Buy a 2nd PDX10 or something different? What would you do?

[Shawn Mielke]

I would be interested to see the next version of the PDX10. I'm not losing my mind over it, but I'm curious where they might take the series, and our current beauty/beast is approaching the magic age of 2, is it not?

[Boyd Ostroff]

Wow, do you think they will really replace it anytime soon? Personally I doubt that. Look how long they waited on the PD-150.... and look how little they changed it when they finally did replace.

Personally I'd have to wonder whether they will replace the PDX-10 at all. Do you think it sells well enough to justify that? I have no idea. But anyway, judging from how wrong all the speculation was about the PD-150 replacement, I doubt that any of our guesses will be right! But yeah, it's fun to spin a dream every now and then...

[Shawn Mielke]

The pd150 didn't budge for more than a few years, but the 900 and the pd100 had two year life spans, hadn't they? That's more what I had in mind. I guess we do occupy the smallest of the territories, in this middle middle ground, not quite consumer, more like prosumer, though not solidly, where the cameras are very good, but also very strange and idiosyncratic, compromised, experimental, for lack of a wide or known buyer.....
But do you really think the $1800 cameras will disappear? I would love to know real numbers on total PDX10 sales, and who the buyers are, generally speaking. It would seem that most people buy it for balanced XLR power and 16:9. It's like the pro's holiday cam and the aspiring hobbyist's taste of professional (seemingly) standards and features. Just who, or what, are we, anyway :-) ???

Regards,
Shawn

[Jeff Farris]

I believe the 900's run was considerably more than 2 years. I saw my first one in 1998 and almost bought a new one when the 950 was introduced in 2002.

I shoot a PDX-10 because it is the most economical three chipper that can be housed for underwater videography. You're right -- these cameras and the people that love them are caught in the middle. Can't abide the compromises of the lesser cameras, but can't afford the "real" pro gear.

[Shawn Mielke]

Would love to hear your thoughts on the PDX10 underwater, Jeff. I might do some shallow snorkling with said cam in April, and am wondering how it performs.

[Jeff Farris]

Hi Shawn.

The PDX-10 is a great camera underwater, but housing it for "casual snorkling" is awkward. The EWA-Marine bag may be an option for you, but you are trusting your camera to a glorified Zip-Loc® Bag. Going up the price chart, your next stop is at about a thousand dollars. My housing cost just a bit more than the camera itself.

Can't pass up this opportunity to share some work. If you have broadband, download this QT file and have a look. It's from a trip to the British Virgin Islands this summer.

http://www.digitaldiver.info/images/d2ddvd.mov

[Patrick Grealy]

Hi Jeff

Looks like you got good value for your u/water housing !

Very nice film indeed.

One question, why not in 16:9 , surely this type of work would have benefitted from widescreen.

Regards P

[Jeff Farris]

Thanks Patrick.

You're right. Most of my "audience" is watching this on a normal TV set via DVD. I bought the PDX-10 because a TRV-950 had tape transport problems the first time I used it. B&H graciously allowed a trade up instead of repair. The 16:9 format intrigues me, but I didn't like letter-boxed shows before I got a wider TV, and so I was trying to be considerate of my friends and dive buddies. Now, I have two wide screen TV's at home and a wide screen computer. To heck with them, my next trip, I'm shooting wide.

EDIT:

Just occured to me. This video is from the TRV-950. 16:9 would have been cropped, anyway. I shot the PDX-10 in 4:3 on my last trip, but won't next time.

[Boyd Ostroff]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Farris : T This video is from the TRV-950. 16:9 would have been cropped, anyway. -->>>

This has been covered before around here, but it is true that the 950 does 16:9 differently from the PDX-10, and it appears to be deliberately crippled in firmware. However, from what I've read (no personal experience), it still uses enough pixels to acheive the full 480 line vertical resolution, unlike a camera such as the VX-2000.

Do a search, or browse back through this forum to find more details on this if interested.

[Patrick Grealy]

I'd guess that the PDX10 will only change when the bigger selling 950 is changed or replaced.

Regards P

[Shawn Mielke]

Patrick, thought you might like to know that a combination of influences, this thread included, has led me into a change of heart: I too am going to get a second PDX10, rather than a PD170, that I too may be in a position to perfectly perform 2cam shoots. I've been contemplating:

matching 16:9 video.
matching exceptional camcorder audio.
lower cost, of cam and of accessories.
the fact that the PDX10's low light performance is quite acceptable in most situations.

I got my first real taste of the 16:9 this last week when I shot two nights of a stage performance. Really, it's becoming more and more difficult to go back to 4:3! Also, even in the lowest of the lighting in this show, the PDX10 did very well. It's probably true that I won't be able to do some of the night time shooting under commercial and industrial lights that I've been wanting to do, but I haven't tried, so who knows. If Boyd is shooting campfires successfully, there's hope for me yet ;-] .
Anyway, I'm 98% convinced that this is the right thing to do.

Shawn

[Jan Roovers]

I agree.

I have never succeeded to go back to 4x3.

Once 16x9 seems to mean always 16x9.

The low light performance of the PD170 is unbeatable, but Iwould not miss my 16x9!

And the lowlight of the PDX10(p) is satisfying enough. Sometimes I go to 25p/s and that gives me just that little brightness that I want in a restaurant at eveningtime and low light. Nobody has seen yet that I used 25p/s! They are surprised that the picture is bright.

Enjoy your new PDX10 and

my best wishes for the new year!

[Shawn Mielke]

Thank you, Jan! And a Happy New Year to You!