170 or 250?

Doug Okamoto · February 7th, 2004, 03:28 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus :
Doug,

I read that in a Sony press release. It could have been wrong info but they were very specific that the Optical Block had not changed and the improvements were downstream in the image processing bits.

From what I've seen in comparisons between the 150 and the 170, the difference is only in the level of noise present in the image. The 170 image is not lighter as you would expect if the CCDs actually got more sensitive. All Sony claims is that the noise floor is lower and that allows them to SPEC the camera at 1 Lux. -->>>

Hey Mike,
I found this http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/ModelInfo?m=0&sm=0&p=2&sp=11&id=71949 which is part of why the water was muddied for me on this issue. The web page really makes it sound like the chips are new but I also read this "Yoshi Nishimura, Camcorder Product Manager for Sony stated "The CCD specifications are the same, the only difference is that we improved the sensitivity of the CCD itself. The improvement was made by improving the process in making the CCD... Since we've been making the CCD for more than a couple of years, the CCD factory was able to improve the sensitivity so that we can change our low light capability from 2 lux to 1 lux." This excerpt is from http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-dcr-vx2100-announcement-10_07_03.htm

So I guess the only conclusion I can make now is that the CCD's in the PD170 have been "tweeked" with the Advanced HAD technology to increase signal to noise ratio and sensitivity. Is this a valid conclusion?

Thanks Mike, and the rest of you for helping me get this clear in my head (I think at least...!)

Doug

Mike Rehmus · February 7th, 2004, 12:50 PM

Thanks for the link, Doug.

I'm guessing that what they did, then, is up the CCD sensitivity and then drop the overall gain so that at equivalent exposures, the new camera exhibits less noise, not a brighter image.

I cannot find a Sony reference to the 'not-a-new-CCD' comments so new CCD it is.

What I find interesting is that they elected to not give us a brighter image but an image with lower noise. Making certain that the camera will still beat the DSR-300 and 370 (don't know about the 390) in low light situations because of the lower noise figure. My 150 and 300 don't intercut at the lowest possible light levels because the noise of the 300 is WAY more than the 150.

Doug Okamoto · February 7th, 2004, 02:25 PM

No problem Mike, you made me really look into this issue instead of taking in the company rhetoric. It all depends on how you split the hairs (and apparently Sony wants it both ways!) It's an old chip with a 'little bit' of enhancement. So is it really new or not? It all depends on how you look at it.

I think that Sony didn't increase the brightness of the CCD so that it wouldn't tick off the 'big boys' that bought their 390L's and 570WSL's. Still keeping the camera in the "prosumer" market but making it so that the ENG boys would love it. I happen to love it. 90% of what I do is without enhanced lighting and even the DVX100a doesn't come close in minimal lighting. I'm just waiting until NAB to pick up mine. Just wondering what Sony will do with the DSR250...

Doug

Law Tyler · February 7th, 2004, 08:38 PM

250? Good question.

Question is what are some of us gonna do if Sony discontinued the 250?

Getting used to the shoulder-mount, what is the next choice?

$10k is too steep, no matter how good the 370 is. In fact, 250's 2LUX is more than enough for wedding.

Mike Rehmus · February 8th, 2004, 01:36 PM

BTW,

I'm expecting that a 270 will be introduced at NAB.

I have no insider information but it seems to follow, doesn't it?

Jun Galinato · February 8th, 2004, 05:50 PM

So what's the upgrade from 250 aside from 1 lux and the LCD display? Nice if they put a mechanical zoom and focus. Another nice upgrade is a true progressive mode at 30P, not like 15P.

Bill Pryor · February 8th, 2004, 07:24 PM

I went through the same comparisons when I got a DSR250 about 3 or so years ago. There were several reasons I got the 250 over the 150 (now 170). First was because it was a shoulder mount camera, second it has the standard 801 series high res viewfinder used on other professional Sony cameras, third, it uses full size cassettes, and fourth it uses the same batteries, so I could share the batteries and charger from the DSR500.

Having said that, on occasion there is a situation in which I would like to have a PD150/170. If you remove the lens hood from the 150, it looks more like a consumer camera, and you can wander around and get hand held shots with no hassle. And, it's easy to mount the camera, for example, from a lighting grid to shoot straight down on something. You can also stick it on a beanbag between the steering wheel and windshield of a car and get a shot looking straight back at the driver. So there are good reasons to have a smaller camera too. On the other hand, it's easier to get steadier hand held shots with a shoulder mount camera, in most cases.

One of the posts above mentioned the fact that the 250 uses professional batteries, which I consider a positive thing, but others might consider that negative. I have 6 BPL40's, which cost about $280 apiece, and the charger was about $550. I need that many for an all day shoot without power with the DSR500. But, the DSR250 can get by all day with just two batteries. It really doesn't require much power compared to most other cameras I've used.

Another positive thing about the smaller 170 is that you can use it with the cheaper stabilizing and jib rigs because of its lighter weight. However, when you compare the 250 to a camera like the DSR500/570, it is significantly lighter and you can drop down from the heavier duty stabilizers, though not as far down as you can with the smaller camera.

In a perfect world a guy could have both the 150/170 and the 250. But if you have to pick one, the only real answer is that it depends on what you do most of the time and what you need.

Mike Rehmus · February 8th, 2004, 08:53 PM

I use a DSR-300, PD150, & PC110. Each have their places and I wouldn't want to be without any of them. Love the 110 on a boom! Very little wind effects with it among other pluses.

Law Tyler · February 9th, 2004, 06:21 PM

Hey Bill, haven't you consider getting some bigger batteries like BP-M100? Allegedly 250% of BP-L40. Very tempting.

Bill Pryor · February 9th, 2004, 08:48 PM

No, I'm happy having more smaller batteries. The only times I've had to shoot for a run longer than the battery lasts is usually in the studio, and I use AC. However, if I had it to do over again, I'd spend a little more and get the IDX nestable ones. You can stack two if you need to.

February 7th, 2004, 12:50 PM	#17
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Thanks for the link, Doug. I'm guessing that what they did, then, is up the CCD sensitivity and then drop the overall gain so that at equivalent exposures, the new camera exhibits less noise, not a brighter image. I cannot find a Sony reference to the 'not-a-new-CCD' comments so new CCD it is. What I find interesting is that they elected to not give us a brighter image but an image with lower noise. Making certain that the camera will still beat the DSR-300 and 370 (don't know about the 390) in low light situations because of the lower noise figure. My 150 and 300 don't intercut at the lowest possible light levels because the noise of the 300 is WAY more than the 150. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

February 8th, 2004, 01:36 PM	#20
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	BTW, I'm expecting that a 270 will be introduced at NAB. I have no insider information but it seems to follow, doesn't it? __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

February 8th, 2004, 05:50 PM	#21
Jun Galinato Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Auburn, Washington Posts: 231	So what's the upgrade from 250 aside from 1 lux and the LCD display? Nice if they put a mechanical zoom and focus. Another nice upgrade is a true progressive mode at 30P, not like 15P. __________________ Sony Z7U, Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 24-105 F4L, Canon 70-200 F2.8L, Canon 580 EXII, Zoom H2.

February 8th, 2004, 08:53 PM	#23
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	I use a DSR-300, PD150, & PC110. Each have their places and I wouldn't want to be without any of them. Love the 110 on a boom! Very little wind effects with it among other pluses. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 7th, 2004, 03:28 AM	#16
Doug Okamoto Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bellevue, Washington Posts: 145	<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : Doug, I read that in a Sony press release. It could have been wrong info but they were very specific that the Optical Block had not changed and the improvements were downstream in the image processing bits. From what I've seen in comparisons between the 150 and the 170, the difference is only in the level of noise present in the image. The 170 image is not lighter as you would expect if the CCDs actually got more sensitive. All Sony claims is that the noise floor is lower and that allows them to SPEC the camera at 1 Lux. -->>> Hey Mike, I found this http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/ModelInfo?m=0&sm=0&p=2&sp=11&id=71949 which is part of why the water was muddied for me on this issue. The web page really makes it sound like the chips are new but I also read this "Yoshi Nishimura, Camcorder Product Manager for Sony stated "The CCD specifications are the same, the only difference is that we improved the sensitivity of the CCD itself. The improvement was made by improving the process in making the CCD... Since we've been making the CCD for more than a couple of years, the CCD factory was able to improve the sensitivity so that we can change our low light capability from 2 lux to 1 lux." This excerpt is from http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-dcr-vx2100-announcement-10_07_03.htm So I guess the only conclusion I can make now is that the CCD's in the PD170 have been "tweeked" with the Advanced HAD technology to increase signal to noise ratio and sensitivity. Is this a valid conclusion? Thanks Mike, and the rest of you for helping me get this clear in my head (I think at least...!) Doug

February 7th, 2004, 02:25 PM	#18
Doug Okamoto Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bellevue, Washington Posts: 145	No problem Mike, you made me really look into this issue instead of taking in the company rhetoric. It all depends on how you split the hairs (and apparently Sony wants it both ways!) It's an old chip with a 'little bit' of enhancement. So is it really new or not? It all depends on how you look at it. I think that Sony didn't increase the brightness of the CCD so that it wouldn't tick off the 'big boys' that bought their 390L's and 570WSL's. Still keeping the camera in the "prosumer" market but making it so that the ENG boys would love it. I happen to love it. 90% of what I do is without enhanced lighting and even the DVX100a doesn't come close in minimal lighting. I'm just waiting until NAB to pick up mine. Just wondering what Sony will do with the DSR250... Doug

February 7th, 2004, 08:38 PM	#19
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	250? Good question. Question is what are some of us gonna do if Sony discontinued the 250? Getting used to the shoulder-mount, what is the next choice? $10k is too steep, no matter how good the 370 is. In fact, 250's 2LUX is more than enough for wedding.

February 8th, 2004, 07:24 PM	#22
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I went through the same comparisons when I got a DSR250 about 3 or so years ago. There were several reasons I got the 250 over the 150 (now 170). First was because it was a shoulder mount camera, second it has the standard 801 series high res viewfinder used on other professional Sony cameras, third, it uses full size cassettes, and fourth it uses the same batteries, so I could share the batteries and charger from the DSR500. Having said that, on occasion there is a situation in which I would like to have a PD150/170. If you remove the lens hood from the 150, it looks more like a consumer camera, and you can wander around and get hand held shots with no hassle. And, it's easy to mount the camera, for example, from a lighting grid to shoot straight down on something. You can also stick it on a beanbag between the steering wheel and windshield of a car and get a shot looking straight back at the driver. So there are good reasons to have a smaller camera too. On the other hand, it's easier to get steadier hand held shots with a shoulder mount camera, in most cases. One of the posts above mentioned the fact that the 250 uses professional batteries, which I consider a positive thing, but others might consider that negative. I have 6 BPL40's, which cost about $280 apiece, and the charger was about $550. I need that many for an all day shoot without power with the DSR500. But, the DSR250 can get by all day with just two batteries. It really doesn't require much power compared to most other cameras I've used. Another positive thing about the smaller 170 is that you can use it with the cheaper stabilizing and jib rigs because of its lighter weight. However, when you compare the 250 to a camera like the DSR500/570, it is significantly lighter and you can drop down from the heavier duty stabilizers, though not as far down as you can with the smaller camera. In a perfect world a guy could have both the 150/170 and the 250. But if you have to pick one, the only real answer is that it depends on what you do most of the time and what you need.

February 9th, 2004, 06:21 PM	#24
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Hey Bill, haven't you consider getting some bigger batteries like BP-M100? Allegedly 250% of BP-L40. Very tempting.

February 9th, 2004, 08:48 PM	#25
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	No, I'm happy having more smaller batteries. The only times I've had to shoot for a run longer than the battery lasts is usually in the studio, and I use AC. However, if I had it to do over again, I'd spend a little more and get the IDX nestable ones. You can stack two if you need to.