DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   VX2000($1799) vs. GL2($1699) (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/15943-vx2000-1799-vs-gl2-1699-a.html)

Shawn Mielke October 20th, 2003 01:58 PM

Yes, the 900 or one of the better 1 ccd cams has better low light. Significantly? Probably not, not enough to be worth switching from your first choice, the 950, a fine and very usable cam. If l ow light is your concern, you want a significantly lower lux value. Don't mess around. Buy for low light. Buy the VX2000. A new cam for less than $2grand by and large isn't going to be worth a damn in LOW light, that's just the way it is these days.

Some info on 900/950:

www.bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html

Barry Green October 21st, 2003 12:11 AM

... and then again, depending on how long you can afford to wait, the VX2100 is supposed to be an even better low-light performer...

Shawn Mielke October 21st, 2003 12:31 AM

Exactly!

Frank Granovski October 21st, 2003 01:22 AM

If the VX2100 doesn't have any bugs (you never know), I believe it will be a big seller---based on the specs. Just too bad about the lack of 16:9. At least Century and Optex will be happy, though, with their current 16:9 adaptors---same prices; and they won't have to come up with modified models. :)



--------------------------------------------------
http://www.dvfreak.com/mx5000ad.jpg

Dave Largent October 21st, 2003 02:19 AM

To give ya'll an idea of the relative low-light ablities of some of these cams, here's what I did. I captured some stills from some different cameras. The stills were all under the same low light.
I imported the jpeg into my editing program and then ran each one through a histogram scope to get its luminance (i.e. average brightness). The scale goes from "0" to "255", with 0 being blackest black and 255 being whitest white. Also, with the histogram you can see the *range* of values, in addition to the average. This range is indicative of the picture's contrast because it tells the darkest dark and the lightest light that is in the image. I have the "average" figure for each one but not the range. I'll go check the ranges, too, so you have a better idea of how the images look.

Dave Largent October 22nd, 2003 04:05 AM

Here it is. Read 'em and weep.

1st VX2000 --- value of 99 for picture average, range of 21-175

2nd TRV7 --- 79 average, range of 5-164

3rd VX1000 --- 76, range of 0-171 [3 X 1/3" CCD]

4th GL2 --- 73, range of 18-137

5th TRV 900 --- 68, ranage of 0-150 [3 X 1/4" CCD]

6th TRV9 --- 64, range of 7-130 [All images above would be judged okay or better; ones below this would be considered "too dark" by the average viewer.]

7th PC100 --- 55, 16-102 [1 X 1/4" CCD]

8th TRV30 --- 50, 27-85 [1 X 1/4" CCD]

9th PC120 --- 47, 26-78 [1 X 1/4" CCD]

10th In LAST PLACE: TRV950 (?PDX10) --- 42, 21-74 [3X1/5"CCD]

Out of curiousity, I tried bringing the TRV950 up to the average
luminance of the VX2000 and the GL2 just to see what the range of values would be. Here 'tis:

Same as VX = 79-130
Same as GL2 = 55-107.

I was curious how the 950's sharpness compared to the GL2. Even when I boosted the 950's bightness, I still couldn't tell due to the lack of contrast. Appeared about the same from what I could see.

Tim Frank October 22nd, 2003 09:46 PM

I know this seems to be an endless discussion for me but

GL1 - $950

TRV950 - $1200

Which would you go for...out of this?

Frank Granovski October 22nd, 2003 09:59 PM

I wouldn't pay that kind of money for either. Instead, I'd consider something else. ;)

Tim Frank October 22nd, 2003 10:33 PM

I don't have any money for something else. I'm not a professional videographer, I don't need a camera thats the best at everything, I don't want a big one, I want a relitavely small one and these are the only ones in my price range along with the DV953 which has HORRIBLE low light so its not even a choice...at least these 2 have low light capabilites of what I have now.

Bryan Beasleigh October 22nd, 2003 11:18 PM

Given the choice of those two and with no way out the TRV950 by a landslide. To hell with what i think. get your butt out and play with the 950 and see if you like it.

The GL1, while it was a good old camera s a bit rustic so far as resolution and features.

You should be asking this question next door in the TRV950 forum.

Tim Frank October 22nd, 2003 11:52 PM

Okay, thx...I thought I'd continue my previous post instead of creating a new one...thats all

George Loch November 7th, 2003 10:20 AM

What happened to the VX2K for $1499? That is SUCH a better deal than any of the other cams.

GL

Bryan Beasleigh November 7th, 2003 10:57 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by George Loch : What happened to the VX2K for $1499? That is SUCH a better deal than any of the other cams.

GL -->>>

You know that and that's the way i feel as well but what counts is the person who is buying it. They have to appreciate the difference. the only way i knew for sure was good old fashioned "hands on". I tried every 3 chipper i could and I had a demo tape with me. I taped each a comparison at each oportunity.

What sold me was watching comparisons on my TV at home. I drove the wife nuts. I'd A/B each camera and shoot the same subject , same light at every oportunity.

If one retailer had a VX2K, GL1 and an XL1S , then that's what I would compare. I compared the 300U,VX2K/PD150, GL1, XL1S and TRV900. The VX2K was the clear winner. I actually fought that finding because i thought the XL1S looked "more cool".

I'm pretty sure that given the choice from scratch I'd feel the same way. I've rea;lly been happy with the Sony.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 PM.

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