Finally,

A review of the pdx10.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-dsr-pdx10-camcorder-review.htm

Haven't seen too many reviews. Guess better late than never.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Te3owq5rtkwJ:www.gxo.com/ARCHIVESPDF/Hardware/62534SonyDSRPDX10.pdf++site:www.gxo.com+pdx10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://videosystems.primediabusiness.com/ar/video_sony_dsrpdx_dv/

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/markets/production/productsite/dvcam/article46.html

http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000128

http://www.computervideo.net/feb04-3.html

http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/johnson0703&_requestid=132619

this latest review is decent.

It doesn't mention anything about the lack of stability of the camera, because of it's small size though, and it says that there are no ND filters in the Camera, where I think it was discussed here that there are in fact 3 ND filters (previous post).

Incidentally, does anyone use any small and cheap stedicam like devices to make the camera more steady when taking moving shots, or heck, even while handheld panning?

He also says that " If the user does not adjust anything the factory preset will add up to 18db of gain to an image in order to boost the brightness. This corresponds to the OFF setting for AGC because the full 18db of gain is available." meaning that ALL the gain is added if needed. The settings read like setting AGC means that no gain is added. That is confusing!! So we are better off putting the gain contro to 6 db then, for the minimal gain!!!

A lot of the guy's "suggestions" for the camera a quite good, things that I thought should be on the camera as well.

I thought he was a little harsh in the end though, with he camera to camera comparisons.

Some interesting points there, and a pretty thorough evaluation of the camera. Although they mention the high quality 16:9, it seems to me it should have been acknowledged in the "who's it for" section.

Based on discussions we've seen around here, I suspect that some people will take issue with this statement:The DSR- PDX10 is better than the GL-2 when it comes to low light, but both have far too much gain on the image.and:When compared to the GL-2 the DSR-PDX10 is a better cameraPerhaps this is true, but it seems like a surprising conclusion to me:This is the best prosumer camera for the point and shoot crowd.

I thought the chip size was 1/4" + .7 Like .25+.7? The review is saying: "PDX10 is not truly a ¼ inch camera because its chips are slightly smaller at ¼.7"

Is that true?

Sean

Finally, A review of the pdx10.Steve, DV Magazine had a PDX10 review quite some time back. Also, a lot about this cam has been revealed here by our good member, Tom Hardwick.

Frank,

Is the DV review online? I never saw it. The info provided by Tom Hardwick has indeed been excellent.


Sean,

1/4.7 means that it is closer to a 1/5 inch chip rather than a 1/4 chip. It is 1 inch divided by 4.7.

Sean, it's simple arithetic:

1/3" = 0.33"

1/4" = 0.25"

1/4.7 = 0.21"

Steve, I don't know. I usually buy the magazine. Perhaps go to http://www.dv.com and search for it. I would, but that site is really bloated for my old computer.

I recall that the article mentioned the audio is very good. I can't recall the rating they gave it, though I think it was a 4 out of 5.

So, now that I think about it, the way it's written wouldn't it be .25.7? Or, .25/.7. Or, .257?

It's odd the way they set it up. I have no verification on the size from Sony direct but I have access to Sony at work. I'll give them a ring Monday and ask them what's up with the odd sizing.

What they will likely tell me is it has to do with the way it handles 16:9.

Marketing wise, I suppose it makes sense to put 1/4" in there someplace but it's really a whisker over 1/5" then. I would have written it as 1/5.1 or .20+.1 or .21.

Sort of like the always misused "improved".

As a short aside, I get a real marketing kick out of those stupid Dr. Pepper commercials that say the Diet Dr. Pepper "tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper." More like Dr. Pepper than what, Pepsi, mud, a rock? More than last week perhaps?

"More like" denotes a comparison, 1 is more than 2, etc. Rock is more like Country than Opera...

I hate misrepresentational marketing. Is that a word?

See ya,

Sean

I like Tony's reviews well enough. I think they speak to their audience, nonpros. General, and fairly balanced.

Oh yes, the DV review, I forgot that one. I've now included it in my top post of reviews.

Regarding CCD size, actually those sizes of 2/3", 1/3", 1/4", etc. may be useful in comparing one model to another, but they have little to do with the actual dimensions of the CCD's. There was recently a very good article on this in either DV or Videography magazine (sorry, don't have my old issues here at work).

The article explained that this terminology dates back to the old vacuum tube days and refered to the diameter of the tube. Sorry, don't remember the specifics, but they were all relatively large, like 1.5", 1" and later on they got as small as 2/3". Evidently the camcorder manufacturers adopted this same terminology when they started making 2/3" CCD's because the active image area was comparable to 2/3" vacuum tube (which was round with a 4:3 rectangle in the middle).

Then as cameras were built with smaller CCD's the manufacturers extrapolated these numbers to correspond with their new devices. But there never was a picture tube that was 1/3" or 1/4" diameter, so these measurments become pretty arbitrary when discussing CCD size.

Anyway, I apologize if any of these details are off a bit, but I think the general principle is accurate. Perhaps another "old timer" with some experience with tube-type cameras can further elaborate on this topic and correct any of my errors....

1/4.7" = 0.21"

Which is closer to 0.20" (or 1/5") as Steve Roffler posted. The pixel count is 1.07 million pixels per CCD and the video effective pixel count is 690K X 3 RGB (red, green blue).

Boyd, I too will take issue with this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DSR- PDX10 is better than the GL-2 when it comes to low light, but both have far too much gain on the image.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about you, but I've had the PDX10 and the XM2 (PAL GL2) alongside my VX2000E. The difference is startling. The VX is tops, the XM is a stop behind and the PDX struggles at 3.5 stops behind. This does *not* make it better than the Canon in low light. Far from it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When compared to the GL-2 the DSR-PDX10 is a better camera
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Better how? OK, as an ad man I could list the bigger side screen, the Info-lithiums, the XLR adapter that comes as standard rather than as an extra. Now I'm starting to struggle, and beginning to wish I worked for the Canon advertising agency. At least with the Canon f8 means f8, not f4 and some ND that you didn't really want and had no control over.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the best prosumer camera for the point and shoot crowd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can go along with this. In a p & s situation the Sony produces outstandingly good footage. If you don't care what aperture you're shooting at - great. If you want 16:9 and are happy with auto everything it's hard to beat. But the best prosumer camera? I could name better ones that would save you money into the bargain.

tom.

If anyone's interested, I found the article about CCD size in the Spring 2004 edition of Videography Magazine "research & developments: Gigantic and Miniscule" by Mark Schubin. Actually the info is in a separate box on page 22 entitled "Size Matters".

It states that with a 2/3" tube the image diagonal measurement was 11mm and this formed the basis of what is known as a 2/3" CCD. Other sizes were 1.25" tubes with 21.4mm image diagonals, 1" tubes with 16mm diagonals and both 1/2" and 5/8" that had 8mm diagonals.

The article further states that 1/3" CCD's have an image diagonal of 6mm, 1/4" CCD's have 4mm diagonals, and 1/6" CCD's have 3mm diagonals.Was there ever an imaging tube that had an outside diameter of just 1/6-inch - a little over 4mm? No. But it is the consensus of image-chip manufacturers that, had there ever been one, it would have had an image diagonal of 3mm.

This makes a 1/3" CCD 4.4mm x 3.3mm. I'd always considered a Kodachrome slide of a Super-8 frame to be pretty tiny at 5.8 x 4.2mm, but it's positively huge alongside the VX2k's chips.

tom.

The interesting thing is that we're always hearing about how many more "pixels" film has vs. video. But actually it appears that CCD's offer more pixels per square millimeter than film.

I'm sure they do Boyd, but the chips in our domestic camcorders sure aren't them. I have Cibachrome prints measuring 14" wide made from Super-8 frames, and from a technical viewpoint the Kodachrome 40 easily beats the best print I can make from the PDX10's Memorystick. It's getting grainy, yes - but there's not the slightest stair-stepping, edge sharpening or JPEG compression visible.

tom.

The review seems like an interesting abstract of tha manual, except in regards to the low sensitivity problem which is well explained. Native 16:9 is also well mentioned. Other than that, the writer does not seem to have investigated much further. Take for example this: 'The PDX10 does not feature any sort of ND filter which is an inconvenience'. Although it is an undocumented 'feature', the PDX10 has three built in ND filters that complement the iris to control exposure, thus keeping the iris at the camera's sweet spot as much as possible and automatically.

Oh, and then there is this other review which comes to mind:
http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/pdx10-ir1.php ... hmm, yes, I do know the guy who wrote it :-)

I'd have included your review in my above compilation, Ig, but it's already right under our nose that I thought it a redundancy? I have put together this list of PDX reviews on other sites in the past and yours is always present in those.
:-)

Ignacio, you're correct in that the PDX10 does indeed have three in-built ND filters that take the place of regualr diaphragm openings, so why then do you say in your review:

"There is no internal ND filter"? Maybe you mean there's no control offered over the ND filter(s).

Also you're correct when you say that shutter speeds have a great influence on the CCD smear problem, but I just feel you're letting Sony off the hook somewhat by saying:

"The only problem I have been able to detect is some degree of vertical smear with a slight blueish cast, apparent only under high contrast and with an over exposed background. Similarly, white vertical lines can appear when you have bright lights over a dark background. Playing around with the shutter speed can help diminish vertical smearing. A contrast reducing filter might help."

The OIS is (as all OIS systems are) a hybrid electro/mechanical set-up. Electronics process the information, and optical elements are moved mechanically to correct for camera movement. If the camera's held still the OIS elements just sit there doing nothing, whereas an EIS system can remove the instability of an image in front of the lens (a badly shaken Super-8 film for instance) even though the camera remains perfectly stationery.


tom.

> "There is no internal ND filter"? Maybe you mean there's
> no control offered over the ND filter(s).

Absolutely correct Tom, you really got me! Actually I have un updated version of the review waiting to be corrected and sent to Chris for reposting. It fixes that and several other mistakes I made. I will also be adding examples of the image I get with some cheap WA adapters. I just expected much more of the review at camcorderinfo.

I know you are a big fan of the PDX10's vertical smear <grin>, but I find it quite controllable in most cases.

Tom, regarding OIS, have you compared the PDX10's with that of other similar cams? I keep hearing how great the XL1's is but I have not been too impressed when trying it...

Did any of you get the sensation that the review of the PDX10 was just an excuse to compare it againts the new Panny?

I hope others don't think we've hijacked this thread Ignacio...

To your PDX10 test. Yes, I agree whole-heartidly with your thoughts on the uncomfortable hold of the thing. The memorystick door adds to the width of the cam, and it's the fact that the inside surface of your palm is so far from the c of g that makes the cam 'twist' in your hand. Having the strap tighter is no help as it squeezes the blood out of your hand and stops you using the zoom rocker. :-)

I also agree with your battery thoughts. The PDX sucks 20% more power than the PD100, yet the latter used the big NP-F batteries - same as the PD170/VX2k1. Crazy design move, Sony.

You say:

"Finally, I bought a cool little Vivitar 0.5x wide angle adapter for little money (much less than a Sony or Century Optics), it's not the best quality, but since it is really 50mm, I am only using 37mm of it and not getting much distortion from the edges. It does not vignette noticeably in video mode... just a very slight darkening at the top left in 16:9 mode. It visibly vignettes in photo mode, which uses the full height of the CCD array"

Just to put you right optically, the Vivitar is of spherical element construction, so the fact that it comes with a 50mm attachment thread has no bearing on the distortions your 37mm filter threaded camera perceives. Imagine the PDX10 was unchanged apart from the filter thread - say it had a 50mm filter thread - now you can see that you're not ''using 37mm of it'' as you say, it just happens to be the thread size specified by Sony when they designed the thing. The vignetting you see in stills mode is due to the Vivitar being too small in overall diameter, and/or being fitted too far away from the PDX's front element.

Agree with all you say about SP and DVCAM mode BTW. And with your thoughts on the excellence of the Sony lens. It sure doesn't need Zeiss written on it.

OIS. The PDX has a 12x zoom and the XL1s a 16x. Could that be why the Canon's OIS seems to be less well endowed? The VAP of the VX2k is bulky, noisy, expensive and subject to bubbles at high altitude. The PDX's vibrating elements suffer none of these disadvantages and as far as I'm aware work every bit as well. The fact that Panasonic use this system in the DVX100 show the way OIS will go, I'm sure.

tom.

"expensive new camera, I would get to understand exactly what AUTO SHTR really does, but I still don't. The manual is of the most basic nature, every "

Forgot to chime in on this. The auto shutter is just that - if you leave it 'on' in the menu the camera will vary the shutter speed in combination with the three ND filters in an effort to hang onto the f4 sweet spot. It works pretty well, (assuming you like stacatto footage in bright conditions) though the camera must be kept in the fully automatic mode for this to work of course. As soon as the slider gets to the central position, auto shutter is off regardless of the menu indication.

tom.

> The auto shutter is just that - if you leave it 'on' in the
> menu the camera will vary the shutter speed in combination
> with the three ND filters in an effort to hang onto the f4
> sweet spot.

I see... so the difference is that when in 'off' and light becomes too much for the ND filters to control it would start closing the diaphragm instead of upping the shutter speed?

Exactly so. And as soon as that happens you can see why Sony would like you to leave the auto shutter on - or, if you insist on using manual exposure (as you should) manually upping the shutter speed in very bright conditions.

I did some tests and at the widest angle setting the diffraction losses are quite noticeable at very small apertures. For the best results make f4.8 your smallest useable aperture, and all will be well.

tom.

The camcorderinfo.com review has mismatched two things:

1. High visibility.
2. Poor information.


Without any data or images to sustain its claim the review ranks the new Panasonic AG-DVC30 ahead of the PDX-10 and then, without any data or images, ranks the PDX-10 ahead of the GL2. This in spite of a previous 2003 "shoot out" where the TRV-950 (with the same imaging system as PDX10) ranked behind the GL2 in low light.

Furthermore, the author's casual comments about the very, very good OIS on the PDX-10 ("I left it on just in case it is doing something") is simply irresponsible. One of the keys to obtaining good video is the very excellent OIS on the TRV-950 and PDX-10. Had the reviewer turned the OIS off (he notes he did not bother) he would have seen, at maximum zoom, the impossibility of getting good video. Had he done anything even slightly quantitative the OIS system would have been a factor.

I will grant that the pictures of the PDX-10 were accurate. They did photograph the right camcorder.

I think, if high visibility is granted, responsibility should be adopted.

I Hurd that Sony uses Canon's OIS technology. Whether Pana does also, I don't know.

I agree with every word you said Mike. A camcorder tester owes it to his readership to be as accurate, unbiased, throrough, critical and truthful to his readership as is humanly possible, and that review of the Sony's OIS (to take one small discipline) shows that the reviewer lacks quite a few of the required attributes.