What do you all think? at DVinfo.net

Glenn Gipson · March 5th, 2004, 06:34 AM

Tell me if I’m off base here.

Finally, after nearly 2 years of badgering people on message boards about DV, I’m finally about to make my first DV cam purchase in less then 4 weeks. As some of you may know, I was always an ardent fan of the DVX 100, even to the point of being accused of worshipping it. But you know what? When it's all said and done, guess what camera I am strongly leaning toward purchasing? (for a DV movie) That’s right, a PDX10. I’m strongly thinking about getting a PDX10 over a DVX100, here is why, and tell me if my thinking is off based here:

1. 16:9 – I need a GOOD quality 16:9 on a DV feature that is going to be slightly run and gun with it’s shooting style (still will use a tripod, lights, and a dolly though.) I’m already nervous about SD’s resolution as it is (for screening at Film Festivals) so I don’t want to lose anymore resolution by shooting in the DVX100’s fake letterbox mode (or squeeze mode of the A model.) On a lot of my locations a monitor wont be possible, and quite frankly, with my two man crew (including myself) I don’t want to lug a monitor around ALL the time (I will probably use it with interior scenes, when I can.) As have I heard, the Anamorphic Adapter (for the DVX100) is finicky with focus and you really should have an external monitor for it. Plus, this Adapter is nearly a thousand dollars extra.

2. This may sound a bit “punkish,” but I kind of like the simplicity of the PDX10’s controls vs. the DVX100’s controls. Once again, my shoot isn’t necessarily going to be a point-and-shoot, or TRUE run-and-gun scenario, but I do have to make extremely fast setups (with lights in interiors.)

3. Size. The smaller the equipment I have to lug around, the better. And we all know which camera is smaller.

4. Audio. Audio is good (so I hear) on the PDX10, not that it is bad on the DVX100 either (I hear it's really good, actually.)

5. Image Quality. (Note: I don’t care about low light.) I know I would be comparing oranges to apples here, but the image on the PDX10 (at B&H) looked like the best image of all the prosumer cams on display there (including the DVX100…but this, naturally, can only be compared in interlace mode.) Actually, I kind of find the PDX10’s image to be WAY underrated because it looks stunning to me (under proper lighting conditions.)

6. Price. I'm on a tight budget, and we all know which camera is cheaper.

What do you all think? To complete the film look, I'm going to use Magic Bullet for this (even though Magic Bullet adds a lot of weight to my budget, it's still something I can afford to purchase a few months from now.) Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Thanks in advance everyone!

Mike Moncrief · March 5th, 2004, 08:22 AM

Hello,

If low light is not a factor as you said.And you are do not need the 24p look shot in camera(add film look in post) And you need to have true 16:9.. And you want good audio.. and a pro camera at a good price.. then you will not go wrong with this camera..

Go for it.. remember it is just a tool, your creativity and imagination are the real limits here..This camera will do just fine..

good luck..

Mike

Boyd Ostroff · March 5th, 2004, 08:31 AM

Sounds like you've thought everything through and are aware of the camera's strengths and weaknesses. No doubt Tom will pop up to tell you about all the PDX-10's problems with vertical smear, low light and internal ND filters that can deceive you as to what's really happening in manual mode. But if you've been reading this forum you're already aware of all this. But even he will admit that it's hard to beat the image quality.

You seen and held the camera and compared it with others side by side. I can't see any reason not to go through with a purchase. After a year I'm still happy with mine. Let us know how it works out!

Tom Hardwick · March 5th, 2004, 03:34 PM

You're right Boyd, I thought I'd better pop up and say how much I agree with you. Sony's PDX is beautifully matched to all Glenn's specifications, and I'd say 'go for it' too. The lens is remarkable, and clever of Sony to keep you at the sweet spot. The lens hood is excellent and you shouldn't leave home without it. The 16:9 from those wide chips is a delight, and it sure looks better than the VX2k in 16:9. As you say, be aware of the camera's failings and it'll bring home quite stunning footage.

tom.

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 6th, 2004, 09:43 AM

Before I give you the 'go for it' myself, there is something else I need to say: Check out the new Pana PDX10 killer. Looks really really nice. We don't know at this point about it's 16:9 capability. It most likely is not as good as the PDX10's... but it has frame mode and other nice features. If this wonder had been around when I bought my PDX10, I would have wanted to give it a try at the store at least.

Boyd Ostroff · March 6th, 2004, 10:36 AM

It does look like a very nice camera, but based on the specs I don't think it will compete with the PDX-10's 16:9. It only has 380,000 active pixels which means 16:9 must be acheived by cropping. But will it take 37mm filters? If so then Century has a small anamorphic lens for about $300.

A big strength of the DVC-30 seems to be infra-red and low light, but Glenn didn't feel that mattered. It has a frame mode but the specs say it isn't true progressive so I don't know that's an advantage. I don't really think this camera is a "PDX-10 killer", in my opinion it would need to have more pixels for that. It may eat into Sony's sales of the PD-170, VX-2100 and PDX-10 however. But I wouldn't trade the PDX-10's 1,070,000 pixels for the DVC-30's 400,000.

Will be interested in hearing real world stories about this camera, but it still isn't shipping AFAIK. After witnessing the recent problems with the PD-170 I would want to wait several months after people get their hands on any new camera before placing my order...

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 6th, 2004, 11:09 AM

> I don't really think this camera is a "PDX-10 killer", in my
> opinion it would need to have more pixels for that. It may
> eat into Sony's sales of the PD-170, VX-2100 and PDX-10
> however. But I wouldn't trade the PDX-10's 1,070,000 pixels
> for the DVC-30's 400,000.

I agree. Actually I fail to see how somebody would want to buy a PD170, DVX80 or VX2100 if this new Panny delivers as promised.

Shawn Mielke · March 6th, 2004, 05:05 PM

" Actually I fail to see how somebody would want to buy a PD170, DVX80 or VX2100 if this new Panny delivers as promised."

Umm...DVCAM, compatibility, convention, even better low light performance, spontaneous whim, etc...?

My next cam will be a PD170.

March 5th, 2004, 06:34 AM	#1
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	What do you all think? Tell me if I’m off base here. Finally, after nearly 2 years of badgering people on message boards about DV, I’m finally about to make my first DV cam purchase in less then 4 weeks. As some of you may know, I was always an ardent fan of the DVX 100, even to the point of being accused of worshipping it. But you know what? When it's all said and done, guess what camera I am strongly leaning toward purchasing? (for a DV movie) That’s right, a PDX10. I’m strongly thinking about getting a PDX10 over a DVX100, here is why, and tell me if my thinking is off based here: 1. 16:9 – I need a GOOD quality 16:9 on a DV feature that is going to be slightly run and gun with it’s shooting style (still will use a tripod, lights, and a dolly though.) I’m already nervous about SD’s resolution as it is (for screening at Film Festivals) so I don’t want to lose anymore resolution by shooting in the DVX100’s fake letterbox mode (or squeeze mode of the A model.) On a lot of my locations a monitor wont be possible, and quite frankly, with my two man crew (including myself) I don’t want to lug a monitor around ALL the time (I will probably use it with interior scenes, when I can.) As have I heard, the Anamorphic Adapter (for the DVX100) is finicky with focus and you really should have an external monitor for it. Plus, this Adapter is nearly a thousand dollars extra. 2. This may sound a bit “punkish,” but I kind of like the simplicity of the PDX10’s controls vs. the DVX100’s controls. Once again, my shoot isn’t necessarily going to be a point-and-shoot, or TRUE run-and-gun scenario, but I do have to make extremely fast setups (with lights in interiors.) 3. Size. The smaller the equipment I have to lug around, the better. And we all know which camera is smaller. 4. Audio. Audio is good (so I hear) on the PDX10, not that it is bad on the DVX100 either (I hear it's really good, actually.) 5. Image Quality. (Note: I don’t care about low light.) I know I would be comparing oranges to apples here, but the image on the PDX10 (at B&H) looked like the best image of all the prosumer cams on display there (including the DVX100…but this, naturally, can only be compared in interlace mode.) Actually, I kind of find the PDX10’s image to be WAY underrated because it looks stunning to me (under proper lighting conditions.) 6. Price. I'm on a tight budget, and we all know which camera is cheaper. What do you all think? To complete the film look, I'm going to use Magic Bullet for this (even though Magic Bullet adds a lot of weight to my budget, it's still something I can afford to purchase a few months from now.) Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Thanks in advance everyone!

March 5th, 2004, 08:22 AM	#2
Mike Moncrief Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: orlando florida Posts: 426	Hello, If low light is not a factor as you said.And you are do not need the 24p look shot in camera(add film look in post) And you need to have true 16:9.. And you want good audio.. and a pro camera at a good price.. then you will not go wrong with this camera.. Go for it.. remember it is just a tool, your creativity and imagination are the real limits here..This camera will do just fine.. good luck.. Mike __________________ Mike Moncrief mikemoncrief@gmail.com www.themikemoncrief.com

March 6th, 2004, 09:43 AM	#5
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Before I give you the 'go for it' myself, there is something else I need to say: Check out the new Pana PDX10 killer. Looks really really nice. We don't know at this point about it's 16:9 capability. It most likely is not as good as the PDX10's... but it has frame mode and other nice features. If this wonder had been around when I bought my PDX10, I would have wanted to give it a try at the store at least. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 6th, 2004, 11:09 AM	#7
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> I don't really think this camera is a "PDX-10 killer", in my > opinion it would need to have more pixels for that. It may > eat into Sony's sales of the PD-170, VX-2100 and PDX-10 > however. But I wouldn't trade the PDX-10's 1,070,000 pixels > for the DVC-30's 400,000. I agree. Actually I fail to see how somebody would want to buy a PD170, DVX80 or VX2100 if this new Panny delivers as promised. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 6th, 2004, 05:05 PM	#8
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	" Actually I fail to see how somebody would want to buy a PD170, DVX80 or VX2100 if this new Panny delivers as promised." Umm...DVCAM, compatibility, convention, even better low light performance, spontaneous whim, etc...? My next cam will be a PD170. __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

March 5th, 2004, 08:31 AM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Sounds like you've thought everything through and are aware of the camera's strengths and weaknesses. No doubt Tom will pop up to tell you about all the PDX-10's problems with vertical smear, low light and internal ND filters that can deceive you as to what's really happening in manual mode. But if you've been reading this forum you're already aware of all this. But even he will admit that it's hard to beat the image quality. You seen and held the camera and compared it with others side by side. I can't see any reason not to go through with a purchase. After a year I'm still happy with mine. Let us know how it works out!

March 5th, 2004, 03:34 PM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're right Boyd, I thought I'd better pop up and say how much I agree with you. Sony's PDX is beautifully matched to all Glenn's specifications, and I'd say 'go for it' too. The lens is remarkable, and clever of Sony to keep you at the sweet spot. The lens hood is excellent and you shouldn't leave home without it. The 16:9 from those wide chips is a delight, and it sure looks better than the VX2k in 16:9. As you say, be aware of the camera's failings and it'll bring home quite stunning footage. tom.

March 6th, 2004, 10:36 AM	#6
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	It does look like a very nice camera, but based on the specs I don't think it will compete with the PDX-10's 16:9. It only has 380,000 active pixels which means 16:9 must be acheived by cropping. But will it take 37mm filters? If so then Century has a small anamorphic lens for about $300. A big strength of the DVC-30 seems to be infra-red and low light, but Glenn didn't feel that mattered. It has a frame mode but the specs say it isn't true progressive so I don't know that's an advantage. I don't really think this camera is a "PDX-10 killer", in my opinion it would need to have more pixels for that. It may eat into Sony's sales of the PD-170, VX-2100 and PDX-10 however. But I wouldn't trade the PDX-10's 1,070,000 pixels for the DVC-30's 400,000. Will be interested in hearing real world stories about this camera, but it still isn't shipping AFAIK. After witnessing the recent problems with the PD-170 I would want to wait several months after people get their hands on any new camera before placing my order...