Got My Ag-dvx100!!!!!!

[Stephen Barrie]

Chris,

Thanks for mentioning these other options. I am considering the new DV5000, but the big drawback for me is the weight - over 14 pounds with batteries. i guess we are looking for nirvana - all the pro features, light weight and low price point - not quite here yet!

Stephen

Hi Chris,

"What differences there are, i.e. between the GL2 and XL1S, should be looked upon with accurate quantification; that is, that one is *slightly better* than the other. Nothing "vastly superior" about it."

This is the point I was making - if the differences are slight this is not enough of a reason to state definitively that they are 'better'.

"Sorry, but this isn't true; plenty of DV cameras available in the professional form factor: JVC GY-DV5000, Sony DSR-500, Panasonic AG-DVC200, etc. You need only to pay for the difference, but if you want pro features, they most certainly do exist. Just at a different price point, is all."

Sorry, but again you have misunderstood me (or I have not made myself clear) - I said 'these' cameras. Obviously you get interchangeable lenses etc. in the class of cameras you mention - but the XL1s set a precedent by being an essentially prosummer camera at a prosummer price, which could act and be used more professionally - there is no reason why these new cameras could not follow that excellent example.

Regards.

Great site by the way Chris!

[Jeff Donald]

Stephen,

You brought up my point exactly. Say I buy the DVX100 and some support gear. Total cost about $4,000 (USD). For that same money I could by Magic Bullet and a Mac G4 Dual Processor to do all the processing. Now for me, that would increase my productivity and creativity.

Jeff

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

<< This is the point I was making - if the differences are slight this is not enough of a reason to state definitively that they are 'better'. >>

Yeah. I was just re-enforcing your point.

<< but again you have misunderstood me (or I have not made myself clear) - I said 'these' cameras >>

Well, I seriously doubt we'll ever see all the pro features at this price... you know you get what you pay for and you pay for what you want. However, with regard to the Panasonic DVX100 and Sony PD150, they are ready for pro XLR mics right out of the box... and the JVC GY-DV500 is fully pro all the way for less than $5K. And those two smaller cams come from the professional broadcast divisions of their manufacturers. It seems to me though that interchangeable lenses, viewfinders etc. and a smaller form factor are mutually exclusive, the XL1S being the one exception. Funny thing is, I know plenty of folks who think the XL1S is "too big."

Hi Chris,

I agree, I'm not looking for all the pro features but XLR sockets are a lot easier to remedy than interchangeable lenses. This seems such an elementary good idea that I wonder why it has been consistently overlooked.

In the UK I can buy the XL1s standard kit for £2350 (incl.VAT) whereas the Sony DSR 500 you mention would cost nearer £15,000 less batteries and the JVC you mention also needs a lot of 'extras' to bring it up to full functionality - but I can and do use the XL1s professionally (i.e. broadcast and corporate) and for me the main reason is the flexibility of it's system.

Now size should not matter of course - only quality of results but in this day and age when everyone seems to have a DV camera, turning up with a PD150 or GL2, however good they are, does not seem to inspire confidence - stupid I know but there it is.

In part answer to my own questions I believe these cameras (DVX100 etc. and indeed the XL1/1s) have really been aimed at the many many people making 'DV features' rather than out and out professionals earning their crust in the lower end corporate and broadcast fields. This is why things like 24p become more important than lenses. I would have no use for 24p, for instance, even if there were a PAL model, because I am never going to transfer anything exclusively to film - at least not with my own money. I would always have use for a better resolution camera with interchangeable lenses in the same price bracket!

Regards.

[Jeff Donald]

The reason they don't have interchangeable lenses is the cost of developing the set of lenses. Panasonic probably would not develop their own lenses. They would sub-contract it out to Canon, Fuji, etc. someone with video experience and the production capacity to make the required number of lenses. They aren't likely to have many partners in that venture I'm afraid. Why did they get Leica? Leica has lots of extra capacity these days, I'm sure. The cost to develop a proprietary lens mount was prohibitive. The cost of licensing a mount from Nikon, Fuji, Minolta etc was have not returned enough to make it viable either.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree with everything you've said - and yet Canon did develop their own lenses - they even developed at great cost the abortive 3D lens. Forget professionals for the moment and think about serious amateur still photographers - how many of them would consider buying a camera withpout interchangeable lenses? Though what I would like from Canon, more even than a new camera, is an anamorphic 16:9 lens!

Regards.

[Jeff Donald]

That's my point. Canon is about the only manufacture that could reasonably develop their own mount. Panasonic, Sony, JVC, etc. all buy their lenses form someone. There are only a few companies that do that kind of work or have the capacity to do it. Can you imagine what Leica would want for a 16:9 Anamorphic lens? I'd probably have to sell my car for one. But Canon would stand a chance of producing one in an affordable range (for professionals).

Jeff

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Jeff:

Magic Bullet rendering times are truly brutal. Unless you only do very short projects, you might want to think about a render farm for features or long form docs. Plus 60i to 24p will never be the same as 24p as the moments of motion captured in time are not the same. Plus, always a resolution loss to boot.

[Steve McDonald]

It's disappointing to hear that the DVX100 has disabled autofocus in the 24p mode. No matter how experienced you are, the autofocus option will always be useful at times. Is the
autofocus also blocked in the 30p mode?

[Zac Stein]

Just want to ask, what happens when we throw PAL into this discussion.

I have an xl1s, which when in frame mode is working at 25fps. Would then the advantage from the panasonic in NTSC really go out the window.

I have compared the canon glass, i have a 16x stadard as well as a 16x manual, i like the manual for its ease of use as i grew up using lenses similar, but i have very picky eyes and i am seeing maybe a %1-5 difference at most between the 2 lenses. And a huge expense on my end that i am really regretting now. For $20 i could hire the lens on the day i need it and no have forked out for it.

I am not sure if i correct here, but are you guys saying the new panasonic is better because the frame rate looks more akin to film, or that it produces a superior picture to the canon, i would hate to think my 10k was wasted.

kermie

[Jeff Donald]

There would be no advantage to the DVX100 compared to a PAL XL1S. The picture quality is not better, just different. The differences are subtle, at that. The DVX100 is a good camera. It's picture quality and overall performance rank it with the XL1S and Sony PD150. It does have a distinct advantage for NTSC shooters going to film. But for the difference to be real you must be going to film. Not kinda, hope to if maybe, one day it just possibly will go to film. In your case, shooting PAL, it's a non-issue.

I have a client I shoot for that just purchased one. So, my feelings are neutral. I'm going to learn as much as I can about the camera so I can do the best, most professional job possible for my client. That being said, I see deficiencies in the camera. Read the various forums and you'll see talk of a color (purple, green, pink) fringing in areas of high contrast (backlit). I've seen the artifact in posted clips, but not in person.

Some people are attributing it to the pixel shift technology that Panasonic uses on some 3 chip cameras. Canon buys some chips from Panasonic (XL1S for example) and people are saying the Canon exhibits the same artifacts. I will disagree with that. I shoot a great deal of high contrast subjects (birds in flight) and I see nothing to the extent the DVX100 shows fringing.

My personal feeling is the DVX100 is a great tool for DV film makers. But if you already own an XL1S (especially PAL) it is a lateral move. As an NTSC shooter, I would only switch if I was 100% sure all my projects were going to film. Instead, I spent $1,000 on Magic Bullet, a film plug in for After Effects. Now I have the best of both worlds. Interchangeable lenses and film effect when I choose.

Jeff

[Vinson Watson]

I just tested the DVX100 today and I think this cam is about as hot as a cam can currently get if you're a DV Filmmaker going to film or not. In it's 24p mode you get cinematic images. I did a report on it in a post called "Met a gal named Pana. "

-Vinson

[Joe Carney]

I'm not biting. I'm down to either the Panasonic MX500 or the
JVC GY-DV301E (PAL version of the DV300). Like Jeff with software I can do what ever the dvx100 does but better.

Joe C.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Magic Bullet or not, you will lose resolution by deinterlacing in post. You cannot get better resolution. Magic Bullet is not magic.

My guess is Magic bullet plus the DVX100 will vastly exceed results obtained with 60i footage.