MX5000

Frank Granovski · October 26th, 2002, 06:58 PM

MX5000 - a poor man's DVX100

It shares the same block. It also has a 10X, F1.6 Leica Dicomar lens...same 200K 3.5" LCD, 180K .44" viewfinder, both shoot near true 16:9. The MX has frame mode, the DVX has progressive scan. The MX5000 plays back 540 horizontal lines, the DVX100? Don't know. Both cams have nothing lower than 1/60th manual shutter speed (in interlaced). The MX5000 is much smaller and costs about 1/2 the price. The MX5 weighs 230g, the DVX weighs 1.66KG. The MX5000 is available now (via Tim), the DVX...?

http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm

Mark Nicholson · November 21st, 2002, 02:01 AM

Does the MX5000 use the same batteries as the DVX? My DVX uses batteries like the CGR-D16...

How good do the digital stills look at the highest quailty setting?

I am mainly looking at this camera as a backup/deck/digital still camera to be used along side the DVX. If they can share batteries, and the MX has a similiar feeling picture to the DVX, then I'd be sold.

Frank Granovski · November 21st, 2002, 02:12 AM

Plasma (the graphic artist), as far as I know it uses the same batteries. The MX5000 is a lot smaller than the DVX100, however. I presume the pics will look better than the ones from the DVX100. 3 meg stills is one of it's selling features. The stills won't look as good as those from a digital still camera (you know that). Sorry I can't tag on one of my silly pics.

Plasma, did you get your DVX100 yet? I can't recall.

Mark Nicholson · November 21st, 2002, 02:06 PM

Yup. I got mine.

I have been posting those DVX100 pics on dv.com from my camera.

Thanks for the info. I was just wondering the still quality, because then it would be easier to justify it's purchase...

Size. From the looks of it in pictures, it appears to be about the same size as the OpturaPi.

Paul Sedillo · November 21st, 2002, 04:50 PM

Frank,

I am intrigued by the Panasonic MX5000. From all the things I have read, it appears to be a pretty hot rig. The one thing I have not seen is any footage from it. Have you by any chance run across footage taken from this camera?

Frank Granovski · November 21st, 2002, 04:59 PM

I saw read a bunch of your posts. I get confused sometimes with who has what and who wants to get what. Also, I'm having trouble lately with getting into and also loading the threads at dv.com.

The Optura PI is a very small hand-held, smaller than the TRV30. Most people who have never actually held one often think it's much larger. I've often read from people who just got their PI via mail order: "I didn't release how small it is!" The MX5000 is about 1.6 % fatter, and I'm guessing a tad longer.

Mark Nicholson · November 21st, 2002, 08:30 PM

The OpturaPi IS really small. Basically just a viewscreen, lens, and a small deck. The MX5000 looks like it has better ergonomics.

Frank Granovski · November 21st, 2002, 09:13 PM

Paul, no, I haven't seen actual footage. I have a MX300, and the footage it very good. The MX500/0 has about 2X the effective CCD video pixels as the MX300/0, and plays back 540 lines. The MX300/0 plays back 500 lines. Also, I know 2 people that have one, and swear the footage is superb.

Mark Nicholson · November 21st, 2002, 10:02 PM

I just found these sample stills over at Q technologies. They look alright, but they seem to have been interpolated up to that resolution.

http://www.qtechnologies.com/us/impo...ls/samples.htm

Frank Granovski · November 21st, 2002, 10:40 PM

Thanks. Yes, for the MX5 3 meg stills, it's not the same quality as a 3 meg still camera.

Mark Nicholson · November 21st, 2002, 11:22 PM

No, but if you cut the resolution in half in Photoshop, they look quite decent.

Yow Cheong Hoe · November 22nd, 2002, 01:11 AM

The video quality from the MX500 is great, but not much different from the MX350. However, if you refer to my other post "MX500 disappointing", I do have some gripes about this camera.

The stills are not as grainy as the MX350, and at 3.0MP, is a great deal better than the MX350. The MX8 is very grain-free, but only 1.2MP. I guess 1CCD cams wins in still shots.

The LCD screen is very much dimmer than the MX8 and MX350 and the viewing angle is less than that of the MX8 (150 degs up, down, left, right!) or the MX350 (120 degs).

The zoom is 10x (less than the MX350's 12x) and at 1x (widest) it is not as wide as the MX350 (wider) or the MX8 (widest).

So, if 1x zoom wide-angle is not an issue, and the LCD brightness not a major concern, then the MX500 is great! Note that although the LCD is dimmer, the captured footage is very similar to the MX350.

I will attempt to post some comparisons of the same shots taken from the MX8 (1CCD), MX350 and MX500. Anyone has space for me to dump about 1.5MB of files?

Frank Granovski · November 22nd, 2002, 01:55 AM

You should e-mail Terrence and ask him if you can send him the pics, to post on his great website.

The MX8, MX300, MX350 and MX500 are all very good cams. However, they all have some shortcomings, like with any cam. No cam is perfect. It's just that some cams are more perfect for a particular job, and/or more perfect in the eye of the beholder. For me, one of things I look for in a cam is video quality. All these MX cams have very good video quality.

MX8 - 530 horizontal playback lines
MX300 - 500 playback lines
MX350 - 500 playback lines
MX500 - 540 playback lines

The MX300 is beefier than the MX350. The MX350 has a slightly better picture with the iris wide open than the MX300. The MX500 has higher resolution and better 16:9, but requires more lux. And on it goes....

Allan Rejoso · November 22nd, 2002, 02:00 AM

Hi Yow,

I wonder if you attempted to adjust any of the following as regards the LCD of the MX500

intensity (LCD AI)
backlighting
brightness
color level

I haven't seen the 350 as it's not available in Japan, but at "dynamic" LCD A1 and "bright" backlighting settings,the LCD looks pretty bright and sharp to me. BTW, I'm literally translating the Jap menus so the actual English indications may not be the same.

Regards
Allan Rejoso

Allan Rejoso · November 22nd, 2002, 02:09 AM

One more thing, I own an Optura100 and have taken some nice digital stills with the MX5000. At the highest resolution, I swear the printed quality of those taken using the MX5000 clearly beats those taken using the Optura100, but the MX5000 is still not as good as a 3Mpixel digital cam though.

October 26th, 2002, 06:58 PM	#1
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	MX5000 - a poor man's DVX100 MX5000 - a poor man's DVX100 It shares the same block. It also has a 10X, F1.6 Leica Dicomar lens...same 200K 3.5" LCD, 180K .44" viewfinder, both shoot near true 16:9. The MX has frame mode, the DVX has progressive scan. The MX5000 plays back 540 horizontal lines, the DVX100? Don't know. Both cams have nothing lower than 1/60th manual shutter speed (in interlaced). The MX5000 is much smaller and costs about 1/2 the price. The MX5 weighs 230g, the DVX weighs 1.66KG. The MX5000 is available now (via Tim), the DVX...? http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm

November 21st, 2002, 04:50 PM	#5
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	Frank, I am intrigued by the Panasonic MX5000. From all the things I have read, it appears to be a pretty hot rig. The one thing I have not seen is any footage from it. Have you by any chance run across footage taken from this camera? __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

November 21st, 2002, 02:01 AM	#2
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	Does the MX5000 use the same batteries as the DVX? My DVX uses batteries like the CGR-D16... How good do the digital stills look at the highest quailty setting? I am mainly looking at this camera as a backup/deck/digital still camera to be used along side the DVX. If they can share batteries, and the MX has a similiar feeling picture to the DVX, then I'd be sold.

November 21st, 2002, 02:12 AM	#3
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Plasma (the graphic artist), as far as I know it uses the same batteries. The MX5000 is a lot smaller than the DVX100, however. I presume the pics will look better than the ones from the DVX100. 3 meg stills is one of it's selling features. The stills won't look as good as those from a digital still camera (you know that). Sorry I can't tag on one of my silly pics. Plasma, did you get your DVX100 yet? I can't recall.

November 21st, 2002, 02:06 PM	#4
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	Yup. I got mine. I have been posting those DVX100 pics on dv.com from my camera. Thanks for the info. I was just wondering the still quality, because then it would be easier to justify it's purchase... Size. From the looks of it in pictures, it appears to be about the same size as the OpturaPi.

November 21st, 2002, 04:59 PM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I saw read a bunch of your posts. I get confused sometimes with who has what and who wants to get what. Also, I'm having trouble lately with getting into and also loading the threads at dv.com. The Optura PI is a very small hand-held, smaller than the TRV30. Most people who have never actually held one often think it's much larger. I've often read from people who just got their PI via mail order: "I didn't release how small it is!" The MX5000 is about 1.6 % fatter, and I'm guessing a tad longer.

November 21st, 2002, 08:30 PM	#7
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	The OpturaPi IS really small. Basically just a viewscreen, lens, and a small deck. The MX5000 looks like it has better ergonomics.

November 21st, 2002, 09:13 PM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Paul, no, I haven't seen actual footage. I have a MX300, and the footage it very good. The MX500/0 has about 2X the effective CCD video pixels as the MX300/0, and plays back 540 lines. The MX300/0 plays back 500 lines. Also, I know 2 people that have one, and swear the footage is superb.

November 21st, 2002, 10:02 PM	#9
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	I just found these sample stills over at Q technologies. They look alright, but they seem to have been interpolated up to that resolution. http://www.qtechnologies.com/us/impo...ls/samples.htm

November 21st, 2002, 10:40 PM	#10
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks. Yes, for the MX5 3 meg stills, it's not the same quality as a 3 meg still camera.

November 21st, 2002, 11:22 PM	#11
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	No, but if you cut the resolution in half in Photoshop, they look quite decent.

November 22nd, 2002, 01:11 AM	#12
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	The video quality from the MX500 is great, but not much different from the MX350. However, if you refer to my other post "MX500 disappointing", I do have some gripes about this camera. The stills are not as grainy as the MX350, and at 3.0MP, is a great deal better than the MX350. The MX8 is very grain-free, but only 1.2MP. I guess 1CCD cams wins in still shots. The LCD screen is very much dimmer than the MX8 and MX350 and the viewing angle is less than that of the MX8 (150 degs up, down, left, right!) or the MX350 (120 degs). The zoom is 10x (less than the MX350's 12x) and at 1x (widest) it is not as wide as the MX350 (wider) or the MX8 (widest). So, if 1x zoom wide-angle is not an issue, and the LCD brightness not a major concern, then the MX500 is great! Note that although the LCD is dimmer, the captured footage is very similar to the MX350. I will attempt to post some comparisons of the same shots taken from the MX8 (1CCD), MX350 and MX500. Anyone has space for me to dump about 1.5MB of files?

November 22nd, 2002, 01:55 AM	#13
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	You should e-mail Terrence and ask him if you can send him the pics, to post on his great website. The MX8, MX300, MX350 and MX500 are all very good cams. However, they all have some shortcomings, like with any cam. No cam is perfect. It's just that some cams are more perfect for a particular job, and/or more perfect in the eye of the beholder. For me, one of things I look for in a cam is video quality. All these MX cams have very good video quality. MX8 - 530 horizontal playback lines MX300 - 500 playback lines MX350 - 500 playback lines MX500 - 540 playback lines The MX300 is beefier than the MX350. The MX350 has a slightly better picture with the iris wide open than the MX300. The MX500 has higher resolution and better 16:9, but requires more lux. And on it goes....

November 22nd, 2002, 02:00 AM	#14
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Hi Yow, I wonder if you attempted to adjust any of the following as regards the LCD of the MX500 intensity (LCD AI) backlighting brightness color level I haven't seen the 350 as it's not available in Japan, but at "dynamic" LCD A1 and "bright" backlighting settings,the LCD looks pretty bright and sharp to me. BTW, I'm literally translating the Jap menus so the actual English indications may not be the same. Regards Allan Rejoso

November 22nd, 2002, 02:09 AM	#15
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	One more thing, I own an Optura100 and have taken some nice digital stills with the MX5000. At the highest resolution, I swear the printed quality of those taken using the MX5000 clearly beats those taken using the Optura100, but the MX5000 is still not as good as a 3Mpixel digital cam though.