Strictly academic! I have little real-world experience with any of these
cameras but intend to aquire a camera of this class over the next few
months.
A lot of my opinions have been shaped by input from folks around here.
Again, I'm strongly biased by a camera's low light performance and so far,
all I've seen points to the PD150 series (VX2000, PD170, VX2100) being the
best in the "sub-$5000" class for low-light.
A point to consider: "work grows to fill available resources."
Maybe you have a shoot where you want to depict someone racing down the
highway in their car. With a camera that does well in low light, you might
get a shot of the drivers foot pushing down on the accelerator pedal. It's
rather dark down there so this is a shot you might *not even consider* if
your camera weren't capable.
From what I read, the other cameras you mentioned perform similarly under
good lighting.
They MAY even be easier to use, better ergonically etc - I don't know. My
only concern is the final picture quality.
As I've said in this forum before, I'm also influenced by a still
photography background where I shoot fast lenses and film with the mindset
"if I can see it, I can shoot it." I want to approach that kind of freedom
in a motion-picture camera without ridiculously grainy images.
Hope this helps a bit!
C.
"nap" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:TRp2e.6842$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>I was just curious about your observations
>
> best
> n
>
> . "C.J.Patten" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:tYmdnSfjts01TdTfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Please forgive me - a lot of that is my "low light" bias - if it doesn't
>> shoot well in low light, it's no good to me.
>>
>> http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/owner.php
>> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camc...comparison.htm
>>
>> I didn't see any mention of the PD-150/170 (or VX' equivalents) but I do
>> think it would be wise to consider those as alternatives to the XL's and
>> DVX's where picture quality is the ultimate goal.
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>>
>> "nap" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:07k2e.16712$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>
>>> "C.J.Patten" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:XLmdnUGM6vE9V9TfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
>>>>VX-2000/2100?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
>>>>
>>>> C.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Henry Padilla" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4yf2e.12309$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
>>>>>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
>>>>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to
>>>>> highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
>>>>> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Help me out here please.
>>>>> Thanks for the input.
>>>>> Tom P.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
