DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic DV / MX / GS series Assistant (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dv-mx-gs-series-assistant/)
-   -   Why Bryan thinks his VX2000 is better than my MX300 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dv-mx-gs-series-assistant/16789-why-bryan-thinks-his-vx2000-better-than-my-mx300.html)

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 03:13 AM

Why Bryan thinks his VX2000 is better than my MX300
 
First off, it's a Sony, he says. It's larger and heavier---and longish too. It's solid and it has a nice big no-name lens, unlike the MX300's Leica glass. It's CCDs are .33 in size opposed to .25 in size---and yes, the VX2000 has more video effective CCD pixels. So what that both these cams have the same playback resolution of 500 horizontal lines----that doesn't count, Bryan expresses with a confused look---they're HAD CCDs, damn it---and the MX300's color saturation is a way too rich (sweating but smirking). You need that cool look (and goes on about what a fine handy dandy candy cam his VX2000 really is). "Because the VX2000 is larger and heavier, it requires a tripod," he says. "A man's cam must be heavy---remember the 57 Chevy?"

(Bryan fought in the 2nd WW, by the way.)

Peter Jefferson November 7th, 2003 04:20 AM

hmm.. no doubt the VX IS a good camera.. however when you compare price and features, teh MX is FAR from lacking....

on teh contrary, I PREFER the MX as its small and discreet and for my business, it has been MORE than sufficient.
It has paid itself off tenfold...

on top of that in decent lighting the image quality is comparible, and IMO the auto white balancing is far superior to the VX and offers a more accurate colour reproduciton.
Reason i mention that is due to the fac ttha i do weddings and most of the shots are in auto mode.

as for long and heavy, ppfffft good luck... i dont need an impressive looking camera to make a decent video, and IMO, the MX have a character to their look...

either way, the DVX is still the best :)

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 05:09 AM

Bryan's gonna shoot me with his 30-30 when he reads that. I hope he doesn't have a scope. :)

Quote:

either way, the DVX is still the best :)
This gives me an idea: Why Peter thinks his DVX100 is better than my MX300.

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 06:35 AM

Why I think my MX300 is better than Bryan's VX2000

First off, it's a Panasonic. It's smaller and lighter---and a wee bit bloated (thank Heaven it's not a poker cam). It's solid and it has a nice big Leica lens, unlike the VX2000's Sony glass. (Kenko made?) It's CCDs are .25 in size opposed to .33 in size---and yes, the MX300 has less video effective CCD pixels but more in total for that perfect picture. So what that both these cams have the same playback resolution of 500 horizontal lines----that doesn't count, I express with glee---they're not HAD CCDs, whatever than means---and the MX300's color saturation is a way richer (smirking sardonically). You need that hip look (as I go on about what a fine handy cam my MX300 really is). "Because the MX300 is smaller and lighter, it does not require a tripod," I say. "A man's cam must be fun to drive---recall Magnum PI's red Ferrari?"

(I survived the Yuppie era, by the way.)

Bryan Beasleigh November 7th, 2003 02:50 PM

I'm just the opposite, I need a big camera, firm and fully packed. I do have a TRV20 with a Zeiss made in japan lens . It's most likely made in the Japanese factory that makes the made in Japan Leica lens and the razor sharpo no name Sony. The rumour is that the Sony wide Adapter is made by Kenko, not the camera lens. i've heard rumours it's Canon or even Fujinon.

Anywhoo, the camera is too darn small and at the end of the day who really cares where the lens came from so long as it's sharp. You'll notice that the pro cameras don't play that marketing cr@p with the lens branding.

The Trv20 and the MX300 would get lost in my big mitts. Do I think one is better than the other? Well the VX2K is better for me because of the low light and sharp as a razor noname lens. if i had small hands i'd most likely love the Panny MX300/3000

At this level of camera there is no such a thing as bad, just different. (Frank is certainly different as well. He's my bud and I can say that :) )

At the end of the day Panny, canon and Sony make an excellent product. If you're happywho really cares what other people say.
Most of the highly vocal loyalists don't even own the cameras they rave about.

What's good enuff for Chuckie McMeister and pokey is good enuff for me :

Bryan Beasleigh November 7th, 2003 02:59 PM

Heavier can be better
 
I use a pod, monopod, mini rover and a marzpak. Heavier cameras are actually more stable in all of these. I find the VX all dressed up with the WA adapter, 4x4 matte box, beach and shotgun works great on the marzpak (www.marztech.com)

The marzpak and the mini rover would work well with the MX. the marzpak will steady anything and the mini rover will give someone with large mitts something to hang on to.

side note:
When I'm not shooting video, I mount a disco ball to the marzpak shock cord and dance wherever I go. I just strap a big radio to the pack frame and turn up the tunes.

and Frank
I don't own a 3030. I have a 7.62 sniper rifle .

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 03:22 PM

Bryan wrote:
Quote:

I use a pod, monopod, mini rover and a marzpak. Heavier cameras are actually more stable in all of these.
I rest my case. :)

Yang Wen November 7th, 2003 04:53 PM

Who cares if one came's auto white balance is better. Who even uses that?!?!! How can you trust any cam's auto circuitry!?

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 05:42 PM

Coup de grace! May I be so bold and say that the MX300's white balance is better because it has more advanced circuitry?---though old, it's a newer cam! (And a Panasonic) Who says I don't have chutzpah? :)

Bryan Beasleigh November 7th, 2003 08:06 PM

Chutzpah, yes, couthe and suave no!

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 10:35 PM

That's me! I learned from my papa. This is why I'd rather have a MX5000 today than spend a year's salary on something that'll be obsolete tomorrow. I still think the MX300 is better than the VX2000 because it's smaller, it's a Panasonic and it's PAL. I hate NTSC. Both my parents are from PALSville. Come to thing of it, aren't your parents from there also?

Adrian Douglas November 7th, 2003 10:54 PM

Frank, I think the VX's glass and OIS are actually sourced from...Canon, just like Canon's chips are sourced from Panasonic! At least is was for the VX1000 so I imagine Sony would have kept the same for the 2000.

Frank Granovski November 7th, 2003 11:04 PM

Thanks Adrian. I hope Bryan doesn't read that otherwise he's going to be angry about his cam being made by Canon and Panasonic---Panasonic should perhaps consider using Canon's OIS as well. The MX's OIS clicking sound is annoying. :)

Bryan Beasleigh November 8th, 2003 04:12 AM

No shame in Canon Glass or OIS. Beats a lot of what's out there.

Frank Granovski November 8th, 2003 06:52 AM

How long are the VX2000's heads guaranteed for? The MX300 heads are good for 1000 hours during the 1 year warranty period. Also, it states in my manual, "Do not use benzine or thinner for cleaning. They could deform the body and cause the surface coating to peal off...." :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network