Is this wrong?

[Dave Dodds]

I ran into a little problem with my trusty PD170 that will likely cost more to fix than I care to invest in a non-24p SD camera. I'm not ready (mentally) to invest in HD of any kind, so I'm strongly considering trading in my 170 (I could get about half of what I paid for it) and getting a DVX. While the 170 served me well (and has paid for itself), I have to admit that I regretted choosing it over the DVX within a few months of buying.

So, is it too late for the DVX? Or, is there enough work for it out there to justify the 2 grand (not including trade-in value) I'd put into it and some accessories? I have a feeling that it's not too late, but I don't trust myself - I'm worried it's my subconscious seizing an opportunity to right the wrong of choosing against the DVX some years ago.

Thanks for your help.

~~Dave

[Jarrod Whaley]

Whether it's "too late" for an SD camera or not is largely up to you, the kind of work you do, and what your clients (if any) require. Generally speaking, however, there are still far more SD televisions out there than HD sets and Blu-ray has a long way to go before it becomes the de facto distribution standard... so no, I don't think it's necessarily too late to buy an SD camera, but it does depend on your own particular uses and needs.

You're sure to receive a lot of disagreement from others ("SD is crazy in 2008!"), so I thought I'd chime in and play the other card.

I will say, though, that because television broadcasters are switching to digital broadcasts in 2009 and older TV's will no longer be able to receive a signal via antenna, there is soon going to be a huge spike in television sales, and most of those will likely be HD--or at least 16:9--sets. If you do go with the DVX, it'd probably be very wise to pick up Panny's anamorphic adapter so that you can take advantage of the extra screen "real estate" on all those new TV's without losing resolution.

[Brandon Freeman]

HDTVs make SD look beautiful, too.