And finally... the dvx100 arrives and... what the hell is this? at DVinfo.net

Miguel Lopez · March 25th, 2003, 05:56 PM

I selled my Xl1.
I paid for a DVX100E (PAL version).
I waited 12 days.
And i recieve it this morning...

What is THIS? Is this for what i paid almost 4200€? Well, it certainly has to beat the competence i things like image quality, because in structure and design it is the worst thing i have seen in my life. It is ALL plastic. And not good plastic, but the cheapest in the wrold. It almost looks like a kids camera!!!!

Ok. I take a look on the camera and i play a little. I plug it into my computer and i say "wow!"! Image is superb. The quality is great.
That is in the computer.

But then i plug into the TV and "buarfff". Image is not as good as expected. There is a little noise (gain at 0 dB), the red color is not too good, the whites are dirty... It is not the image i was expecting after watching it in the computer.

So in this first message after having the camera i have to say that i feel a little dissapointed. 4200 € is a lot of money for a plastic camera. It doesnt look any hard to me. It looks very fragile.

I hope Canon will make a new version of the XM3 or XL2 with progressive CCDs and more resolution. The body shell of Canon is much better. The AE modes are incredibly fast to use (as a Reflex camera). When the time arrives i will sell the panasoni i think.

Well, not everythjing is bad. I liked the focus ring more than in XL1. the macro lenses is great also. THe focus ring again looks fragile (it moves!) argggg, still, i am remebering the xl1 lenses and ther were much better constructed!!!!!! Quality is an issue that panasonic has to improve. ANd you people could have mentioned it!

Frank Granovski · March 25th, 2003, 06:31 PM

I did mention this quite some time ago here:

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

(in the news section)

But one thing I do like about the puffed-plastic TM, is that it is light and very well balanced, making it easy to hold with 1 hand---unlike the XL1(S).

Miguel Lopez · March 25th, 2003, 06:37 PM

Yep, you mention it, but i didn´t know your site.
Anyway, i need a 25p, otherwise i would not have selled the XL1.

But right now, i think there is nothing like the GL2 (XM2 is the name here, in Europe) in terms of quality, price, and image quality.

Frank Granovski · March 25th, 2003, 06:49 PM

The PAL DVX100 has a 25P mode. In terms of resolution/image quality, the DVX100 is better than the XM2 and XL1S.

Miguel Lopez · March 25th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Yes, my new dvx100 E is better in image quality, but if you are not using 25p, i think XM2 is the best choice. it costs the half price of XL1s, Sonys vx and panasonic dvx100, ans still has a really great quality.

That is what i think right now.

Frank Granovski · March 25th, 2003, 06:57 PM

Well, for price, the GL2/XM2, MX500 and TRV950/10 are great 3 chip hand-helds. But overall, the GL2/XM2 gives you the most, I think.

Miguel Lopez · March 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Tell 3 important things that you cannot do with XM2 and you can with XL1 or vx2000 (no exchangable lenses, so what, XM2 lense is much more wide than xl1).

The CCDs should be the same for XL and Xm, rigth?

Frank Granovski · March 25th, 2003, 08:02 PM

The XM2 has higher resolution than the XL1/s, but lux requirements are lower with the XL1/s and VX2000.

Where the PDX10 and MX500 shine is with their high resolution and "true" higher resolution 16:9.

All these cams mentioned are good, though the question is, in which way? One just has to pick the cam with the features he or she needs. For example, for lots of optical zoom, the XM2 would be the one. 16:9? PDX10 and MX500. For high resolution: DVX100, PDX10 and MX500.

Bjørn Sørensen · March 26th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Interesting! I am just in the middle of choosing XM2 or DVX100.

I have rent the XM2 a couple of times and like the picture quality but think it looks like an amateur cam - really plastic!.

I have not tried DVX100 but it looks more like a professional cam (and that means something if you shoot commercial videos on location ! ? )

Besides then its audio quality should be a lot (?) better and the wideangle lens more wide.. and then there is the higher resolution and the 25p mode.

So if you buy a Canon XM2 and a quality XLR audio adapter (Beachtek etc.), a WD-58 wide angle converter and eventually a matte box (to make it look just a little more professional), the difference in price up to DVX-100 is not much.

Maybe I should rent the DVX100 a few days before buying...!

Bjorn

Miguel Lopez · March 26th, 2003, 05:29 AM

MMM, it is true about the XLR inputs, but i can tell you that the XM2 looks the same than the DVX100 except when you touch it and feel the plastic in the dvx.

What is the equivalent to 35mm lenses in the XM2? I think it is pretty wide also.

And for the sound also, i don understand why it has to be set in manual mode always.

Definetely, the canon "way of shooting" is much more efficient.

Davi Dortas · March 26th, 2003, 09:41 AM

people develop tunnel vision whenever a new product rolls out as highly anticipated as the dvx100. I was put off by the plastic construction of this camera when you compare the quality construction of the pd150, there is no reason to have such a low quality build.

the dxv100 is highly revolutionary as a 24P mass market camera, however it also has some very big flaws, ie. plastiky construction, no gain, no AF, no audio monitoring levels, low-res lcd and awful viewfinder resolution, flakey audio level knobs, noisy image, poor low light gain in 60i, and for me, blocky artifacts that has made me wonder about the quality of Panasonic products.

When we take off our rose coloured glasses for a moment, we realize the dvx100 is not that great of a camera. I for one, no longer have a fascination with this camera. Granted it produces nice images,

Patrick Bower · March 26th, 2003, 12:48 PM

If you think the image is better on the computer than on the TV, maybe a limiting factor is the S-VGA analogue output on the camera. I would be very interested to know what the component output of the video looks like on a TV screen. I have a very good quality PAL TV. Playing the camera back through the TV, the picture looks soft. The same video, converted to MPEG and burnt to DVD, actually looks more detailed, and that's without any deliberate detail enhancement. While it's obviously not up to studio broadcast quality, it's actually better than quite a lot of broadcast footage, even from the BBC. Maybe what you lose on the MPEG conversion, you gain on using RGB output from the DVD player to the TV.
Patrick

Miguel Lopez · March 26th, 2003, 12:52 PM

Ummm, i don understand you.

The camera has this outputs:
- S-video (Y/C)
- RCA
- Firewire

A typical DVD player has:
- S-video (Y/C)
- RCA
- Scart/EuroAV

If your DVD player has component output that must be a proffesional thing. And i do not know any TV that supports component video input (perhaps one of those ultra plasma screens of 9.000 €).

Patrick Bower · March 26th, 2003, 01:18 PM

In the UK most new DVD players have RGB output, and TVs have RGB input. I have just tried watching the same DVD using the S-VGA connection instead, and the quality goes down a lot. As one would expect, the DVD copy then looks worse than the original DV tape played back through the TV.

Patrick

Miguel Lopez · March 26th, 2003, 01:24 PM

how is a RGB input? any pictures?

March 25th, 2003, 05:56 PM	#1
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	And finally... the dvx100 arrives and... what the hell is this? I selled my Xl1. I paid for a DVX100E (PAL version). I waited 12 days. And i recieve it this morning... What is THIS? Is this for what i paid almost 4200€? Well, it certainly has to beat the competence i things like image quality, because in structure and design it is the worst thing i have seen in my life. It is ALL plastic. And not good plastic, but the cheapest in the wrold. It almost looks like a kids camera!!!! Ok. I take a look on the camera and i play a little. I plug it into my computer and i say "wow!"! Image is superb. The quality is great. That is in the computer. But then i plug into the TV and "buarfff". Image is not as good as expected. There is a little noise (gain at 0 dB), the red color is not too good, the whites are dirty... It is not the image i was expecting after watching it in the computer. So in this first message after having the camera i have to say that i feel a little dissapointed. 4200 € is a lot of money for a plastic camera. It doesnt look any hard to me. It looks very fragile. I hope Canon will make a new version of the XM3 or XL2 with progressive CCDs and more resolution. The body shell of Canon is much better. The AE modes are incredibly fast to use (as a Reflex camera). When the time arrives i will sell the panasoni i think. Well, not everythjing is bad. I liked the focus ring more than in XL1. the macro lenses is great also. THe focus ring again looks fragile (it moves!) argggg, still, i am remebering the xl1 lenses and ther were much better constructed!!!!!! Quality is an issue that panasonic has to improve. ANd you people could have mentioned it!

March 26th, 2003, 01:41 AM	#9
Bjørn Sørensen Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 143	Interesting! I am just in the middle of choosing XM2 or DVX100. I have rent the XM2 a couple of times and like the picture quality but think it looks like an amateur cam - really plastic!. I have not tried DVX100 but it looks more like a professional cam (and that means something if you shoot commercial videos on location ! ? ) Besides then its audio quality should be a lot (?) better and the wideangle lens more wide.. and then there is the higher resolution and the 25p mode. So if you buy a Canon XM2 and a quality XLR audio adapter (Beachtek etc.), a WD-58 wide angle converter and eventually a matte box (to make it look just a little more professional), the difference in price up to DVX-100 is not much. Maybe I should rent the DVX100 a few days before buying...! Bjorn __________________ x

March 25th, 2003, 06:31 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I did mention this quite some time ago here: http://www.dvfreak.com/links.htm (in the news section) But one thing I do like about the puffed-plastic TM, is that it is light and very well balanced, making it easy to hold with 1 hand---unlike the XL1(S).

March 25th, 2003, 06:37 PM	#3
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Yep, you mention it, but i didn´t know your site. Anyway, i need a 25p, otherwise i would not have selled the XL1. But right now, i think there is nothing like the GL2 (XM2 is the name here, in Europe) in terms of quality, price, and image quality.

March 25th, 2003, 06:49 PM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The PAL DVX100 has a 25P mode. In terms of resolution/image quality, the DVX100 is better than the XM2 and XL1S.

March 25th, 2003, 06:52 PM	#5
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Yes, my new dvx100 E is better in image quality, but if you are not using 25p, i think XM2 is the best choice. it costs the half price of XL1s, Sonys vx and panasonic dvx100, ans still has a really great quality. That is what i think right now.

March 25th, 2003, 06:57 PM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Well, for price, the GL2/XM2, MX500 and TRV950/10 are great 3 chip hand-helds. But overall, the GL2/XM2 gives you the most, I think.

March 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM	#7
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Tell 3 important things that you cannot do with XM2 and you can with XL1 or vx2000 (no exchangable lenses, so what, XM2 lense is much more wide than xl1). The CCDs should be the same for XL and Xm, rigth?

March 25th, 2003, 08:02 PM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The XM2 has higher resolution than the XL1/s, but lux requirements are lower with the XL1/s and VX2000. Where the PDX10 and MX500 shine is with their high resolution and "true" higher resolution 16:9. All these cams mentioned are good, though the question is, in which way? One just has to pick the cam with the features he or she needs. For example, for lots of optical zoom, the XM2 would be the one. 16:9? PDX10 and MX500. For high resolution: DVX100, PDX10 and MX500.

March 26th, 2003, 05:29 AM	#10
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	MMM, it is true about the XLR inputs, but i can tell you that the XM2 looks the same than the DVX100 except when you touch it and feel the plastic in the dvx. What is the equivalent to 35mm lenses in the XM2? I think it is pretty wide also. And for the sound also, i don understand why it has to be set in manual mode always. Definetely, the canon "way of shooting" is much more efficient.

March 26th, 2003, 09:41 AM	#11
Davi Dortas Membership Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 78	people develop tunnel vision whenever a new product rolls out as highly anticipated as the dvx100. I was put off by the plastic construction of this camera when you compare the quality construction of the pd150, there is no reason to have such a low quality build. the dxv100 is highly revolutionary as a 24P mass market camera, however it also has some very big flaws, ie. plastiky construction, no gain, no AF, no audio monitoring levels, low-res lcd and awful viewfinder resolution, flakey audio level knobs, noisy image, poor low light gain in 60i, and for me, blocky artifacts that has made me wonder about the quality of Panasonic products. When we take off our rose coloured glasses for a moment, we realize the dvx100 is not that great of a camera. I for one, no longer have a fascination with this camera. Granted it produces nice images,

March 26th, 2003, 12:48 PM	#12
Patrick Bower Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London, England Posts: 126	If you think the image is better on the computer than on the TV, maybe a limiting factor is the S-VGA analogue output on the camera. I would be very interested to know what the component output of the video looks like on a TV screen. I have a very good quality PAL TV. Playing the camera back through the TV, the picture looks soft. The same video, converted to MPEG and burnt to DVD, actually looks more detailed, and that's without any deliberate detail enhancement. While it's obviously not up to studio broadcast quality, it's actually better than quite a lot of broadcast footage, even from the BBC. Maybe what you lose on the MPEG conversion, you gain on using RGB output from the DVD player to the TV. Patrick

March 26th, 2003, 12:52 PM	#13
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Ummm, i don understand you. The camera has this outputs: - S-video (Y/C) - RCA - Firewire A typical DVD player has: - S-video (Y/C) - RCA - Scart/EuroAV If your DVD player has component output that must be a proffesional thing. And i do not know any TV that supports component video input (perhaps one of those ultra plasma screens of 9.000 €).

March 26th, 2003, 01:18 PM	#14
Patrick Bower Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London, England Posts: 126	In the UK most new DVD players have RGB output, and TVs have RGB input. I have just tried watching the same DVD using the S-VGA connection instead, and the quality goes down a lot. As one would expect, the DVD copy then looks worse than the original DV tape played back through the TV. Patrick

March 26th, 2003, 01:24 PM	#15
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	how is a RGB input? any pictures?