How much $ for Better Image Cam than VX2000? at DVinfo.net

Ralph Bowman · October 4th, 2003, 10:11 PM

I have a VX2000 and want to jump to a better or much better dv cam that offers a noticably higher quality image and I mean noticably. Can I get it with $6000 or do I have to jump into the $10,000 range. Any experienced users who have made the jump? Any web sites that offer these image comparisons?

Thanks,

Ralph Bowman

Frank Granovski · October 5th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Your next small step would be the DVX100, and from there, the JVC DV5000 with 1/2" CCDs. After that look at digi BETA.

Dave Largent · October 5th, 2003, 05:00 AM

And none of those Frank mentioned have auto focus, which may be a real consideration in fast-paced event videography. Do you have a lot of time to set up your shots? Can you do it over if you didn't get it right the first time? Or do you need a VX/PD?

Robbie Smolinsky · October 5th, 2003, 07:06 AM

I suppose this is a matter of opinion, but I have used both the VX2000 and DVX100 and the image quality is not the jump that I think you are trying to go for. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but other than the advanced image controls on the DVX, I didn't really see much of a difference in image quality over the VX.

I'm assuming Ralph is asking about a higher definition or resolution camera when he talks about higher "quality", not necessarly something that is able to shoot a more attractive image with better controls over color, tone, gamma, etc. But please just clarify this Ralph, so then everyone might be able to assist you a bit better.

Also, the DVX100 does in fact have auto focus, it just doesn't work in progressive or 24P modes.

Adrian Douglas · October 5th, 2003, 07:59 AM

You might also look at the high-end DVCam cameras like the DSR300 and 570. However, you're looking at over $10 000 for either of them new.

Ralph Bowman · October 5th, 2003, 10:29 AM

Yes, I am looking at better resolution because I am having to switch from people and events to trees and flowers. Natural beauty very close up is very good with the vx2000 but twenty ft. away turns into the old svhs look. I guess I need also to run and gun with auto focus and auto exposure but then I find myself in interviews in the forest that need care and depth of focus and then suddenly I need steady cam work, inexpensive, that is, where I am following a hiker on a trail. The VX is terrific, but sometimes I need beauty in my 20ft. shots. Thanks for jumping in and helping me with a delimma. I want it all and cheap!

Ralph Bowman

Mike Rehmus · October 5th, 2003, 12:47 PM

A used DSR-300A will run you under $5000 with lens. Add more money for batteries. Probably from $500 for NP-1Bs and charger to $1500 for LiOn and charger (used)

The 300 or 300a are significant steps up in quality but from the sounds of what you are looking for, D-9 or DVCPro50 (both way more expensive) are what you want.

Understand that conventional NTSC isn't great in any case. But if you stick with progressive scan DVD output, DV or DV50 quality is fairly impressive. If you haven't, I urge you to look at the VX-2000 output on progressive scan DVD before concluding that it is a dud for your nature shots.

You are pretty much wasting your money if your output is VHS, however.

Frank Granovski · October 5th, 2003, 01:57 PM

You make some good points, Dave. I was only trying to answer his question about improved image quality.

Quote:

I have a VX2000 and want to jump to a better or much better dv cam that offers a noticably higher quality image and I mean noticably.

John Jay · October 5th, 2003, 02:03 PM

<<<-- Natural beauty very close up is very good with the vx2000 but twenty ft. away turns into the old svhs look. I guess I need also to run and gun with auto focus and auto exposure but then I find myself in interviews in the forest that need care and depth of focus and then ....
Ralph Bowman -->>>

A reveal from long shot using DV will always give you that point at which everything turns to crud, simply because that is the point where the fine detail is beyond the confines of the medium. You will also see colour smudging on flower heads etc - altogether very unpleasant even with DSR570

I guess the most cost effective way out of this is to shoot Super-16, which will also help with your DOF requirement. Charles Papert may be able to advise you on a suitable choice.

Jeff Donald · October 5th, 2003, 03:42 PM

If you really want a demonstrably better image you'll need to move up to 1/2 in chips. Better still, will be 2/3 inch chips. The corresponding cost of support gear will also go up. Think batteries, tripods, matte boxes, wireless mics, filters, and Steadicams, etc.

I agree with Robbie, that after using both, the DVX100 is not going to deliver on a much better image. Only the corresponding jump in chip size and the improvement in S/N ratio, color space and bit depth bring better image quality.

Mathew Evan · October 5th, 2003, 11:21 PM

If you shoot in one of the dvx100 progressive modes you will notice a definate increase in picture quality. I'm not sure why no one else has pointed this out. oh yeah that's right it's a sony board. Anyway interlace mode on the dvx100 will be similar in quality to the vx if that is your planned way of shooting. This is subject but I do like the Panasonic's more natural color balance. Sony tends to oversaturate and turn the image into a circus. Another camera that nobody mentioned is the jvc HD cam. That WILL get you a much higher resolution picture at a slight cost of color depth because of its 1 ccd.

Pick your poison.

Barry Green · October 5th, 2003, 11:28 PM

The DVX100 won't give you any substantial gain in picture quality in 60i. What it will do is give you two new shooting modes, 30P and 24P. But as far as 60i, it will be very comparable to your existing VX2000.

The JVC HD camera involves much more sacrifice than just a little color depth: you also sacrifice any and all aspect of professional controls. I strongly urge anyone considering HDV to wait and see what the second generation brings.

As for a "jump" in picture quality at the $6000 price point, the only game in town would be the JVC DV5000U, and it offers a significant jump in picture and excellent bang for the buck. But, again, the prospect of new HDV cameras could radically alter the balance of power. When it's in a "happy" mood, the JVC HDV is stunning -- but when it's not happy, it's a miserable experience. Wait and see how Canon, Sony, and Sharp implement HDV, and also JVC may introduce a follow-up that addresses the HD1/HD10's limitations.

Dave Largent · October 6th, 2003, 06:04 AM

Actually, I had considered the DV5000U for myself -- until I saw that it had no auto focus.

John Steele · October 6th, 2003, 01:35 PM

I don't think any "Pro" cameras with manual lenses have auto focus, I thought this might be a problem too before I bought a DSR-390 but after using it for a few months it isn't. And it does produce a much nicer image than my VX2000.

John.

Barry Green · October 6th, 2003, 01:55 PM

No 1/2" or 2/3" camera offers autofocus, that I know of. Neither do any film cameras. So if you're looking for a jump above VX2000 picture quality, it will involve sacrificing autofocus.

October 4th, 2003, 10:11 PM	#1
Ralph Bowman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon Posts: 59	How much $ for Better Image Cam than VX2000? I have a VX2000 and want to jump to a better or much better dv cam that offers a noticably higher quality image and I mean noticably. Can I get it with $6000 or do I have to jump into the $10,000 range. Any experienced users who have made the jump? Any web sites that offer these image comparisons? Thanks, Ralph Bowman

October 5th, 2003, 07:59 AM	#5
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	You might also look at the high-end DVCam cameras like the DSR300 and 570. However, you're looking at over $10 000 for either of them new. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

October 5th, 2003, 12:47 PM	#7
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	A used DSR-300A will run you under $5000 with lens. Add more money for batteries. Probably from $500 for NP-1Bs and charger to $1500 for LiOn and charger (used) The 300 or 300a are significant steps up in quality but from the sounds of what you are looking for, D-9 or DVCPro50 (both way more expensive) are what you want. Understand that conventional NTSC isn't great in any case. But if you stick with progressive scan DVD output, DV or DV50 quality is fairly impressive. If you haven't, I urge you to look at the VX-2000 output on progressive scan DVD before concluding that it is a dud for your nature shots. You are pretty much wasting your money if your output is VHS, however. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

October 5th, 2003, 02:03 PM	#9
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	<<<-- Natural beauty very close up is very good with the vx2000 but twenty ft. away turns into the old svhs look. I guess I need also to run and gun with auto focus and auto exposure but then I find myself in interviews in the forest that need care and depth of focus and then .... Ralph Bowman -->>> A reveal from long shot using DV will always give you that point at which everything turns to crud, simply because that is the point where the fine detail is beyond the confines of the medium. You will also see colour smudging on flower heads etc - altogether very unpleasant even with DSR570 I guess the most cost effective way out of this is to shoot Super-16, which will also help with your DOF requirement. Charles Papert may be able to advise you on a suitable choice. __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

October 5th, 2003, 03:42 PM	#10
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	If you really want a demonstrably better image you'll need to move up to 1/2 in chips. Better still, will be 2/3 inch chips. The corresponding cost of support gear will also go up. Think batteries, tripods, matte boxes, wireless mics, filters, and Steadicams, etc. I agree with Robbie, that after using both, the DVX100 is not going to deliver on a much better image. Only the corresponding jump in chip size and the improvement in S/N ratio, color space and bit depth bring better image quality. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 5th, 2003, 12:14 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Your next small step would be the DVX100, and from there, the JVC DV5000 with 1/2" CCDs. After that look at digi BETA.

October 5th, 2003, 05:00 AM	#3
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	And none of those Frank mentioned have auto focus, which may be a real consideration in fast-paced event videography. Do you have a lot of time to set up your shots? Can you do it over if you didn't get it right the first time? Or do you need a VX/PD?

October 5th, 2003, 07:06 AM	#4
Robbie Smolinsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Binghamton, NY Posts: 142	I suppose this is a matter of opinion, but I have used both the VX2000 and DVX100 and the image quality is not the jump that I think you are trying to go for. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but other than the advanced image controls on the DVX, I didn't really see much of a difference in image quality over the VX. I'm assuming Ralph is asking about a higher definition or resolution camera when he talks about higher "quality", not necessarly something that is able to shoot a more attractive image with better controls over color, tone, gamma, etc. But please just clarify this Ralph, so then everyone might be able to assist you a bit better. Also, the DVX100 does in fact have auto focus, it just doesn't work in progressive or 24P modes.

October 5th, 2003, 10:29 AM	#6
Ralph Bowman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon Posts: 59	Yes, I am looking at better resolution because I am having to switch from people and events to trees and flowers. Natural beauty very close up is very good with the vx2000 but twenty ft. away turns into the old svhs look. I guess I need also to run and gun with auto focus and auto exposure but then I find myself in interviews in the forest that need care and depth of focus and then suddenly I need steady cam work, inexpensive, that is, where I am following a hiker on a trail. The VX is terrific, but sometimes I need beauty in my 20ft. shots. Thanks for jumping in and helping me with a delimma. I want it all and cheap! Ralph Bowman

October 5th, 2003, 11:21 PM	#11
Mathew Evan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: United States Posts: 53	If you shoot in one of the dvx100 progressive modes you will notice a definate increase in picture quality. I'm not sure why no one else has pointed this out. oh yeah that's right it's a sony board. Anyway interlace mode on the dvx100 will be similar in quality to the vx if that is your planned way of shooting. This is subject but I do like the Panasonic's more natural color balance. Sony tends to oversaturate and turn the image into a circus. Another camera that nobody mentioned is the jvc HD cam. That WILL get you a much higher resolution picture at a slight cost of color depth because of its 1 ccd. Pick your poison.

October 5th, 2003, 11:28 PM	#12
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	The DVX100 won't give you any substantial gain in picture quality in 60i. What it will do is give you two new shooting modes, 30P and 24P. But as far as 60i, it will be very comparable to your existing VX2000. The JVC HD camera involves much more sacrifice than just a little color depth: you also sacrifice any and all aspect of professional controls. I strongly urge anyone considering HDV to wait and see what the second generation brings. As for a "jump" in picture quality at the $6000 price point, the only game in town would be the JVC DV5000U, and it offers a significant jump in picture and excellent bang for the buck. But, again, the prospect of new HDV cameras could radically alter the balance of power. When it's in a "happy" mood, the JVC HDV is stunning -- but when it's not happy, it's a miserable experience. Wait and see how Canon, Sony, and Sharp implement HDV, and also JVC may introduce a follow-up that addresses the HD1/HD10's limitations.

October 6th, 2003, 06:04 AM	#13
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Actually, I had considered the DV5000U for myself -- until I saw that it had no auto focus.

October 6th, 2003, 01:35 PM	#14
John Steele Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 216	I don't think any "Pro" cameras with manual lenses have auto focus, I thought this might be a problem too before I bought a DSR-390 but after using it for a few months it isn't. And it does produce a much nicer image than my VX2000. John.

October 6th, 2003, 01:55 PM	#15
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	No 1/2" or 2/3" camera offers autofocus, that I know of. Neither do any film cameras. So if you're looking for a jump above VX2000 picture quality, it will involve sacrificing autofocus.