panasonic ag-dvx100a or sony dsr-pd170
Posted 29 June 2005 - 08:09 PM
Posted 29 June 2005 - 08:15 PM
All that the PD170 has going for it, in my mind, is apparently a better low-light ability which would make it more useful in documentaries. At least that's what I heard. As I said, interlaced-scan only cameras don't hold much interest to me.
The real question to me is whether the DVX100A or the Canon XL2 is a better choice for narrative work. And I'm not sure on that one. I never cared much for the look of the Canon XL1 image but I haven't seen anything shot by the Canon XL2.
Posted 01 July 2005 - 02:56 AM
Posted 01 July 2005 - 07:52 AM
DVX-100. But really, an XL2 is the better machine. Comparing a PD-170 and an XL-2 assuming you want widescreen progressive results is really a no-brainer; the XL-2 pictures will have more than double the perceived resolution by the time you've stretched, cropped and interpolated the PD-170.
Posted 31 October 2005 - 08:46 AM
matthew david burton
Posted 31 October 2005 - 10:18 AM
When comparing image quality and overall usability, dvx100 forces xl2 to fall.
Sampsa would you care to elaberate on that comment ?
Hi Silent bob !
I'd go with the dvx100 over pd170 any day ! all the reasons have been stated by others.
Forget about the pd170's low light performance as it's not noticably better than any other 1/3 inch ccd camera.
You might try looking for a second hand or ex rental sony DSR 300/370 that uses 1/2 inch ccd chips and will blow all the smaller cams out the water !
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:20 PM
No question in my mind the DVX100a is a better cam than the PD170. The (NTSC version) DVX100a has true progressive recording in addition to interlaced, 24p, 30p and 60i, real SMPTE color bars, better audio, settable timecode in DV mode, larger LCD, and vastly more flexible electronic image control compared to a PD170.
im just looking for people's opinions on which camera would be better to buy.
Note: There's now a slightly updated model, the DVX100B:
All the best,
- Peter DeCrescenzo