MX5000 - a poor man's DVX100

It shares the same block. It also has a 10X, F1.6 Leica Dicomar lens...same 200K 3.5" LCD, 180K .44" viewfinder, both shoot near true 16:9. The MX has frame mode, the DVX has progressive scan. The MX5000 plays back 540 horizontal lines, the DVX100? Don't know. Both cams have nothing lower than 1/60th manual shutter speed (in interlaced). The MX5000 is much smaller and costs about 1/2 the price. The MX5 weighs 230g, the DVX weighs 1.66KG. The MX5000 is available now (via Tim), the DVX...?

http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm

Does the MX5000 use the same batteries as the DVX? My DVX uses batteries like the CGR-D16...

How good do the digital stills look at the highest quailty setting?

I am mainly looking at this camera as a backup/deck/digital still camera to be used along side the DVX. If they can share batteries, and the MX has a similiar feeling picture to the DVX, then I'd be sold.

Plasma (the graphic artist), as far as I know it uses the same batteries. The MX5000 is a lot smaller than the DVX100, however. I presume the pics will look better than the ones from the DVX100. 3 meg stills is one of it's selling features. The stills won't look as good as those from a digital still camera (you know that). Sorry I can't tag on one of my silly pics.

Plasma, did you get your DVX100 yet? I can't recall.

Yup. I got mine.

I have been posting those DVX100 pics on dv.com from my camera.

Thanks for the info. I was just wondering the still quality, because then it would be easier to justify it's purchase...

Size. From the looks of it in pictures, it appears to be about the same size as the OpturaPi.

Frank,

I am intrigued by the Panasonic MX5000. From all the things I have read, it appears to be a pretty hot rig. The one thing I have not seen is any footage from it. Have you by any chance run across footage taken from this camera?

I saw read a bunch of your posts. I get confused sometimes with who has what and who wants to get what. Also, I'm having trouble lately with getting into and also loading the threads at dv.com.

The Optura PI is a very small hand-held, smaller than the TRV30. Most people who have never actually held one often think it's much larger. I've often read from people who just got their PI via mail order: "I didn't release how small it is!" The MX5000 is about 1.6 % fatter, and I'm guessing a tad longer.

The OpturaPi IS really small. Basically just a viewscreen, lens, and a small deck. The MX5000 looks like it has better ergonomics.

Paul, no, I haven't seen actual footage. I have a MX300, and the footage it very good. The MX500/0 has about 2X the effective CCD video pixels as the MX300/0, and plays back 540 lines. The MX300/0 plays back 500 lines. Also, I know 2 people that have one, and swear the footage is superb.

I just found these sample stills over at Q technologies. They look alright, but they seem to have been interpolated up to that resolution.

http://www.qtechnologies.com/us/imports/mx5000/stills/samples.htm

Thanks. Yes, for the MX5 3 meg stills, it's not the same quality as a 3 meg still camera.

No, but if you cut the resolution in half in Photoshop, they look quite decent.

The video quality from the MX500 is great, but not much different from the MX350. However, if you refer to my other post "MX500 disappointing", I do have some gripes about this camera.

The stills are not as grainy as the MX350, and at 3.0MP, is a great deal better than the MX350. The MX8 is very grain-free, but only 1.2MP. I guess 1CCD cams wins in still shots.

The LCD screen is very much dimmer than the MX8 and MX350 and the viewing angle is less than that of the MX8 (150 degs up, down, left, right!) or the MX350 (120 degs).

The zoom is 10x (less than the MX350's 12x) and at 1x (widest) it is not as wide as the MX350 (wider) or the MX8 (widest).

So, if 1x zoom wide-angle is not an issue, and the LCD brightness not a major concern, then the MX500 is great! Note that although the LCD is dimmer, the captured footage is very similar to the MX350.

I will attempt to post some comparisons of the same shots taken from the MX8 (1CCD), MX350 and MX500. Anyone has space for me to dump about 1.5MB of files?

You should e-mail Terrence and ask him if you can send him the pics, to post on his great website.

The MX8, MX300, MX350 and MX500 are all very good cams. However, they all have some shortcomings, like with any cam. No cam is perfect. It's just that some cams are more perfect for a particular job, and/or more perfect in the eye of the beholder. For me, one of things I look for in a cam is video quality. All these MX cams have very good video quality.

MX8 - 530 horizontal playback lines
MX300 - 500 playback lines
MX350 - 500 playback lines
MX500 - 540 playback lines

The MX300 is beefier than the MX350. The MX350 has a slightly better picture with the iris wide open than the MX300. The MX500 has higher resolution and better 16:9, but requires more lux. And on it goes....

Hi Yow,

I wonder if you attempted to adjust any of the following as regards the LCD of the MX500

intensity (LCD AI)
backlighting
brightness
color level

I haven't seen the 350 as it's not available in Japan, but at "dynamic" LCD A1 and "bright" backlighting settings,the LCD looks pretty bright and sharp to me. BTW, I'm literally translating the Jap menus so the actual English indications may not be the same.


Regards
Allan Rejoso

One more thing, I own an Optura100 and have taken some nice digital stills with the MX5000. At the highest resolution, I swear the printed quality of those taken using the MX5000 clearly beats those taken using the Optura100, but the MX5000 is still not as good as a 3Mpixel digital cam though.

Allan, I take a lot of pics, but never with any of my video cams. I also shoot video on a regular basis, but never with my still cam (it only takes stills). You could say that I'm sort of a nut when it comes to shooting pictures and video. In fact, I just picked up some B&Ws which I shot with 3200 ASA film and pulled back 4 stops. Some of these pics are "Eraserhead" strange, while others are "normal" pics of people---one gal liked her 2 pics so much that she's paying me to blow them up. I look at photography as an art, and videography as an art. And I surely will heart attack straight to hell if I ever decide to use my video cam as a still camera! But I'll probably go see my doctor before I'll let that happen.

Just to add, fortunately, the MX500 gives the highest resolution stills than any other digital video camera today. It may be the poor man's DVX100, but it is also a poor man's still cam---a poor man who owns the best 3 chip hand-held today, but can't afford a still camera!

Personally, if I just wanted to take 1 camera on a holiday, what better choice is there? I'd just have to swallow hard and make due for lower res stills, but take great video to make up for it. First..., I have to dish out the $1650 US.

Frank, thanks for suggesting putting the images to Terrence's site.

Terrence, if you are reading this, I ask permission to email the shots to you, but only after the weekend, kinda busy now with some post-production for my ex-choir.

Allan, as for the LCD, yes, I have tried, pushed up the brightness, played with saturation, the sharpness, but still dimmer than the MX8 and the MX350 (I don't have an MX300 to compare with). The captured images are extremely similar, but having a dimmer LCD will force me to re-calibrate my brain from my MX8. So I had finally settled for the comparable MX350. I compared in two ways, pointing the camera to the same scene, and by playing back pre-recorded sequences. Both indicates that the MX500 is the dimmest LCD, whereas the MX8 and MX350 are comparable.

Please note that, although I seem to be bashing the MX500, I am not against it. If somebody gives me a set for free, I'll praise the Lord, and use it to shoot good video. But I had a very good price for the now out-of-production MX350, and considering best-bang-for-the-buck, I went for the MX350 instead. Also, I felt handicapped by the not-as-wide 1x zoom, as I shoot wide very often.

Thanks Yow. The MX8 has a 3" LCD right? I have used the Jap equivalent MX1000 with 3.5" LCD and I thought its LCD did not look as good as that of MX5000. Well...

Regards

Well, that's the problem with cross-continental irregularities, very much like the DVD region codes! I have friends overseas who tells me, "Wow, wonderful behind-the-scenes in the Titanic DVD" and I replied, "Can't find anything like that on mine!" :-)

The camcorder models in Europe, Britain, Australia, Asia, Panasonic homeland Japan and even Iran (hahaha, Frank) are probably all different here and there, to suit the local market. No use comparing by words. Actually, the best deal is to test drive the camera, better if the store has a wide range of models that can be tested side-by-side.

Personally, I like the MX8 LCD best, as it is almost identical to my TV, also a Panasonic. What I shoot is what I watch :)

Re: "If somebody gives me a set for free, I'll praise the Lord, and use it to shoot good video."

If somebody gave me a set for free, I'll kiss their _ss, believe there really is a God, and use it to shoot good video.

By the way..., the latest news from Terhan, Iran is that the police are looking for a fake sorcerer. A man paid him about $900 US to make him invisible, so that he could rob banks unseen. He then went and robbed a bank, thinking he was invisible, and immediately got tackled, cuffed and taken away.

Oh, I don't think you'll like the MX300, yowch. It's only got a 2.5" LCD...but a BIG viewfinder!

Sorry guys, I don't know which thread to put this rather stupid question of mine.

When you say 1/6" CCD, what does the number 1/6" exactly mean? Is it the cross-sectional area of the CCD chip or simply the length of the diagonal, or whatever dimension of the CCD?

I could be wrong but isn't the CCD measured diagonally?

I would GUESS that it's diagonal, since the space for these little eyes are really small.

But in any case, 1/6 is less than 1/4 is less than 1/3 and less than 1/1.8. My point being, the bigger the CCD the more light it receives (through the same lens) and hence, captures better at lower lux.

About the LCD, yeah, one of the reasons I like the MX8, 350 and 500 would be the HUGE size of the LCD, and good viewing angle (especially the MX8). Nice to show my aging parents and large choir group instant replays, out on the field.

I don't really think that the MX series is a poor man's replacement of professional equipment. I see it as letting the public (including poor students) getting a good taste of pro-stuff, while maintaining the low cost. One fine day, when I quit working on my bridge engineering and open my on video house, I'll probably go for the pro level XL1, etc. But for serious hobbyist, the MX is great. And for some hie-hard Panasonic fans here in Singapore, the MX series is better than the Sony VX and Canon XM/GM series, cost and quality!)

I notice that the bigger the CCD, the wider the lens glass diameter is (not lens filter size). MX3000 and MX5000 are classic examples. Even the 1-CCD MX8 has a wider lens glass than MX5000. Any comments?

By the way, I played with the MX3000 and MX5000 at a nearby store this afternoon. The viewing angle of the MX3000 is wider than that of MX5000 at 1x zoom. The comparative spec sheets verify that too. FYI.

Thanks. I assume that the MX500 chips are brigher than the MX300 chips. But because they are smaller, and the lens is not as wide, this makes the MX500 require a bit more light---though not a whole lot, maybe like 1 f-stop, if that. This is just a guess on my part.

Thanks for your info about the MX300 having a wider viewing area.... (The PD100A also had a wider viewing angle then the TRV900, yet they were off the same branch of the Sony tree.)

Perhaps you can make a judgement call for all of us on this forum, and tell us which is better, or which one you like better: the MX300 or the MX500.

My wife is so thrilled with the 3.5 bright LCD (compared to our Optura100), and very decent still capabilities of the MX5000, both in tape and card mode. She likes its form factor too. She thinks the shape of the MX3000 is like a horizontal ice cream cone on top of a matchbox, whereas the lines of the MX5000 are classic. She may have a point on that.

However, if money is not an object, I think I would still go for the MX3000 because I have more faith in its bigger CCDs and lenses to give me consistently excellent video in varying shooting conditions, and the new features (except perhaps for the extra resolution) are not so important to me. All my Jap friends and sellers only have praises for the MX3000. Speaking of new features, here's a list of things the MX5000 has which MX3000 doesn't.

1.5x instant zoom (during recording)
playback zoom (digital)
built-in flash (for stills)
freestyle remote (I think this is neat)
magic strap (this is simply classic Japanized English - there's nothing truly magical about the strap)
color night view
MEGA OIS (under still mode)
MPEG4 recording to card
voice recorder
Bluetooth capability
Webcam function
Built-in USB
wind noise reduction
addt'l 6 more digital effects

If any of the above features is indispensable to any user, then MX5000 is the choice. Take note that although the MX5000 may appear smaller, it is actually heavier than the MX3000 by 60 grams. However, the MX5000 feels more balanced (in terms of weight distribution) when you hold. Also, despite the bigger 3.5" LCD of the MX5000, it actually consumes less power than MX3000. Pany's engineers are doing a fine job reducing the power consumption of their newer models. Actually this is quite a common design concept for all Jap electronic makers.

Equivalent 35mm lens focal length
MX3000: 40.9 - 491mm
MX5000: 43 - 430mm

Regards

I appreciate all the good info here. Now it's down to NTSC or PAL.

With both having progressive (frame mode) features, one should be able to get great looking video.
The advantages with PAL are Englsih menus, more pixels to play with, and 25 frame mode is closer to 24p. If the OIS works well, this could be THE CAMERA for the guerilla film maker (shooting without a permit).

I really don't relish trying to use a Japanese cheat sheet while trying to shoot.

With Vegas Video, or even programs like Pro Coder from Canopus, PAL to NTSC and back is no longer an issue. Just time consuming.

For NTSC and casual use, my little Pana DV351 will be adequate. I"ve already shot a freinds' wedding with it. A few problems with vetical smear, but nothing earth shattering. It has very good lowlight performance too.

hmm, I guess I'll see what the best PAL bids are.

Allan, it's too bad the dealers in Japan won't work out some sort of deal with the PAL warranty, else you'd already have my order in.

I wonder what they do if a tourist come to town and needs emergency PAL camera repair? They can't be that diferent.

Jojo,

Before deciding on a PAL cam, borrow or rent one. Shoot 5 minutes, upload to VV3 and then convert it. Output it via firewire or S-video and play it back (viewable deck / 400 line TV). If the quality is good, then go with it. Otherwise, get used to the Japanese menus.

I have a PAL cam because I keep it in PAL and/or convert via AV-out to NTSC VHS. The quality remains intact / the conversion is very good.

Allan, GREAT STUFF! (I gotta get me one of them straps!)

Quoting Allan:
"However, if money is not an object, I think I would still go for the MX3000 because I have more faith in its bigger CCDs and lenses to give me consistently excellent video in varying shooting conditions, and the new features (except perhaps for the extra resolution) are not so important to me."

I agree, that's the reason why I bought the MX350, instead of the MX500.

As for the beautiful stills, I'll miss that in the MX350, probably fork out a few hundred bucks for a digital still cam :)

I didn't particularly noticed the strap, maybe I'll take a closer look. And the free-style remote is really COOL, much like LANC, which all Sony have.

Frank, I've already used VV for this type of work. Its just a matter of using the proper settings. the resequencing engine in VV is probably one of the best on the market. My plan is to edit and keep in PAL until final render. Pretty simple. AT the very worst, I can get something like Procoder or get it done at a local conversion facility. Lots of those around in this part of FL.

Which ever I choose, I still prefer PAL over NTSC for doing
feature work. I can't afford the dvx100 for now, so I view this
camera as a good second choice. Besides, it's a given Sony and/ or Canon will come out with something by next fall. In the meantime, I want to get some real work done. Best for the least is one of my philosophies.

I've pretty much given up on getting a price for the JVC GY-DV301E that compares favorably with the street prices of the DV300U.

BTW Frank, Camera Action got back to me in 4 hours. Thats a good sign.

According to the Jap manual, the MX5000 does 30 fps under frame mode, compared to 25 fps for the PAL. Is that supposed to be better or not?

They are both good. 25p makes it easier to emulate certain film type looks (which operates at 24p). Many, like myself also believe that PAL handles color is better than NTSC. Plus higher resolution.

For personal, or eng type work, NTSC would be a better choice here in america.

I read somewhere that our eyes sees only 23 frames, so 24 is good enough (hence film, as those days need to do the least for most impact).

I prefer the higher res of PAL over the higher framerate of NTSC. It is quite evident in watching DVD from Region 3 (PAL) and Region 1(NTSC).

But I've been told by most internet video sites that, unless we are rouges/rebels or with specific needs, it's best to stick to the local broadcast standard.

Jojo, yes, I highly recommend http://www.cameraaction.com.au - they have very good prices, usually lots of stock (example, they have the MX300, MX350 and MX500 in stock!), and they are professional. I saved a lot of money by buying with them (twice). I also keep an ad/link to their website on my Pana page, because I think they are that good!

Allan, PAL progressive would be better for those who want to transfer to 35mm motion film. But generally, you would want a cam that matches the broadcast system of where you live. In the USA and Canada, 50% of DV shot movies that were transfered to film, was shot in PAL---for 3 reasons:

1) higher resolution
2) better color
3) direct 25P to film transfer without pull down. If shot in 30P, frames will be thrown away. Of course, there's methods where the transfer is done with NTSC interlaced, but the results are not as good.

But now with the Pana DVX100, this will probably change things. Shooting HD, would be better, but much more money.

Now I'll have to call the PV-DV953, "a poor man's DVX" also.