Panasonic DVX 100A Vs. Sony PD 170 / VX 2100

[Paul_M]

Hi,

 

Has anyone done a side by side comparison of the Panasonic DVX 100A & the Sony PD 170 / VX 2100 ? I would like to know how they compare, particularly with a view to 1) low light performance & 2) overall image quality (for PAL based production).

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

[Preston Herrick]

The closest comparison I have seen to what you are asking is here:

 

http://www.lafcpug.org/review_dvx_pd150.html

 

It's between the DVX and PD150

[Paul M]

Thanks for that. V. Interesting. Has anyone out there directly compared the two newer models or - can anyone who was invloved in the test referred to offer any insight into how the updated models might affect the results?

 

Also I notice that this teat was performed under fairly ideal conditions. In respect of low light perofmance, has anyone compared the two cameras in less than ideal/non lit situations?

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

[Landon D. Parks]

Is the same David mullen in the forum that DP'ed those tests on that site?

[David Mullen ASC]

I did that test using a few Kinoflos for lighting.

 

When people ask about the low-light performance, then I can only guess they are shooting documentaries, in which case the progressive-scan option of the DVX100A may be less of an issue in which camera you choose.

 

Otherwise, I'm not sure why someone expects a camera to deliver a good image in ridiculously low light levels; if you're serious about making a good-looking narrative movie in DV, you are going to be lighting the scenes (even if with really small lights) and therefore the minor sensitivity differences between the DVX100A and the PD170 is not really a factor. Unless you are doing an entire movie under real candles like "Barry Lyndon" or driving around the city at night like "Collateral".

 

I always get nervous when beginners ask about the low-light ability of a DV camera because it implies they are hoping to get around lighting their movies. If a few Kinoflos and a 100 watt Dedolight is too high a light level for you, then either you are shooting a Dogma movie, you are shooting a documentary, or you are going for some unusual effect using a very low natural source. If you are making more traditional narrative projects with a modicum of lighting, all of these cameras are sensitive enough to be practical.

[Greg Gross]

Thank you Mr. Mullen!

This is the best post I've read on this subject yet. I can't understand all

the fuss about which particular camera. How about so much lux at such

and such f-stop? How about just lighting the subject for the mood or de-

sired look(as much as possible in mini-dv format)gentlemen! I do have

a feeling though in the pit of my stomach that the DVX 100B will be the

camera! When Panasonic comes out with it and I'm pretty sure they will,

I hope its tested at the ASC.

[Paul M]

I did that test using a few Kinoflos for lighting.

 

When people ask about the low-light performance, then I can only guess they are shooting documentaries, in which case the progressive-scan option of the DVX100A may be less of an issue in which camera you choose.

 

Otherwise, I'm not sure why someone expects a camera to deliver a good image in ridiculously low light levels; if you're serious about making a good-looking narrative movie in DV, you are going to be lighting the scenes (even if with really small lights) and therefore the minor sensitivity differences between the DVX100A and the PD170 is not really a factor. Unless you are doing an entire movie under real candles like "Barry Lyndon" or driving around the city at night like "Collateral".

 

I always get nervous when beginners ask about the low-light ability of a DV camera because it implies they are hoping to get around lighting their movies. If a few Kinoflos and a 100 watt Dedolight is too high a light level for you, then either you are shooting a Dogma movie, you are shooting a documentary, or you are going for some unusual effect using a very low natural source. If you are making more traditional narrative projects with a modicum of lighting, all of these cameras are sensitive enough to be practical.

Mr. Mullen, I do not recall mentioning at any point in my posting anything whatsoever about wanting to make traditional narrative movies on DV. The upcoming features upon which I am DPing will be shot on 35mm film which, along with 65mm film, in my book remain the only serious and professional formats upon which to shoot narrative features (bar none).

 

As you might gather, your apparent implication that I am a beginner is fundamentally incorrect. Your assumption that some of the projects about which I am enquiring are documentaries however is correct.

 

"a few Kinoflos and a 100 watt Dedolight" are not "too high a light level for" myself, but they might be for the criminal gangs that I will be filming undercover as part of one documentary. Which brings me back to my original question, which it would be extremely helpful if someone could actually answer....

(although the point may be somewhat moot now, bearing in mind today's announcement by Sony of the HDR-FX1).

 

Incidentally, to suggest that the whole of Barry Lyndon was shot by candelight is a gross exaggeration. Much of the film was illuminated by natural light, apart from the candlit scenes, which were shot by candlelight (using a lens supplied by NASA), not that I presume to lecture people about Kubrik...

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you in particular as a beginner, since I couldn't know that one way or the other -- just that "what is the low-light performance of "X" DV camera?" is probably one of the most common beginner questions out there, which is why I qualified my remarks by suggesting that it is a more legitimate question for a documentarian (as yourself it turns out) or you have special low-light needs. I shouldn't have used the word "you" when I meant to say "one" -- as in, "if some kinoflos and dedolights create too high a light level for one, then they must be making a documentary..." Anyway, you proved my point by saying that you WERE making a documentary. I think I qualified my remarks a couple of times that I was not talking about documentarians.

 

And I never suggested that ALL of "Barry Lyndon" was shot under candlelight -- only the candlelight scenes! Obviously scenes shot in daylight outdoors or indoors or any scenes where no candles are visible were not shot by candlelight. And actually, most day interiors were NOT shot under natural light, but with MaxiBrutes shining through diffusion.

 

My point was that if you have a project like "Barry Lyndon" where you wish to shoot a scene under candlelight illumination, then the ultra low-light sensitivity of the camera becomes a more important concern.

 

Sorry for using your post as a chance to make a point about beginners who over-prioritize the low-light capability of a camera.

[Bob Hayes]

Great tests David. It is amazing how much better the flesh tones (mid Range?) held up on the VX100.

[Greg Gross]

Dear Paul M. ,

I personally cannot conceive purchasing or rating a camera without

actually trying the camera in question out(hands on operating it). All

three cameras you listed are excellent cameras. The DVX-100A has

a little softer lens then the two Sony's(notice the capital "S" that means

I'm a Sony man). I've tried all these cameras out(hands on and some

others) and I have chosen the PD-170 for myself. That does not mean

the other cameras are not good cameras and in fact they are excellent

cameras. As a cinematographer you will use the skills of a photographer.

You cannot deep focus, obtain proper depth of field, expose film,push film

without understanding some or all of those techniques. You can control

depth of field with light,the type of set constructed,f-stop. Low light is not

a problem with these cameras unless you're going to photograph an entire

room with just one candle and then maybe not a problem(assuming room

is small) you could actually move the candle until it performs as a key light

and fill light(two lights in one)by moving candle around your subject until

you achieve desired effect. You can increase gain(db)to 3db for about 1/2 stop,

6db for 1 stop. Usually over 6db will result in noise with these cameras. You

can open up your lens(iris) f-stop-1.4,1.8,2.8,4.0,5.6. I shoot at 1/60,you can

shoot at 1/48. Look up DP-Mr. Roger Deakins ASC. Happy Shooting!

[Greg Gross]

When I first went to school for photography for a full week I shot with

with a cardboard box with a hole in one end. Later I developed more

holes(f-stops)which were made from caps of film containers and held

on the box(camera)with tape. I would go in to the darkroom and put

one piece of 35mm film in the box(to the rear of the box behind the

film cap lens) the edges of the box were then sealed with tape. It was

required by instructor to use this camera for one week. Objective- To

prove that any camera will take a picture and that the photographer can

manipulate the camera to achieve desired exposure,contrast,depth of

field. One of the most important lessons I learned was to move the camera.

I could control light by moving camera and selecting time of day. Of course

this required safe location for camera due to long exposure time. One could

use various f-stops that he or she made. I would go back to the dark room

and develop the piece of film by hand by dipping in dishes with developer,

fixer,wash and then wash negative for decent time. I was not allowed to

print to a photo(at that time in course) I was only allowed to look at the neg-

ative and determine the results(eye of the photographer only)exposure,den-

sity,composition. Then I would write evaluation of negative and submit it to

the instructor. You can determine light via same method, look at scene,look

at light,look at frame in camera,do you need to move camera? "LUX"?

[mandrágora]

I was reading the reviews and i was thinking:

 

If the low- lux performance is not an issue, but instead is obtaining a good professional image.

 

Why hasn´t the canon gl2 been brought out into discussion?

I´ve heard that in terms of photography -or videography- the canon gl2 is better than the sony...

[Shawn Mielke]

GL2 - smaller chips, less image control, not so good side screen. It's a step down from the other two; why bother, unless sudden budget cuts demand it (in which case, consider the Pana DVC30 too).

[mandrágora]

Thank's for the information, Shawn.

I haven't worked with any of these cameras, but i've been investigating different cameras, and there's some things that i just don't understand.

 

Why do you say that the GL2 is a step down in quality -i don't know exactly what elements are to be taken into consideration- I read that the Sony pd170 has 380k in CD pixels, and the GL2 has 410k, this doesn't mean there's more quality in the image?

 

And another thing, what about the zoom. What's good, a higher or a lower zoom? -panasonic 10x- or -canon 20x-.

 

 

I would appreciate your answer.

 

lula.

[mandrágora]

AFTER SOME MORE RESEARCH....

 

ok, i've just found out about the ccd size (1/3 and 1/4). that's important info that i didn't handle.

 

and of course the diameter of the lens.. is also an important factor...

 

now my doubt is: the pd170 better camera than the XL2. I'm in the process of making a purchase and i would really want to buy a camera with a pro-quality. For shorts and documentaries...

I thought that the optics of canon were better...

 

i need some advise.

 

thanks

[Bob Hayes]

When I first went to school for photography for a full week I shot with

with a cardboard box with a hole in one end.

 

What a great class!

[Shawn Mielke]

The lenses on both cameras are fine, or, in other words, neither lens is going to be a deal breaker here. People seem to like the GL2 very much...in plenty of light. It depends on what you're shooting, as always. If what you're shooting is in good light, or in controlled light environments, such as studios, and you have a distinct need for such a long zoom, the Gl2 is a good way to go, as is the Panasonic DVC30, which I would rather have, of the two.

However, if you need to be able to shoot in less than ideal lighting conditions over which you have no or little control (documentaries, weddings), and you want the cam to have good audio connections, and you think that you could really use the more refined manual controls, the PD170 rocks.

 

I wish I could explain pixel count and DV CCDs to you, but I don't entirely understand it myself, other than:

 

The bigger the CCD, the better.

 

More pixels does not necessarily = better DV image, or, more resolution.

 

Pixel count and pixel size affect the CCD's ability to capture light.

 

It seems that there is a generally ideal proportion between CCD size and pixel count.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Shawn

[Joe Black]

I have a chance to get an XL1-S for under 3K with alot of accessories. (Batteries/Tripod/XLR rear mount etc) Has only a few hours of tape run through it.

 

I was looking into a PD170, VX2100, or the DVX100A originally.

 

Should I consider the XL1-S? Or go for the new breeds?

[mandrágora]

Shawn,

Thanks a lot for answering.

 

Its a lot of research to do...

 

And i understood what you said about the bigger CCd the better, i didn´t even know about the size of CCDs

 

And now i know that the GL2 is a step down.

 

Can you tell me something else...

 

The PD 170 is a pro camera... right?

Is it better than the XL2

 

lula.

[David Mullen ASC]

Personally, I'm very much pro "progressive-scan" so the ONLY options for me would be the DVX100A and the XL2. But then, I don't shoot documentaries where a video look is not undesirable.

[mandrágora]

hi david, im kind of confused.

 

if heard that canon optics are just better,

so i don´t understand why people usually recommend sony.

 

(one reason for going with the sony is the one frame shot, characteristic that the canon´s don´t give, and i would use it a lot, for sunsets and changing natural scenes)

 

My question: is there a camera, as good as the PD 170, but CANON. of course equal in price too. (because the XL2 is a little out of my budget) and im a lady and the Xl2 is a little heavy for me.

 

lula.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, Canon made a smaller version of the XL1; maybe they'll do the same with the XL2. Two things occur: first, why are you so set on the Canon? The PD-170 is a great camera in its range and I think the pictures are smoother than Canon's usual.

 

And if an XL1 is too heavy for you, fear the day someone gives you a real camera!

 

Phil

[Guest princigalli]

We've worked with Canon, Sony VX 2000 and Sony PD 150. Frankly I don't understand that with the price tags they carry, they have so many flaws.

 

I won't even get into canon. I don't care how good their lens are, I returned the camera after just a few hours use and testing. The design is original, but other than amusing the film crew it serves no purpose. The image quality, at least for me, was horrible.

 

Sony VX 2000 and PD150: basically the same camera, the PD150 allows to record DVCAM and has better audio controls and connections. But Audio on the Sony is a real mess. On both cameras there is noise. I expect that from $300 cameras, not high end prosumer cameras. It is even a lot worse with the VX 2000. I can't believe they have so many audio problems! Out with this camera!

 

Both VX 2000 and PD150 offer progressive scan mode, but, I'm not kidding, 15FPS NTSC and 12.5 FPS PAL!!! What are you going to do with this footage? You can extract frames, which is nice if you want to have a frame from your film posted on your website, or you can add stroboscopic effect to your movie. Come on, how hard was it to make progressive at full frame rate?

 

Do you think you don't need progressive? That means you are happy with half resolution, advanced compositing nightmare, low quality transfer to film (if you need that), and horrible conversion between PAL and NTSC. I actually dare anyone to take interlaced footage and change from 25 to 30 or viceversa without considerable loss of quality. Or do you think your footage will always stay in your country and never travel?

 

Well, if your film won't ever need to be printed to film or transcoded for overseas you are probabily filming your holidays with family and kids. Then save yourself some money and buy a pocket cam. Otherwise, I would say go with Panasonic, it's a mich better choice. Wim Venders last movie was shot with the Panasonic and shown in theaters. Very amazing. You want to talk about lens? It has Leica, which should be better than Canon or Sony.

 

By the way, why does sony offer Zeiss lens in consumer models and Sony lens in prosumer models?

 

My only doubt is Panasonic or the new HD Sony?

[Alex Ced]

My only doubt is Panasonic or the new HD Sony?--princigalli--

(Well, at last someone speaks against the monster sony--kidding--)

But when you decide what´s better, let us know...

chao...

[eric.quao]

Good day to all of you,

 

I would like to know where I can find the most affordable rental for a mini dv that shoots 24fps? Can you help me with my search. Thanks