mx300/350 vs new panasonic mx's at DVinfo.net

Tung Bui · September 9th, 2004, 05:00 PM

I just had a play around with the mx350 pal the other day. I use to own an mx500 and now have a dvx100A. I also have played around with the legendary trv900.
What impressed me the most was its low light performance. Absolutely spectacular for a 1/4" chip camera. Every bit comparable to the trv900 that people swoon over. The trv900 is definitely better built and solid but the mx is alot lighter and easier to handle. Even gain to 12db is useful and comparable to the trv900. The mx8 was suppose to have been an excellent all round cam as well especially in lowlight.
You would think camcorders got better with time but the mx500 was definitely a step backwards. I got rid of it for its apalling lowlight. High resolution on a test charts means nothing, its the final image that counts and I find the old mx 's are every bit as good in normal daylight.
Would I buy a gs400 over the old mx's? I dont know. 1/4 versus 1/5th inch I'll take the better low light over the better 16:9 any day. If I can snap up a good second hand cam I would definitely go for the old mx's.

Frank Granovski · September 9th, 2004, 05:16 PM

The GS400 is shaped a lot like MX3000 and PV-DV401/601. There's been nothing similar from Pana that's shaped like the MX350 and PV-DV852/MX8. The PV-DV953/MX5 was the most solid of the bunch, but it also required the most light. Anyway, I think that the GS400 is a much better cam than the MX300 but it does require a bit more light. The GS400 is also a lot cheaper in price than when the MX300 was selling---more bang for the buck. (I liked the TRV900 as well, but not as much as I liked the VX2000---only problem: difficult to hand-hold). :-))

Tung Bui · September 11th, 2004, 09:31 AM

I havent played with the mx300 Frank but it was suppose to be very similar to the mx350. Yowch owns one and was pleased with it. I just cant say I was that impressed with the mx500 even in good light. Its dynamic range wasnt that great and it didnt deal with contrast particularly well. My other observation was that the 12X zoom goes so much further than the 10X. I couldnt believe how far 2X more was.
It seems to me your beloved old jvc and the mx are as good as it gets with dv until you spend the big bux with the 1/3" cameras.

Yow Cheong Hoe · September 12th, 2004, 11:52 PM

Technically, the MX300 and MX350 is the same, different format (vertical vs horizontal) and some minor nits like hood, etc.

I chose the MX350 over the MX500, and will still do the same today, but I won't really mind replacing the MX350 with the MX500 when the 350 dies on me.

As for the new GS400, I suppose it should be better than the MX500, but I haven't had time to try it out. I am currently addicted to DLSR shooting (hehehe) on my S2pro.

For lens, most people would like very long lens, like 10x, 12x or 20x. Few really realise that the real cost is in producing a wide angle lens, which, like the DVX100's 35mm is a gem for close up shooting. Paying US$1500 for the camera, and then US$500 for a good wide angle lens sounds really costly to me. The good new is that the MX300/350, old as they are, are actually wider angle than the MX500 and I suppose the newer GS400. Try shooting in a small room, you'll realise that 20x zoom means nothing!

And for the long shot, a tele convertor is cheaper and performs better than most wide angle adaptor.

On the other hand, I sure hope that CCD development has really made smaller chips with higher pixel density with more sensitivity. It is the sensitivity that really makes a difference, more sensitive, less noise.

Of course, if the ND filter in Panasonic's cameraas can be manually set will be much better, not to mention constant aperture throughout zoom range.

Tung Bui · September 29th, 2004, 06:47 PM

Well I hope your mx350 doesnt die but I wouldnt replace it with the mx500. Just go indoors and you get nice dark grainy images. I just couldnt believe how bad it is.
I havent tried out the gs400 but the only thing that can do low light in a small package these days is the dvc30. Damn it its cheaper than what the mx500 cost me!

Yow Cheong Hoe · October 5th, 2004, 06:26 PM

I took a 3 year warranty on the video cam. Cost me SGD160, I have already clocked repair bill of close to SGD500! And I have 18 more months of warranty to go!

By the time all the repairs area done, it'll probably be a new camera!

September 9th, 2004, 05:00 PM	#1
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	mx300/350 vs new panasonic mx's I just had a play around with the mx350 pal the other day. I use to own an mx500 and now have a dvx100A. I also have played around with the legendary trv900. What impressed me the most was its low light performance. Absolutely spectacular for a 1/4" chip camera. Every bit comparable to the trv900 that people swoon over. The trv900 is definitely better built and solid but the mx is alot lighter and easier to handle. Even gain to 12db is useful and comparable to the trv900. The mx8 was suppose to have been an excellent all round cam as well especially in lowlight. You would think camcorders got better with time but the mx500 was definitely a step backwards. I got rid of it for its apalling lowlight. High resolution on a test charts means nothing, its the final image that counts and I find the old mx 's are every bit as good in normal daylight. Would I buy a gs400 over the old mx's? I dont know. 1/4 versus 1/5th inch I'll take the better low light over the better 16:9 any day. If I can snap up a good second hand cam I would definitely go for the old mx's.

September 12th, 2004, 11:52 PM	#4
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Technically, the MX300 and MX350 is the same, different format (vertical vs horizontal) and some minor nits like hood, etc. I chose the MX350 over the MX500, and will still do the same today, but I won't really mind replacing the MX350 with the MX500 when the 350 dies on me. As for the new GS400, I suppose it should be better than the MX500, but I haven't had time to try it out. I am currently addicted to DLSR shooting (hehehe) on my S2pro. For lens, most people would like very long lens, like 10x, 12x or 20x. Few really realise that the real cost is in producing a wide angle lens, which, like the DVX100's 35mm is a gem for close up shooting. Paying US$1500 for the camera, and then US$500 for a good wide angle lens sounds really costly to me. The good new is that the MX300/350, old as they are, are actually wider angle than the MX500 and I suppose the newer GS400. Try shooting in a small room, you'll realise that 20x zoom means nothing! And for the long shot, a tele convertor is cheaper and performs better than most wide angle adaptor. On the other hand, I sure hope that CCD development has really made smaller chips with higher pixel density with more sensitivity. It is the sensitivity that really makes a difference, more sensitive, less noise. Of course, if the ND filter in Panasonic's cameraas can be manually set will be much better, not to mention constant aperture throughout zoom range. __________________ 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

October 5th, 2004, 06:26 PM	#6
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	I took a 3 year warranty on the video cam. Cost me SGD160, I have already clocked repair bill of close to SGD500! And I have 18 more months of warranty to go! By the time all the repairs area done, it'll probably be a new camera! __________________ 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

September 9th, 2004, 05:16 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The GS400 is shaped a lot like MX3000 and PV-DV401/601. There's been nothing similar from Pana that's shaped like the MX350 and PV-DV852/MX8. The PV-DV953/MX5 was the most solid of the bunch, but it also required the most light. Anyway, I think that the GS400 is a much better cam than the MX300 but it does require a bit more light. The GS400 is also a lot cheaper in price than when the MX300 was selling---more bang for the buck. (I liked the TRV900 as well, but not as much as I liked the VX2000---only problem: difficult to hand-hold). :-))

September 11th, 2004, 09:31 AM	#3
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	I havent played with the mx300 Frank but it was suppose to be very similar to the mx350. Yowch owns one and was pleased with it. I just cant say I was that impressed with the mx500 even in good light. Its dynamic range wasnt that great and it didnt deal with contrast particularly well. My other observation was that the 12X zoom goes so much further than the 10X. I couldnt believe how far 2X more was. It seems to me your beloved old jvc and the mx are as good as it gets with dv until you spend the big bux with the 1/3" cameras.

September 29th, 2004, 06:47 PM	#5
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	Well I hope your mx350 doesnt die but I wouldnt replace it with the mx500. Just go indoors and you get nice dark grainy images. I just couldnt believe how bad it is. I havent tried out the gs400 but the only thing that can do low light in a small package these days is the dvc30. Damn it its cheaper than what the mx500 cost me!