It's about time : pdx10 review

[Steve Roffler]

Finally,

A review of the pdx10.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-review.htm

Haven't seen too many reviews. Guess better late than never.

[Shawn Mielke]

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Te3owq5rtkwJ:www.gxo.com/ARCHIVESPDF/Hardware/62534SonyDSRPDX10.pdf++site:www.gxo.com+pdx10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://videosystems.primediabusiness.com/ar/video_sony_dsrpdx_dv/

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/markets/production/productsite/dvcam/article46.html

http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000128

http://www.computervideo.net/feb04-3.html

http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/johnson0703&_requestid=132619

[Ronald Lee]

this latest review is decent.

It doesn't mention anything about the lack of stability of the camera, because of it's small size though, and it says that there are no ND filters in the Camera, where I think it was discussed here that there are in fact 3 ND filters (previous post).

Incidentally, does anyone use any small and cheap stedicam like devices to make the camera more steady when taking moving shots, or heck, even while handheld panning?

He also says that " If the user does not adjust anything the factory preset will add up to 18db of gain to an image in order to boost the brightness. This corresponds to the OFF setting for AGC because the full 18db of gain is available." meaning that ALL the gain is added if needed. The settings read like setting AGC means that no gain is added. That is confusing!! So we are better off putting the gain contro to 6 db then, for the minimal gain!!!

A lot of the guy's "suggestions" for the camera a quite good, things that I thought should be on the camera as well.

I thought he was a little harsh in the end though, with he camera to camera comparisons.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Some interesting points there, and a pretty thorough evaluation of the camera. Although they mention the high quality 16:9, it seems to me it should have been acknowledged in the "who's it for" section.

Based on discussions we've seen around here, I suspect that some people will take issue with this statement:

The DSR- PDX10 is better than the GL-2 when it comes to low light, but both have far too much gain on the image.

and:

When compared to the GL-2 the DSR-PDX10 is a better camera

Perhaps this is true, but it seems like a surprising conclusion to me:

This is the best prosumer camera for the point and shoot crowd.

[Sean McHenry]

I thought the chip size was 1/4" + .7 Like .25+.7? The review is saying: "PDX10 is not truly a ¼ inch camera because its chips are slightly smaller at ¼.7"

Is that true?

Sean

[Frank Granovski]

Finally, A review of the pdx10.

Steve, DV Magazine had a PDX10 review quite some time back. Also, a lot about this cam has been revealed here by our good member, Tom Hardwick.

[Steve Roffler]

Frank,

Is the DV review online? I never saw it. The info provided by Tom Hardwick has indeed been excellent.


Sean,

1/4.7 means that it is closer to a 1/5 inch chip rather than a 1/4 chip. It is 1 inch divided by 4.7.

[Frank Granovski]

Sean, it's simple arithetic:

1/3" = 0.33"

1/4" = 0.25"

1/4.7 = 0.21"

[Frank Granovski]

Steve, I don't know. I usually buy the magazine. Perhaps go to http://www.dv.com and search for it. I would, but that site is really bloated for my old computer.

I recall that the article mentioned the audio is very good. I can't recall the rating they gave it, though I think it was a 4 out of 5.

[Sean McHenry]

So, now that I think about it, the way it's written wouldn't it be .25.7? Or, .25/.7. Or, .257?

It's odd the way they set it up. I have no verification on the size from Sony direct but I have access to Sony at work. I'll give them a ring Monday and ask them what's up with the odd sizing.

What they will likely tell me is it has to do with the way it handles 16:9.

Marketing wise, I suppose it makes sense to put 1/4" in there someplace but it's really a whisker over 1/5" then. I would have written it as 1/5.1 or .20+.1 or .21.

Sort of like the always misused "improved".

As a short aside, I get a real marketing kick out of those stupid Dr. Pepper commercials that say the Diet Dr. Pepper "tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper." More like Dr. Pepper than what, Pepsi, mud, a rock? More than last week perhaps?

"More like" denotes a comparison, 1 is more than 2, etc. Rock is more like Country than Opera...

I hate misrepresentational marketing. Is that a word?

See ya,

Sean

[Shawn Mielke]

I like Tony's reviews well enough. I think they speak to their audience, nonpros. General, and fairly balanced.

Oh yes, the DV review, I forgot that one. I've now included it in my top post of reviews.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Regarding CCD size, actually those sizes of 2/3", 1/3", 1/4", etc. may be useful in comparing one model to another, but they have little to do with the actual dimensions of the CCD's. There was recently a very good article on this in either DV or Videography magazine (sorry, don't have my old issues here at work).

The article explained that this terminology dates back to the old vacuum tube days and refered to the diameter of the tube. Sorry, don't remember the specifics, but they were all relatively large, like 1.5", 1" and later on they got as small as 2/3". Evidently the camcorder manufacturers adopted this same terminology when they started making 2/3" CCD's because the active image area was comparable to 2/3" vacuum tube (which was round with a 4:3 rectangle in the middle).

Then as cameras were built with smaller CCD's the manufacturers extrapolated these numbers to correspond with their new devices. But there never was a picture tube that was 1/3" or 1/4" diameter, so these measurments become pretty arbitrary when discussing CCD size.

Anyway, I apologize if any of these details are off a bit, but I think the general principle is accurate. Perhaps another "old timer" with some experience with tube-type cameras can further elaborate on this topic and correct any of my errors....

[Frank Granovski]

1/4.7" = 0.21"

Which is closer to 0.20" (or 1/5") as Steve Roffler posted. The pixel count is 1.07 million pixels per CCD and the video effective pixel count is 690K X 3 RGB (red, green blue).

[Tom Hardwick]

Boyd, I too will take issue with this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DSR- PDX10 is better than the GL-2 when it comes to low light, but both have far too much gain on the image.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about you, but I've had the PDX10 and the XM2 (PAL GL2) alongside my VX2000E. The difference is startling. The VX is tops, the XM is a stop behind and the PDX struggles at 3.5 stops behind. This does *not* make it better than the Canon in low light. Far from it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When compared to the GL-2 the DSR-PDX10 is a better camera
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Better how? OK, as an ad man I could list the bigger side screen, the Info-lithiums, the XLR adapter that comes as standard rather than as an extra. Now I'm starting to struggle, and beginning to wish I worked for the Canon advertising agency. At least with the Canon f8 means f8, not f4 and some ND that you didn't really want and had no control over.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the best prosumer camera for the point and shoot crowd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can go along with this. In a p & s situation the Sony produces outstandingly good footage. If you don't care what aperture you're shooting at - great. If you want 16:9 and are happy with auto everything it's hard to beat. But the best prosumer camera? I could name better ones that would save you money into the bargain.

tom.

[Boyd Ostroff]

If anyone's interested, I found the article about CCD size in the Spring 2004 edition of Videography Magazine "research & developments: Gigantic and Miniscule" by Mark Schubin. Actually the info is in a separate box on page 22 entitled "Size Matters".

It states that with a 2/3" tube the image diagonal measurement was 11mm and this formed the basis of what is known as a 2/3" CCD. Other sizes were 1.25" tubes with 21.4mm image diagonals, 1" tubes with 16mm diagonals and both 1/2" and 5/8" that had 8mm diagonals.

The article further states that 1/3" CCD's have an image diagonal of 6mm, 1/4" CCD's have 4mm diagonals, and 1/6" CCD's have 3mm diagonals.

Was there ever an imaging tube that had an outside diameter of just 1/6-inch - a little over 4mm? No. But it is the consensus of image-chip manufacturers that, had there ever been one, it would have had an image diagonal of 3mm.