SDX900 and the XL2

[Landon D. Parks]

You know, the weird thing is. In just comparing the actual pixels of the two cameras, it seems the XL2 would be better in resolution than the DSX-900. SDX-900 claims 520,000 pixels, Conon XL2 claims 680,000 pixels.

 

Is it true the canon has more pixels than a $26,000.00 camera? Or is it something to do with the way MiniDV records that will cut the 680,000 pixels down real quick? Compared to DVC-pro50.

 

Also the XL2 having a 1/3" CCD and the SDX having a 2/3" CCD. It seems the higher resolution on the XL2 combined with the smalled CCD would produce even better results....But I dont know for sure.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Patrick Neary]

It's video voodoo.

 

And you're talking about two different recording formats as well. And lenses of vastly different quality. And on and on and on!

 

Go shoot with a 900, you'll see why product brochures aren't really a viable way to compare cameras.

[Mark Sasahara]

Yeah, apples and oranges. No offense, but your reasoning is backwards on your last paragraph.

 

The SDX is a far superior camera: the sensor is twice as big, it's recording on a better format: DVCPRO50 is 50Mb/s and 4:2:2 sampling. It's a pro camera, with better glass, there's just no comparison. MiniDV is 25Mb/s and 4:1:1, half the color sampling. MiniDV is an inferior format compared to DVCPRO50, or DVCAM.

 

I love my XL2 but yes, video Voodoo. Effective pixels are 350,000 for 4:3 and 460,000 for 16x9.

 

There's a reason why the SD-X900 is $26K, just for the body. A good zoom will cost you at least another $25K. Like Patrick said, go and shoot the two side by side and you'll see.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yeah, I was going to say - the reason the XL2 looks like it has a huge number of pixels is that it has a sensor designed to cover both 4:3 and 16:9 with "reasonable" results, but they don't all get used at once.

 

Phil