Panasonic vs Sony

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

Guest

Guest
Ive been asking on Sony forums aswell, so here I am for the otherside of the story!

My question -

What seperates the DVX100 from Sonys VX2100/VX3000 or the DSR-PD170? What if anything, was your choice to buy the DVX100 over these other models?

Reply info much needed..
;)
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

IMHO, the Panasonic DVX-100 is much more camera for the money. Unless you require a longer zoom or better low-light capability (both of which sometimes come in handy for run-and-gun documentary footage), the Panasonic beats the Sony hands-down in every feature:

Panasonic's manual zoom is a true manual zoom that disengages the zoom servo, allowing you to do crash zooms or slow zooms by hand.

Panasonic's manual focus mode is infinitely superior to the Sony's, allowing for a repeatable focus comparable to pro manual lenses.

Panasonic offers you three different frame rates, 24p, 30p, and 60i (plus 12p, according to info recently posted by Barry Green; you shoot at 24 p with a 1/24th shutter, then speed up the footage 200% in post to replicate a 12fps look), which gives you much more flexibility in shooting style; turn the scene file dial and you can shoot at 24p for a more filmic look and progressive frames, turn it again and you can shoot at 60i for the standard NTSC video look. Add to this Panasonic's numerous gamma curves (four on the original DVX, seven on the DVX-100A), and you have a much wider variety of looks with which to create your imagery.

To summarize, if you have no need of of the 24p mode, then the Sony and Panasonic are closely matched. But the DVX-100 in most ways eclipses the Sony.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

I bought the DVX100 for the superior audio subsystem. The DVX has the cleanest audio of all the 3-chip mini-DV cameras. Sony has a history of mediocre audio in the PD-150 and from what I've read in the PD-170 as well. Though the PD-170 has upgraded audio circuits I've read of some hum problems related to the fold out LCD. Sony's high-end cameras are great, but why reward them for their lazy rewarming of the PD-150?

Having experienced 24p, I will not be purchasing any 60i-only cameras in the future. I like the filmic look and so does everyone else that sees my work. There are those that say filmlook software is comparable, but it's not even close. Software takes forever to render and doesn't look half as good as DVX footage.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

The other posts are excellent and sum up the most important features.

For me it's that the DVX can shoot "video" like the Sony does, or it can shoot "film"-looking footage. No other camera can do that. The DVX does everything the Sony does, but it also offers a whole lot more. It also produces by far the highest resolution of any prosumer camera (when shooting progressive with thin line detail) and, as Barry said, the audio system is much superior to that of any other prosumer camera. And the focus ring and manual zoom features are worth any cost -- they let you use the camera with true manual control instead of absurd servo-motor controls.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

I am glad someone mentioned the audio in the DVX100. Phantom powered XLRs--a dream to work with. This means you can use more expensive, higher quality condenser mics without hauling around additional mixing boards or external mic preamps.

Heck, I've used my camera as strictly a stereo audio recorder for music CD projects for my church. At 48k/16bit the audio is already better than CD, and the quality mic preamps make better use of this resolution than those of any camera I've come across. In fact, I did a project using two systems recently--a Marantz CD recorder and the DVX100. Both got exactly the same feed from a Mackie board. During playback, the DVX's audio was far superior to the CD--so much so that my non-audiophile wife (the conductor of the orchestra and choir on the recording) could easily tell the difference. This comparison was using the same exact signal at the same levels.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

In addition to the above, a couple of things that made my decision:
-Wider lens...32mm as opposed to 40mm equivalent, makes a big difference without having to use an adaptor.
-Peaking control to aid focus...a blessing in lower light or wider angles.
-3 1/2" LCD instead of 2 1/2" on Sony. Again, a big help for these old eyes.
-Ergonomics: The 100a has excellent balance for handholding, the Sony wants to pull your wrist forward. Add the Sony WA adaptor and your fighting the weight of both.
-Manual adjusments: I love not having to drill down into a menu for most settings.

You really do need to shoot a comparison test with both to see which works for your situation.

Ken
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

I know the Sony PDX10 is, however I find it very doubtful that the VX2000 is as well. ON the dvx side of things however, there is more than enough resolution (in thin mode) to produce 16:9 images that will blow away any other camcorder priced at, or below the price of the DVX. I shoot about 90% of my stuff in 16:9 24p (thin) and I find that there are times when I am watching it on a TV that the (thin) resolution still needs to have a slight gausian blurr placed to prevent flickering from higher than tv rezed images. Is there truth to the 2pop statement, sure, the PDX10 is a 1chipper true 16:9, whoopdy doo, it still looks like crap when compared to the DVX (even in squeezed animorphic), as it should being $2000 cheaper.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

[quote author=nahs link=board=Events;num=1084766232;start=0#6 date=05/20/04 at 06:21:17]
If you scroll down to the last post and have a read, the writer posts that the Sony PDX10 and the VX2000 are "true 16:9"

I see Barry_Green, one of our DVX members/legends didnt reply to this post.. I was wondering why?

[/quote]

I got tired of saying the same thing five different ways. Plus the debate over the PDX10 being the only "true" 16:9 camera is patently false, and nearly offensively so. I have explained it maybe 20 times over the course of 2003, and some people just don't want to listen. So I just let it drop.

For the record, if anyone's interested: the PDX10 uses a 4:3 CCD. It uses a megapixel CCD, and it samples a smaller patch of that chip when in "widescreen" mode. (Heck, it samples a smaller patch when in 4:3 mode too, but that's just confusing the issue. :) )

BUT THE PDX10 IS NOT THE ONLY CAMERA TO DO SO. In fact, it wasn't even the first! The title of the first goes to (drum roll, please...) Panasonic. They invented this technology on the MX500 (Europe) and MX5000 (Japan) models, and brought it to the USA in the PV-DV953. After the MX500 had been out a while, Sony introduced the PDX10 and spelled out what they were doing in their brochure, whereas Panasonic (as far as I know) never even bragged about what they had accomplished. So everyone thinks Sony was first. But they weren't.

The situation is very reminiscent of the "frame mode" debacle: Canon gets all the press about it, but Panasonic invented it and had it on the market almost a year sooner than Canon did. In fact, the only reason Canon's XL1 has "frame mode" is because it uses Panasonic CCD's. Dig up an old 1996-vintage AG-EZ1, search through the menus, and you'll find "frame mode". The XL1 didn't come out until 1997.

So: yes the PDX10 delivers full resolution (360 lines) in 16:9 mode. No it's not the only camera to do that. There's probably at least a dozen cameras that do, by now. No the PDX10 doesn't have a 16:9-shaped CCD. And hell no, the VX2100 doesn't do it that way.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

Yeah.. that sony 16x9 thing is one of those things users of that camera hold onto. Its kinda funny because I own the Still version of the DVX, a digital camera made by Panasonic called the DMC-FZ10K. It has the Leica lens, 72mm threads and a similar optical stabilize system. IT however, does the same thing as Sony does. It has 4:3 chips but in 16x9 mode it just basically chops off the top and bottom of a HD resolution image. Since it has more then enough pixels there, it doesnt need to stretch or pull to make it the right size.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

Back on this issue again ...

Does the VX2100 (PAL) shoot in 25 frames a second?

I heard the VX2100E (PAL) does???

E being European model.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

Yes, all PAL cameras shoot 25frames per second, however, those are interlaced frames, (realy 50i) not progressive. The only progressive scan camera that can shoot 25P fps is the dvx100, at least in this price range.
 
Re: Panasonic vs Sony

Yeah, it gets confusing. I wish people would just banish the concept of "frames" from any discussion of interlaced TV.

If you define a frame as ... well, as like a frame of film, then no, no PAL system works at 25 frames a second. PAL runs at 50 fields a second. The VX2100 and VX2000 shoot interlaced PAL video at 50 fields per second.

They can also shoot progressive-scan FRAMES (true frames) at 12.5 frames per second. But they cannot deliver 25 frames per second.

Unfortunately, we are saddled with a legacy of calling a pair of fields a "frame" (even though it frequently bears no resemblance to what we think of as a real frame). So you'll hear confusing terminology such as "PAL is 25 frames per second" or "NTSC is 29.97 (or 30) frames per second", but those are really misnomers: it's more descriptive to say that PAL is 50 fields per second and that NTSC is 59.94 fields per second.

So, to sum it up:
PAL VX2000 (and VX2100) shoot at 12.5 frames per second and 50 fields per second.

PAL DVX100 shoots at 25 frames per second and 50 fields per second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top