AG-DVC30 vs. DVX100 vs. DVC60

[Zack Birlew]

Well, I think this all depends on you Michael. What kind of shooter are you? Do you use a tripod with wheels? Do you free hand? Can you actually weild such a big camera as the DVC60? Or do you work better with the smaller prosumer cameras (like the GL1)? Do you actually have enough space to move the DVC60 around at these events?

Pretty much, Michael, it comes down to what exactly you're shooting and what shooting conditions you face most often. It's actually funny that you ask about the DVC60, as there is a review in the latest issue of Camcorder & Computer Video magazine. I would personally go with the DVC60 because it has XLR's right off the bat, better handheld support with OIS to boot, good overall picture (like the DVC30 but maybe better?), and just a more tweakable camera overall I think.

To be honest though, I think the best event cameras would be the top three (the DVX100, XL2, and FX1 [if you want HD]). They shoot the best footage and have many options that you could fiddle with. The only problem is that they're expensive, that's the biggest issue. This again depends on you and what exactly you're shooting.

But to answer your question flat out, I'd go with the DVC60.

[Michael Liebergot]

Jack thanks for the consice reply.
I have only shot events with prosumer GL1 body type cameras, so using the DVC60 would be a change for me being shoulder mount camera.

However this being said, I normally prefer going handheld whenever possible, and at receptions, I mainly go handheld entirely.

As I said using a shouldlder mount camera, would take some getting used to but it definitely would produce steadier shots with less effort (ie. monopods, steadipods etc.) on my part.

Also since the DVC60 is Carbon Fiber it isn't that heavy. I believe the specs said 5.5 lbs.

If I was to step up in price, I would definitely bite the bullet and go for the PD170 due to it's 1/3 CCD and great low light ability. But it definitely is a step up in price. If the DVC60 had 1/3 CCD's in it, then it would be a no brainer for me. Still pondering...

Thanks again,
Michael Liebergot
LVProductions

[Evan C. King]

someone i know is offering me a dvx100 for the price of a dvx100a. i am starting to get serious making short films so i think this is the camera that might be best for me, however i already own a dvc30 and i'm not sure if the step up is worth it, because i'm not sure who would want to buy my dvc30 even thou it's in mint condition. could someone give me some advice? i don't want to pass this deal up if it's worth it.

[John Hudson]

They are offering you a DVX100 for the same price as a DVX100A ?

I'd say you're getting the raw end of the deal. The DVX100 can be had for less than the price of an A Model.

[Mark Williams]

Depends on what you intend to use it for. A step up isn't so great if the following DVC-30 features are really important to you:

-16x lens
-smaller compact size for sleathier shots
-IR capability

Regards,

Mark

[Tom Hardwick]

I wouldn't go for the DVX100 Evan. Even Panasonic realised that it was a bit of a marketing so-so, and quickly replaced it with the much better A model.

I don't know, but I suspect the 100A is better in low light than the DVC30. For a start it has 1/3" chips and two switchable ND filters and therefore at any given subject size the depth of field can be more easily controlled. The DVC30 has internal ND filtration and you never really know where you are and with what aperture you're shooting. It's really for the casual rather than the professional. You say you're getting serious? Then the DVX100A is the camera to aim at.

tom.

[Evan C. King]

oops i meant a dvx100 for half the price of a dvx100a

[Owen Meek]

I have searched extensively on this and the main discussion is about the "progressive" which is not my concern.

is the Cinegamma on the DVC30, the same set feature as on DVX100?
Do AG-DVC30 user's have the same control over gamma adjustments as on DVX100?

Hope its no gimmick gamma compared to DVX? the GS400 has cinegamma but is obviously nowhere near inline as the DVX100, so where does the DVC30 fit?
is it in anyway a sripped down skinny version of the DVX?

I am anticapating getting the pal version and shooting in 50i so 25p de-interlacing will be left to post which will also help with smoother pan's if not mistaken??

thanking kindly for any light on the topic.

owen,

[Stephen L. Noe]

Same settings between DVC30 and DVX100. DVC30 is know to have slightly richer color than DVX100 but that's probably because it came out after DVX100 and had more R&D. Either way you can not go wrong with Panasonic.

[Peter Jefferson]

cine gamma on the 100 is a different ballgame to the 60.. many more options are available to you as opposed to the 60, which also has some issues with colour reproduction with slight oversaturation and bleeding.
Dont get me wrong the 60 is an awesome cam, and if i needed another unit, id prolly get one simply for the lens factor alone...

[Richie Ellison]

So glad I found this forum! I am having a tough time trying to decide which camera to purchase. I will use it mainly to shoot personal shorts/action movies with friends, and then the occasional wedding or two.

I really want to be able to shoot at different frame rates. I would rather have the 24p option, but I'm not sure I can justify the expense. Is 30p/Cinegamma on the DVC30 comparable to the DVX100, or is it just a poor attempt to simulate the DVX's capability? How different a look is 30p from 24p? Is it just less filmic in the shutter motion, or are the colors/black levels less film like as well?

It's hard to make the buy without ever really seeing the difference side by side, so I'll take any help I can get!

Thanks in advance!!!
Richie

[Boyd Ostroff]

I haven't used the DVC30, but last year Adam Wilt gave it an excellent review. One of the only things he criticized was the frame mode, which he said was accomplished using field doubling and not real progressive scan. He pointed out that this reduces your vertical resolution by 50%.

[Peter Jefferson]

really want to be able to shoot at different frame rates.

((Why?? i mean, you shoudl have a reason for each of the plus' and minus' for each unit.. this way u can list what you want and why, and what you NEED vs What you WANT vs BUDGET))

I would rather have the 24p option, but I'm not sure I can justify the expense. Is 30p/Cinegamma on the DVC30 comparable to the DVX100,

((No its a different kettle of fish.. the only difference is that Cinegamma gives a wider dynamic range, On teh DVX, you havea variety of options, on teh DVC youre not given this flexibilty))

or is it just a poor attempt to simulate the DVX's capability?

((far from poor.. consider it "different" ))

How different a look is 30p from 24p? ((To the naked eye.. not much... but what yoru failing to see is that Frame mode is VERY different to TRUE progressive scan... ))

Is it just less filmic in the shutter motion, or are the colors/black levels less film like as well?
((all colour configs can be adjsuted within the menu system of teh DVC30.. with tweaking u can pretty muhc achieve the any "look" you want.. now you wont get the type of tweakability of the DVX, but for a cam of this range, its prolly the best ur gonna get.
Also people seem to be confused as to the benefits of Progressive.. and im really surprised noone here has bought this up everytime someones mentions frame vs progressive..

Frame is good.. u can achieve good results if ur crank your detail settings, but its nowhere near as clear and concise as a true full framed progressive frame. the difference is that Frame mode interpolates the 2 fields to create 1 frame.. this usually brings on a softness to the image as well as a slight stutter to the motion. Theres nothing wrong with it, but you lose detail.

True progressive on the other hand, is using the full CCD (as oppsed to 2 interlaced halves) to create the frame. From here, this is extended with pulldown.. whereby duplicate full res frames are created to give that 24p look.
Again you will see stutter in the motion, but a shutter running at twice the speed of the frame rate should alleviate this with a good amount of blur..

as for the applicatins your wanting to use the camera for, the DVX will offer not only a wider dynamic range throughout, but it also has XLR audio, Better low light performance and in the longrun you will see how much power this camera actually has comapred to a DVC..

In november last year, i had a DVC and took it to afew jobs.. I thought the zoom range would come in handy (which it did), the optical stabilser had been refined, the scene settings were all similar to what i was already used to and being panasonic, a 5300ma battery lasted me all day..
Problem was matching teh camera in post.. even in good light, and even after setting the scene files to be identical, matching the two cams was a nightmare... the biggest differnce being the dynamic range and colour gradation...to me, that difference was just too much..

But i ended up taking it back and forking out afew extra thousand dollars to upgrade it to another DVX... I dont regret this decision one bit.. in fact, IMO, the DVX outperforms the Z1 and PD170. Simply due to the fact that i can manipulate my settings to a point of dizziness whereby these other cams cannot. Also id prefer full frame progressive as oppsed to interlaced HDV.. when played back on a 720p projector i personally think it looks beter, but then again i like THAT look.. i dont like looking through a super sharp home video.. but my clients do which is why i still have my z1's (until the HVX200 comes out)

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

Also id prefer full frame progressive as oppsed to interlaced HDV

FWIW, the Z1 can give you 480/30p and 576/25p via its component video output but not through firewire. Look at the options in the Component Downconvert menu when you are set to record in HDV mode. You could use a relatively inexpensive component > firewire capture box to get it into the computer.

[Peter Jefferson]

"He pointed out that this reduces your vertical resolution by 50%."

nothign against Wilts comments, but its a little innacurate...

Basicaly frame mode will use the lower or upper field (depending on ur location in the world) as a reference
Now as we know, one field is only have the CCD's resolution, so your only using half the resolution AS A REFERENCE for the frame.
However from what i know of the way Panasonic drive their frame mode, theyre actually taking BOTH FIELDS per frame then interpolating the two fields to recreate that one single frame.
Maybe they changed their method with the DVC.. but i doubt it.. frame mode looked good to my eyes.. and if that was 50% res... then my DVX shots should have looked like HD Progressive considering the DVX pumps full frame full res progressive...
But it didnt.. they were comaprable.. not to my liking, but the material was workable...

This is where the 50% misconception comes into play.. to say the DVC ONLY uses 50% res is misleading, and i can guarantee you that even the MX500 frame mode looks strikingly similar to Progressive, albeit with about a 10% noticable drop in sharpness simply due to field offsets per frame.

In the end youre still using 2 half res interlaced fields to create one frame.. and if it looked crappy, Panasonic wouldnt have offered that mode of recording..