I was just curious if anyone could fill me in on the pros and cons of the HPX170 vs. the HPX200a. I was considering the HPX300 but the skewing issue is a no-go for me.

What can i expect working with either of these cameras? Can they both do SD and HD? Which is better?

What is your application here? And by the way, there is no such camera as HPX170. It is HVX170. If you could enlighten us what you propose to use your camera for - that will make our job easier.

What is your application here? And by the way, there is no such camera as HPX170. It is HVX170. If you could enlighten us what you propose to use your camera for - that will make our job easier.

Not true. The model is HPX170, not HVX170.

What is your application here? And by the way, there is no such camera as HPX170. It is HVX170. If you could enlighten us what you propose to use your camera for - that will make our job easier.

Actually, it is the HPX-170.

So to simply answer the question, the 170 and the 200a share the same chipset.
The 170 has a few added menu functions such as more types of focus assist, and ability to
change and update metadata. The 170 has a 6-pin locking FireWire connection. The 170 will also auto detect footage for playback without havingto change recording setup.
They both do SD & HD, but the 170 is P2 only.

I've liked what I've seen from the 300 in controlled situations and you can't beat 10-Bit avc-I
later!

200 has tape drive, 170 no tape drive.

My application will be wide and varied, low budget music videos, short films, corporate videos, event videos. etc. I don't need a really big camera yet, (and can't afford it) I was hoping to scrape together the cash to get the 300, but the skewing killed my interest in it fast.

What can you record on the tape drive on the 200a? What formats? Is it DV? Or DVCPro?

My application will be wide and varied, low budget music videos, short films, corporate videos, event videos. etc. I don't need a really big camera yet, (and can't afford it) I was hoping to scrape together the cash to get the 300, but the skewing killed my interest in it fast.

What can you record on the tape drive on the 200a? What formats? Is it DV? Or DVCPro?

The 200a and 170 have a nice wide angle lens too. The tape drive only records DV25 so you'll only get SD MiniDV on tape in the 200a.

It's a perfect camera for your varied scope of work.

It just seems logical considering that I could get an entire Redrock cinema kit with lenses and the 170 for almost the price of starting out with a HPX300 considering i'd probably have to upgrade my tripod from my current Sachtler FSW6.

The 170 lens is very good for wide angle (about 28 mm equivalent in 35mm camera terms). But it loses out on the tele side (not as long) - compared with 200a.

If you don't use tapes, 170 will be about 1kg lighter than 200a.

I have an XL2 if i need to shoot DV tape. But, people are requesting that less and less these days.

what do you folks own card wise for this camera? What size cards would be the best for price ratio?

I supposed this cant be answered, but how many should I start out with? minimum?

No brainer!!! Get the HPX 170. I see no advantage of getting the HVX 200a. I made the same decision in May and am very happy with the HPX 170.

Just having SDI out and the built in waveform are worth it alone. Plus most places sell the 170 for cheaper. It is also lighter.

To answer your second question, I have two 16 gig cards and when shooting 720p24pn I can get 42 minutes on each card.

Daniel Weber

Cool. Thanks for the practical card info! I plan on shooting a lot of small stuff in 720p. I want to save 1080 for the bigger projects so i can conserve card space and not have to make a huge up front investment.

Is it more cost effective to just buy more 16GB cards? or save up to buy fewer 32GB cards?

I'd been weighing the HPX170 vs. the Sony EX3. It just seems that the Panasonic is just so much more compatible with what everyone seems to be shooting. Everyone i meet likes the P2 format. I was in LA and every cameraman said buy P2 or you'll regret it.

If you can wait until August this year, E-P2 (64GB) will be available by then. You won't have to debate till cows come home - go and grab it - while it is still available ... It will be hot item.

Specifically, one 64GB card can hold more movie data (by the minutes) than 4 x 16GB cards.

Cool. Thanks for the practical card info! I plan on shooting a lot of small stuff in 720p. I want to save 1080 for the bigger projects so i can conserve card space and not have to make a huge up front investment.

Is it more cost effective to just buy more 16GB cards? or save up to buy fewer 32GB cards?

I'd been weighing the HPX170 vs. the Sony EX3. It just seems that the Panasonic is just so much more compatible with what everyone seems to be shooting. Everyone i meet likes the P2 format. I was in LA and every cameraman said buy P2 or you'll regret it.

I shoot with an EX1 and have just purchased the 170 for personal projects.

The EX1 produces incredible amounts of detail and resolution. It also has CMOS chips. The biggest advantage it has over the 170 is the 1/2 " chips. Big difference in controlling your DOF.

But the 170 can't be beat when it comes to color space since it shoots a 4:2:2 image. If find that I need to less color correction on the 170 than I do on the EX1.

They both have their place.

I think a more fair comparison should be the 170 vs. the EX1 not the EX3.

Daniel Weber

I shoot with an EX1 and have just purchased the 170 for personal projects.

But the 170 can't be beat when it comes to color space since it shoots a 4:2:2 image. If find that I need to less color correction on the 170 than I do on the EX1.


The color information recorded by the 170 and the EX1/EX3 is REALLY close. 4:2:0 on full raster versus 4:2:2 on 1280x1080 gives an ever so slight advantage to the Panasonic but hardly enough to see. The EX cams also offer a lot more options to tweak the image in camera. I think the Panasonic cams have a better look straight out of the box though.

Both have their place, and if skew is likely to be an issue in your shooting, then the 170 makes more sense. Panasonic lost me as a customer with the choice of P2. It priced me out of their market. Shooting on the EX1 has been infinitely cheaper. Using my existing Firestore from the DVX100 to shoot long-form HDV, and shooting onto SDHC cards to get XDCamEX.

I shoot both the 170 and the EX1 on a regular basis. Two completely different animals. They look, function and work differently. If resolution is your number one priority, get the EX1. If "the look" is the priority (and you like the softer more filmic look of the 170) and or ergonomics (the EX1 has horrendously bad ergonomics in comparison to the 170) are important (do you shoot a lot of handheld?), get the 170.

This has been hashed out over and over and over here and elsewhere. Sony has a better lens, better LCD, much higher resolution, the Panasonic has the waveform/vectorscope, better ergonomics, 4:2:2 color space, lower cost.

I have shot green screen on both, it is a non-issue, they can both pull a perfect composite if you know what you are doing.

With the new E Series P2 cards, P2 storage is not a huge cost anymore. Yes, the Sony can shoot to SDHC cards with the hack but I personally would not stake my client relationships and reputation on a hack to save money. If I owned an EX1, I would use SxS cards. Also, I prefer the DVC Pro HD codec to the Sony format of the month long GOP codec but the Sony codec gets the job done for the most part. The IR contamination on the Sony can be a PITA, depending what you are shooting and how precise you or your clients are about color accuracy under certain circumstances. Same with the skewing/Jellovision. For sit down interviews and normal shooting, not usually a factor but for many situations, it can be a deal breaker.

I can only afford one camera and I own the 170 but a client of mine has two of the EX1s and I shoot with them a lot. They are both great tools, it just depends on what you are shooting and delivering to and what your priorities are. Frankly, if I had the money, I would own both, I shoot in situations where either are sometimes the perfect tool.

Yada, yada, yada. Either can be used to make great images, pick your poison.

Dan

Well said, Dan.

It still does come down to the operator and their ability.

Both tools can help you do your job. It's just picking the right tool.

But, back to the original question of 170 vs. 200a, I would go with the 170 anytime. (And I did.)

Daniel Weber

My previous camera was HVX202. I upgraded to HPX172. Immediately, I could see ONE big benefit - the focusing aid of the HPX172 is miles ahead of HVX202. 99% of my videos are in manual focus - and prior to HPX172 - I had bring an external LCD monitor to judge critical focus. Some places I work in simply don't have the luxury for me to bring an external monitor - and the HVX202 was very hard to work with. Now I am very happy.

ah ok. So you can get critical focus in the eye piece with the 170?

Oh, btw, does the 170 have the ability to flip the image in the LCD and viewfinder if you use a Letus or a Redrock adaptor for 35mm lens'?

Jon:

The LCD peaking feature on the 170 is superior to the 200. They upped the peaking so much that you can actually judge focus with the 170 screen pretty well, better than the VF in some cases IMHO.

The 170 can flip the image. It won't record it that way, of course. The HPX300 can flip the image AND record it that way, cool reason to spend the few thousand more for the 300 over the 170.

Dan