MX vs. DVX at DVinfo.net

Glenn Gipson · July 12th, 2003, 05:19 AM

So how do these small MX cameras compare to the DVX 100? Is low light and shallow depth of field (if that is one's cup of tea) the only advantage that the DVX 100 has over the MX series? Are there any comparison frame grabs?

Yang Wen · July 12th, 2003, 07:58 AM

The MX is no comparison to the DVX. The DVX, by the size of CCDs alone is going to have shallower DOF than the MX. However for picture quality to weight/size ratio the MX probably comes out on top. The MX makes fine for a traveling cam that goes to places easily, but will never replace The DVX for controls and image quality.

Peter Jefferson · July 12th, 2003, 01:20 PM

ive got both of these cams, and i must say that tehy are incomparable...

the DVX lens alone is about the size of the MX500...

okies, the best thing is that both of these cams use the same batteries, good for me coz i have a million of the bastards..

anyways...

the difference is that one is designed for "PRO" use and teh other is a "prosumer" use cam..
both offer professional settings like mic gain adjsutments manual focus ring etc, but the DVX is a lil more comprehensive in the Professional settings dept.

Themx is good as you can use it for stills, but the picture quality doesnt come anywhere near the DVX.. since i got the dvx, i only run 15w globes on my cam light (which is rare in itself) as teh gain setting on teh DVX are quite incredible.. low light is no issue and there is no distortion apart from a larger ghosting effect on teh lens... the MX has a hotspot spark kinda thing happeneing, where as the DVX has a bit of a lens flare, which can be distracting, pxecially if ther eis light behind the subject...

umm... in all honesty, you really CANT compare the 2.. i used to use 2 MX500's but i sold one to get a DVX... the DVX is cam A, and MX500 cam b, both DO come close in good light, but once the lights drop, forget it... the DVX kills everything...
Both have progressive, but the DVX has true progressive, which is better when working with fast paced events, the MX does tend to jar a lil bit... as its not true progressive... when it runs 25p, it runs 25p, not 50i split into 25 as the DVX (PAL)

also, size, the DVX is easier to handle as everythign is layed out logically, and isnt fiddly to get around... i actually use 2 hands when handling the DVX, which helps with stable shots...
Optical stabiliser is incredible and built in wide angled lens is also handy... the colour depth will blow you away.. even when compared to the PD150 and XL1s, this provides a sharper clearer image... the MX is close in that department as well, but to get a cinematic finish, you need to turn the sharpness down and the colour up... then close teh iris a lil ... bit fiddly and not very handy in low light, but thats the closest match your gonna get if using both cams... (which is why im waiting on the GS, its got cinegamma)
audio, well, the dvx wins hands down, on the fly audio input controls as well as XLR inuts and teh ability to run 2 different mics at once... i like how the MX shows a full bar, with the input levels overlayed, btu the DVX only shows input when it hits the mic.. not bad, but doesnt help when your in a loud auditorium... you dont know what u may miss by waiting for the audio to kick in...

as for depth of filed, in all honesty when comparing the 2, the DVX IMO offers a nicer focal point... (it also provides a focal calcualtion in case your working manual) i find its a lil slower in focussing, but when it does the depth of field is clearly wider..
If your subject is 30cm from the background, you will notice the blur of the background, as opposed to the unlimited-esque look of teh MX... teh MX can come across as a homevideo cam if used in auto mode, but the DVX image on teh other hand, is clearly processed differently and offers a more filmic image...

m jstu rambling now.. i shoulda listed it all, but its 5am and i ned sleep....

Ill see if i can upload some frame grabs.. im jsut really busy these days :(

Glenn Gipson · July 12th, 2003, 02:17 PM

Thanks a lot Yang, and especially Peter, that was very comprehensive.

July 12th, 2003, 05:19 AM	#1
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	MX vs. DVX So how do these small MX cameras compare to the DVX 100? Is low light and shallow depth of field (if that is one's cup of tea) the only advantage that the DVX 100 has over the MX series? Are there any comparison frame grabs?

July 12th, 2003, 07:58 AM	#2
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	The MX is no comparison to the DVX. The DVX, by the size of CCDs alone is going to have shallower DOF than the MX. However for picture quality to weight/size ratio the MX probably comes out on top. The MX makes fine for a traveling cam that goes to places easily, but will never replace The DVX for controls and image quality.

July 12th, 2003, 01:20 PM	#3
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	ive got both of these cams, and i must say that tehy are incomparable... the DVX lens alone is about the size of the MX500... okies, the best thing is that both of these cams use the same batteries, good for me coz i have a million of the bastards.. anyways... the difference is that one is designed for "PRO" use and teh other is a "prosumer" use cam.. both offer professional settings like mic gain adjsutments manual focus ring etc, but the DVX is a lil more comprehensive in the Professional settings dept. Themx is good as you can use it for stills, but the picture quality doesnt come anywhere near the DVX.. since i got the dvx, i only run 15w globes on my cam light (which is rare in itself) as teh gain setting on teh DVX are quite incredible.. low light is no issue and there is no distortion apart from a larger ghosting effect on teh lens... the MX has a hotspot spark kinda thing happeneing, where as the DVX has a bit of a lens flare, which can be distracting, pxecially if ther eis light behind the subject... umm... in all honesty, you really CANT compare the 2.. i used to use 2 MX500's but i sold one to get a DVX... the DVX is cam A, and MX500 cam b, both DO come close in good light, but once the lights drop, forget it... the DVX kills everything... Both have progressive, but the DVX has true progressive, which is better when working with fast paced events, the MX does tend to jar a lil bit... as its not true progressive... when it runs 25p, it runs 25p, not 50i split into 25 as the DVX (PAL) also, size, the DVX is easier to handle as everythign is layed out logically, and isnt fiddly to get around... i actually use 2 hands when handling the DVX, which helps with stable shots... Optical stabiliser is incredible and built in wide angled lens is also handy... the colour depth will blow you away.. even when compared to the PD150 and XL1s, this provides a sharper clearer image... the MX is close in that department as well, but to get a cinematic finish, you need to turn the sharpness down and the colour up... then close teh iris a lil ... bit fiddly and not very handy in low light, but thats the closest match your gonna get if using both cams... (which is why im waiting on the GS, its got cinegamma) audio, well, the dvx wins hands down, on the fly audio input controls as well as XLR inuts and teh ability to run 2 different mics at once... i like how the MX shows a full bar, with the input levels overlayed, btu the DVX only shows input when it hits the mic.. not bad, but doesnt help when your in a loud auditorium... you dont know what u may miss by waiting for the audio to kick in... as for depth of filed, in all honesty when comparing the 2, the DVX IMO offers a nicer focal point... (it also provides a focal calcualtion in case your working manual) i find its a lil slower in focussing, but when it does the depth of field is clearly wider.. If your subject is 30cm from the background, you will notice the blur of the background, as opposed to the unlimited-esque look of teh MX... teh MX can come across as a homevideo cam if used in auto mode, but the DVX image on teh other hand, is clearly processed differently and offers a more filmic image... m jstu rambling now.. i shoulda listed it all, but its 5am and i ned sleep.... Ill see if i can upload some frame grabs.. im jsut really busy these days :(

July 12th, 2003, 02:17 PM	#4
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Thanks a lot Yang, and especially Peter, that was very comprehensive.