MX5000 vs Sony DSR-PDX10
 

Any comments on this comparison? Does the MX outperfom the PDX10? They are both"16x9" capable. Or am I missing something?

They both do 16:9 pretty much the same way. I think the video quality is better with the MX5000. It plays back 540 horizontal lines. Which cam is better? That depends. The Sony uses the DVCAM format, which will give you less drop-outs in theory. Also, the Sony has the manual lower shutter settings; the MX5000 only goes to 1/60th (in manual).

The Sony seems just a bit beefier. However, the Sony is more difficult to hold. The Sony also costs a heck of a lot more. Personally, I'd go with the MX5000 over the PDX10. I'd also go with the VX2000 over both of these---if I didn't mind the bigger size of the VX2000.

Tim has just lowered the price for the MX5000, since there's been a couple of price drops now, in Japan. For the cam, kit and shipping, the total price is now $1650 US. That's a great deal for a great cam.

[IMG]www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm[/IMG]

I'll be updating the price on that page shortly.

Thanks for the info Frank, that's what I thought. And the Sony is a lot more money. The VX2000 is to big for me and I don't know about it's "16:9" stuff.

The other thing I forgot to mention is the MX5000 has frame mode (progressive video), like that found on the Canon GL2 and XL1s. The PDX10 doesn't have this 30fps frame mode; and I don't know why. I think that the MX5000's frame mode, coupled with the 16:9 mode, is neat. With my older DVL9500s, I shot a lot of videos in progressive, and if I were to buy a new cam without this feature, I would surely miss it.

Frank do you think for shooting surfing and windsurfing, progressive mode would be good to use?

I don't think so---I'd only use progressive for this to make certain scenes stand out. But doing the whole thing in progressive, I wouldn't do this. I say this because there's too much fast movement, and it will look choppy. However, I think as you as the creator, you can always experiment on how you what your footage to look like, and then be the final judge. Keep in mind that if you output the progressively shot footage via AV-out or S-video-out, the footage is again interlaced, but a bit choppy.

Hi frank.
i am a bit confused by what fram e mode actually is for.
I have shot stuff with the mx500 in both because i was interested in what it did but i cannot tell the difference or know what i am supposed to be looking for.
i am new to all this so please excuse the basic level of the question.
if you could explain about this frame/progressive thing and what it is useful for that would be cool.
also if i shott a programme with some frame mode and some not what effect will that have when i go into fcp to edit and how will it affect the final look of the programme.
ie should i shoot all in one mode or the other?

cheers
blake

Progressive captures 1 odd and 1 even field at the same time, 25 frames per second (PAL). Interlaced captures 50 fields per second. Fields are 1/2 frames, one even, then an odd, then an even etc. Frame mode uses a progressive shutter method with the help of interpolation, to achieve the same thing as a "true" progressive scan. If you shoot in frame mode, and then output via AV out or S-video out, the frames are split into fields (25 odd, 25 even, per second). However, shooting in normal mode (interlaced), you'll capture more movement, there are no gaps, so it will not look jerky. With progressive, you'll notice jerky/choppy movement (with fast movement), even if it's outputted as interlaced (via AV and S-video out). But if you pull in your progressive footage into your computer, via Firewire, you'll keep the progressive frames. I find that shooting in frame mode makes the video look "fuller," even after it's been converted to fields.

If you watch a movie on the big screen, you're getting 24fps, but each frame is repeated twice, so your eyes actually see 48fps. True HD is also 24p plus 16:9 (widescreen).

Picture brightness/sharpness of MX5000
 

Hello everyone!
I am just curious (after reading the raving reviews of the picture intensity/brightness of the MX300)
Does the MX5000 seem to maintain this intensity/brightness? ALso, is its LCD screen an accurate interpretation of what the camera actually sees? I heard this was also a "plus' in the MX300 model.
Jean King

Jean, both the MX300/0 and MX500/0 have higher resolution LCD monitors. But I would bet that the MX300/0 LCD is a bit brighter and sharper. That's becease it's smaller (2.5" for the MX300/0, 3.5" for the MX500/0). In my opinion, the MX350 has the lowest resolution/picture quality etc, LCD screen. The MX300/0 has a larger viewfinder than both the MX350 and MX500/0.

(MX300 is PAL, MX3000 is NTSC.)

Once again, my conclusion is that all these 3 models are great cams. You just have to pick the one with the best features which are most important for you.

I own a MX300, and I can tell you that the LCD image is very sharp and true. But I'd go with the MX500/0's 3.5" screen. I'm sure it's still very good, but easier to see what you're shooting.

Even both TRV950 and PDX10 provide 16:9 mode, but only PDX10 captures wider angle in this mode. I do not know about the implementation of 16:9 mode in MX5000 - anybody out there to clarify?

Yik, go to:

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

and click on the link to the Powerpoint slides. The MX5 16:9 is explained there.

A quick questionaire:

Who really NEEDS 16:9?

For myself, I only shoot in 4:3 as my audience watches on TV and PC screens, and none to rich to by HDTV with wide screen, or Plasma TVs.

I agree, sort of. If you want to shoot a doc, say in the UK, they would prefer it in 16:9, I hear. Also, if you shoot in 16:9, the footage won't be too outdated as more and more people go for those wide screen TVs---you know, those fake HD ready TVs...they are all the rage here in Raincouver, British Columbia.

Agree. Most people don't need 16:9 mode, but it's good to know the way cameras implement this mode since this feature is becoming increasingly common in newer generation camcorders.

I do not use/need this mode either.