The June issue of DV is on the stands now, and there is still no review of the PDX-10 which was rumored to have been done awhile ago. So perhaps they've decided not to publish it, or maybe it never really existed?...

It was done all right, Bruce Johnson posted a couple of things about it. But perhaps they decided not to publish it because it'll hurt some of their advertisers---that's the only thing that pops into my mind as far as why they haven't printed it yet.

Sounds a little like one of Joseph George's conspiracy theories ;-) OTOH, I wonder if a glowing review of the $2,000 PDX-10 could cut into PD-150 sales?

This is interesting... if you look on the Sony Canada website you'll see that the PDX-10 is no longer listed with the pro DVCAM camcorders: http://www.sonyfastrac.ca/webapp/commerce/servlet/CategoryDisplay?merchant_rn=2&cgrfnbr=16481. If you dig a little deeper you will find it's been repositioned as a "medical DVCAM megapixel PROSUMER camcorder"!?! http://www.sonyfastrac.ca/webapp/commerce/servlet/CategoryDisplay?merchant_rn=2&cgrfnbr=15759. However it's still listed with the pro camcorders on the US site http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/SubCategory?m=0&p=2&sp=11&sm=0&s=21&cpos=2

Probably nothing to this, but it does seem like Sony doesn't quite know what to do with its little ParaDoX-10...

"one of Joseph George's conspiracy theories"

Na. It's just the only reason I can think of of why it has been published in DV Magazine yet.

I'm not saying the PDX is a bad cam, but Bruce hinted that it had some major weaknesses. So I presume it's on the "back burner" as far as rushing it to publication. Perhaps the article is going to be re-written to please more interests. Or, 3 months before a replacement model comes out, they'll publish it.

Cams all have their strengths and weaknesses. The PDX is no exception. This doesn't mean it's a bad cam, overall. I think it's one of the better ones.

I remember Bruce hinting that it had some weaknesses on both the posts at DV forum where he mentioned that it had no custom preset controls for sharpness and colour gain.

I pulled him up twice on this issue, apparenly the reviewer had not bothered to check what was under the hood.

A glaring omission would not look good for a respectable mag would it? Probably a bad case of Canovision....:)=

Yes, that could be the reason: a poorly written review. At this point, it's just speculation. Maybe the article just got the rejection stamp. Who knows.

For anyone who didn't see it, Bruce Johnson posted a response to somebody's query on this topic on the DV.com message boards:

======================================================

Bruce A. Johnson posted 5/27/2003 08:58 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was one of those...

>...reviewers i would not necessarily trust...<

...me?

My review will be out next month in DV, and it was delayed because I made a stupid error in fact that took a while to sort out. But it's all better now.

BAJ

======================================================