DVX...who so expensive?? at DVinfo.net

Adam Bray · April 18th, 2007, 06:30 PM

Why is the DVX so expensive still?

With newer, and better cameras (even HD) coming out every day. Why is the DVX still so expensive? I was looking a buying one thinking the price would of dropped. For the price of a DVX you can get a Canon A1 a few dollars more.

What gives??

John Hudson · April 18th, 2007, 10:19 PM

Because it rules

Matt Stahley · April 23rd, 2007, 11:32 AM

John is so right!

Chris Hurd · April 23rd, 2007, 12:37 PM

Because you get what you pay for.

Wes Mahon · April 23rd, 2007, 04:14 PM

id probably prefer a dvx to most of sony's prosumer HD cams like the fx-7 and 1

Barry Green · April 24th, 2007, 10:18 PM

The DVX also just dropped in price by $1,000. It's now $2995 retail; it used to be $3995.

Gil Whitney · April 30th, 2007, 11:00 AM

My 100a paid for itself in rentals in about 2 years. One of my favorite minidv cams.

Tom Hardwick · May 18th, 2007, 10:51 AM

I think you raise a very good point Adam. No denying that the DVX is a beautifully built camera with a really cracking lens, and it allows more 'human-fiddling' than anything near its price. Wonderful pictures, ace sound, lovely ergonomics.

But in the real world its time is over, in the same way as the PD170 has had its day. 16:9 is absolutely Here&Now, and faffing about with Panasonic's expensive anamorphic is not the answer in my view. It's hard enough composing as it is, without having to mentally compensate for tall thin people getting out of elliptical wheeled cars.

As you say, the Canon A1 is a few dollars more. Smaller side-screen but that's about it. In a spec race the lens has twice the zoom, the chips are 16:9 and the HDV option is streets ahead of DV. It's 5 years younger too, so the gain-up mode is almost grainless against the DVX.

tom.

Stephen Bolton · May 19th, 2007, 04:48 PM

We use various cameras at my job, one being the canon xha1 . It's a great camera but in my opionion I still prefer the panasonic dvx100a or b over it when it comes to 24p . Thats just my opionion, only plus about canon is the hd of course, good for a main camera shot for events like football or concerts to capture better details. Still have to fiddle with my panasonic dvx100a some more though that I just got to suggest, so far I'm impressed.

April 18th, 2007, 06:30 PM	#1
Adam Bray Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston/Austin Posts: 394	DVX...who so expensive?? Why is the DVX so expensive still? With newer, and better cameras (even HD) coming out every day. Why is the DVX still so expensive? I was looking a buying one thinking the price would of dropped. For the price of a DVX you can get a Canon A1 a few dollars more. What gives??

April 23rd, 2007, 12:37 PM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Because you get what you pay for. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 30th, 2007, 11:00 AM	#7
Gil Whitney New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 23	My 100a paid for itself in rentals in about 2 years. One of my favorite minidv cams. __________________ www.gilwhitney.com

April 18th, 2007, 10:19 PM	#2
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Because it rules

April 23rd, 2007, 11:32 AM	#3
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	John is so right!

April 23rd, 2007, 04:14 PM	#5
Wes Mahon New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: clinton connecticut Posts: 9	id probably prefer a dvx to most of sony's prosumer HD cams like the fx-7 and 1

April 24th, 2007, 10:18 PM	#6
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	The DVX also just dropped in price by $1,000. It's now $2995 retail; it used to be $3995.

May 18th, 2007, 10:51 AM	#8
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I think you raise a very good point Adam. No denying that the DVX is a beautifully built camera with a really cracking lens, and it allows more 'human-fiddling' than anything near its price. Wonderful pictures, ace sound, lovely ergonomics. But in the real world its time is over, in the same way as the PD170 has had its day. 16:9 is absolutely Here&Now, and faffing about with Panasonic's expensive anamorphic is not the answer in my view. It's hard enough composing as it is, without having to mentally compensate for tall thin people getting out of elliptical wheeled cars. As you say, the Canon A1 is a few dollars more. Smaller side-screen but that's about it. In a spec race the lens has twice the zoom, the chips are 16:9 and the HDV option is streets ahead of DV. It's 5 years younger too, so the gain-up mode is almost grainless against the DVX. tom.

May 19th, 2007, 04:48 PM	#9
Stephen Bolton New Boot Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Clarksville TN Posts: 4	We use various cameras at my job, one being the canon xha1 . It's a great camera but in my opionion I still prefer the panasonic dvx100a or b over it when it comes to 24p . Thats just my opionion, only plus about canon is the hd of course, good for a main camera shot for events like football or concerts to capture better details. Still have to fiddle with my panasonic dvx100a some more though that I just got to suggest, so far I'm impressed.