PDX10 Vs. DV953 (Pan) at DVinfo.net

Steve Nunez · September 27th, 2003, 02:10 PM

I really hate the "VS / versus" thing........but after looking at feature-sets of both the Sony PDX10 and Panasonic DV953- it seems they are both direct competitors- down to the 16:9 native recording and poorish low-light performance- which of these 2 cams produce the better (natural colors- and sharp video) image quality?

Hopefully someone here owns both or has tried both and can comment...any words on these 2 direct competitors?

Frank Granovski · September 27th, 2003, 02:23 PM

I tried the TRV950 and PV-DV953(MX5000). In terms of image quality, the Japanese reviews say the PV-DV953(MX5000) is better. But I do not think you'll see a difference, unless you hook them to a large 400 line TV, side by side.

Steve Nunez · September 27th, 2003, 02:36 PM

Thanks Frank, the 953 does have a reputation for "sharp" video...but I am more concerned about the PDX10 VS the DV953 as I am planning on getting one of these cameras as soon as B&H comes out of holiday closing....I'd like true 16:9 recording and 530+ lines resolution.....I wasn't too thrilled with the Canon XL1S or GL2's "look" on my Mitsubishi 65" HDTV...I'm hoping for better results from the PDX10 or 953 on that set...maybe I'm asking for too much but i don't recall either of the Canon's as having 530 lines+ res!

Frank Granovski · September 27th, 2003, 02:41 PM

The MX500 (the PAL version of the MX5000/PV-DV953) was tested to play back 540 lines. I assume with the PDX10's high pixel count, the resolution would be about the same. Read Allan's notes here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=14978

Tommy Haupfear · September 28th, 2003, 12:06 AM

I traded in a DV953 for a PDX10 and I've been very pleased with the upgrade.

One thing to note on the DV953 is that while the 16:9 mode is lossless for resolution it does not give a wider angle of view like the PDX10.

I also found that the PDX10 handles extreme contrasts noticeably better (trees/skyline).

Both are great cams but I think the PDX10 edges out the DV953 and you even get XLR inputs.

Here are a few frames from each cam. Both are in 16:9 mode with the DV953 frames also being frame mode.

DV953
http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=339297

PDX10
http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=441334

These next couple are digital stills in VGA mode (640x480)

DV953
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture360.jpg

PDX10
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...5/pdx10(1).jpg

Frank Granovski · September 28th, 2003, 12:50 AM

Thanks, Tommy. Also the PDX10 costs a good chunk more.

Tommy Haupfear · September 28th, 2003, 06:15 AM

Yep, a substantial difference of $800. Thats a lot of accessories!

That and I think the GS100 will put to rest the differences between the DV953 and PDX10.

If they make a N.A. version I'll be first in line.

Shawn Mielke · September 29th, 2003, 10:01 PM

The PDX10 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction. Can't speak for the dv953.

Frank Granovski · September 30th, 2003, 12:02 AM

Quote:

The PDX10 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction. Can't speak for the dv953.

The PV-DV953 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction---like with the PDX10. :).

Yik Kuen · September 30th, 2003, 04:52 AM

To me the MX500 (I'm holding one right now) shows more grainy pictures under low light than PDX-10 (assuming the same as my previous 950).

PDX-10 should be slightly brighter than MX500 and it still produces 'usable' pictures at 18dB max gain.

However, the upcoming GS-100 (in Japan) should have this problem improved.

Steve Nunez · September 30th, 2003, 08:23 AM

OK, so in a nutshell for the extra cost you get

1. Slightly better low light performance- but not much better.
2. Arguably, better construction quality.
3. XLR input and markedly better audio.
4.Wider angle of view at 16:9 mode
5.Possible better contrast handling.

The PDX10 does seem like a small step up in performance to the 953, but definitely not a giant leap.....great- thanks to all whom responded. If anyone else cares to add additional observances- please do.

Thanks

Tom Hardwick · September 30th, 2003, 08:28 AM

I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode as the PDX-10 does. If the Panasonic truely is using the entire width of the mega-pixel chips then it should immediately give a wider field of view when switched to the 16:9 mode. In light of this I'd stay with the Sony if 16:9 is important to you.

tom.

Tommy Haupfear · September 30th, 2003, 08:54 AM

Here are a couple of pictures explaining how 16:9 is derived from each cam.

PDX10

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg

DV953

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...IYZP-1-1-5.jpg

Even though I like my PDX10 a lot more than my DV953 its hard to argue with a $1000 price difference. Buydig.com has the DV953 right now for $1022. If you want to stay with that price range but get higher quality 16:9 and retain optical image stabilization take a look at the new Canon Optura Xi. It lacks 3CCD but has a much improved color filter to set it apart from other single chippers.

Ignacio Rodriguez · September 30th, 2003, 09:35 AM

> I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more
> wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode as the PDX-10 does.
> If the Panasonic truely is using the entire width of the mega-pixel
> chips then it should immediately give a wider field of view when
> switched to the 16:9 mode. In light of this I'd stay with the Sony
> if 16:9 is important to you.

The important thing is not the angle of view in itself. It is that the angle of view change is telling you for sure that more pixels of the CCD are used for 16:9 mode. But the important thing is that the CCD has enough real pixels to generate the best possible 16:9 image. If the CCD is a megapixel CCD, it most likely does.

Frank Granovski · September 30th, 2003, 01:43 PM

The PV-DV953, though slightly smaller, is just as solid as the TRV950/PDX10. Go see for yourself. Plus it's a way easier to hold.

September 27th, 2003, 02:10 PM	#1
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	PDX10 Vs. DV953 (Pan) I really hate the "VS / versus" thing........but after looking at feature-sets of both the Sony PDX10 and Panasonic DV953- it seems they are both direct competitors- down to the 16:9 native recording and poorish low-light performance- which of these 2 cams produce the better (natural colors- and sharp video) image quality? Hopefully someone here owns both or has tried both and can comment...any words on these 2 direct competitors? __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 27th, 2003, 02:36 PM	#3
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Thanks Frank, the 953 does have a reputation for "sharp" video...but I am more concerned about the PDX10 VS the DV953 as I am planning on getting one of these cameras as soon as B&H comes out of holiday closing....I'd like true 16:9 recording and 530+ lines resolution.....I wasn't too thrilled with the Canon XL1S or GL2's "look" on my Mitsubishi 65" HDTV...I'm hoping for better results from the PDX10 or 953 on that set...maybe I'm asking for too much but i don't recall either of the Canon's as having 530 lines+ res! __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 29th, 2003, 10:01 PM	#8
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	The PDX10 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction. Can't speak for the dv953. __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

September 30th, 2003, 08:23 AM	#11
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	OK, so in a nutshell for the extra cost you get 1. Slightly better low light performance- but not much better. 2. Arguably, better construction quality. 3. XLR input and markedly better audio. 4.Wider angle of view at 16:9 mode 5.Possible better contrast handling. The PDX10 does seem like a small step up in performance to the 953, but definitely not a giant leap.....great- thanks to all whom responded. If anyone else cares to add additional observances- please do. Thanks __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 30th, 2003, 09:35 AM	#14
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more > wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode as the PDX-10 does. > If the Panasonic truely is using the entire width of the mega-pixel > chips then it should immediately give a wider field of view when > switched to the 16:9 mode. In light of this I'd stay with the Sony > if 16:9 is important to you. The important thing is not the angle of view in itself. It is that the angle of view change is telling you for sure that more pixels of the CCD are used for 16:9 mode. But the important thing is that the CCD has enough real pixels to generate the best possible 16:9 image. If the CCD is a megapixel CCD, it most likely does. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

September 27th, 2003, 02:23 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I tried the TRV950 and PV-DV953(MX5000). In terms of image quality, the Japanese reviews say the PV-DV953(MX5000) is better. But I do not think you'll see a difference, unless you hook them to a large 400 line TV, side by side.

September 27th, 2003, 02:41 PM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The MX500 (the PAL version of the MX5000/PV-DV953) was tested to play back 540 lines. I assume with the PDX10's high pixel count, the resolution would be about the same. Read Allan's notes here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=14978

September 28th, 2003, 12:06 AM	#5
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I traded in a DV953 for a PDX10 and I've been very pleased with the upgrade. One thing to note on the DV953 is that while the 16:9 mode is lossless for resolution it does not give a wider angle of view like the PDX10. I also found that the PDX10 handles extreme contrasts noticeably better (trees/skyline). Both are great cams but I think the PDX10 edges out the DV953 and you even get XLR inputs. Here are a few frames from each cam. Both are in 16:9 mode with the DV953 frames also being frame mode. DV953 http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=339297 PDX10 http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=441334 These next couple are digital stills in VGA mode (640x480) DV953 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture360.jpg PDX10 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...5/pdx10(1).jpg

September 28th, 2003, 12:50 AM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks, Tommy. Also the PDX10 costs a good chunk more.

September 28th, 2003, 06:15 AM	#7
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Yep, a substantial difference of $800. Thats a lot of accessories! That and I think the GS100 will put to rest the differences between the DV953 and PDX10. If they make a N.A. version I'll be first in line.

September 30th, 2003, 04:52 AM	#10
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	To me the MX500 (I'm holding one right now) shows more grainy pictures under low light than PDX-10 (assuming the same as my previous 950). PDX-10 should be slightly brighter than MX500 and it still produces 'usable' pictures at 18dB max gain. However, the upcoming GS-100 (in Japan) should have this problem improved.

September 30th, 2003, 08:28 AM	#12
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode as the PDX-10 does. If the Panasonic truely is using the entire width of the mega-pixel chips then it should immediately give a wider field of view when switched to the 16:9 mode. In light of this I'd stay with the Sony if 16:9 is important to you. tom.

September 30th, 2003, 08:54 AM	#13
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Here are a couple of pictures explaining how 16:9 is derived from each cam. PDX10 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg DV953 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...IYZP-1-1-5.jpg Even though I like my PDX10 a lot more than my DV953 its hard to argue with a $1000 price difference. Buydig.com has the DV953 right now for $1022. If you want to stay with that price range but get higher quality 16:9 and retain optical image stabilization take a look at the new Canon Optura Xi. It lacks 3CCD but has a much improved color filter to set it apart from other single chippers.

September 30th, 2003, 01:43 PM	#15
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The PV-DV953, though slightly smaller, is just as solid as the TRV950/PDX10. Go see for yourself. Plus it's a way easier to hold.