My Panasonic NV-MX300 suffers from the infamous "glitch" problem. However, my dealer is unable to help me get the camera to a service center which can do the upgrade, and my warranty is running out.

I am a semi-pro video producer. A short documentary I made was recently shown on national cable television here. Unfortunately, because of the "glitch" problem, I had to ask someone else to edit my stuff, and I was less than happy with the final results.

My dealer is very nice, has agreed that this "glitch" problem is not my problem, and is now offering me an "upgrade" to a Sony PDX-10. I do not know yet whether I will have to pay a price difference. But I want to get a feel for what people here think about this.

What do you think? Should I take this offer? Or should I ask for an "upgrade" to the Panasonic MX500 instead? Or should I keep the MX300 (I love my camera) and take care of the "glitch" problem myself?

I am already aware of the following:
- PDX-10 is basically a "pro" version of the TRV-950.
- PDX-10 does not provide separate adjustment of iris and shutter speed, and does not indicate numbers in the display.
- PDX-10 does not support LP recording, but does offer DVCAM.
- MX500 is less sensitive than MX300 under low light conditions.
- MX500 is being sold at lower price levels than the MX300 was, and is also cheaper than the PDX-10.
- PDX-10 provides spot-metering, which, as a semi-pro SLR user (Nikon equipment) I would appreciate quite a lot.
- Some people here do not consider the MX500 an"upgrade" compared to the MX300.
- Features like MPEG4, stills, Bluetooth, built-in flash, etc. are not that important to me, as I rarely use my video camera for stills or low-quality video.

Additional (leading) questions:
- MX300/MX500 have "zebra" feedback for overexposure. Does the PDX-10 have a similar feature?
- Can the PDX-10 display a color bar (important for calibration when making (semi) pro videos) like the MX300?
- The MX300/MX500 Leica lenses are high quality compared to most other consumer level video cameras, and it shows in the video. How does the PDX-10 compare?

I'd appreciate any feedback on this.

Procedural question: I posted this here because I own a MX300. Should I cross-post this in the Sony TRV-950/PDX-10 forum? Is cross-posting allowed?

Thanks,

Ariel

Perhaps contact stuartc@panasonic.co.au and ask him who you should contact to get the firmware upgraded. They must do it for you since you have the glitch.

The PDX10 and MX500 are very good cams. But in some ways the MX300 is better. (There are pro's and con's for each of these cams.)

Don't know anything about the MX500, but can help a bit with the PDX-10 questions since I have one...

<<<-- Originally posted by Ariel Hershler :
- PDX-10 is basically a "pro" version of the TRV-950.

True, but a couple significant upgrades you don't mention. First, it does "real" 16:9 by using a wider area on its CCD's. I've heard that some of the Panasonic's also do this but am not clear on which models. Also, I believe the CCD's are a bit larger on the PDX-10. Second, the PDX-10 has some pro audio features, like XLR inputs with phantom power and a detachable mike. But if you don't want to use them they can be removed from the camera, making it smaller and it still will record from tiny builtin stereo mikes. Third, the PDX-10 has a nice relatively high resolution black and white viewfinder (like the PD-150) which makes it easier to focus.

- PDX-10 does not provide separate adjustment of iris and shutter speed, and does not indicate numbers in the display.

Not completely true. You can adjust both iris and shutter speed, but you need to first push either the "exposure" or "shutter" button, then use the same thumbwheel to adjust. The shutter speed is indicated in the finder but not the f-stop. Instead you have a sort of bargraph indicator. This bothered me at first, but I got used to it pretty quick when someone pointed out that the center of the readout is f4. In terms of what you can adjust, it's the same as the PD-150 however the readout and physical location of the dial(s) are different.

- PDX-10 does not support LP recording, but does offer DVCAM.

True

- PDX-10 provides spot-metering, which, as a semi-pro SLR user (Nikon equipment) I would appreciate quite a lot.

To me this is a clever but pretty useless feature IMO. I always use manual exposure and zebra patterns anyway. But if you want, you can use the menu on the touch screen to select either spot focus or spot meter. Then you simply point to whatever you want to focus or expose. I guess this has its uses, but I haven't really explored them. You have to go through a few nested menus to access the functions. I think the zebra pattern will give you much better exposure feedback, but that's just a personal preference. The spot focus is sort of interesting however, although I haven't used it. Maybe it could be a way to get a rack focus effect easily? You would certainly need to have the camera securely mounted on a tripod though, since you need to poke the LCD ;-)

- MX300/MX500 have "zebra" feedback for overexposure. Does the PDX-10 have a similar feature?

Yes, 70 or 100 IRE

- Can the PDX-10 display a color bar (important for calibration when making (semi) pro videos) like the MX300?

Yes, via the menus. But they are full screen color bars, not SMTPE. However, using the memory stick and mix functions you can upload SMPTE color bars and record them to tape if you like. Somewhere on the net I've seen these, although they were intended for the PD-150. Or you could save them as a JPEG from you NLE and copy to the memory stick.

- The MX300/MX500 Leica lenses are high quality compared to most other consumer level video cameras, and it shows in the video. How does the PDX-10 compare?

I have no yardstick to measure this, but am happy with the PDX-10, especially in 16:9 mode which actually seems sharper. If you look at Scott Billups' website at http://pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html; he says " the glass on this little monster is the best of the entire sony miniDV line". You can also look at some test shots I did at http://greenmist.com/pdx10

Hope this helps with your decision.

Panasonic MX500, MX5000, and DV953 all offer the same "enhanced" widescreen mode like the PDX10 but its still not true 16:9 chips. Widescreen was a major factor for my cam purchase.

I like the PDX10 but not the price difference. If you can get the PDX10 "upgrade" for free then thats the way to go. Otherwise you might get an even swap for a MX500 and there is no shame in that.

Explanation of "enhanced widescreen" mode.

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2238868.jpg

Tommy is correct that none of these cameras have true 16:9 chips, but they do have higher resolution CCD's that allow the full 480 vertical lines when shooting anamorphic 16:9, unlike other prosumer camcorders. To get the "real deal" you'll need to spend over $10,000 more for something like a DSR-570...

There's a brochure on Sony's website that explains this and also lists the other features of the PDX-10 at http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/docs/brochures/dsrpdx10final.pdf

If I understand that link that Tommy posted, then there is a bit of a difference in the way the PDX-10 treats 16:9. When you switch from 4:3 into 16:9 the field of view actually gets wider on the PDX-10 (see the "angle of view" illustration on page 2 of the Sony brochure). It doesn't appear that this happens on the MX camcorders... or am I misinterpreting the Panasonic example? It would appear that the width stays the same but the top and bottom are cropped off. However this would differ from other prosumer cameras in that the CCD's are higher resolution and presumably could still offer at least 480 vertical lines as opposed to only 360 like the PD-150 or XL-1s.

Also, if you look at the Sony example, there appear to be more horizontal pixels in use when you switch to 16:9 mode. This fits with the test results from my website which compares the VX-2000 and PDX-10. In 4:3 mode the test chart appears slightly sharper on the VX-2000 (horizontal resolution) however in 16:9 mode the PDX-10 offers comparable horizontal resolution, and much better vertical resolution.

Darn, that is good news on the PDX10!

I made a photo similar to the DV953/MX5000 for the PDX10 from the PDF you posted. This is important info and will definitely benefit others. Thanks!

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2474343.jpg

Wish I would have hooked up with the PDX10 but I'm just happy to have widescreen with no resolution loss, but would have preferred that along with the wider viewing angle!

Thanks very much everybody for the interesting info and opinions. I will check out both the PDX-10 as well as the MX500, and will let you know here about my decision.

Thanks again,

Ariel

Hi, Ariel.

Sorry to hear about your dealer unable to help you with the firmware upgrade to fix the glitch problem. That's terrible!

Maybe you want to get a real cheap MiniDV cam that supports DV-IN & DV-OUT, and use that as your MiniDV recording & playback deck.

Just so that you prolong the life of your expensive cam's heads, tape transport etc.

Besides, if you get one of those Panasonic MX-8 (1 CCD but very good picture, comparable to MX300's 3CCD) then you can have a backup camera in case things go wrong, or Camera #2 for an additional viewpoint.

Hi, Ariel.

Sorry to hear about your dealer being unable to get your MX300 firmware upgraded to solve your glitch issue. What a shame! Bad for the dealer, actually.

Perhaps you want to consider getting a cheap MiniDV cam so that it can be your:
1) Recording & Playback deck for MiniDV tapes. - less wear & tear on your expensive cam's heads, tape transport etc. If this cheap MiniDV cam spoils, then it won't hurt so much.

2) Backup camera in case something happens to your precious camera

3) 2nd camera providing you with another angle.


If you get the Panasonic MX-8 (PAL) it's 1CCD but the picture quality is very good, very 3CCD like, matches the MX300 well. It also does better stills quality and low light with less grain.

Thanks Steven, for these ideas. My dealer also proposed something similar: he is willing to sell me a miniDV tape drive for half price (US $ 1,000 instead of US $ 2,000, I don't know particulars of the drive yet). But spending this kind of money to solve my glitch problem seemed a bit steep to me, especially since, if he was able to do the firmware upgrade, my glitch problem should have been solved at zero cost to me.

I don't know how much any of these cheap(er) cameras go for, but the idea of an "upgrade" to the PDX10 or MX500 was that I woulddn't have to spend a lot of money.

Thanks,

Ariel

Ariel, e-mail Stuart. He can get a Pana contact for you so that you can send in your cam for the firmware upgrade. He's off now for a couple of days (weekend).

Frank, you provided me with Stuart's email address a while back (thanks again!). I did email him at that time, and he provided me with an address in the UK (that was the closest he could find).

I later found an address in the Netherlands (I am Dutch), which I posted to the appropriate thread here.

However, I am hesitant to send my camera abroad. It has several disadvantages: I would be without camera for a while, something may go wrong during the transfer there and/or back, and the camera may get back to me and need more calibration, in which case I would have to send it away again.

If I were travelling to a place with Panasonic PAL service centers I would take my camera and go there myself (Stuart wrote that the actual upgrade only takes about 15 minutes), but I have been going to the US without the ability to stop over in Europe. Now my warranty is running out, and my dealer wants to try to do something for me. If these offers he is making turn out to be no good, I will wait patiently until I go somewhere where they can do the firmware upgrade competently.

Thanks again for your suggestion,

Ariel

Well, I wish you luck with whatever you decide. I was nervous as well about sending my MX300 to Australia (from Vancouver, Canada). But I did, and both my cam and I survived. (Mind you, the waiting probably drained 2 years of life from me.)

Your only choice is the PDX10 really especially if your into documentary work. If you have used the mx300 then the 500 is more of a down grade not an up grade.

Phil, can you elaborate a bit on why you feel this way? I am slowly coming round to the same conclusion. For example, carefully comparing the spec's of the MX500 and the PDX10, I found that the MX500 only has a 10x optical zoom, whereas the MX300 and the PDX10 both have a 12x optical zoom. For me, this is an important difference. I hope I haven't missed any other such differences.

Thanks,

Ariel

Ariel, The PDX may be better in some ways but it'll cost you a lot more money; the DSR570 is better than the PDX10 in almost every way but it'll cost you a lot more money. The MX500 is the poor man's pro cam. The rest is all up to the skills of the shooter.

I think the original premise of this thread was that due to a problem the dealer was offering an upgrade to either an MX500 or PDX10 at a similar cost...

No, the premise was that he couldn't get the MX300's firmware upgraded locally.

Sorry, that's how I interpreted this:

<<<-- Originally posted by Ariel Hershler :
My dealer is very nice, has agreed that this "glitch" problem is not my problem, and is now offering me an "upgrade" to a Sony PDX-10. I do not know yet whether I will have to pay a price difference.

[stuff deleted]

Should I take this offer? Or should I ask for an "upgrade" to the Panasonic MX500 instead?

[stuff deleted]

I don't know how much any of these cheap(er) cameras go for, but the idea of an "upgrade" to the PDX10 or MX500 was that I woulddn't have to spend a lot of money.
Ariel -->>>

Whatever... seems like Ariel needs to find out what the upgrade cost is and then determine if he feels it's worth it.

The firmware upgrade is free. The cost is with shipping. However, sometimes Pana will pay for shipping as well, both ways.

Quite simply Ariel picture quality, there is another posting somewere in the mx forum that I wrote in the sony forum and was posted here by Frank Granovski, this posting outlines my opinions on the 500 but in a nutshell the 500s image has too much grain and I dont just mean indoors with a 60 watt bulb. If image quality is important on not so bright days forhet the 500.

I tried the PV-DV953 on a dark day with drizzle. The colors were great! However, inside the coffee shop the light was dim, and the colors became B&W. Still sharp, though, for what it's worth. Perhaps the PAL version needs more light?

My opinion is, the zoom factor 10x vs 12x shouldn't be such an issue. Is there a great difference of the 2x?

Depending on your needs, you may find the 2x crucial, or just academic.

If you shoot a lot of football matches, wildlife videography, or news events or concerts where they like to stick all the cameramen in a parapet at the back of the room / hall :( :(, then even 12x wouldn't do the trick.

Maybe 12x would JUST manage... but for "insurance" / more leeway in case the subject is too far & you need an even closer zoom, you would still bring along a teleconverter of 1.5x, plus your tripod, of course.
=====
Please try hard to fix your MX300 via firmware upgrade. The latest firmware 1.6 will also fix your stabilizer algorithm so that you can hand hold the MX300 better past 6x zoom.

The MX300 is a great second cam, it's size is so much more compact & you can bring it along to shoot video anywhere, where-else the Sony's are big & too pro looking sometimes you get stopped by the guards...

In low light the MX500 will not perform too well compared to the MX300. Can you live with that? I can't - especially since I need my cams to work ALL the time, not some of the time (only when the sun shines?). A waste of money & opportunities, I'd say. I can't be changing to another cam every time the lights are too dim.

Unless I get a Sony VX2000 - it performs EXCELLENTLY in dim light, but the cam needs MANUAL FOCUSING in dim light (else the autofocus starts "hunting" - ugh!). I've don't know the PDX-10's performance in low light. Anybody?

The MX300 isn't the best cam in dim light, with grain at 9db to 18db gain, but at least it doesn't go "blind" so fast in dim light, & you can still "see something" even if it's just shadowy outlines, and the autofocus still works where the Sony's autofocus have given up & starts hunting. To me, the faults above are acceptable, seeing that the MX300 just 1/4" CCDs, to beat the faults you really need 1/3" CCDs or single CCD vidcams like the Panasonic MX-8.
=====
Even though I had my firmware upgraded, I still felt that I needed a second DV cam for the second angle, and just in case my MX300 failed, and I certainly wanted the heads to last as much as possible.

I think that tape drive for US$1000 will be essential if:
1) you do transfer lots & LOTS of DV tape. The heads on those tape drives would be pro type, with better heads & tape transport mechanisms, compared to a vidcam's.
2) you've got lots of money to spare / can you justify this price : performance & reliability vs price?
3) you feel you've got to impress people ;) ;)
Thus, you may want to save the US$1000 and get a second cam.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven Khong : My opinion is, the zoom factor 10x vs 12x shouldn't be such an issue. Is there a great difference of the 2x?

Depending on your needs, you may find the 2x crucial, or just academic.

If you shoot a lot of football matches, wildlife videography, or news events or concerts where they like to stick all the cameramen in a parapet at the back of the room / hall :( :(, then even 12x wouldn't do the trick.

Maybe 12x would JUST manage... but for "insurance" / more leeway in case the subject is too far & you need an even closer zoom, you would still bring along a teleconverter of 1.5x, plus your tripod, of course.
-->>>

Actually, the difference between 10x and 12x is not 2x, it is (12-10)/10 = 0.2x, which is why it is not very significant. Assuming the widest angle at 40mm, then 10x would be 400mm and 12x would be 480mm (in 35mm photography reckoning). Not exactly a large difference. But if you put a teleconvertor in front for 1.5x (I do that), then your 10x becomes 15x and my MX350's 12x becomes 18x. Now that is a large significance in zooming. Warning: you lose focusing speed and accuracy, and incoming light loss with convertors in front.

Still riding on this issue of zoom, not that the Mx300/350 is about 38mm at the widest, but the MX500 is about 42mm (all approximate, no hard numbers, but I have compared footage). The MX8 is about 35mm. Here, you'll find that in the widest angle the MX8 captures the most, followed by the MX300/350 while the MX500 has the narrowest view. An add-on wide angle convertor can help that (I use a 0.79x).

Steven thanks, those were excellent points.

While performance in low light is important to me, I also do a lot of trekking with my camera, and the VX2000 would be much harder to take along. The zoom range is important to me as well; I often use it to take shots of people (especially children) from further away so they notice me less or not at all (for this reason I also usually turn the red "on camera" light off so as not to alert subjects to the fact that the camera is rolling).

Yow, your point about the wide angle is well taken: I also need to film indoors with insufficient space to move around/back to frame what I need. Thanks!

Here is a summary of what I have gathered so far (not only from this thread). The features that are important to me I have marked with a *:

MX300 MX500 PDX10
manual iris control* yes yes yes (no numbers in display)
manual shutter speed* yes yes yes
manual focus* yes yes yes
manual focus ring* good good terrible
zoom lever* nice OK too sensitive
progressive/frame mode yes yes no
16:9 not "true" "true" "true" with wider angle of view
low light performance* reasonable less ?
LP mode yes yes no
DVCAM no no yes
zoom* 12x 10x 12x
wide angle* sufficient for me (38 mm) less (42 mm) ?
picture quality* great good great
size* small smaller larger
balance* good good tips over
CCD size 1/4 1/6 1/4.7
tape loading bottom top top
optical stabilizer* OK better great
custom presets* no no yes
zebra* yes yes yes: 70 & 100 IRE
color bars* yes yes yes
lens make Leica Leica Sony
XLR* need BeachTech or similar yes (detachable)
viewfinder* color color B/W
LCD monitor 3 inch 3.5 inch 3.5 inch
spot meter* no no yes
spot focus no no yes
DV In with passthrough* yes yes yes

If I could me as bold as to ask all of you to check my summary and comment on:
a) inaccuracies
b) issues missing from the list altogether
c) disagreements with the above qualitative assessments

Thank you all for your contributions. This forum is great!!

Ariel

A couple of things:

1) MX300 and MX500 start at 1/50th manual shutter & up. The PDX10 goes below 1/50th.

2) The MX300 viewfinder is 180K, the MX500's is lower resolution and has a smaller eye piece). The PDX10 also has a good viewfinder, plus B&W makes it easier to focus.

PDX10, because of special pixel arrangement has about 800 line horizontal tesolution on LCD and because of B/W viewfinder, it has about 500 lines there. DVX LCD and viewfinder is around 300 lines.

The PDX's LCD has 800 line resolution? Better than a monitor? You sure?

I don't have my owners manual here at work, but the brochure on Sony's website says the LCD is 1120x220 (246,400 pixels). It says the BW viewfinder has 180,000 pixels. See http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/docs/brochures/dsrpdx10final.pdf

Yesterday I went to my dealer to look at the Sony PDX10 (PAL) he is offering me instead of my Panasonic MX300. As promised, here are my impressions (sorry for the long post; I hope I am not boring any members):

First of all, a few things which I don't remember seeing mentioned here or anywhere else (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. The PDX10 gives the impression of being built in a more solid way.
2. The PDX10 is quite a bit larger.
3. The PDX10's menu system is much nicer than the MX300: when browsing through the top level choices (which on the PDX10 are displayed with icons on the left hand side of the screen), one can see the "contents" of each menu item to the right, so it is much easier to navigate.
4. In my opinion, some buttons are more ergonomically placed on the PDX10 than on the MX300.

A few issues which I had already mentioned in my comparison table in this thread, but which require elaboration or correction:
5. The manual focus ring on the PDX10 is indeed terrible. Most serious photo- and videographers were taught and are used to manually focus by first quickly finding the approx. place where everything is in focus, then going slowly beyond that point and back again to be sure you actually have the best position. On the MX300, this works very nicely. On the PDX10, it is IMPOSSIBLE! The position CHANGES depending on the speed with which you turn the manual focus ring! Or at least, that's the impression I got when trying it out for myself (at maximum zoom).
6. The zoom lever on the PDX10, on the other hand, works very nicely. It seems this is a totally different button than the one on the Sony TRV-950 (the prosumer version of the PDX10). I still prefer the zoom lever on the MX300, though.
7. Low light performance: See detailed description of video tests below.
8. The PDX10 is indeed harder to hold, and tips to the front and the left, while the MX300 is nicely balanced.
9. The PDX10's B&W viewfinder is a pleasure to use, but except for it being B&W, is not significantly sharper than the (excellent) color viewfinder on the MX300 (which the MX500 sadly lacks).
10. The PDX10's LCD is much larger, sharper and brighter than the MX300 LCD.
11. The Optical Image Stabilizer (OIS) of the PDX10 is much better than the OIS of the MX300. Note that my MX300 does not have the firmware upgrade 1.6 which is said to improve the OIS on the MX300. This is why at full zoom, the picture taken from the footage of the PDX10 looks much sharper than the same picture from the MX300 (see below).

Video performance:
All this is great, but in the end the most important question is: how does the PDX10 compare with the MX300 with regard to video quality?

I took my own tape (Panasonic mini DV Professional Master tape) and my own Panasonic MX300 with me. I took some video inside the shop, which was not very well illuminated by fluorescent light. I tried taking the same footage with both cameras. All footage was taken using DV (not DVCAM) and using all the automatic settings. I decided to use the automatic settings because even though I know how to use the manual settings on my MX300, I did not have time to experiment with the Sony PDX10. I later played back the tape on my MX300, connected to a large Sony monitor, and compared the footage simply by looking at it (I do not own any sophisticated video performance measuring equipment).

First of all, these are both excellent cameras, and any differences are very slight, may very well be subjective or a result of the individual units I used. The footage of both cameras looks great, sharp, no vignetting, no discernable noise, etc.

I used the "stills from tape" feature of the MX300 to take lower res. stills from the footage. Note that I did not edit, "balance" or otherwise touch these images, which is why, especially the "closeup" onces, are quite dark, which does not accurately represent the video footage itself. But I did not want to touch these images in any way, for obvious reasons.

When comparing very carefully, in my opinion, in general the picture from the MX300 is slightly sharper than from the PDX10, and the colors seem a little more natural. Also note the slight "halo" around the red-haired customer on the PDX10 footage (is this an artifact from the HAD CCD's?), and note the absence of "jaggies" in the PDX10 footage, as compared to the MX300:
PDX10 inside shop: http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/imga0057.jpg
MX300 inside shop: http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/imga0062.jpg

When fully zoomed in, the better OIS of the PDX10 is apparent:
PDX10 at full zoom (12x): http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/imga0059.jpg
MX300 at full zoom (12x): http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/imga0065.jpg

In a dark corner of the shop, with my dealer standing next to me to block out most of the light, I did a close up (you'll laugh at the object used...). Here it is quite apparent that the MX300 has the better low light performance: while the MX300's footage was still normally lit and the red came out nicely, on the PDX10 the footage was already quite dark and the red contained much more noise. Note that the still pictures are much darker than the actual footage; you can use them to compare to each other, but not to get an accurate impression of the brightness of the video footage.
PDX10 close-up: http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/imga0060.jpg
MX300 close-up: http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/imga0066.jpg

Using the "recording data" feature, I saw that while the MX300 utilized from 0dB to 8dB gain, the Sony used from 16dB to 18dB gain (the maximum) at the take inside the shop. At the close up, the MX300 reached 12dB while the Sony used 18dB (which is the maximum it had already needed at the better lit take inside the shop).

I still need to think all of this over, but right now I think I am not going to exchange my MX300 for a PDX10...

Please let me know what you think, and if you have any criticism of the way I compared these two cameras.

Ariel

Whooa! Thanks, Ariel! Nice review!

Boyd Ostroff: I don't have my owners manual here at work, but the brochure on Sony's website says the LCD is 1120x220 (246,400 pixels). It says the BW viewfinder has 180,000 pixels. See http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Profession...rpdx10final.pdf

The B/W viewfinder is rated 500 lines. It's right in the Sony brochure, as far as I remember.

The color viewfinder has 1120 horizontal pixels. That means approx. 800 horizontal resolution; a lot more than the format itself.

The Sony also keeps the pixels of all 3 CCDs precisely aligned. 3 1-meg chips produce 1 meg stills. Panasonic shifts the pixels to allow bigger resolution for stills. Their 3 800K-pixel CCDs are supposed to produce 3 meg stills. The precise CCD alignment of the Sony allows more accurate colors. This is the type of alignment that is used on CineAlta and Varicam cameras and probably on all late model pro camcorders. Canon XL1 and XL1s use the pixel shift because the pixel count on their older CCDs is low and if all pixels were aligned, you would get less resolution than the format itself. As far as I remember, the Canon is using 270K chips; 346K min. is what the DV format requires.

So the Sony has a lot more resolving LCD and viewfinder and the CCD chipset produces sharper colors. Plus the chipset is larger and the the light sensitivity is better (better low light performance). The Sony uses XLR mic jacks. The Sony and the Panasonic belong to different classes of cameras.

Ariel says: "8. The PDX10 is indeed harder to hold, and tips to the front and the left, while the MX300 is nicely balanced."

Just curious, are you really comparing apples to apples? Did the PDX-10 have the XLR box and mono mike attached? If so, then I don't think that's a fair comparison. You would need to attach an external mike and adaptor to the other other cameras as well. To be on a level playing field, take the XLR adaptor and mike off the PDX-10. It will still record with the built-in stereo mikes. I assume this is similar to what the Panasonics do. I would view the PDX-10's pro audio features as an "accessory" which is included with the camera, not an integral part. For most of my work I don't need audio, and have hardly ever used the PDX-10 with these accessories attached.

Also interested in your focus ring comments. I hate all these servo-ring setups, and am not particularly crazy about the PDX-10's either, but I don't find it much different from my VX-2000. If anything, seeing the focus distance in the viewfinder aids in the process. JMHO... obviously you need to pick the camera that best suits your needs and usage pattern, and you're fortunate to have a dealer that lets you do this sort of hands-on comparison.

Doh!

Here we go again..

Joseph, the 3CCD arguement is dead. The last thread about this has been locked and I really don't want that to happen to this one.

Your XL1(S) angle doesn't even hold true since the GL2 also uses Horizontal and Vertical Pixel shift and is a much newer cam with 410k pixels (380k effective).

What the---"The precise CCD alignment of the Sony allows more accurate colors." And what the hell does a higher resolution viewfinder have to do with capturing video on these TINY cams? Most of us don't use the vewfinders with these small hand-helds, unless, perhaps, we stick it on a tripod---like I'm going to do in an hour---but I'm going to be set up on the street, so I'm sure not going to stick my face in the cam to get run over.

These were just my 2 cents guys. If you do not understand what I explained, fine. We are obviously talking on a different wavelength.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : what the hell does a higher resolution viewfinder have to do with capturing video on these TINY cams? Most of us don't use the vewfinders with these small hand-helds -->>>

I wouldn't consider the BW finder a "deal breaker", but it is very nice and I find it useful to get focus. Most of my work is with a tripod. It's just another factor to consider when comparing camcorder A to camcorder B. In my case, I didn't set out to buy a "tiny cam"; I bought the PDX-10 because I needed good 16:9. I would have been even happier if this capability was available in a PD-150 form factor.

In the useless trivia dept, I was just booking some travel for a staff member and noticed that PDX is the airport code for Portland, Oregon....

For accurate manual focusing you need a viewfindwer or LCD with higher resolution than the format. On analog systems with analog viewfinders, this was not as critical. On digital systems with digital viewfinders it is a must.

Thanks very much everybody for your interesting replies. I will try to reply to some of them below.

Frank: thanks for the compliments, and PLEASE, don't get run over...

Joseph: regarding the viewfinder: I think you are confusing the MX300 with the MX500. The MX300 viewfinder has the same number of pixels as the PDX10 (180,000), and the main difference is that the PDX10's is B&W while the MX300 is color. I can easily focus well in both of them, although I prefer the B&W viewfinder on the PDX10. It is indeed a great pity that the viewfinder of the MX500 has been downgraded so much that it is pretty useless for manual focus.

Joseph: regarding the LCD: no argument there, the PDX10's LCD is much bigger, sharper and brighter than the MX300's small screen.

Joseph: regarding number of pixels, CCD size etc., these are all great specifications, but in the end, what counts is video quality. IMHO my test showed that under the circumstances I tested, the video quality of the MX300 is better. This can also be seen in the pictures I took of the footage.

Joseph: regarding your last comments "Plus the chipset is larger and the light sensitivity is better (better low light performance). The Sony uses XLR mic jacks. The Sony and the Panasonic belong to different classes of cameras.": Actually the MX300 chipset is larger than the PDX10: the MX300 uses 1/4 inch CCD's, while the PDX10 uses 1/4.7 inch CCD's. The MX500's CCD's are smaller than both of them: only 1/6 inch. While the rated light sensitivity of the MX300 (8 lx) is a bit below that of the PDX10 (7 lx), in practice the MX300 performs much better than the PDX10 under low light conditions, as can clearly be seen from the captures in my earlier post. The PDX10 only uses XLR mic jacks if you use the XLR attachment. I can do the exact same thing with the MX300 (as with the MX500); I just need to buy the XLR attachment separately. Your comment that the Panasonic and the Sony belong to different classes of cameras *might* apply to the MX500, although my guess is that many here would disagree even then. IMHO this comment does NOT apply when comparing the MX300 with the PDX10.

Boyd: regarding the balance with or without XLR box: excellent point! I should have stated that I tested the PDX10 without XLR attachment and external mike, and that my comments regarding the balance and ease of holding refer to the PDX10 without XLR attachment.

Boyd: regarding the focus ring: I guess one can get used to these focus rings. I often work with both my Nikon stills camera (analog) and the video camera. The focus ring of the MX300 compares well with the Nikon, while with the PDX10 it is almost like learning to use a completely different function.

Boyd: regarding focus indication in the viewfinder: this is indeed a nice feature which the PDX10 has and the MX300 lacks. I noticed it during my comparison but forgot to mention it here. Thanks!

Boyd: you are correct, to me the size of the camera is important, because I do a lot of trekking. I would get a PDX150 if they made one the size of the PDX10 or smaller.

Again, thank you all for your contributions.

Ariel

"Frank: thanks for the compliments, and PLEASE, don't get run over..."

I'm still here! The LCD worked fine with the hood my wife made for me. I managed to set up only a few feet from the curb (on the street). Traffic was light. :)

RE: Ariel's comments:

Joseph: regarding the viewfinder: I think you are confusing the MX300 with the MX500. The MX300 viewfinder has the same number of pixels as the PDX10 (180,000), and the main difference is that the PDX10's is B&W while the MX300 is color. I can easily focus well in both of them, although I prefer the B&W viewfinder on the PDX10. It is indeed a great pity that the viewfinder of the MX500 has been downgraded so much that it is pretty useless for manual focus.

Reply:
Because the Sony viewfinder is B/W, that's why it can achieve 500 line resolution. 180K color = approx. 360 lines resolution

Yes, I prefer a powerful B&W viewfinder, and a high resolution, small color LCD (2 1/2" to 3 "). However, in the end, it's the video quality (and sound) which are most important in a small cam.

Actually, I would argue that video and sound quality are the most important features of any camera, big or small.

Ariel

Some may agrue that it is the color that is most important -- color of the case that is -- my girlfriend would -- that's how she buys cars.

I prefer silver, both with cars and cams---my motorbike's silver too! :)

When I lived in West Hollywood, most guys there would prefer pink.

Pink's nice, on cheeks---depends on the cheeks, though.

I like black (1st choice) cams. But sometimes I have no choice thanks to the manufacturers - we get silver... don't they know silver reflects a lot of light / glare on to the subject? Especially if we're trying to vidcam past glass panes.

Anyways, going back to the cams at hand...

Thanks for the great review & pix, Ariel!

Noticed that the MX300's pictures are slightly less resolution (some staircase-ing on the shoulder of the customers) & has a bit of white halos on those strange alphabets on the orange wall behind the dealer.

Also noticed that the PDX10 tries hard to overcompensate for the low light by boosting the gain a bit too much. The clue is the big area of light spilling from the lamp towards the top right of the picture, it's bigger than the MX300's.

But this overcompensating also gives a more "cheerful" / bright look to the PDX10 picture - though some people might call this "artificial".
The MX300 looks a bit more subdued (natural, as you call it) and blue-ish.

Guess it's up to personal preference. How's the amount of grain / mosquito noise in low light for the PDX10 compared to the MX300?

Oh, another example of lower resolution / staircase effect for the MX300 is to look at that arc / curve near the light on the top right of the picture.

The arc in the PDX10's picture seems to have less staircase effect.

Thanks Steven, now it's getting really interesting!

I noticed the "staircase" effect, as you call it. I referred to it as "jaggies" in my review. There is no doubt that the PDX10's footage doesn't show as much of it as the MX300. But I attributed that to the lower overall sharpness of the PDX10's pictures (which is more apparent when watching the actual footage on a large monitor using S-Video connections). Now you are saying that this effect is due to the LOWER resolution of the MX300? Then I misinterpreted my test results! Please explain.

BTW: I don't know what the default setting for "sharpness" (i.e. edge enhancement) is on the PDX10. On my MX300 I left it in the middle, but it is possible that on the PDX10 it was set differently, which could explain these results.

As you say, the PDX10 goes up much higher in gain than the MX300 under the same circumstances: the MX300 used from 0dB to 8dB, while the PDX10 used 16dB to 18dB, for the same shot in the shop.

In my opinion, the PDX10 adds more grain to the picture than the MX300, at the same gain. I did the following experiment: I took the last two pictures from my review (closeup taken in dark corner), and balanced them with PhotoShop. You can actually repeat my experiment yourself, if you like: by right-clicking on the picture (when you have it open in the browser) you can copy it and then paste it into any image-editing software.
Here are my results:
PDX10 closeup balanced: http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/PDX10_balanced.jpg
MX300 closeup balanced: http://www.papricode.atfreeweb.com/hershler/images/MX300_balanced.jpg
See the difference?

Ariel