I'm testing this PDX10 and giving it a real workout but a couple of things have come to light. First is that the 'Display' constantly lies and is very unreliable. Don't believe me? Then try this simple test.

Zoom to full telephoto. Up the shutter speed so that you *know* the camera is in the gain-up mode (i.e. has reached maximum aperture). Film for 3 seconds. Rewind tape, play tape.

What does the readout tell you? Why, that I shot at 1/600th sec and +18dB and f1.6 - yet at full telephoto the maximum aperture is only f2.8 - a good one and a half stops slower. As a consequence I'm very suspicious of that readout. As you lower the shutter speed the display will happily tell you that you shot at f2 and f2.4 - both impossible.

Next point to clear up (lots of questions about this on the board) is that the PDX10 has three ND filters, all of them automatic in operation, all of them uncoated gelatin filters that bob in and out of the light path depoending on ambient lighting conditions.

There has been much correspondence here about aperture readouts not going beyond f4.8 even in bright sun and with auto shutter locked off, and the reason is simple. Sony simply dial in more and more ND, and if you wanted to shoot at f8 for greater depth of field at full telephoto, then hard luck.

Compared to the manual photographic tools that the 900 and the VX2k are, the 950 and the PDX10 look to be very toy-town constraining and somewhat patronising I'm sorry to say. Great pictures though, don't get me wrong, and keeping Jo Public away from diffraction losses ain't a bad thing by any means.

I have lots more to say on this fascinating camera. Not all of it good, but not all of it bad either.

tom.

Keep it coming Tom, and a big, thank you!

tom, would you please tell me how you configure out that there is ND filters inside? It seems no where it is specified , although I read from a Chinese site that TRV950 does have ND built in, but at that time I thought it might be a mistake, However waht you said reminds me of that artical I read long time ago...

If it has the automatic ND(non controlable) , then it might explain well why the readout is so misleading...I also concerned that issue and talked in that thread, though that thread seems not interesting to many people ...

Well In fact I just ordered PDX10 from J&R and will get it in two days, Tom I am looking forward to your tests, and I would like to do the same on my machine.

> though that thread seems not interesting to many people ...

Ohh not at all. I am very interested. Personally, it does not bother me that the camera has ND filters and uses them to give me a better image. I would still have liked to know that from tha advertized specs or at least the manual though... I wonder if there is some nice chap from Sony reading this... might be able to step in and clear this up.

There's nothing to 'clear up' Ignacio though like you I would have liked to know from the specification that exposure is controlled (in both manual and automatic) not by varying the aperture but by applying more or less ND. This camera is going to be used in the shutter priority mode for most of it's life and most people are going to assume that turning that exposure wheel will be setting an aperture by varying diaphragm blades.

Any photographer would be right to assume this as using different apertures can affect not only the DOF but also the way highlights and out of focus areas look. Small apertures (especially with such tiny chips) also allow you to control the amount of diffraction, so for a softer look you'd want to film at f8 and 11. I repeat - this is not marketed as a consumer cam. The price and the DVCAM logo point it at conscientious photographers.

What actually happens is that if you're filming at full telephoto in the manual exposure mode the camera has all of one stop to play with. What this means is that (contrary to the 'Display' information that's effectively useless) the camera will open to full aperture of f2.8. If it gets brighter - or you want to film at a smaller aperture - you can film at f4. If it gets brighter still the camera has no more apertures up its sleeve - it now resorts to using the first of the three ND filters. If it gets brighter still the second and then the third ND come into the optical path.

Cooleye - you're buying a camcorder with a startlingly good lens. This PDX10 has a cracker of an image and I can say this because I'm viewing it critically on a 34" Sony. Sony really have no need (apart from marketing) to pay Zeiss for their name, for this 12x zoom is bitingly sharp at very wide apertures. Thing is it has to be, you never get to see its performance at smaller apertures as the NDs won't allow it.

Ah, but you can. I've figured out a way to fool it into letting me see smaller apertures at work. More later.

tom.

> Cooleye - you're buying a camcorder with a startlingly good lens.
> This PDX10 has a cracker of an image and I can say this because
> I'm viewing it critically on a 34" Sony. Sony really have no need

Oh Tom since you are there, staring still at the monitor <grin> have you noticed how good the image continues to look if you go below 1/60 (or below 1/50 in PAL land)? I am amazed because I find I can barely see any line doubling, which is so bad with other Sony cams when you go slow shutter. Am I just using a lousy monitor or is this cam really much better at slow shutter speeds than previous models?

> Ah, but you can. I've figured out a way to fool it into letting me see
> smaller apertures at work. More later.

Jejejejej. We will all be eagerly awaiting.

Interesting point you make about the slower-than 1/50th shutter speeds Ignacio. I've done some "white diagonal" tests and like you have been impressed with the freedom from jaggies. I'm sure there's single field line doubling at work, but the DSP of the larger chips infomation feed is smoothing the results nicely.

This is indeed good news because the very poor low light performance of the PDX10 needs all the help it can get. The gain-up mode is very quiet as far as +12dB and this in combination with the 1/25th shutter speed (if you avoid the obvious pictorial give-aways) help claw back three much needed stops.

tom.

Am I then right in assuming that I shall not use any external ND filters on my PDX10?

Hans

I'll have to take you guys' word on the internal ND filters I guess. This has been discussed before and was the source of some controversy. Aside from the data code anomalies, how do you know the filters exist?

> Am I then right in assuming that I shall not use any external
> ND filters on my PDX10?

If you shoot in manual mode you will definitely need external ND filters for 1/60 second exposures. I use both ND 2 and ND 6 filters regularly in bright conditions. Now admittedly, I use them out of a desire to keep the aperture in the "sweet spot" around f4, which is the middle of the exposure bargraph readout. Tom: is it your theory that turning the exposure wheel further to reduce the aperture merely inserts internal ND filters instead of closing the iris? If that's the case then perhaps my use of the external ND filters is not needed. I would love to see some hard data on this in the form of comparison shots however.

Searching on the net some time ago I found someone who had dissasembled a TRV950 and had a look at the insides of it. He mentioned a two blade iris and other interesting stuff about mechanical image stabilization but said nothing about visible ND filters.

However, sometimes when shooting I have noticed some flickering, very slight, almost unnoticable. At first I though I was imagining it, but then I saw it again several times. Now that this ND filter thing has come up, I am thinking perhaps this slight flickering I saw might have been the camera adding or substracting ND to the image path. Anybody else noticed this?

Yes Hans and Boyd- you're right to think that you won't need another ND for the 950/X10. But if you wanted to shoot at maximum aperture on a sunny day you could add an ND2 or easier - you'd want to up the shutter speed and the quickest way to do this is to select the sports or portrait mode.

You say the inbuilt NDs are 'the source of some controversy', Boyd. No controversy now. 'Aside from the data code anomalies, how do I know the filters exist?' By simply looking down into the lens and turning that exposure dial - it's as plain and simple as that. Why nobody's done this in the 13 months the camera's been around I'll never know. I had one for 10 minutes and all was revealed. I told you guys the same day.

The good Sony designers have insisted (to the point of forbidding access to any apertures smaller than f4.8) that you shoot using the 'sweet spot', so there's no need to use more ND. In fact the aperture readout can be believed unless it says f1.6 and silly things like that for full tele work - the camera *is* working at f4 for most of its outdoor life.

So it's not 'my theory' Boyd, it's rock-solid fact. And comparison shots aren't going to help any - how could they? The bottom line is this: if you film outdoors with the PDX10 in auto or manual, all that's happening is the camera chooses the sweet spot (f4) and plays around with the three NDs to smoothly vary the exposure.

Next quibble. If this is so, how come the exposure wheel (actually an ND wheel for most of its life) puts unacceptable half-stop visible jumps into my footage? This is a crazy state of affairs, and is something that the VX2.1k/170 has made an attempt to correct.

The flickering is something I'll look out for, but as the NDs are mechanically raised immediately behind the two bladed iris my guess is that sudden shaking of the cam (on a fairground maybe?) could shake the NDs up and down somewhat.

tom.

> Why nobody's done this in the 13 months the camera's been around
> I'll never know. I had one for 10 minutes and all was revealed.
> I told you guys the same day.

Well there you go. After laughing my head off, I just fired up the camera, pointed a flashlight into the lens and tried confirming this. I could see the iris moving but cannot notice the ND filters... what should I expect to see exactly?

> The flickering is something I'll look out for, but as the NDs are
> mechanically raised immediately behind the two bladed iris
> my guess is that sudden shaking of the cam
> (on a fairground maybe?) could shake the NDs up and down

Ohh no... it is too subtle to be visible under such conditions. I have seen it when shooting something with a fixed frame, nothing moving at all.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I could see the iris moving but cannot notice the ND filters... -->>>

OK, I just tried the same thing. Tom, I think you are right. I wasn't completely sure what I was looking at, but definitely saw something which moved in 3 steps. The color of the reflection from the flashlight also changed as this happened. All of this is indeed consistent with different neutral density filters.

Regarding the idea of choosing faster shutter speeds to force large apertures under brightly lit conditions: this is certainly an option but the higher shutter speeds change the look of the video, depending on the type of motion that is present. For example, some footage I shot from a slow moving car with trees in the foreground has an annoying strobe-like quality. Personally I prefer the motion blur of shooting at 1/60 second, and generally go one step further by processing the footage in post with an adaptive deinterlacing program that produces a psuedo 30p effect.

But this is a real revalation about how the PDX-10 works Tom; thanks for that. Next month when I finally get a little free time I'm going to have to re-think some of my assumptions about exposure and filtration. In the meantime, I've been shooting performance video of some of our operas for the first time with the PDX-10. I'm really happy with the results. It would be nice to have another f-stop or two for the dim scenes, but it really hasn't been much of a problem for me. According to the data code (but can I really believe that now? ;-) much of my footage is shot wide open at anywhere from +3db to +18db. For the most part this all looks fine. I find the noise to be most evident in the very dim blue areas however. This is somewhat similar to what I'm seeing in my digital stills taken with a Nikon 5700 (5MP 2/3" CCD).

I'm also finding that the audio sounds great on the PDX-10. Have been feeding channel 1 from the house sound board and using the mono camera-mounted mike on channel 2. This is a noticeable improvement over my VX-2000 audio using a beachtek box to connect the house board feed.

Ahhh. I saw it now. Yes I can see the color of reflections changing.

Perhaps I imagine it, but I also seem to get the idea of something turning counterclockwise, when I dial down the expsure... very strange. Could it be that the ND filters are on a semicircular support that spins and is centered to the left of the lens?

Anyway, great work Tom, Thank You for all the insight. I think it's time to write an extensive update to my review on the PDX10. If it's ok with you nice chaps, I would like to mention your experiences with this cam.

I suggested some time ago that the PDX could have variable ND filters. The concept of a wide range continiously variable ND filter would even give an extra dimension to the exposure game... One could set the shutter for the smooth motion (like 1/60) set the aperture for the DOF wanted (within the lens and diffraction limits) and adjust the ND (manually or auto) for the correct exposure. Even the large CCD cams would get extra exposure flexibility. Maybe one day...

This has been one of the most intriguing threads I've read. No doubt because I work with cam in question. What a strange thing for Sony to not publish whatsoever. And for it to be beneficial, ultimately, too. Has someone already guessed why this would be?

Small CCD's rapidly start to show diffraction resolution loss at higher f-settings. So the only way to counter this (and if 1/60 is chosen) is to limit the shutdown of the aperture (limit the f number) In order to still cover a large range of light condition, given the small aperture range (underlimit is about f1.6) one needs to use a wide range ND setting, and because this small aperture range 3 steps are needed..

What makes this all interesting is that us "guinea pig" test buyers are all learning this via our user observations- I wish Sony would make internal working specs like these known- especially since this seems to be a non-standard way of reducing light....they could have touted it as an "intuitive" video method but instead not publish any info on these "internal ND filters"....

...today while shooting under sunny conditions, the PDX exhibited the "streaking" I've read about (the producing of lightened video running vertically throughout the video frame starting and stopping wherever very bright light is encountered- such as where tree tops end and the sky dominates til the next tree- you'd see vertical lightening of the entire frame)...I'm also noticing the PDX has a very tough time with metering and seems to overexpose very easily.....

...for the most part I'm finding the PDX a bit tough to get set the way I like....with a few more remaining days left til B&H reopens- the fate of my personal PDX remains bleek- this model may go back and i may just pickup an Elura 50 and wait a few months tol the new HD cams come out- there's simply no choice for native 16:9 shooting and the DV953 may not be much better (if at all) than the PDX.

I wanna like the PDX- but just can't help feel it's metering is sub-par and it's propensity to blow-out highlights a bit overbearing for a $2000 semi-pro camera...I hope I discover settings i'm not using or else this cam goes back!

(how lame is not being able to use ND filters in the traditional sense??)

Stay tuned!

> I'm also noticing the PDX has a very tough time with metering and
> seems to overexpose very easily.....

Steve, did you try using the custom preset menu to change the AE point? In my PDX10 this is always set at least two steps lower than default.

Ignacio,

Thanks for the tip- I plan on reading the manually thoroughly tonight, end to end!

Here's something I threw together for my son- he's an avid praying mantis collector....shot with the PDX a few hours ago........

http://stevenunez.com/video/pages/chimantis.html

It's pretty interesting, let me know what you guys think.

Yes, my PDX will over-expose normal 'auto' footage if left on the factory default settings, and it definitely needs correcting with the custom presets as Ignacio points out.

Steve - I'm sad to say that you've noticed the next big failing of the PDX, and that's its CCD flare. Remember this camera costs just a few dollars less than a VX2k, yet side by side the results couldn't be more different. I've had both cameras locked down on my big L bracket so that their lenses 'converge' at about 3 metres. I've been out filming with this combo and it shows with the cruel slap in the face of the A/B test how much better the VX is in bright light (CCD flare) and low light (three solid stops more sensitive).

What *is* good about the PDX is the native resolution of the 16:9 facility, but only if you steer well clear of dim surroundings or bright lights. Pretty restricting, huh? These situations can be so image degrading. My footage shot on Sunday has some shots that are completely unacceptable due to this CCD flare, and this was caused by simply having the cloud-obscured sun in frame. Looking up you couldn't see the sun, just a 'brighter cloud'. I upped the shutter speed as I wanted to selectively print the frames of kids on a trampoline. The CCD flare has made the frames totally - and I mean totally - useless.

This is indeed a sad state of affairs. OK, in normal, everyday shooting this cam gives great video. But hey - Sony are selling this as a Pro cam at a pro price, and it's simply not good enough.

tom.

Yes. Flare is something we are learning to live with. As things are, this was the only 16:9 cam available to me at the time I bought it, as I did not have more cash. Nor did I wish to pay to be a JVC HD-10 beta tester which was the other under $4000 16:9 alternative.

If you take care not to overexpose and keep contrast under control (which is good videography practice anyway) you can get very good images out of this camera. It's just not as good as the PD150 in some ways, and that is why it is cheaper. And it's better in other ways, which is why I like it ;-)

Tom, absolutely well said!

I'm pretty sure the PDX10 is going back- as much as I WANT to like it- the video issues are a bit too much to overcome for a camcorder of this supposed "quality" and price. The streaking is very drastic and like you said Tom, it will streak even when the offending "bright" element is not even in the video at all but just outside the frame! For a nature videographer/enthusiast who will likely tape under mixed lighting at any given moment- the PDX is simply not up to this type of shooting....speckeld light coming through branches absolutely kills the video- very sad indeed!

So I'll play with it for a few more days until B&H reopens from their holiday schedule and return it and perhaps get a DVC80 and a tele lens......I'm losing 16:9 but I had a DVX and the video quality was excellent (as was the GL2) so if the DVC80 is anything like the DVX sans progressive modes (and other adjustments I'm aware of) I can see the DVC80 in my future......I'll do some more research tonight and look into my alternative cams.

Note: I do think the PDX is capable of beautiful video- but only under perfect lighting (outside the issues as noted) and under controlled lighting- so I'm not bashing the camera- just don't think it's the camera for me- time will tell!

> Note: I do think the PDX is capable of beautiful video- but only
> under perfect lighting (outside the issues as noted) and under
> controlled lighting- so I'm not bashing the camera- just don't
> think it's the camera for me- time will tell!

I have to agree. It would be so nice to have a cam with the PD150/PD170's luma response and a higher resolution CCD capable of real 16:9. But it would most likely have to have a much larger CCD array, and thus a higher price. The more pixels are on a CCD of a given size then the smaller each pixel is, thus the less light it gets. This explains why the PDX10 is less sensitive to light than the PD150/PD170.

I guess it's just a question of time before they make better megapixel CCD arrays at small sizes.

Right now, the next step up for 16:9 would be the expensive Sony DSR-500 and JVC DV-700... oh and of course there is the Panasonic AJ-SDX900, it only cost's about $25k. No problem.

And well there is that 1-CCD experiment, the JVC HDV cam, I understand it can also do 16:9, not sure if in SD or 'HD' mode though. Seems to have even more low light probelms than the PDX10 (but less vertical smear).

Sorry it didn't meet your expectations Steve. From your posts it sounds like you were often using the camera in one of the auto exposure modes; is that true? It seems that many of the complaints I've read about the TRV-950 and PDX-10 were centered on how the camera performed in "auto".

I have never used my PDX-10 in anything but manual mode, and have found the vertical smear problem to be pretty limited. The other day while filming one of our stage productions I was surprised to see that an exposed light was not creating a smear. I have plenty of footage of sunsets, skies, clouds, the moon, etc. without vertical smear. My experience is that there's a definite contrast threshold where it will occur. If you dial down the exposure you will reach a point where it becomes less noticeable, then finally disappears completely. Depending on what you're shooting this might cause another area of the frame to be underexposed of course.

Anyway, it has just never been a big deal for me and in fact I like the effect in many cases. I intentionally shot these looking into the sun: http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/duel. As the swordfighters engaged and blocked off the sun it created a great effect with the "spikes" from the smear flickering on and off.

Camera choice is (and should be) a very personal thing, and the PDX-10 isn't for everyone. But it continues to meet or surpass my own expectations. So I still think it comes down to how important 16:9 is to you and whether you can work around some of the quirks.

Regarding the DVX-100, it looks like a really nice camera but is really in a different league with a cost approaching twice that of the PDX-10.

Today I compared a friend's new PD150 with my PDDX10. First I set up both camera's LCD configuration and Custom Presets so they would match as closely as possible. Then I played around with both cams, panning around the room looking for high contrast... and I was surprised to find the PD150 can also be made to smear pretty easily. The problem is not as bad as on the PDX10 for several reasons: (1) because there are less active pixels outside the usable image field (the PDX10's CCD is larger than the image, both in 4:3 and 16:9 mode) and (2) the PDX10 has a tendency to over-expose left to it's default settings. At similar exposure, I observed less smear with the PD150, but not really much less. My suggestion would be: (1) try to use use french flags, so as to keep light falling into the lens restricted to what the video is really using. And (2) set the AE point in the Custom Preset menu at least two steps down from default.

Ignacio,

If you didn't see much less smear with the 150 then I don't think you had the PDX setup to see the maximum effect of the smear, we all know that it can be reduced by changing camera settings. A better test would have been to maximise the smear on the PDX then change the 150 setting to suit that to see how different it really is and personally speaking I think there is quite a difference.

John.

I agree John. With both cameras (the VX and the PDX10) on the same L bracket and both in automatic then yes, you can get conditions where the VX will give you CCD smear. But then look at the footage from the PD. It'll be totally unuseable.

It's such a shame that the PDX10 has lost the progressive scan facility of the PD100. That full res motor drive mode was an absolute boon to any sort of sports evaluation. Upping the shutter speed on the PDX simply makes the smear so bad that any sort of back light - or even simple high contrast - cannot be used.

I've ordered another PDX10. I simply cannot believe that this one I have here for test is representative of the breed, especially when the PD100/TRV900 was so good.

tom.

Subjective vertical smear tests are often misleading. It's a matter of defining how much stronger the light from a point source can be versus the scene ilumination for a 100 IRE picture. So it's a matter of ratio's rather than absolute piont source brightness. Pro cams (using smear reduction CCD structures) go up to a 120 and more db reduction factor. Small CCD's with high pixel count and high fill factor (for keeping acceptable sensitivity) are generally more prone to show these effects because of electrical and optical leakages in the vertical tranfert channels

The PDX10 has the best digital zoom I have ever used- there are no signs of compression blocks or artifacts....I switched it on today and I've got t say- i'm pleasantly surprised at how well it looks onscreen....almost as good as having a 24X optical zoom lens! I'm guessing it's DSP is the answer to it's exceptional d-zoom- anyone else know how they get such non-interoplated looking zoom capabilities?

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nunez : The PDX10 has the best digital zoom I have ever used -->>>

See, I told ya so ;-)

With the Sony high-grade 2x telephoto lens the results are phenomenal with a total of 48x zoom.

Boyd,

you're absolutely right- the digital zoom is absolutely great- I'm stunned at how Sony pulls off such a clean image- problem is I have an "El Cheapo" Sima 2X lens and it produces too much chromatic abberations and is only sharp at mid center lens-----How good is that Sony lens you have? I had the high grade Sony 1.7X with my GL2 and it was awesome- I couldn;t tell footage shot with it on or off- it was that good- is Sony's 37mm 2X as good as that??

Let me see about posting some examples when I get a moment free (ha, ha... when would that be? ;-)

Boyd,

I'd really like to see some sample stills with the 2X Sony HG lens- please post when possible.

Much appreciated!!

(Does it vignette at wide setting??)

Yes, Steve, it vignetts at wider, but who care of tele Sony lens at wide? If so, what could we do? It symly overwhelming on screen of 50 ( newest Sony plasma at SONY STYLE store, NY ). No degredation at all!

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nunez :Does it vignette at wide setting-->>>

Yes, there is extreme vignetting. Just judging by the viewfinder, you might be able to zoom out 33% from the full telephoto setting. You certainly couldn't even make it to 50%. But it seems like this would be expected from a 2x adaptor...

> anyone else know how they get such non-interoplated looking
> zoom capabilities?

Simple: it is not all that interpolated, because the megapixel CCD has a lot more pixels than needed for NTSC. Aproximately 50% more. So that would give us how much digital zoom without interpolation? About x1.5 perhaps? Possibly the 14 bit DSP helps too... but I think it is more about resolution.

Ignacio-

excellent answer- that does explain the non-degradation of image quality...like i said before it's almost as good as having a 24X optical zoom.....which actually puts it ahead of the GL2's 20X optical (the GL2 digi zoom degrades image quality instantly)

Thumbs up to the PDX in the digi zoom dept!

Boyd - a small correction. When using the Sony 2x telephoto conversion lens you still have a 12x optical zoom. I've used the PDX10 with a Canon C8 1.4X teleconverter, and that is indeed full zoom.

tom.