I really hate the "VS / versus" thing........but after looking at feature-sets of both the Sony PDX10 and Panasonic DV953- it seems they are both direct competitors- down to the 16:9 native recording and poorish low-light performance- which of these 2 cams produce the better (natural colors- and sharp video) image quality?

Hopefully someone here owns both or has tried both and can comment...any words on these 2 direct competitors?

I tried the TRV950 and PV-DV953(MX5000). In terms of image quality, the Japanese reviews say the PV-DV953(MX5000) is better. But I do not think you'll see a difference, unless you hook them to a large 400 line TV, side by side.

Thanks Frank, the 953 does have a reputation for "sharp" video...but I am more concerned about the PDX10 VS the DV953 as I am planning on getting one of these cameras as soon as B&H comes out of holiday closing....I'd like true 16:9 recording and 530+ lines resolution.....I wasn't too thrilled with the Canon XL1S or GL2's "look" on my Mitsubishi 65" HDTV...I'm hoping for better results from the PDX10 or 953 on that set...maybe I'm asking for too much but i don't recall either of the Canon's as having 530 lines+ res!

The MX500 (the PAL version of the MX5000/PV-DV953) was tested to play back 540 lines. I assume with the PDX10's high pixel count, the resolution would be about the same. Read Allan's notes here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14978

I traded in a DV953 for a PDX10 and I've been very pleased with the upgrade.

One thing to note on the DV953 is that while the 16:9 mode is lossless for resolution it does not give a wider angle of view like the PDX10.

I also found that the PDX10 handles extreme contrasts noticeably better (trees/skyline).

Both are great cams but I think the PDX10 edges out the DV953 and you even get XLR inputs.

Here are a few frames from each cam. Both are in 16:9 mode with the DV953 frames also being frame mode.

DV953
http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrowse.asp?selected=339297

PDX10
http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrowse.asp?selected=441334


These next couple are digital stills in VGA mode (640x480)

DV953
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/Picture360.jpg

PDX10
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/74415/pdx10(1).jpg

Thanks, Tommy. Also the PDX10 costs a good chunk more.

Yep, a substantial difference of $800. Thats a lot of accessories!

That and I think the GS100 will put to rest the differences between the DV953 and PDX10.

If they make a N.A. version I'll be first in line.

The PDX10 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction. Can't speak for the dv953.

The PDX10 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction. Can't speak for the dv953.The PV-DV953 feels like it's built for life. It is serious construction---like with the PDX10. :).

To me the MX500 (I'm holding one right now) shows more grainy pictures under low light than PDX-10 (assuming the same as my previous 950).

PDX-10 should be slightly brighter than MX500 and it still produces 'usable' pictures at 18dB max gain.

However, the upcoming GS-100 (in Japan) should have this problem improved.

OK, so in a nutshell for the extra cost you get

1. Slightly better low light performance- but not much better.
2. Arguably, better construction quality.
3. XLR input and markedly better audio.
4.Wider angle of view at 16:9 mode
5.Possible better contrast handling.

The PDX10 does seem like a small step up in performance to the 953, but definitely not a giant leap.....great- thanks to all whom responded. If anyone else cares to add additional observances- please do.

Thanks

I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode as the PDX-10 does. If the Panasonic truely is using the entire width of the mega-pixel chips then it should immediately give a wider field of view when switched to the 16:9 mode. In light of this I'd stay with the Sony if 16:9 is important to you.

tom.

Here are a couple of pictures explaining how 16:9 is derived from each cam.

PDX10

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg


DV953

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/74415/JVKEZERIPBEXDYIEIYZP-1-1-5.jpg

Even though I like my PDX10 a lot more than my DV953 its hard to argue with a $1000 price difference. Buydig.com has the DV953 right now for $1022. If you want to stay with that price range but get higher quality 16:9 and retain optical image stabilization take a look at the new Canon Optura Xi. It lacks 3CCD but has a much improved color filter to set it apart from other single chippers.

> I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more
> wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode as the PDX-10 does.
> If the Panasonic truely is using the entire width of the mega-pixel
> chips then it should immediately give a wider field of view when
> switched to the 16:9 mode. In light of this I'd stay with the Sony
> if 16:9 is important to you.

The important thing is not the angle of view in itself. It is that the angle of view change is telling you for sure that more pixels of the CCD are used for 16:9 mode. But the important thing is that the CCD has enough real pixels to generate the best possible 16:9 image. If the CCD is a megapixel CCD, it most likely does.

The PV-DV953, though slightly smaller, is just as solid as the TRV950/PDX10. Go see for yourself. Plus it's a way easier to hold.

Which of the 2 cams has the better LCD and EVF?

The PDX10 has a sharper LCD with more pixels and has a high resolution B&W viewfinder that really helps in manual focusing.

And, again, you pay extra for this. And if you want even a better LCD and viewfinder, buy a 1/2" 3 CCD cam and buy a monitor. Anyways, I found the PV-DV953's LCD extremily sharp but its viewfinder sucks. :)

Too bad Panasonic didn't keep the great MX300 viewfinder on their MX5000/PV-DV953 and now the GS100.

Frank,

I take it you feel the 953 is the better "deal" of the 2 despite it's few shortcomings, when compared to the PDX10.

I have about a $4,000 budget for my next cam problem is:

my favorite is the DVX, forget the 24P, I just love the form factor, manual controls and host of other features which makes it the baddest DV camera out- big problem is NO 16:9- of which my TV is! (very surprising considering it's "cinema" target buyer group!!!) I actually bought one when it first came out and got rid of due to it's "WIDE" angle lens- I just couldn't get decent zoom with it! So the DVX and DVC's are out for me....

...the XL1S (which i also owned) was nice- but again soft OEM lens and NO 16:9 (forget the electronic mask 16:9 mode)...

The JVC HD10U is awesome and i have yet to own one- problem is:
all video that I'd like edited using FCP would require post processing so that the clips would be editable in FCP (vai Steve Mullen's 4HDV software) ...adding tons of steps just to get the clips in an editable form...just way too many steps involved...nice part is that it shoots 16:9 in HDTV, SD and DV......all but the DV footage (on par with regular consumer 1-CCD cams in this mode- but not spectacular- this is not why you buy an HD10U)......

.....which leaves us with either the 953 or PDX10....so far the PDX10 has the better marbles.unless there's a 16:9 camera (native) that i have overlooked????

<This is where i am at presently- any further words are much appreciated>

which leaves us with either the 953 or PDX10....so far the PDX10 has the better marbles; unless there's a 16:9 camera (native) that i have overlooked? The PV-DV953's 16:9 is very good, as is the PDX10's 16:9. Both cams are not very good with lower light. The PDX10 has more features. 2 such features yet not mentioned are manual slow speed shutter settings, and the more robust DVCAM format. Other great cams and with great 16:9 are the GS100 and Optura Xi (1 CCD cam). The GS100 is only available in Japan , though, and probably won't be released in North America until about June, 2004. The GS100 is also very good with lower light. Depending on the features you need, and what's available now, I'd look at these cams mentioned:

PDX10
PV-DV953
GS100 (Japanese)
Optura Xi

I can't recall what you will be doing with a cam. Will you need XLRs? The 2 Panas and the Optura will need an XLR adaptor; the PDX10 won't.

Manage to borrow from a friend tested the MX500 last night.
There's no way that the MX500 (do not know is 953 is exactly the same) can beat PDX-10 or TRV-950 in low light.

To me, the video images are horrible, even my wife spotted the difference in quality comparing to my previous 950E under the same condition/environment, hooked up to the TV set.

I seriously think that one should really consider if he wants to go for a 1/6" CCD system.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode -->>>

I love my PDX-10, but someone else around here raised an interesting question. Just WHY does the PDX-10 expand the field of view for 16:9? Doesn't matter to me, because I don't shoot 4:3 on my PDX-10. However, the actual CCD's are in the 4:3 proportion (look at the still photo mode). So why doesn't Sony use the WHOLE ccd for 4:3 video? Makes me wonder if it was a marketing thing to set the camera apart from the others. But maybe there's a technical reason regarding how many pixels the camera can process or something...

A friend thinks (and I agree with him) that the chip's bus or the DSP in the cam just can't process the full amount of pixels at video's frame rate. Not enough bandwidth. And since the CCD array is still oversampled for video even when using a smaller area, the image is still considered 'native' whether in16:9 or 4:3.

Actually, oversampled is better than 'native' resolution, cause it get's you better AD conversion, less noise, less jaggies and so on. Though I think the small size of the pixels is what makes this camera less sensitive to light than the PD150 or other lower res cameras.

Now this get's me thinking. When the camera is in 'photo' mode, it does output video at a progessive rate of 29.97 fps (but it does not record it to tape), so the CCD array can do full res at that rate but not at 60 fps. This means that if sony wanted... or perhaps via a firmware upgrade or even some hidden mode, it could do progessive scan. Now that would be really another planet: native 16:9 proscan.. wow! If you find any hidden modes, please post the info to:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15162

Currently, you can get poor man's (that's me allright) proscan by setting the shutter to 30 fps, but the result is line doubling, the usual Sony kind. However, since the CCD is still working in an oversampled 16:9 mode... it might end up being better than the XL1's proscan at 16:9. Interesting idea... anybody out there have both cams to test?
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15212

Hmmmm. The more I linger around here, the crazier my ideas get, or not? I can almost hear the crowd from the XL1 forum looming towards me with torches in their hands and masks on their faces... and the torches show a strange green tail when they move...
:-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : When the camera is in 'photo' mode, it does output video at a progessive rate of 29.97 fps

This has actually been discussed a lot, both here and on the DV.com boards. I think this is a myth which has been debunked. Evidently the camera does output something in photo mode, but not true 30p. Somebody posted frame grabs where the subject was an electronic circuit board. They looked like they had been deinterlaced and showed some stair-stepping.

I spent some time with that "photo mode progressive" trying to find out what's what... it definitely isn't full-res progressive scan, it looks like field-doubled half-resolution. But, what's odd is that it uses the full surface of the chip, so you get a slightly wider field of view. But what comes out of that firewire port is definitely not 30P, it's more like de-interlaced 60i.

Just one small point in this PDX10 v panasonic debate, the PDX10 will shoot in the far more stable DVcam format, I rather think this may have more to do with the difference in price than wich one has XLRs.