On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:44:23 -0000, "Simon Page"
<x@x.com> wrote:
>I was going to buy a DSR-250. No questions, that was
what I was heading for.
>Then I got to try out the Panasonic DVC200 and the
JVC5000 and my ideas
>started to change! Now I am SO GLAD I didn't go for the
Sony. Here are some
>reasons:
>
>PLUS POINTS:
>
>The DVC200 picture quality is exceptional even in low
light. I would suspect
>this is due to the 1/2" CCD instead of the
1/3" CCD so you can record in dim
>light with NO GAIN. Wonderful for wedding receptions
etc. I have compared
>the results with 18 hours of footage shot by a friend
for a documentary on a
>PD150 (shrunken 250) and the difference is staggering.
I would expect differences, but not "staggering"
ones
if the color bias and levels are properly set in the
PD150... The VX2000/PD150/DSR-250 will also shoot
in fairly low light levels with low gain.
>The DVC200 has 800 lines as oppossed to 530 for the
Sony.
This is a misconception. They both have the same absolute
resolution limits of 720x480, which translates into about
540 TV-lines horizontal resolution, which neither can
theoretically achieve, but the better will approach more
closely (though the 530 lines of the Sony is purdy durn
close enough! ;-). The resolution cannot be significantly
higher, given the limits of the D25 format itself...
>DVC200 has a Fujinon Bayonet lens which is higher
quality than the Sony and
>can be changed.
Again, if a lens is diffraction-limited by f4 (the Sony),
given the resolution-limitations of the medium, NO OTHER
LENS will render a higher-resolution final image at f4 or
smaller with the same medium (though it can at a wider
stop...).
>Film down to 1/2 lux with DV200 at 36DB (noisy but still
usable in certain
>situations) as 2 lux with Sony
...where it is not very noisy, at +18db, and these numbers
indicate nearly the same sensitivity for the two cameras...
>DVC200 shoots with full DV meaning you can get 3 hours
on a DVCAM 124 tape.
>There is no noticable visual difference between DV and
DVCAM.
There is *no* visual difference in these formats...
>DVC200 comes with tripod plate. Sony does not in many
cases although this
>may change from dealer to dealer.
>
>DVC200 Has positive and accurate manual focus.
>
>DVC200 Extrememly well built. "Feels" like a
real camera!!
>
>
>
>MINUS POINTS:
>
>DVC is power hungry. 17w on DVC to 11w on the Sony.
With cheap, small, high-capacity batteries available for
the Sony VX2000/PD150 - permitting shooting all day
on one little battery...
>No auto-focus on DVC. This is not really a disadvantage.
It was frightening
>at first but actually is very easy to get the hang of
and has not caused me
>any problems at all.
It would drive me nuts - I shoot some fast-changing
situations that this would not work for (one never knows
who will suddenly do what at a fast-moving event or
reception...). But, then, the less-maneuverable
shoulder-mount camera style is not for me - I want to
be able to move among people and shoot close-in without
problems or intimidation, so I prefer the size/weight
of the VX2000/PD150 - and these can be placed unobtrusively
around a ceremony or other event and run unmanned...
>Auto white balance is superior on Sony. This was the
main reason for this
>post but I've now sorted it out. Don't use auto unless
running around
>between indoors and out. For that, auto is fine. For
steadier shots, use
>manual white and it's great. The Sony will handle auto
better though.
In general, these cameras are a choice between excellent
auto controls but so-so manual controls (+ stabilizer),
and excellent manual controls but so-so (or missing) auto
controls (and no stabilizer). There are good reasons for
choosing one approach over the other beyond the inherent
qualities of these specific cameras...
>DVC about 1.5kg heavier than Sony. But then it's built
more robust.
>
>DVC has no LCD flip. Hmmm. Would have been handy for
setting up white
>balance but then you can't rely on them for accurate
colour reproduction any
>how. Other than that, I can't see much use for them on a
shoulder camera
>anyhow. More use on the PD150!
Yes. Great for times when you just need to keep aiming
the camera fairly well (tripod shots of speakers, or
camera-laid-on-arm for boring long toasts...;-).
>I have read many reports comparing the DVC200, DSR250 and
JVC5000 after I
>bought my camera (typically me!) and it seems that most
people regard the
>DVC and JVC well above the Sony. Not much between the
JVC and DVC other than
>the JVC takes mini-DV and has a flip screen (I don't
know too much on the
>JVC but had a play with one and found it quite similar).
It also is excellent. I'm not fond of the DSR-250 (why
take a nifty, high-quality compact camera and make it
more awkward and expensive to use, with little gain?),
and I think people often look at results "straight
up", without looking at a comparison with cameras
optimized (where the differences may not be great, though
still likely present) - and without considering what may
be the most important differences (often handling-style
and "presence" at an event, more than significant
image or sound quality in the product...).
>Well, IMHO forget the DSR250 and get a DVC200 with a
couple of IDX V mount
>batteries and charger which I got for less than 4800 UKP
(don't know on
>dollars) or look at the JVC if you want mini DV. Use
your current Sony as a
>second camera or for tricky situations.