Realistic assesment of VX2000 v's 2100 at DVinfo.net

Patrick Grealy · January 21st, 2004, 06:44 AM

Hello All

Now that the VX2100 has been in circulation for a few months, do those who have experience of both have any opinion on the 'improvements' in the 2100 over the 2000?

I ask this as my local store has both and I am thinking of buying one, as a foil for my PDX10 (so as to multi camera stage events)

Thanks

P

PS : There is a $500 price difference

Alan Christensen · January 21st, 2004, 12:23 PM

I have both a 2000 and a 2100. I have only shot one event so far with the 2100, so I don't have a great deal of experience with it. So far I have not noticed a great deal of difference.

Things I definitely like better about the 2100 are:
-lens cover built into the hood (big plus!)
-slightly better visual angle on the side LCD
-less noisy in very low light

Things I don't like as much on the 2100
-surface texture and color. The 2000 was smooth and silver.
The 2100 has a textured surface and is gray. The texture
may be better for minimizing reflections off the cam, but it
feels gritty to me when I pick it up. Just a gut reaction. Others
may prefer the new feel as it will make it harder to drop the
camera.
-the need to only use Infolithium batteries from Sony. I had
purchased some F960 equivalents from Ebay not long ago
that I planned to use with both cameras. They were under
$40 and so far have worked perfectly with the 2000. Upon
discovering that the 2100 rejected these batteries at power
on, I have had to shell out $110 for a Sony 960.
-the sensitivity of the viewfinder to the exact position of your
eye. The magnifier makes the viewfinder look a tiny bit bigger,
but if you shift your eye position a little, the viewfinder goes
out of focus. This may be as much a function of the large
eyecup that comes with the 2100 as it is with the magnifier
(I'm not sure). I have always used the small eyecup with
my 2000, and I find it easier to use.

Things I'm not sure about yet:
-improved sound? I never noticed issues with sound on
my 2000, so I'm not sure that this will turn out to be a big
advantage for me.

BTW, the my 2100 and 2000 aren't identical with respect to auto white balance, AE, and color level. I have found that I can adjust out the differences in AE and color level by using the custom presets, and by using manual white balance I can then make the cameras take identical video.

Hope that helps.

Patrick Grealy · January 21st, 2004, 12:32 PM

Thanks for this.

Sounds like a good discounted VX2000 is the one to have then. !!

Regards P

Dave Largent · January 21st, 2004, 09:31 PM

I don't care for the new eyecup. I wish they had
a smaller one as an option. I've tried removing the
eyecup permanently, but it's hard to see the viewfinder
and I'm worried the glass will get scratched. Maybe
I'll get use to the new one in time.
New one gets in the way cuz of its large size, catches on
everything cuz of the sticky rubber, and fogs the
viewfinder quickly.

Mike Rehmus · January 21st, 2004, 10:00 PM

Maybe one of the hoodman eyepiece hoods would work in place of the factory piece.

I like the large cup that is on the 150 just because I do shoot a fair amount out in the sunlight and it does make a major difference to me.

Tom Hardwick · January 22nd, 2004, 11:08 AM

Good details Alan. Can you clear up one point for me? The PD170 claims an improvement in the way the exposure wheel works - in that it puts twice as many steps into the aperture changes, making them less visible on screen. Is this so on the VX2.1k too? Or are the apertures bumped up or down in (very visible) half stop increments as in the VX2k?

If the VX2.1 follows the 170 lead in this respect, I'd go for it. If not I'd save the money and go with the VX2k.

tom.

Alan Christensen · January 22nd, 2004, 12:01 PM

There appears to be no difference in the number of wheel-controlled exposure steps between the VX-2000 and the VX-2100. This seems like it would be a simple firmware change to the camera, so I'm surprised that Sony didn't make this improvement on the 2100. Perhaps they were trying to maintain the difference between the pro-sumer 2100 and the more professional PD-170.

Having used both, I'd personally go with a 2000 for a $500 difference in price.

January 21st, 2004, 06:44 AM	#1
Patrick Grealy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 90	Realistic assesment of VX2000 v's 2100 Hello All Now that the VX2100 has been in circulation for a few months, do those who have experience of both have any opinion on the 'improvements' in the 2100 over the 2000? I ask this as my local store has both and I am thinking of buying one, as a foil for my PDX10 (so as to multi camera stage events) Thanks P PS : There is a $500 price difference __________________ Sony PDX10 by 2, DRS-11, Dual G5, FCX, DVDSP and Logic Plat. www.VarsityMusicVideo.com

January 21st, 2004, 12:32 PM	#3
Patrick Grealy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 90	Thanks for this. Sounds like a good discounted VX2000 is the one to have then. !! Regards P __________________ Sony PDX10 by 2, DRS-11, Dual G5, FCX, DVDSP and Logic Plat. www.VarsityMusicVideo.com

January 21st, 2004, 10:00 PM	#5
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Maybe one of the hoodman eyepiece hoods would work in place of the factory piece. I like the large cup that is on the 150 just because I do shoot a fair amount out in the sunlight and it does make a major difference to me. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

January 21st, 2004, 12:23 PM	#2
Alan Christensen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: California Posts: 139	I have both a 2000 and a 2100. I have only shot one event so far with the 2100, so I don't have a great deal of experience with it. So far I have not noticed a great deal of difference. Things I definitely like better about the 2100 are: -lens cover built into the hood (big plus!) -slightly better visual angle on the side LCD -less noisy in very low light Things I don't like as much on the 2100 -surface texture and color. The 2000 was smooth and silver. The 2100 has a textured surface and is gray. The texture may be better for minimizing reflections off the cam, but it feels gritty to me when I pick it up. Just a gut reaction. Others may prefer the new feel as it will make it harder to drop the camera. -the need to only use Infolithium batteries from Sony. I had purchased some F960 equivalents from Ebay not long ago that I planned to use with both cameras. They were under $40 and so far have worked perfectly with the 2000. Upon discovering that the 2100 rejected these batteries at power on, I have had to shell out $110 for a Sony 960. -the sensitivity of the viewfinder to the exact position of your eye. The magnifier makes the viewfinder look a tiny bit bigger, but if you shift your eye position a little, the viewfinder goes out of focus. This may be as much a function of the large eyecup that comes with the 2100 as it is with the magnifier (I'm not sure). I have always used the small eyecup with my 2000, and I find it easier to use. Things I'm not sure about yet: -improved sound? I never noticed issues with sound on my 2000, so I'm not sure that this will turn out to be a big advantage for me. BTW, the my 2100 and 2000 aren't identical with respect to auto white balance, AE, and color level. I have found that I can adjust out the differences in AE and color level by using the custom presets, and by using manual white balance I can then make the cameras take identical video. Hope that helps.

January 21st, 2004, 09:31 PM	#4
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I don't care for the new eyecup. I wish they had a smaller one as an option. I've tried removing the eyecup permanently, but it's hard to see the viewfinder and I'm worried the glass will get scratched. Maybe I'll get use to the new one in time. New one gets in the way cuz of its large size, catches on everything cuz of the sticky rubber, and fogs the viewfinder quickly.

January 22nd, 2004, 11:08 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Good details Alan. Can you clear up one point for me? The PD170 claims an improvement in the way the exposure wheel works - in that it puts twice as many steps into the aperture changes, making them less visible on screen. Is this so on the VX2.1k too? Or are the apertures bumped up or down in (very visible) half stop increments as in the VX2k? If the VX2.1 follows the 170 lead in this respect, I'd go for it. If not I'd save the money and go with the VX2k. tom.

January 22nd, 2004, 12:01 PM	#7
Alan Christensen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: California Posts: 139	There appears to be no difference in the number of wheel-controlled exposure steps between the VX-2000 and the VX-2100. This seems like it would be a simple firmware change to the camera, so I'm surprised that Sony didn't make this improvement on the 2100. Perhaps they were trying to maintain the difference between the pro-sumer 2100 and the more professional PD-170. Having used both, I'd personally go with a 2000 for a $500 difference in price.