Jojo,

Before deciding on a PAL cam, borrow or rent one. Shoot 5 minutes, upload to VV3 and then convert it. Output it via firewire or S-video and play it back (viewable deck / 400 line TV). If the quality is good, then go with it. Otherwise, get used to the Japanese menus.

I have a PAL cam because I keep it in PAL and/or convert via AV-out to NTSC VHS. The quality remains intact / the conversion is very good.

Allan, GREAT STUFF! (I gotta get me one of them straps!)

Quoting Allan:
"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."

I agree, that's the reason why I bought the MX350, instead of the MX500.

As for the beautiful stills, I'll miss that in the MX350, probably fork out a few hundred bucks for a digital still cam :)

I didn't particularly noticed the strap, maybe I'll take a closer look. And the free-style remote is really COOL, much like LANC, which all Sony have.

Frank, I've already used VV for this type of work. Its just a matter of using the proper settings. the resequencing engine in VV is probably one of the best on the market. My plan is to edit and keep in PAL until final render. Pretty simple. AT the very worst, I can get something like Procoder or get it done at a local conversion facility. Lots of those around in this part of FL.

Which ever I choose, I still prefer PAL over NTSC for doing
feature work. I can't afford the dvx100 for now, so I view this
camera as a good second choice. Besides, it's a given Sony and/ or Canon will come out with something by next fall. In the meantime, I want to get some real work done. Best for the least is one of my philosophies.

I've pretty much given up on getting a price for the JVC GY-DV301E that compares favorably with the street prices of the DV300U.

BTW Frank, Camera Action got back to me in 4 hours. Thats a good sign.

According to the Jap manual, the MX5000 does 30 fps under frame mode, compared to 25 fps for the PAL. Is that supposed to be better or not?

They are both good. 25p makes it easier to emulate certain film type looks (which operates at 24p). Many, like myself also believe that PAL handles color is better than NTSC. Plus higher resolution.

For personal, or eng type work, NTSC would be a better choice here in america.

I read somewhere that our eyes sees only 23 frames, so 24 is good enough (hence film, as those days need to do the least for most impact).

I prefer the higher res of PAL over the higher framerate of NTSC. It is quite evident in watching DVD from Region 3 (PAL) and Region 1(NTSC).

But I've been told by most internet video sites that, unless we are rouges/rebels or with specific needs, it's best to stick to the local broadcast standard.

Jojo, yes, I highly recommend http://www.cameraaction.com.au - they have very good prices, usually lots of stock (example, they have the MX300, MX350 and MX500 in stock!), and they are professional. I saved a lot of money by buying with them (twice). I also keep an ad/link to their website on my Pana page, because I think they are that good!

Allan, PAL progressive would be better for those who want to transfer to 35mm motion film. But generally, you would want a cam that matches the broadcast system of where you live. In the USA and Canada, 50% of DV shot movies that were transfered to film, was shot in PAL---for 3 reasons:

1) higher resolution
2) better color
3) direct 25P to film transfer without pull down. If shot in 30P, frames will be thrown away. Of course, there's methods where the transfer is done with NTSC interlaced, but the results are not as good.

But now with the Pana DVX100, this will probably change things. Shooting HD, would be better, but much more money.

Now I'll have to call the PV-DV953, "a poor man's DVX" also.