Whenceforth more DVC80 info? at DVinfo.net

John Britt · September 22nd, 2003, 06:38 PM

While this place is an incredible resource, the emphasis seems to be on the DVX100 moreso than the DVC80.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a dearth of good/professional DVC 80 info out there -- but any good rocks I've yet to overturn? This camera is being geared towards broadcast use (according to Panny), but the only information out there seems to be mostly from people like myself asking, "Where can I find out more about the DVC80?"

I am at a considerable disadvantage because the DVC 80 is also my first camcorder -- well, first non-cheap VHS or single CCD camera. Aside from the studio cams I used about 11-12 years ago, this is the first serious cam I've used and intended for broadcast use. But I've little to base my opinion of its performance from.

I purchased the DVC80 because it seemed to offer pretty much the same benefits of the Sony VX2000 with the addition of XLRs at the same price (at B&H). What first-hand accounts I found seem to be very positive, and my pre-purchase use of the camera left me pretty happy (I liked it beter than the GL2, which is even cheaper at B&H). It seems like the best cam for that price range, but like I said, I have little empirical experience to compare it to.

Where else besides here (and dv.com) do DVC80 owners go for information?

Steve Nunez · September 22nd, 2003, 08:45 PM

I second his "search" for more info on the DVC80.......any url's floating around with additional info? Usenet forums etc?????

Chris Hurd · September 23rd, 2003, 08:32 PM

The goal is for us to develop such a resource right here, from the input of DVC80 users, much the same way the original XL1 Watchdog started back in early 1998. All we need is for those who are in the know to come forth and provide their input.

Mathew Evan · September 23rd, 2003, 10:20 PM

With the dvc80 being so similar to the dvx100 I don't see why the two cannot coexist on the same board. I will probably buy one as my secondary camera next year. I'm starting to really like the dvx100 and will keep everyone cued in this fall after I shoot a couple of weddings with it. The thing to keep in mind with the dvc80 is that it primarily aimed at the industrial market which is heavily influenced by the pd150/vx2000 at this price point. I know a lot of people who work in this industry and they are extremely brand centric. As evidcence with the weak pd170; Sony is showing no fear of panasonic taking their market share.

Scott Plowman · September 24th, 2003, 07:17 PM

LOL Mathew dont you know the PD 170 is an april fools joke.. "Theres no such thing" I challenge you to show me one.. Anyone who reads this post and has actually used one Please speak up.. And no one will cause it doesnt and will never exist. the pdf or html page you seen that at says it has different shutter rates that create I quote " really weird pictures" really weird pics are the only upgrade to the pd 150?? C'mon its all a hoax guys..

Anyways, I own a DVC80 I have put it through its paces slowly learning. I have no regrets about my purchase and am happy. I feel that for 2,350 $ at B&H you cant get a better deal for the money & performance. I am just waiting for awhile before I can give my opinion on durability.

No question the PD150 is built like a tank; and its durable. To me the DVC 80 reminds me of a tank.. i like the design but need to use it for a year or so and then say.. hey its "durable" that is provided that it withstands the industrial type use these cameras are put through. Again No complaints as of yet.

When pressed with this dilemma before my purchase. I stopped and said 'hey........ This camera is essentialy a dvx 100 other than the fact that it doesnt have the 24p,Cinegama features. I read here all about the DVX 100 and figured 'well its the same camera just 60i only. 'Hmmm PD 150 = 60i ..

Everyone said mostly good things about the DVX 100 so i bought the DVC 80. This camera does what i want it too.. Dont be afraid if your on the fence... Jump in' the waters great : )

Sean R Allen · September 24th, 2003, 08:02 PM

"And no one will cause it doesnt and will never exist."

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but in case you aren't, here it straight from Sony's mouth:

http://www.sonybiz.net/^/templates/s...jsp&OID=118052

And Mathew is right, it's weak....

Frederic Segard · October 4th, 2003, 05:06 AM

Scott, Mathew is right, the PD-170 is a reality… well not now anyway. It’s been announced at IBC, and scheduled to be released in December 2003 (my guess is early 2004 judging from Sony’s track record). But there is a hoax out there running around known as the 17p PDF. And I have to agree; the PD-170 feature “improvements” are rather weak. Sony should have added at the very least 30p, syncroscan and 16:9 to make it attractive. Oh well! Once again, Sony has proven that it doesn’t really listen to the market.

But let’s stick to the subject at hand. The DVC80 is a cheaper version of the DVX100. The DSP (Digital Signal Processor) inside the DVC80 is not the same as the DVX100. It does not have 24p and cine-gamma, which we all know. But be careful, if you’re hoping for time lapse and external recording to VTR (begin external recording when camcorder tape ends), then you’ll be disappointed. I personally think that these 2 features are important to the broadcast and industrial/corporate market. Other then that, the all black color of the DVC80, in my subjective opinion, makes it look more professional then the DVX100.

I’m on the verge of buying a new cam myself. I’ve rented and tested the DVX100 for some time now. I don’t expect to use 24p in the short term, but it seems to me that for the price difference, the DVC80 is not really worth it. Of course the all-black look really appeals to me. ;-) There I go again… breath in… breath out… talk about a way to judge a camcorder… color… sheeeesh!

Fred

John Britt · October 4th, 2003, 07:32 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Segard :

it seems to me that for the price difference, the DVC80 is not really worth it.

Fred -->>>

At B&H (where I bought my DVC80) the DVX100 is $950 more than the DVC80. I know this isn't the "suggested retail" price difference, but in real-world dollars that's almost $1000 I saved. That's a lot of money to me...

For the independent videographer who is shooting strictly for television/video on a budget (like myself), I found the DVC80 to be the (seemingly) best choice in the price range. You have to compare the camera to others in it's price range -- obviously a cam that costs almost $1000 more should have more features/benefits. For myself, I was comparing the DVC80 to the VX2000 (same price at B&H) and decided that for the conditions I would be shooting under, the DVC80 seemed like the best bet. The low-light capability may not be as strong as the VX2000, but it has XLR inputs w/ phantom power -- which means more to me.

That said, I hope to purchase a second camera within the next 12 months and I will consider the DVX100, or possibly something even furhter up the ladder w/ a true "broadcast-quality" cam.

So far, I've shot a (pro bono) short promo video for a carnival and a :30 second commercial with the DVC80 -- but I'm yet to become a gung-ho DVC80 supporter. Time will tell...

Frederic Segard · October 4th, 2003, 08:27 AM

Wow! $950US difference. Now I can understand that! Local dealers here in Montreal have it at roughly $600CDN difference, that's about $450US; hence my "not worth it" opinion. If the price difference was the equivalent here, $950US -> $1275CDN, it would be a no brainer (if progressive is not an issue).

Plus you get the cool black look. ;-) LOL

Signed,

"One track mind" Fred

Steve Nunez · October 4th, 2003, 02:14 PM

Too bad it doesn't shoot native 16:9...it would be an even better sales success.

John Britt · October 4th, 2003, 09:24 PM

Frederic

Well, the retail price difference is only $500 ($3300 vs $3800), but B&H has the DVC80 for $2350 and the DVX100 for $3300. That $2350 beats even wholesale cost for one Atlanta retailer by $150 (according to the salesperson, at least), so I can't say that B&H's prices are typical.

Since I was trying to keep my budget under $3000, the DVC80 seemed like the best choice. At retail prices (and if I went over my $3000 cap) I think that the DVX would be worth the extra $500. Of course, I hear that the DVX100 really only shows its stuff if you know how to set up a good shot (lighting, etc) and know how to finesse the controls. Otherwise you just get "video footage that looks funny" to paraphrase one user.

Being a man of wavering convictions :), I was intrigued by a conversation I had with a professional videographer today. He was shooting in Atlanta and had well, well over $10,000 sitting on his shoulder (his equipment slips my mind at the moment), so I was soaking up much of what he told me. One thing that struck me was his appreciation for the Sony PDX10. He said it produced great images that were as good as the PD150, and that the footage looked better than what he had seen from the DVX/DVC series (although his experience with the two Panny cams was limited, he said).

One thing that had slipped my attention when comparing cams was that the PDX10 has native XLR inputs w/ phantom power. This was a big selling point for the DVC80 when I was comparing it to the VX2000, moreso than differences in low-light capabilities. Which leaves me wondering, how would I have felt about the PDX10? As always, the grass is always greener and all that... I'm going to do a search on DVC80 vs PDX10 just for the heck of it, though. At $1999 at B&H, I might just go ahead and get it as a backup cam...

If you go to http://www.karatemedia.com/video/ and click on the Gardens at Eden commercial, you'll see a Real Media video of my first commercial with the DVC80. Yes, it puts new meaning to "run and gun" (emphasis on "run" it seems) and the encoding probably doesn't do the DVC80 justice, put it shows a little of what the cam can do in a "quick n dirty" situation.

Emilio Le Roux · October 14th, 2003, 08:51 PM

<<<If you go to http://www.karatemedia.com/video/ and click on the Gardens at Eden commercial, you'll see a Real Media video of my first commercial with the DVC80.>>>

Sorry I'm late for this comment, and also a quite a bit OT, but I didn't want to lose the chance to say I HATE REALPLAYER. It should be banned from the cybernetic world and videomakers should unite to vanquish this creation from the very hell of system intrusion and disrespect for individuality, culture and wallets. (Now with free AOL advertising).

So said, I went thru the offers and profit seekers by clicking on the very tiny "free player" links in their site, and installed the cost-free but not annoyance-free player. All for you, John.

Well, I think the images are great. Of course one can't tell the image definition, but speaking in color they're very nice. It looks as a very quick job, although... I wanted to ask, if i'm not being undiscreet... how much do you charge for this kind of job in your area?

I'm in Bahia, Brazil. Just wanted to have some reference about prices outside.

Emilio Le Roux
emi@ddn.com.br

John Britt · October 14th, 2003, 09:19 PM

Emilio

Thank you for taking the time to watch my comercial. I get mixed opinions on Real Player -- some people like it, some loathe it. Since I cannot offer web-optimized QuickTime files (I thought AE 5.5 was supposed to be able to create good-looking, low MB QuickTime files, but I can't seem to do it), most Mac users have asked for RealPlayer for cross-platform compatibility. I had only .wmv files before, and most Maccies complained about it.

But I also just noticed that when I redesigned the site recently, I forgot to add this link:
http://forms.real.com/real/player/blackjack.html

this will get you to a page where you can download pre-RealOne versions of RealPlayer that are slightly less evil. Personally, I don't think that the installation process for RealPlayer 8 was any worse than any other similar free app (even QT).

I will add that link to my site, as well as this one:

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail.php3?fid=1054136293

which leads to Real Alternative, which is -- as the name suggests -- a free alternative to RealPlayer.
I like the .rm format b/c it allows me to have one file on my site that is cross-compatible. But I also want to keep people happy.

If anyone has any suggestions on how to create quality web-ready files w/ QuickTime (without buying Cleaner, et al), feel free to learn me somethin'

Anyway, yes it was a very quick shoot and edit. I shot on a Saturday afternoon and was basically done with the ad by Sunday afternoon. This was quicker than usual b/c the owner supplied the V/O and music, which made the job easier.

Basically I fill a niche in the area; I charge $300 and get the job done as quick as possible. The fee allows me to just show up as a one-man crew and shoot w/ existing light and whatnot. You can't get most videographers to drive by and yell obscenities at you for $300, and I think that most business owners feel that they've gotten their money's worth when I'm done. I wasn't real happy with some of the footage from that first shoot (I brought my worst tripod, I don't know what I was thinking), but the owner was happy. He even had me make a VHS copy for one of his customers.

My second commercial with the DVC80 (now up on that same page) looks a little better and hopefully each one will get better.

Thanks again for looking.

September 22nd, 2003, 06:38 PM	#1
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Whenceforth more DVC80 info? While this place is an incredible resource, the emphasis seems to be on the DVX100 moreso than the DVC80. It seems pretty obvious that there is a dearth of good/professional DVC 80 info out there -- but any good rocks I've yet to overturn? This camera is being geared towards broadcast use (according to Panny), but the only information out there seems to be mostly from people like myself asking, "Where can I find out more about the DVC80?" I am at a considerable disadvantage because the DVC 80 is also my first camcorder -- well, first non-cheap VHS or single CCD camera. Aside from the studio cams I used about 11-12 years ago, this is the first serious cam I've used and intended for broadcast use. But I've little to base my opinion of its performance from. I purchased the DVC80 because it seemed to offer pretty much the same benefits of the Sony VX2000 with the addition of XLRs at the same price (at B&H). What first-hand accounts I found seem to be very positive, and my pre-purchase use of the camera left me pretty happy (I liked it beter than the GL2, which is even cheaper at B&H). It seems like the best cam for that price range, but like I said, I have little empirical experience to compare it to. Where else besides here (and dv.com) do DVC80 owners go for information?

September 22nd, 2003, 08:45 PM	#2
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	I second his "search" for more info on the DVC80.......any url's floating around with additional info? Usenet forums etc????? __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 23rd, 2003, 08:32 PM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	The goal is for us to develop such a resource right here, from the input of DVC80 users, much the same way the original XL1 Watchdog started back in early 1998. All we need is for those who are in the know to come forth and provide their input. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 4th, 2003, 02:14 PM	#10
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Too bad it doesn't shoot native 16:9...it would be an even better sales success. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 23rd, 2003, 10:20 PM	#4
Mathew Evan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: United States Posts: 53	With the dvc80 being so similar to the dvx100 I don't see why the two cannot coexist on the same board. I will probably buy one as my secondary camera next year. I'm starting to really like the dvx100 and will keep everyone cued in this fall after I shoot a couple of weddings with it. The thing to keep in mind with the dvc80 is that it primarily aimed at the industrial market which is heavily influenced by the pd150/vx2000 at this price point. I know a lot of people who work in this industry and they are extremely brand centric. As evidcence with the weak pd170; Sony is showing no fear of panasonic taking their market share.

September 24th, 2003, 07:17 PM	#5
Scott Plowman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Kansas City, Kansas, USA Posts: 85	LOL Mathew dont you know the PD 170 is an april fools joke.. "Theres no such thing" I challenge you to show me one.. Anyone who reads this post and has actually used one Please speak up.. And no one will cause it doesnt and will never exist. the pdf or html page you seen that at says it has different shutter rates that create I quote " really weird pictures" really weird pics are the only upgrade to the pd 150?? C'mon its all a hoax guys.. Anyways, I own a DVC80 I have put it through its paces slowly learning. I have no regrets about my purchase and am happy. I feel that for 2,350 $ at B&H you cant get a better deal for the money & performance. I am just waiting for awhile before I can give my opinion on durability. No question the PD150 is built like a tank; and its durable. To me the DVC 80 reminds me of a tank.. i like the design but need to use it for a year or so and then say.. hey its "durable" that is provided that it withstands the industrial type use these cameras are put through. Again No complaints as of yet. When pressed with this dilemma before my purchase. I stopped and said 'hey........ This camera is essentialy a dvx 100 other than the fact that it doesnt have the 24p,Cinegama features. I read here all about the DVX 100 and figured 'well its the same camera just 60i only. 'Hmmm PD 150 = 60i .. Everyone said mostly good things about the DVX 100 so i bought the DVC 80. This camera does what i want it too.. Dont be afraid if your on the fence... Jump in' the waters great : )

September 24th, 2003, 08:02 PM	#6
Sean R Allen Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: RTP, NC Posts: 66	"And no one will cause it doesnt and will never exist." I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but in case you aren't, here it straight from Sony's mouth: http://www.sonybiz.net/^/templates/s...jsp&OID=118052 And Mathew is right, it's weak....

October 4th, 2003, 05:06 AM	#7
Frederic Segard Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 209	Scott, Mathew is right, the PD-170 is a reality… well not now anyway. It’s been announced at IBC, and scheduled to be released in December 2003 (my guess is early 2004 judging from Sony’s track record). But there is a hoax out there running around known as the 17p PDF. And I have to agree; the PD-170 feature “improvements” are rather weak. Sony should have added at the very least 30p, syncroscan and 16:9 to make it attractive. Oh well! Once again, Sony has proven that it doesn’t really listen to the market. But let’s stick to the subject at hand. The DVC80 is a cheaper version of the DVX100. The DSP (Digital Signal Processor) inside the DVC80 is not the same as the DVX100. It does not have 24p and cine-gamma, which we all know. But be careful, if you’re hoping for time lapse and external recording to VTR (begin external recording when camcorder tape ends), then you’ll be disappointed. I personally think that these 2 features are important to the broadcast and industrial/corporate market. Other then that, the all black color of the DVC80, in my subjective opinion, makes it look more professional then the DVX100. I’m on the verge of buying a new cam myself. I’ve rented and tested the DVX100 for some time now. I don’t expect to use 24p in the short term, but it seems to me that for the price difference, the DVC80 is not really worth it. Of course the all-black look really appeals to me. ;-) There I go again… breath in… breath out… talk about a way to judge a camcorder… color… sheeeesh! Fred

October 4th, 2003, 07:32 AM	#8
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Segard : it seems to me that for the price difference, the DVC80 is not really worth it. Fred -->>> At B&H (where I bought my DVC80) the DVX100 is $950 more than the DVC80. I know this isn't the "suggested retail" price difference, but in real-world dollars that's almost $1000 I saved. That's a lot of money to me... For the independent videographer who is shooting strictly for television/video on a budget (like myself), I found the DVC80 to be the (seemingly) best choice in the price range. You have to compare the camera to others in it's price range -- obviously a cam that costs almost $1000 more should have more features/benefits. For myself, I was comparing the DVC80 to the VX2000 (same price at B&H) and decided that for the conditions I would be shooting under, the DVC80 seemed like the best bet. The low-light capability may not be as strong as the VX2000, but it has XLR inputs w/ phantom power -- which means more to me. That said, I hope to purchase a second camera within the next 12 months and I will consider the DVX100, or possibly something even furhter up the ladder w/ a true "broadcast-quality" cam. So far, I've shot a (pro bono) short promo video for a carnival and a :30 second commercial with the DVC80 -- but I'm yet to become a gung-ho DVC80 supporter. Time will tell...

October 4th, 2003, 08:27 AM	#9
Frederic Segard Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 209	Wow! $950US difference. Now I can understand that! Local dealers here in Montreal have it at roughly $600CDN difference, that's about $450US; hence my "not worth it" opinion. If the price difference was the equivalent here, $950US -> $1275CDN, it would be a no brainer (if progressive is not an issue). Plus you get the cool black look. ;-) LOL Signed, "One track mind" Fred

October 4th, 2003, 09:24 PM	#11
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Frederic Well, the retail price difference is only $500 ($3300 vs $3800), but B&H has the DVC80 for $2350 and the DVX100 for $3300. That $2350 beats even wholesale cost for one Atlanta retailer by $150 (according to the salesperson, at least), so I can't say that B&H's prices are typical. Since I was trying to keep my budget under $3000, the DVC80 seemed like the best choice. At retail prices (and if I went over my $3000 cap) I think that the DVX would be worth the extra $500. Of course, I hear that the DVX100 really only shows its stuff if you know how to set up a good shot (lighting, etc) and know how to finesse the controls. Otherwise you just get "video footage that looks funny" to paraphrase one user. Being a man of wavering convictions :), I was intrigued by a conversation I had with a professional videographer today. He was shooting in Atlanta and had well, well over $10,000 sitting on his shoulder (his equipment slips my mind at the moment), so I was soaking up much of what he told me. One thing that struck me was his appreciation for the Sony PDX10. He said it produced great images that were as good as the PD150, and that the footage looked better than what he had seen from the DVX/DVC series (although his experience with the two Panny cams was limited, he said). One thing that had slipped my attention when comparing cams was that the PDX10 has native XLR inputs w/ phantom power. This was a big selling point for the DVC80 when I was comparing it to the VX2000, moreso than differences in low-light capabilities. Which leaves me wondering, how would I have felt about the PDX10? As always, the grass is always greener and all that... I'm going to do a search on DVC80 vs PDX10 just for the heck of it, though. At $1999 at B&H, I might just go ahead and get it as a backup cam... If you go to http://www.karatemedia.com/video/ and click on the Gardens at Eden commercial, you'll see a Real Media video of my first commercial with the DVC80. Yes, it puts new meaning to "run and gun" (emphasis on "run" it seems) and the encoding probably doesn't do the DVC80 justice, put it shows a little of what the cam can do in a "quick n dirty" situation.

October 14th, 2003, 08:51 PM	#12
Emilio Le Roux Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Salvador, Bahia Posts: 33	<<<If you go to http://www.karatemedia.com/video/ and click on the Gardens at Eden commercial, you'll see a Real Media video of my first commercial with the DVC80.>>> Sorry I'm late for this comment, and also a quite a bit OT, but I didn't want to lose the chance to say I HATE REALPLAYER. It should be banned from the cybernetic world and videomakers should unite to vanquish this creation from the very hell of system intrusion and disrespect for individuality, culture and wallets. (Now with free AOL advertising). So said, I went thru the offers and profit seekers by clicking on the very tiny "free player" links in their site, and installed the cost-free but not annoyance-free player. All for you, John. Well, I think the images are great. Of course one can't tell the image definition, but speaking in color they're very nice. It looks as a very quick job, although... I wanted to ask, if i'm not being undiscreet... how much do you charge for this kind of job in your area? I'm in Bahia, Brazil. Just wanted to have some reference about prices outside. Emilio Le Roux emi@ddn.com.br

October 14th, 2003, 09:19 PM	#13
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Emilio Thank you for taking the time to watch my comercial. I get mixed opinions on Real Player -- some people like it, some loathe it. Since I cannot offer web-optimized QuickTime files (I thought AE 5.5 was supposed to be able to create good-looking, low MB QuickTime files, but I can't seem to do it), most Mac users have asked for RealPlayer for cross-platform compatibility. I had only .wmv files before, and most Maccies complained about it. But I also just noticed that when I redesigned the site recently, I forgot to add this link: http://forms.real.com/real/player/blackjack.html this will get you to a page where you can download pre-RealOne versions of RealPlayer that are slightly less evil. Personally, I don't think that the installation process for RealPlayer 8 was any worse than any other similar free app (even QT). I will add that link to my site, as well as this one: http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail.php3?fid=1054136293 which leads to Real Alternative, which is -- as the name suggests -- a free alternative to RealPlayer. I like the .rm format b/c it allows me to have one file on my site that is cross-compatible. But I also want to keep people happy. If anyone has any suggestions on how to create quality web-ready files w/ QuickTime (without buying Cleaner, et al), feel free to learn me somethin' Anyway, yes it was a very quick shoot and edit. I shot on a Saturday afternoon and was basically done with the ad by Sunday afternoon. This was quicker than usual b/c the owner supplied the V/O and music, which made the job easier. Basically I fill a niche in the area; I charge $300 and get the job done as quick as possible. The fee allows me to just show up as a one-man crew and shoot w/ existing light and whatnot. You can't get most videographers to drive by and yell obscenities at you for $300, and I think that most business owners feel that they've gotten their money's worth when I'm done. I wasn't real happy with some of the footage from that first shoot (I brought my worst tripod, I don't know what I was thinking), but the owner was happy. He even had me make a VHS copy for one of his customers. My second commercial with the DVC80 (now up on that same page) looks a little better and hopefully each one will get better. Thanks again for looking.