Is the DVX100 obsolete technology?
 

Just wondering what people think the lifespan of the DVX100(A,B)?

At that price point, SD is probably not too far from the grave.

Depends on what you're doing with it. If you're wanting to put it to work today, and you're working in cable TV or local TV in the USA, there's a lot of life left in it -- I just got back from a two-day training camp at one of the biggest cable networks anywhere, at which they wanted to better learn how to use the veritable "fleet" of DVXs they use every day. MTV uses 'em every day. "Jackass 2" used 'em. Lots of places use 'em.

But the US broadcasts all SD in 4:3. If you're in a 16:9 country like England, the DVX probably isn't going to hold the same appeal.

Also depends if you mean buying one right now, or if you have one already.
If you already have one, you can still make good things with it, but if you would buy a new camcorder at this moment, it's maybe better to look at some HD cameras.

you can't make anything good with it if you buy it now,,only if you already have one?

I'm looking at 3 cameras, the Sony V1, DVX100B and the Canon A1.

The price of the DVX100 is probably around $1,000 cheaper with the rebate. I guess it depends on what you are planning on doing. I'm almost ready just to look for a good deal on a used DVX100B.

you guys insane.. SD is great!! I'm working on my 2nd documentary with the dvx100a..... fast to edit, compatible with all TVs... :D SD ROCKS!!

By "from the grave," of course, I meant that you probably won't see any more SD cameras offered at that price point -- not that the useful life of existing SD cameras is coming to an end any time soon.

I've gone on record before as saying I think HD is going to be a huge consumer flop.

Sorry, but any camera designed primarily to record 4:3 SD video is effectively obsolete as we head into the HD era. And while you can play 4:3 SD on any TV, most people with widescreen TVs have them set to 'stretch' such footage to fill the screen, which makes it look less than ideal. Hence the most useful compromise delivery format right now is widescreen (anamorphic) SD, which will play at the correct aspect ratio on both HD and SD TVs [given the way most people have their equipment set up].

You could put an anamorphic lens adapter on a DVX100 and get something useful out of it that way, but given the cost of doing that you'd be better off to sell the camera and put your money toward an HD camera.

And yet, major cable networks like TNT, TBS, MTV, CNN, TCM, and many others stubbornly continue to use this "obsolete" technology on a daily basis.

I get what you're saying, but it's a bit like saying a gasoline-powered car is obsolete as we move into the hydrogen era. Hydrogen *is* the fuel of the future (and, according to some wags, "it always will be"), but I'm buying a car next week and it's gonna be gasoline.

And the wedding companies I work for...

All use 4:3 SD and have no plans in 2007 to change that.

I wonder if 2008 will be different where I live, but I doubt it.

I was tallking to a guy at a reception the other day who plans on buying a HD TV. But 1st his 10 year old TV has to die before he upgrades. I laughed and said that is the way I feel about replacing my computer monitors with LCD screens.

"If ain't broke why fix (buy) it?"

The point is a lot of people where I live are not in the market for a new TV any time soon and care little about 16:9 and HD.

Last I checked Grey's Anatomy isn't 16:9.

Anyhow this debate surfaces every so often and usually ends with the same results. It all depends on you and your preferences, where you live, and what your clients want.

SD appears to be alive and well where I live.

Grey's Anatomy IS 16:9, as are most network shows.

It's true that they don't show it in SD as letterboxed 16:9, but it is HD and is 16:9 if you watch it in HD. Yep, they crop the sides for SD.

The SD DVDs are also anamorphic 16:9.

As a point of clarification -- yes the major broadcast networks (ABC/NBC/Fox/CBS) are shooting their big-bucks shows in HD. And a few cable networks are as well (DiscoveryHD, HBO, etc).

But for hundreds of cable networks out there, including some big ones, they're all shooting SD 4:3. That's what gets broadcast in America, so that's what they're shooting.

Not saying that I prefer it or that I think it's the best way to go, but I am saying that in today's market, that's the way it is. Some have gone HD, some don't even have it on their radar. So it all depends on who you're planning to work for, and how you're planning to distribute your work.

Well, live and learn.

Anyway, broadcast and event shooting are two different animals. Based on the area you live in, SD or HD may be, or is becoming, the norm. Where I live, as you can already tell, HD is not the norm for event shooting. This is my limited experience.

So to say SD is, or will be, obsolete technology all depends on the person and their awareness of the area he/she may live in. It is not a black or white answer.

I want to buy the new sony V1 next year, but I will probably buy the 2100. SD is not dead for me or for the clients and companies I work for. They are not asking for HD, so if I buy now, it is premature. Afterall, a sony z2 with 1 lux is most likely right around the corner. Hopefully, then my bosses and clients will want HD because I know I do.

Assuming something other than gasoline is the transportation fuel of the future, there will come a day when buying a car which only runs on gasoline would be rather silly. That day is here today for SD versus HD video cameras, unless you have a specific reason to buy an SD-only model. Of course if you already have an SD camera it makes sense to get as much mileage as you can out of it, but for any new gear HD is the way to go.

I don't think the gasoline analogy is good either. The hydrogen powered car can't run on gasoline. But these new HD cameras can shoot SD just fine or you can downconvert from HD aquired footage to SD. This future proofs (relatively) your camera and the footage. So unless you absolutely need some specific feature of an SD camera (like extreme low-light performance) or absolutely can't afford the price differential, I think it is much wiser to get an HD camera if you are in the market for a camera, especially when the V1U and XH-A1 are only about $4000.