MX5000 - a poor man's DVX100

Frank Granovski · November 22nd, 2002, 03:40 AM

Allan, I take a lot of pics, but never with any of my video cams. I also shoot video on a regular basis, but never with my still cam (it only takes stills). You could say that I'm sort of a nut when it comes to shooting pictures and video. In fact, I just picked up some B&Ws which I shot with 3200 ASA film and pulled back 4 stops. Some of these pics are "Eraserhead" strange, while others are "normal" pics of people---one gal liked her 2 pics so much that she's paying me to blow them up. I look at photography as an art, and videography as an art. And I surely will heart attack straight to hell if I ever decide to use my video cam as a still camera! But I'll probably go see my doctor before I'll let that happen.

Frank Granovski · November 22nd, 2002, 04:48 AM

Just to add, fortunately, the MX500 gives the highest resolution stills than any other digital video camera today. It may be the poor man's DVX100, but it is also a poor man's still cam---a poor man who owns the best 3 chip hand-held today, but can't afford a still camera!

Personally, if I just wanted to take 1 camera on a holiday, what better choice is there? I'd just have to swallow hard and make due for lower res stills, but take great video to make up for it. First..., I have to dish out the $1650 US.

Yow Cheong Hoe · November 22nd, 2002, 07:08 PM

Frank, thanks for suggesting putting the images to Terrence's site.

Terrence, if you are reading this, I ask permission to email the shots to you, but only after the weekend, kinda busy now with some post-production for my ex-choir.

Allan, as for the LCD, yes, I have tried, pushed up the brightness, played with saturation, the sharpness, but still dimmer than the MX8 and the MX350 (I don't have an MX300 to compare with). The captured images are extremely similar, but having a dimmer LCD will force me to re-calibrate my brain from my MX8. So I had finally settled for the comparable MX350. I compared in two ways, pointing the camera to the same scene, and by playing back pre-recorded sequences. Both indicates that the MX500 is the dimmest LCD, whereas the MX8 and MX350 are comparable.

Please note that, although I seem to be bashing the MX500, I am not against it. If somebody gives me a set for free, I'll praise the Lord, and use it to shoot good video. But I had a very good price for the now out-of-production MX350, and considering best-bang-for-the-buck, I went for the MX350 instead. Also, I felt handicapped by the not-as-wide 1x zoom, as I shoot wide very often.

Allan Rejoso · November 22nd, 2002, 07:16 PM

Thanks Yow. The MX8 has a 3" LCD right? I have used the Jap equivalent MX1000 with 3.5" LCD and I thought its LCD did not look as good as that of MX5000. Well...

Regards

Yow Cheong Hoe · November 22nd, 2002, 07:30 PM

Well, that's the problem with cross-continental irregularities, very much like the DVD region codes! I have friends overseas who tells me, "Wow, wonderful behind-the-scenes in the Titanic DVD" and I replied, "Can't find anything like that on mine!" :-)

The camcorder models in Europe, Britain, Australia, Asia, Panasonic homeland Japan and even Iran (hahaha, Frank) are probably all different here and there, to suit the local market. No use comparing by words. Actually, the best deal is to test drive the camera, better if the store has a wide range of models that can be tested side-by-side.

Personally, I like the MX8 LCD best, as it is almost identical to my TV, also a Panasonic. What I shoot is what I watch :)

Frank Granovski · November 22nd, 2002, 08:30 PM

Re: "If somebody gives me a set for free, I'll praise the Lord, and use it to shoot good video."

If somebody gave me a set for free, I'll kiss their _ss, believe there really is a God, and use it to shoot good video.

By the way..., the latest news from Terhan, Iran is that the police are looking for a fake sorcerer. A man paid him about $900 US to make him invisible, so that he could rob banks unseen. He then went and robbed a bank, thinking he was invisible, and immediately got tackled, cuffed and taken away.

Frank Granovski · November 22nd, 2002, 08:34 PM

Oh, I don't think you'll like the MX300, yowch. It's only got a 2.5" LCD...but a BIG viewfinder!

Allan Rejoso · November 23rd, 2002, 12:01 AM

Sorry guys, I don't know which thread to put this rather stupid question of mine.

When you say 1/6" CCD, what does the number 1/6" exactly mean? Is it the cross-sectional area of the CCD chip or simply the length of the diagonal, or whatever dimension of the CCD?

Frank Granovski · November 23rd, 2002, 12:18 AM

I could be wrong but isn't the CCD measured diagonally?

Yow Cheong Hoe · November 24th, 2002, 02:43 AM

I would GUESS that it's diagonal, since the space for these little eyes are really small.

But in any case, 1/6 is less than 1/4 is less than 1/3 and less than 1/1.8. My point being, the bigger the CCD the more light it receives (through the same lens) and hence, captures better at lower lux.

About the LCD, yeah, one of the reasons I like the MX8, 350 and 500 would be the HUGE size of the LCD, and good viewing angle (especially the MX8). Nice to show my aging parents and large choir group instant replays, out on the field.

I don't really think that the MX series is a poor man's replacement of professional equipment. I see it as letting the public (including poor students) getting a good taste of pro-stuff, while maintaining the low cost. One fine day, when I quit working on my bridge engineering and open my on video house, I'll probably go for the pro level XL1, etc. But for serious hobbyist, the MX is great. And for some hie-hard Panasonic fans here in Singapore, the MX series is better than the Sony VX and Canon XM/GM series, cost and quality!)

Allan Rejoso · November 24th, 2002, 02:50 AM

I notice that the bigger the CCD, the wider the lens glass diameter is (not lens filter size). MX3000 and MX5000 are classic examples. Even the 1-CCD MX8 has a wider lens glass than MX5000. Any comments?

Allan Rejoso · November 24th, 2002, 02:56 AM

By the way, I played with the MX3000 and MX5000 at a nearby store this afternoon. The viewing angle of the MX3000 is wider than that of MX5000 at 1x zoom. The comparative spec sheets verify that too. FYI.

Frank Granovski · November 24th, 2002, 04:22 AM

Thanks. I assume that the MX500 chips are brigher than the MX300 chips. But because they are smaller, and the lens is not as wide, this makes the MX500 require a bit more light---though not a whole lot, maybe like 1 f-stop, if that. This is just a guess on my part.

Thanks for your info about the MX300 having a wider viewing area.... (The PD100A also had a wider viewing angle then the TRV900, yet they were off the same branch of the Sony tree.)

Perhaps you can make a judgement call for all of us on this forum, and tell us which is better, or which one you like better: the MX300 or the MX500.

Allan Rejoso · November 24th, 2002, 07:17 AM

My wife is so thrilled with the 3.5 bright LCD (compared to our Optura100), and very decent still capabilities of the MX5000, both in tape and card mode. She likes its form factor too. She thinks the shape of the MX3000 is like a horizontal ice cream cone on top of a matchbox, whereas the lines of the MX5000 are classic. She may have a point on that.

However, if money is not an object, I think I would still go for the MX3000 because I have more faith in its bigger CCDs and lenses to give me consistently excellent video in varying shooting conditions, and the new features (except perhaps for the extra resolution) are not so important to me. All my Jap friends and sellers only have praises for the MX3000. Speaking of new features, here's a list of things the MX5000 has which MX3000 doesn't.

1.5x instant zoom (during recording)
playback zoom (digital)
built-in flash (for stills)
freestyle remote (I think this is neat)
magic strap (this is simply classic Japanized English - there's nothing truly magical about the strap)
color night view
MEGA OIS (under still mode)
MPEG4 recording to card
voice recorder
Bluetooth capability
Webcam function
Built-in USB
wind noise reduction
addt'l 6 more digital effects

If any of the above features is indispensable to any user, then MX5000 is the choice. Take note that although the MX5000 may appear smaller, it is actually heavier than the MX3000 by 60 grams. However, the MX5000 feels more balanced (in terms of weight distribution) when you hold. Also, despite the bigger 3.5" LCD of the MX5000, it actually consumes less power than MX3000. Pany's engineers are doing a fine job reducing the power consumption of their newer models. Actually this is quite a common design concept for all Jap electronic makers.

Equivalent 35mm lens focal length
MX3000: 40.9 - 491mm
MX5000: 43 - 430mm

Regards

Joe Carney · November 24th, 2002, 04:35 PM

I appreciate all the good info here. Now it's down to NTSC or PAL.

With both having progressive (frame mode) features, one should be able to get great looking video.
The advantages with PAL are Englsih menus, more pixels to play with, and 25 frame mode is closer to 24p. If the OIS works well, this could be THE CAMERA for the guerilla film maker (shooting without a permit).

I really don't relish trying to use a Japanese cheat sheet while trying to shoot.

With Vegas Video, or even programs like Pro Coder from Canopus, PAL to NTSC and back is no longer an issue. Just time consuming.

For NTSC and casual use, my little Pana DV351 will be adequate. I"ve already shot a freinds' wedding with it. A few problems with vetical smear, but nothing earth shattering. It has very good lowlight performance too.

hmm, I guess I'll see what the best PAL bids are.

Allan, it's too bad the dealers in Japan won't work out some sort of deal with the PAL warranty, else you'd already have my order in.

I wonder what they do if a tourist come to town and needs emergency PAL camera repair? They can't be that diferent.

November 22nd, 2002, 03:40 AM	#16
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Allan, I take a lot of pics, but never with any of my video cams. I also shoot video on a regular basis, but never with my still cam (it only takes stills). You could say that I'm sort of a nut when it comes to shooting pictures and video. In fact, I just picked up some B&Ws which I shot with 3200 ASA film and pulled back 4 stops. Some of these pics are "Eraserhead" strange, while others are "normal" pics of people---one gal liked her 2 pics so much that she's paying me to blow them up. I look at photography as an art, and videography as an art. And I surely will heart attack straight to hell if I ever decide to use my video cam as a still camera! But I'll probably go see my doctor before I'll let that happen.

November 22nd, 2002, 04:48 AM	#17
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Just to add, fortunately, the MX500 gives the highest resolution stills than any other digital video camera today. It may be the poor man's DVX100, but it is also a poor man's still cam---a poor man who owns the best 3 chip hand-held today, but can't afford a still camera! Personally, if I just wanted to take 1 camera on a holiday, what better choice is there? I'd just have to swallow hard and make due for lower res stills, but take great video to make up for it. First..., I have to dish out the $1650 US.

November 22nd, 2002, 07:08 PM	#18
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Frank, thanks for suggesting putting the images to Terrence's site. Terrence, if you are reading this, I ask permission to email the shots to you, but only after the weekend, kinda busy now with some post-production for my ex-choir. Allan, as for the LCD, yes, I have tried, pushed up the brightness, played with saturation, the sharpness, but still dimmer than the MX8 and the MX350 (I don't have an MX300 to compare with). The captured images are extremely similar, but having a dimmer LCD will force me to re-calibrate my brain from my MX8. So I had finally settled for the comparable MX350. I compared in two ways, pointing the camera to the same scene, and by playing back pre-recorded sequences. Both indicates that the MX500 is the dimmest LCD, whereas the MX8 and MX350 are comparable. Please note that, although I seem to be bashing the MX500, I am not against it. If somebody gives me a set for free, I'll praise the Lord, and use it to shoot good video. But I had a very good price for the now out-of-production MX350, and considering best-bang-for-the-buck, I went for the MX350 instead. Also, I felt handicapped by the not-as-wide 1x zoom, as I shoot wide very often.

November 22nd, 2002, 07:16 PM	#19
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Thanks Yow. The MX8 has a 3" LCD right? I have used the Jap equivalent MX1000 with 3.5" LCD and I thought its LCD did not look as good as that of MX5000. Well... Regards

November 22nd, 2002, 07:30 PM	#20
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Well, that's the problem with cross-continental irregularities, very much like the DVD region codes! I have friends overseas who tells me, "Wow, wonderful behind-the-scenes in the Titanic DVD" and I replied, "Can't find anything like that on mine!" :-) The camcorder models in Europe, Britain, Australia, Asia, Panasonic homeland Japan and even Iran (hahaha, Frank) are probably all different here and there, to suit the local market. No use comparing by words. Actually, the best deal is to test drive the camera, better if the store has a wide range of models that can be tested side-by-side. Personally, I like the MX8 LCD best, as it is almost identical to my TV, also a Panasonic. What I shoot is what I watch :)

November 22nd, 2002, 08:30 PM	#21
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Re: "If somebody gives me a set for free, I'll praise the Lord, and use it to shoot good video." If somebody gave me a set for free, I'll kiss their _ss, believe there really is a God, and use it to shoot good video. By the way..., the latest news from Terhan, Iran is that the police are looking for a fake sorcerer. A man paid him about $900 US to make him invisible, so that he could rob banks unseen. He then went and robbed a bank, thinking he was invisible, and immediately got tackled, cuffed and taken away.

November 22nd, 2002, 08:34 PM	#22
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Oh, I don't think you'll like the MX300, yowch. It's only got a 2.5" LCD...but a BIG viewfinder!

November 23rd, 2002, 12:01 AM	#23
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Sorry guys, I don't know which thread to put this rather stupid question of mine. When you say 1/6" CCD, what does the number 1/6" exactly mean? Is it the cross-sectional area of the CCD chip or simply the length of the diagonal, or whatever dimension of the CCD?

November 23rd, 2002, 12:18 AM	#24
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I could be wrong but isn't the CCD measured diagonally?

November 24th, 2002, 02:43 AM	#25
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	I would GUESS that it's diagonal, since the space for these little eyes are really small. But in any case, 1/6 is less than 1/4 is less than 1/3 and less than 1/1.8. My point being, the bigger the CCD the more light it receives (through the same lens) and hence, captures better at lower lux. About the LCD, yeah, one of the reasons I like the MX8, 350 and 500 would be the HUGE size of the LCD, and good viewing angle (especially the MX8). Nice to show my aging parents and large choir group instant replays, out on the field. I don't really think that the MX series is a poor man's replacement of professional equipment. I see it as letting the public (including poor students) getting a good taste of pro-stuff, while maintaining the low cost. One fine day, when I quit working on my bridge engineering and open my on video house, I'll probably go for the pro level XL1, etc. But for serious hobbyist, the MX is great. And for some hie-hard Panasonic fans here in Singapore, the MX series is better than the Sony VX and Canon XM/GM series, cost and quality!)

November 24th, 2002, 02:50 AM	#26
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	I notice that the bigger the CCD, the wider the lens glass diameter is (not lens filter size). MX3000 and MX5000 are classic examples. Even the 1-CCD MX8 has a wider lens glass than MX5000. Any comments?

November 24th, 2002, 02:56 AM	#27
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	By the way, I played with the MX3000 and MX5000 at a nearby store this afternoon. The viewing angle of the MX3000 is wider than that of MX5000 at 1x zoom. The comparative spec sheets verify that too. FYI.

November 24th, 2002, 04:22 AM	#28
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks. I assume that the MX500 chips are brigher than the MX300 chips. But because they are smaller, and the lens is not as wide, this makes the MX500 require a bit more light---though not a whole lot, maybe like 1 f-stop, if that. This is just a guess on my part. Thanks for your info about the MX300 having a wider viewing area.... (The PD100A also had a wider viewing angle then the TRV900, yet they were off the same branch of the Sony tree.) Perhaps you can make a judgement call for all of us on this forum, and tell us which is better, or which one you like better: the MX300 or the MX500.

November 24th, 2002, 07:17 AM	#29
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	My wife is so thrilled with the 3.5 bright LCD (compared to our Optura100), and very decent still capabilities of the MX5000, both in tape and card mode. She likes its form factor too. She thinks the shape of the MX3000 is like a horizontal ice cream cone on top of a matchbox, whereas the lines of the MX5000 are classic. She may have a point on that. However, if money is not an object, I think I would still go for the MX3000 because I have more faith in its bigger CCDs and lenses to give me consistently excellent video in varying shooting conditions, and the new features (except perhaps for the extra resolution) are not so important to me. All my Jap friends and sellers only have praises for the MX3000. Speaking of new features, here's a list of things the MX5000 has which MX3000 doesn't. 1.5x instant zoom (during recording) playback zoom (digital) built-in flash (for stills) freestyle remote (I think this is neat) magic strap (this is simply classic Japanized English - there's nothing truly magical about the strap) color night view MEGA OIS (under still mode) MPEG4 recording to card voice recorder Bluetooth capability Webcam function Built-in USB wind noise reduction addt'l 6 more digital effects If any of the above features is indispensable to any user, then MX5000 is the choice. Take note that although the MX5000 may appear smaller, it is actually heavier than the MX3000 by 60 grams. However, the MX5000 feels more balanced (in terms of weight distribution) when you hold. Also, despite the bigger 3.5" LCD of the MX5000, it actually consumes less power than MX3000. Pany's engineers are doing a fine job reducing the power consumption of their newer models. Actually this is quite a common design concept for all Jap electronic makers. Equivalent 35mm lens focal length MX3000: 40.9 - 491mm MX5000: 43 - 430mm Regards

November 24th, 2002, 04:35 PM	#30
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	I appreciate all the good info here. Now it's down to NTSC or PAL. With both having progressive (frame mode) features, one should be able to get great looking video. The advantages with PAL are Englsih menus, more pixels to play with, and 25 frame mode is closer to 24p. If the OIS works well, this could be THE CAMERA for the guerilla film maker (shooting without a permit). I really don't relish trying to use a Japanese cheat sheet while trying to shoot. With Vegas Video, or even programs like Pro Coder from Canopus, PAL to NTSC and back is no longer an issue. Just time consuming. For NTSC and casual use, my little Pana DV351 will be adequate. I"ve already shot a freinds' wedding with it. A few problems with vetical smear, but nothing earth shattering. It has very good lowlight performance too. hmm, I guess I'll see what the best PAL bids are. Allan, it's too bad the dealers in Japan won't work out some sort of deal with the PAL warranty, else you'd already have my order in. I wonder what they do if a tourist come to town and needs emergency PAL camera repair? They can't be that diferent.