PDX-10 vs. HVR-A1U

[Dave Alvin]

So I think I am going to pick up a PDX-10 for the following reasons;

1-16:9 native chip
2-3 chip color processing
3-XLR
4-I owned a TRV900 for many years and all my footage looked great

... but I could get an HVR-A1U for approximately the same price. My concerns are;

1-Single chip
2-HDV is only a transitional format
3-Poor compression
4-No real distribution options for HD

I think true 16:9 is more important than High Def at this particular moment and contarary to popular belief Standard Def is not dead........ YET!
Also, I don't like 24p, so I am kind of into the PDX-10 right now and just shooting straight DVCAM.
I know I will need to go HD in a couple of years, but why break the bank now when the HD format on the lower cost pro camcorders hasn't been worked out yet?

Am I crazy?

What am I missing?

All comments/opinions welcome.

PEACE

[John Miller]

I completely agree with you!

Before I got my PDX10, I had seriously contemplated HDV. My primary reason for rejecting it was simply that it used MPEG2 compression and that introduces a lot of additional demands on processing power due to the interframe compression. (I'd only consider "true" HD - i.e., non-MPEG - but that's a lot of money!)

I'm not into huge "home theater" systems - my main TV is an old (+8 yrs) 27" Sony. DVDs look great on it. Given the viewing distance and size of the TV, I'd be hard pushed to see a significant improvement with HD. (With a montrous TV and sitting a few inches away, that would be different).

Just my 2c...

[Boyd Ostroff]

I've never used an A1 but I have a PDX-10 and a Z1. There are some merits to your logic, although I'm *guessing* you will get a nicer image with the A1 by shooting HDV and downconverting in camera as you capture.

The 3 chip vs 1 chip thing has been beaten to death in the A1 forum, and the general impression I've gotten is that it's not such a big deal. But there are some other factors which might make you lean towards the PDX-10, like the fact that the A1 loads tapes from the bottom which means you have to remove it from a tripod. I think that one factor might be a deal breaker for me personally, but others seem to find it acceptable.

The A1 is actually a lot smaller than the PDX-10 which might be either good or bad for you (see the A1 review in the current issue of DV magazine which shows the camera next to a burrito ;-) Evidently the A1 doesn't have completely manual control either, and physical knobs and buttons have been replaced by touch screen controls.

But if you're in NYC then you're fortunate - go to B&H Photo and play around with both cameras. I would base my decision on the look and feel of the camera as much as the image quality personally.

Let us know what you decide and why.

[Dave Alvin]

Yeah, I do live in NY and I have been over at B&H a lot lately.

As for the color imaging on the A1U, it seems like from what I have read on these forums that there is a problem with how the A1U reproduces reds. I know red is a tricky color to work with, but it seems to be a big problem (supposedly it comes out pinkish). I don't see how one chip can compare to three in this aspect- But if I am wrong, please tell me why you think so.

I think I am going with the PDX-10 now and then I will wait for some killer HD gear to come out down the road. The Panasonic HVX 200 is tempting, but withe P2 cards that's like $10,000.

Also, I am an Indie film maker, so I wouldn't be shooting weddings or anything with this camera- just movies.

[Marc Gaudet]

are we talking about one of the first pro consumer camera that sony put out like 10-8 years ago .if so i have one and im still using it today its my little baby actualy its a great ~~b~~camera if your using a pd 150 or pd 170 it almost looks the same

[Dave Alvin]

No, the PDX-10 is not the first prosumer camcorder put out 8-10 years ago. Its a few years old and both Sony and B&H list it as a professional camera. Maybe you were referring to the TRV 900 I mentioned? PDX-10 has several upgrades on that model, but I loved my TRV 900. I'm hoping the PDX-10 works out just as well.

[Ian Thomas]

Dave

I also had the trv900 which was a very good camera, but the pdx10 has true 16:9 and once you get familiar with it gives amazing results, lovely little cam
go for it

[Dave Alvin]

Thanks Ian, I think I am going to buy one tomorrow and go make another movie.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Marc Gaudet]

oh i was referring to the older model wich was a pd 100 it has the same body and it almost operates the same or is it called pdr-100 orsomething along that line

[Boyd Ostroff]

The PD-100 and PD-100a were the "pro" version of the TRV-900 whereas the PDX-10 was the pro version of the TRV-950. Actually the bodies are completely different as is everything inside. Both cameras had their strengths. The PD-100 had 1/4" chips, full manual control and better low light response than the PDX-10. I believe it only recorded in DVCAM mode. It had a removable XLR adaptor block which was connected via a mini-plug.

The PDX-10 had smaller (1/5") but higher resolution chips, a nicer LCD screen, shot real 16:9 and had a removable XLR block which connected to the camera with an intelligent hotshoe. It had manual control, with some caveats; there is a little ND filter wheel inside which automatically kicks in even when the camera is in full manual mode. It can't be disabled or manually over-ridden and Sony has never documented it. The purpose is to force you to use iris openings in the "sweet spot" of the lens. The PDX-10 doesn't do as well in low light and it has a tendency to show vertical smear when bright point light sources are in the frame.

So depending on your priorities, some people prefer the PD-100 for low light situations and full manual control, while others (like me) like the PDX-10 for its high quality 16:9.

[Marc Gaudet]

thanks boyd for your tech knowledge that whats fun about this site ive filmed with both and there both decent camera except for my pd 100 that is starting to glitch on me when you press record camera shuts off you have to repeat it 5-6 time before it actualy record do anyone know why?

[Duane Smith]

I have both a PDX10 and an A1U, and to be perfectly honest there are some things that I prefer about the PDX10 and there are other things I prefer about the A1U. In general, the PDX10 wins in regards to control buttons/tape loading/viewfinder...but the "final image" picture quality of the A1U is better (once the HDV is downconverted to DV) than the PDX10. I still use both cameras, but when I can only pick up one, I choose the A1U every time.

Now having said that, the PDX10 is still a shockingly spectacular camera, and you will not be disapointed with it!

- Duane

[Dave Alvin]

Thanks Duane for the info. When you say the down converted image is better, how do you mean? Resolution, color, sharpness, all of the above?
I am curious because it doesn't seem that the single CMOS chip reproduces color as well as the three ccd's do? Since you have both cameras I would love to hear your opinion on that particular issue.

Thanks in advance.

[Boyd Ostroff]

One other thing to consider... the chips in the PDX-10 are really little - about 1/5". Although the A1 only has one chip, it's considerably larger - 1/3" which is the same as the Z1.

Since I don't have an A1 I don't know how much that helps, but it may address some of the PDX-10's shortcomings such as vertical smear.

[Dave Alvin]

Hey Boyd,

Yes, I know the PDX-10's chips are like 1/4.7". But that should primarily affect its low light capability, right? I shoot with lights and I don't do any wedding or event work, so I feel that I can deal with its unimpressive low lux rating (I think its like minimum 7 lux).

Also, the A1U uses a different chip than the Z1U. I think the A1U uses a CMOS chip and the Z1U uses 3 CCD 1/3" chips.

Am I wrong about that?