PV-DV953 verses PV-DV852 at DVinfo.net

Richard Longman · December 14th, 2003, 04:27 AM

***or pro-'sumer verses consumer***

Panasonic pro-'sumer PV-DV852 CCD size is 1/3.8" = 0.263", while Panasonic pro-'sumer PV-DV953 CCD size is 1/6" (0.166") X 3 = 0.498" This means the CCD size for the PV-DV953 is almost 1/2", This also means the CCD size for the PV-DV852 is much smaller. So PV-DV953 captures more information because there is more CCD area used, and also more CCD pixels used. That is why the PV-DV953 is a better video camcorder.

(This is why I bought a PV-DV953. It has a bigger CCD area for capturing video.)

Frank Granovski · December 14th, 2003, 04:57 AM

I never thought about it that way. I certainly "cannot argue with this." Keep up the good work. :-)

Tommy Haupfear · December 14th, 2003, 10:56 AM

That'll teach that single chipper!

Here's a joke for ya.

DV852 and DV953 are sitting in a dimly lit bar and the DV852 leans over to his 3CCD friend and says, "Hey focus on the MicroMV hottie in the corner".

The DV953 repiles, "I will as soon as someone turns the lights on..".

Badum-Ching.

Ben Wiens · December 14th, 2003, 01:01 PM

Actually one should argue about Richard's arguments in favor of the Panasonic PV-DV953.

First logical argument. The chip of the Panasonic PV-DV852 is 0.263 inches diagonal or 0.033 sq inches. The chip of the Panasonic PV-DV953 is 0.166 inches diagonal or 0.0132 x 3 CCDs = 0.0396 sq inches or 1.20 times as large. Actual chips are usually even smaller than diagonal but comparison is still accurate.

Second logical argument. 3 CCD camcorders theoretically should only need 33% of the light of a 1CCD camcorder because they don't use filters over the photosites. But reality seems to be opposite. 3 CCD camcorders seem to need more chip area for the same sensitivity.

Third logical argument. The 3 chips of the Panasonic PV-DV953 have about 2.4 million photosites in the 0.0396 sq inches while the Panasonic PV-DV852 has 1.0 million photosites in the 0.033 sq inches. So the photosites of the Panasonic PV-DV953 are exactly 50% of the area of the Panasonic PV-DV852. Small photosite area usually results in lots of grain and poor dynamic range in lower light. True photosites theoretically can be grouped for final video, but in practice camcorders with larger photosite area appear to win in low light conditions. Basically anything below the photosite area of the Panasonic PV-DV852 means that you can't take good video indoors with normal lighting.

Fourth logical argument. You can't argue with test results. The Panasonic PV-DV852 has better low light ability than the Panasonic PV-DV953 under most conditions.

Fifth logical argument. The Panasonic PV-DV953 has more manual adjustments and some better features than the Panasonic PV-DV852, but that is another issue.

The PV-DV852 is a better video camcorder in low light level conditions. You cannot argue with this. (This is why I bought a PV-DV852. It's photosites have twice the area.)

Tommy Haupfear · December 14th, 2003, 01:32 PM

Obviously the DV852 is better in low light and I'm sure Richard is just trying to get a stir out of some folks.

You can check the DV852 vs. DV953 low light tests from my original DV953 review earliery this year.

http://www.dv.com/forums/showReplies...2&tid=66800000

Besides he left price out of his equation and we all know you can get two DV852 for the price of one DV953. That puts the DV852 at .526" and clearly the winner by Richards' idealogy.

Personally, I'd still rather have the DV953 for the 16:9, frame mode, and the larger LCD (3.5" vs. 2.5") but there is no denying the value of the currently $569 DV852.

Yow Cheong Hoe · December 14th, 2003, 07:16 PM

Ah, Tommy and Ben to the rescue. True in all cases.

If I can afford to keep both my cams, I'll keep the MX8 for low lights and light weight, and the MX350 for brighter colours and sharper images (in good lights, of course).

I will turn naggy and repeat this on fact:
More pixels in smaller place gives more noise.

The image from a 1 chipper is softer as three to four neighbouring pixels are combined to one final capture pixel. The image from a 3 chipper is sharp as the same line of light is capture by 3 aligned pixels. The problem is that in consumer cameras (unlight pro cameras) the spliting prism is consumer grade, hence you get consumer price and quality (and consumer sensitivity).

Another joke:
The MX8 calls over to the MX500 and says, "Nice babes, the two of them".
The MX500 replied, "where?" and starts panning furiously.

(Not that serious between 35mm and 40mm, but surely felt in my small apartment here in Singapore.)

Young Lee · December 14th, 2003, 08:27 PM

And there's the VX2000 who can see anything, claiming " I see dead people."

Frank Granovski · December 14th, 2003, 09:53 PM

And then there was the Sony PC3, I think, that could see through clothing. Now there's a cam to die for! Right, Tommy? :-)

Frank Granovski · December 14th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Tommy, would you like one of my DVL9500 funeral videos for Christmas? It'll give you a good idea about how this cam performs in dim lighting. Just e-mail me your address. :-)

Tommy Haupfear · December 14th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Nothing like Sony Nightshot with a B&W Filter to create X-Ray vision to get a party started.

Funny you should mention the DVL9500. I was combing eBay for one about an hour ago. Not much there this week other than this DV851 auction with 2 days left.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ory=20332&rd=1

I don't know about the funeral video. Now cheek video, then we'd be in business!

Frank Granovski · December 15th, 2003, 12:06 AM

Trouble is, I only have short cheek clips here and there. I mostly just snap color stills; and they never turn out as good as I expect because I have to be sneaky and quick. I have only recently acquired a 135mm lens. Perhaps this summer I will embark on a little video project down at the beach. A 10X zoom comes in mighty handy, that's for sure.

Just imagine the great cheek video that's possible with the 16X zoom of the new AG-DVC30, and it's 410K video effective pixels should capture all the fine detail---if you know what I mean. Gotta love Pana's full color saturation. :-)

---------------------------------------------
Keine Antwort ist auch eine Antwort. :-)

December 14th, 2003, 04:27 AM	#1
Richard Longman Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario Posts: 17	PV-DV953 verses PV-DV852 *or pro-'sumer verses consumer* Panasonic pro-'sumer PV-DV852 CCD size is 1/3.8" = 0.263", while Panasonic pro-'sumer PV-DV953 CCD size is 1/6" (0.166") X 3 = 0.498" This means the CCD size for the PV-DV953 is almost 1/2", This also means the CCD size for the PV-DV852 is much smaller. So PV-DV953 captures more information because there is more CCD area used, and also more CCD pixels used. That is why the PV-DV953 is a better video camcorder. (This is why I bought a PV-DV953. It has a bigger CCD area for capturing video.)

December 14th, 2003, 01:01 PM	#4
Ben Wiens Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 56	Chip and Photosite Areas Actually one should argue about Richard's arguments in favor of the Panasonic PV-DV953. First logical argument. The chip of the Panasonic PV-DV852 is 0.263 inches diagonal or 0.033 sq inches. The chip of the Panasonic PV-DV953 is 0.166 inches diagonal or 0.0132 x 3 CCDs = 0.0396 sq inches or 1.20 times as large. Actual chips are usually even smaller than diagonal but comparison is still accurate. Second logical argument. 3 CCD camcorders theoretically should only need 33% of the light of a 1CCD camcorder because they don't use filters over the photosites. But reality seems to be opposite. 3 CCD camcorders seem to need more chip area for the same sensitivity. Third logical argument. The 3 chips of the Panasonic PV-DV953 have about 2.4 million photosites in the 0.0396 sq inches while the Panasonic PV-DV852 has 1.0 million photosites in the 0.033 sq inches. So the photosites of the Panasonic PV-DV953 are exactly 50% of the area of the Panasonic PV-DV852. Small photosite area usually results in lots of grain and poor dynamic range in lower light. True photosites theoretically can be grouped for final video, but in practice camcorders with larger photosite area appear to win in low light conditions. Basically anything below the photosite area of the Panasonic PV-DV852 means that you can't take good video indoors with normal lighting. Fourth logical argument. You can't argue with test results. The Panasonic PV-DV852 has better low light ability than the Panasonic PV-DV953 under most conditions. Fifth logical argument. The Panasonic PV-DV953 has more manual adjustments and some better features than the Panasonic PV-DV852, but that is another issue. The PV-DV852 is a better video camcorder in low light level conditions. You cannot argue with this. (This is why I bought a PV-DV852. It's photosites have twice the area.)

December 14th, 2003, 07:16 PM	#6
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Ah, Tommy and Ben to the rescue. True in all cases. If I can afford to keep both my cams, I'll keep the MX8 for low lights and light weight, and the MX350 for brighter colours and sharper images (in good lights, of course). I will turn naggy and repeat this on fact: More pixels in smaller place gives more noise. The image from a 1 chipper is softer as three to four neighbouring pixels are combined to one final capture pixel. The image from a 3 chipper is sharp as the same line of light is capture by 3 aligned pixels. The problem is that in consumer cameras (unlight pro cameras) the spliting prism is consumer grade, hence you get consumer price and quality (and consumer sensitivity). Another joke: The MX8 calls over to the MX500 and says, "Nice babes, the two of them". The MX500 replied, "where?" and starts panning furiously. (Not that serious between 35mm and 40mm, but surely felt in my small apartment here in Singapore.) __________________ Cam: Panasonic MX350EN, SOLD my MX8EN Mac: G3 400MHz PowerBook, 256 MB, OS 9 PC: Pentium 4 2800MHz, 512 MB, WindowsXP SW: iMovie, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Ulead Video Studio, various little utilities

December 14th, 2003, 04:57 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I never thought about it that way. I certainly "cannot argue with this." Keep up the good work. :-)

December 14th, 2003, 10:56 AM	#3
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	That'll teach that single chipper! Here's a joke for ya. DV852 and DV953 are sitting in a dimly lit bar and the DV852 leans over to his 3CCD friend and says, "Hey focus on the MicroMV hottie in the corner". The DV953 repiles, "I will as soon as someone turns the lights on..". Badum-Ching.

December 14th, 2003, 01:32 PM	#5
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Obviously the DV852 is better in low light and I'm sure Richard is just trying to get a stir out of some folks. You can check the DV852 vs. DV953 low light tests from my original DV953 review earliery this year. http://www.dv.com/forums/showReplies...2&tid=66800000 Besides he left price out of his equation and we all know you can get two DV852 for the price of one DV953. That puts the DV852 at .526" and clearly the winner by Richards' idealogy. Personally, I'd still rather have the DV953 for the 16:9, frame mode, and the larger LCD (3.5" vs. 2.5") but there is no denying the value of the currently $569 DV852.

December 14th, 2003, 08:27 PM	#7
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	And there's the VX2000 who can see anything, claiming " I see dead people."

December 14th, 2003, 09:53 PM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	And then there was the Sony PC3, I think, that could see through clothing. Now there's a cam to die for! Right, Tommy? :-)

December 14th, 2003, 09:58 PM	#9
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Tommy, would you like one of my DVL9500 funeral videos for Christmas? It'll give you a good idea about how this cam performs in dim lighting. Just e-mail me your address. :-)

December 14th, 2003, 10:33 PM	#10
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Nothing like Sony Nightshot with a B&W Filter to create X-Ray vision to get a party started. Funny you should mention the DVL9500. I was combing eBay for one about an hour ago. Not much there this week other than this DV851 auction with 2 days left. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ory=20332&rd=1 I don't know about the funeral video. Now cheek video, then we'd be in business!

December 15th, 2003, 12:06 AM	#11
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Trouble is, I only have short cheek clips here and there. I mostly just snap color stills; and they never turn out as good as I expect because I have to be sneaky and quick. I have only recently acquired a 135mm lens. Perhaps this summer I will embark on a little video project down at the beach. A 10X zoom comes in mighty handy, that's for sure. Just imagine the great cheek video that's possible with the 16X zoom of the new AG-DVC30, and it's 410K video effective pixels should capture all the fine detail---if you know what I mean. Gotta love Pana's full color saturation. :-) --------------------------------------------- Keine Antwort ist auch eine Antwort. :-)