Greetings all.
Love your work..

it's finally come down to it..

Now, I can purchase a PDX10 for approx $4,699 (AUD)
OR
I can purchase a VX2000 for approx $4,670 (AUD)

so that's either for about US $3,250

AARRGH!
what would you do!?!

opinions/advice much appreciated.

Anthony

I've just completed a test of the PDX10 alongside the VX2000 for a British mag. There are two compelling reasons to buy the PDX over the VX, and they are these: Compactness and 16:9 performance. Oh, and the dark grey colour is nicer too, and its fifty quid cheaper (peanuts). How important are these facilities to you Anthony?

In all other respects the VX is the better camera. There's less CCD smear, the low light is extroadinarily better, the DOF control is superb, the V/F display is accurate and informative, and overall it's a far more controllable photographer's tool.

tom.

Anthony, i have seen many vx-2000's used....also for $1000 more you can get a panasonic dvx-100 which has it's own advantages.

It depends 'what' you intend to do with the camera.

Zac

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your opinions - especially considering this particular issue has been discussed to death.
Yeah, the deciding factor seems to be application. Problem is, I want versatility because of the potential for varying applications. Though I suppose the primary use would be for creative short film.

I want to have the low LUX of the vx2000 so that I'll be able to handle less than perfectly controlled lighting environments. But then there's the superior sound and 16:9 of the PDX10.
This is killing me. I'm really stuck.
I'm leaning toward the pdx10, though just need a little more convincing to really tip the scales in its favour. I fear purchasing the camera, then forever regretting my choice. I might see the 16:9 footage and think, "is that it? I would've been better off with VX2000's black bars for 16:9 effect". Unfortunately I can't borrow or rent one to gets some hands on experience.

any more wise words would be very welcome.

oh me oh my!

"I might see the 16:9 footage and think, "is that it? I would've been better off with VX2000's black bars for 16:9 effect".

I've done some side-by-side tests Anthony, and the PD 16:9 footage looks immediately better on a widescreen TV than the masked down VX footage. Tests of the PDX10 in the 4:3 and the 16:9 mode show that switching to widescreen noticeably reduces potential viewfinder vertical resolution, as black bars appear to show the new aspect ratio. Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels (see diagram).

In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent. On a side by side screen test with the VX2000 the widescreen mode of the PDX10 was clearly superior, and at the same time its 3.5” side-screen gave a decent sized 16:9 picture.

tom.

I like the VX size and format. It's low light is really great. A lot of times ya just look at the picture and say "hey, that's better than my eyes can see!" Anyway, the low light is not something to overlook. I don't see the audio problem as a major issue.

But, if you're looking for a smaller camera or widescreen, go for it.

Mark G

thanks for the input guys, as always.
It really is a tough one.
I've finally managed to organise a little hands on experience with both cams at a leading specialist here in Sydney. Hopefully that will sway me one way or the other.

I'd love to have the 16:9, better sound, DVCAM & B&W VF.. just as I'd love to have the low lux versatility of the vx.

fingers crossed for a decision tomorrow.

I wait with bated breath and crossed fingers Anthony. Hands on experience with both cams in a dealers will have you loving the PDX. It immediately pulls at you - the compactness, the huge side screen, the touch-screen pull focus, the sharp B & W finder, the dark grey colour, the XLR inputs - it just looks so good.

But out in film-making land its smear will ruin many a shot, its tiny chips will limit your DOF control, its lack of progressive scan mean no motor drive stills, the silly little batteries need charging all the time and the display simply tells lies.

Ah, but the 16:9 .....

tom.

thanks for the crossed finger Tom, though perhaps I should have asked for toes too.. and any other cross-ables..
Well, I've just come back from a 2-hour session of playing with the VX2000 and PDX10.
VX2000 AUD $5,499
PDX10 AUD $4,699
First impressions:
VX2000 - A joy to hold and operate. I couldn't help but LIKE this camera. The settings are very nicely placed for the most part. I can see why this model has been so popular.
PDX10 - A bugger to handle in comparison. A little lopsided/unbalanced and awkward. I wouldn't consider this a one-hand-cam as the design and side strap imply. Settings not so conveniently placed and I found myself having to put the camera down in order to interact with some menu's/settings.
We're opposites in terms of aesthetics Tom - the look didn't really grab me.

Recorded Footage:
Brilliant images produced by both of these cameras. Though I was limited inside a well-lit office. At one point I filmed through a window at some pedestrians walking in the streets below. when playing back, I was very impressed with the clarity that was maintained throughout the entire zoom as I followed them.
The PDx10 needs a little tweak soon after optimum lighting is reduced.. expected.. Still, I don't really think it's that much of an issue. HOWEVER, I did not get into extremely low light. Lowest light was in a small utility office with one window but no artificial light. I ended up crouching in a corner behind boxes to try and get a good dark sample.

Vertical smear-shmear. I just didn't find it a problem at all until I was pushing extremes on frame rate and aperture... (I think it was those two), but baby when it was there, it was THERE. I had a sc-fi show going. But still manageable as far as I'm concerned.
I was surprised to find the vz2000 smearing also with similar settings.. perhaps it was the environment

PDX10 native 16:9 is grrreat. Now, you may think I'm partially blind.. and I cringe at typing this, but at a casual glance I didn't actually see that much of a jaw dropping difference. Yes the 'compression' of vx200's 'wide screen' and cropping makes for less footage displayed, but I was surprised that the image quality was so similar... or should I say, based on my expectations, I was surprised not to find more of a difference in image quality.
come to think of it.. why would there be... ok disregard previous.

Circumstances did not permit testing/comparison of sound.

so.. after a limited 'scratch n' sniff'. I still can't decide which cam to go with! :(
I really am happy with image quality on both. Somehow I couldn't help but feel the vx2000 was a fraction of a fraction more vibrant - but not noticeable without direct comparison on screen.

I just don’t know!!!

I'm sick of the indecision. It's really getting to me.

Camera store guy said he'd allow me to exchange the pdx10 for vx2000 or vice versa if I found that I wasn't happy with it. Which would be great, but I don't want to buy the vx2000 from him because I can get it from a Sony insider for AUD$47000 (saving myself $1000) So if I buy the pdx10 from him, I'm stuck with it.

So basically I can get either cam for same price.... I just can't decide which one.

Insane
Anthony

ps.. hmm. maybe I'll just get the vx2000 for now, learn the tricks of the trade, and finally when a camera with dvcam format, native 16:9, great sound, low lux etc comes out, I'll be in a poisition to buy... hopefully. Hey, gotta start somewhere right?. vx2000 good place to start?

I'm impressed by your thoroughness Anthony and by your ability to stand back objectively and take stock of the situation. Interestinly you've posted on the VX forum rather than the PDX pages, where I'm sure that you'd get different viewpoints thrown at you. You're correct; there's no 'jaw-dropping' difference in the 16:9 modes.

I really like your concluding paragraph as yes, the VX2k is indeed a "great place to start". The camera is a genuine photographer's tool, and it allows you access to apertures and speeds and ND filters that are denied you in the PDX10 "for your own good". I find this a somewhat patronising attitude by Sony, and more especially so on a pro cam.

I've really tested the two cams side by side, and pushed them hard. I really wanted to like the PDX10 as I adored my two TRV900s, marvelling in their astounding qualities. I just assumed that the PDX would be better in all departments, and it most certainly is not. The VX may be older but its size has meant fewer design and photographic compromises.

A couple of points. 1). How much of a 'manual' man are you? Do you constantly have the camera in auto and love the results? If yes, go get the PDX10. If no - in that you love pushing the DV envelope and squeezing the best from every frame, then the VX is the cam for you.

2) Can I send you my PDX10 sample frames from the timeline? Don't buy one till you've seen them, that's all I'll say.

tom.

Just a thought about 16:9. Just about every director I know who shoots DV shoots 4:3 and takes it to 16:9 in post.

They tell me that it gives them more freedom later for formats. (Most of them shoot PAL, by the way ,since they can get to 24p 35mm reasonably easily.)

Have actually posted for in 'PDX10' as well for that exact reason Tom.
Regarding how much of a 'manual' man I am?.. well, not much. I'm just starting off. This is my ..er .first video camera. Though I would think having a camera that enables me to be 'more in control' is a good thing - fiddley button/experience-wise.

of course you can send the sample frames.. err. I presume you'd like an email address to do so :) ?

I love the fact that you've pushed these cams in testing. Now, putting 16:9 aside, which camera would you say produces the 'better' image in general filming conditions. (a pretty weak question I know)
Also, how bad is the vx sound?.. will I regret it do you think?

Very interesting Chris, nice input - I've never heard that before. I would think a few readers would have something to say about that.

It's your first video camera - but have you shot 35mm film in an SLR, say? You understand shutter speeds, film speeds, apertures, NDs, grey cards, focal lengths and DOF? If yes, the VX. If no, maybe the PD.

And how much of a Hifi man are you? The PD comes ready for any posh XLR mic that you happen to plug in. The VX (which has better on-board mics that hear a LOT less motor noise) won't accept XLR mics without an adapter, which is what I do.

Email address if you'd like the jpegs, yes.

Your 'better image in general filming conditions' is a difficult one. If you mean good light with no point sources of light in frame and full auto, then the PDX is the one to go for. But as soon as the going gets tough it falters. A lot of folk (who keep the camera on auto-everything) will not experience the horrendous smear, they'll simply get the streaking from bright lights and Sony will tell them that it is "perfectly normal" (on this camera - said in a quiet voice).

Thing is you'll love either camera. Ultimate sound quality and 16:9 most important? Get the PD. Manual control and photographic prowess tops? get the VX.

tom.

Thanks Andrew,

I expect others to disagree but as I say, this is what ivam told by directors who work with much larger budgets then me. Sigh.

Anthony, I would wait and get the VX2100, or consider the Panasonic DVC80 (XLR inputs .. but no AGC). With the VX2100 you get a bunch of "fixes" over the VX2000, plus some nice things that will make shooting better. Maybe the most important thing is low light shooting. The 2000 is good, but the 2100 is supposedly even better! I mean, the VX2000 is amazing, and it's easy so say low light isn't that big of a deal, but it *IS* a big deal when you're otherwise looking at lousy, grainy video. Unless all of your shooting is outside, low light plays a big deal. And it doesn't even have to be really low light. Colors are better at reduced light. One other thing, the auto controls on the VX2000 are really good. Then there is manual stuff.

If I were looking to buy a cam now, I'd wait and get the VX2100, not the 2000. But that's me.

Oh, and BTW, if this is your first camcorder, you're going to have a blast! Most of us went through the whole consumer cam thing till we finally got tired of the limitations and moved up to prosumer cams. Bravo!

It depends on the applications you're using the camera for aswell. How professional are the productions you're doing etc... and do you need a compact camera. I own a vx2000 so im probably biased towards it, however for the kind of work i do, i'll be looking at a pd soon aswell (for a water housing).

Basically, the vx2000 produces some amazing images. When i bought it i expected a lot from the reviews i had heard/ read. I dont think i can remember a time when it hasnt lived up to those expectations. Sure, it'd be really nice to have XLR imputs and DVCAM option but thats really they're the only downsides to the VX. If image quality is the main deciding factor then definately go for the VX. The PD is a nice camera, especially because of the XLR imputs, DVCAM and true 16:9 but fact is the VX has the bigger chips and im sure you know what that means. However if a compact camera is what you need then go the PD.

Im in Sydney too so if you really need convincing I can try orgainse a way to show you some footage ive shot, night, low light and bright daylight comparisons. I knew exactly what u meant when you said you couldnt help but like the VX when you picked it up for the first time. Really, if you can get the VX for the same price as the PD, i would go the VX for sure. Thats just me anyways.....

Can anyone answer me why Sony didnt combine the PDX10 with the VX2000 for the camera upgrade??? That would be one sweet setup....

Tim, Tom, Mark & Chris. - thank you. It's comments like these that help inexperienced users like myself, cement decisions and confidently commit and invest...err.. nice words make Anthony buy cam-cam.
Yes Mark, I'm definitely going to wait for the vx2100. The only concern is that the opportunity to buy a VX for the same price as the PDX10 (which Tim can appreciate, is a good thing here in Oz) through a Sony contact may be gone by the time the vx2100 is available (he's resigning). I'll just have to cross my fingers and hope that in approx 4 weeks, he'll still have contacts who can help out - which he claims is a possibility..

I'm Glad to hear that Chris, it's good to know that there are professionals out there, in a sense, 'backing-up' procedures that I know I'll have to utilise. I always had the impression that anything but native 16:9 was bad juju.
Tom: Golden advice as advise as always. addresstome@hotmail.com - appreciate it.
Tim, I'm awaiting that magical camera as well.. you never know.. maybe if we click our heels three times..

Again, thanks a lot guys. I've finally decided that I'm going with the vx2100 - With the decision making out of the way(and weight of my poor shoulders), I just have to worry about getting it for the same 'sony insider' price.
I suppose I'll know in a month or so.

cheers.

p.s. Tim (or anyone else), have you heard anything about release dates for the 2100 in Aust.? I can't find anything official. Retailers seem to jump from mid November to December, depending on whether or not they think they've got a sale out of you.
Also, a q from out of nowhere - I was sitting and staring at the moon on a particularly clear night over the weekend. The thought came to me; '..could I film this?..'
Is that possible? Just out of interest, what would happen if you tried to film a bright moon in the middle of the night sky? (with 2000)

Regarding VX2100 low light rating, there is another thread in which one of the dvinfo.net people spoke to a Sony rep. at a trade show and learned the the vx2100 1 lux rating was achieved through digital signal processing, not an improved CCD.

Could you film the moon? Sure thing. The moon and our earth are illuminated by the same light source. It's 93 million miles away and as the light reflected by the moon and the earth is very similar, the bright side of the moon should be given exactly the same exposure as you'd give on a sunny day out in your garden. But I'd bracket downwards if anything because the lack of atmosphere means more light reaches the moon's surface (and is reflected from it) than our earth.

tom.

Tom, you do have a sense of humour. :)

How do you know Frank? Or do you find my posts amusing? :-)
anthonymilic@hotmail.... is it? Bounces, so can't send you the PDX frames.

Well, I found that post humorous, Tom---with those facts and observations. It's also way past my bed time. :)

Anthony, were you talking about the moon two nights ago? It was pretty large. I was thinking the exact same thing on my drive home from work along the Gore Hill freeway. The shot would have been: The road curving away from the bottom left of screen underneath an overpass, foliage and shrubs just illuminated on either side of the road by the moon and my headlights and the half moon sitting there just above the traffic lights on the overpass. A car driving past in the opposite direction with its headlights shining through the light fog.... ahhhhh. I havent had enough sleep obviously but yes, in theory, with the moon I think you are talking about, it would be possible to get it decently exposed. post me ur email and i'll send you some grabs i got from my cam of the moon when it was gold. Otherwise if anyone else knows how i could post them for you all to see??

Good choice with the VX2100... if you can get it for the same price.... But im sure if you cant, the VX2000 will drop in price significantly after a few months.

Anthony, I heard the release date for the VX2100 and PD170 is sometime in December (maybe just before Chrissy????) but that may not be correct of course....

Gints: Thats a shame if that is true about the 1 lux rating being achieved through digital signal processing... especially considering that the upgrade was a tiny bit of a let down as i expected quite a bit more... oh well, i guess we'll see when it comes out!

Why do you care about how Sony achieved the 1 lux rating? No matter where in the chain they were able to reduce noise, the system works.

The rating means we can shoot in less light with the same amount of noise or in the same light with less noise (assuming they are 'telling the truth').

no Tom literally.. : 'addresstome@hotmail.com'

hey'all. get some sleep!
or stay off the 'moon'shine.
'ar 'ar... *sigh

nah its just generally an assumption that there are more noise problems when electronic systems are introduced to camera imaging. ie- why optical image stabilisers are better than electronic image stabilisers and 3 chips are better than one etc....

just an assumption though, if the system works then it works, no arguments from me

Anthony, if your buddy will work you up a really good deal on the VX2000, you won't be dissappointed. It's a great cam and the VX2100's improvments are noteworthy, but not earthshattering. Still, I would rather have the 2100 ... it would have to be a really good deal.

I was also going to say that the Vx2000 works very well in Auto mode. That lets you get good shots starting out, and let's you progress to more manual modes as you learn.

Thanks Mark, it seems the more I hear, the more I like!

these are the evil Oz prices I've come across:

US$4880 - RRP through Sony
US$3840 - best retail I could find.
US$3280 - sony insider.
eeek

That's fascinating... are all 3 chip DV cameras priced in that range, or is Sony especially expensive? How about accessories like lenses, filters, batteries, etc... are they also priced higher than in the US? Well at least Miller tripods are made in Australia... right? Maybe you get a break on these? I paid about $800 for a DS-5 with aluminum legs at B&H.

I think the PDX10's image is far better then the VX2k's image, 16:9 or not.

Wow. I disagree. But you are entitled to personal opinion.

See for yourself

http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/

Compliments of Boyd Ostroff

I agree that if you film test charts in controlled lighting conditions then yes, the PDX10 in the 16:9 mode gives better resolution than the (cropped) VX2000 mode. There's no question about this really - the pixel-facts speak for themselves.

Ah, but out there in the real world things are very different, very different indeed. You're no doubt all sick of my CCD flare rantings but I'm happy to send small JPEGs to anybody who cares to ask. Picture quality is dependent on a lot of things, a huge number of variables. In the same way Hifi is dependent on a lot more than just frequency response.

tom.

Well, I have seen the PDX10 and PD150 side by side at B&H, and the PDX10 just makes a far better image to me. Anyone who is in the NY area should check it out. However, I am sure that the PD150/VX2K don't have the smear problem of the PDX10 (when in direct light) and are better in low light also.

For me, smear and streaking make the 10 a most unsuitable general purpose camera for commercial work.

In my work I never use 16X9 so that's not a selection point for me. The PD150's larger pixels, and good optics mean that it can deliver an image that is close to the DSR-300 in most cases.