dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Hello.

i have been anxiously awaiting the dvx-100a, i had chosen that over the pd-170 and my only concern is that people keep telling me that the pd-170 has way better low light capabilities.

can someone please comment on this? about half of what i will be doing will be documentary type stuff and shooting some performances of a friend that are in fairly low light

the other half of the stuff will be controlled lighting in shorts.

thanks

matthew
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

The Sony cameras have pretty good low light, but the DVX set to 60i with gain can get pretty close. I guess it all depends what "low light" means to you.

regardless, you might be able to get a little darker with PD-170.. but for the rest of the time, your gonna have progressive scanning 24p images that look fantastic that the Sony cant even come close too.
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

A friend of mine shot a scene in his movie(with the DVX 100 -in 24p Standard)that was basically three girls sitting in a bedroom talking around the light of a single candle.While you couldn't exactly make out the faces clearly,there was no excessive grain either,if *any*,in the shot.The contrast and color was extremely good IMHO and is not a bad choice to go with for XL filmmaking.
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

without a doubt, the pd series is better in low light. i have done extensive research and field analysis and sony is better for low light shooting. the reason? because sony's colors are more robust and pop out at you. for the average joe viewer, they seem to prefer "in your face" type of images. crisp, clear, bold.. for the artist who is into cinematography, they prefer softer images that are more subtle. sony cameras in general produce a hard, bright image that is suited for event videographers because they are looking for clarity in low light situations like churches, low lit ball rooms, etc. panasonic tried to have their cake and eat it too. they created the agdvx100 for indie filmmakers. the shadows are softer around the edges and the image is actually more "real" to what the eye sees. i have used a vectorscope and pro monitor to analyze the image and reality(what the eye actually sees) matches the panasonic image. softer in general. the agdvx100 is great for control of image and lighting. it is a prostyle camera. not meant for run and gun documentary style shooting. if you want that, get the pd170.
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

thanks for the link--the most interesting part is the DVX diehards trying desperately to discredit the testing because they don't want to accept the fact that their camera can't do everything the best.

it's a constant amazement to me how much people coddle this g-ddamn camera. it's not like they paid thirty grand for it and have to prove it's worth to their customers. it's a friggin' three thousand dollar prosumer camera that works great for some things & bites the big one in other areas.

people just need to accept the fact that if you're shooting in low light conditions, maybe the dvx isn't your best choice. stop kissing the dvx's arse & welcome to reality.
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

hey milkprod nice to see a positive post from you :)

The Sony cameras indeed have been renound for low light, and the newer ones perform even better, the vx2100 better than the vx2000 and the pd170 better then the pd150.

The DVX100 as mentioned is more aimed for filmaking, where you have a complete control of lighting. There is a reason that journalists still use the sony cameras in the field.
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

Exactly. It has always mystifed the non-stop debating regarding the low lighting issues of the DVX100. I approach lighting from the filmaking standpoint of having total control. Even if it's a night shot, I still want as much light as possible even for the shadows.

Even if the onscreen light source is a candle, I would still use addtional ligthing to create the scene.

Jay, why do you seem so pissed off at people who use the DVX? LOL
 
Re: dvx-100 (a?) low light capabilities

John, John, John.... :)

Not pissed off by any means.  I use one myself!  Self-loathing?

I just feel, and I'm sure you'll admit, that some people on this site go to some pretty far lengths to make this camera seem like it's perfect for every application.  I just want to let people know, before they go out and spend $3000 on a camera (which, for a lot of people, is a lot of money) that they should know the DVX's faults as well as its blessings.

Although people's complaints about low-light capabilities, stuttering pans and other issues keep us busy & thinking,  a lot of the repetition could be avoided by letting people know these issues ahead of time instead of pumping them up for perfection, having them buy the camera, and then come whining.

Also, I think there ought to be a section of this forum (maybe I could moderate?) for people who use the DVX for work other than narratives and music videos.  A HUGE number of DVX users (and potential users) are people shooting documentaries, experimental and avant-garde cinema, wedding videos, etc. where "total control" is often neither a physical or philosophical option.   These areas have needs that narrative filmmaking might not necessarily have (i.e. shooting in available light or strange artifical lighting, extreme environmental conditions, and non-typical color/shutter/etc. settings).  I make a living doing corporate video & spend the "free" part of my life making experimental films for screenings and exhibitions, so I realize the areas that my experiences with the DVX might not fit in with others.

That said, I think this is a wonderful, versatile camera (it has to be to bring this many people together for daily debate).  And I have nothing against any of you, my bretheren!  We're all camera soulmates!  Let's just learn to appreciate each other's differences and we'll be in Panny-Utopia. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top