Why does the PDX have more pixels than the PD 170?

It has native wide-screen

I guess you would have to ask Sony for the real answer to this.

The PDX-10 however is a much newer design than the PD-170 which is just a relatively minor update to the older PD-150. I suspect the megapixel CCD's weren't available/practical at the time of the PD-150's introduction. With the PDX-10, for some reason Sony decided to produce a camera with smaller but higher resolution CCD's. The TRV-950 shared these same chips.

Before the PD-170 was introduced everyone was speculating that it would have something similar so you could shoot higher quality 16:9. But probably for marketing/cost reasons they merely made a few small improvements to the PD-150 which was still selling very well at the time.

Now with the introduction of the new Sony HDV cameras I have my doubts that we will ever see a similar upgrade to the PD-170....

Dang! You'd think the geniuses at Sony would have at least saved their best native 16 x 9 high resolution CCD technology for the 170 instead of the PDX 10!

On a previous post I quoted: Sony! No Baloney. Now, I must say Sony! Just one slice of baloney!

Well don't feel too bad Hugh, everything is a trade-off. The PD-170 still has an edge regarding low light performance, manual contol and ergonomics. The smaller CCD's on the PDX-10 also cause vertical smear problems for some people.

The PD-170 (and its cousins) shoot beautiful 4:3. But if 16:9 quality is your main concern then the PDX-10 easily wins that contest...

The PDX also has more pixels to shoot much higher quality stills to memory stick than the 170. Sony obviously knew that the 170 really only had about 10 months with the stage all to itself, then in comes the FX1 for just a few dollars more. The Z1 (XLR etc) will be dearer still, but its introduction in February '05 will effectively kill off the 170 overnight, and the prices of used 170s reflect this already.

The PDX10 may well continue for some time as it's much more compact than the FX1, much more discrete in difficult situations and as everyone knows, is THE camera to have if 16:9 is your number one requirement.

tom.

Well, by the time Sony works out all the bugs in the Z1, I'll probably buy one by the end of next year after I use the
%$#@*&^ out of my PD 170.

2 points of curiosity:

a. i thought the new hd cameras shot mpeg2, not dv (unless swithed to). if so, what's avai;able in the way of editing?

b. who actually wants 16x9? i don't mean cameramen, but clients? i still have to be asked for 16x9 from any of my clients, including two national broadcasters...

leslie

Doesn't sound as if you live in Europe Leslie. Here you'd be hard pushed to find a TV for sale that was over 21" and wasn't 16:9. But even here I shoot my weddings in 4:3 as I know it'll play on absolutely anything, undistorted.

Yes, it's MPEG2 and editing will resume shortly.

tom.

Sony's newly-announced pro version of the Z1 has the ability to shoot in 16:9 but output the same footage in 4:3, so with this cam you could deliver either format to a client, depending on what they want. I have not used or seen either camera but was told this by a sales rep.

live in oz, and outback at that!


interesting allen - so does the 4:3 crop and stretch the 16:9 output? if so, how much loss of resolutuion?

leslie

Leslie,
I asked about distortion, and was told that the image is cropped but not stretched, and there is no noticeable distortion, if any. The salesman made a compelling case for the forthcoming pro HD cam, even granted that that's his job!