Panny DV53

Dave Largent · October 28th, 2003, 10:57 PM

Yes, Yang, it's a mono mic. One interesting fact about this cam is that it's better in low light than some of the more costly 3CCD Pannys.

The manufacturer lux rating for the $325 DV53 is 5 LUX (1 X 1/4" CCD, 680,000 pixels).

The $800 PV-GS70 is 12 LUX (3 X 1/6" CCD, 460,000 pixels/each).

The $1200 AG-EZ50 and the $1250 PV-DV953 are both at 15 LUX (3 X 1/6" CCD, 800,000 pixels/each). It seems like: the more pixels, the worse the low-light reach.

I've actually seen the low light images of the DV53 compared to the GS-70. The 53 was noticably brighter and more colorful.

Yang Wen · October 28th, 2003, 11:40 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Largent : Yes, Wang, it's a mono mic.
-->>>

I assume that was a typo on my name?

The DV53 has better low-light mainly because it had a larger CCD chip.

Frank Granovski · October 29th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Probably a typo (fixed). They're easy to make. I tend to agree with what Dave has concluded about the pixel count/low light. The older miniDV cams had either 1/4" or 1/3" CCDs with low pixel counts, and these cams were usually much better shooting in lower light. However, being older mini-DV cams, they lacked some features and had lower resolution---but then again, some of these had handy features not found in today's consumer miniDV cams.

Dave Largent · October 29th, 2003, 07:57 AM

I wanna get a wide angle for my 53. I have choice of two, both of which claim to be zoom through. One's a Canon 0.7X and the other's a Raynox 0.66X. Both about the same price. My concern with the Raynox is that one of its claimed "features" is that it resolves 350 lines at the center. Shouldn't that be more like 500+? And wouldn't it most likely resolve even less near the edges?

Yang Wen · October 29th, 2003, 08:27 AM

no, it's 350

Dave Largent · October 29th, 2003, 09:05 AM

And, Yang, regarding CCD size versus pixel count and the effect on low light, consider the following. The new Sony PC330 (1/3" CCD & 2,000,000 pixels) is rated at 7 LUX. The Sony TRV33 (1/5" CCD & 690,000 pixels) is also rated at 7 LUX. And the Sony TRV19 (1/4" CCD & 680,000 pixels) is rated at 5 LUX.

Samuel Raj · October 29th, 2003, 11:20 AM

That make sense Dave,

It may not be exactly linear with number of pixels and the ccd size. I mean 1/3(bigger size) has lux 7 and 1/5 smaller size also has lux 7

So there is no direct mathematical formula regarding low light performance.

J. Clayton Stansberry · October 29th, 2003, 01:22 PM

Yang,

What cheapo model of JVC did you get that has stereo outs? I have heard the JVCs suck, but I need to get a "deck" camera, so the cheaper, the better. Thanks.

Clay...

Allan Rejoso · October 29th, 2003, 06:04 PM

Sony Japan
PC300 15 lux
TRV80/70/50/33 15 lux
TRV22 11 lux

Sony US
PC330 7 lux
TRV80/70/33 7 lux
TRV22 5 lux

The language may be different but these cams should be identical in optics and CCD...probably programmed by the same engineers as well... Misinformation, BS, or plain marketing? "Rating conversion" seems to follow a simple formula though. Anybody working for Sony US?

Yang Wen · October 29th, 2003, 11:54 PM

I got the JVC GR-D30U. It's got SVideo OUT and stereo out. I'm using it as a playback deck for my DVX100. Interesting though is that the camera doesn't have a "REC" button on the body. But I can record to it through software. It doesn't come with a remote but there is a sensor on the front and I would think it will work with GRD70U remote. Since I've programmed my Universal remote to work with it. I hope the D70 remote's REC button will work with it. It works rather well as a playback deck, It supports the 24P flag. Oh BTW, this cam sucks sooo bad in low light. Much worser than my 1/4CCD Sony Digital 8 cam. when the light gets low, the image turns B&W and looks like an MPEG-1 video. the DV53 was not at all like this.

Dave Largent · October 31st, 2003, 11:28 PM

Wow! Just had to let you guys know. Being busy, I still haven't gotten to take much footage with the DV53. One of the main reasons I got this cam is that I plan to use it indoors a lot and I'm
well aware that most any of these lower-priced cams can take pictures okay outdoors during the day but indoors is a whole nother story. I saw from the tests over at camcorderinfo.com that this camera was better in low light than the others tested
(which included GS70, Optura 10 & 20, PC105, TRV250 & 350, TRV19, 33 & 39, ZR60 & 65, Elura 50, DV203 and others) and also was less expensive. I have the Sony TR101 with 1/3" CCD that hunts pretty bad in low light and Frank Granovski has a JVC with 1/3" CCD which he said is good in low light but hunts terribly in auto focus in low light and he added that the 1ccd cams are all that way. So I checked out the DV53 to see how bad it was by pointing it into dark corners of a room at night. This was a medium-sized room lit only by two 25 watt bulbs. This would be light that few would shoot in. Man! Put it this way: the DV53 is *disinclined* to hunt. And it was quick to lock on focus.
I have a VX2000 which as most know is good in low light. I didn't test side-by-side (though I plan to) and the DV53 seemed no more inclined to hunt than the VX! I said *seemed*. Like I said, I haven't done a direct comparison -- yet.

Frank Granovski · November 1st, 2003, 02:57 AM

I can't recall exactly what I had said, but over the years I've noticed that most 1 chips do hunt around crazily in low light (while in auto mode). My DVL9500 cams are no exception. Yup. They're hunters. I also recall that some 1 chip cams didn't seem to do this. The TRV30 never did this, or so I did notice. Some of the other newer Sony mid-range and higher-end 1 chips also seemed okay in auto and low light. The best way to determine if the cam hunts is to try it. I guess that some cams have better sensors, while others are poor. My MX300 doesn't hunt, whereas I recall that the PV-DV601 hunted like hell---though I thought it was a pretty good cam for its day. Oh, and I should mention that I've noticed on several occasions that the XL1 is quite the hunter too. :)

Dave Largent · November 2nd, 2003, 12:03 AM

P.S. Thanks, Frank, for the quick fix on the typo. I took a semester of typing in school and the best I could do was 23 words per minute with a lot of errors. My ma was a secretary and she could type 70+ with no errors.

Dave Largent · November 2nd, 2003, 01:15 PM

I do have to chime in here on the thought of getting the *very cheapest* cam as a dub deck. The JVCs are not that good.
Canons in low light really tend to get grainy. If you are interested in getting a low-cost cam for home use, stick with either Sony or Pan. The TRV33 makes nice footage. Plan to put my DV53 through some low light hurdles soon. Wish I had a place to post the resultant footage for you all to see. I do have a website but I'm new so don't know exactly how to put it up. Would love to share. Perhaps when I know better. Initial thoughts after using this cam around home is: it rocks. If anyone is thinking about getting this cam let me know what type of test situations you'd like to see. Gotta say, if the captured footage looks as good as it seems on the flip-out screen ....

Frank Granovski · November 2nd, 2003, 06:22 PM

I'm a 2-finger man myself. I learned to type in high school, typed in university, but didn't go back to it until I got my 1st 386; and when I did get back to it, I discovered I couldn't remember how. :)

The TRV33 seemed like an okay cam for the buck. I played with one a few times side by side with the DV52 or 53 (can't recall). They both looked similar. with a similar price (locally), that I can recall.

October 29th, 2003, 01:22 PM	#23
J. Clayton Stansberry Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 316	Yang, What cheapo model of JVC did you get that has stereo outs? I have heard the JVCs suck, but I need to get a "deck" camera, so the cheaper, the better. Thanks. Clay... __________________ I understand everything about nothing.

October 28th, 2003, 10:57 PM	#16
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Yes, Yang, it's a mono mic. One interesting fact about this cam is that it's better in low light than some of the more costly 3CCD Pannys. The manufacturer lux rating for the $325 DV53 is 5 LUX (1 X 1/4" CCD, 680,000 pixels). The $800 PV-GS70 is 12 LUX (3 X 1/6" CCD, 460,000 pixels/each). The $1200 AG-EZ50 and the $1250 PV-DV953 are both at 15 LUX (3 X 1/6" CCD, 800,000 pixels/each). It seems like: the more pixels, the worse the low-light reach. I've actually seen the low light images of the DV53 compared to the GS-70. The 53 was noticably brighter and more colorful.

October 28th, 2003, 11:40 PM	#17
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Largent : Yes, Wang, it's a mono mic. -->>> I assume that was a typo on my name? The DV53 has better low-light mainly because it had a larger CCD chip.

October 29th, 2003, 12:28 AM	#18
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Probably a typo (fixed). They're easy to make. I tend to agree with what Dave has concluded about the pixel count/low light. The older miniDV cams had either 1/4" or 1/3" CCDs with low pixel counts, and these cams were usually much better shooting in lower light. However, being older mini-DV cams, they lacked some features and had lower resolution---but then again, some of these had handy features not found in today's consumer miniDV cams.

October 29th, 2003, 07:57 AM	#19
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I wanna get a wide angle for my 53. I have choice of two, both of which claim to be zoom through. One's a Canon 0.7X and the other's a Raynox 0.66X. Both about the same price. My concern with the Raynox is that one of its claimed "features" is that it resolves 350 lines at the center. Shouldn't that be more like 500+? And wouldn't it most likely resolve even less near the edges?

October 29th, 2003, 08:27 AM	#20
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	no, it's 350

October 29th, 2003, 09:05 AM	#21
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	And, Yang, regarding CCD size versus pixel count and the effect on low light, consider the following. The new Sony PC330 (1/3" CCD & 2,000,000 pixels) is rated at 7 LUX. The Sony TRV33 (1/5" CCD & 690,000 pixels) is also rated at 7 LUX. And the Sony TRV19 (1/4" CCD & 680,000 pixels) is rated at 5 LUX.

October 29th, 2003, 11:20 AM	#22
Samuel Raj Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 210	That make sense Dave, It may not be exactly linear with number of pixels and the ccd size. I mean 1/3(bigger size) has lux 7 and 1/5 smaller size also has lux 7 So there is no direct mathematical formula regarding low light performance.

October 29th, 2003, 06:04 PM	#24
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Sony Japan PC300 15 lux TRV80/70/50/33 15 lux TRV22 11 lux Sony US PC330 7 lux TRV80/70/33 7 lux TRV22 5 lux The language may be different but these cams should be identical in optics and CCD...probably programmed by the same engineers as well... Misinformation, BS, or plain marketing? "Rating conversion" seems to follow a simple formula though. Anybody working for Sony US?

October 29th, 2003, 11:54 PM	#25
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	I got the JVC GR-D30U. It's got SVideo OUT and stereo out. I'm using it as a playback deck for my DVX100. Interesting though is that the camera doesn't have a "REC" button on the body. But I can record to it through software. It doesn't come with a remote but there is a sensor on the front and I would think it will work with GRD70U remote. Since I've programmed my Universal remote to work with it. I hope the D70 remote's REC button will work with it. It works rather well as a playback deck, It supports the 24P flag. Oh BTW, this cam sucks sooo bad in low light. Much worser than my 1/4CCD Sony Digital 8 cam. when the light gets low, the image turns B&W and looks like an MPEG-1 video. the DV53 was not at all like this.

October 31st, 2003, 11:28 PM	#26
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Wow! Just had to let you guys know. Being busy, I still haven't gotten to take much footage with the DV53. One of the main reasons I got this cam is that I plan to use it indoors a lot and I'm well aware that most any of these lower-priced cams can take pictures okay outdoors during the day but indoors is a whole nother story. I saw from the tests over at camcorderinfo.com that this camera was better in low light than the others tested (which included GS70, Optura 10 & 20, PC105, TRV250 & 350, TRV19, 33 & 39, ZR60 & 65, Elura 50, DV203 and others) and also was less expensive. I have the Sony TR101 with 1/3" CCD that hunts pretty bad in low light and Frank Granovski has a JVC with 1/3" CCD which he said is good in low light but hunts terribly in auto focus in low light and he added that the 1ccd cams are all that way. So I checked out the DV53 to see how bad it was by pointing it into dark corners of a room at night. This was a medium-sized room lit only by two 25 watt bulbs. This would be light that few would shoot in. Man! Put it this way: the DV53 is disinclined to hunt. And it was quick to lock on focus. I have a VX2000 which as most know is good in low light. I didn't test side-by-side (though I plan to) and the DV53 seemed no more inclined to hunt than the VX! I said seemed. Like I said, I haven't done a direct comparison -- yet.

November 1st, 2003, 02:57 AM	#27
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I can't recall exactly what I had said, but over the years I've noticed that most 1 chips do hunt around crazily in low light (while in auto mode). My DVL9500 cams are no exception. Yup. They're hunters. I also recall that some 1 chip cams didn't seem to do this. The TRV30 never did this, or so I did notice. Some of the other newer Sony mid-range and higher-end 1 chips also seemed okay in auto and low light. The best way to determine if the cam hunts is to try it. I guess that some cams have better sensors, while others are poor. My MX300 doesn't hunt, whereas I recall that the PV-DV601 hunted like hell---though I thought it was a pretty good cam for its day. Oh, and I should mention that I've noticed on several occasions that the XL1 is quite the hunter too. :)

November 2nd, 2003, 12:03 AM	#28
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	P.S. Thanks, Frank, for the quick fix on the typo. I took a semester of typing in school and the best I could do was 23 words per minute with a lot of errors. My ma was a secretary and she could type 70+ with no errors.

November 2nd, 2003, 01:15 PM	#29
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I do have to chime in here on the thought of getting the very cheapest cam as a dub deck. The JVCs are not that good. Canons in low light really tend to get grainy. If you are interested in getting a low-cost cam for home use, stick with either Sony or Pan. The TRV33 makes nice footage. Plan to put my DV53 through some low light hurdles soon. Wish I had a place to post the resultant footage for you all to see. I do have a website but I'm new so don't know exactly how to put it up. Would love to share. Perhaps when I know better. Initial thoughts after using this cam around home is: it rocks. If anyone is thinking about getting this cam let me know what type of test situations you'd like to see. Gotta say, if the captured footage looks as good as it seems on the flip-out screen ....

November 2nd, 2003, 06:22 PM	#30
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I'm a 2-finger man myself. I learned to type in high school, typed in university, but didn't go back to it until I got my 1st 386; and when I did get back to it, I discovered I couldn't remember how. :) The TRV33 seemed like an okay cam for the buck. I played with one a few times side by side with the DV52 or 53 (can't recall). They both looked similar. with a similar price (locally), that I can recall.