Steve Roffler
March 30th, 2004, 02:47 AM
The DVC30 has been reviewed at Camcorderinfo.com
http://www.camcorderinfo.com
http://www.camcorderinfo.com
View Full Version : AG-DVC30 review Steve Roffler March 30th, 2004, 02:47 AM The DVC30 has been reviewed at Camcorderinfo.com http://www.camcorderinfo.com Frank Granovski March 30th, 2004, 03:57 AM Thanks! It's on their main page? Never mind. I just went there, and as usual, Robin's site crashed my browser. Steve Roffler March 30th, 2004, 06:28 AM Yes, It's on the main page with a link to the in depth review here: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/panasonic-ag-dvc30-camcorder-review.htm I have never had a problem with their site. Of course, I have all popups turned off. Tommy Haupfear March 30th, 2004, 06:36 AM When compared to the DCR-VX2100, the AG-DVC30 produces better images overall, but this is to be expected because those cameras feature 1/3 inch CCDs whereas the AG-DVC30 has ¼ inch CCDs. So much for proofreading! I also wish there weren't statements about the DVC30 being better in low light than the GL2 without so much as one frame for comparison. Frank Granovski March 30th, 2004, 06:49 AM Brilliant! Let me correct that. When compared with the DCR-VX2100, the AG-DVC30 produces better images overall, even though the VX2100 has slightly larger CCDs. Or did the writer mean the VX2100 produces better images overall. :-)) David Hurdon March 30th, 2004, 07:19 AM As a Sony user, I like this quote from the article: "When compared to the excellent Sony DCR-VX2100 in low light performance, the AG-DVC30 produced images that were darker, but it was just as sharp. The DCR-VX2100 however shoots much better in low light. The DCR-VX2100 is all around a better camcorder offering better manual control and better optics." David Hurdon Justin Boyle March 30th, 2004, 07:52 AM get out of this forum!!!! no just kidding. looking for trouble saying that in here. i would bet that you are right but you don't have to bring it up. i bet there are things that the pana is good for though. one of them is that i bet it has a much sharper picture. my mx-500 has a sharper image then the 2000 and it shows more detail Justin David Hurdon March 30th, 2004, 07:59 AM Justin, I actually didn't realize I was in a Panasonic forum! I'm so used to getting whatever new posts there are since I last visited that I look at threads versus their homes. Certainly intended no disrespect, nor a flame war on whose hardware is better. I'll read more carefully next time. David Hurdon Justin Boyle March 30th, 2004, 08:08 AM no worries just having fun just a note if you notice the last couple of lines in the low light performance section they have corrected themselves. perhaps they stuffed this section and not the other:) after a quick browse seems like a good camera. when is it coming to australia Justin Steve Roffler March 30th, 2004, 08:49 AM I have to admit that I am a Sony guy too. I recently got the pdx10 but was seriously considering waiting fot the DVC30. Although the DVC30 looks nice, the 16:9 capability of the pdx10 finally sealed it for me. Also, Sony rules in Taiwan. It's not easy to get Panasonic and the models they do have are Japanese (maybe better but Japanese menus). Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 12:26 AM look i have to admit that if i wasn't bothered about spending money on a cam and i still wanted a consumer camera the vx-2000/2100 would be it. That said i am a great fan of the mx-500 because i own one so at the moment i hang out in the pana camp. Unfortunately pana, canon and other makers haven't got the low light capabilities of the sony. However i don't think that the 950 is much better then the 953 with low light. well not enough to warrent the extra you have to spend on one. I believe that the 953 has better 16:9 and also gives a much sharper picture. It also has a lot more manual controls so in my view is a better camera regardless of price;. I guess the reason i am saying this is that i really wonder why people always talk about how they would like the 950/pdx10 because of the superior 16:9. The mx-500/953 is cheaper smaller and has more to offer so why doesn't it get the same praise. of course the only thing the pana doesn't have the the pdx-10 is the dv-cam and xlr sound but for a lot less it isn't much of a loss. What views does everyone else have. Just another note, in my experience the pana forums are a lot more helpful then the canon forum. i haven't had much to do with the others though. Justin Frank Granovski March 31st, 2004, 02:44 AM The first miniDV cam I ever used was a Panasonic, and first impressions last. :-)) Tommy Haupfear March 31st, 2004, 06:51 AM I guess the reason i am saying this is that i really wonder why people always talk about how they would like the 950/pdx10 because of the superior 16:9. Actually, its the PDX10 (not TRV950) that has a superior 16:9 mode compared to any other native 4:3 cam under $5000. The PDX10 is capable of widening the angle of view and suffers absolutely no resolution loss in its anamorphic process. This illustration explains how the PDX10 achieves its 16:9 image. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg This is the difference between PDX10 and TRV950 16:9 modes. http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10/ The problem is that I don't think that the PDX10 is twice the cam as the DV953 or GS100 as the price would lead you to believe. As a side note there has been some controversy as to whether the DV953/MX5000 has the same 16:9 mode as the MX500. This page linked below (from Panasonic Japan) references that the MX5000 has a 1.3x vertical zoom in its 16:9 mode compared to just 1.04x in the GS100. Vertical zoom is applied to anything less than 480 (of the 720x480 of NTSC DV) while going thru the cam's anamorphic process and eventually written to tape. Panasonic Japan references a 28% difference between the MX5000 and GS100 widescreen modes. The issue is that there is a Panasonic PowerPoint presentation (of unknown origin) that clearly shows that the PAL MX500's 16:9 mode suffers no resolution loss by the hands of vertical zoom. Of all the sub $3000 3CCD Panasonics the GS100 is the only cam that I know of that widens the angle of view like the PDX10 and others with a HQ widescreen mode. http://panasonic.jp/dvc/gs100k/ki_wide.html Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 06:57 AM why does the camera necessarily have to create a wider view? i'm not having a dig but just want to understand better. surely if there is no resolution loss then it shouldn't be a problem should it and in fact it would have proper 16:9 Justin Frank Granovski March 31st, 2004, 06:57 AM The issue is that there is a Panasonic PowerPoint presentation (of unknown origin)....Tommy, that's from Panasonic AU. Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 06:58 AM also were you saying that the mx-500 is better or worse then the 953/mx-5000 or ntsc versions Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 07:07 AM thanks for those links tommy. I didn't know that the 950 and pdx-10 were different. i just thought that the pdx-10 just offered dv-cam and xlr but obviously not. what i am getting from these links though is that it looks as though the focal on the lense fills up the whole ccd but the effective is not all of this and when in 16:9 mode it just widens the boundaries rather then cropping the top and bottom. does this mean that the 950 will have a wider angle then the pdx10 becuase it uses the whole ccd. just a thought. It is just a bit of a pity that the gs-100 info wasn't so clear and logical as the pdx10. It would probably help if i could read the writing. Tommy, assuming that the pana aus powerpoint document is true would you say that the mx-500 is as good as the pdx-10 for 16:9. Justin Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 07:10 AM heh i think we have to be careful in here this being a pana forum and all. sony users might come in here and think they have the edge over them. Lets just assume that the mx-500 is a better cam then the 950/pdx10 and the the dvc30 is better then the vx-2100. :). we do have one thing though. sony doesn't have a consumer cam with true progressive scan and 24p. hahaahhahha. we still have the edge:) Justin Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 07:45 AM heh just for reference has anyone used the eia resolution chart to check the vertical resolution in bot 16:9 and 4:3 in any of these cameras discussed because i think that this is the best way of comparing both modes. I would assume that if there is no resolution loss then 16:9 is good. maybe if both the pdx-10 and 953 are tested, the better of the two would have higher vertical resolution. I am on my way to check one site i know to have resolution grabs on the mx-5000 and the 950. I know the 950 does not have the same 16:9 as the pdx-10 but it is worth a look. Justin Justin Boyle March 31st, 2004, 07:55 AM i don't know how to read the res charts properly so is someone able to analyse them and tell me the results. http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/0208_3CCD.html Justin Tommy Haupfear March 31st, 2004, 08:55 AM also were you saying that the mx-500 is better or worse then the 953/mx-5000 or ntsc versions MX500 appears to be better with no loss of resolution whereas Panasonic Japan leads us to believe that there is resolution loss with the MX5000 (and presumably NTSC DV953). I have Japanese friends at work who have read the page to me. Lets just assume that the mx-500 is a better cam then the 950/pdx10 I've owned the DV953 and PDX10 and there is a quite a difference in their 16:9 modes even if you ignore the fact that the PDX10 gives a wider viewing angle. Maybe it would be better to say the MX500/DV953 is a better value for your dollar. Tommy, assuming that the pana aus powerpoint document is true would you say that the mx-500 is as good as the pdx-10 for 16:9. I prefer the wider shot of the PDX10 but I love the look of the DV953 with frame mode. Of course my budget usually makes my mind up and since they are both quality widescreen cams I would opt for the less expensive cam. Tommy Haupfear March 31st, 2004, 09:03 AM Here are some 16:9 frame grabs from my PDX10, DV953, and GS100 DV953 16:9 and frame mode http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/DV953wide2.jpg PDX10 16:9 interlaced http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/Bird.jpg GS100 16:9 Pro Cinema http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ProCinema1.jpg Guy Bruner March 31st, 2004, 07:50 PM There are and have been EIA resolution charts of the DV953 in the Gallery on my website. If there aren't enough, just say so and I'll post whatever you want. Also, I have a PPT slide that duplicates the slide on Frank's website but for the MX5000. I got it from another website, but not Panasonic. It is not the same color scheme. Forgery? There has been so much conflicting information on this posted, I will only believe what I see or can measure for myself. Peter Jefferson April 1st, 2004, 10:48 PM breaking news... here in oz the dvc30 will retail for about $4500 bit pricey, but i can find cheaper street prices... bout 3700... WAHHHHHH!!!!!!! i bought my bloody mx500 for $3600... now THATS what pisses me off.. prices.... :( Frank Granovski April 1st, 2004, 11:52 PM here in oz the dvc30 will retail for about $4500 bit pricey, but i can find cheaper street prices...bout 3700.Deja vu? Isn't that what the MX300A was going for 4 or 5 years back? I guess that 1/4" chips go for a premium Down-Under (and up here in the Americas). :-)) Justin Boyle April 2nd, 2004, 07:48 PM well i wouldn't really call it a premium. I think the vx-2100 is retailing around 7000 and the mx-500 has a reatail price of 3800 so that considered i don't think it is too bad at all. Unfortunately we pay a fair bit more on that kinda gear then you guys. Justin Frank Granovski April 2nd, 2004, 08:34 PM If indeed the MX500 is retailing for 3800 AU, then that's more or less what the MX300 was going for; and the $4500 DVC30 price tag isn't that much more. But the trouble is, the DVC30 comes in 2 pieces, so if you want both pieces it's going to cost a lot more tha $4500 AU, making the 1/4" CCD'd MX300 the better deal for the history books. :-)) ------------------------------------------ I've now lost interest in GS400 specs. If anyone wants a good deal on a Pana 3-chip with 1/4" CCDs, contact Allan for those MX3000's he found. A better deal may be found on e-bay, if you think you can handle the risk. :-)) Peter Jefferson April 3rd, 2004, 08:22 PM thing is, i can import a spanking new dvx100 (not A) for 3500 US (inc taxes, shipping etc ec... ) makes u wonder... Justin Boyle April 4th, 2004, 12:53 AM That is fine but just consider how much you could bring the dvc30 in for. I could bring the 953 in for under 1500 aus so that considered it would be very tempting. however if you do this, you will not recieve a warranty so for me i would prefer to buy a second hand cam without warranty then a new cam without warranty for the same price because it is a known fact that if something is gonna go wrong with ur cam it is more then likely to happen in the first few months while it is still under warranty. If you are happy to take that risk well then that is great. I am a little on edge here. i don't know if i would or wouldn't import. My brother just bought a 70-200 nikon lens for is d100 and saved a hell of a lot of money because he got it from us and it is on his way. Justin |