DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
- Thread starter Walter_Graff
- Start date
BLUESPIDER
DVXuser Ninja
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
hmm, they all looked pretty nice. Now it all depends on who's DP. That's what makes the diffrence.
hmm, they all looked pretty nice. Now it all depends on who's DP. That's what makes the diffrence.
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
Best comment of the day! That is what I also tell folks each day, it's not what you shoot but how you shoot.
Best comment of the day! That is what I also tell folks each day, it's not what you shoot but how you shoot.
Thistlebop
Well-known member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
I think the comparison is crap. Because basically he didn't use the same shot in each of his comparisons. All he had to do is keep the tripod in one position and pick a zoom point for the Top Left corner/Bottom Right corner and zoom to those points for each camera. But you can tell he didn't even mount the camera on a tripod, or if he did, then why move the tripod around?
--Bop
I think the comparison is crap. Because basically he didn't use the same shot in each of his comparisons. All he had to do is keep the tripod in one position and pick a zoom point for the Top Left corner/Bottom Right corner and zoom to those points for each camera. But you can tell he didn't even mount the camera on a tripod, or if he did, then why move the tripod around?
--Bop
BLUESPIDER
DVXuser Ninja
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
Does this apply to the Porn industry?
Does this apply to the Porn industry?
Bill_Bolton
Well-known member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
One minor question. What was that thing surrounded by scaffolding? Cheese?
One minor question. What was that thing surrounded by scaffolding? Cheese?
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
[quote author=Thistlebop link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#3 date=11/15/04 at 16:51:19]I think the comparison is crap. Because basically he didn't use the same shot in each of his comparisons. All he had to do is keep the tripod in one position and pick a zoom point for the Top Left corner/Bottom Right corner and zoom to those points for each camera. But you can tell he didn't even mount the camera on a tripod, or if he did, then why move the tripod around?
--Bop
[/quote]
As the web page states, this impromptu test was done in a store. All the cameras are bolted down on tripods so to move them to the same spot was impossible. If this was a real test I would have had the same light conditions, extensive charts and a waveform to measure various parameters, and would have shot all of the cameras in various interior and exterior settings to put the cameras through hoops. I did do some other more revealing tests from their perches but it took me two hours to do what I did with the web page as it is and I had other things to do.
Color has little to do with the perception of horizontal resolution and hence why it was turned off for the first part of the demo. In the second part, I only turn it on again because everyone has this need to see color to feel satisfied, but the problem is that with any of these cameras I could tweak them all to show colors the same way if I needed to so color should not be a factor in determination of quality although out of the box some cameras lean in the color spectrum one way over others.
The purpose of this test is to show that any camera in the same price range is too similar to really be different out of the box. And that is why such a test is great, because I did not have the ability at doing anything but resetting the cameras to a somewhat normal common setting and showing them. That is what most people have going for them when they buy these things so was simply trying to make a test based on the single parameter folks have when they walk into a store. I have used these cameras in the field (other than the FX1). I think they are all good. In fact other than features and ergonomics, I can make great pictures with them all.
We live in a culture that advertises brand over need. So when all of these products come out, folks start to associate the word better with a brand. It's the old Mac vs Apple debate. In creating this cult following, we start to add the word 'better' but we do so without any real objective reference, put rather subjective preference. So when Panasonic came out with their DVX100, I kept hearing the word better. But perhaps folks confused the 24p feature with better. Is it a better camera? For the same price point it can not be. Laws of manufacturing say that is true. All of these companies have price points. And those price points are mathematical equations based on the cost of development, production, manufacturing and a calculated profit margin. Effectively they all make a similar products and have similar price points so logic says they can not be very different as they all buy a license for the right to the technology and that license basically means they create the same innards since the parameters of the format are defined. Of course one may sample higher bit rates in their digital signal processor, and another may buy a 24p license, but effectively it's really all the same piece of equipment with slightly different features and a different brand name on it but that is more about loyalty than quality. As I see it the differences are only subjective and mostly end up being about trust in a brand or a like or dislike of a feature.
If anyone sees any real difference in the four 1/3 inch cameras in the black and white pictures, then they are seeing something I and many others do not. But that is okay too because as I said, it is subjective. There is no wrong or right as a result, only taste, just like wine.
As I stated, this should not be looked at as a definitive test, but rather as a one-dimensional picture sample for those that could not go to a store and see such a comparison.
[quote author=Thistlebop link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#3 date=11/15/04 at 16:51:19]I think the comparison is crap. Because basically he didn't use the same shot in each of his comparisons. All he had to do is keep the tripod in one position and pick a zoom point for the Top Left corner/Bottom Right corner and zoom to those points for each camera. But you can tell he didn't even mount the camera on a tripod, or if he did, then why move the tripod around?
--Bop
[/quote]
As the web page states, this impromptu test was done in a store. All the cameras are bolted down on tripods so to move them to the same spot was impossible. If this was a real test I would have had the same light conditions, extensive charts and a waveform to measure various parameters, and would have shot all of the cameras in various interior and exterior settings to put the cameras through hoops. I did do some other more revealing tests from their perches but it took me two hours to do what I did with the web page as it is and I had other things to do.
Color has little to do with the perception of horizontal resolution and hence why it was turned off for the first part of the demo. In the second part, I only turn it on again because everyone has this need to see color to feel satisfied, but the problem is that with any of these cameras I could tweak them all to show colors the same way if I needed to so color should not be a factor in determination of quality although out of the box some cameras lean in the color spectrum one way over others.
The purpose of this test is to show that any camera in the same price range is too similar to really be different out of the box. And that is why such a test is great, because I did not have the ability at doing anything but resetting the cameras to a somewhat normal common setting and showing them. That is what most people have going for them when they buy these things so was simply trying to make a test based on the single parameter folks have when they walk into a store. I have used these cameras in the field (other than the FX1). I think they are all good. In fact other than features and ergonomics, I can make great pictures with them all.
We live in a culture that advertises brand over need. So when all of these products come out, folks start to associate the word better with a brand. It's the old Mac vs Apple debate. In creating this cult following, we start to add the word 'better' but we do so without any real objective reference, put rather subjective preference. So when Panasonic came out with their DVX100, I kept hearing the word better. But perhaps folks confused the 24p feature with better. Is it a better camera? For the same price point it can not be. Laws of manufacturing say that is true. All of these companies have price points. And those price points are mathematical equations based on the cost of development, production, manufacturing and a calculated profit margin. Effectively they all make a similar products and have similar price points so logic says they can not be very different as they all buy a license for the right to the technology and that license basically means they create the same innards since the parameters of the format are defined. Of course one may sample higher bit rates in their digital signal processor, and another may buy a 24p license, but effectively it's really all the same piece of equipment with slightly different features and a different brand name on it but that is more about loyalty than quality. As I see it the differences are only subjective and mostly end up being about trust in a brand or a like or dislike of a feature.
If anyone sees any real difference in the four 1/3 inch cameras in the black and white pictures, then they are seeing something I and many others do not. But that is okay too because as I said, it is subjective. There is no wrong or right as a result, only taste, just like wine.
As I stated, this should not be looked at as a definitive test, but rather as a one-dimensional picture sample for those that could not go to a store and see such a comparison.
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#7 date=11/16/04 at 05:29:47]Apple versus Mac debate? Are we still arguing the IIgs versus the Mac? Can't we settle this once and for all?
[/quote]
Sure both computers effectively do the same thing. Personal preference and features determine what you like. After many years of using a PC, I switched to Mac because I realized I liked the way it worked better. That does not mean it is better, because others will tell me they prefer PCs. It's all about taste.
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#7 date=11/16/04 at 05:29:47]Apple versus Mac debate? Are we still arguing the IIgs versus the Mac? Can't we settle this once and for all?
[/quote]Sure both computers effectively do the same thing. Personal preference and features determine what you like. After many years of using a PC, I switched to Mac because I realized I liked the way it worked better. That does not mean it is better, because others will tell me they prefer PCs. It's all about taste.
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#9 date=11/16/04 at 05:44:55]Sorry Walter, I was poking fun at you because your otherwise wonderful post above included the phrase "apple vs. Mac debate" when I expect you intended to write "apple vs. PC debate"
[/quote]
Opps! My stupidity shows once again.
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#9 date=11/16/04 at 05:44:55]Sorry Walter, I was poking fun at you because your otherwise wonderful post above included the phrase "apple vs. Mac debate" when I expect you intended to write "apple vs. PC debate"
[/quote]Opps! My stupidity shows once again.
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
Thanks for the comparison, Walter. Very interesting.
The more footage I see coming out of the DVX, the more I love this camera.
Thanks for the comparison, Walter. Very interesting.
The more footage I see coming out of the DVX, the more I love this camera.
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
[quote author=HorseFilms link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#11 date=11/16/04 at 10:24:27]Thanks for the comparison, Walter. Very interesting.
The more footage I see coming out of the DVX, the more I love this camera.[/quote]
I agree and that is why I own one. I like that it has what I consider the best color rendition of them all. I like the feel of the camera in my hands too. I would probably do a few menu changes but overall, a great buy.
[quote author=HorseFilms link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=0#11 date=11/16/04 at 10:24:27]Thanks for the comparison, Walter. Very interesting.
The more footage I see coming out of the DVX, the more I love this camera.[/quote]
I agree and that is why I own one. I like that it has what I consider the best color rendition of them all. I like the feel of the camera in my hands too. I would probably do a few menu changes but overall, a great buy.
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
This comparison is insignificant at best. We all know the current crop of 1/3 cams can stand up very well agains 2/3" shoulder cams(heck, we've known that since the VX1000). Furthermore, you can't make ANY sort of judgement from these vastly different field of views. If not provided a controlled environment, why was this comparison done in the first place? I know you said this is an "impromptu" review but really, those two words should be oxymorons. Take a hint from Jarred's XL2 vs DVX comparision. It is still a work in progress and that's the way one should do a comparison. It's all or nothing IMHO.
This comparison is insignificant at best. We all know the current crop of 1/3 cams can stand up very well agains 2/3" shoulder cams(heck, we've known that since the VX1000). Furthermore, you can't make ANY sort of judgement from these vastly different field of views. If not provided a controlled environment, why was this comparison done in the first place? I know you said this is an "impromptu" review but really, those two words should be oxymorons. Take a hint from Jarred's XL2 vs DVX comparision. It is still a work in progress and that's the way one should do a comparison. It's all or nothing IMHO.
taubkin
Veteran
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
I think it's interesting if you can see through the comparisson's limitations, and I guess the only point he makes about the comparisson (Other than the DRS570 is better than all other cams - wich is obviously true, at least if you ever used a DRS-570), is that all those cameras are somewhat the same. And that is pretty much obvious too. Of course the DVX is better than a PD-170, but because of its features, not because of inherent quality, and fatures are cool but they do not put the DVX in the DSR 570 range. Now, let's not cheat ourselves.
If a DVX should be done like the 570, with 2/3" CCDs, professonal circuitry , and the panasonic DVX and SDX 900 features, that woud be MUCH better than the 570, but truly, I don't think anyone should invest such a load in a DV camera in that price range. I already think the Canon is overspending in the end of the DV chain.
I think it's interesting if you can see through the comparisson's limitations, and I guess the only point he makes about the comparisson (Other than the DRS570 is better than all other cams - wich is obviously true, at least if you ever used a DRS-570), is that all those cameras are somewhat the same. And that is pretty much obvious too. Of course the DVX is better than a PD-170, but because of its features, not because of inherent quality, and fatures are cool but they do not put the DVX in the DSR 570 range. Now, let's not cheat ourselves.
If a DVX should be done like the 570, with 2/3" CCDs, professonal circuitry , and the panasonic DVX and SDX 900 features, that woud be MUCH better than the 570, but truly, I don't think anyone should invest such a load in a DV camera in that price range. I already think the Canon is overspending in the end of the DV chain.
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
"why was this comparison done in the first place? "
Because I shoot with these cameras every week and I can tell you from many hundreds of hours of shooting that none is better than the other. All can be made to look just like any other when white balanced and adjusted properly. Over and over we here the same question "which is better". The answer is none. The answer should be it depends on what features you are looking for as no camera in the same price range will look significantly different than any other so that should not be the primary criteria. As I said on the page, you could set these cameras up side by side but all you'd get is a better reference for the same result, the perceived resolution of these cameras (the black and white portion of the demo) shows they are all in the same range. I spoke to someone from Canon the other night and said realistically, is your camera any better than any other camera that costs around the same and his answer was very simply "no, it's about what features you want in a camera."
While it is not a perfect test, it certainly reveals a lot and hopefully helps folks who want to know the skinny on differences out of the box.
"why was this comparison done in the first place? "
Because I shoot with these cameras every week and I can tell you from many hundreds of hours of shooting that none is better than the other. All can be made to look just like any other when white balanced and adjusted properly. Over and over we here the same question "which is better". The answer is none. The answer should be it depends on what features you are looking for as no camera in the same price range will look significantly different than any other so that should not be the primary criteria. As I said on the page, you could set these cameras up side by side but all you'd get is a better reference for the same result, the perceived resolution of these cameras (the black and white portion of the demo) shows they are all in the same range. I spoke to someone from Canon the other night and said realistically, is your camera any better than any other camera that costs around the same and his answer was very simply "no, it's about what features you want in a camera."
While it is not a perfect test, it certainly reveals a lot and hopefully helps folks who want to know the skinny on differences out of the box.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
I'm curious as to why you used 60i with the DVX and XL2. I was under the impression that progressive CCDs capture more detail in progressive mode than in interlaced mode. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for the comparison!
I'm curious as to why you used 60i with the DVX and XL2. I was under the impression that progressive CCDs capture more detail in progressive mode than in interlaced mode. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for the comparison!
astroanalyst
Well-known member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
Walter,
I went to your website and you are obviously shooting the 'real stuff'... What camera do you use to shoot those inverviews for network or cable tv...? Your are comparing all of these cameras at this price point but would you ever use these cameras for doing pro work?
I already have a dvx but can it deliver an image that you would be happy with on network television?
-astro
Walter,
I went to your website and you are obviously shooting the 'real stuff'... What camera do you use to shoot those inverviews for network or cable tv...? Your are comparing all of these cameras at this price point but would you ever use these cameras for doing pro work?
I already have a dvx but can it deliver an image that you would be happy with on network television?
-astro
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Re: DVX100, PD170, FX1, XL2, DSR570-side-by-side
[quote author=jrv3034 link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=15#17 date=11/19/04 at 12:50:59]I'm curious as to why you used 60i with the DVX and XL2. I was under the impression that progressive CCDs capture more detail in progressive mode than in interlaced mode. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for the comparison![/quote]
I don't want to shoot progressive with one and interlace with another, so I went for a standard.
[quote author=jrv3034 link=board=news;num=1100523512;start=15#17 date=11/19/04 at 12:50:59]I'm curious as to why you used 60i with the DVX and XL2. I was under the impression that progressive CCDs capture more detail in progressive mode than in interlaced mode. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for the comparison![/quote]
I don't want to shoot progressive with one and interlace with another, so I went for a standard.