VX1000 -- various topics

Steve Gilmore · October 17th, 2003, 04:43 PM

hi ,

im lookin at getting a new camcorder ,and im wondering which camera has the best quality....the gl1 or vx1000. i know the vx1000 is very old..but from what i hear it still has great quality. please keep in mind i will be doing weddings and concerts where there may be low light. And since the vx1000 does have larger ccd
im wondering if that should sway my decision. thank you all for your help.

Frank Granovski · October 17th, 2003, 06:51 PM

The VX1000 and GL1 have the same playback resolution, although the colors are warmer with the GL1. Which is better quality? Don't know. They're both good quality.

Mike Rehmus · October 17th, 2003, 07:25 PM

Couple reasons why the 1000 may not be a good choice (nor the Canon).

1. They really have poor low-light capability compared to the newer cameras (2000)

2. Sony repair has probably dropped them off the fixed-price repair list (they normally drop any product from the list after 7 years) and the cost to get one repaired can equal the cost of a good used VX-2000. I recently had a repair estimate of $1600 + for a VX-1000. Remember these were very expensive when they were new. More expensive then than a PD150 now IIRC.

3. They go through batteries at the rate of one battery per hour. Only one size of battery will work in the 1000 AFAIK.

The newer cameras can be outfitted with batteries that will run the camera 4+ hours.

Barry Green · October 18th, 2003, 01:20 PM

I'll second what Mike said. The VX1000 was a great camera in its day, but compared to modern cameras it has lousy low-light performance and I used to get only about 40 minutes per battery.

If I had to choose between those two, I might lean towards the GL1, but if there's any way at all you can swing it, a used VX2000 would be a far superior choice to either of those.

Dave Largent · October 20th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Just have to add here, VX1000 has better low light abilities than GL2. More grainy is the 1000, but sharper. Saturation is about equal. If you can find a way to get a 2000, it's worth the trouble.
VX2000 blows the GL2 away. Big time.

Frank Granovski · October 20th, 2003, 06:21 AM

Quote:

More grainy is the 1000, but sharper

The more grain, the less sharp.

Quote:

VX2000 blows the GL2 away. Big time.

I have to disagree with that.

Dave Largent · October 20th, 2003, 08:30 AM

Frank, you've always been cool. And helpful. And I know we've been in on some of the same threads before ... but. Listen, I'm a Canon guy. I have a 35mm Canon still cam with three lenses.
The fact is, as far as image quality, the VX mops the floor with the GL2. I wish it weren't true. Anyone who'd see comparo pics would agree. The VX kicks the GL in sharpness, grain, low light reach, and contrast -- by a good margin. The VX is in another league.

Frank Granovski · October 20th, 2003, 12:20 PM

I didn't notice VX2000 sharper than GL2 footage, but I found the GL2's footage warmer. (Played back on a Sony deck.) I assume the VX2000's video is sharper in lower light though.

Dave Largent · October 21st, 2003, 01:47 AM

Ya, even the old 1CCD TRV7 and the VX1000 give a brighter picture in low light than the GL2. Not better overall, just brighter.

Rick Arnold · November 22nd, 2003, 10:47 PM

Hi
I do wedding and event videography. I am using two Sony VX2000s and am looking to buy a third camera. I want two use this camera only as a stationary camera in the back and to run an audio line to it from the sound board.
Have any of you tried the vx1000. I know the lux is rated at 4 instead of 2 like the 2000. Will the 1000 perform well enough in a poorly lit church or not?
Do you have any other suggestions for a third camera on a limited budget?

Thanks
Rick

Mike Rehmus · November 23rd, 2003, 04:03 PM

I think you will find that the 1000 is less capable in poor light than the numbers between the 1000 and 2000 indicate.

That said, I use a PC110 as an alter camera in reasonably well-lit environments and it works well with a 6-7 lux rating.

The 1000 is very noisy compared to modern cameras. Remember it was designed about 10 years ago.

I'd go looking for a good used 2000. There should be plenty of them on the market from people that have to have the greatest and latest when the 2100 is available.

Dave Largent · November 23rd, 2003, 04:27 PM

Mike, I'm thinking of going with a 1CCD as an altar cam. Would you have any recommendations for me as far as exposure settings and camera placement? Would a wide angle lens be required? Can the cam handle church lighting okay?

Mike Rehmus · November 23rd, 2003, 07:11 PM

The PC-110 is a 1-chip camera. It is one of Sony's (large) pocket cams. I use it with a Century Optics WA most of the time. I"ve not used it in a dim situation as I know how bad it can get. However, sometimes bad footage is better than none at all to a Bride. I do leave the camera on auto except for focus.

I flip the LCD screen forward and tell the bride that if she can maneuver herself, the groom and the officiant into position, she will get some unique footage.

Never fails. The Bride makes certain they are centered.

I have this urge to put the camera on a remote control pan and tilt head and put a light on the camera that will slowly come up as the light goes down. My thinking being that the officiant won't notice. Just enough to chase the shadows away. Probably a really diffused 10 watt halogen would be enough.

Dave Largent · November 23rd, 2003, 07:41 PM

I assume you place the cam off to the left of the officiant? How many feet is it usually placed from the couple? Regarding cutting
that footage with a 3CCD cam, I suppose the B&G really don't notice any difference?
Were you serious about the remote pan and tilt? I'm not familiar with these devices. What are some good names is that area?
Regarding a light, maybe even a 3 watt would work.

Mike Rehmus · November 23rd, 2003, 08:09 PM

I shoot over the officiant's left shoulder. It cuts quite well with the PD150/DSR-300 as long as there is OK light.

I have two remote pan and tilt system. Both inexpensive and reasonable for light cameras. Neither are speed demons but they work OK.

One is a Sunpac. It is a batter-powered (std Sony Nicad camera batteries) and has a credit-card-sized IR controller that pans and tilts plus controls Sony on/off & zoom.

The other is a Bescor which is a slightly heavier duty unit but much slower. No wireless controls here, only a wired controller with a 50 foot extension cable. Not bad if one is going to run a monitor cabe from the remote camera anyway.

I mean to try one of those cheap 2.4 gig video transmitters one of these days. I only want to be able to frame the image so I think they might be OK.

I keep telling myself I'll try out my lipstick camera for back-of-the-altar shots one of these days. Looks like a small microphone at 3/4 by 4"

October 17th, 2003, 04:43 PM	#16
Steve Gilmore Tourist Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: baltimore,md. Posts: 2	vx1000 vs. gl1 hi , im lookin at getting a new camcorder ,and im wondering which camera has the best quality....the gl1 or vx1000. i know the vx1000 is very old..but from what i hear it still has great quality. please keep in mind i will be doing weddings and concerts where there may be low light. And since the vx1000 does have larger ccd im wondering if that should sway my decision. thank you all for your help.

October 17th, 2003, 07:25 PM	#18
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Couple reasons why the 1000 may not be a good choice (nor the Canon). 1. They really have poor low-light capability compared to the newer cameras (2000) 2. Sony repair has probably dropped them off the fixed-price repair list (they normally drop any product from the list after 7 years) and the cost to get one repaired can equal the cost of a good used VX-2000. I recently had a repair estimate of $1600 + for a VX-1000. Remember these were very expensive when they were new. More expensive then than a PD150 now IIRC. 3. They go through batteries at the rate of one battery per hour. Only one size of battery will work in the 1000 AFAIK. The newer cameras can be outfitted with batteries that will run the camera 4+ hours. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 22nd, 2003, 10:47 PM	#25
Rick Arnold New Boot Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Litchfield, IL Posts: 7	Vx1000? Hi I do wedding and event videography. I am using two Sony VX2000s and am looking to buy a third camera. I want two use this camera only as a stationary camera in the back and to run an audio line to it from the sound board. Have any of you tried the vx1000. I know the lux is rated at 4 instead of 2 like the 2000. Will the 1000 perform well enough in a poorly lit church or not? Do you have any other suggestions for a third camera on a limited budget? Thanks Rick

November 23rd, 2003, 04:03 PM	#26
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	I think you will find that the 1000 is less capable in poor light than the numbers between the 1000 and 2000 indicate. That said, I use a PC110 as an alter camera in reasonably well-lit environments and it works well with a 6-7 lux rating. The 1000 is very noisy compared to modern cameras. Remember it was designed about 10 years ago. I'd go looking for a good used 2000. There should be plenty of them on the market from people that have to have the greatest and latest when the 2100 is available. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 23rd, 2003, 07:11 PM	#28
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	The PC-110 is a 1-chip camera. It is one of Sony's (large) pocket cams. I use it with a Century Optics WA most of the time. I"ve not used it in a dim situation as I know how bad it can get. However, sometimes bad footage is better than none at all to a Bride. I do leave the camera on auto except for focus. I flip the LCD screen forward and tell the bride that if she can maneuver herself, the groom and the officiant into position, she will get some unique footage. Never fails. The Bride makes certain they are centered. I have this urge to put the camera on a remote control pan and tilt head and put a light on the camera that will slowly come up as the light goes down. My thinking being that the officiant won't notice. Just enough to chase the shadows away. Probably a really diffused 10 watt halogen would be enough. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

October 17th, 2003, 06:51 PM	#17
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The VX1000 and GL1 have the same playback resolution, although the colors are warmer with the GL1. Which is better quality? Don't know. They're both good quality.

October 18th, 2003, 01:20 PM	#19
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I'll second what Mike said. The VX1000 was a great camera in its day, but compared to modern cameras it has lousy low-light performance and I used to get only about 40 minutes per battery. If I had to choose between those two, I might lean towards the GL1, but if there's any way at all you can swing it, a used VX2000 would be a far superior choice to either of those.

October 20th, 2003, 05:08 AM	#20
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Just have to add here, VX1000 has better low light abilities than GL2. More grainy is the 1000, but sharper. Saturation is about equal. If you can find a way to get a 2000, it's worth the trouble. VX2000 blows the GL2 away. Big time.

October 20th, 2003, 08:30 AM	#22
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Frank, you've always been cool. And helpful. And I know we've been in on some of the same threads before ... but. Listen, I'm a Canon guy. I have a 35mm Canon still cam with three lenses. The fact is, as far as image quality, the VX mops the floor with the GL2. I wish it weren't true. Anyone who'd see comparo pics would agree. The VX kicks the GL in sharpness, grain, low light reach, and contrast -- by a good margin. The VX is in another league.

October 20th, 2003, 12:20 PM	#23
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I didn't notice VX2000 sharper than GL2 footage, but I found the GL2's footage warmer. (Played back on a Sony deck.) I assume the VX2000's video is sharper in lower light though.

October 21st, 2003, 01:47 AM	#24
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Ya, even the old 1CCD TRV7 and the VX1000 give a brighter picture in low light than the GL2. Not better overall, just brighter.

November 23rd, 2003, 04:27 PM	#27
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Mike, I'm thinking of going with a 1CCD as an altar cam. Would you have any recommendations for me as far as exposure settings and camera placement? Would a wide angle lens be required? Can the cam handle church lighting okay?

November 23rd, 2003, 07:41 PM	#29
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I assume you place the cam off to the left of the officiant? How many feet is it usually placed from the couple? Regarding cutting that footage with a 3CCD cam, I suppose the B&G really don't notice any difference? Were you serious about the remote pan and tilt? I'm not familiar with these devices. What are some good names is that area? Regarding a light, maybe even a 3 watt would work.

November 23rd, 2003, 08:09 PM	#30
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	I shoot over the officiant's left shoulder. It cuts quite well with the PD150/DSR-300 as long as there is OK light. I have two remote pan and tilt system. Both inexpensive and reasonable for light cameras. Neither are speed demons but they work OK. One is a Sunpac. It is a batter-powered (std Sony Nicad camera batteries) and has a credit-card-sized IR controller that pans and tilts plus controls Sony on/off & zoom. The other is a Bescor which is a slightly heavier duty unit but much slower. No wireless controls here, only a wired controller with a 50 foot extension cable. Not bad if one is going to run a monitor cabe from the remote camera anyway. I mean to try one of those cheap 2.4 gig video transmitters one of these days. I only want to be able to frame the image so I think they might be OK. I keep telling myself I'll try out my lipstick camera for back-of-the-altar shots one of these days. Looks like a small microphone at 3/4 by 4" __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!