DVX100 vs VX2000 at DVinfo.net

Jinghong Chua · July 9th, 2003, 06:17 AM

http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DVX100_test/part4/index.htm

Enuff said!

Peter Jefferson · July 9th, 2003, 09:13 AM

err.. dude.. umm...

thers something up with the link man.. its got trippy heiroglyphics... ???

actually i dont think its in English

Vladimir Koifman · July 9th, 2003, 10:09 AM

Not being able to read chinese I only looked on pictures.
Overall, vx2000 colors look more pleasing to my eye. However it tends to overexpose in many small bright details.
I'm not sure, but it looks both cams were used in full auto settings most of the time. It's hard to make a fair comparison if non of manual functions were used.
DVX100 seems to produce sharper picture.

Peter Jefferson · July 10th, 2003, 06:59 AM

http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DV...00_vs_flou.jpg

this pic does it for me.. even with a backlight such as the window, the skin tone is incredible compared to the tint of the the VX

http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DV...00_vs_lens.jpg

and this one shows the difference in sharpness and depth of field which the VX cannot compete with... (Not in this pic anyway)

i dunno how these pics were taken, and they may be set to come across a little bit biased for the DVX, but its hard to knock the clarity and clear distortion free pic of the DVX...

If you look at the window shot (the one with the 4 images side by side) you can actually see teh windows reflection... and that clearly shows that the Panan CCD has the ability to pick up more light in obscure situations.. (which is great for the event videogrpaher...) and not jsut light, theres a damn reflection there too...

Personally, Im really happy with the way it handles backlighting comapred to every other cam ive used... it DOESNT throw an orange tint on everything, and reproduces skin tone impeccably well...

very happy with my purchase i am!!! :)

Barry Green · July 10th, 2003, 08:49 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Jefferson :
http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DV...00_vs_lens.jpg

and this one shows the difference in sharpness and depth of field which the VX cannot compete with... (Not in this pic anyway)
-->>>

Much as I love the DVX100, it should be pointed out that that picture is misleading and should not be used for comparison. A careful examination will show that the person who shot it just blew the focus, is all. In the DVX shot, the plants are sharply focused, and the house is a little soft. In the VX2000 shot, the plants are a little soft, and the house is sharp.

There CANNOT be a difference in depth of field, comparing one 1/3" camera to another 1/3" camera, at the same focal length and the same f-stop. If either camera has an edge on delivering shallower depth of field, it's the VX2000, because it has a much longer telephoto lens (72mm vs. 45mm).

Other than that, I'm kind of surprised nobody else has mentioned that in every one of those pictures, the DVX is 1 to 2 stops more sensitive than the VX2000, implying better light-gathering ability! The oft-repeated mantra that the VX2000/PD150 is "better" in low-light is obviously incorrect: in the f/1.7 vs. f/1.6 picture, the DVX picture is a bit brighter even though the f-stop is a little smaller. I think if there's a quantifiable difference between the two, it's perhaps that the VX2000 may have a better gain circuit or something, because for raw light-gathering ability, these pictures show the DVX with a definite edge all across the board.

Jeff Kilgroe · July 10th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Barry,

Excellent point about the low light ability, I didn't notice that or think of it. I was just about to post a comment that those comparison pictures are all somewhat worthless. The DOF comparison is a joke, they could have at least had the decency of focusing on the same point in both images. But I've used a VX2000 a lot (used to own one along with a PD150) and its DOF was only slightly better than the DVX100. I mean slight to the point where I really can't tell the difference and I'm very familiar with the cameras... I haven't done a side by side comparison as the VX2000 has been sold for a while and I've only had the DVX100 for about 2 weeks now.

I also have to say that the other picture posted showing the cameras' abilities under fluorescent lights is just weird. They are obviously doing something WRONG with the DVX100 if they're getting an image that yellow. Even for having most or all the settings on auto. The VX2000 image has an eerie look to it, and I'd be willing to bet it's been color corrected. I'd be willing to bet money on it and it wouldn't surprise me if the same can be said about the yellow tinted shot from the DVX... I'm sorry, but they had to try to make the color look that bad.

I don't read Chinese so I can only look at pictures, but I get the impression these guys are heavily biased toward Sony and are trying to make some kind of political/religious statement guided by their preferences in consumer electronics brands rather than a real world comparison.

The VX2000 is a fine camera, no argument about that. But it's old technology and wasn't as nice as the PD150 I bought to replace it and I'm getting much better results overall and having a better time with my DVX100 that I bought (for true progressive shooting) which has replaced my PD150. All nice camcorders though and I doubt anybody would be wrong for choosing one over the other as long as the one they pick has all the features they need.

Paul Leung · July 11th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Let me do some Chinese translation for you guys. In fact the review does not say alot.

1. Wide angle: DVX100 has a focal length (in SLR camera's term) of 32.5mm and VX2000 has it at 40mm.

2. Color: VX2000 is more saturated, especially in green color. However it is a bit over the top. DVX100 color match more closely to the actual color and more vivid.

3. Weaklight: light is coming through a door gap. At fully open aperture, both perform very well. However, for resolution, DVX100 is sharper. The blurrness in VX2000 may be due to weaker focusing. Both are on auto focus.

4. depth of field: DVX100 has a bigger lens (72mm dia) than VX2000 (58mm). At the same aperture, distance and zoom level, different depth of field was observed.
[Yes, why the two pictures focus on different distance??]

5. Indoor Color under daylight fluo tube: VX2000 color is a bit bluish and cool. With F2(FLOU) mode selected, DVX100 color is warmer.

6. Backlight and high contrast: In backlight situation, DVX100 is obviously better in revealing the dark areas. In high contrast situation, DVX100 has a very good dynamic range comparing with VX2000. The gamma gain control in DVX100 has not been used in this test. If the gain control is used, the dark area would become more vivid.

7. Conclusion: does not say anything special, just ask readers to choice a camera based on what he/she needs.

Sorry for my poor english. Looks like the review favours DVX100.

Jeff Kilgroe · July 11th, 2003, 06:42 AM

Thanks Paul!

With the translation, it appears that the review does favor the DVX100.

July 9th, 2003, 06:17 AM	#1
Jinghong Chua Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 35	DVX100 vs VX2000 http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DVX100_test/part4/index.htm Enuff said! __________________ jinghong

July 10th, 2003, 11:21 PM	#6
Jeff Kilgroe Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Golden, CO Posts: 681	Barry, Excellent point about the low light ability, I didn't notice that or think of it. I was just about to post a comment that those comparison pictures are all somewhat worthless. The DOF comparison is a joke, they could have at least had the decency of focusing on the same point in both images. But I've used a VX2000 a lot (used to own one along with a PD150) and its DOF was only slightly better than the DVX100. I mean slight to the point where I really can't tell the difference and I'm very familiar with the cameras... I haven't done a side by side comparison as the VX2000 has been sold for a while and I've only had the DVX100 for about 2 weeks now. I also have to say that the other picture posted showing the cameras' abilities under fluorescent lights is just weird. They are obviously doing something WRONG with the DVX100 if they're getting an image that yellow. Even for having most or all the settings on auto. The VX2000 image has an eerie look to it, and I'd be willing to bet it's been color corrected. I'd be willing to bet money on it and it wouldn't surprise me if the same can be said about the yellow tinted shot from the DVX... I'm sorry, but they had to try to make the color look that bad. I don't read Chinese so I can only look at pictures, but I get the impression these guys are heavily biased toward Sony and are trying to make some kind of political/religious statement guided by their preferences in consumer electronics brands rather than a real world comparison. The VX2000 is a fine camera, no argument about that. But it's old technology and wasn't as nice as the PD150 I bought to replace it and I'm getting much better results overall and having a better time with my DVX100 that I bought (for true progressive shooting) which has replaced my PD150. All nice camcorders though and I doubt anybody would be wrong for choosing one over the other as long as the one they pick has all the features they need. __________________ - Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies \| DarkScience - www.darkscience.com

July 11th, 2003, 06:42 AM	#8
Jeff Kilgroe Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Golden, CO Posts: 681	Thanks Paul! With the translation, it appears that the review does favor the DVX100. __________________ - Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies \| DarkScience - www.darkscience.com

July 9th, 2003, 09:13 AM	#2
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	err.. dude.. umm... thers something up with the link man.. its got trippy heiroglyphics... ??? actually i dont think its in English

July 9th, 2003, 10:09 AM	#3
Vladimir Koifman Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 115	Not being able to read chinese I only looked on pictures. Overall, vx2000 colors look more pleasing to my eye. However it tends to overexpose in many small bright details. I'm not sure, but it looks both cams were used in full auto settings most of the time. It's hard to make a fair comparison if non of manual functions were used. DVX100 seems to produce sharper picture.

July 10th, 2003, 06:59 AM	#4
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DV...00_vs_flou.jpg this pic does it for me.. even with a backlight such as the window, the skin tone is incredible compared to the tint of the the VX http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DV...00_vs_lens.jpg and this one shows the difference in sharpness and depth of field which the VX cannot compete with... (Not in this pic anyway) i dunno how these pics were taken, and they may be set to come across a little bit biased for the DVX, but its hard to knock the clarity and clear distortion free pic of the DVX... If you look at the window shot (the one with the 4 images side by side) you can actually see teh windows reflection... and that clearly shows that the Panan CCD has the ability to pick up more light in obscure situations.. (which is great for the event videogrpaher...) and not jsut light, theres a damn reflection there too... Personally, Im really happy with the way it handles backlighting comapred to every other cam ive used... it DOESNT throw an orange tint on everything, and reproduces skin tone impeccably well... very happy with my purchase i am!!! :)

July 10th, 2003, 08:49 PM	#5
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Jefferson : http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/DV...00_vs_lens.jpg and this one shows the difference in sharpness and depth of field which the VX cannot compete with... (Not in this pic anyway) -->>> Much as I love the DVX100, it should be pointed out that that picture is misleading and should not be used for comparison. A careful examination will show that the person who shot it just blew the focus, is all. In the DVX shot, the plants are sharply focused, and the house is a little soft. In the VX2000 shot, the plants are a little soft, and the house is sharp. There CANNOT be a difference in depth of field, comparing one 1/3" camera to another 1/3" camera, at the same focal length and the same f-stop. If either camera has an edge on delivering shallower depth of field, it's the VX2000, because it has a much longer telephoto lens (72mm vs. 45mm). Other than that, I'm kind of surprised nobody else has mentioned that in every one of those pictures, the DVX is 1 to 2 stops more sensitive than the VX2000, implying better light-gathering ability! The oft-repeated mantra that the VX2000/PD150 is "better" in low-light is obviously incorrect: in the f/1.7 vs. f/1.6 picture, the DVX picture is a bit brighter even though the f-stop is a little smaller. I think if there's a quantifiable difference between the two, it's perhaps that the VX2000 may have a better gain circuit or something, because for raw light-gathering ability, these pictures show the DVX with a definite edge all across the board.

July 11th, 2003, 05:01 AM	#7
Paul Leung Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 173	Let me do some Chinese translation for you guys. In fact the review does not say alot. 1. Wide angle: DVX100 has a focal length (in SLR camera's term) of 32.5mm and VX2000 has it at 40mm. 2. Color: VX2000 is more saturated, especially in green color. However it is a bit over the top. DVX100 color match more closely to the actual color and more vivid. 3. Weaklight: light is coming through a door gap. At fully open aperture, both perform very well. However, for resolution, DVX100 is sharper. The blurrness in VX2000 may be due to weaker focusing. Both are on auto focus. 4. depth of field: DVX100 has a bigger lens (72mm dia) than VX2000 (58mm). At the same aperture, distance and zoom level, different depth of field was observed. [Yes, why the two pictures focus on different distance??] 5. Indoor Color under daylight fluo tube: VX2000 color is a bit bluish and cool. With F2(FLOU) mode selected, DVX100 color is warmer. 6. Backlight and high contrast: In backlight situation, DVX100 is obviously better in revealing the dark areas. In high contrast situation, DVX100 has a very good dynamic range comparing with VX2000. The gamma gain control in DVX100 has not been used in this test. If the gain control is used, the dark area would become more vivid. 7. Conclusion: does not say anything special, just ask readers to choice a camera based on what he/she needs. Sorry for my poor english. Looks like the review favours DVX100.