On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 07:07:56 GMT, pstephen@escape.ca (Paul Stephen) wrote:

>Has anybody out there "imported" one of these cameras from Japan? I
>went to one website and it "appeared" as though the price is about
>$CAN1800 -- although I could be mistaken as I can't read Japanese!
>
>It sure looks beautiful!

People often compare it with the Sony VX2000,
but based ***only*** on frame-grabs I have seen
from the Panasonic MX300/3000 (I prefer to comment
only from direct experience, but all the MX3000
frame-grabs I have seen from various sources appear
to support what I observed, below...). I look first
for fine image details, color-biases, and oversharpening
effects - and compare these... For example, I just
brought up MX3000 and VX2000 comparison images from
the Japanese site (these are not directly comparable,
unless shot in identical light, but we will make
assumptions, since they look close enough...;-).
Taking the daylight cityscapes in:
MX3000 at: www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/DVinN1/MX3000/Goutdoor1.jpg
and VX2000 at:
www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/VX2000/Goutdoor1.jpg
it is obvious that the 300/3000 color balance is
quite biased toward red (without corrections available
in the camera controls); the 2000 balance is very slightly
blue-green (with correctable balance, using the camera
warm/cool bias control) -- the 3000 shows less fine
detail in the bridge and building railings, signage, and
textures in building and bridge sides -- the greens
are noticeably inferior in the 3000 (the colors, in general,
look "wrong", with excessive tinting - and most colors
[even the reds, given the strong red bias] are surprisingly
not "clean". Notice, also, the yellow smear into the sky in
the 3000 image from the sign near the upper left edge, the
lack of "firmness" in the building shapes, and the
oversharpening outlines visible at building/sky
intersections, and especially in the top and bottom edges
in the grey panel behind the Coca Cola sign compared with
the VX2000 image...
Taking the test charts at:
www8.big.or.jp/%7Ea_fuyu/DVinN2/MX3000/reso_DV.jpg
and at:
www8.big.or.jp/%7Ea_fuyu/DVinN2/VX2000/reso_DV.jpg
the color bias of the 300/3000 is also obvious in this
light (the 2000 is relatively neutral, and correctable
in-camera); the oversharpening in the 3000 is obvious
in the "halos" around the corner circles and in the
diagonal lines running toward the center, and in all other
areas with hard black-white intersections; look at the
relative clarity of the text; notice the higher (excessive)
contrast in the 3000 tone bars, where you cannot see the
lower-value tones as well as with the 2000; etc.
Bottom line: the VX2000 image is sharper (but with less
oversharpening, and with control over sharpening degree);
more color-neutral and color-accurate (with camera control
over warm/cool bias and color saturation); and with more
normal-contrast compared with the MX3000 (and similar
comparisons can be done with other cameras on this site).
On my "-" site, I also do not point out these specifics in
the comparison frame-grabs as I have above - I assume they
are obvious...;-) See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm,
but I do point out some of these things here:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.
(This last site is new, and compares the various
recent Sony Mini-DV camcorders.)
Perhaps a fairer comparison would be between the TRV900
and the MX300/3000, particularly if their prices are
close...