100a worth the extra? at DVinfo.net

Joe Lloyd · April 8th, 2004, 06:42 PM

I'm in New Zealand and the 100a is around 800 more than the 100 right now. Is it worth it? Sounds like it is, but how does the footage of the two compare?

Imran Zaidi · April 8th, 2004, 07:01 PM

The 100A has a visibly better dynamic range, controls blowouts better, has a focus-assist in 24p mode, no longer has the audio-sync problem in 24p mode, and has many more options in its gamma controls.

Is the difference worth $800? To me personally it is. Of the above, the only easily quantifiable gain by getting the 100A is the audio-sync issue. This requires post work to realign the audio, which results in more time spent, and time is money.

But aside from that, the 100A has a more capable picture, with more flexibility. See Adam Wilt's site for more details...

http://adamwilt.com/24p/

But is the original 100 still a great camera? You bet it is!

Daniel Runyon · April 8th, 2004, 07:58 PM

I would definately go for the A.
a) If you don't you might cause yourself all kinds of psychological problems from always having to wonder if you should have. You are already spending so much money, just go the distance and feel good about it.
b) Squeeze mode rocks.
c) Improved overall picture = Improved overall picture.
d) The new gamma settings. I like em.
c) What the other guy said.
There is just not much sense in buying the old one at this point other than the extra money. But I say...if you've come far enough for the other you can wait till you've got enough for the A or put it on the cards. As an evidently wise fellow from the forum once said.....and I dont remember the exact words..."cry now and get it over with, or cry every time you get it out of the box"....that was a very inaccurate rep of his words, but you know what he meant I hope!

Barry Green · April 8th, 2004, 08:16 PM

The quote was along the lines of...

"Buy the best and you only cry once, instead of every time you pull it out to use it."

Matt Gettemeier · April 8th, 2004, 10:10 PM

As a very happy owner of the original DVX and a person quite satisfied with what I have I want to tell you in NO uncertain terms...

DEFINITELY get the "A"... spend the extra and have no regrets. If it had been a choice when I got mine it woulda' been a no-brainer.

Aaron Koolen · April 9th, 2004, 07:04 AM

Hey Joe, hows it going? Where are you thinking of buying? From New Zealand somewhere or overseas? I'm witing for NAB info to come along to see what companies are offering and then decide how my upgrade path will go.

Cheers
Aaron

Tung Bui · April 9th, 2004, 07:11 AM

Its difficult. I own the 100A but dont have the 100 to compare.
The gain in progressive is a definite plus as its useable up to 6db I reckon without too much grain. The focus assist is useless too slow but the peaking function to help quick focussing is awesome.
The additional gamma controls are quite subtle but the more I shoot the more I notice the differences. Cine-V definitely has more "punch" ie brighter midtones, more vibrant picture compared to plain cine. The knee control is a plus- I'd hate to have my highlights blow out. Slower shutter speeds- the only one I would use is the 1/25th when in progressive or interlace. It increases the brightness without excessive movement artifacting- of some use in lowlight.
Hmmm just seem to have convinced myself the extra 800 is worth it.

Joe Lloyd · April 9th, 2004, 03:02 PM

Hey Aaron, yeah I was going to go with the XL1s but decided you were right about the dvx. Will go to DVT as they will match the price overseas. I'm supposed to see them on tuesday, biut probably won't buy it until NAB just in case.

Aaron Koolen · April 9th, 2004, 05:04 PM

Joe, keep in touch about your progress. If they can match overseas that'd be great and I might follow too ;)

Cheers
Aaron

Joe Lloyd · April 11th, 2004, 08:26 PM

Ok update to this now. The DVX100A costs 6200 NZD + gst of 12.5%. That's making this a real expensive camera. I can get a used DVX100 for approx 3000 nzd plus a bit for shipping. It has 50 hours on it. I'm leaning to this as theres a 4000 dollar difference when it's all said and done. I already have an XM2 so I can use that for my more run and gun shooting as it is.

Any thoughts?

Aaron Koolen · April 11th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Joe, if that 7k is going to stretch your budget then I'd go for the secondhand one - 4k left over for lights, dolly, jib etc etc is a nice sum. I'm sure the DVX100 would blow the XM2 away as it stands.

Aaron

Imran Zaidi · April 11th, 2004, 09:11 PM

I personally would sell the XM2 so I could afford the 100A. Actually that's exactly what I did - sold my GL2. Don't regret it a bit. I'm actually much faster on my toes in a run and gun situation with my DVX100A than I ever was with my GL2.

Joe Lloyd · April 11th, 2004, 09:35 PM

Heh Every two minutes I change my mind on this one. Imran, is there a noticable image difference between the "A" and the older version? Also I am assuming either version will look alot better than my XM2?

Imran Zaidi · April 11th, 2004, 10:13 PM

The old and the A can be made to match, as there is a Gamma setting in the A that matches the old one's Cine Gamma. However, in the A there are additional Gamma controls that help you further tailor your image in camera.

Both, however, can create significantly better footage than the GL2, as long as you know how to use the camera. After all, it's entirely possible that a person more experienced with lighting and camera operation could make GL2 footage look better than a person with no experience shooting with a DVX. But that's beside the point - the DVX provides a much better starting point for footage than the GL2, has way better low light, and way better audio and video control.

Aaron Koolen · April 12th, 2004, 05:04 AM

Everything else aside, after having to use an XLR adapter on the XM2, the idea of the built in XLR on the DVX just sounds great. Less gear to dick around with and cables to pull out and catch.

The s/n is better on the XM2 I think by a few decibels, but the THD+N and frequencey response is quite a bit worse (I'd have to recheck that to make sure how much by)

Aaron

April 8th, 2004, 06:42 PM	#1
Joe Lloyd Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Auckland, NZ Posts: 202	100a worth the extra? I'm in New Zealand and the 100a is around 800 more than the 100 right now. Is it worth it? Sounds like it is, but how does the footage of the two compare? __________________ Catalina Productions http://www.catalina.co.nz

April 9th, 2004, 07:04 AM	#6
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Hey Joe, hows it going? Where are you thinking of buying? From New Zealand somewhere or overseas? I'm witing for NAB info to come along to see what companies are offering and then decide how my upgrade path will go. Cheers Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 9th, 2004, 03:02 PM	#8
Joe Lloyd Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Auckland, NZ Posts: 202	Hey Aaron, yeah I was going to go with the XL1s but decided you were right about the dvx. Will go to DVT as they will match the price overseas. I'm supposed to see them on tuesday, biut probably won't buy it until NAB just in case. __________________ Catalina Productions http://www.catalina.co.nz

April 9th, 2004, 05:04 PM	#9
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Joe, keep in touch about your progress. If they can match overseas that'd be great and I might follow too ;) Cheers Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 11th, 2004, 08:26 PM	#10
Joe Lloyd Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Auckland, NZ Posts: 202	Ok update to this now. The DVX100A costs 6200 NZD + gst of 12.5%. That's making this a real expensive camera. I can get a used DVX100 for approx 3000 nzd plus a bit for shipping. It has 50 hours on it. I'm leaning to this as theres a 4000 dollar difference when it's all said and done. I already have an XM2 so I can use that for my more run and gun shooting as it is. Any thoughts? __________________ Catalina Productions http://www.catalina.co.nz

April 8th, 2004, 07:01 PM	#2
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	The 100A has a visibly better dynamic range, controls blowouts better, has a focus-assist in 24p mode, no longer has the audio-sync problem in 24p mode, and has many more options in its gamma controls. Is the difference worth $800? To me personally it is. Of the above, the only easily quantifiable gain by getting the 100A is the audio-sync issue. This requires post work to realign the audio, which results in more time spent, and time is money. But aside from that, the 100A has a more capable picture, with more flexibility. See Adam Wilt's site for more details... http://adamwilt.com/24p/ But is the original 100 still a great camera? You bet it is!

April 8th, 2004, 07:58 PM	#3
Daniel Runyon Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: The Deep South Posts: 168	I would definately go for the A. a) If you don't you might cause yourself all kinds of psychological problems from always having to wonder if you should have. You are already spending so much money, just go the distance and feel good about it. b) Squeeze mode rocks. c) Improved overall picture = Improved overall picture. d) The new gamma settings. I like em. c) What the other guy said. There is just not much sense in buying the old one at this point other than the extra money. But I say...if you've come far enough for the other you can wait till you've got enough for the A or put it on the cards. As an evidently wise fellow from the forum once said.....and I dont remember the exact words..."cry now and get it over with, or cry every time you get it out of the box"....that was a very inaccurate rep of his words, but you know what he meant I hope!

April 8th, 2004, 08:16 PM	#4
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	The quote was along the lines of... "Buy the best and you only cry once, instead of every time you pull it out to use it."

April 8th, 2004, 10:10 PM	#5
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	As a very happy owner of the original DVX and a person quite satisfied with what I have I want to tell you in NO uncertain terms... DEFINITELY get the "A"... spend the extra and have no regrets. If it had been a choice when I got mine it woulda' been a no-brainer.

April 9th, 2004, 07:11 AM	#7
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	Its difficult. I own the 100A but dont have the 100 to compare. The gain in progressive is a definite plus as its useable up to 6db I reckon without too much grain. The focus assist is useless too slow but the peaking function to help quick focussing is awesome. The additional gamma controls are quite subtle but the more I shoot the more I notice the differences. Cine-V definitely has more "punch" ie brighter midtones, more vibrant picture compared to plain cine. The knee control is a plus- I'd hate to have my highlights blow out. Slower shutter speeds- the only one I would use is the 1/25th when in progressive or interlace. It increases the brightness without excessive movement artifacting- of some use in lowlight. Hmmm just seem to have convinced myself the extra 800 is worth it.

April 11th, 2004, 09:03 PM	#11
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Joe, if that 7k is going to stretch your budget then I'd go for the secondhand one - 4k left over for lights, dolly, jib etc etc is a nice sum. I'm sure the DVX100 would blow the XM2 away as it stands. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 11th, 2004, 09:11 PM	#12
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	I personally would sell the XM2 so I could afford the 100A. Actually that's exactly what I did - sold my GL2. Don't regret it a bit. I'm actually much faster on my toes in a run and gun situation with my DVX100A than I ever was with my GL2.

April 11th, 2004, 09:35 PM	#13
Joe Lloyd Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Auckland, NZ Posts: 202	Heh Every two minutes I change my mind on this one. Imran, is there a noticable image difference between the "A" and the older version? Also I am assuming either version will look alot better than my XM2? __________________ Catalina Productions http://www.catalina.co.nz

April 11th, 2004, 10:13 PM	#14
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	The old and the A can be made to match, as there is a Gamma setting in the A that matches the old one's Cine Gamma. However, in the A there are additional Gamma controls that help you further tailor your image in camera. Both, however, can create significantly better footage than the GL2, as long as you know how to use the camera. After all, it's entirely possible that a person more experienced with lighting and camera operation could make GL2 footage look better than a person with no experience shooting with a DVX. But that's beside the point - the DVX provides a much better starting point for footage than the GL2, has way better low light, and way better audio and video control.

April 12th, 2004, 05:04 AM	#15
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Everything else aside, after having to use an XLR adapter on the XM2, the idea of the built in XLR on the DVX just sounds great. Less gear to dick around with and cables to pull out and catch. The s/n is better on the XM2 I think by a few decibels, but the THD+N and frequencey response is quite a bit worse (I'd have to recheck that to make sure how much by) Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media