AG-DVC30 review
 

The DVC30 has been reviewed at Camcorderinfo.com

http://www.camcorderinfo.com

Thanks! It's on their main page?

Never mind. I just went there, and as usual, Robin's site crashed my browser.

Yes, It's on the main page with a link to the in depth review here:


http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-review.htm

I have never had a problem with their site. Of course, I have all popups turned off.

So much for proofreading!

I also wish there weren't statements about the DVC30 being better in low light than the GL2 without so much as one frame for comparison.

Brilliant! Let me correct that.

When compared with the DCR-VX2100, the AG-DVC30 produces better images overall, even though the VX2100 has slightly larger CCDs.

Or did the writer mean the VX2100 produces better images overall. :-))

As a Sony user, I like this quote from the article:

"When compared to the excellent Sony DCR-VX2100 in low light performance, the AG-DVC30 produced images that were darker, but it was just as sharp. The DCR-VX2100 however shoots much better in low light. The DCR-VX2100 is all around a better camcorder offering better manual control and better optics."

David Hurdon

get out of this forum!!!!
no just kidding. looking for trouble saying that in here. i would bet that you are right but you don't have to bring it up. i bet there are things that the pana is good for though. one of them is that i bet it has a much sharper picture. my mx-500 has a sharper image then the 2000 and it shows more detail

Justin

Justin, I actually didn't realize I was in a Panasonic forum! I'm so used to getting whatever new posts there are since I last visited that I look at threads versus their homes. Certainly intended no disrespect, nor a flame war on whose hardware is better. I'll read more carefully next time.

David Hurdon

no worries just having fun
just a note
if you notice the last couple of lines in the low light performance section they have corrected themselves. perhaps they stuffed this section and not the other:) after a quick browse seems like a good camera. when is it coming to australia

Justin

I have to admit that I am a Sony guy too. I recently got the pdx10 but was seriously considering waiting fot the DVC30. Although the DVC30 looks nice, the 16:9 capability of the pdx10 finally sealed it for me.

Also, Sony rules in Taiwan. It's not easy to get Panasonic and the models they do have are Japanese (maybe better but Japanese menus).

look i have to admit that if i wasn't bothered about spending money on a cam and i still wanted a consumer camera the vx-2000/2100 would be it. That said i am a great fan of the mx-500 because i own one so at the moment i hang out in the pana camp. Unfortunately pana, canon and other makers haven't got the low light capabilities of the sony. However i don't think that the 950 is much better then the 953 with low light. well not enough to warrent the extra you have to spend on one. I believe that the 953 has better 16:9 and also gives a much sharper picture. It also has a lot more manual controls so in my view is a better camera regardless of price;. I guess the reason i am saying this is that i really wonder why people always talk about how they would like the 950/pdx10 because of the superior 16:9. The mx-500/953 is cheaper smaller and has more to offer so why doesn't it get the same praise. of course the only thing the pana doesn't have the the pdx-10 is the dv-cam and xlr sound but for a lot less it isn't much of a loss. What views does everyone else have. Just another note, in my experience the pana forums are a lot more helpful then the canon forum. i haven't had much to do with the others though.

Justin

The first miniDV cam I ever used was a Panasonic, and first impressions last. :-))

Actually, its the PDX10 (not TRV950) that has a superior 16:9 mode compared to any other native 4:3 cam under $5000. The PDX10 is capable of widening the angle of view and suffers absolutely no resolution loss in its anamorphic process.

This illustration explains how the PDX10 achieves its 16:9 image.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg

This is the difference between PDX10 and TRV950 16:9 modes.

http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10/

The problem is that I don't think that the PDX10 is twice the cam as the DV953 or GS100 as the price would lead you to believe.

As a side note there has been some controversy as to whether the DV953/MX5000 has the same 16:9 mode as the MX500. This page linked below (from Panasonic Japan) references that the MX5000 has a 1.3x vertical zoom in its 16:9 mode compared to just 1.04x in the GS100. Vertical zoom is applied to anything less than 480 (of the 720x480 of NTSC DV) while going thru the cam's anamorphic process and eventually written to tape. Panasonic Japan references a 28% difference between the MX5000 and GS100 widescreen modes. The issue is that there is a Panasonic PowerPoint presentation (of unknown origin) that clearly shows that the PAL MX500's 16:9 mode suffers no resolution loss by the hands of vertical zoom. Of all the sub $3000 3CCD Panasonics the GS100 is the only cam that I know of that widens the angle of view like the PDX10 and others with a HQ widescreen mode.

http://panasonic.jp/dvc/gs100k/ki_wide.html

why does the camera necessarily have to create a wider view? i'm not having a dig but just want to understand better. surely if there is no resolution loss then it shouldn't be a problem should it and in fact it would have proper 16:9

Justin

Tommy, that's from Panasonic AU.