DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony TRV950 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-trv950-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   Still no PDX-10 review (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-trv950-pdx10-companion/10052-still-no-pdx-10-review.html)

Boyd Ostroff May 24th, 2003 02:15 PM

Still no PDX-10 review
 
The June issue of DV is on the stands now, and there is still no review of the PDX-10 which was rumored to have been done awhile ago. So perhaps they've decided not to publish it, or maybe it never really existed?...

Frank Granovski May 24th, 2003 03:52 PM

It was done all right, Bruce Johnson posted a couple of things about it. But perhaps they decided not to publish it because it'll hurt some of their advertisers---that's the only thing that pops into my mind as far as why they haven't printed it yet.

Boyd Ostroff May 24th, 2003 04:38 PM

Sounds a little like one of Joseph George's conspiracy theories ;-) OTOH, I wonder if a glowing review of the $2,000 PDX-10 could cut into PD-150 sales?

This is interesting... if you look on the Sony Canada website you'll see that the PDX-10 is no longer listed with the pro DVCAM camcorders: http://www.sonyfastrac.ca/webapp/com...&cgrfnbr=16481. If you dig a little deeper you will find it's been repositioned as a "medical DVCAM megapixel PROSUMER camcorder"!?! http://www.sonyfastrac.ca/webapp/com...&cgrfnbr=15759. However it's still listed with the pro camcorders on the US site http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...=0&s=21&cpos=2

Probably nothing to this, but it does seem like Sony doesn't quite know what to do with its little ParaDoX-10...

Frank Granovski May 24th, 2003 05:07 PM

"one of Joseph George's conspiracy theories"

Na. It's just the only reason I can think of of why it has been published in DV Magazine yet.

I'm not saying the PDX is a bad cam, but Bruce hinted that it had some major weaknesses. So I presume it's on the "back burner" as far as rushing it to publication. Perhaps the article is going to be re-written to please more interests. Or, 3 months before a replacement model comes out, they'll publish it.

Cams all have their strengths and weaknesses. The PDX is no exception. This doesn't mean it's a bad cam, overall. I think it's one of the better ones.

John Jay May 25th, 2003 08:05 AM

I remember Bruce hinting that it had some weaknesses on both the posts at DV forum where he mentioned that it had no custom preset controls for sharpness and colour gain.

I pulled him up twice on this issue, apparenly the reviewer had not bothered to check what was under the hood.

A glaring omission would not look good for a respectable mag would it? Probably a bad case of Canovision....:)=

Frank Granovski May 25th, 2003 02:30 PM

Yes, that could be the reason: a poorly written review. At this point, it's just speculation. Maybe the article just got the rejection stamp. Who knows.

Boyd Ostroff May 29th, 2003 06:01 PM

For anyone who didn't see it, Bruce Johnson posted a response to somebody's query on this topic on the DV.com message boards:

======================================================

Bruce A. Johnson posted 5/27/2003 08:58 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was one of those...

>...reviewers i would not necessarily trust...<

...me?

My review will be out next month in DV, and it was delayed because I made a stupid error in fact that took a while to sort out. But it's all better now.

BAJ

======================================================


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network