Negative Review of DVX100, How True is it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Re: Negative Review of DVX100, How True is it?

[quote author=magicdavek link=board=nws;num=1081922116;start=0#21 date=04/14/04 at 19:32:16]

Incidentally, Videomaker Magazine has taken a rather blah attitude about the DVX100, even preferring the DVC80 because it is cheaper and all the quality of the DVX100 without the extra price and that extra "hokey" film-look stuff! (I'm paraphrasing). But Videomaker caters to the crowd ranging from the hobbiest to the event videographer - no attention paid to indie filmmakers, so "film-look" has no place. I respect what Videomaker does, and am a longtime subscriber. I'll admit I was initially shocked by their opinion of the DVX100 relative to the DVC80 (which won their camcorder of the year last year). But I understand that their opinion matches their targeted audience, i.e., video look, not film look.[/quote]

Well, that's a little unfair. The DVX took same prize as the DVC80 the year before. And they raved and raved about the DVX in their review. True, they did run an article which took a fairly blase' attitude toward 24p, but to say that they think "film look" has no place is untoward.
 
Re: Negative Review of DVX100, How True is it?

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=nws;num=1081922116;start=0#22 date=04/14/04 at 19:41:15]

. . .  to say that they think "film look" has no place is untoward.
[/quote]

I'm going on memory but I remember that lack of interest in the film look appeared in the article in which they described the DVC80 winning the award. If my memory serves me (and it often doesn't) the original review of the DVX (which I read twice, but both times long ago) was very positive for it's video guality, manual control, etc., etc., but at best a wait and see attitude about the benefit of the 24p. I say this because I had been looking for a three chip camera in this general price range, and when I first saw the DVX100, I got excited about the 24p possibilities, UNTIL I read the Videomaker review, after which time I had the impression that it was a "first attempt" at such a feature, but nothing to get too excited about. My point is that the Videomaker review dampened my enthusiasm which was only later rekindled by seeing clips posted in the DVX100 group on camcorderinfo.com, and a poster there mentioned dvxuser.com, which solidified my resolve to get the camera (I now have one on order at EVS). Hence, my comments above. I was not being critical of Videomaker, just saying that the film look may not have been considered by its editors as a particularly important feature. Oddly, there is a recent article about how to make your miniDv look more like film, which suggests that maybe they are realizing there is an interest out there. That article was not particularly helpful, one suggestion was put a nylon stocking over the lens. In fact, I learned about "film look" software from Macintosh magazines, and scarely remember if Videomaker has ever done an article on that (believe me, I had been waiting for it). Also there was a very brief article on the concept of 24p, but that's about it. Do you remember any announcements, articles, comparisons of software like Magic Bullet, DV Filmmaker, or CineLook in Videomaker? The film-look concept just isn't big for them right now. But I think it's changing.
 
Re: Negative Review of DVX100, How True is it?

For what it's worth, I own a couple of VX2000's, used to own GL1, use a PD150 regularly, own a DVC200 and DVX100A.   This review is just plain idiotic.  The Sony does work a bit better, straight out of the box in auto mode.  But geez, who in their right mind buys a DVX100A to shoot in full auto?  If you do, then you're not seeing the real power of this camera.  The Sony's (in my practical experience) are easier in a run in gun situation such as ENG work or wedding receptions.  But given just minimal experience with manual setup, the DVX produces better images.  BTW:  Something that fails to get mentioned all the time is how well the DVX looks at slower shutter speeds (significant low light improvement).  The Sony's lose resolution below 60 and blurs badly.  I shot a very dimly lit dance performance the other day in 24PA with 1/24th shutter.  The combination of slower shutter and progressive scan gave a very nice feel to the show.  The very first thing that came out of the customer's mouth was, "Wow, it looks so different than what we normally get, it looks like a movie!".  BTW:  1/24 shutter did not look unnatural or blur like you might think without trying it.  I just shot like I would with a film camera, stationary with slow pans and zooms, while allowing the action to move in front of the camera at whatever pace it happened to be.  No wild camera movements.  Came out nice.

Anyway, my 2 cents after using many of these cameras:  Ask yourself what your goal is for the camera.  If it's strictly weddings or sporting events, then the Sony is going to be a great camera for you.  If it's "filmmaking", documentary, corporate, etc.  I think the DVX is a better fit.  Don't get me wrong, it does a fine job with weddings as well...I just think that someone that will be running around in AUTO mode much of the time, might benefit from the Sony, + the slightly longer lens helps when shooting ceremonies at a distance.

These cameras are just geared for different types of users.  Both do a nice job depending on your application.  I find the DVX a more flexible camera that can function in a multitude of situations.  The Sony will work great, but give you one look and feel.  That may be enough for you.  Hard to say.

BTW:  I'll stop rambling too.  That darn review talks about saturation of the Sony.  Did they bother to tweak the camera at all???  Saturation is a very easy setting to modify.  Personally, I think oversaturated pictures scream video.  But that's me.

Oh, and Videomaker reviews many times make me feel better about my knowledge of this business.  It really is a magazine geared towards the novice and many of their reviews show it.

Sorry for the ramble.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media
 
Re: Negative Review of DVX100, How True is it?

Thanks Andrew. It is very helpful to hear from people that use a variety of cameras on a regular basis. I appreciate the "rambling."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top