|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 24th, 2003, 02:15 PM
|
#1 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,787
|
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?...
|
|
|
|
May 24th, 2003, 03:52 PM
|
#2 |
|
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
May 24th, 2003, 04:38 PM
|
#3 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,787
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
May 24th, 2003, 05:07 PM
|
#4 |
|
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
"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. |
|
|
|
|
May 25th, 2003, 08:05 AM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
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....:)=
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
|
|
|
|
May 25th, 2003, 02:30 PM
|
#6 |
|
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
May 29th, 2003, 06:01 PM
|
#7 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,787
|
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 ====================================================== |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
