Way to much "BS" talk about the AG-HVX200 looks!

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 19th, 2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Gotz

Face it, the XL1s is ugly as sin. But it sure looks professional doesn't it?

I personally think the Xl1s is one of the most sexy cams out there actually...

Jack Barker · April 19th, 2005, 12:07 PM

Yeah, I think it's pretty good looking, too. I'm not so sure about the white, though. Black or gray might look even better. I'm pretty bored with the "compact" brick shape of the current offerings of low end pro cams and I don't think they are actually all that "ergonomic", as we're constantly being told by the OEM's.

Daniel Skubal · April 19th, 2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Gotz

Hey! I often take my camera along to romantic dinners in Paris. You never know whan you might need it! :)

IN paris? Or WITH Paris? Paris likes video cameras.

Michael Pappas · April 19th, 2005, 02:12 PM

hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm! Yummy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Skubal

IN paris? Or WITH Paris? Paris likes video cameras.

Matt Gettemeier · April 19th, 2005, 07:12 PM

... WITH Paris or IN Paris... sheesh... why not with Paris in Paris... in Paris.

Was that too far? Yeah I always thought the XL1s were sexy too... people notice 'em that's for sure. Also I like the white 'cause it harkens to the "L" line of Canon lenses... which gives me similar feelings to the Paris commentary...

Dylan Couper · April 19th, 2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Gettemeier

Get ready for a lot more insults about the Panny then it's looks... the same thing happened with the DVX and the DVXa model... everybody with a different camera had little good to say about it... and since they couldn't bash it on 95% of it's performance they'd look for areas to claim either equality or inferiority.

Sure, I'll start.
The thing looks like a fat DVX100, which looked like a platicky toy camera for highschool kids. I wouldn't be caught dead shooting ENG or event video with either Panny camera, and if anyone asked me, I'd deny owning it.....
But I'm still buying one as long as it puts out a fantastic picture. :)

Jack Barker · April 19th, 2005, 10:22 PM

What's "platicky" mean?

Jesse Bekas · April 19th, 2005, 10:50 PM

I hope the final production model is so ugly, that people can't even stand to look at it.........that way there's a chance of me snagging one early in Q4!

Matt Gettemeier · April 20th, 2005, 06:51 AM

With the original DVX... even before I bought my own... I read so many threads about the cheap plastic construction of it... so I went around posting links to the pics of it's CAST MAGNESIUM construction... just like shooting birds on a wire...

Like most higher-end stuff... it 'aint light 'cause it was cheaper to make it light... the whole damn thing is metal. Nobody calls a $600 boom pole... cheap and platicky.

Laurence Maher · April 20th, 2005, 06:59 AM

LOLOL!

Okay,

DVCProHD . . . 1080p . . . 720p . . . 480p . . . with overcrank . . . straight to a firewire Hard Drive or USB 2.0 so storage for cheap. Cinema gamma and all the goodies . . . . for a price of $6600 without taxes due to mail order . . . all in a solid, well built camera instead of this unreliable home-built bull . . . . only weighing in at a wonderfully manipulable 5 lbs. so it's easier to get cool shots . . . with 2 xlr cd quality inputs and all the fixings . . .

AND ANYONE HAS THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS????

Even if the client throws a hissy at first, his inmature self won't care and will eat all his thoughts and comments when he gets his product. Do yourselves a favor guys. Consider the important things in life. Remember, the millenium falcom looked like a piece of junk, but baby, it makes point 5 past light speed.

Steven White · April 20th, 2005, 08:06 AM

So long as it's ergonomic both in terms of holding it and function - I couldn't care less about how a camera looks.

I wasn't particularly impressed by the ergonomics of the DVX when I held one, but I didn't experiment with it for very long - only long enough to note that the LCD placement on the FX1 and the Z1U is much better, the zoom ring had a lot of backlash, and the whole camera felt "loose" - it was probably a well used rental model though.

Bob Zimmerman · April 20th, 2005, 10:03 AM

If you look at the pictures Panasonic is putting out it doesn't look as cheap. maybe the lighting is not showing the cheap gray look. The worse pictures came from camcorderinfo.com. The rest have looked ok.

What I would like to see is more pictures of people holding the camera so we can get a better idea how big the camera is, how it is to shoot holding the camera. Maybe some pictures of Paris holding the camera!

Dylan Couper · April 20th, 2005, 12:07 PM

Platicky: (plah-tikee) A form of plastic used by Panasonic on their prosummer level cameras. Slightly stronger than regular plastic, but just butt friggen ugly.

Honestly though, I am concerned about it's "consummer" looks for dealing with clients, but once I add my matte box, external hard drive, and 7" monitor on it, it'll look OK.

April 20th, 2005, 12:07 PM	#28
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Platicky: (plah-tikee) A form of plastic used by Panasonic on their prosummer level cameras. Slightly stronger than regular plastic, but just butt friggen ugly. Honestly though, I am concerned about it's "consummer" looks for dealing with clients, but once I add my matte box, external hard drive, and 7" monitor on it, it'll look OK. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 19th, 2005, 12:07 PM	#17
Jack Barker Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 342	Yeah, I think it's pretty good looking, too. I'm not so sure about the white, though. Black or gray might look even better. I'm pretty bored with the "compact" brick shape of the current offerings of low end pro cams and I don't think they are actually all that "ergonomic", as we're constantly being told by the OEM's.

April 19th, 2005, 07:12 PM	#20
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	... WITH Paris or IN Paris... sheesh... why not with Paris in Paris... in Paris. Was that too far? Yeah I always thought the XL1s were sexy too... people notice 'em that's for sure. Also I like the white 'cause it harkens to the "L" line of Canon lenses... which gives me similar feelings to the Paris commentary...

April 19th, 2005, 10:22 PM	#22
Jack Barker Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 342	What's "platicky" mean?

April 19th, 2005, 10:50 PM	#23
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I hope the final production model is so ugly, that people can't even stand to look at it.........that way there's a chance of me snagging one early in Q4!

April 20th, 2005, 06:51 AM	#24
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	With the original DVX... even before I bought my own... I read so many threads about the cheap plastic construction of it... so I went around posting links to the pics of it's CAST MAGNESIUM construction... just like shooting birds on a wire... Like most higher-end stuff... it 'aint light 'cause it was cheaper to make it light... the whole damn thing is metal. Nobody calls a $600 boom pole... cheap and platicky.

April 20th, 2005, 06:59 AM	#25
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	LOLOL! Okay, DVCProHD . . . 1080p . . . 720p . . . 480p . . . with overcrank . . . straight to a firewire Hard Drive or USB 2.0 so storage for cheap. Cinema gamma and all the goodies . . . . for a price of $6600 without taxes due to mail order . . . all in a solid, well built camera instead of this unreliable home-built bull . . . . only weighing in at a wonderfully manipulable 5 lbs. so it's easier to get cool shots . . . with 2 xlr cd quality inputs and all the fixings . . . AND ANYONE HAS THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS???? Even if the client throws a hissy at first, his inmature self won't care and will eat all his thoughts and comments when he gets his product. Do yourselves a favor guys. Consider the important things in life. Remember, the millenium falcom looked like a piece of junk, but baby, it makes point 5 past light speed.

April 20th, 2005, 08:06 AM	#26
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	So long as it's ergonomic both in terms of holding it and function - I couldn't care less about how a camera looks. I wasn't particularly impressed by the ergonomics of the DVX when I held one, but I didn't experiment with it for very long - only long enough to note that the LCD placement on the FX1 and the Z1U is much better, the zoom ring had a lot of backlash, and the whole camera felt "loose" - it was probably a well used rental model though.

April 20th, 2005, 10:03 AM	#27
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	If you look at the pictures Panasonic is putting out it doesn't look as cheap. maybe the lighting is not showing the cheap gray look. The worse pictures came from camcorderinfo.com. The rest have looked ok. What I would like to see is more pictures of people holding the camera so we can get a better idea how big the camera is, how it is to shoot holding the camera. Maybe some pictures of Paris holding the camera!