DVX100A for 2,500$ Canadian?

N

nbknas

New member
There is a store that rents DVX cameras where I live among other things and they told me that they are selling Used DVX100A cameras for 2,500$ Canadian.

What I'm wondering is it a good price? And as far as used, how many hours is it considered good, bad, horrible? etc.

I am kind of confused between getting XL2, DVX100 and HD-FX1.. i read the article on this site and they said DVX100 is the best for filmmakers. But the HD seems very intriguing. I always end up confused cause every one says something different lol
 
Hey nbknas. The article about all three cams is good info, but when its time to get down to the brass for you, you have to decide what you want to use it for.

Xl2 vs. DVX100 is pretty much no contest (for the most part, of course that is an opinion). The DVX wins out in almost every area, except interchangable lenses.

The FX1 vs DVX is a tough one - its like trying to decide whether to adopt a Unicorn or a Dragon. They both have their interesting qualities.

I would say utilize the forum's search feature for more extensive opinions on the matter (there are tons), but for me, the decision between the DVX and the A1u (sony's teensy CMOS based HDV cam which I think is closer to the price range you're talking about) came down to this: I wanted to shoot for a film look... 24P seemed to be able to get damned close, and didn't think that the A1U or FX1 could pull off the same look with the CineMode they have built in. I liked the HD look but decided I'd rather work in DV for the time being and wait until there was a new technology that would work a little bit better for lower end High Def...

but, again - personal taste. There are tons of clips online available of projects/commercials/films/etc shot on either format with probably either camera... some are very impressive, too. Check it out and I think you'll figure out what you're looking for.
 
thx for the info..

the HDR-FX1 seems very interesting. Although I'm not sure about certain things. Yes the Image is probably amazing, but if I were to make a movie in HD and would want to convert it to 30 for a normal television or 24P in case I want to show it for festivals, wouldn't it look bad? I mean for me, there is no way I would get a HD camera if I am not going to use HD, I am not going to shoot fake 24p with an HD, because I want an opportunity later on to showcase that film in HD whenever I can. And i've heard that the conversion is not good.


Do u know of certain sites that shows trailers or movies and such based on the camera they used?

also, as far as the price I got for the camera, is it good or not?
 
Last edited:
well, for seeing footage from the HDRFX1 - http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=483

you can find tons of DVX footage on here.

That price on a DVX100a may be ok... try comparing it to how much a new 100b costs and how much you see 100a's for on ebay. Also, how many hours of use do those 100a's have on them? That could be a deciding factor.

As I mentioned, if you want HDV, the FX1 or the HVR A1u from sony may be a good option...

haven't done any conversion into other formats (other than dumping down to DVD) with HDV, so not sure what to tell you about that. Sorry. One note: Usually it's best to keep it in the format you shoot it in if you're not sure.
 
since you're interested in filmmaking, you're probably looking for the cadence provided by 24p. the fx1 is a nice camera, especially for the money, but if you're not absolutely dead set on HD, i'd look at a dvx or xl2 for their 24p properties.

as a regular user of both a dvx100a AND an xl2, i take some exception to the general attitude i see on this board that the dvx is clearly superior to the xl2. tho this forum is an excellent resource for dvx users, and am willng to understand some bias as this IS a dvx users forum (just check the url), the amount of misinformaton spread to prospective buyers astounds me. when i hear people say the dvx is CLEARLY better than the xl2, to me, it usually means they've never even held an xl2 in their hands before, or if they have, didn't know how to use it.

it boils down to how you shoot and what you shoot. the dvx is a hand held, fixed lens camera. i like to use it in run-and-gun situations. it's extremely portable, and has beautiful cinegamma properties, which is why most people fall in love with this camera. the xl2, relatively, is a beast. it comes with a massive 20x lens. i'll grab this camera first when it's setup type shooting. it's a shoulder mounted camera, with interchangeable everything. don't like the color viewfinder? swap on the hi-res b&w. want a true wide angle lens without barrel distortion? throw on the 3x wide angle. and the 16x manual lens is the best piece of glass ever made for a "prosumer-class" dv camera. period. it's an extremely flexible and versatile system, but it can get expensive. and if you need 24p, native 16:9 SD, the xl2 is really the only choice. the xl2 blows the dvx away in this regard. if you don't believe me, cut between letterboxed dvx footage and native 16:9 xl2 footage. both the dvx and xl2 have a large amout of professional image and color tuning controls. the xl2's colors are duller out of the box, as it ships with broadcast legal settings, but, again, the image can be manipulated to your taste, even to match a dvx. the 24p on both cameras is visually identical, and cutting between them in 4:3 is great. low light properties on both are nothing to write home about, but the dvx is slightly better in this regard.

i've come to love both these cameras, but they're entirely different classes of camera, on form factor alone. and i would leave it to you to hold both in your hands and see what works for you.
 
What I find interesting is that Canon pays Panasonic a licensing fee for using their technology. I am not saying one camera is better than the other - that is up to the users needs.. I just find it interesting that canon is borrowing technology from panasonic and paying them for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top