Need very quick assist VX2000 or DVC-80? at DVinfo.net

Rob Easler · September 30th, 2003, 12:23 PM

Need a quick opinion on which to purchase. The use is weddings.

Mike Rehmus · September 30th, 2003, 12:59 PM

My advice is to get the lowest light capability & native XLR capability. After that it is a matter of preference.

Frank Granovski · September 30th, 2003, 02:03 PM

Both cams would make a good wedding cam. But the DVC80 already has XLRs.

Joe Garnero · September 30th, 2003, 02:18 PM

The lenses differ in focal length. The DVC80 has a wider (shorter) stock lens but limited to 10x zoom. So Sony with wa adapter or pana w tele adapter. What are your shooting requirements.

hand-held DVC80 has better balance. VX2000 has B&W VF. Personally I nixed the VX2K pd150 in favor of the DVX/DVC for weight and balance. Feature-wise they are similar. Best bet look and handle both. The VX2k gave me soreness in the forearm in short order while in-hand. Neither cam lends itself to single-handed use.

My choice = DVC80

Mike Rehmus · September 30th, 2003, 02:41 PM

VX-2000 has a color viewfinder. The PD150 has the B&W.

Frank Granovski · September 30th, 2003, 03:27 PM

Again, The VX2000, PD150 DVX100, DVC80, JY300U, XL1S and GL2 make great wedding cams. You won't go wrong with any of these cams. And from what I've seen of wedding videographers who charge a bundle, all they do is fasten their cam to a tripod, point, and then press the little record button. (Ugh.)

Rob Easler · September 30th, 2003, 05:02 PM

It's tough not to labor over a decision like this when you haven't had a chance to play with the cams. I own a GL2 and did own a Gl1 and appreciate the 20x lense. If you are stuck in the back of the church because of house restrictions it is great to have 20x. 12x for the 2000 10x for the DBVC-80 hummm...
Often lighting in churches can be dim enough to alow grain with my GL2 so I wanted to get a cam with as good a picture but better low light capability like the vx2000 or the DVC-80. I use separate audio recording devices so don't plug in to the cam for sound but the xlr's are handy when filming other projects including interviews. Frank I know I really won't go wrong with any of these so shouldnt sweat it but...

I am leaning toward the DVC-80 because it is a newer model and might retain resale better and it seems like your getting PD150 features for a VX2000 price.

I think if I was sure the picture quality and clean low light capability of the DVC-80 was as good as the VX2000 I would be confident in the DVC-80 purchase.

Rob Easler · September 30th, 2003, 07:20 PM

This sites frame grabs appear to show a significant improovement in sharpness int he picture of a VX 2000 over a 60i image of the dvc-100/80. That is a bit dissapointing.

http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/compare/index.html#lowlight

Yik Kuen · October 1st, 2003, 07:52 AM

For wedding events, a wider angle lens is more inportant than tele.

I think you'll appreciate the DVX/DVC wider Leica lens which delivers wider and possibly shallower DOF for more impressive wedding shots.

DVX/DVX = 0.8x VX2K/PD150

John Steele · October 1st, 2003, 01:13 PM

As far as I know depth of field has nothing to do with the lens, DOF is affected by the size of the CCD's.

John.

Barry Green · October 1st, 2003, 05:56 PM

DOF is only affected by the lens, it has nothing to do with the size of the CCD's. (but smaller CCD's dictate the necessity of a wider-angle lens, and it is the wider lens that forces deeper depth of field).

"wider Leica lens which delivers wider and possibly shallower DOF "

No, the DOF will be identical on the cameras if you're using identical focal lengths, and the wider angle will make for deeper DOF, not shallower.

Yik Kuen · October 1st, 2003, 08:20 PM

Sorry, I might be wrong but recently, saw quite a number of postings (with frame grabs) by DVX-100 users stating that they can easily throw the background out-of focus on this cam as compared to the rests like VX/PD.

Barry Green · October 1st, 2003, 08:54 PM

Oh, you've seen those postings, I'm sure, I've seen where people have said that, but the opposite is true: the VX2000/PD150 can do a much softer DOF effect because the lens on the VX/PD can go as long as 72mm, whereas the DVX only goes to 45mm.

DOF is governed by the lens itself, and the laws of optics as they apply to aperture, plus distance to subject. The shallow-background effect is exaggerated by using a more telephoto lens, and diminished by using a wide-angle lens.

That's why it's so difficult to get shallow DOF on small-CCD cameras: they have extremely wide-angle lenses. The widest angle on a DVX is 4.5mm. On a 1/6" CCD like the MX5000, it has something like a 2.8mm lens. You can't get shallow DOF with a 2.8mm lens! Even at maximum telephoto the MX5000 is at only 28mm, and it's really tough to get shallow DOF with a 28mm lens. On a 35mm movie camera you'd be using a 25-250 zoom, and at 150 to 250mm you can get very, very shallow DOF.

There's nothing the camera can do to modify the DOF, that's strictly a product of what the lens is feeding it, and a lens is a lens is a lens so there's nothing a DVX user could do that would give them a shallower-DOF advantage over a VX2000 user in the same circumstances.

The only ways around it are to cheat: either use a product like the Mini35, which uses long-focal-length film lenses and rephotographs the image off a relay lens/ground glass system, or use the SoftScreen to optically blur the background before you ever shoot it.

Rob Easler · October 2nd, 2003, 08:15 AM

After reading every post I could find I've ordered the 80. My only real concern is how I will handle 10x zoom. I'm used to the GL2 20x but everything else sounds pretty good. I'll add my $.02 cents comparing the 80 to the GL2 but I expect the 80 will surpass the GL2 a bit.

Decision to pick DVC-80 over VX2000 was based on...

-Picture and low light quality perported to be about the same,
(quoted as spliting hairs).
-XLR availability and superior audio circuits
-Much newer model and probably will not loose value as quickly
as the 2000 especially when the 2001 comes out though they
will still hold up pretty well I think.
-Charger is not an on camera charger
-Weight balance is more centered

In the 2000 corner were tons more reviews prooving it's great picture and light capability, 12x zoom, and reportedly a bit better auto (run and gun) settings.

Wish me luck.

Yik Kuen · October 2nd, 2003, 06:30 PM

.. not forgetting VX2000's superior long-life battery performance.

September 30th, 2003, 12:23 PM	#1
Rob Easler Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Naperville, IL Posts: 219	Need very quick assist VX2000 or DVC-80? Need a quick opinion on which to purchase. The use is weddings.

September 30th, 2003, 12:59 PM	#2
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	My advice is to get the lowest light capability & native XLR capability. After that it is a matter of preference. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

September 30th, 2003, 02:41 PM	#5
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	VX-2000 has a color viewfinder. The PD150 has the B&W. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

September 30th, 2003, 05:02 PM	#7
Rob Easler Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Naperville, IL Posts: 219	Thinking... It's tough not to labor over a decision like this when you haven't had a chance to play with the cams. I own a GL2 and did own a Gl1 and appreciate the 20x lense. If you are stuck in the back of the church because of house restrictions it is great to have 20x. 12x for the 2000 10x for the DBVC-80 hummm... Often lighting in churches can be dim enough to alow grain with my GL2 so I wanted to get a cam with as good a picture but better low light capability like the vx2000 or the DVC-80. I use separate audio recording devices so don't plug in to the cam for sound but the xlr's are handy when filming other projects including interviews. Frank I know I really won't go wrong with any of these so shouldnt sweat it but... I am leaning toward the DVC-80 because it is a newer model and might retain resale better and it seems like your getting PD150 features for a VX2000 price. I think if I was sure the picture quality and clean low light capability of the DVC-80 was as good as the VX2000 I would be confident in the DVC-80 purchase.

October 2nd, 2003, 08:15 AM	#14
Rob Easler Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Naperville, IL Posts: 219	Ordered the 80 After reading every post I could find I've ordered the 80. My only real concern is how I will handle 10x zoom. I'm used to the GL2 20x but everything else sounds pretty good. I'll add my $.02 cents comparing the 80 to the GL2 but I expect the 80 will surpass the GL2 a bit. Decision to pick DVC-80 over VX2000 was based on... -Picture and low light quality perported to be about the same, (quoted as spliting hairs). -XLR availability and superior audio circuits -Much newer model and probably will not loose value as quickly as the 2000 especially when the 2001 comes out though they will still hold up pretty well I think. -Charger is not an on camera charger -Weight balance is more centered In the 2000 corner were tons more reviews prooving it's great picture and light capability, 12x zoom, and reportedly a bit better auto (run and gun) settings. Wish me luck.

September 30th, 2003, 02:03 PM	#3
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Both cams would make a good wedding cam. But the DVC80 already has XLRs.

September 30th, 2003, 02:18 PM	#4
Joe Garnero Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Woodstock, GA Posts: 60	The lenses differ in focal length. The DVC80 has a wider (shorter) stock lens but limited to 10x zoom. So Sony with wa adapter or pana w tele adapter. What are your shooting requirements. hand-held DVC80 has better balance. VX2000 has B&W VF. Personally I nixed the VX2K pd150 in favor of the DVX/DVC for weight and balance. Feature-wise they are similar. Best bet look and handle both. The VX2k gave me soreness in the forearm in short order while in-hand. Neither cam lends itself to single-handed use. My choice = DVC80

September 30th, 2003, 03:27 PM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Again, The VX2000, PD150 DVX100, DVC80, JY300U, XL1S and GL2 make great wedding cams. You won't go wrong with any of these cams. And from what I've seen of wedding videographers who charge a bundle, all they do is fasten their cam to a tripod, point, and then press the little record button. (Ugh.)

September 30th, 2003, 07:20 PM	#8
Rob Easler Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Naperville, IL Posts: 219	This sites frame grabs appear to show a significant improovement in sharpness int he picture of a VX 2000 over a 60i image of the dvc-100/80. That is a bit dissapointing. http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/compare/index.html#lowlight

October 1st, 2003, 07:52 AM	#9
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	For wedding events, a wider angle lens is more inportant than tele. I think you'll appreciate the DVX/DVC wider Leica lens which delivers wider and possibly shallower DOF for more impressive wedding shots. DVX/DVX = 0.8x VX2K/PD150

October 1st, 2003, 01:13 PM	#10
John Steele Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 216	As far as I know depth of field has nothing to do with the lens, DOF is affected by the size of the CCD's. John.

October 1st, 2003, 05:56 PM	#11
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	DOF is only affected by the lens, it has nothing to do with the size of the CCD's. (but smaller CCD's dictate the necessity of a wider-angle lens, and it is the wider lens that forces deeper depth of field). "wider Leica lens which delivers wider and possibly shallower DOF " No, the DOF will be identical on the cameras if you're using identical focal lengths, and the wider angle will make for deeper DOF, not shallower.

October 1st, 2003, 08:20 PM	#12
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Sorry, I might be wrong but recently, saw quite a number of postings (with frame grabs) by DVX-100 users stating that they can easily throw the background out-of focus on this cam as compared to the rests like VX/PD.

October 1st, 2003, 08:54 PM	#13
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Oh, you've seen those postings, I'm sure, I've seen where people have said that, but the opposite is true: the VX2000/PD150 can do a much softer DOF effect because the lens on the VX/PD can go as long as 72mm, whereas the DVX only goes to 45mm. DOF is governed by the lens itself, and the laws of optics as they apply to aperture, plus distance to subject. The shallow-background effect is exaggerated by using a more telephoto lens, and diminished by using a wide-angle lens. That's why it's so difficult to get shallow DOF on small-CCD cameras: they have extremely wide-angle lenses. The widest angle on a DVX is 4.5mm. On a 1/6" CCD like the MX5000, it has something like a 2.8mm lens. You can't get shallow DOF with a 2.8mm lens! Even at maximum telephoto the MX5000 is at only 28mm, and it's really tough to get shallow DOF with a 28mm lens. On a 35mm movie camera you'd be using a 25-250 zoom, and at 150 to 250mm you can get very, very shallow DOF. There's nothing the camera can do to modify the DOF, that's strictly a product of what the lens is feeding it, and a lens is a lens is a lens so there's nothing a DVX user could do that would give them a shallower-DOF advantage over a VX2000 user in the same circumstances. The only ways around it are to cheat: either use a product like the Mini35, which uses long-focal-length film lenses and rephotographs the image off a relay lens/ground glass system, or use the SoftScreen to optically blur the background before you ever shoot it.

October 2nd, 2003, 06:30 PM	#15
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	.. not forgetting VX2000's superior long-life battery performance.