PDX10 vs TRV950

Paul Tauger · March 16th, 2004, 12:40 PM

I hate it when people don't answer the question asked, but here I am about to do it . ;)

Have you considered a VX2100? It's bigger and heavier, yes, than a PDX10, but roughly comparable in price. I use a VX2000 for travel videography and find it's manageable. The primary advantage of the VX2000 over something like the PDX10 or the TRV950 is its stunning low-light capability -- you'll be able to shoot anywhere, and I mean _anywhere_. I'll defer to the pros on this group, but I think the video quality is far better than the TRV950 and more than good enough for commercial television.

Boyd Ostroff · March 16th, 2004, 05:49 PM

Paul, I have a VX-2000 and PDX-10. They are both very nice, but also very different. If you want to shoot 16:9 then you really can't beat the PDX-10; it's way better than the VX-2000. If you just want 4:3 then I'd agree that the VX-2000 is a bit better. But like you point out, the major difference is low light capability. The audio on the PDX-10 (although VX-2100 may have improved) is way better, with XLR's and a better on-camera mike.

Weight would be the other big factor though, the PDX-10 is much smaller and lighter and you can remove the mike and XLR box to make is even smaller (it will still record thru builtin stereo mikes). But one could also argue that the feel of the VX-2000 is more solid and well-balanced (plus I wish the PDX-10 had a handle).

You also have a much nicer, bigger, brighter higher res LCD panel on the PDX-10 or TRV-950. To answer the original question though, personally I think the PDX-10 additional features are well worth the extra $500 as compared with the TRV-950. (I'm also assuming that you have their prices reversed in your inital posting)

Tom Hardwick · March 22nd, 2004, 02:38 AM

Boyd nails it. But back to your original question Jakub.
There's no difference in the low-light capability between the TRV950 and the PDX10, but the 950 does have a little flash gun that's very handy for stills. Very handy because of the poor low light performance.

The PDX10 also has a much better wide-angle in the 16:9 mode, and the 950 doesn't have any wide-angle at all. It's the equivalent of a 49mm on a still camera. Hopeless.

The PDX will only shoot for 40 mins in DVCAM (same A/V quality as DV of course) whereas the 950 will shoot for 90 mins in LP if you're pushed into a corner. Same quality as DVCAM of course.

If you're serious about 16:9 and decent XLR audio (and want to take advantage of both) then there's no contest - the PDX it is.

tom.

March 16th, 2004, 12:40 PM	#31
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	I hate it when people don't answer the question asked, but here I am about to do it . ;) Have you considered a VX2100? It's bigger and heavier, yes, than a PDX10, but roughly comparable in price. I use a VX2000 for travel videography and find it's manageable. The primary advantage of the VX2000 over something like the PDX10 or the TRV950 is its stunning low-light capability -- you'll be able to shoot anywhere, and I mean _anywhere_. I'll defer to the pros on this group, but I think the video quality is far better than the TRV950 and more than good enough for commercial television.

March 16th, 2004, 05:49 PM	#32
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Paul, I have a VX-2000 and PDX-10. They are both very nice, but also very different. If you want to shoot 16:9 then you really can't beat the PDX-10; it's way better than the VX-2000. If you just want 4:3 then I'd agree that the VX-2000 is a bit better. But like you point out, the major difference is low light capability. The audio on the PDX-10 (although VX-2100 may have improved) is way better, with XLR's and a better on-camera mike. Weight would be the other big factor though, the PDX-10 is much smaller and lighter and you can remove the mike and XLR box to make is even smaller (it will still record thru builtin stereo mikes). But one could also argue that the feel of the VX-2000 is more solid and well-balanced (plus I wish the PDX-10 had a handle). You also have a much nicer, bigger, brighter higher res LCD panel on the PDX-10 or TRV-950. To answer the original question though, personally I think the PDX-10 additional features are well worth the extra $500 as compared with the TRV-950. (I'm also assuming that you have their prices reversed in your inital posting)

March 22nd, 2004, 02:38 AM	#33
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Boyd nails it. But back to your original question Jakub. There's no difference in the low-light capability between the TRV950 and the PDX10, but the 950 does have a little flash gun that's very handy for stills. Very handy because of the poor low light performance. The PDX10 also has a much better wide-angle in the 16:9 mode, and the 950 doesn't have any wide-angle at all. It's the equivalent of a 49mm on a still camera. Hopeless. The PDX will only shoot for 40 mins in DVCAM (same A/V quality as DV of course) whereas the 950 will shoot for 90 mins in LP if you're pushed into a corner. Same quality as DVCAM of course. If you're serious about 16:9 and decent XLR audio (and want to take advantage of both) then there's no contest - the PDX it is. tom.