pdx10 for weddings at DVinfo.net

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 06:16 AM

Boyd,

Iam looking for a second camera for my weddings, one to match the 170 as near as possible, it would be on a tripod on its own in church and at the reception, I have read alot about the pdx10 its pro and con's, the lowest price here in the uk is around £1500, yes i know the low light issue but most churches are quite adequately lit, and also the camera has been around for a while.

I used to have a tvr950 and didn't think it was as good as the 900but maybe thats because i didn't learn the camera properly.

I have been bidding on ebay for the old 900 and the pd100 and they seem to make a good price, and yes they are second hand and who knows what work they have done!

and also the true 16:9 sounds good to.

some advice please.

Boyd Ostroff · February 12th, 2005, 09:16 AM

Well I think you should be able to answer your own question if you've used a TRV-950. It's the same camera as the PDX-10. The only difference in video quality is 16:9 mode, which Sony deliberately crippled in the TRV-950's firmware. But its 4:3 characteristics will be identical to the PDX-10.

I did some comparison frame grabs between my PDX-10 and VX-2000 which might provide a few insights here http://greenmist.com/dv/

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 10:37 AM

thanks Boyd.

As you say the 950 is same as the pdx10 exept for the 16:9,
what i found with the 950 is that you could not see the apeture no in the display, so you didn't know what the setting was until you had shot, and i understand it's the same with the pdx i can live with that.

I just need it to match the 170 as neaar as possible, would the pd100 be a better option

Tom Hardwick · February 12th, 2005, 11:12 AM

The PD100 is certainly better in the gloom of churches than the PDX10 Ian, but neither match your PD170 of course. The PDX is like the TRV950 in that aperture values are not shown in the v'finder, and it seems to work very well if left to its own devices exposure-wise. If you fiddle manually you can really only change the shutter speed or vary the amount of internal ND. Best left alone.

The TRV900 or PD100 will match your 170 pretty well, but again you'll not be able to set the same aperture on each and hope that the exposure on tape of two cameras will match. The beauty of getting a PDX is that it's still a current model, and buying second hand can be full of pitfalls - not something you want when people are paying for your services. Another point - someone might just ask for a 16:9 wedding, and with the PDX you're up and running - assuming there's enough light of course.

I shoot weddings in England too - so just where are these well lit churches you speak about?

tom.

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Hi Tom

The weddings that i have done the churches were pretty light, up to now anyway.

I do weddings on my own and it is not easy to be in two places at once, the idea would be to have this camera on a tripod in the church and at the reception.

Also the 16:9 will be useful for my wildlife projects, the only problem is that the zoom is small, the canon XL2 would be ideal but the cost and lugging it around at weddings turns me away from it so we are back to the pdx10 as its the one with the true widescreen.

Sorry to harp on but i just need to get it as right as i can.

Thanks again

Tom Hardwick · February 12th, 2005, 11:51 AM

Sounds like you should be looking at the FX1, Ian. HDV or SD DV - you choose. 16:9 native as well.

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 12:06 PM

The one thing about the pdx is that its proven and the price, the FX1 is new and could have some bugs and of course the price. and it has only 12x zoom, and how does it perform in low light,

help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Hardwick · February 12th, 2005, 12:42 PM

Of one thing you can be sure - the FX1 performs better in low light than the PDX10. And what's wrong with the 12x zoom? The PDX and FX and 170 all have 12x zooms.

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 01:50 PM

No nothing is wrong with the 12x zoom it's just a bit short for getting good closeups of shy wildlife, without been on top of them.

I suppose the only one for this is the XL range from canon but only XL2 has true widescreen and is out of my price at the moment, I was just looking for a comprise at the moment that would do for the weddings and shoot some stunning 16:9 wildlife footage.

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 12th, 2005, 01:57 PM

Actually an FX1 bug has already surfaced. Some models revert audio to 12-bit mode when power cycled, but the on-screen indicator says 16-bit. There is a free fix though, and it's good to know that Sony is taking bugs seriously.

As for matching the PD170, your best bet is the VX2100, it's really the same camera, and I am sure with the appearance of the FX1 you will be able to get good deals on SD Sony "prosumer" camcorders pretty soon, especially this model, as the FX1 is pretty much it's direct replacement.

The FX1 is actually much larger, so you would not want one for the same reasons you do not want an XL2.

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 02:22 PM

thanks Ignacio

so you have got the pdx10 do you rate it, the price is abig factor

and the price on the pdx10 is good now, yes the 2100 is very good, but i think the smaller camera would suit better

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 12th, 2005, 02:34 PM

I love me PDX10. It's small size allows me to carry it in a backpack all the time and use it to capture documentary footage for the band I work for as a sound engineer. It's 16:9 image is I believe still unchallanged in it's price range. Becasue the sensor is small, depth of field is high and so focusing is easy. But the high resolution and small size of it's sensor present this tradeoff: sensitivity. Low light performance is NOTHING like the PD170/PDX10. It's ergonomics are also not very good. If you are not using it on a tripod, you will need some kind of body support system. Also the lens's wide end is not very wide. Even in 16:9 mode, you will want to add a wide angle adapter and that doesn't help with the low light performance at all.

Boyd Ostroff · February 12th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Ian: For wildlife photography the PDX-10 may be a good choice actually. I have the Sony High Grade 2x telephoto lens and it's phenomenal. That will extend your zoom range to 24x. Of course it isn't full zoom through (I doubt that such a thing exists), but you can zoom well past halfway without vignetting. Due to the PDX-10's 37mm threads lenses and filters are not too expensive.

Also, depending on your application, it's worth having a look at the builtin digital zoom. Since the CCD's are high resolution, at 2x the results are surprisingly good. Combine that with the 2x telephoto lens and you've got 48x.

Ian Thomas · February 12th, 2005, 03:18 PM

thanks Boyd+ Ignacio,

Iam thinking of takeing the plunge, Boyd iam not a fan of digital zooms all the one's i have tried look pretty poor, and for wildlife broadcast picture has to be to be top notch. I know you are a big fan of the pdx10 (Boyd) and do you think the 16:9 is good on this camera.

Boyd Ostroff · February 12th, 2005, 04:07 PM

I think the 16:9 is excellent on the PDX-10, that's all I shoot with it. For 4:3 my VX-2000 is better. Here's a frame grab from one of our operas at 24x zoom, about 100' away from the stage, using the Sony high grade telephoto: http://tech.operaphilly.com/sets/fau...lentine-02.jpg

February 12th, 2005, 06:16 AM	#1
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	pdx10 for weddings Boyd, Iam looking for a second camera for my weddings, one to match the 170 as near as possible, it would be on a tripod on its own in church and at the reception, I have read alot about the pdx10 its pro and con's, the lowest price here in the uk is around £1500, yes i know the low light issue but most churches are quite adequately lit, and also the camera has been around for a while. I used to have a tvr950 and didn't think it was as good as the 900but maybe thats because i didn't learn the camera properly. I have been bidding on ebay for the old 900 and the pd100 and they seem to make a good price, and yes they are second hand and who knows what work they have done! and also the true 16:9 sounds good to. some advice please. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 10:37 AM	#3
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	thanks Boyd. As you say the 950 is same as the pdx10 exept for the 16:9, what i found with the 950 is that you could not see the apeture no in the display, so you didn't know what the setting was until you had shot, and i understand it's the same with the pdx i can live with that. I just need it to match the 170 as neaar as possible, would the pd100 be a better option __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 11:46 AM	#5
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	Hi Tom The weddings that i have done the churches were pretty light, up to now anyway. I do weddings on my own and it is not easy to be in two places at once, the idea would be to have this camera on a tripod in the church and at the reception. Also the 16:9 will be useful for my wildlife projects, the only problem is that the zoom is small, the canon XL2 would be ideal but the cost and lugging it around at weddings turns me away from it so we are back to the pdx10 as its the one with the true widescreen. Sorry to harp on but i just need to get it as right as i can. Thanks again __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 12:06 PM	#7
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	The one thing about the pdx is that its proven and the price, the FX1 is new and could have some bugs and of course the price. and it has only 12x zoom, and how does it perform in low light, help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 01:50 PM	#9
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	No nothing is wrong with the 12x zoom it's just a bit short for getting good closeups of shy wildlife, without been on top of them. I suppose the only one for this is the XL range from canon but only XL2 has true widescreen and is out of my price at the moment, I was just looking for a comprise at the moment that would do for the weddings and shoot some stunning 16:9 wildlife footage. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 09:16 AM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Well I think you should be able to answer your own question if you've used a TRV-950. It's the same camera as the PDX-10. The only difference in video quality is 16:9 mode, which Sony deliberately crippled in the TRV-950's firmware. But its 4:3 characteristics will be identical to the PDX-10. I did some comparison frame grabs between my PDX-10 and VX-2000 which might provide a few insights here http://greenmist.com/dv/

February 12th, 2005, 11:12 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The PD100 is certainly better in the gloom of churches than the PDX10 Ian, but neither match your PD170 of course. The PDX is like the TRV950 in that aperture values are not shown in the v'finder, and it seems to work very well if left to its own devices exposure-wise. If you fiddle manually you can really only change the shutter speed or vary the amount of internal ND. Best left alone. The TRV900 or PD100 will match your 170 pretty well, but again you'll not be able to set the same aperture on each and hope that the exposure on tape of two cameras will match. The beauty of getting a PDX is that it's still a current model, and buying second hand can be full of pitfalls - not something you want when people are paying for your services. Another point - someone might just ask for a 16:9 wedding, and with the PDX you're up and running - assuming there's enough light of course. I shoot weddings in England too - so just where are these well lit churches you speak about? tom.

February 12th, 2005, 11:51 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Sounds like you should be looking at the FX1, Ian. HDV or SD DV - you choose. 16:9 native as well.

February 12th, 2005, 12:42 PM	#8
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Of one thing you can be sure - the FX1 performs better in low light than the PDX10. And what's wrong with the 12x zoom? The PDX and FX and 170 all have 12x zooms.

February 12th, 2005, 01:57 PM	#10
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Actually an FX1 bug has already surfaced. Some models revert audio to 12-bit mode when power cycled, but the on-screen indicator says 16-bit. There is a free fix though, and it's good to know that Sony is taking bugs seriously. As for matching the PD170, your best bet is the VX2100, it's really the same camera, and I am sure with the appearance of the FX1 you will be able to get good deals on SD Sony "prosumer" camcorders pretty soon, especially this model, as the FX1 is pretty much it's direct replacement. The FX1 is actually much larger, so you would not want one for the same reasons you do not want an XL2. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 12th, 2005, 02:22 PM	#11
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	thanks Ignacio so you have got the pdx10 do you rate it, the price is abig factor and the price on the pdx10 is good now, yes the 2100 is very good, but i think the smaller camera would suit better __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 02:34 PM	#12
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	I love me PDX10. It's small size allows me to carry it in a backpack all the time and use it to capture documentary footage for the band I work for as a sound engineer. It's 16:9 image is I believe still unchallanged in it's price range. Becasue the sensor is small, depth of field is high and so focusing is easy. But the high resolution and small size of it's sensor present this tradeoff: sensitivity. Low light performance is NOTHING like the PD170/PDX10. It's ergonomics are also not very good. If you are not using it on a tripod, you will need some kind of body support system. Also the lens's wide end is not very wide. Even in 16:9 mode, you will want to add a wide angle adapter and that doesn't help with the low light performance at all. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 12th, 2005, 02:56 PM	#13
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Ian: For wildlife photography the PDX-10 may be a good choice actually. I have the Sony High Grade 2x telephoto lens and it's phenomenal. That will extend your zoom range to 24x. Of course it isn't full zoom through (I doubt that such a thing exists), but you can zoom well past halfway without vignetting. Due to the PDX-10's 37mm threads lenses and filters are not too expensive. Also, depending on your application, it's worth having a look at the builtin digital zoom. Since the CCD's are high resolution, at 2x the results are surprisingly good. Combine that with the 2x telephoto lens and you've got 48x.

February 12th, 2005, 03:18 PM	#14
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	thanks Boyd+ Ignacio, Iam thinking of takeing the plunge, Boyd iam not a fan of digital zooms all the one's i have tried look pretty poor, and for wildlife broadcast picture has to be to be top notch. I know you are a big fan of the pdx10 (Boyd) and do you think the 16:9 is good on this camera. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

February 12th, 2005, 04:07 PM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I think the 16:9 is excellent on the PDX-10, that's all I shoot with it. For 4:3 my VX-2000 is better. Here's a frame grab from one of our operas at 24x zoom, about 100' away from the stage, using the Sony high grade telephoto: http://tech.operaphilly.com/sets/fau...lentine-02.jpg