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.)

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 :)

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

This gives me an idea: Why Peter thinks his DVX100 is better than my MX300.

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.)

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 :

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 .

Bryan wrote:I rest my case. :)

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

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? :)

Chutzpah, yes, couthe and suave no!

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?

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.

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. :)

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

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...." :)

I've got to chime in here. I own both the VX2000 and the MX300, both PAL, both the same age, both used for my wedding and event business.

Firstly, listen up :-) The VX2k is a much better photographic tool all round. It's low light capability blows the weedy Panasonic into the middle of next week. It's ND and D of F control, 6 bladed iris, lack of CCD flare and top loading make this a real photographer' s cam, and I love it. Although 'no-name' as you guys call it, the 12x Sony zoom is wonderfuylly sharp and flare free.

Ah, but the MX300 is half the weight, half the size, half the cost and seven tenths as good. Maybe even 8 tenths on a good day. The bottom loading is a pain but the slim sleekness of the body is a delight to hand hold, whereas the VX is a pain in the wrist.

The Leica lens is wonderfully sharp at wide angle - better than the Sony in fact. But at tele it's not as good and certainly not as impressive. The 72mm at f2.4 D of F on the Sony is miles better than the silly 42.6mm at f2.87 on the MX. The CCD flare is worse, the stills to card are better, the auto ND I hate.

It's horses for courses. You can hide the MX in the palm of your hand and sometimes this is an over-riding advantage. But if it's quality footage you're after, the VX2k wins.

tom.

B

Ha Ha

the weedy Panasonic , I have to credit you Tom that is so funny.

Its a good cam so long as you foocus to minimise CA as well as maximise sharpness, but the look and feel of it is pure Toys R Us next to the Barbie dolls

The mighty VX2k - well I sold mine with 600hrs clocked and got a very nice price for it, but those transport controls - pure Sinclair ZX81 :(


OTOH the mighty old Pana F250 is pure muscle like a 750i beamer

The bottom loading clamshell design definitely sucks majorly.

I don't care what anyone says about my MX300. So what it can't shoot cheeks in the dork! So what that it's a bottom loader! So what it's puffy! At least it's small and plays back 500 lines. Just think, with this oh puffy one, you or I (not Bryan) have the option of shooting in frame mode, for fine chop chop film making. Wait! There's more: I own one and Bryan don't, and I'll bet my old boots he's jealous as hell. I will not let reason stand in my way; I will not go out with a whimper!

And if you like a longer cam (as opposed to a taller cam) you can get the Mx300's brother, the MX350. Pure poker fun!

Yes! Yes! MX300/MX350 shootout right here:

http://www.mycen.com.my/inbox/mx2.html - with lots of MX links.