"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof_blank.com> wrote in message news:Ke%dc.5778$wP1.25127@attbi_s54...

> In article <ATSdc.7224$QQ6.6926@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,

> rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu says...

> > "Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof_blank.com> wrote in

> > message news:sQHdc.2193$rg5.9970@attbi_s52...

> > > In article <Rkqdc.74833$4B1.37705@twister.rdc-

> > > kc.rr.com>, bariona@mn.rr.com says...

> > > > Any opinions about the PANASONIC NV-MX3000 .

> > > > I would like to make a short movie with it.

> > > > Compared with the vx2000, or others?

> > > Don't listen to Dave, if it isn't Sony, he has nothing

> > > positive to say.

> > >

> > > The MX3000 is awesome! Few cameras can do what it can

> > > for the price, size etc.

> > > It is better than the vx2000 if you are comparing

> > > final footage show on screen.

> > >

> > > I have used many cameras and own both the PD-150

> > > and vx2000, and the MX3000, and often shoot on a Sony

> > > 390.

> > Opinions may differ, but it is generally agreed that, (as

> > I said in my response to the original poster), quote:

> > "Among 'small' 3-CCD Mini-DV cameras, the Sony

> > VX2000/2100 and Panasonic DVX100a remain the

> > top choices - though this does not mean that others

> > are not suitable for some purposes (though more

> > "allowances" must be made for their limitations)."

> > I guess "Five" did not read this very carefully before

> > responding with the above - or he would have realized

> > that his response was not accurate...;-) As for me, I find

> > the MX3000 picture excessively contrasty for general

> > use compared with the other two I mentioned - and

> > some bright colors have relatively little detail. The

> > low-light shortcomings are also very noticeable

> > compared with the other two (one of which *is* a

> > Panasonic, I guess I must point out to "Five", lest

> > he overlook that fact again...;-).

> > --

> > David Ruether

> Ok, I will ask the question to David Ruther....

> Have you ever actually used an MX3000 in real life?

> I would say no, as you could not come to the

> conclusions you have.

>

> I am serious, if you are an honest guy, I want you to

> answer that question. If I don't hear back from you,

> then I will hold your opinion on this matter as not

> valid. I have used all cameras mentioned and I am

> basing my comments on my useage, not from something I

> read.

Mysteriously, some people get "upset" when anything but

high praise is applied to their "fav" camera (Canon owners

are by far the worst for this, for reasons known to those who

are interested in marketing...;-), but, anyway, here goes: It is

well-known that the MX3000 has very limited low-light range

and that its picture is relatively contrasty (and tends to lose detail

in saturated-color areas), and it is evident that most people don't

recommend it over the VX2000 or DVX100, so what I said is

true (though individual opinions on particular cameras can vary,

as I pointed out). Ordinarily, I *do* compare *directly* myself

*all* cameras I comment on, but I have compared frame-grabs

supplied by others of the MX3000 and cameras I know well,

and the faults I noted hold with all of these, as do the general

comments I made. Those "in the know" in terms of not just

sometimes-"attractive" picture characteristics, but desirable

actual picture quality in terms of what is best for general use,

rarely recommend the MX3000 in the "same breath" as the

VX2000/PD150 or DVX100. Picture "errors" and faults may

often look better in particular applications (or to the "uninitiated";-),

but they will often look worse on average for a wide range of

applications. Ideal is dead-neutral and accurate color, uniform

and maximized resolution, "perfect" tonality (there is no such

thing, but high-contrast is further from ideal than normal contrast),

and relative freedom from the host of other picture defects

that video imaging is subject to is what we seek (along with

good ability to shoot in almost any light level). The MX3000,

while a good small camera and quite usable for many purposes,

is not up with the top two in its class (the same could be said

of the Canon GL2 and the better JVC300, too...). If you like

the MX3000, that is fine - but don't claim it is what it isn't

(except for your particular purposes...;-). And, don't claim

that I said what I didn't, as you did before. While in the past,

Sony had the "lock" on best image quality in small cameras,

I have often pointed out one older good Panasonic, and some

newer Panasonic, JVC, and Canon cameras that are also good.

BTW, this may be interesting, for video picture problems:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm.

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com