http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/image-noise/index.html



Check this out the VX2000 outshines the new Panasonic..





Lou Bruno

Here's a exerpt from a review of the DVX100 on the specific issue of 24p:

24p
This is the most-hyped and most-misunderstood feature of the Panasonic
camera, due largely to Panasonic's marketing department. The Panasonic is
not a true 24p camera (like the Sony HDCAM CineAlta), as it does a 3:2 pull
down as it records onto tape. But does it look like film? Does it give that
elusive film feel?


No. Not at least on videotape.


In fact, 24p right now looks quite bad, as it stutters. Panasonic Canada has
told us that the only time you would shoot in 24p is if you're going to burn
it back to negative, or make a progressive scan DVD.


Does that mean the Panasonic is pointless? No, it doesn't, as it shoots in
regular 60i mode quite well. But if your final product is going to be
videotape (such as weddings, corporate video, documentaries, broadcast
work), shoot in 60i.


Will we be able to shoot in 24p and have it eventually go back to videotape
and look more "film-like?" In the future, more than likely. Apple, Avid and
Adobe have all said they're going to support the 24p feature in the next
updates of their software. Or maybe someone will invent a plug-in that will
make it transparent and easy to do. But right now, the work-arounds are
quite labour and render intensive (links to articles in the Web Site of the
Month section). Our advice right now is, unless you're burning a neg, stay
in 60i. We will keep watching this, and let you know if this changes.

The entire article compares the VX2000 to the DVX100. It's from the DV Cafe Newsletter (December) and you can probably get your hands on it using this email address: dvshop@on.aibn.com

David Hurdon

I've had the opportunity to play with the Panasonic DVX100 at the Video Forum.
Care to hear why I'd dump the Sony VX2000 and buy one?

Great looks. Only the side-screen is silver, the rest is Judge Dread Black.
Proper zoom ring which had the focal length marked in mm, has end stops, works with the camera turned off (i.e. doesn't use battery power) and allows creep to crash with ease.
Wide-angle focal length of 4.5mm That's a lot wider than the VX2k's 6mm.
No silly digital zoom, no "sepia fade", no mega chips, no memory card.
Huge 3.5" side screen. Love it.
Aperture control in manual fades the picture up or down beautifully - none of the half stop kicks so visible on screen with the 150 or the VX.
Two XLR inputs and independent level knobs - no menu twiddling.
Much better VCR controls - the "toggle lever" is so much nicer than the VX's touch panel.
25p mode.

Sounds good, doesn't it? When do I do the swap-out?
Well I won't be changing, and here's why.

The VX2k feels so hewn-from-the-solid alongside the Panasonic. The Panny may have a 3.5" screen but the nasty plastic door on an equally nasty plastic hinge is toy-town squeaky.

The lens is only 10x zoom, so a max of 45mm (against the VX's 72mm) means that even with 1/3" chips it's goodbye differential focus.
No slow shutter speeds. Nothing below 1/25th (only accessible in 25P mode).
Top speed 1/2000th against the Sony's 1/10000th.
Vibrating element OIS against the VAP of the VX. I bet (if my MX300 is anything to go by) that the level of stabilisation is a lot worse. I'm guessing here.
72mm filter thread. Extra lenses, polarizing filters, hoods - all a lot
more expensive than for my 58mm thread.
No Info lithium batteries. Horrible zoom ring action ~ sloppy yet sticky - how do they manage that?
And lastly, it costs 50% more than the VX. I'm being kind - it's more like 70% but I'm guessing the early adopters are being targeted and the price will fall.

tom.

In defense of the Panasonic (and this coming from a Sony guy) with regards to price comparison, you are comparing a "Pro" Panasonic camera against a "Consumer" Sony camera so the price would understandably be very different. That's why Sony never fixed the audio hiss problem on the VX2000, they said it was a consumer camera and it didn't warrant the same quality as the PD-150.
I agree with you on all of the other points though. It seems like Panasonic ALMOST had a real winner here, but every time I hear about the poor camera it is someone complaining about another flaw or feature that doesn't work or it's Fisher Price construction. If they were really going for the 24P or Indie crowd they would have made it native 16:9. And if they wanted to save some money for quality construction and the 16:9 chips, they could have left that cheezy built in mic off. (what pro is going to even use it?) The camera does really have some strong points though and I would probably consider it if they could just fix a few really bad one's (audio sync, or lack of it). I am anxious to see what this (camera) does to the rest of the market, especially Sony with regards to new products.

I agree with you that Sony were slow to fix the hiss problem, and I chose to pit the Panasonic against the VX because the Sony - even in this "Prosumer" model, sure has the newer Panny licked. So the PD150 is an even stronger opponent, so Panasonic better have a hankie to cry into as the VX3k (whatever) will leave it for dead.

Sorry Panasonic. I like your MX500 as I think this pushes the TRV950 hard. But the DVX100 just isn't a big enough leap ahead, and the lack of the 16:9 chip is a sadness. But the BIG plus point is that smoothly operating aperture control. Excellent.

tom.

Can any expert compare these 2 fine cameras?
Does the sony pd170 has 24p & "film look" feature
like the Panasonic dvx100 has!
Which camera would you choose?
Thanks,

Ilan

No 24p on the Sony. If 24p is want you want, well, you have two options, they have almost identical names, and they aren't Sonys. If great low light performance is what you want, above all else, then the PD170 is probably for you. Beyond those differences lie two great cameras and a wealth of argument. I'd say you have some reading ahead of you.

Shawn, thanks for your input!
How critical would you define this 24p feature?
or it's just a gimic?

Ilan

Critical is subjective, of course. 24p seems to be good for the infamous film look, specifically the quality of motion, never mind well thought out lighting and composition. Shooting progressively also seems to retain more resolution than does interlaced. The DVx100 has other interesting image controls that the PDs do not. But are they critical? As a general statement, of course not. As for me, I intend on getting the PD170. Why. Because of the low light performance, because of the generally excellent name in video quality and product reliability the PD series has made for itself, initial product release issues, such as the current pd170 LCD screen related audio problem aside, because of the potentially employment friendly DVCAM convention, because of it's compatibility with other owned equipment, because of it's physical build, because of it's black and white viewfinder, and because I value these "features" more than the good and uniquely interesting features that the dvx100 offers (I like videoish motion, I'm not into trying to make video seem like film, IMO nothing screams VIDEO more than video pretending that it's film, although I am interested in doing away with interlacing and improving resolution, I'm also interested in a truly manual lens, but I can wait another year or two for the DSR 390....) and I know that, when all is said and done, I will be generating interesting, worthwhile material.

What do you want to do with camera? Understanding this at least a little bit is the first step in determining what's critical.

Regards,
Shawn

Thanks Shawn, you enlighten the subject well!

Glad I can help, Ilan (pronounced "Eye-lan"?). The DVX100A sounds like a fantastic camera, you're going to get a lot out of whichever one you choose.
And, of course, if you can possibly help it, get some hands-on time with these cams. Not always the easiest thing to do, I know.....

Shawn

I've "played" with both cameras - I shot a short using the DVX100 and got to play with a pd150 for a day. Not an expert on either though;

What software do you plan on using in the editing process? If your a Windows guy, and you use Premier, the 24p probably won't be much use to you. As far as I know it is still unsuported in Premier and basically every other consumer-level editing software. Does FCP even support it yet?

Also, there is software which will take 30fps NTSC and convert it to 23.997 or whatever the exact number is fps. And of course 25fps PAL, which I believe is the standard in Israel (?), is already pretty close to the 24p.

I didn't actually like the onboard stereo mikes on the DVX100. I would always hit the level controls by mistake, which would produce very strange sounding scenes. I'm sure if I had time to get used to the camera (rented it for three days) I would learn to avoid this /lock the levels, but this was just my observation.

As has been repeated many many times, the low light ability if the 150 (and 170 is even better I assume) rocks. This in the end was the kicker for me, as I like to shoot a lot of spur-of-the-moment events which don't necessarily take out doors. Price was a fairly significant factor in my purchasing decision, so I ended up order the Sony DX2100. I ordered it yesterday.

BTW I believe Ilan is pronounced sort of "E-Lun"

In the past, I've long debated on both PD150/170 and DVX100/A. For the last 3 months, my sights were set on the DVX100. I re-rented it last Friday and found out something very essensial: It does not handle low light very well in 60i, and even less in 24p. Since my principal requirement is low light, this camera really fell short in my expectations. 24p is a nice to have, but is not the determining factor.

On Monday, I ordered the PD-170, and received it Wednesday afternoon. Other then the minor sound issue discussed on the www.global-dvc.org site, the PD-170 is a magnificent performer.

In any event, I will post updates on the sound issue on the other thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18203

Thank you all for your helpful insights!
Ilan

Hi,
I will buy a new camera next month but can not decide which one. Have anyone worked with both of these cameras and could compare them. I have 1/2" AG-DVC200 as a main camera and will buy second one to work together.Recently was on trade show and played with AG-DVC100 and I was impressed. At first glance there were no much difference in quality of pictures btw. those two Panasonic cameras, but I read very good review on Sony camcorder in recent issue of Videography magazine. I think there will be a huge difference in low light performance btwn 1 lux and 3 lux range. I do mostly weddings so low light capabilities are very important for me.
Please share your opinions with me.

Mario

Low light and no camera lights permitted makes the 170 the only choice for me for a wedding.

...and don't forget the DVX 100's short lens too!

Very short lens. Top whack it's 45mm at f2.8, and the differential focus obtainable with this combo is nothing like the Sony's 72mm @ f2.4. Important for wedding portraiture. Nice side-screen on the Panasonic though.

tom.

The DVX lcd is large but very useless outdoors in sunlight. I've heard the new PD-170 and VX2100's LCDs have been improved to allow shooting even in bright daylight.

AND also the VX/PD batteries last for hours.



<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Hagan : ...and don't forget the DVX 100's short lens too! -->>>

Marius, I just got my PD170 yesterday. After fiddling with it for a few hours I'd have to say, based on my first impression, I made a good decision switching from the DVX100 to the PD170. If your doing wedding videography and less "controlled" shooting it's a no brainer.

Isnt it funny.. Go over to the DVX page and theyll tell you all the reasons that the DVX100a is the better choice.. Heres the major argument the lense and low light.. Ok the sound and the VTR assembly..
People crank about the head drop out in the Panny. People crank about the audio issues in the Sony.
Why isnt a 10 or 12x Leica lense good for a wedding?? Wow I have done beautiful work with my DVC 80..
People compare the Panny and Sony low light on the forums all the time.. The end result is .. Not a deciding factor one way or the other.. The Sony low light edge isnt signifigant enough to make it an issue.. So the reports go.. Doesnt seem to be an issue for me with low light hindering me where a light isnt PC...
All im trying to say is shop both camps thoroughly before your decision.. Panny DVX guys are moreso of a cult following for a reason.. I have saved my cash and in the next few days I will be purchasing a new Panny DVX100A for too many reasons...

Scott, I just posted my first impressions of the PD-170 both good and bad. I'm trying to offer a non bias opinion as I've owned and shot with the DVX100 for a year. It's best to hear from people who have extensive experience with *both*. Of course you'll hear bias opinion for the PD-170 on the PD-170 board, and DVX100 on the DVX100 board. People have to get the elistist nature out of their system to offer a good objective comparison.

Here's my non-bias opinion of the build quality and feature set comparison between the DVX and PD-170:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23123


For you, however, Scott the DVX will definitly be a better choice for a 2nd cam. The DVC80 and DVX footage will match very easily. Same reason I'm selling my GL-1 for a VX2100.

I have used the PD 150 before.. I just didnt have them both at the same time to give a fair comparison.. I think alot of the complaints of the DVX as it isnt perfect have been corrected in the new DVX100a.. In all fairness I did feel the PD150 felt maybe more sturdy than the DVX but thats just memory and speculation.. That is not to say that in anyway the Panny feels cheap.. I didnt mean to be condensending.. Just wanted to muddy the water... I want to do film work so thats why I choose the Panny..

Thus I replied the the other member, "If your doing wedding videography and less "controlled" shooting it's a no brainer.

If your doing shorts and/or transfers to film the DVX is an excellent choice. No amount of tweaking in post replaces the look of native 24p.


My comparison, thus so far, has only been on the build quality and features. The true test will be in visual and audio quality 60i vs 60i.

duh no bwainer part means dat onwy the wetaded would use a panny for webbings.. it seems to work well though..

Let's keep the conversation well mannered folks.

I started this thread. Thans for all of your inputs. For me (as a mainly wedding videographer) lolux capabilities will be the most important.

Hi Marius,

I've been debating over which camera to buy for the longest time. Rather then looking at the specs, I've rented the both cams, several times and on different occasions. OK! I know not everyone can spend the money renting just for testing, but in my case, paying gigs helped to cover most of the costs.

In any event, both the PD170 and the DVX100A are very good cameras. No doubt about it. So much so that I was going to buy the DVX100A after my last shoot, a company Christmas party with less then adequate lighting. After reviewing the footage the next day, I firmly decided I would go with the PD170. This is the cam I have now, and I don’t regret it.

Having previously compared both cams in low light prior to that last event, I had determined that low light should not be a determining factor... or so I fooled myself into thinking. It's in actuality THE most determining factor for me. I shoot mainly events, so I practically have no control over lighting; and adding on-board lighting in certain situations may seem too intrusive for your clients and their guests at the moment of shooting.

In the end the choice is yours, but if low light is your main concern like me, then I urge you not to take our advice, and beg-borrow-or-steal both cams, and try it out in typical low light situations you’ll be faced with. The results will speak for themselves. Hey! It may turn out you like the DVX low light (hum hum)… this way you’ll have 24p at the flick of a switch whenever you’ll feel like switching.

Fred

Fredrick, how did you feel about the build quality of the PD-170 vs the DVX100?

The Panny is reported to give similiar results as pd 150 in low light if it is in the interlace 60 mode... So they claim... Anyone???

Scott,

In 60i mode the two are very similar in sensitivity with the sony winning by a hair. The major difference is that the sony is just overall cleaner. The dvx gets muddy and noisy at higher gain levels. However it doesn't look as bad as it sounds. I often go up to 12db with my dvx and only notice the noise on static shots. One thing I wish the original dvx had is lower shutter speeds. I recently looked at some nice candid stuff from a wedding reception where the videographer used no light but simply lowered the shutter speed. Very nice and effective.

Again if you're planning on doing weddings I would stick with the pd170 or vx2100.

Yes and No. I've owned a DVX100 for a year and have shot in many low-light environments (wedding receptions), and have more recently purchased a PD-170 and have been doing ongoing tests to see what this camera is capable of.

Yes in the sense the PD-170 is no more sensitive to light than the DVX100. They both use 1/3" ccds

No in the sense that the PD-170 can be gained up to 12db with no additional grain added to the footage. Try to do that with the DVX and your picture is useless. What makes the PD-170 so excellent in low light isn't the CCD's sensitivity- it's the electronic by which the electronic gain work. I did tests in my bedroom with a single dim light on, which is still pretty dark due to my dark colored paint/wallpaper. The PD-170 at F1.6, Shutter at 60, and Gain at +9db gave an image brighter than the room looks with my own eyes!

<<<-- Originally posted by Mathew Evan : Scott,

One thing I wish the original dvx had is lower shutter speeds. I recently looked at some nice candid stuff from a wedding reception where the videographer used no light but simply lowered the shutter speed. Very nice and effective.

Again if you're planning on doing weddings I would stick with the pd170 or vx2100. -->>>


Lowering the shutter by half to 30 does indeed gather a great deal more light...however the image becomes very stroby (especially during pans) and it exhibits aliasing, for what reason I don't understand.

I am trying to decide if I should buy a 2nd DVC80 or the PD-170 or VX2100 for weddings. I had a friend come over who owns the Sony and we compared the 2 cameras footage. They had about the same exposure with auto iris but manual gain settings in low light but the amount of grain was higher in the Panny.

I'm having a tough time deciding. The 80 is $1900, great audio but only 10x and more grain in low light. The Sony is 12x plus the fact that the 12x on the sony would be like 14 or so on the Panny (if that were possible) because of the lense differences, and the Sony has less grain in most low light situations. However the VX is $2400 and no XLR's. Then the PD is 3200. So is that zoom and less grain on low light worth $500 more for the VX with lesser balance and lesser audio? Is the PD worth $1300 more than the DVC80? The DVC80 is basically a PD with smaller zoom range a bit better auto functionality and less grain on low light shots. I just don't know. If I didnt already have the 80 and have the urge to want to easily match 2 cam footage in post without a lot of color correction I would go for the sony for sure. Leaning toward the Sony though.

there would be no question for me.. I have a DVC 80 and have used the P{D150.. Nice camera.. but for the money.. no question.. The Panny would be my choice..

If money is of concern just go with another dvc80, especially if you can pick one up for $1900 (where may I ask?). Just shoot with a light.

Other things to consider is cost of ownership and durability. I'll be honest, the dvx/dvc just are not as durable feeling as the sony pd/vx cams. Stupid things like attaching the palm strap to the tape door and not including a headphone amp (with the original dvx). Also and I'm not sure if this is the case with the dvc80 as well, panny designed the tape heads to only be compatible with dry lube tape. The only dry tape in production is panasonic's own MQ brand. Word is that they plan on raising the price of the tape stock by 20% soon. The stuff is already expensive as it is.

Haven't had any problems so far with the regular panny PQ panny tapes. The thing is I know if I buy another Panny I will buy the century telephoto as well and that's $800 so thats $2700 a lot closer to the PD-170.

Mathew I emailed you about the DVC-80 price. Dont want to post a non-sponser of dvinfo here.

Regarding the strobbyness of lower shutter speeds: You have to work with it's limitations. Like 24P you cannot just pan and jump around at 90mph. There are rules just like professional cinematographers use that apply. The stuff I saw that utilized the slower shutter speeds were candids where no camera movement was used. Things like guests mingling at a bar, grandma etc. Documentary style shots that would never of worked if the operator were standing there shooting with a light.

I agree with many of the posts above. The DVX100A is a mighty fine piece of kit but in the low light / no light arena it struggles. Point one. The Sony VX is half a stop faster at full telephoto, so to simply match that the Panny has to go up another 3dB on gain. Not only that, but the VX at 72mm and f2.4 gives striking differential focus. The Panny with 45mm @f 2.8 tops has too much depth of field for my portraiture at weddings.

Then there's the real low light stuff. At weddings I often go out into the night with the Sony. I set the aperture wide (no gain) but lower the shutter speed to 1/3rd sec. You can get absolutely wonderful shots of the lit exteriors to posh venues, and when the bride and groom have paid for such places, it's really important to make sure they're included in the film.

tom.

Ok say I go Sony. VX and Beachteck totaling about $2800 or PD for 3200. I have the Canon WD-58 wide angle already.

I'd go witht he PD-170. I wouldn't trust my XLRs going through a 1/8" mini connection. Granted I've used a GL-1 with a beachtech and an ME66 without fault though it definitly sounded better plugged directly into my PD-170/DVX100 xlrs.

I'm getting ready to purchase a second camera as soon as my GL-1 sells. I'd LOVE to get a second PD-170 but it's price differencial between them is pretty high so I'll probably go VX. Besides it's my secondary camera and XLR/DVcam won't be as important beings I already have another cam with these features.

Yeah Glen my DVC80 has great XLRs and I love the Panny audio. It doesn't clip very easily. Since I have the 80 I don't have to have the 170 and I could live with the VX but you never know when a cam might go out and then I don't want to get caught with no XLR's.

Thats a good point. Hmmm, maybe I SHOULD shoot another PD-170 for a back up cam. UGH- the dept!

We have one forum regular who apparently ruined the 1/8" socket on his new VX2100 with one strain on the cable. That bent the internals of the socket and it required a trip to the shop. I believe he even had a right-angle plug on the end of the cable.

The difference in price between the 2100 and 170 isn't even one screwed up wedding IF you lost the sound because the socket failed. Lots of people use them with no problems so it can be done. But if there were a chance, I KNOW I'd break the socket in the middle of the most important event of the year.

Straight up. I had the same thing happen to me years ago with a panasonic 456. Those mini jacks are not made for the normal strain that is put upon them in a run and gun environment.

If you want to go the sony route I still think that you would be safe with a pd170 and a vx2100. With the 2100 you could use the WA lens that is included with the 170. The vx with a WA lens makes for an awesome glidecam combo.

Yeah, having the PD170 there to pick up the ball in the "event" that the dvc80 can't, or vice versa, is sage wisdom, if you can afford it. Also, avoiding minijacks is always a good thing; they aren't designed for work.

Just got my PD170 yesterday, and I'm very impressed. You see, I've been shooting with a PDX10 for the last six months, and while I adore this little camera, and find it to be irreplaceable (in fact, I have two of them) as far as what's available on the market for the money, the 170 is everything the PDX is not. (...and vice versa...)
Zoom ring and a useful focus ring! I'm a new man! :-)
Depth of field! And of course, clean low light signals...
But that's me.

Anyhow, if the DVC/DVX isn't cutting it in low light, and only you can say, the Sonys are a sure bet, but I would maintain the XLR status all the way around, if possible.

If you want to go the sony route I still think that you would be safe with a pd170 and a vx2100. With the 2100 you could use the WA lens that is included with the 170. The vx with a WA lens makes for an awesome glidecam combo.

Man, that's another really good point. I just got the quick release plate for the 501 head to mount to the top of my Glidecam 4000. Wide angle lenses definitly lend to the effect when using a glidecam/stabilization device.

What's the difference in price between the VX2100 and PD-170......$800?

Well the DVC80 has the wide built in already Glen. Maybe a 2nd cam for you could be the 80. $1900 and it's got your XLR's and your wide angle built in.

This was a tough decision. It's easy to be tempted to try the DVX100A which would match my DVC-80 for 60i but be available for 24P when I want. However, I think since I'm a wedding guy, I'll be doing a better service to my clients with the PD-170.

Crazy dollars. $1300 more for the PD170 over the DVC80 but I'm jumping in for the PD since I already have the 80. Since I'm makin a few bucks on the side with weddings it's an investment. B&H or EVS... I might try EVS this time...

I think that's partly why it's so cheap now. Your typical prosumer camera buyer either wants to make movies (dvx100) or shoot events (pd-170). It's too bad that neither manufacturer got it quite right so you could do both with the same camera without compromise.