B&H is advertising the HPX170...with price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/559333-REG/Panasonic_AG_HPX170_DVCPRO_HD_P2_CAMCORDER.html

Arrrrgh!!! I was expecting this to cost less than the HVX200, since there's no tape drive. Well, back to dreaming about a used HVX200.... or maybe a JVC HD-110.

Ken

Arrrrgh!!! I was expecting this to cost less than the HVX200, since there's no tape drive. Well, back to dreaming about a used HVX200.... or maybe a JVC HD-110.

Ken

Yeah. me too, I was surprised. $800 more. ummm I don't know.

I spoke with one of the larger dealers about ordering a HPX170 last Wednesday.

He told me that Panasonic has not set any pricing.

That price is for the HVX200a at MAP.

There is no pricing set for the HPX170

How can Panasonic hope sell the 170 sans tape drive and with near identical features with the HVX200a for MORE MONEY?

I think you have to look at it like this:

With tape drives being prone to breaking down and having (expensve) maintenance, not having one will result in lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and thus a higher price is justified. It's that obvious.



ROFL (yes I laugh at my own jokes).

George/

P.S. My advice? Pony up $500 extra for an EX1.

How can Panasonic hope sell the 170 sans tape drive and with near identical features with the HVX200a for MORE MONEY?
Again, no price has been set as far as I know. And "near identical" is not accurate at all. HD-SDI, locking firewire, a wider-angle lens, dozens of changes, smaller, lighter, better ergonomics, and a five-year warranty... the HPX170 is going to be the more desirable of the two for anyone who doesn't need tape.

But Jan's said that they should be "comparably priced" so maybe B&H is taking those words and listing it at what they expect the MSRP to be? The MSRP on the HVX200A is $5995 as well.

I meant "near identical" in terms of lower noise, and a better low light sensitivity.

But Barry is right about the improvements.

However, in buying cameras for 15 years now, I've yet to see a price increase when refinements/corrections are made in part as has been done with the HPX170 over the HVX200.

Ergonomics and correcting a poorly designed FW plug are one thing. SDI, more frame rates, etc. again are not substantial cost items. In fact the component out in the HVX200 again was poorly designed. So correcting these items, at least to me, doesn't justify a cost increase when the tape mechanism is gone.

But these are just opinions.

The price is TBA.

SDI... etc. again are not substantial cost items. On the contrary, SDI is actually quite a substantial cost item. SDI is usually a several-thousand dollar premium. For example, compare pricing between the SDI equipped Canon XL and XH series with their non-SDI counterparts... there's a $3000 price difference between the XH G1 and XL H1S (with SDI) vs. the XH A1 and XL H1A (without SDI).

And BM makes a SDI converters for under $500.00.

The component out was already there.

Changing the output to SDI is not, to me, $3K premium in a $5K cam.

Regardless of what the premium is to you, I'm stating a fact, not an opinion: SDI output adds a *substantial* amount to the cost of the camera, because it's a value proposition (obviously of little value to you, but we're talking about an entire market here). The Canon examples I've given also include dedicated BNC's for GenLock and TimeCode, so the $3000 price difference isn't all in the SDI jack, but a significant chunk of it is.

Even if you're resigned to using a Component to SDI workaround, you should at least be able to recognize the substantial added value that SDI gives to the camera. If the difference over the HVX really is just $800, that is obviously more than fair considering you've got to spend an additional $3000 to get SDI on the Canons.

The addition of SDI huge -- it's a big deal, and you cannot reasonably claim that the HPX170 has "nearly identical" features as the HVX200 unless you're unable to realize the significance of having SDI on the camera. Those who do recognize its importance will be more than happy to pay $800 for it, which is almost one-quarter of what it costs on other similar camcorders.