VX2000($1799) vs. GL2($1699)

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.

October 20th, 2003, 01:58 PM	#16
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	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 __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

October 21st, 2003, 12:31 AM	#18
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Exactly! __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

November 7th, 2003, 10:20 AM	#27
George Loch Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: . Posts: 105	What happened to the VX2K for $1499? That is SUCH a better deal than any of the other cams. GL __________________ http://www.motoxpress.com

October 21st, 2003, 12:11 AM	#17
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	... and then again, depending on how long you can afford to wait, the VX2100 is supposed to be an even better low-light performer...

October 21st, 2003, 01:22 AM	#19
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	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

October 21st, 2003, 02:19 AM	#20
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	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.

October 22nd, 2003, 04:05 AM	#21
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	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.

October 22nd, 2003, 09:46 PM	#22
Tim Frank Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TN Posts: 166	I know this seems to be an endless discussion for me but GL1 - $950 TRV950 - $1200 Which would you go for...out of this?

October 22nd, 2003, 09:59 PM	#23
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I wouldn't pay that kind of money for either. Instead, I'd consider something else. ;)

October 22nd, 2003, 10:33 PM	#24
Tim Frank Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TN Posts: 166	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.

October 22nd, 2003, 11:18 PM	#25
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	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.

October 22nd, 2003, 11:52 PM	#26
Tim Frank Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TN Posts: 166	Okay, thx...I thought I'd continue my previous post instead of creating a new one...thats all

November 7th, 2003, 10:57 AM	#28
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	<<<-- 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.