Howdy,

I am looking at buying one of these cameras and was wondering what everyones take would be on each of the camera's potential as a production camera, given that the lighting conditions are appropriate. Is the one main point that drives the price of the PDX significantly higher than the MX the fact that it is DVCAM rather than DV? Under the same conditions, how do the images compare?

Lastly, if I were using the PDX in still mode (864 lines in 480p), and recording directly to a computer-based DDR, how does the resulting image compare when it's been scaled back down to 720x480 with bars?

I'm hoping that this comparison isn't too apples and oranges to be effective.

Thanks!

The main points are:

* the PDX10 is more expensive
* the PDX10 has XLRs
* the PDX10 is DVCAM (more robust)
* the PDX10 has a higher res viewfinder
* the PDX10 is heavy and tilts forward and pulls to the left

* the PV-DV953/MX5000 is cheaper
* it has frame mode
* it has a Leica lens
* the stills resolution is higher
* in Japan, the MX5000 has outsold the TRV950, PDX10 and VX2000 / PD150

Both have more true 16:9; the playback resolution would be about the same. Both have low noise, but the MX5000 has slightly lower noise.

I don't know how to answer your second question.

If the superior resolution of the PDX10 is scaled down while editing, does the increased fidelity at capture translate to a cleaner image upon completion?

Scale it down to what? VHS?

No, from 1152x? to 720x480

Well, the higher the captured res., the better the video will look, even after it's been "scaled down," when compared with something scaled down from a lower res source.

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

I think the main issue is the vertical resolution in 16:9 mode. Most other cameras crop the 720x480 frame to 720x360, then stretch it back to 720x480 to create an anamorphic 16:9 image. The PDX-10 does not do any cropping in the vertical dimension; it captures a 480 pixel high image but scales the width down to 720. AFAIK the DV format only supports something like 530 lines of horizontal resolution, so this pretty well predetermines what is possible in that dimension.

My own tests would indicate that the PDX-10 doesn't have any advantage when shooting 4:3 video, but it really shines for 16:9. See http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10

I don't really know anything about the MX5000 except what I've read here. It does sound like any interesting camera though. Maybe I've misunderstood, but I thought it wasn't available in the US. Seems that earlier posts have made reference to Japanese menus, etc. Or is it available under a different name?

The PDX10 / MX5000/PV-DV953 does the same type of 16:9.

The increased video effective pixel count in these cams make a difference with capturing video information. The pixels are the "eyes." The more eyes, the more accurate the ones and zeros.

The PDX10 uses DVCAM, which will result in less potential dropouts. See: http://www.adamwilt.com for an explaination of D8, DV, DVCAM, and DVCPRO.

The PDX10 has a higher resolution viewfinder. This is better if that's what you use to view what you shoot.

For an explaination of the MX500/0 16:9, go to: http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm and click on the MX500 Power Point Slides.

Thanks guys. Sounds like the MX is the most bang for the buck.

I agree with 'best bang for the buck'. But that should be keeping in mind compromises, such as graininess, more digital gain, going blind at 15 lux, and no 'ooomph' in the size.

I saw the PV-DV953 today. NO GRAIN. Just fantastic footage. Amazing! The zoom was good, just a little fast, depending on the presure. OIS worked like a charm; low light was fine---not as bad as people presume. And the sharpness, and the color---WOW! A better MX300 for sure.

Hi Frank,

I always play with my friend's MX500. No matter how we adjust it, the indoor shots are always grainy. I wonder if the patch that you (or somebody else) mentioned earlier on has something to do with this.

"Patch?" I don't follow.

Yik, what I saw was sharp footage in low light, but the color goes. This is normal with low light shooting. On a cloudy day, such as today here in lovely Raincouver, the colors were brilliant and the footage was sharp.

I hope 'presume' would not be directed at me, because I compared the MX8 (mine), MX350 (a friend's) and MX500 (in the shop) side by side, in a rather dim shopping center, before deciding on the greatly more expensive MX350 as a replacement for my MX8.

When I refer to low lights, I mean in digital gain mode, when the aperture is wide open and the digital gain kicks in. And I have also observed that in super low lights which the MX350 can still see some shapes, the MX500 is already all black. The lowest is still the MX8.

Maybe the MX500 is not as good as the DV953. This comparison would be difficult, as who would own a 500 and a 953?

I am pretty sure that the MX300 loses to the MX500 in features, and not in video quality. To be fair, the MX500 does have more lines and real 16:9. As for me, not shooting in 16:9 until maybe 3 years down the road, of which there will be newer cams to consider.

PS. I read my post again and found it to be rather defensive. I believe I should remind myself that graininess, although measurable, if often subjective depending on who is viewing and what monitor is used. I apologise if I have stepped on anyone's toes.

I'm not singling anyone out. But I have to wonder if that MX500 you tried may have been defective. Knowing that the MX300 and MX350 plays back 500 lines, and the MX500/0 / PV-DV953 plays back 540 lines, I didn't think that I would have been able to see a difference. I was dead wrong.

In "super low lights," I'm sure the lux is better with the MX300 and MX350---and even better perhaps with the MX8/PV-DV852. However, by how much? Pitance, I would imagine. Honestly, I've heard the sad MX5 LUX story so many times that I started to believe it. Fortunately, a member gave me the opportunity to try her's out. I tell you, it's the best hand-held 3 chip I ever held in my hands.

The scenario that I'll use is this particular wedding dinner which I was shooting, when I had both my MX8 and MX350. I was using my MX350 (3CCD, better cam, that's what I believed) all the way. Then, when the couple entered the room, my MX350 tape ran out, so I took the second cam, the MX8, out of the bag and started shooting, while my wife loaded the next tape into the MX350. Now the lights were dimmed and the couple had a 'dramatic' entrance. When the tape change was complete, my ever-helpful wife started shooting with the MX350 concurrently with the MX8 I was shooting with.

Fast forward.

Editing time now, I found that the MX8 captured the dim entrance of the couple, while there was NOTHING except sound on the MX350. But when the bright lights came on, the MX350 does have better colours.

And the MX500 requires more light than the MX350.

That's why I say that the little pitance of difference can become very significant. The MX500 goes blind too soon!

Now, I have checked the MX350 against the MX500, there is a difference in the 'blind' level, and the grain on the MX500 is more pronounced than that on the MX350. That's probably due to the smaller CCD, requiring more light.

Finally, there may just be some difference between the MX500 and the DV953, need someone with both cams to tell us.