MX5000 v. PDX10

Frank Granovski · April 25th, 2003, 12:15 AM

I'm not singling anyone out. But I have to wonder if that MX500 you tried may have been defective. Knowing that the MX300 and MX350 plays back 500 lines, and the MX500/0 / PV-DV953 plays back 540 lines, I didn't think that I would have been able to see a difference. I was dead wrong.

In "super low lights," I'm sure the lux is better with the MX300 and MX350---and even better perhaps with the MX8/PV-DV852. However, by how much? Pitance, I would imagine. Honestly, I've heard the sad MX5 LUX story so many times that I started to believe it. Fortunately, a member gave me the opportunity to try her's out. I tell you, it's the best hand-held 3 chip I ever held in my hands.

Yow Cheong Hoe · April 25th, 2003, 03:29 AM

The scenario that I'll use is this particular wedding dinner which I was shooting, when I had both my MX8 and MX350. I was using my MX350 (3CCD, better cam, that's what I believed) all the way. Then, when the couple entered the room, my MX350 tape ran out, so I took the second cam, the MX8, out of the bag and started shooting, while my wife loaded the next tape into the MX350. Now the lights were dimmed and the couple had a 'dramatic' entrance. When the tape change was complete, my ever-helpful wife started shooting with the MX350 concurrently with the MX8 I was shooting with.

Fast forward.

Editing time now, I found that the MX8 captured the dim entrance of the couple, while there was NOTHING except sound on the MX350. But when the bright lights came on, the MX350 does have better colours.

And the MX500 requires more light than the MX350.

That's why I say that the little pitance of difference can become very significant. The MX500 goes blind too soon!

Now, I have checked the MX350 against the MX500, there is a difference in the 'blind' level, and the grain on the MX500 is more pronounced than that on the MX350. That's probably due to the smaller CCD, requiring more light.

Finally, there may just be some difference between the MX500 and the DV953, need someone with both cams to tell us.

April 25th, 2003, 12:15 AM	#16
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I'm not singling anyone out. But I have to wonder if that MX500 you tried may have been defective. Knowing that the MX300 and MX350 plays back 500 lines, and the MX500/0 / PV-DV953 plays back 540 lines, I didn't think that I would have been able to see a difference. I was dead wrong. In "super low lights," I'm sure the lux is better with the MX300 and MX350---and even better perhaps with the MX8/PV-DV852. However, by how much? Pitance, I would imagine. Honestly, I've heard the sad MX5 LUX story so many times that I started to believe it. Fortunately, a member gave me the opportunity to try her's out. I tell you, it's the best hand-held 3 chip I ever held in my hands.

April 25th, 2003, 03:29 AM	#17
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	The scenario that I'll use is this particular wedding dinner which I was shooting, when I had both my MX8 and MX350. I was using my MX350 (3CCD, better cam, that's what I believed) all the way. Then, when the couple entered the room, my MX350 tape ran out, so I took the second cam, the MX8, out of the bag and started shooting, while my wife loaded the next tape into the MX350. Now the lights were dimmed and the couple had a 'dramatic' entrance. When the tape change was complete, my ever-helpful wife started shooting with the MX350 concurrently with the MX8 I was shooting with. Fast forward. Editing time now, I found that the MX8 captured the dim entrance of the couple, while there was NOTHING except sound on the MX350. But when the bright lights came on, the MX350 does have better colours. And the MX500 requires more light than the MX350. That's why I say that the little pitance of difference can become very significant. The MX500 goes blind too soon! Now, I have checked the MX350 against the MX500, there is a difference in the 'blind' level, and the grain on the MX500 is more pronounced than that on the MX350. That's probably due to the smaller CCD, requiring more light. Finally, there may just be some difference between the MX500 and the DV953, need someone with both cams to tell us.