Silly question I know but I would appreciate your opinions.

I have a PDX10 and find myself filming events with more than one camera (Simultaneously) and I use my older single chipper SONY PC100e.

I now want to get a 2nd camera (prefeably 16:9 native) to take on the floating camera duties.

My only hesitation are

1. In buying a PDX10, some of my money is going on the XLR mount which I won't need as this camera will be for vision only (The static PDX10 will be recording the audio from a mixer)

2. I fear the announcement of a new(er) 16:9 native camera (3 chipper) from SONY that would do the vision only job at a much lower cost

3. As in 2, but something with better low lux and less smearing

4. Really a 2nd camera should have differing but complementary attributes that I can use in other fields (i.e better in-built ND filters, better manul focus rings etc) so that when I only need one camera, the non PDX10 camera can be pressed into service.

Any ideas ?

Thanks P

PS : the 16:9 would be nice to have but probably not absolutely necessary because my 2 camera requirement is usually in respect of stage musicals and one could argue that the benefit of widescreen more noticable in outdoor/landscape/cinematic productions where one could get bye on 1 camera (the PDX10)

I don't think there's another affordable 16x9 native camera on the market, although, as you say, things will change in time.

If you need that new camera today, it would seem that the PDX10 may be your only choice...

Graeme

There has been talk that a few newer models have comparable 16:9, the pc330 being one of them, perhaps the Canon Xi, although I don't know. You aren't going to get a 3ccd cam with as good 16:9 and with better low light perf., that much I am certain of. Unless you're having way too much footage ruined by smear and can't seem to avoid it, and are also consistently underlit and unable to control this, why not get another PDX10? Great video, great audio, great 16:9. Otherwise, you might rethink your entire setup.
My thoughts,
Regards,
Shawn

Other thoughts:

You may, in other 2cam shoots, come to apreciate how well matched the audio and video is if you were to get a second PDX10.

Filmed stage musicals in 16:9 sounds potentially glorious. How does the PDX10 low light performance fare under these conditions? (this question is mostly for me; I'm wanting to do this very thing) Musicals are generally generously lit, I'm thinking the PDX10 would do well......although the smear...?.....

I'm hoping to get a PD170 within the month, for reasons similar to your's, although high res 2cam 16:9 shoots and less expensive accessories is all very tempting..... Hmmm, now you've got me thinking.....

Well I switched to the PDX-10 for filming our shows this season after two years of using a VX-2000. Honestly, I didn't feel limited by the low light abilities. In very dark scenes the VX-2000 has an advantage, but even at +18db I find the PDX-10 usable. Now there were some pretty dark scenes in these two shows, but I have seen darker in some of the really "heavy" operas. I hope to post some stills one day, but I really just haven't had the time recently.

Now personally I disagree with "the benefit of widescreen (is) more noticable in outdoor/landscape/cinematic productions". I'm much, much happier with the 16:9 proportion for stage work. It just seems to fit nicely with groups of people and give a little horizontal room for movement without re-framing the shot. It also makes a lot of sense in full stage shots since it closely matches the proportions of our typical sets (45' wide x 25' tall pretty much covers what I need to see). I had a party awhile ago and previewed the rough cut of the first two shows filmed on the PDX-10 and our production staff was unanimous that they liked the 16:9, even when letterboxed on a 4:3 set. When viewed on a 16:9 LCD via component video from a progressive scan DVD player it really got some "wows" :-)

But all of this is highly personal and subjective, and you may just think in a 4:3 frame. Variety is the spice of life after all! For me, I switched to widescreen mode when I got the camera and haven't gone back to that menu ever since...

I was thinking that if it (16:9) goes well with cinematic projects, then it could doequally well for filmed stage, provided one can get the cam(s) set up in desirable locations for good angles. I'm happy to hear about the usability of the PDX10 in stage light.
I'm in good with the local community and junior college theaters, will go try this out for myself.....

A Panasonic DV953 is a good alternative to the PDX10...take a look at it's specs and see if it suits what you need in a 2nd camera.

I was just going to say that. Plus the PV-DV953 or MX500 (PAL) costs less than the PDX10. No XLRs, though.

DV953: different look than Sony, not as good in low light, and not as good 16:9. (Compatibility seems to be key).

Having filmed a concert with 2 cameras, a PDX10 and a single chip PC100e, the image quality difference was so astounding that I had a hard job to inter cut the clips.

The difference was not obvious on my Mac 20" LCD but when played back on a B&O widescreen TV, it was like chalk and cheese.

Looks like a 2nd PDX10 is the order of the day, even though I don't need the extra audio facilities

Any rumours about a replacement/upgrade?

regards & thanks

P

Please excuse me if this sounds dumb...but have you considered the trv950...if budget is an issue you might slide by with it...believe it or not...im considering this purchase instead of dv recording device to save milage on my pdx10

If your goal is just having a "recording device" as opposed to a camera that matches the PDX-10 then buying a 3-chipper is an expensive route to go. Also, last time I looked the price difference between those two cameras wasn't huge, but maybe that's changed?

The 16:9 won't be as good on the TRV-950 and it won't record DVCAM. Other than that you're right, it might be a pretty good match since the lens and CCD's are the same. I think I would go the extra bucks for another PDX-10 personally. Also a nice backup if your primary camera breaks.

Thanks Boyd,

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to get a 2nd PDX10.

Sure, the floating camera would not need audio and hence the detachable shoe could be removed.

As I am now almost permanently 16:9, this is really the only way to go.

As I don't really need this until April 2004, I will see if there are any new 16:9 native offerings in the new year and the buy a 2nd PDX 10 in March 2004

Regards P

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : The 16:9 won't be as good on the TRV-950 and it won't record DVCAM. Other than that you're right, it might be a pretty good match since the lens and CCD's are the same. I think I would go the extra bucks for another PDX-10 personally. Also a nice backup if your primary camera breaks. -->>>

Wow...im glad i shot my mouth off now...i didnt even think of that as my goal was to use the 950 also as a playback into computer and recording devices..i am strictly amature and always shoot dv cam mode 16:9 and im guessing the 950 wont even play them back...thanks for the advice boyd

I don't think you will have any problem playing back DVCAM on the TRV-950, or any of the newer Sony cameras. My VX-2000 handles it fine. But it won't record in DVCAM format. Now if as you say you are "strictly amateur" you might also consider shooting in regular DV SP mode instead of DVCAM (go to the menus and you can change this). It will give you 50% more recording time on a standard tape. Personally I only use DVCAM when it's something mission critical that can't be re-shot. There is no difference in the quality between the two modes. This has all been covered in great detail here and in the PD-150 group already if you're interested.

I would be interested to see the next version of the PDX10. I'm not losing my mind over it, but I'm curious where they might take the series, and our current beauty/beast is approaching the magic age of 2, is it not?

Wow, do you think they will really replace it anytime soon? Personally I doubt that. Look how long they waited on the PD-150.... and look how little they changed it when they finally did replace.

Personally I'd have to wonder whether they will replace the PDX-10 at all. Do you think it sells well enough to justify that? I have no idea. But anyway, judging from how wrong all the speculation was about the PD-150 replacement, I doubt that any of our guesses will be right! But yeah, it's fun to spin a dream every now and then...

The pd150 didn't budge for more than a few years, but the 900 and the pd100 had two year life spans, hadn't they? That's more what I had in mind. I guess we do occupy the smallest of the territories, in this middle middle ground, not quite consumer, more like prosumer, though not solidly, where the cameras are very good, but also very strange and idiosyncratic, compromised, experimental, for lack of a wide or known buyer.....
But do you really think the $1800 cameras will disappear? I would love to know real numbers on total PDX10 sales, and who the buyers are, generally speaking. It would seem that most people buy it for balanced XLR power and 16:9. It's like the pro's holiday cam and the aspiring hobbyist's taste of professional (seemingly) standards and features. Just who, or what, are we, anyway :-) ???

Regards,
Shawn

I believe the 900's run was considerably more than 2 years. I saw my first one in 1998 and almost bought a new one when the 950 was introduced in 2002.

I shoot a PDX-10 because it is the most economical three chipper that can be housed for underwater videography. You're right -- these cameras and the people that love them are caught in the middle. Can't abide the compromises of the lesser cameras, but can't afford the "real" pro gear.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the PDX10 underwater, Jeff. I might do some shallow snorkling with said cam in April, and am wondering how it performs.

Hi Shawn.

The PDX-10 is a great camera underwater, but housing it for "casual snorkling" is awkward. The EWA-Marine bag may be an option for you, but you are trusting your camera to a glorified Zip-Loc® Bag. Going up the price chart, your next stop is at about a thousand dollars. My housing cost just a bit more than the camera itself.

Can't pass up this opportunity to share some work. If you have broadband, download this QT file and have a look. It's from a trip to the British Virgin Islands this summer.

http://www.digitaldiver.info/images/d2ddvd.mov

Hi Jeff

Looks like you got good value for your u/water housing !

Very nice film indeed.

One question, why not in 16:9 , surely this type of work would have benefitted from widescreen.

Regards P

Thanks Patrick.

You're right. Most of my "audience" is watching this on a normal TV set via DVD. I bought the PDX-10 because a TRV-950 had tape transport problems the first time I used it. B&H graciously allowed a trade up instead of repair. The 16:9 format intrigues me, but I didn't like letter-boxed shows before I got a wider TV, and so I was trying to be considerate of my friends and dive buddies. Now, I have two wide screen TV's at home and a wide screen computer. To heck with them, my next trip, I'm shooting wide.

EDIT:

Just occured to me. This video is from the TRV-950. 16:9 would have been cropped, anyway. I shot the PDX-10 in 4:3 on my last trip, but won't next time.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Farris : T This video is from the TRV-950. 16:9 would have been cropped, anyway. -->>>

This has been covered before around here, but it is true that the 950 does 16:9 differently from the PDX-10, and it appears to be deliberately crippled in firmware. However, from what I've read (no personal experience), it still uses enough pixels to acheive the full 480 line vertical resolution, unlike a camera such as the VX-2000.

Do a search, or browse back through this forum to find more details on this if interested.

I'd guess that the PDX10 will only change when the bigger selling 950 is changed or replaced.

Regards P

Patrick, thought you might like to know that a combination of influences, this thread included, has led me into a change of heart: I too am going to get a second PDX10, rather than a PD170, that I too may be in a position to perfectly perform 2cam shoots. I've been contemplating:

matching 16:9 video.
matching exceptional camcorder audio.
lower cost, of cam and of accessories.
the fact that the PDX10's low light performance is quite acceptable in most situations.

I got my first real taste of the 16:9 this last week when I shot two nights of a stage performance. Really, it's becoming more and more difficult to go back to 4:3! Also, even in the lowest of the lighting in this show, the PDX10 did very well. It's probably true that I won't be able to do some of the night time shooting under commercial and industrial lights that I've been wanting to do, but I haven't tried, so who knows. If Boyd is shooting campfires successfully, there's hope for me yet ;-] .
Anyway, I'm 98% convinced that this is the right thing to do.

Shawn

I agree.

I have never succeeded to go back to 4x3.

Once 16x9 seems to mean always 16x9.

The low light performance of the PD170 is unbeatable, but Iwould not miss my 16x9!

And the lowlight of the PDX10(p) is satisfying enough. Sometimes I go to 25p/s and that gives me just that little brightness that I want in a restaurant at eveningtime and low light. Nobody has seen yet that I used 25p/s! They are surprised that the picture is bright.

Enjoy your new PDX10 and

my best wishes for the new year!

Thank you, Jan! And a Happy New Year to You!