Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. Collapse Details
    dvx200 vs Ag-cx350 ??
    Dear all
    I am a wedding photographer,
    I have DVX200, AG- Ac160 UX180 , i need to buy another camcorder , but I am not sure which is better betwee the dvx200 vs Ag-cx350 the CX350 is newer and has lot features but does it better than DVX200 ,
    Please help me to choose , do it as simple as

    Reply With Quote

  2. Collapse Details
    Between those two choices I would ask - Do you need to hand hold? If yes the CX350 all the way.

    With those three, why introduce a fourth camera/color scheme?

    Reply With Quote

  3. Collapse Details
    The DVX200 has a larger sensor for more shallow depth of field, and it has a larger LCD display, and it can record in VLOG-L, and it shoots cinema-wide 4K at 24.00 frames per second.

    Other than those four things, the CX350 does everything better than the DVX200. It has a much longer zoom (20x vs 13x), it keeps the same field of view throughout (the DVX200 changes its field of view and crops in on its sensor in some modes, especially UHD/60p). And it's much lighter and smaller overall.

    As Bassman2003 said, if you're going handheld, the CX350 is a much better choice.

    The DVX200's advantages are in cinema-oriented shooting. For pretty much all other types of shooting, I'd reach for the CX350 before the DVX200; the longer lens, flexibility in recording formats, smaller size and weight, they're all compelling advantages.

    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote

  4. Collapse Details
    Additionally, the CX350 records in 10-bit 4:2:2, whereas you need an external recorder to do so with a DVX200, which only records to its cards in 8-bit 4:2:0. The CX350 also records in HEVC (H.265). The focus assists go out through HDMI and SDI so you can see them on external monitors. The color-correction controls are (IMO) better laid-out. The external menu controls are nicer. The ROP (to control it through a tablet or smartphone) is considerably better. Those are especially compelling features.

    That said, I'd say the DVX200 is probably about 85% of what the CX350 is. Feels a little sturdier and more substantial, too. Has a better selection of 1/4"-20 and 3/8" mount holes. Has better-covered ports and a covered battery which can be usefully protective in tough shooting environments (especially true of the BNC ports). Also has more external user buttons, better-placed ergonomically, and with better default selections for them.


    Reply With Quote

  5. Collapse Details
    I have Ag-cx350. As i know from experience it's a really good one. I was filming training videos for FXTM with this camera. And it worked out well. So i can recommend it for you.

    Reply With Quote

  6. Collapse Details
    The cx350 is at my budget limit, I am wanting a camera that can shoot outdoor documentaries and also more creative cinema narrative shorts. I did notice that the cx350 has a "cinema filmic look 24frames" Does that really produce a cinema look? Any examples out there. A good rep at BnH is making me thing more about the Blk Mag 4 or 6K

    Reply With Quote

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Long Island
    Based on what some think is cinematic and others don't, there's no simple answer.

    In general, 24fps is the sweet spot for motion cadence and a "dreamier" look, but there's so much more involved.

    However, a Pocket 4K or 6K - even with the most rudimentary experience or in unfavorable conditions - will most likely always look more "cinematic" than the CX350, but the 350 would be the better documentary camera for most people.

    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts