My Trip to BH Photo (PD170 doesn't look as good)
 

I have had my sights LOCKED On buying the PD170 for a few weeks. I have been researching what camera to buy for over 2 months. I was about to purchase the PD170 today, until the salesman at BH showed me the DVX100a. I don't know what to think now, the way the salesman made it look, and what he showed me, the DVX100 has the PD170 beat in all spects. (maybe not low light) I want to read a few short sentences on what people DONT like about the two cameras. From what the salesman showed me, there isn't one mode or feature on the PD170 that the DVX100a can't handle. But than again, maybe he makes more commission on a DVX100a. Someone please help me out with this. Also, Ive done a ton of searching on the boards, and I am still not sure. Please help out as I am always willing to for others when they are in need of help?

Not quite what you're asking, but from what I understand, BH salespeople don't work on commission.

John,
Isn't it fun to think you know what you want...until you see something else?

(I doubt that the salespeople at B&H are compensated on a commission basis.)

Selection really depends on your realistic assessment of your planned uses and, to some degree, your comfort / skill level with cameras.

The PD150 (and now the 170) is a great all-around general-purpose camera. Its design has withstood the test of time across many amateur and professional applications. (I have never owned one, btw.)

The DVX100A is a tremendous ground-breaking camera. (I own a 100 and 100A at this writing.) I won't recite it's features; you can find them many other places. In my opinion its overall distinction from the PD170 is that it's designed from the ground up for digital filmmaking. The camera's variable frame rates, various imaging settings and its lens system are not -really- designed for casual shooting. Focusing, for example, is basically completely manual. (Yes, there's an auto assist feature but it's not as quickly responsive as auto-focus on most other prosumer cameras.) It takes time and -much- practice to become skilled with manual focusing.

So, again, rational selection depends on application. For general family-style shooting, event coverage and just plain old goofing around the PD170 is probably the better selection.

Ken, I couldn't Agree more
 

Wow Ken, you know whats up! PD-170 was in my eyes, and nothing was in its way, until the DVX100a caught my eye. We can all agree, the DVX100a gives you alot more features, a zoom ring, and cool stuff like that. However, yeah, I feel the pany is for people that want to shoot films. Definetly a cool feature to have, but I am more into filming concert footage, documentaries. So the features such as "Steady Shot Ease" And "Comfort to hold camera for hours without a tripod" are huge factors. The only real time I change the way I shoot is, if I want somewhat of that "film" look, I throw the thing on 1/30. But hey, does the Pany or Sony have any features each other doesn't have as far as 16:9 goes?

I am not firmly grounded in the PD170's 16:9 features so I cannot offer accurate comment on comparisons. I can, however, say that neither camera has native 16:9 CCD's. The DVX100A offers two modes of 16:9; a squeezed mode and a letterboxed mode. Of course you can use an anamorphic accessory lens with either camera.

I am more into filming concert footage, documentaries. So the features such as "Stead
 

If you don't care for (or need) the 24p capabilities of the 100(a), you might want to consider the DVC80. This is the same body as the 100 but lacks the "film" moded functions of progressive scan. This camera is targeted at electronic news gathering applications. What it lacks is the progressive mode of the 100 and it only shoots in 60i. But may be cost-effective solution.

I would also add that the DVC100 and 80 have some of the best balance of any video camera I've hefted. Even my wife could handle the dvc100 and felt it was lighter than the GL2 or VX2000; all the while being heavier!

Sorry to add to the dilemma but the 80 is so close to the 100 as far as physical appearance you may want to save a few bucks.

I live ten minutes from B&H and, when I was looking to buy my camera, I made a bunch of trips there. The salesmen always tried to steer me to other cameras, even though I came to look at and ask about the PD-170, which is what I eventually bought.

I don't know whether they make commission or not, although a friend of mine who works there once mentioned something about "points," which I didn't ask more about. I love B&H and don't doubt the integrity of its help, but I also have had the worst service there from the guys in the pro video department. They're usually swamped and don't often have time to help. Could be the times of day when I go.

That being said, I think the Panny is a great camera. I don't think you could go wrong buying any of the cameras mentioned so far in this thread. I was looking at the Panny, but I *do* a lot of low-light shooting. I'm also waiting more for HD in the future than 24P.

What kind of shooting do you do?

If low light isn't a concern, and it sounds like it might be, the Sony PDX10 is also pretty darn great, with excellent in-cam 16:9, the best in it's class. Not nearly as good in low light as the PD170,though.

Having purchased cameras as far back as the early 70's, I can tell you that the camera store is the worst place to purchase a camera. It just isn't the real world (it maybe lit to make everything look good and even have jells over the windows) and you cannot spend enought time with the camera to do a lot of good. Fondle time counts big here.

You just have to get the camera out into the real world and use it in the applications for which you will buy it. Nothing else comes close to telling you if the camera is right for you.

Any of the cameras mentioned above will deliver great results. As long as they are used correctly in an application for which they are designed. For ENG and general use, the 170 is pretty unbeatable. The 80 may work as well but it doesn't have the use history of the 150/170 family.

For film work, I'd probably pick the 100A as long as I couldn't afford a pro camera. But I'd pick a pro camera in a heartbeat over any of the prosumer cameras for a feature film or documentary (as long as the size didn't get in the way).

In the long run, it's ease of use that counts. What fits your personal style and 'fits' into what you are doing.

I don't take my 150 or 300 on vacation. Too big for my wife (if she will be a second pro shooter, this can be a real issue) and really too big to lug around. I take a compromise camera (in my case a PC110) that is easy to carry and takes good pictures in reasonably competent hands.

If I had to pick just one camera for amateur use, it would be a Sony 950 or 900. Still one of the best smaller cameras with great low-light capability.

wow thanks for the help, however
 

However, I am still stuck on this point. Besides low lighting, is there ANY advantage of taking the PD170 over the DVX100a. I will digress. The 100a offers all of those gamma and 24p modes, I dont plan on using them soon, but for the extra 200 dollars, its worth it for the future. So here is the main issues that I am still yet to find anyones opinion on:

1. What is easier to hold steady (Without tripod) PD170 or DVX100a? What have you found to be more comfortable?

2. Sony advertises they have a "Super Steady Shot", is the stability system superior on the pd170 or dvx100a?

3. Raw picture, do they have a significant difference in chips, lenses or overall picture quality?

4. What is a Tougher Camera. What can take "more of a beating" I have heard that sonys in general can take a beating. But how about the PD170 in comparison to the DVX100a.

Thanks alot guys.

John,
You're entering the Analysis Paralysis zone. This isn't a once-and-for-all decision. Based on your previous remarks you should get the Sony.

John,
I went through the same game. I finally made the leap and bought the Sony over the Panny and XL1s. The picture is great, (it's a bit lense heavy), the sound is terrrific, and it fit my needs for durability and low light sensitivity. Not to say that the other two lack these attributes, but the Sony is time tested...good enough for me. If at some point I want interchangeable lenses or more gamma features etc, well, I'll worry about that when the time comes. For now those are not requirements for me. You can drive yourself nuts looking at every little detail......
Best of luck

Whee, my first post!

I just wanted to say, John, that if durability is a major concern then note that the PD-170 (along with the vx2k I have) has a body made largely of metal, while I believe the DVX is mostly plastic. That means (1) if you drop the Sony, it probably won't explode on you, but (2) if you add the big np-f960 battery (and you *must* add the big battery) along with, say, the cheap-but-nice Kenko wide-angle adapter I use, the camera weighs more than my mom...

God I love Panasonic right now, I wish Sony would catch up.

hahaha
 

Thanks for the help, I think im just going to have to stick with sony for its low light capabilities, ease of use (over the pany) and its tough construction. Thanks alot



John

I'm not so sure the VX/PD body is metal. I heard
it's some sort of composite. Surprising no one
seems to know the truth. Heard it's magnesium
something-or-other.

I'm not sure it matters much. My experience in still cameras and in other areas almost makes makes me prefer a good polycarbonate body over metal. It seems to give more when roughed up, whereas metal often has no give.

A composite body on a metal frame is my preferred body, although magnesium still has its appeal.

Some retailers receive sales promotions or incentives unkown to the consumer. When this is the case, a certain camera manufacturer is the ITEM OF THE WEEK. Not only will the retailer reap a profit from the initial sale but will receive a hefty rebate check from the camera company.

So be careful if a sales person steers you towards another camera.

With that said, I would get the PD 170 if you are not making movies and if low light capability is an issue.

Ok, Lastly... Steady shot and handling
 

Ok, lastly, a big concern of mine is how easy it is to use either the PD170 VS. DVX100a for Handheld use

Also, I have read about sony super steady shot. Keep in mind most of my shots will have to be tripod free (Filiming concerts up on stage)
So the HAND HELD Stability factor is huge. Tell me what you think



John

Well, with a wide angle on the PD, steadyshot is not that
effective. Are you going to be using a wide angle?

Dave,
Actually, to be more specific, the effects of optical image stabilization are less pronounced as the field of view becomes wider. So, indeed, if you use a wide-angle adapter -and- shoot wide your handheld shots will be a bit less rocky. The closer-in you zoom, the shakier the handheld shot will become, and the greater the need for ois, irrespective of the use of a w-a accessory lens.

I thought there was something more to it than
that, seeing as the manual warns that attachment
of a wide angle lens "may influence the SteadyShot
function".

The good news is that as the shot gets wider, the steadyshot is less necessary.

I haven't really compared around, and I always shoot
with my wide on, but I haven't been terrifically impressed
with the VX/PD OIS.

Hey, what about that steady stick?
 

I saw some "Steady Stick" contraption where you put a rod onto your belt, and it supposedly makes the camera alot more stable. Does anyone else know of this? Also Mike, your making it like theres a reason and/or disadvantage to using the OIS at times, I thought you would always keep this on?



john

Actually, some say to turn OIS off when the cam is on a tripod.
Or if you are doing "floating camera" shots, as the
OIS will fight what you are doing.
I have noticed a jerkiness on panning with OIS on.
Anyone else had this experience?

really?
 

So lets get back to the first question. What is a better camera to hold the dvx100a or the SonyPD170?

I, too, am deciding between a GL2, a 170, or 2100. Use will always be hand held, primarily outdoor (travel / animal / zoo / vacation). I already own an XL-1S, so I would not have to buy a couple of spare batteries, and the menu should be pretty familiar.

The OIS works GREAT on the XL-1S, so I presume it also would on the GL2...(?) The big decision maker for me is the 20x zoom on the GL2. I find the XL-1S' 16x short at full zoom, so I bought the 1.6 teleconverter.

I'd appreciate everyone's comments about the GL2 as you compare the 170 and 2100. Also, what are the differences between the 170 and 2100?

Mainly, the PD170 has DVCAM and XLRs.

And the 170 doesn't do that annoying constant
shutting itself off every couple minutes.

I own both the PD150 and the DVX100. Have never seen a DVX100a or a PD170 other than photos but I assume they are almost exactly like their older siblings. I'll try to answer a few questions that have popped up. As far as the magnesium alloy, the DVX has more on the body than the PD150. The 150 only has the alloy on the left side of the body and the handle. The lens is total plastic all the way around and the entire right hand side is encassed in plastic. The DVX has alloy all the way around (the tape door is plastic).

Regarding ease of hand holding, the DVX kicks the 150 in the butt. The PD is not very comfortable to hold for any length of time, especially when a wide zoom through is attached.. The hand grip almost forces your hand to bend at the wrist and position vertically while your arm is at an angle. The DVX positions the hand at an angle so your palm, wrist, and forearm are in a straight line. Much more comfortable. The DVX is much better ballanced.

As far as the picture goes--60i, not progressive--the sony is better than the panny. I really like the picture of the sony. it is punchier, clearer and more vibrant. The panny can get close but it takes a lot of tweaking of the settings but still falls short. The audio features of the sony are better too. Each audio channel on the PD can be set for either auto or manual gain independantly. I run the on cam mic in auto gain and channel 2 as manual for lav mics. You also get a level meter. The panny only lets you have auto or manual on both channels at the same time and the meters have no numerical indication--that is not good. Audio is paramount to me.

The other huge thing I love about the sony over the panny is the viewfinder. (again, all my info here is bassed on the PD150 and the DVX100) The panny viewfinder is just about worthless. You can focus much better with the flip-out. However, under sunlight, the viewfinder is marginal at best. The sony has the awesome high res black and white finder. I love it--use it all the time.

In closing I would say get the 170 if all you are doing is 60i. I didn't mention about the whole reason I bought the DVX was for 24P. That feature is great and is something the sony cannot do. Forget setting the shutter to 30 FPS. You get serious jaggies. You are dumping half the info, 60i looks better than jaggies.

I think the sony is better suited for run and gun docs and the DVX is better suited for dramatic shoots or projects that yield themselves to controled cinematography.

I just bought an image 2000 shoulder mount for the PD/DVX. So far after having it for a day I am only marginally impressed. If you really want the image quality of the sony but are worried about hand holding for long periods of time, get a DSR250--the shoulder mount version of the PD150.

Will Boggs
DustBowl Productions

Thanks alot Will
 

Yeah, unfortanatly, alot of my shooting will be handheld and on the spot, BUT, The PD170 is the cam for me. Pany offers more the DVX series, but its not as fast. If you are filming movies, DEFINETLY go with the panny. Because you have alot of time to perfect each shot and tweak it. I am shooting everything 60i and if i want a cool effect, i just change the shutter to 1/30.

As for the prior posts about the PD150 vs PD170, I did alot of research on this, and made a post about this. Check it out, it was through many drafts and a lot of people appreciated its cut and dry, raw information.

Actually Will, I use to shoot many concerts with the a Gl1, and this may sound funny, but before I would go out on a long run of dates night after night of shooting, I would put myself through a few weeks of condition. Almost like a football player. As funny as it sounds, lifting weights and holding that camera in akward positions, built muscles, so my live shooting would be more stable. Once you get past 60 minutes of holding the camera, youll feel the burn im talking about. Also, Im thinking about going for that steady stick that attaches to your belt buckle. Thanks for the help will

The GL2 shines in well lit shots and using the 20x zoom. I'd hate to be without that zoom. It makes for really nice close ups.

All the cameras are good, but each one probably looks a tad different.

I've seen footage from the Panny and depending on how you shoot, you can make a camera look good OR bad.

I've seen some footage that when using a tracking shot looks great, but then when static, didn't look so good.

The director can make use of any of these cameras in a good or bad way including post production. Sound mixing, color corrections, whatever.

So in the end, whatever you think you NEED most should be the camera you buy.

I got the GL2 mainly because I heard it has good quality sound, the 20x zoom, (lacking on all other choices in the cost range) a great image stabilizer, lens quality including the adapters from Canon, and overall ease of use.

Some things I don't like are:

It doesn't keep the settings you set if you watch the footage and go back to record. It only takes a few seconds to put them back, but it's still a small pain in the butt. I wouldn't mind the XLR inputs or even input, but I bet they didn't include it because some people don't need it and you can always buy the adapter. I found a direct adapter that goes from XLR to mini and it works perfectly. I needed it for the Azden SGM-2X. It takes away the stereo sound, but when you go to mix a movie, you can double up and pan stuff anyways if you want to be picky or mix into 5.1 sound. You'd have to do that with every camera anyhow.

Using the SGM-2x you also can't hear the sound being played back unless you force the audio monitor system to one side, I'm guessing since it's mono or something. People have had that problem and that is the solution.

Basically, unless you're going to move on to a HD camera, I wouldn't worry about the small things. Get what you want and be happy with it. Of course I'd sell that if Canon moves on to an equally good camera with HD capability. I wouldn't mind if they snuck in there a 24fps mode along with HD wither, hehehehe.

Bob,

Thanks for the specific results from the GL2. I planned to buy one, to enjoy a smaller version of my XL-1S. I figured common batteries, common menu, a top OIS and lens should make it hard to beat. Then I became hesitant, reading all the users who prefer SONY - especially in low light conditions.

You clarified the issues; I need the closeup hand held shots; the 20x1, along with a great OIS, and a very light weight package, in addition to common menu, chargers, etc., make it a no-brainer for me. I appreciate the insight from a user!

I heard there is another show around the first week of April. Any word on this? The GL2 has not been out for nearly as long as the XL-1S. Would you expect they are ready to introduce an upgrade this soon? The $250 rebate expires end of March; I'd like to buy one before it expires.

OK, I think we are done with this thread.