Sony PD170 or Panasonic DVX100 at DVinfo.net

Lou Bruno · December 13th, 2002, 06:24 PM

http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/im...ise/index.html

Check this out the VX2000 outshines the new Panasonic..

Lou Bruno

David Hurdon · December 24th, 2002, 06:33 AM

Here's a exerpt from a review of the DVX100 on the specific issue of 24p:

24p
This is the most-hyped and most-misunderstood feature of the Panasonic
camera, due largely to Panasonic's marketing department. The Panasonic is
not a true 24p camera (like the Sony HDCAM CineAlta), as it does a 3:2 pull
down as it records onto tape. But does it look like film? Does it give that
elusive film feel?

No. Not at least on videotape.

In fact, 24p right now looks quite bad, as it stutters. Panasonic Canada has
told us that the only time you would shoot in 24p is if you're going to burn
it back to negative, or make a progressive scan DVD.

Does that mean the Panasonic is pointless? No, it doesn't, as it shoots in
regular 60i mode quite well. But if your final product is going to be
videotape (such as weddings, corporate video, documentaries, broadcast
work), shoot in 60i.

Will we be able to shoot in 24p and have it eventually go back to videotape
and look more "film-like?" In the future, more than likely. Apple, Avid and
Adobe have all said they're going to support the 24p feature in the next
updates of their software. Or maybe someone will invent a plug-in that will
make it transparent and easy to do. But right now, the work-arounds are
quite labour and render intensive (links to articles in the Web Site of the
Month section). Our advice right now is, unless you're burning a neg, stay
in 60i. We will keep watching this, and let you know if this changes.

The entire article compares the VX2000 to the DVX100. It's from the DV Cafe Newsletter (December) and you can probably get your hands on it using this email address: dvshop@on.aibn.com

David Hurdon

Tom Hardwick · March 5th, 2003, 09:21 AM

I've had the opportunity to play with the Panasonic DVX100 at the Video Forum.
Care to hear why I'd dump the Sony VX2000 and buy one?

Great looks. Only the side-screen is silver, the rest is Judge Dread Black.
Proper zoom ring which had the focal length marked in mm, has end stops, works with the camera turned off (i.e. doesn't use battery power) and allows creep to crash with ease.
Wide-angle focal length of 4.5mm That's a lot wider than the VX2k's 6mm.
No silly digital zoom, no "sepia fade", no mega chips, no memory card.
Huge 3.5" side screen. Love it.
Aperture control in manual fades the picture up or down beautifully - none of the half stop kicks so visible on screen with the 150 or the VX.
Two XLR inputs and independent level knobs - no menu twiddling.
Much better VCR controls - the "toggle lever" is so much nicer than the VX's touch panel.
25p mode.

Sounds good, doesn't it? When do I do the swap-out?
Well I won't be changing, and here's why.

The VX2k feels so hewn-from-the-solid alongside the Panasonic. The Panny may have a 3.5" screen but the nasty plastic door on an equally nasty plastic hinge is toy-town squeaky.

The lens is only 10x zoom, so a max of 45mm (against the VX's 72mm) means that even with 1/3" chips it's goodbye differential focus.
No slow shutter speeds. Nothing below 1/25th (only accessible in 25P mode).
Top speed 1/2000th against the Sony's 1/10000th.
Vibrating element OIS against the VAP of the VX. I bet (if my MX300 is anything to go by) that the level of stabilisation is a lot worse. I'm guessing here.
72mm filter thread. Extra lenses, polarizing filters, hoods - all a lot
more expensive than for my 58mm thread.
No Info lithium batteries. Horrible zoom ring action ~ sloppy yet sticky - how do they manage that?
And lastly, it costs 50% more than the VX. I'm being kind - it's more like 70% but I'm guessing the early adopters are being targeted and the price will fall.

tom.

Rhett Allen · March 5th, 2003, 09:42 AM

In defense of the Panasonic (and this coming from a Sony guy) with regards to price comparison, you are comparing a "Pro" Panasonic camera against a "Consumer" Sony camera so the price would understandably be very different. That's why Sony never fixed the audio hiss problem on the VX2000, they said it was a consumer camera and it didn't warrant the same quality as the PD-150.
I agree with you on all of the other points though. It seems like Panasonic ALMOST had a real winner here, but every time I hear about the poor camera it is someone complaining about another flaw or feature that doesn't work or it's Fisher Price construction. If they were really going for the 24P or Indie crowd they would have made it native 16:9. And if they wanted to save some money for quality construction and the 16:9 chips, they could have left that cheezy built in mic off. (what pro is going to even use it?) The camera does really have some strong points though and I would probably consider it if they could just fix a few really bad one's (audio sync, or lack of it). I am anxious to see what this (camera) does to the rest of the market, especially Sony with regards to new products.

Tom Hardwick · March 5th, 2003, 09:54 AM

I agree with you that Sony were slow to fix the hiss problem, and I chose to pit the Panasonic against the VX because the Sony - even in this "Prosumer" model, sure has the newer Panny licked. So the PD150 is an even stronger opponent, so Panasonic better have a hankie to cry into as the VX3k (whatever) will leave it for dead.

Sorry Panasonic. I like your MX500 as I think this pushes the TRV950 hard. But the DVX100 just isn't a big enough leap ahead, and the lack of the 16:9 chip is a sadness. But the BIG plus point is that smoothly operating aperture control. Excellent.

tom.

Ilan Gavish · December 11th, 2003, 11:53 AM

Can any expert compare these 2 fine cameras?
Does the sony pd170 has 24p & "film look" feature
like the Panasonic dvx100 has!
Which camera would you choose?
Thanks,

Ilan

Shawn Mielke · December 11th, 2003, 03:07 PM

No 24p on the Sony. If 24p is want you want, well, you have two options, they have almost identical names, and they aren't Sonys. If great low light performance is what you want, above all else, then the PD170 is probably for you. Beyond those differences lie two great cameras and a wealth of argument. I'd say you have some reading ahead of you.

Ilan Gavish · December 11th, 2003, 03:23 PM

Shawn, thanks for your input!
How critical would you define this 24p feature?
or it's just a gimic?

Ilan

Shawn Mielke · December 11th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Critical is subjective, of course. 24p seems to be good for the infamous film look, specifically the quality of motion, never mind well thought out lighting and composition. Shooting progressively also seems to retain more resolution than does interlaced. The DVx100 has other interesting image controls that the PDs do not. But are they critical? As a general statement, of course not. As for me, I intend on getting the PD170. Why. Because of the low light performance, because of the generally excellent name in video quality and product reliability the PD series has made for itself, initial product release issues, such as the current pd170 LCD screen related audio problem aside, because of the potentially employment friendly DVCAM convention, because of it's compatibility with other owned equipment, because of it's physical build, because of it's black and white viewfinder, and because I value these "features" more than the good and uniquely interesting features that the dvx100 offers (I like videoish motion, I'm not into trying to make video seem like film, IMO nothing screams VIDEO more than video pretending that it's film, although I am interested in doing away with interlacing and improving resolution, I'm also interested in a truly manual lens, but I can wait another year or two for the DSR 390....) and I know that, when all is said and done, I will be generating interesting, worthwhile material.

What do you want to do with camera? Understanding this at least a little bit is the first step in determining what's critical.

Regards,
Shawn

Ilan Gavish · December 12th, 2003, 01:43 PM

Thanks Shawn, you enlighten the subject well!

Shawn Mielke · December 12th, 2003, 02:48 PM

Glad I can help, Ilan (pronounced "Eye-lan"?). The DVX100A sounds like a fantastic camera, you're going to get a lot out of whichever one you choose.
And, of course, if you can possibly help it, get some hands-on time with these cams. Not always the easiest thing to do, I know.....

Shawn

Ari Shomair · December 12th, 2003, 03:18 PM

I've "played" with both cameras - I shot a short using the DVX100 and got to play with a pd150 for a day. Not an expert on either though;

What software do you plan on using in the editing process? If your a Windows guy, and you use Premier, the 24p probably won't be much use to you. As far as I know it is still unsuported in Premier and basically every other consumer-level editing software. Does FCP even support it yet?

Also, there is software which will take 30fps NTSC and convert it to 23.997 or whatever the exact number is fps. And of course 25fps PAL, which I believe is the standard in Israel (?), is already pretty close to the 24p.

I didn't actually like the onboard stereo mikes on the DVX100. I would always hit the level controls by mistake, which would produce very strange sounding scenes. I'm sure if I had time to get used to the camera (rented it for three days) I would learn to avoid this /lock the levels, but this was just my observation.

As has been repeated many many times, the low light ability if the 150 (and 170 is even better I assume) rocks. This in the end was the kicker for me, as I like to shoot a lot of spur-of-the-moment events which don't necessarily take out doors. Price was a fairly significant factor in my purchasing decision, so I ended up order the Sony DX2100. I ordered it yesterday.

BTW I believe Ilan is pronounced sort of "E-Lun"

Frederic Segard · December 12th, 2003, 05:43 PM

In the past, I've long debated on both PD150/170 and DVX100/A. For the last 3 months, my sights were set on the DVX100. I re-rented it last Friday and found out something very essensial: It does not handle low light very well in 60i, and even less in 24p. Since my principal requirement is low light, this camera really fell short in my expectations. 24p is a nice to have, but is not the determining factor.

On Monday, I ordered the PD-170, and received it Wednesday afternoon. Other then the minor sound issue discussed on the www.global-dvc.org site, the PD-170 is a magnificent performer.

In any event, I will post updates on the sound issue on the other thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=18203

Ilan Gavish · December 13th, 2003, 05:21 AM

Thank you all for your helpful insights!
Ilan

Marius Boruh · March 13th, 2004, 09:43 AM

Hi,
I will buy a new camera next month but can not decide which one. Have anyone worked with both of these cameras and could compare them. I have 1/2" AG-DVC200 as a main camera and will buy second one to work together.Recently was on trade show and played with AG-DVC100 and I was impressed. At first glance there were no much difference in quality of pictures btw. those two Panasonic cameras, but I read very good review on Sony camcorder in recent issue of Videography magazine. I think there will be a huge difference in low light performance btwn 1 lux and 3 lux range. I do mostly weddings so low light capabilities are very important for me.
Please share your opinions with me.

Mario

December 13th, 2002, 06:24 PM	#1
Lou Bruno Go Cycle Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Huntington, NY Posts: 815	VX2000 vs the Panasonic DVX100 http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/im...ise/index.html Check this out the VX2000 outshines the new Panasonic.. Lou Bruno

December 24th, 2002, 06:33 AM	#2
David Hurdon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 484	24p Here's a exerpt from a review of the DVX100 on the specific issue of 24p: 24p This is the most-hyped and most-misunderstood feature of the Panasonic camera, due largely to Panasonic's marketing department. The Panasonic is not a true 24p camera (like the Sony HDCAM CineAlta), as it does a 3:2 pull down as it records onto tape. But does it look like film? Does it give that elusive film feel? No. Not at least on videotape. In fact, 24p right now looks quite bad, as it stutters. Panasonic Canada has told us that the only time you would shoot in 24p is if you're going to burn it back to negative, or make a progressive scan DVD. Does that mean the Panasonic is pointless? No, it doesn't, as it shoots in regular 60i mode quite well. But if your final product is going to be videotape (such as weddings, corporate video, documentaries, broadcast work), shoot in 60i. Will we be able to shoot in 24p and have it eventually go back to videotape and look more "film-like?" In the future, more than likely. Apple, Avid and Adobe have all said they're going to support the 24p feature in the next updates of their software. Or maybe someone will invent a plug-in that will make it transparent and easy to do. But right now, the work-arounds are quite labour and render intensive (links to articles in the Web Site of the Month section). Our advice right now is, unless you're burning a neg, stay in 60i. We will keep watching this, and let you know if this changes. The entire article compares the VX2000 to the DVX100. It's from the DV Cafe Newsletter (December) and you can probably get your hands on it using this email address: dvshop@on.aibn.com David Hurdon __________________ Site:http://www.faceliftmarketing.ca Blog:http://www.websitevideo.blogspot.com

March 5th, 2003, 09:21 AM	#3
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Panasonic DVX100 or ageing Sony VX2000? I've had the opportunity to play with the Panasonic DVX100 at the Video Forum. Care to hear why I'd dump the Sony VX2000 and buy one? Great looks. Only the side-screen is silver, the rest is Judge Dread Black. Proper zoom ring which had the focal length marked in mm, has end stops, works with the camera turned off (i.e. doesn't use battery power) and allows creep to crash with ease. Wide-angle focal length of 4.5mm That's a lot wider than the VX2k's 6mm. No silly digital zoom, no "sepia fade", no mega chips, no memory card. Huge 3.5" side screen. Love it. Aperture control in manual fades the picture up or down beautifully - none of the half stop kicks so visible on screen with the 150 or the VX. Two XLR inputs and independent level knobs - no menu twiddling. Much better VCR controls - the "toggle lever" is so much nicer than the VX's touch panel. 25p mode. Sounds good, doesn't it? When do I do the swap-out? Well I won't be changing, and here's why. The VX2k feels so hewn-from-the-solid alongside the Panasonic. The Panny may have a 3.5" screen but the nasty plastic door on an equally nasty plastic hinge is toy-town squeaky. The lens is only 10x zoom, so a max of 45mm (against the VX's 72mm) means that even with 1/3" chips it's goodbye differential focus. No slow shutter speeds. Nothing below 1/25th (only accessible in 25P mode). Top speed 1/2000th against the Sony's 1/10000th. Vibrating element OIS against the VAP of the VX. I bet (if my MX300 is anything to go by) that the level of stabilisation is a lot worse. I'm guessing here. 72mm filter thread. Extra lenses, polarizing filters, hoods - all a lot more expensive than for my 58mm thread. No Info lithium batteries. Horrible zoom ring action ~ sloppy yet sticky - how do they manage that? And lastly, it costs 50% more than the VX. I'm being kind - it's more like 70% but I'm guessing the early adopters are being targeted and the price will fall. tom.

December 11th, 2003, 11:53 AM	#6
Ilan Gavish New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 5	Sony PD170 or Panasonic DVX100 Can any expert compare these 2 fine cameras? Does the sony pd170 has 24p & "film look" feature like the Panasonic dvx100 has! Which camera would you choose? Thanks, Ilan

December 11th, 2003, 03:07 PM	#7
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	No 24p on the Sony. If 24p is want you want, well, you have two options, they have almost identical names, and they aren't Sonys. If great low light performance is what you want, above all else, then the PD170 is probably for you. Beyond those differences lie two great cameras and a wealth of argument. I'd say you have some reading ahead of you. __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

March 5th, 2003, 09:42 AM	#4
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	In defense of the Panasonic (and this coming from a Sony guy) with regards to price comparison, you are comparing a "Pro" Panasonic camera against a "Consumer" Sony camera so the price would understandably be very different. That's why Sony never fixed the audio hiss problem on the VX2000, they said it was a consumer camera and it didn't warrant the same quality as the PD-150. I agree with you on all of the other points though. It seems like Panasonic ALMOST had a real winner here, but every time I hear about the poor camera it is someone complaining about another flaw or feature that doesn't work or it's Fisher Price construction. If they were really going for the 24P or Indie crowd they would have made it native 16:9. And if they wanted to save some money for quality construction and the 16:9 chips, they could have left that cheezy built in mic off. (what pro is going to even use it?) The camera does really have some strong points though and I would probably consider it if they could just fix a few really bad one's (audio sync, or lack of it). I am anxious to see what this (camera) does to the rest of the market, especially Sony with regards to new products.

March 5th, 2003, 09:54 AM	#5
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree with you that Sony were slow to fix the hiss problem, and I chose to pit the Panasonic against the VX because the Sony - even in this "Prosumer" model, sure has the newer Panny licked. So the PD150 is an even stronger opponent, so Panasonic better have a hankie to cry into as the VX3k (whatever) will leave it for dead. Sorry Panasonic. I like your MX500 as I think this pushes the TRV950 hard. But the DVX100 just isn't a big enough leap ahead, and the lack of the 16:9 chip is a sadness. But the BIG plus point is that smoothly operating aperture control. Excellent. tom.

December 11th, 2003, 03:23 PM	#8
Ilan Gavish New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 5	Shawn, thanks for your input! How critical would you define this 24p feature? or it's just a gimic? Ilan

December 11th, 2003, 04:14 PM	#9
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Critical is subjective, of course. 24p seems to be good for the infamous film look, specifically the quality of motion, never mind well thought out lighting and composition. Shooting progressively also seems to retain more resolution than does interlaced. The DVx100 has other interesting image controls that the PDs do not. But are they critical? As a general statement, of course not. As for me, I intend on getting the PD170. Why. Because of the low light performance, because of the generally excellent name in video quality and product reliability the PD series has made for itself, initial product release issues, such as the current pd170 LCD screen related audio problem aside, because of the potentially employment friendly DVCAM convention, because of it's compatibility with other owned equipment, because of it's physical build, because of it's black and white viewfinder, and because I value these "features" more than the good and uniquely interesting features that the dvx100 offers (I like videoish motion, I'm not into trying to make video seem like film, IMO nothing screams VIDEO more than video pretending that it's film, although I am interested in doing away with interlacing and improving resolution, I'm also interested in a truly manual lens, but I can wait another year or two for the DSR 390....) and I know that, when all is said and done, I will be generating interesting, worthwhile material. What do you want to do with camera? Understanding this at least a little bit is the first step in determining what's critical. Regards, Shawn __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

December 12th, 2003, 01:43 PM	#10
Ilan Gavish New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 5	Thanks Shawn, you enlighten the subject well!

December 12th, 2003, 02:48 PM	#11
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Glad I can help, Ilan (pronounced "Eye-lan"?). The DVX100A sounds like a fantastic camera, you're going to get a lot out of whichever one you choose. And, of course, if you can possibly help it, get some hands-on time with these cams. Not always the easiest thing to do, I know..... Shawn __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

December 12th, 2003, 03:18 PM	#12
Ari Shomair Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LA, California, USA Posts: 224	I've "played" with both cameras - I shot a short using the DVX100 and got to play with a pd150 for a day. Not an expert on either though; What software do you plan on using in the editing process? If your a Windows guy, and you use Premier, the 24p probably won't be much use to you. As far as I know it is still unsuported in Premier and basically every other consumer-level editing software. Does FCP even support it yet? Also, there is software which will take 30fps NTSC and convert it to 23.997 or whatever the exact number is fps. And of course 25fps PAL, which I believe is the standard in Israel (?), is already pretty close to the 24p. I didn't actually like the onboard stereo mikes on the DVX100. I would always hit the level controls by mistake, which would produce very strange sounding scenes. I'm sure if I had time to get used to the camera (rented it for three days) I would learn to avoid this /lock the levels, but this was just my observation. As has been repeated many many times, the low light ability if the 150 (and 170 is even better I assume) rocks. This in the end was the kicker for me, as I like to shoot a lot of spur-of-the-moment events which don't necessarily take out doors. Price was a fairly significant factor in my purchasing decision, so I ended up order the Sony DX2100. I ordered it yesterday. BTW I believe Ilan is pronounced sort of "E-Lun"

December 12th, 2003, 05:43 PM	#13
Frederic Segard Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 209	In the past, I've long debated on both PD150/170 and DVX100/A. For the last 3 months, my sights were set on the DVX100. I re-rented it last Friday and found out something very essensial: It does not handle low light very well in 60i, and even less in 24p. Since my principal requirement is low light, this camera really fell short in my expectations. 24p is a nice to have, but is not the determining factor. On Monday, I ordered the PD-170, and received it Wednesday afternoon. Other then the minor sound issue discussed on the www.global-dvc.org site, the PD-170 is a magnificent performer. In any event, I will post updates on the sound issue on the other thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=18203

December 13th, 2003, 05:21 AM	#14
Ilan Gavish New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 5	Thank you all for your helpful insights! Ilan

March 13th, 2004, 09:43 AM	#15
Marius Boruh Tourist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 4	PD-170 or Panasonic DVX100??? Hi, I will buy a new camera next month but can not decide which one. Have anyone worked with both of these cameras and could compare them. I have 1/2" AG-DVC200 as a main camera and will buy second one to work together.Recently was on trade show and played with AG-DVC100 and I was impressed. At first glance there were no much difference in quality of pictures btw. those two Panasonic cameras, but I read very good review on Sony camcorder in recent issue of Videography magazine. I think there will be a huge difference in low light performance btwn 1 lux and 3 lux range. I do mostly weddings so low light capabilities are very important for me. Please share your opinions with me. Mario