pdx10 for weddings

Shawn Mielke · February 12th, 2005, 08:28 PM

Wildlife at weddings? Fascinating...

In all seriousness, you're now looking for a camera that will do it all. Stop right where you are. Doesn't exist.

As for weddings, shooting weddings in strictly normal 1/60 with a PDX is tough choice, given how dim churches can be. If you can guarantee yourself to shoot weddings outside, morning, midday, and/or afternoon, the PDX would be fine.

If you think it permissable to shoot weddings, or portions of them, at 1/30 and/or 1/15 shutterspeeds, you could get by with this cam in tougher lighting situations.
I find 1/15 to be the slowest I can go before having odd looking dialogue audio sync/ wholly unrealistic motion, and I like the look quite a lot...

Boyd Ostroff · February 12th, 2005, 09:04 PM

Remember Shawn, Ian has already stated that he isn't worried about not having enough light. I think we just have to take him at his word there. The PDX-10 is about 2.5 f-stops slower than the VX-2000.

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 12th, 2005, 09:11 PM

I like the look of 1/30 and 1/15 on my PDX10, but going down there implies some loss of vertical resolution. It does not seem as bad as with the PD170/VX2100 and other SD Sony cams, and your clients will perhaps not notice the difference consciously, but the image does look a little softer even on a normal TV.

On a side note, the FX1/Z1 also loses some vertical resolution when going below 1/50, but since it works at about twice the vertical resolution as NTSC or PAL, if your target is SD it won't matter.

Shawn Mielke · February 12th, 2005, 11:18 PM

I like the softness and the added motion blur of 1/15, especially as a black and white image, given maybe a punch in contrast via color correction. For people not fretting about resolution, interestingly "soft" images aren't unnerving. In any case, I think the PDX is, can be, a fine wedding instrument, given experimentation time and therefore an understanding of it's "limitations."
I'm currently rererediscovering mine and loving it all over again, although I don't use it for weddings very much. Right now it's cityscape night shooting (slllooooowww shutterspeeds, beautiful 16:9, odd whitebalancing, cranked colour...).

Tom Hardwick · February 13th, 2005, 01:43 AM

Some good advice for Ian here. Perhaps to summarise: The FX1 has a pretty poor telephoto reach and its bulk and iffy low-light performance may put it out of court. Adding a telephoto converter will be pretty expensive in the 72 mm fitting, but it's good to see Boyd's frame grab and hear his recommendation on the Sony 2x teleconverter.

I'm also not keen on digital zooms and simply cannot agree with him on that - neither can I agree that adding a 2x converter "will extend your zoom range to 24x". It may well multiply your maximum focal length by two, but it will in fact (due to vignetting) reduce your 12x zoom to a 6X at most, not 24x.

Ignacio's advice that a VX2100 would be a second wedding cam is a good one. The pictures will match Ian's 170, and the fact that the apertures 'bump' visibly in manual won't worry him as it'll be locked off most of the time. The telephoto reach is better than the FX1 and 58 mm 2x converters are a-plenty. The only downside is the 16:9 performance and bulk.

Agree whole heartedly with Shawn about softening the image for weddings, and in some situations the extra stop gathered by shooting at 1/25th can look very good indeed. There's a Canopus 'soft-focus' filter that came with my Storm card - beautiful on blushing brides.

The PDX10 still has its attractions, and it's suddenly got cheaper than the 2100. Accessories are cheap (37 mm thread), the widescreen mode is wonderful, the size / performance ratio is unmatched. If you can live with the limitations that follow it Ian - it looks like a goodie. In your situation I'd still plonk for the 2100 though ~ while they're still available.

tom.

Ian Thomas · February 13th, 2005, 02:15 AM

Thanks Tom,

Yes i agree with you , the thing is price the 2100 is better in low light, more bulk, and no true 16:9.

The pdx is not so good in low light, but more portable, true 16:9, and cheaper, and becaues of its good auto exposure mode might be the way to go.

would you agree.

Tom Hardwick · February 13th, 2005, 04:04 AM

If you go back to the first line of your post Ian, you said, "Iam looking for a second camera for my weddings, one to match the 170 as near as possible." If this criteria still holds good then no, I would not agree that the PDX10 is the way to go.

All you say about the PDX10 is true: "The pdx is not so good in low light, but more portable, true 16:9, and cheaper", but you've got to ask yourself what your requirements are here.

Having a 170 and 2100 will give you great matching footage, but having the PDX10 will give you other attributes that may or may not be what you require.

tom.

Boyd Ostroff · February 13th, 2005, 09:20 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I'm also not keen on digital zooms and simply cannot agree with him on that - neither can I agree that adding a 2x converter "will extend your zoom range to 24x". It may well multiply your maximum focal length by two, but it will in fact (due to vignetting) reduce your 12x zoom to a 6X at most, not 24x. -->>>

I very rarely use the digital zoom, and obviously you lose quality, but a couple times it was just what I needed. Have you actually tried it Tom? Or are you just dismissing it out of hand? I wouldn't use this as a criterion to choose the PDX-10 over another camera, but if you already have one then it's at least worth giving it a try.

I pointed out the vignetting issue myself on the 2x teleconverter. I think we're into semantics here. If you have the 2x lens in your bag it gives you the ability to make shots which are 24x when compared to the camera's native mode at full wide. And while it's screwed onto the camera the range would be closer to 8x, not 6x actually.

Tom Hardwick · February 13th, 2005, 09:55 AM

5586 words. I've just been to do a word count on the PDX10p camera test I did for Computer Video Editing magazine, so yes Boyd, I did test the camera, and I did it pretty comprehensively. I certainly did try out the 2x digital zoom, and my previous contribution expressed my reservations about using it.

But I'm right with you when you tell people to actually USE the facilities on offer, and digital zoom is but one of a whole host of delights that are available to the PDX buyer. I find many people ask questions here about shutter speeds, custom presets, 16:9 modes, touch screens etc, yet if they spent an afternoon alone with their camcorder and a TV as a viewfinder they'd learn a huge amount by experience. Such a learning method is far more effective that simply logging onto this site to ask you or me the question, and video (I'll say it again) is a superb teacher - fast, accurate, repeatable, patient, free.

You'll notice that the FX1 does not offer any digital zoom options and good on it. Sony know full well that with HD to start with there's lots of resolution to play with (read: lose) and anybody with a half decent NLE system can digitally zoom (and apply the necessary corrections) in post anyway.

You're right - we're into semantics regarding the terminology, and it's my Mr Fusspot teacher's hat that's to blame, and I apologise. I do appreciate the wisdom of others on this board and recognise how many you've helped with your countless posts.

All I'm trying to do is set the record straight in a scientific way, which is why I point out the fallacy of thinking a 2X converter doubles your zoom range, or that a bigger lens (invariably a larger filter thread) means a better lens.

tom.

Ian Thomas · February 14th, 2005, 01:35 PM

Well

I would just like to thank everbody for there input, I ordered the PDX10 today'

The reasons,

1. true 16:9, wich iam looking forward to useing'
2. portabilty, sometimes a small camera with the beautiful picture this camera produces is priceless.
3. the price,

Yes the 2100 or the 170 would have been a better option, and yes the low light issue will have to be worked round, but i think with getting to understand the camera i should be able to get the best out of it.

By the way the place i ordered from are sold out and waiting for a shipment, ( still in demand!)

February 12th, 2005, 08:28 PM	#16
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Wildlife at weddings? Fascinating... In all seriousness, you're now looking for a camera that will do it all. Stop right where you are. Doesn't exist. As for weddings, shooting weddings in strictly normal 1/60 with a PDX is tough choice, given how dim churches can be. If you can guarantee yourself to shoot weddings outside, morning, midday, and/or afternoon, the PDX would be fine. If you think it permissable to shoot weddings, or portions of them, at 1/30 and/or 1/15 shutterspeeds, you could get by with this cam in tougher lighting situations. I find 1/15 to be the slowest I can go before having odd looking dialogue audio sync/ wholly unrealistic motion, and I like the look quite a lot... __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

February 12th, 2005, 09:11 PM	#18
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	I like the look of 1/30 and 1/15 on my PDX10, but going down there implies some loss of vertical resolution. It does not seem as bad as with the PD170/VX2100 and other SD Sony cams, and your clients will perhaps not notice the difference consciously, but the image does look a little softer even on a normal TV. On a side note, the FX1/Z1 also loses some vertical resolution when going below 1/50, but since it works at about twice the vertical resolution as NTSC or PAL, if your target is SD it won't matter. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 12th, 2005, 11:18 PM	#19
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	I like the softness and the added motion blur of 1/15, especially as a black and white image, given maybe a punch in contrast via color correction. For people not fretting about resolution, interestingly "soft" images aren't unnerving. In any case, I think the PDX is, can be, a fine wedding instrument, given experimentation time and therefore an understanding of it's "limitations." I'm currently rererediscovering mine and loving it all over again, although I don't use it for weddings very much. Right now it's cityscape night shooting (slllooooowww shutterspeeds, beautiful 16:9, odd whitebalancing, cranked colour...). __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

February 13th, 2005, 02:15 AM	#21
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	Thanks Tom, Yes i agree with you , the thing is price the 2100 is better in low light, more bulk, and no true 16:9. The pdx is not so good in low light, but more portable, true 16:9, and cheaper, and becaues of its good auto exposure mode might be the way to go. would you agree. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 14th, 2005, 01:35 PM	#25
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	Well I would just like to thank everbody for there input, I ordered the PDX10 today' The reasons, 1. true 16:9, wich iam looking forward to useing' 2. portabilty, sometimes a small camera with the beautiful picture this camera produces is priceless. 3. the price, Yes the 2100 or the 170 would have been a better option, and yes the low light issue will have to be worked round, but i think with getting to understand the camera i should be able to get the best out of it. By the way the place i ordered from are sold out and waiting for a shipment, ( still in demand!) __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 09:04 PM	#17
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Remember Shawn, Ian has already stated that he isn't worried about not having enough light. I think we just have to take him at his word there. The PDX-10 is about 2.5 f-stops slower than the VX-2000.

February 13th, 2005, 01:43 AM	#20
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Some good advice for Ian here. Perhaps to summarise: The FX1 has a pretty poor telephoto reach and its bulk and iffy low-light performance may put it out of court. Adding a telephoto converter will be pretty expensive in the 72 mm fitting, but it's good to see Boyd's frame grab and hear his recommendation on the Sony 2x teleconverter. I'm also not keen on digital zooms and simply cannot agree with him on that - neither can I agree that adding a 2x converter "will extend your zoom range to 24x". It may well multiply your maximum focal length by two, but it will in fact (due to vignetting) reduce your 12x zoom to a 6X at most, not 24x. Ignacio's advice that a VX2100 would be a second wedding cam is a good one. The pictures will match Ian's 170, and the fact that the apertures 'bump' visibly in manual won't worry him as it'll be locked off most of the time. The telephoto reach is better than the FX1 and 58 mm 2x converters are a-plenty. The only downside is the 16:9 performance and bulk. Agree whole heartedly with Shawn about softening the image for weddings, and in some situations the extra stop gathered by shooting at 1/25th can look very good indeed. There's a Canopus 'soft-focus' filter that came with my Storm card - beautiful on blushing brides. The PDX10 still has its attractions, and it's suddenly got cheaper than the 2100. Accessories are cheap (37 mm thread), the widescreen mode is wonderful, the size / performance ratio is unmatched. If you can live with the limitations that follow it Ian - it looks like a goodie. In your situation I'd still plonk for the 2100 though ~ while they're still available. tom.

February 13th, 2005, 04:04 AM	#22
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	If you go back to the first line of your post Ian, you said, "Iam looking for a second camera for my weddings, one to match the 170 as near as possible." If this criteria still holds good then no, I would not agree that the PDX10 is the way to go. All you say about the PDX10 is true: "The pdx is not so good in low light, but more portable, true 16:9, and cheaper", but you've got to ask yourself what your requirements are here. Having a 170 and 2100 will give you great matching footage, but having the PDX10 will give you other attributes that may or may not be what you require. tom.

February 13th, 2005, 09:20 AM	#23
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I'm also not keen on digital zooms and simply cannot agree with him on that - neither can I agree that adding a 2x converter "will extend your zoom range to 24x". It may well multiply your maximum focal length by two, but it will in fact (due to vignetting) reduce your 12x zoom to a 6X at most, not 24x. -->>> I very rarely use the digital zoom, and obviously you lose quality, but a couple times it was just what I needed. Have you actually tried it Tom? Or are you just dismissing it out of hand? I wouldn't use this as a criterion to choose the PDX-10 over another camera, but if you already have one then it's at least worth giving it a try. I pointed out the vignetting issue myself on the 2x teleconverter. I think we're into semantics here. If you have the 2x lens in your bag it gives you the ability to make shots which are 24x when compared to the camera's native mode at full wide. And while it's screwed onto the camera the range would be closer to 8x, not 6x actually.

February 13th, 2005, 09:55 AM	#24
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	5586 words. I've just been to do a word count on the PDX10p camera test I did for Computer Video Editing magazine, so yes Boyd, I did test the camera, and I did it pretty comprehensively. I certainly did try out the 2x digital zoom, and my previous contribution expressed my reservations about using it. But I'm right with you when you tell people to actually USE the facilities on offer, and digital zoom is but one of a whole host of delights that are available to the PDX buyer. I find many people ask questions here about shutter speeds, custom presets, 16:9 modes, touch screens etc, yet if they spent an afternoon alone with their camcorder and a TV as a viewfinder they'd learn a huge amount by experience. Such a learning method is far more effective that simply logging onto this site to ask you or me the question, and video (I'll say it again) is a superb teacher - fast, accurate, repeatable, patient, free. You'll notice that the FX1 does not offer any digital zoom options and good on it. Sony know full well that with HD to start with there's lots of resolution to play with (read: lose) and anybody with a half decent NLE system can digitally zoom (and apply the necessary corrections) in post anyway. You're right - we're into semantics regarding the terminology, and it's my Mr Fusspot teacher's hat that's to blame, and I apologise. I do appreciate the wisdom of others on this board and recognise how many you've helped with your countless posts. All I'm trying to do is set the record straight in a scientific way, which is why I point out the fallacy of thinking a 2X converter doubles your zoom range, or that a bigger lens (invariably a larger filter thread) means a better lens. tom.