AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

S

savethestars

Active member
Hi everyone, I understand that this is a DVX100 group but I would like to tap your knowledge of other cameras and ask,

which of these three cameras would you buy and why?

1) Panasonic AG-DVC80
2) Sony PDX10
3) Sony VX2100


I envy those who own a DVX100A, but I must admit that at this time I just cannot afford it.

I do need a new 3CCD camera for documentaries and a TV show and short movies, however, and will buy one of the above.

I know that you will be inclined to suggest the AG-DVC80, because it's similar to your beloved DVX100A, but if you recommend it, can you tell me why it is superior to the other cameras?

And lastly, besides 24p, what is the difference between the DVX100A and the AG-DVC80? Do they recommend using MQ tapes for the AG-DVC80?
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

Well, I'd buy those cameras for different reasons. If you need the highest-quality 16:9 at the lowest cost, the PDX10. If you don't care that much about sound, but you want the shallowest DOF you can get, the VX2100. If you need the longest lens you can get, the VX2100 might win the nod.

If sound and image quality are important, but 16:9 and maximum telephoto aren't, then the DVC80 is the far superior choice.
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

Barry,

Another DVC80 question. While visiting my girlfriend (a complete technophobe - she likes stuff with an on/off switch and works flawlessly without any user intervention. . .) I showed her some recent footage shot with my DVX100A. After seeing the image quality, she immediatly said "I want one, I don't care what it costs" (this is to shoot her grandchildren.) I told her this wasn't exactly a 'user friendly, auto pilot' type camera. Would the DVC80 be a better choice since 16x9 & progressive are not important to her, and quite a bit cheaper?

Gosh, she went from indifferent & even scornful of my spending $3400 for a camera to 'Gotta have, don't care about the cost'. May have created a monster. . .
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

When she saw the footage, I'm sure she fell in love with the "film look". If shes got the money, let her get the 100A. Who knows when you have a Wedding shoot or something and that second camera is sitting there looking pretty next to her Justim Timberlake pillow. ;)
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

As PurposeDriven said, the difference must have been the film look of the 100 vs. the video look of every other camera (including the DVC80). Why else would she have had such a reaction?

The 100 and the 80 are, operationally, nearly identical. You won't be getting an "easier to use" camera with the 80, other than that there are a few less options to explore.

Sounds like you need a 100, my friend! ;D

Might look into used ones, should be around the same price as a new 80...
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

She does have the money. It's gonna be nice to have access to another 100A!
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

It seems to me that buying the DVC80, when what you really want is the DVX, is *never* a good choice, even if it takes you several more months to get the DVX. Settling is bad. Settling AND dropping $2200 is worse.
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

Exactly! Why spend $2200 and not get what you want? (for that matter, why spend anything and not get what you want?) You'll always resent it, always think "if only I'd waited a month or two" or whatever...
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

You are preaching to the choir on the 'why settle' issue ;D. Read my post again & you'll see it never was a 'settling' issue. My thought & question was if the 'technophobe grandmother' could use the 80 easier, why get the heavier (an issue for her) , more complex , and more expensive camera? If it's the 24p and cine-gamma that had her fall in love with the footage, she has no problem getting the 100A.
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

When she saw the footage, she commented on the colors, (rich), the 'softness' of the lighting rather than the harsh contrast so often seen in available light 'snapshots' with consumer video cameras, and the way people looked 'flattered' (shooting with skin detail on). I'm sure the 24p was a big part of the 'feel' of the footage, but so many of the other quality features are what she commented on. The more I think about it, it seems the overal package is the value (from her perspective.) And she'll learn what she needs to make it work for her.

I'll have to get her a vest, (she'll want to know what color. . .) lights, beret.
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

I'm afraid she's about figured out she has me 'on staff'. "Honey, when you come over, be sure to bring the camera, mics, lights, stands, etc. . . "
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

Explain to her it's not the camera that matters, she just happened to saw sophisticated image shot by an experienced and talented videographer with a state-of-the-art camera. If she is willing to pay for images like that, she will have to hire a pro. I mean, a DVX is a lot easier to mess around with than a moviecam, but it's still no toy. This looks like something that will go straight to the closet, and that makes me somewhat sad. Why don't you let her use your camera someday and see if she gets the hang of it (Exp, WB, Sat, Gamma, Progressive, etc...)? Not trying to ruin a good experience, just to save a few bucks (and a DVX, hehehe, supply and demand, people! lol)
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

That's true, actually. If she wants good quality images, she'll have to know about focus, exposure, composition, lighting, etc.- every element that makes up cinematography. If she sucks, her stuff won't look that much better.

Hell, I know a guy who knew a guy that shot with a DVX because he thought that the 24P would make his film look professional. He FORGOT to turn on the 24P mode. His work was ****, too.

Basically, the bottom line is that if you don't know what you're doing, you won't reap all the benefits of the camera, make sure she knows this before shelling out 4 grand
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

That's my concern, that she would invest in the camera and not in the other effort & knowledge required to get good results.

I remember for so many years as a still photographer, people would look at the photos and say 'you must have a really good camera.' I did, but that's only a piece of it.
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

That's one thing that annoys me. I mean, howcome when someone looks at a piece by Picasso, they don't say "wow, his brush must have been really pretty". It's the number one pet peeve of mine when people say "That looks awesome, I wish *I* had your camera".

Then again, the people who matter will know it doesn't matter :D
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

It always happens when new technology appears. When the Macintosh and LaserWriter first hit the market, all of a sudden everyone in the world became a desktop publisher, and there were millions of new businesses offering print & graphic services.

And most of 'em stunk. Lots of fonts, sizes, clipart, etc -- but no design skills.

Another example is DreamWeaver -- next thing you know, everyone and his uncle is "in business" as a website designer.

When the typewriter came out, everyone wrote "the great american novel"... and, by all accounts, not that many of 'em were "great".

I've already gone on my diatribe about unprepared filmmakers, thinking that "DV" removes the only barrier that's been standing between them and cinematic greatness...

I wonder if Monet and Renoir and Van Gogh faced an explosion of "artists" when paintbrushes were first mass-marketed?

Seems like the dream of creating is absolutely overpowering, and has been in every generation.

Obviously, Hemingway would have written just as well with a typewriter, a word processor, or a pencil. It's the artist, not the tool, and it never has been about the tool.
 
Re: AG-DVC80, PDX10, or VX2100???

"Obviously, Hemingway would have written just as well with a typewriter, a word processor, or a pencil. It's the artist, not the tool, and it never has been about the tool."

Y'know what? I've been thinking about this, and I think I want to clarify (or, as some may say, pontificate):

The tool will definitely change the work of art.

I said Hemingway would write just as well, etc. But, if he wrote with a word processor, I think the end product would probably be quite different than if he'd written with pencil. With pencil, you have *so much time* to think, between sentences, between words, as you're writing... you can pay much more attention to what you're writing, and think things through. Whereas with a word processor, the words can flow so quickly that... well, frankly, there's probably less thinking involved. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen: you could be "channelling your creativity" without letting your brain get in the way, vs. thinking so thoroughly about every word you write (because with pencil, the physical writing is so much more effort!)

Anyway, I got to thinking about it because, I bet that if you took the same filmmaker, the same cast, the same crew, the same sets, the same script, the same EVERYTHING, but in one "alternate universe" you gave him a video camera, and in another "alternate universe" you gave him a 35mm movie camera, and in a third "alternate universe" you gave him a Pixelvision, but ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINED IDENTICAL... I bet you'd get three very different movies.

Which, to me, is fascinating.

But, I guess it doesn't disprove the point at all: a hack will write trash on a typewriter, trash on a word processor, and trash with a pencil. An artist will deliver art with any of those tools -- but the actual work of art will likely be quite dependent on that tool.

Okay, one last bit: one of the most amazing artists I ever had the joy to work with was the late, great Rick Parks (a legend in computer art, especially among Amiga users). He could paint, he could draw, he could sketch, he could use DeluxePaint like nobody's business. Absolutely a master. Well, one day I saw one of his finest works (well, what I would classify as one of his finest, because it stopped me in my tracks, and I was stunned at what I was looking at.) The medium? Etch-a-sketch.

So, it's the artist, not the tool. Access to a tool won't turn a non-artist into an artist, nor will it imbue them with artistic powers. But an artist could create something artistic, regardless of the tool.

Shutting up now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top