Why is the DVX so expensive still?


With newer, and better cameras (even HD) coming out every day. Why is the DVX still so expensive? I was looking a buying one thinking the price would of dropped. For the price of a DVX you can get a Canon A1 a few dollars more.

What gives??

Because it rules

John is so right!

Because you get what you pay for.

id probably prefer a dvx to most of sony's prosumer HD cams like the fx-7 and 1

The DVX also just dropped in price by $1,000. It's now $2995 retail; it used to be $3995.

My 100a paid for itself in rentals in about 2 years. One of my favorite minidv cams.

I think you raise a very good point Adam. No denying that the DVX is a beautifully built camera with a really cracking lens, and it allows more 'human-fiddling' than anything near its price. Wonderful pictures, ace sound, lovely ergonomics.

But in the real world its time is over, in the same way as the PD170 has had its day. 16:9 is absolutely Here&Now, and faffing about with Panasonic's expensive anamorphic is not the answer in my view. It's hard enough composing as it is, without having to mentally compensate for tall thin people getting out of elliptical wheeled cars.

As you say, the Canon A1 is a few dollars more. Smaller side-screen but that's about it. In a spec race the lens has twice the zoom, the chips are 16:9 and the HDV option is streets ahead of DV. It's 5 years younger too, so the gain-up mode is almost grainless against the DVX.

tom.

We use various cameras at my job, one being the canon xha1 . It's a great camera but in my opionion I still prefer the panasonic dvx100a or b over it when it comes to 24p . Thats just my opionion, only plus about canon is the hd of course, good for a main camera shot for events like football or concerts to capture better details. Still have to fiddle with my panasonic dvx100a some more though that I just got to suggest, so far I'm impressed.