Comparing the sony dsr 250 to the z1 at DVinfo.net

Paul Gallagher · April 24th, 2007, 11:20 AM

Is the sony dsr 250p a 16:9 aspect camera and is the picture quality of it as good as the sony z1 in its sd mode, or is the z1 a better quality camera?

The thing is I currently own a Canon XL2 which is a shoulder camera and I want to change to the sony range but I like the fact of having a shoulder camera. My main work is weddings and I want one to keep in the 16:9 mode all of the time.

Is there any other models newer than the DSR 250P that would do my job for similar money.

Oh I want one that will match up well with a Sony FX1.

Thanks
Paul

Don Bloom · April 24th, 2007, 01:06 PM

The 250 has a 16:9 setting in the menu but I would not use it. I've tried it on my PD150s and my 250 (the 150s the same camera as the 250 except on steroids) and the image looks squished. Of course you're also comparing an SD and and HDV camera so it's not really a fair comparison but as far as going 16:9 with the 250 I wouldn't.
If you want a Sony SD camera that will do 16:9 native and is switchable to 4:3 and has an awesome image then you would have to look at the DSR450 which is a 2/3 inch chip camera, does have an LCD screen, an interchangeable lens, and all of the bells and whistles one would expect from a camera of its stature. It shoots both full size and minis in DV and DVCam mode.
The other option is the older DSR500 series including the 570 and 590 which are no longer made as the 450 replaced them but they are out there. They are not of course in the same price range as the 250 or any of the current batch of HD/HDV cameras. I'm not talking about the prices of the XDcam or HDCam but the JVC200/250 or JVC110, Canons or Panasonics but then they are completely different cameras.
Sony is SUPPOSED to be coming out with a 250 type HDV camera in the $9000 range (I believe thats what it is to be) but nothing firm yet as to when.
The DSR250 has in my opinion having used both the Z1 and the 250 a far better image in LO LIGHT than the Z1 but thats because noone has yet comquered the lo light capability of the Sonys in an HD or HDV camera. Again I'm talking about the current crop of gear not the XD or HDCams or any of the other big guns out there.
The Z1 is not terrible in low light don't get me wrong but on the few occassions I used it I found the 250 to produce a better image even at 15 db of gain where the Z1 had to goe to 12 just to get a workable image. Of course a lot depends on the settings of the camera. Remember this is just one persons experience and opinions.
Now having said all of that you need to keep in mind your goal. If you want good 16:9 footage than the Z1 might be the way to go-if you want a full sized camera for not a lot of money then the 250 might be the way to go. Which is more important to you?
Don

Boyd Ostroff · April 24th, 2007, 01:14 PM

I believe the 250 is basically the same as the VX2000 in terms of lens, sensors and electronics. I have a Z1 and a VX, and would say the Z1 is perhaps 1.5 f-stops slower than the VX. But you can boost the gain much more cleanly on the Z1 so that narrows the gap.

If shooting 4:3 I'd say the image on my VX-2000 is a bit more pleasing. But the Z1 has a huge advantage for 16:9.

Paul Gallagher · April 24th, 2007, 02:31 PM

Thanks both of you for your comments. I will read up more on the dsr 400 as this is a true widescreen camera.

Boyd Ostroff · April 24th, 2007, 03:05 PM

You will find info on Sony's pro camcorders here: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...&sm=0&s=&cpos=

But realize you will pay much, much more for the 400 or 450 than you would for the Z1. In addition to the camera body and lens you will also need larger, more expensive batteries, a bigger carrying case and a heavier duty tripod.

This is the shoulder mounted HDV camera which Don mentioned: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....3&postcount=13

However note that it was only a mockup and Sony called it a "future product preview," so I wouldn't hold my breath for this one. No release date was specified, the specs don't appear to be firm, and AFAIK no price was mentioned...

Paul Gallagher · April 24th, 2007, 03:13 PM

They are very expensive, the lenses on their own would buy a decent camera.

I am in a real muddle as what to do.

Graham Risdon · June 21st, 2007, 09:24 PM

I have a DSR-450, a couple of DSR-250's and a PD-150 on a steadicam JR.

I've done multi-camera shoots with the 450, 250's and 150 in 16:9 mode. The 250/150 is no match for the 450 in terms of resolution and colour quality, but with a bit of colour correction in post, intercutting is certainly possible, especially if the final output is for podcast or web - no client's complained yet!

That said, it's mainly been in controlled lighting conditions using preset tungsten white balance settings. Manually white balancing shows up big differences between the 250 and 450...

I've just ordered a Z1 to replace the 150 (together with a merlin) as I think even in SD, the Z1 should cut with the 450 footage much better as it's native 16:9... we shall see!

As previous posts, comparing the 450 to the others is not really fair - when you add a reasonable lens, you could have nearly 4 Z1's for what the 450 cost... BUT of all the cameras, I like using the 450 the most!!!

Hope this helps a bit... ;-)

April 24th, 2007, 11:20 AM	#1
Paul Gallagher Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Omagh Posts: 306	Comparing the sony dsr 250 to the z1 Is the sony dsr 250p a 16:9 aspect camera and is the picture quality of it as good as the sony z1 in its sd mode, or is the z1 a better quality camera? The thing is I currently own a Canon XL2 which is a shoulder camera and I want to change to the sony range but I like the fact of having a shoulder camera. My main work is weddings and I want one to keep in the 16:9 mode all of the time. Is there any other models newer than the DSR 250P that would do my job for similar money. Oh I want one that will match up well with a Sony FX1. Thanks Paul

April 24th, 2007, 01:06 PM	#2
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	The 250 has a 16:9 setting in the menu but I would not use it. I've tried it on my PD150s and my 250 (the 150s the same camera as the 250 except on steroids) and the image looks squished. Of course you're also comparing an SD and and HDV camera so it's not really a fair comparison but as far as going 16:9 with the 250 I wouldn't. If you want a Sony SD camera that will do 16:9 native and is switchable to 4:3 and has an awesome image then you would have to look at the DSR450 which is a 2/3 inch chip camera, does have an LCD screen, an interchangeable lens, and all of the bells and whistles one would expect from a camera of its stature. It shoots both full size and minis in DV and DVCam mode. The other option is the older DSR500 series including the 570 and 590 which are no longer made as the 450 replaced them but they are out there. They are not of course in the same price range as the 250 or any of the current batch of HD/HDV cameras. I'm not talking about the prices of the XDcam or HDCam but the JVC200/250 or JVC110, Canons or Panasonics but then they are completely different cameras. Sony is SUPPOSED to be coming out with a 250 type HDV camera in the $9000 range (I believe thats what it is to be) but nothing firm yet as to when. The DSR250 has in my opinion having used both the Z1 and the 250 a far better image in LO LIGHT than the Z1 but thats because noone has yet comquered the lo light capability of the Sonys in an HD or HDV camera. Again I'm talking about the current crop of gear not the XD or HDCams or any of the other big guns out there. The Z1 is not terrible in low light don't get me wrong but on the few occassions I used it I found the 250 to produce a better image even at 15 db of gain where the Z1 had to goe to 12 just to get a workable image. Of course a lot depends on the settings of the camera. Remember this is just one persons experience and opinions. Now having said all of that you need to keep in mind your goal. If you want good 16:9 footage than the Z1 might be the way to go-if you want a full sized camera for not a lot of money then the 250 might be the way to go. Which is more important to you? Don

April 24th, 2007, 01:14 PM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I believe the 250 is basically the same as the VX2000 in terms of lens, sensors and electronics. I have a Z1 and a VX, and would say the Z1 is perhaps 1.5 f-stops slower than the VX. But you can boost the gain much more cleanly on the Z1 so that narrows the gap. If shooting 4:3 I'd say the image on my VX-2000 is a bit more pleasing. But the Z1 has a huge advantage for 16:9.

April 24th, 2007, 02:31 PM	#4
Paul Gallagher Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Omagh Posts: 306	Thanks both of you for your comments. I will read up more on the dsr 400 as this is a true widescreen camera.

April 24th, 2007, 03:05 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	You will find info on Sony's pro camcorders here: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...&sm=0&s=&cpos= But realize you will pay much, much more for the 400 or 450 than you would for the Z1. In addition to the camera body and lens you will also need larger, more expensive batteries, a bigger carrying case and a heavier duty tripod. This is the shoulder mounted HDV camera which Don mentioned: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....3&postcount=13 However note that it was only a mockup and Sony called it a "future product preview," so I wouldn't hold my breath for this one. No release date was specified, the specs don't appear to be firm, and AFAIK no price was mentioned...

April 24th, 2007, 03:13 PM	#6
Paul Gallagher Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Omagh Posts: 306	They are very expensive, the lenses on their own would buy a decent camera. I am in a real muddle as what to do.

June 21st, 2007, 09:24 PM	#7
Graham Risdon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 192	I have a DSR-450, a couple of DSR-250's and a PD-150 on a steadicam JR. I've done multi-camera shoots with the 450, 250's and 150 in 16:9 mode. The 250/150 is no match for the 450 in terms of resolution and colour quality, but with a bit of colour correction in post, intercutting is certainly possible, especially if the final output is for podcast or web - no client's complained yet! That said, it's mainly been in controlled lighting conditions using preset tungsten white balance settings. Manually white balancing shows up big differences between the 250 and 450... I've just ordered a Z1 to replace the 150 (together with a merlin) as I think even in SD, the Z1 should cut with the 450 footage much better as it's native 16:9... we shall see! As previous posts, comparing the 450 to the others is not really fair - when you add a reasonable lens, you could have nearly 4 Z1's for what the 450 cost... BUT of all the cameras, I like using the 450 the most!!! Hope this helps a bit... ;-)