Optura Xi --- Seen One ?

Jeremy Malheim · December 27th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Myong,

Have you had a chance to play with the Panasonic 953? I was just looking for a comparison if possible.

J

Frank Granovski · December 27th, 2003, 08:18 PM

Our good member, Tommy H, over at the MX Forum owned both an Xi and DV953 (and a PDX10, MX1000, VX2000, etc etc). He'd be a good person to ask about these cams. Also read Tom H's reviews and Allan R's reviews (posted on our forums).

Myong Kim · December 27th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Have you had a chance to play with the Panasonic 953? I was just looking for a comparison if possible.

No. Prior to purchasing an Xi, I went to a local store that carries higher end camcorders to compare among various brands. While they had Canon GL2, Sony 950 and Xi, unfortunately they didn't have Pana 953.

The rumor, however, has it that Pana 953 is being discontinued due to so many complaints about its mechanical failures. But I want to accentuate that it's only a rumor, and it hasn't been confirmed. I first heard of this rumor on another website called Camcorderinfo.com. You'd have to make your own confirmation as to whether this rumor is indeed true or not before making your own purchasing decision. Simply call Pana's 1-800 number and inquire.

I read numerous reviews on all of the above mentioned models before making the final decision on Xi. For me it's a major toy, so I had spent about a full month researching various models. Sony 950 was out of the contention early simply due to its pathetic zooming mechanism. I couldn't live with the bolting, bullit-like zoom action, since I tend to use the zoom a lot. I also didn't care for Sony's touch screen. I've also been anti-Sony ever since I got burned one too many times by Sony products in the past.

Canon's GL2 was also out of the contention due to its bulky size. For my purpose -- unobtrusive, take-it-anywhere-type of personal preference -- I needed something much smaller.

Also, from all that I've read about Pana 953, Xi seemed either as good as Pana or better, but certainly not inferior. Now, throw in the Canon's traditional excellence in camera optics.... that was the tilting factor. Sorry I couldn't give you any better information re: Pana 953. Good luck with your decision making.

Myong

Jeremy Malheim · December 27th, 2003, 10:51 PM

<<<--
Also, from all that I've read about Pana 953, Xi seemed either as good as Pana or better, but certainly not inferior. Now, throw in the Canon's traditional excellence in camera optics.... that was the tilting factor. Sorry I couldn't give you any better information re: Pana 953. Good luck with your decision making.

Myong -->>>

No problem. I am just to get all the info I can before I decide which one to buy. Thanks to everyone that gave me their $.02.

Frank Granovski · December 28th, 2003, 01:06 AM

>The rumor, however, has it that Pana 953 is being discontinued due to so many complaints about its mechanical failures.<

That's utter nonsense. The local pro shop here has sold a ton of them and none have came back for warranty work. Where did you hear this rumour? I'd be interested to know your source.

It's most likely being replaced to make way for a new model, like every year. This cam came out 1.6 months ago, in Japan; and it's replacement, the GS100, will also be getting replaced, probably in June. And I'm sure that Sony will be replacing their consumer line of cams as well (to make room for new models---not because of "complaints about its mechanical failures.")

Myong Kim · December 28th, 2003, 09:45 AM

"I first heard of this rumor on another website called Camcorderinfo.com."

This is the source of the rumor as I stated earlier. I'll try to get back in that site and get the actual quote.

Myong

Myong Kim · December 28th, 2003, 11:36 AM

Well, Frank, I just spent the past frustrating hour trying to dig through various threads in the Camcorderinfo.com in my attempt to relocate the rumor source -- but without success.

My apology is in order. Come to think of it, the original rumor did not provide the source, and that means I've done nothing but to spread the unsubstantiated statement made by someone I don't even know. Big mouth. Mea culpa!!

One of the things that concerned me a whole lot prior to actually purchasing the camcorder was the product reliability. For this reason I was more leaning towards Pana 953, as the Consumer Reports's survey placed Canon camcorders the dead last in reliability. It actually did worse than JVC, if you can believe that!!

Sony and Pana were the best in this category. But I couldn't get my hands on Pana 953 anywhere locally, and so my decision making came down to a bunch of professional reviews and customer reviews from various web sites. Ultimately I decided to take my chance with Canon's Xi, thinking that product reliability truly varies from one model to another even within the same brand, and even within the same model group. Now, if I just could get 3 years out of my Xi, I'd be happy, as by then I'd be looking into a more evolved line of camcorders regardless of whether my Xi is mechanically bad or sound still.

Robert Silvers · December 28th, 2003, 11:43 AM

Maybe Canon owners are more abusive to their gear (pros) or are more finiky with getting service.

I suspect this happens with cars -- Cadillac owners want every little thing made perfect because they think they bought a nice car.

Myong Kim · December 28th, 2003, 12:07 PM

Regarding the Consumer Reports findings on camcorder reliability, one possible thing that is going on may have something to do with Canon's ZR series and few other models that make so much motor/trasport noise. Prior to purchasing an Xi, I did take home a Canon ZR70 for a test run. Well, the noise level was not only unacceptable but the camcorder damaged my brand new tape in the process of ejecting it. Now, while such "flaws" are NOT technically "defective," where do customers draw the line between what is considered "flaws" and "defective"? My point -- and my theory -- is that probably many customers are finding some of Canon's line of camcorders simply unacceptable and returning them as "defectives." If my memory serves me correctly, the Consumer Reports' product reliability scores combined both the repairs and returns rather than separating them. Even if I'm wrong on this, Canon's lousy productions of lower end camcorders are only going to hurt their traditional product reputation. A very poor marketing strategy on their part, I must say.

Frank Granovski · December 28th, 2003, 01:09 PM

Myong, I read Consumer Reports Mag. all the time. It's a good guide when you don't know something about certain somethings, I find, for example, TVs, VCRs etc. What I've found, though, with cams is that a lot of cam models are skipped, and one model is used as a guide to represent a product line. I think for the most part Consumer Reports is fairly accurate.

Generally, I would have to agree that Sony consumer cams sit on top of the heap when it comes to reliabilty and features. But some models from other makers stand out. The PV-DV953 is one such cam. It's just too bad about its higher than average lux requirements.

Chris Hurd · December 28th, 2003, 05:50 PM

Myong, please be very, very careful about "rumors" from other video-related websites, as they are often quite unsubstantiated, with little or no bearing on reality. The primary reason why I started DV Info Net was to get away from the sort of nonsense you read elsewhere and provide a safe haven for intelligent, serious discussion about this technology and the way we can use it. The rumors that you read on other sites are doing a serious disservice to you, and it becomes worse when such nonsense is spread around even further. I'm glad you found our place here; however I'd like to humbly ask to please keep the "rumor" sightings that you may have seen elsewhere, off of our boards. If something is legitimate and true, you'll find it right here; no need to look anywhere else. All of us here work hard to separate the myths and the nonsense from real information and real facts; that's what makes us different (and in my opinion, so much better) than other camcorder-related sites. Hope this helps,

Robert Silvers · December 31st, 2003, 12:34 AM

Does anyone have the optional Xi mic? Does it eliminate motor noise? Is it an improvement for general use?

Chris Hurd · December 31st, 2003, 12:43 AM

Robert, it is the same mic that's been extensively discussed in the GL2 forum. Do a search there for the "DM-50" and you should bring up several threads. Hope this helps,

Robert Silvers · December 31st, 2003, 12:50 AM

I see people suggest to get the Schriber 568 instead, but that is not stereo. I will just figure out how much the motor noise bothers me first. I am very happy with the sound of the built in mic. My dog thinks it is really me talking, and you know how when you hear yourself in a recording and it does not sound like you? Well, the built in mic sounds like me! Then again, I was playing it on $20,000 speakers.

Robert Silvers · December 31st, 2003, 12:59 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Myong Kim : 9) The Night and Super Night modes are kinda gimmicky, but perhaps I could use them for some special effects at a later point.

Again, there are many other special effects that I haven't played with (like the entire Digital Effects that seem to produce quite a bit of cool effects) and other features I haven't touched (like Audio Dubbing, DVD transport, etc. etc.).

Myong Kim -->>>

The viewfinder is way pixilated because it is a color LCD. They should use a highres BW monitor and keep the color LCD for the flip-out only. But consumers would say 'black and white yuck.'

The Nightmode is great! How else can you get well lit video without that kind of slow exposure? I mean, it allows you to shoot in low light. Not gimicky at all. In fact, this camera has tons of gimicks, but that is not one of them. The other digital effects are stupid and muddy up the UI.

The camera cannot shoot mpeg4 in 16:9 for some reason.

How is the wide adaptor? Does it allow full zoom?

The camera is killer sharp and will focus real close.

I have a little mpeg from it here: http://www.photomosaic.com/movies You seem to need WM9 on a PC to play it.

December 28th, 2003, 05:50 PM	#41
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Myong, please be very, very careful about "rumors" from other video-related websites, as they are often quite unsubstantiated, with little or no bearing on reality. The primary reason why I started DV Info Net was to get away from the sort of nonsense you read elsewhere and provide a safe haven for intelligent, serious discussion about this technology and the way we can use it. The rumors that you read on other sites are doing a serious disservice to you, and it becomes worse when such nonsense is spread around even further. I'm glad you found our place here; however I'd like to humbly ask to please keep the "rumor" sightings that you may have seen elsewhere, off of our boards. If something is legitimate and true, you'll find it right here; no need to look anywhere else. All of us here work hard to separate the myths and the nonsense from real information and real facts; that's what makes us different (and in my opinion, so much better) than other camcorder-related sites. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 31st, 2003, 12:34 AM	#42
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Canon optional mic? Does anyone have the optional Xi mic? Does it eliminate motor noise? Is it an improvement for general use?

December 31st, 2003, 12:43 AM	#43
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Robert, it is the same mic that's been extensively discussed in the GL2 forum. Do a search there for the "DM-50" and you should bring up several threads. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 31st, 2003, 12:59 AM	#45
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Re: An Owner's Initial Experience <<<-- Originally posted by Myong Kim : 9) The Night and Super Night modes are kinda gimmicky, but perhaps I could use them for some special effects at a later point. Again, there are many other special effects that I haven't played with (like the entire Digital Effects that seem to produce quite a bit of cool effects) and other features I haven't touched (like Audio Dubbing, DVD transport, etc. etc.). Myong Kim -->>> The viewfinder is way pixilated because it is a color LCD. They should use a highres BW monitor and keep the color LCD for the flip-out only. But consumers would say 'black and white yuck.' The Nightmode is great! How else can you get well lit video without that kind of slow exposure? I mean, it allows you to shoot in low light. Not gimicky at all. In fact, this camera has tons of gimicks, but that is not one of them. The other digital effects are stupid and muddy up the UI. The camera cannot shoot mpeg4 in 16:9 for some reason. How is the wide adaptor? Does it allow full zoom? The camera is killer sharp and will focus real close. I have a little mpeg from it here: http://www.photomosaic.com/movies You seem to need WM9 on a PC to play it.

December 27th, 2003, 07:26 PM	#31
Jeremy Malheim New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fargo, North Dakota Posts: 17	Myong, Have you had a chance to play with the Panasonic 953? I was just looking for a comparison if possible. J

December 27th, 2003, 08:18 PM	#32
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Our good member, Tommy H, over at the MX Forum owned both an Xi and DV953 (and a PDX10, MX1000, VX2000, etc etc). He'd be a good person to ask about these cams. Also read Tom H's reviews and Allan R's reviews (posted on our forums).

December 27th, 2003, 10:51 PM	#34
Jeremy Malheim New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fargo, North Dakota Posts: 17	<<<-- Also, from all that I've read about Pana 953, Xi seemed either as good as Pana or better, but certainly not inferior. Now, throw in the Canon's traditional excellence in camera optics.... that was the tilting factor. Sorry I couldn't give you any better information re: Pana 953. Good luck with your decision making. Myong -->>> No problem. I am just to get all the info I can before I decide which one to buy. Thanks to everyone that gave me their $.02.

December 28th, 2003, 01:06 AM	#35
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	>The rumor, however, has it that Pana 953 is being discontinued due to so many complaints about its mechanical failures.< That's utter nonsense. The local pro shop here has sold a ton of them and none have came back for warranty work. Where did you hear this rumour? I'd be interested to know your source. It's most likely being replaced to make way for a new model, like every year. This cam came out 1.6 months ago, in Japan; and it's replacement, the GS100, will also be getting replaced, probably in June. And I'm sure that Sony will be replacing their consumer line of cams as well (to make room for new models---not because of "complaints about its mechanical failures.")

December 28th, 2003, 09:45 AM	#36
Myong Kim New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 10	"I first heard of this rumor on another website called Camcorderinfo.com." This is the source of the rumor as I stated earlier. I'll try to get back in that site and get the actual quote. Myong

December 28th, 2003, 11:36 AM	#37
Myong Kim New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 10	Well, Frank, I just spent the past frustrating hour trying to dig through various threads in the Camcorderinfo.com in my attempt to relocate the rumor source -- but without success. My apology is in order. Come to think of it, the original rumor did not provide the source, and that means I've done nothing but to spread the unsubstantiated statement made by someone I don't even know. Big mouth. Mea culpa!! One of the things that concerned me a whole lot prior to actually purchasing the camcorder was the product reliability. For this reason I was more leaning towards Pana 953, as the Consumer Reports's survey placed Canon camcorders the dead last in reliability. It actually did worse than JVC, if you can believe that!! Sony and Pana were the best in this category. But I couldn't get my hands on Pana 953 anywhere locally, and so my decision making came down to a bunch of professional reviews and customer reviews from various web sites. Ultimately I decided to take my chance with Canon's Xi, thinking that product reliability truly varies from one model to another even within the same brand, and even within the same model group. Now, if I just could get 3 years out of my Xi, I'd be happy, as by then I'd be looking into a more evolved line of camcorders regardless of whether my Xi is mechanically bad or sound still.

December 28th, 2003, 11:43 AM	#38
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Maybe Canon owners are more abusive to their gear (pros) or are more finiky with getting service. I suspect this happens with cars -- Cadillac owners want every little thing made perfect because they think they bought a nice car.

December 28th, 2003, 12:07 PM	#39
Myong Kim New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 10	Regarding the Consumer Reports findings on camcorder reliability, one possible thing that is going on may have something to do with Canon's ZR series and few other models that make so much motor/trasport noise. Prior to purchasing an Xi, I did take home a Canon ZR70 for a test run. Well, the noise level was not only unacceptable but the camcorder damaged my brand new tape in the process of ejecting it. Now, while such "flaws" are NOT technically "defective," where do customers draw the line between what is considered "flaws" and "defective"? My point -- and my theory -- is that probably many customers are finding some of Canon's line of camcorders simply unacceptable and returning them as "defectives." If my memory serves me correctly, the Consumer Reports' product reliability scores combined both the repairs and returns rather than separating them. Even if I'm wrong on this, Canon's lousy productions of lower end camcorders are only going to hurt their traditional product reputation. A very poor marketing strategy on their part, I must say.

December 28th, 2003, 01:09 PM	#40
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Myong, I read Consumer Reports Mag. all the time. It's a good guide when you don't know something about certain somethings, I find, for example, TVs, VCRs etc. What I've found, though, with cams is that a lot of cam models are skipped, and one model is used as a guide to represent a product line. I think for the most part Consumer Reports is fairly accurate. Generally, I would have to agree that Sony consumer cams sit on top of the heap when it comes to reliabilty and features. But some models from other makers stand out. The PV-DV953 is one such cam. It's just too bad about its higher than average lux requirements.

December 31st, 2003, 12:50 AM	#44
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	I see people suggest to get the Schriber 568 instead, but that is not stereo. I will just figure out how much the motor noise bothers me first. I am very happy with the sound of the built in mic. My dog thinks it is really me talking, and you know how when you hear yourself in a recording and it does not sound like you? Well, the built in mic sounds like me! Then again, I was playing it on $20,000 speakers.