'm in the same boat as the OP. Sold the DVX and looking for the next cam..

Trying to get a handle on what *really* makes the HPX170 better than the HVX200? (that seems to be the general opinion?) I've seen talk about the superior low light performance of the 170, but what else?

I'm swayed toward HVX because I actually don't mind the idea of being able to shoot to tape and hand off a miniDV - if any clients (doing webcasts, etc) are still working in SD and want to edit something I shoot, it's actually extra work to dump the P2 and then print to tape..

I also recently shot & edited some interviews for a conference in Chicago and even though I did everything in 16:9 HD (using Sony Z1U), we ended up projecting in 4:3 SD because they were also projecting a ton of powerpoint presentations... the screens were built in 4:3 aspect ratio.. anybody else run into situations like this? Do people even make 16:9 powerpoints?

Anyway - other advantages to the HPX over HVX? Less weight? Better image overall? Anything else?
 
Greymatterfan said:
I also recently shot & edited some interviews for a conference in Chicago and even though I did everything in 16:9 HD (using Sony Z1U), we ended up projecting in 4:3 SD because they were also projecting a ton of powerpoint presentations... the screens were built in 4:3 aspect ratio.. anybody else run into situations like this? Do people even make 16:9 powerpoints?
Click to expand...

I've only recently started having our folks create 16:9 Powerpoint presentations, but it makes a huge difference when projecting. The problem then becomes that only the newest projectors (generally those aimed at movie projection) do 16:9. And there are some layout stylings that need to be re-thought for widescreen presentation.
 
Greymatterfan said:
Anyway - other advantages to the HPX over HVX? Less weight? Better image overall? Anything else?
Click to expand...
HVX, or HVX200A? Let's take them separately:

The HVX200A offers a clearly better image than the HVX200. It's brighter, much less noisy, holds up to gain way better, and has less vertical smear. The 200A also has a slightly wider field of view than the 200.

Now, 200A vs. 170: the 170 is way lighter, quite a bit smaller, substantially better ergonomically, way better for handheld usage. It has quite a bit wider field of view than the 200A, and adds features such as HD-SDI output and a better component video connector, and three ND filters instead of two.

As far as operational controls it has a lot of nice software upgrades, including the ability to delete the last clip you just shot, a way to automatically switch into the right playback format for any clip, a very nice waveform monitor, a vectorscope, and probably a dozen other features I can't remember right now (including a truly useless one, "digital zoom").
 
As far as 16:9 powerpoint, thanks for the input.. Been wondering what other people have been seeing out there..

As far as cameras - sounds like the original HVX is out of the running for me.. better investment in the 200A or 170.

And now I can more clearly see the multiple advantages to the 170, so I appreciate the input on that.. It can be difficult to really make a decision when you don't have access to each camera for a few weeks to try it out in different situations - you can compare the specs all day long, but what looks good on paper doesn't always translate to reality!

I guess the occasional print to tape won't kill me either :-) Thanks!
 
Greymatterfan said:
Trying to get a handle on what *really* makes the HPX170 better than the HVX200? (that seems to be the general opinion?) I've seen talk about the superior low light performance of the 170, but what else?
Click to expand...
Look up in the "Articles" section of the forum.
 
I need to get a new camera.... and I am having a hard time with this choice too. The hvx200a vs the hpx170 is tricky. If the image quality is pretty much exactly the same, it seems the actual hardware tape drive is more of a bonus for old school footage needs than an sdi out.... I don't even know what the pros of sdi out are... I assume uncompressed signal out for live switching? I mean the 100mbit files are high enough quality as it is aren't they? So to me, who wouldn't be using live switching... there seems to be a neat actual physical gadget on the hvx200a over the 170. I can do vector scope and waveform monitor in software in post. I can't make my computer build me a DV drive if someone needs tape or web video.

The HMC150 looks like it might be sharper than the other two cameras... which drives me nuts.. but AVCHD as a codec? blech!

Also... question... will the HVX200a dump footage you have shot in hd on the P2 cards to the tape drive and down rez in real time?

I have not had to do this but I have a project coming up that will need this done. Meaning dual copies in standard & HD.
 
The HMC150 brings a lot to the table. The SDI out is pointless on the HPX if you are not going to use it, though having a waveform monitor while shooting is a very nice thing. The DV tape deck on the HVX may help some folks out, but it's a lot of weight to carry around all the time for only occasional use.

AVCHD as a capture codec is fine. Not ideal, but not that bad. Especially at full resolution coming from full sensors. Frankly, I'd take it over DVCProHD in most instances if the bitrate is high enough.

And to my knowledge, you cannot dub P2 to DV inside the HVX. So you'll still need a deck or you'd need to dump to computer.

Good luck with you choice.
 
1. Having a waveform/vectorscope in post helps you how on a shoot? The whole idea is to be able to check your shot as you set it up. Very few cameras have this feature and it is a great feature.

2. The HVX200/200A does do in camera downconversion of HD to Mini DV SD. That is one of the main reasons to buy an HVX if you still care about tape (which I don't). Not sure why everyone is fixated on tape still for SD deliveries? Shoot DV on the 170 and hand them the DV files, works like a dream. Screw tape, it is a PITA.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
1. Having a waveform/vectorscope in post helps you how on a shoot? The whole idea is to be able to check your shot as you set it up. Very few cameras have this feature and it is a great feature.

2. The HVX200/200A does do in camera downconversion of HD to Mini DV SD. That is one of the main reasons to buy an HVX if you still care about tape (which I don't). Not sure why everyone is fixated on tape still for SD deliveries? Shoot DV on the 170 and hand them the DV files, works like a dream. Screw tape, it is a PITA.

Dan
Click to expand...

Ive shot for clients where they just wanted raw footage, mini dv sd, but still 16:9. 200a, Shoot, dub, give the tape, no computer involved until backing up the footage. Pretty nice and speedy, but it is a pretty rare situation, and the footage is letterboxed 4:3 still... only situation ive ever used my tape deck in.
 
Well I learned something here. I really didn't know you could do in-camera dubbing. That's pretty neat. (But I'm all done with tape unless I am handing off to TV)
 
That's why I kept my DVX100A. When I have those rare tape clients, I just shoot with a tape camera. It is better than hauling around the extra weight and bulk of an HVX when I rarely (one or twice a year) NEED to shoot tape.

Dan
 
Yep, my DVX100 is sitting right here next to me. But I don't think I'll shoot SD again except for personal reasons.
 
You going to dump your EX-1 and go for the new PMW-350k announced this morning? Man, that thing is a sweet camera. I wish it were cheaper but I think it will street for around $18k with the lens, which is not a bad deal. With 2/3" imagers!

Dan
 
No, I have no use for a big shoulder-cam. Doesn't buy me anything I need. My next camera will be a 35mm sensor, but I've got another 2-3 years to go for that.
 
If you are a freelance cameraman you can't beat the HMC 150. You hand the SDHC card to the client, end of story. The imagery between the 150, 170, and 200a is so close I don't think most people can tell the difference. I still keep my 100b for tape clients but the 200a is nice having that tape if you need it. The 200 is just plain painfull for handheld work, too heavy on the wrists. I strongly urge anyone trying to decide which camera is right for them to demo all of them. For me the 150 streamlines the production process so I can concentrate on more creative issues.
 
Build quality

Build quality

Comparing build quality of the three, I have always heard the build of the HVX is very high, and the two new cams, not so much. Anyone care to comment? For me, this is a consideration.

Regards,
Grant
 
I still get tape clients. For instance, today I shot a segment for a fashion designer that is going to be used as b roll for E!. The designer wanted HD but E! wanted SD so being able to shoot both on one cam comes in handy. I have the old original dvx100, but it doesn't do correct 16x9 which is a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top