3 Chippers

Hi,

They are all good cameras, but the now obsolete Pana DX 110, might be found at a bargain price, if your lucky.

Jim Bird.

I've been using a Canon XM1 for a year now and have no complaints.
Picture quality is superb and the handling is excellent. I wouldn't worry too much about the size - I find that it makes it easier to handle. It is a well designed camera with all the most important buttons falling under your fingers when it's hand held - no scrolling through menus to lock the exposure or focus manually.

All the cameras you mention are good ones but at the end of the day it's the one that you feel most comfortable with.

I've just remembered another advantage of the XM1 - its appearance. The rather unusual design makes it stand out from the crowd.

I regularly video tape airshows and before I had the XM1 I used either a Canon UC8 or a Sony 3200 and people would wander happily in front of the camera as I filmed.

However, when I used the XM1, I took my eye from the viewfinder to see a small crowd on either side of me waiting to get past! I've also noticed this at other events where people will have no qualms about walking in front of an "ordinary" video camera but often ask me if it's ok to pass.

If you can afford it, I would go for the XM1.
However, as a must, you should also have the
wide angle lens, and a sennheiser MKE 300 mike, I have these and have never looked back.

The canon wide angle will enable very fluid
shots, much like "stedicam" shots, you see at the cinema. The MKE 300 speaks for it's self. Go for it.

Regards Ray.

On the subject of "street cred" I have found that a Rycote wind gag really makes the difference. I have an XL1, - one bit of moulded plastic (or is it titanium?)looks very much like another, but everyone recognises a big furry thing just like the broadcasters use... oh, and it produces brilliant results in windy conditions.

Cheers, JOVE

Michael, I originally had a NV-DX100 (the non DV-in version of the DX110) but took it for a swim at the Great Barrier Reef . I replaced it with a Canon XM1, which although a very nice camera, I didn't get on with, mainly because it was too big for me (I do a lot of treking). I have now replaced it with the NV-MX300, which I love.

The main reason I didn't go for the MX300 initially was that it is a "bottom feeder", the tapes go in the bottom. This can be a disadvantage when using a tripod as you have to take it off before changing tapes. However, at the risk of stiring up a hornets nest, with that one exception, I think the MX300 knocks spots off the competition. The pictures and sound are better than the XM1. And it is even smaller than the NV-DX100. I have seen a Web site which claims the pictures are better than the Sony VX2000.
Have a look at http://www.supervideo.com/mxhome.htm

I would say that going purely on results the MX300 beats most cameras. That should cause a few responses .

Paul

[This message has been edited by Gladders (edited 30 July 2001).]

Thanks Paul, and to everyone else who were kind enough to offer their experiences. I knew the NV-DX was a bottom loader, and that does not concern me too much. However Paul I would be interested to know how long the playing time is with the standard battery - and whether larger batteries are available and their running time.
My thanks again to all who have taken the trouble to reply.
Mike

I beleive there is a range of batteries that fit the MX300. The standard one that comes with it lasts considerably longer than the one that came with the DX100. But it is larger (doesn't have to fit inside the body like the DX100). It's always difficult to put specific times on battery life as everything you do, zooming, changing tapes, using the side screen, all use the battery. The standard battery seems pretty good, but I also have two large Panasonic belt batteries which last several hours each. It really depends what you are going to be doing with the camera, but I would think you would need at least another standard battery for back-up.

As an indication of the life of the belt battery, I went on a trek in Nepal which lasted eight days away from an electricity supply. I probably shot a couple of hours of video without finishing the first belt battery. This was with the DX100. The MX300 would be similar I would think. I tend not to use the side screen while shooting, though.

If you trawl through the site I posted you may see that he is predicting a replacement Canon GL1 by the autumn (the American XM1) and a Sony TRV1000 to replace the TRV900 sometime next year, both delayed due to the introduction of the MX300.

Paul

I would also say, depends on your funds, and likely usage?

I own an NVDX110 purchased it Knowing, it was "last years top dog" so managed to get it a lot cheaper, and thats my point.

After now seeing the results, i can say the 110 produces fantastic quality, even more it is relatively much cheaper than your other options, so price per pound it is without doubt the best option, the one downside i have found already though is the lack of "internal" battery alternatives.

To get a "high power" long lasting battery ,you will have to go for "belt clip" sinario.
But thats a wire jobby leading from the back corner of the battery door to the battery on the belt clip, upto you if you think thats obtrusive or not?

It is without doubt worth saving £500/600 on this model upto your other alternatives, but it really depends what you are after, for instance the 110 is dv in/out enabled but it cannot take still photo,s like some others, but the 3ccd chips do give great quality if you are willing to lose out on this years technology,

Regards

Stuart.

Only one downer!!!!

Do check that your chosen camcorder works fully with your nle kit.

There are some compatibility issues with camcorders other than Sony.

...A long time ago, in a galexy far off...

I'm only familiar with the TRV-900 which I settled on (many moons ago) as the biggest bang for the least bucks in the littlest box. (Howzzat for scientific).

Actually, it has been trouble-free since new, spring '99 (I know, 'kiss of death to say so) and: 'totes well, NLE's well, lenses/mics and filters well.

Most importantly (my "dealmaker" reason to purchase), it tested favorably to the XL-1 and several other "big-shots" in (the key, to me) recorded and then played back video signal resolution. (April 1999 DV Magazine, USA).

That was a long time ago.

[This message has been edited by win-win (edited 31 July 2001).]

I would agree with Stuart about the NV-DX110. I also really rated my DX100 for picture quality. I'm sorry to say that, despite the undoubted features of the XM1, the pictures never quite lived up to either the DX100 or now the MX300. They seemed a little undersaturated for my taste. Also the viewfinder seemed "overexposed" and couldn't be adjusted like the side screen.

I did like the accessibility of the controls, and the rolling menu feature on the XM1. However George Markie's comments about "scrolling through menus to lock the exposure or focus manually" certainly don't apply to either the DX110 or MX300, which both function in a similar way, not via menus. There is a three position switch, "auto", "manual" and "exposure lock". "Auto" is as it says, focus, exposure and white balance are automatic. "Manual" leaves everything in auto but gives the option to take control of focus (by pressing a button on the front), exposure (by pressing the spring loaded selector wheel) and white balance (by a button). Exposure is locked with the switch in the down position, manual focus remains manual if you want it to be.

The MX300 has refined many of the features found on the DX110. The button to switch to manual focus is more gentle, you can switch while filming. Also the "feel" of the focus is much better, firmer. The autofocus was and is still one of the best, if not the best. It sticks like glue, unlike the XM1.

Paul

Hi,

I have a XM-1 and a DX-110 and I'm happy with them both.

Jim Bird.

Thanks again to everyone who replied.
Value for money the DX110 is great at present prices if one can still be found. I have one outlet which can supply for £1040 all inclusive, but until I can handle them all I wont finally decide. I think that the extra refinements of the DX300 i.e.: Leica lense, optical stabilizer, and different battery sizes will probably sway me to the DX300 even though it is another £500. I hear that the bluetooth version may be available by the years end, and so do I wait or select a camcorder now. I doubt if I will wait as there's nothing like getting to grips with a camcorder as soon as possible, and one could wait forever. Whatever I finally decide on, its going to have to last for a while and most of the suggestions which you all were kind enough to proffer,appear to have most everything which is needed for quite some time.
Mike

Michael,

Whatever you buy today...will be superseded by a "better" model tomorrow. That's life, consumerism - and the price you pay for living in a Capitalist society!

My advice - go for it! Whatever "it" may be...for each day you are without your new piece of "kit" you're missing opportunities to capture transient images...which may well - therefore - be lost for ever...

DC

[This message has been edited by Dave Currie (edited 31 July 2001).]

I agree with what Dave Currie said "Go for it".

I think the important thing to remember is that the person using the camera is what makes good videos - the camera is only a tool.

Good luck and have fun

Thought I'd gone to sleep, didn't you? The bargain of the moment has to be the 110 but it's failing is without doubt its image stabilisation. Useless. Great pictures, though.

The TRV900 is old and is holding its price up high - a reflection of the amazing capabilities in one so small.

The Canon XM1 has that lovely long zoom and people will not walk in front of you when it's on a tripod, and this is fine if you're not keen on incognito filming.

The 300 is a fine beast, if somewhat over priced alongside the 900 in my view. Whichever you buy you'll just love the picture quality. As they all say: go for it!

tom.

Gladders,
"Sticks like glue, unlike the XM1".

Never had any problems with the auto focus myself,however you only need a small dust particle on the lens and the XM1 will focus on that. Otherwise, a first class lens and servo system.

Regards Ray.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on that, Ray. And I am scrupulous about keeping the lens clean. There were situations when the XM1 hunted very noticeably. Apart from that I loved the lens and stabilisation. The manual focus control on the XM1 is great, much, much better than the DX100. But now that I have the MX300, the manual focus on that is also very good, greatly improved over the DX100.

There is another area which hasn't been touched on, sound. The DX100 is adequate in this area, there is an option to change the gain. But no headphone socket without the docking pod. The XM1 is, frankly, poor. I assumed, wrongly, that the fact that the mike was separated from the body would improve sound and pick up less motor noise. On the contrary, the XM1 picked up much more motor noise than the DX100. Strangely the use of an "external" mike sitting just above the fixed one improved things hugely. No control of gain at all on the XM1. It has a headphone socket. Needless to say, the MX300 has a zoom mike, very good control of gain in three different modes and has a headphone socket.

It sounds like I am knocking the XM1. No, it is a very nice camera, but Michael asked for opinions. I am in the position of having owned three of the four cameras he mentioned.
I have not used the Sony, so can't comment, although I have read reports that the Panasonic has the edge on picture quality. I also prefer the warmer balance of the Panasonic, although this can also be changed, as can the sharpness. I'd better shut up before you realise that I work for Panasonic (no, I don't)

Paul

Paul,

When I first used the XM1, although the standard lens was good, the need to fit the canon wide angle soon showed. Since fitting, I rarely take It off. However what I did notice was how stable the focus was (good before but now superb).

On the sound issue, yes the XM1 is better than most, but motor noise can still be picked up. I fitted the Sennheiser MKE300, and although an improvement, some noise could still be detected on silent backgrounds. However, for hand held use I have the mike fitted on an extender bracket, the result NO NOISE pickup, and silent background.

The MKE300 proved Its self to me when I filmed an interview on a disco floor (at least 115 db) when every word could be heard with no distortion at all.

Regards Ray.

Ray, to set the record straight, your "On the sound issue, yes the XM1 is better than most" comment is totally the opposite of what I said. I said "The XM1 is, frankly, poor". In fact most reviews of the XM1 have made mention of this. I bought the XM1 knowing that there was no on camera control of gain, but expecting the motor noise to be minimal. It was much worse than I had expected. OK if you always use an external mike, but poor if you don't.

AS to always using the wideangle lens, focus would be a lot less critical with wide angle but it seems a pity to lose the advantage of that lovely long zoom. I would have thought it was THE main advantage of the XM1. I had no complaints about the XM1 lens at all.

It sounds to me that you are having to use add-ons to overcome the shortcomings of the original camera.

Paul

Paul,

MY comments have only been meant for information only, mainly for others using the XM1, I do use a lot of pro' gear with the XM1 to get the best out of the camera.

The sound controls (or lack of) have never been a problem, as I find the High/low setting works o.k with my range of mikes ( I also have a pro marantz recorder that can be used much like a Beachtek sound control.

The 20X zoom lens is too much any way, as I need to get in close for my type of work, and with the wide angle fitted, the zoom is still plenty.

I have used many types of camera, but still find that the XM1 gets the job done.

Regards Ray.

Hi,

I normally can't help myself but behave childishly, and make silly remarks... but on this occaision...

Gladders is 100% correctamundo - MX300 IS the only 3ccd cam worth bothering with right now... {i reckon}

Pana are currently pooing all over the other big players - they got that lovely big AG-DVC200 which kick ass in it's class...

best price for MX in the UK
http://www.ask.co.uk

£1600 including VAT - beat that!

SDcards at 64mb £120 inc VAT and Delivery at
http://www.peak-uk.com/

Gladders, old chap, which size Pelican case would you recommend... 1300 or 1400?

Hi Bananaconda,
and all you other kind people who have proffered advice:
After trying out several models in various places I decided on the Pana NV-MX300 and it arrived today.
It was purchased from The Panasonic Technics Center in Plymouth for £1550. I have today been setting it up and trying out some initial footage. My opinion for whats its worth, is that its a great camcorder. The controls all fit to hand very well, the lens is probably best I have used. It offers a very compact package, with menues and adjustments very easily made. The manual controls, zoom etc can all be operated quickly, and in short I believe I have that which suits my needs the best.
Thanks, Mike

Has anyone compared the VX2000 against the Panasonic purely on picture performance alone, as i am interested in one of these.

Many thanks.

Flame

the VX2k has a slightly better lens than mx - less vignetting [nothing to do with what stroppy french waiters do in your soup if you don't tip 'em well enough]... and is better in low light speshly if you do manual whiter balance, however mx does do slightly nicer brighter photos... suffers from overexposure more easily, but makes a nice bright chirpy picture [?!]...

let's face it - it's an accessories thing - vx wide lenses are about thrice the price of mx ones... traditional Sony values of vulgar overpricing to pay for slick design... personally i don't favour those "hey-look-at-me" cams [xl-1, vx, etc...] they they just draw too much attention make you look like a ponce - at least an mx can be subtly tucked away, even if it is bit more flimsy...

btw - Mike £1550! - tell me more! phone number/website for that shop etc...!

I cannot agree with the previous comment about XL1`s etc. If (as I am ) "Filming" for a living , You need a good design.People who then see you know that you are doing this professionaly. Let`s face it, If you have a "handycam" on a wedding shoot, You will not be taken seriously - people Will walk in front.There may be potential future customers looking on seeing how you perform and what the finished article looks like. The XL1 is a pig to work with but is an outstanding performer in both image quality and image projection !.

A valid point, and at the end of the day,Its results that count. I did take a look at the panasonic camera mentioned here and compared the specs.against my XM1. The higher pixel count means lower dynamic range and lower signal to noise. The cannon 3 chip camera's, and some sony models score on this point. When filming in low light conditions this is where it shows. The only problem I find ,is that on a good sunny day you cant film much without the neutral density filter on all the time, but thats how I would prefer it.

Regards Ray.

bananaconda:
btw - Mike £1550! - tell me more! phone number/website for that shop etc...
For antone interested the web sit for the company is http://www.panasonic-technics-centre.co.uk
You will find two prices quoted.
With five year Guarantee...£1650
With one years Guarantee...£1550

Delivery is free, if ordered before about 3pm you get free next day delivery by Initial City Link.
Hope this makes some of your minds up and you are as pleased as I am with my purchase.
Regards Mike

As Col says way up in this thread - make sure that it works with your NLE setup - I have recently purchased an MX300 to replace my old TRV900 and the MX is fab in every way except one - it won't work with my Canopus Raptor - I get glitches in the firewire data that show as three frames of corrupt video with blocks of the picture either repeated or out of place. This happens totally randomly - sometimes once in 10 mins then perhaps three times in 30 secs. When I replay and recapture the glitch never shows again in the exact same place.
I have tried everything - tried the MX in another Raptor setup, tried another firewire cable and also I find that I get the exact same problem when capturing via firewire to the TRV900 from the MX300...
So, it's not a Raptor problem, it is definately an MX300 problem and so far I have tried two brand new ones and they both have exactly the same symptoms.
The problem only occurs when the firewire cable is connected to a recorder/PC - with just the s-video cable connected to a TV it never misses a beat...
This is a big pity as apart from this one major problem, IMHO, the MX300 eats the TRV900 in most ways, especially the picture and sound quality.

Phew! Sorry for the long post...
BTW, teh MX300 is selling here, down under for $3500 Australian which is very cheap when you look at the £ being worth nearly $3..

GB

I'd be interested to hear more in the way of a comparative review between your old 900 and the new 300, GB. Does the bottom loading not bother you? Does the big chip give great stills? Is the side screen as good? Go on, tell us 900 owners more - it'll soon be time for an upgrade.

I for one want to keep to the size of the 900, and I appreciate it's "Domestic" look as I mingle with the guests. It precicely this understatement that lends the film such realism, whereas the shoulder mount lump will turn heads far more.

tom.

Hi Tom,
Well here's a few comparisons although I have to strees that all this is IMHO and nothing more - no scientific measurements etc, all just my perception and bear in mind that I was one of the unlucky ones with the TRV900 - I got a lemon and also the Panny is my newest, shiny toy.
I will try and be honest and objective though....

Firstly in answer to your questions:
As I very rarely use a tripod the actual fact that it's a bottom loader doesn't bother me too much but the Panasonic mech in general is not as quick or responsive as the TRV - it is rather slow in that for every change of direction/command it whines and whirrs...
Loading a tape is a good deal longer than the '900 but OTOH, the wind/rewind time is actually quicker with the MX.
I have heard that Pansonic has already reacted to the negative comments about bottom loaders in general - I think their next range of cams will do away with this silly design...

The stills capability is really good, the 1569 x 1152 shots look excellent printed at close to A4 size.
I'm not sure how they manage to acheive the high res claims when each of the 3 x 570K chips is devoted to R, G & B but it does produce some excellent results.
(If you add the 3 x RGB chips of the TRV900 together they would be close to 'megapixel' status, yet Sony kept the res at 640 x 480)
Just how they compare with a genuine (?)megapixel stills cam I can't say but compared to the TRV900 they are much bigger, brighter, sharper and perfect for PC viewing/e-mailing, unlike the TRV900's stills that always seemed to be too dark due to gamma differences(?) between TV intended output and PC monitors.
I used to have to correct every still from the '900 before viewing on a PC - the MX300 takes care of all that for you somehow.
The MX also has a rather neat file numbering system that increments continuously for every still and doesn't reset when you transfer the jpgs to your HDD - the next lot to be recorded to the chip will start off where the last lot ended which means that you never overwrite previous pics with newer pics of the same number as in the TRV900.

The sidescreen - in a word - better.
It's smaller than the 900 screen but sharper and brighter - it's almost impossible to see the individual pixels, unlike the rather grainy (but nice and large!) 900 screen.
One major bonus with the flip out screen is the wide viewing angle - it doesn't change in brightness/contrast from different angles - it can be swivelled up & down and side to side with no change at all - the '900 screen is very bad in this respect - just a small tilt can make a big difference to the brightness of the image and that can be missleading when monitoring and adjusting the exposure level during filming.
The viewfinder is so nice to use (for me with glasses) compared to the minuscule thing with very poor eye cup of the '900 - the MX viewfinder just seems more natural and brighter.
Both the viewfinder and flip-out allow accurate manual focussing - very easy to see critical focus - something that I could not do with the '900, (although the 900 A/F is really good)
The manual focus ring of the MX works very well - it doesn't seem to be velocity dependent like the 900 - a small, slow turn of the ring changes the focus point, unlike the 900 - it never seemed to respond to slow movement of the ring.

The OIS seems to be not quite as good as the TRV900, although the effectiveness of the OIS seems to vary from MX to MX - I have had three MX300's due to a firewire problem (see previous posting) and my current one's OIS is very good, almost as good as the TRV, whereas the OIS of the first MX I had was very poor and actually added some wobble to the image before it stabilised which produced some strange (rather dizzy) feelings as the cam was steady but the image was not!

The auto white balance is good on this model, compared again to my first MX (and previous DX100) whose white level used to vary quite noticably on some occasions - even when I had locked the WB in manual mode...
(maybe my first MX was a very early sample as it was the 'demo model' on loan due to a nil stock situation - the next 2 MX's have both been far more stable as far as OIS and WB)
One small thing I really appreciate is the translucent white lens cap that Panny supply - it makes it so easy to manual WB, compared to fiddling around with bits of white card with the '900 and then never seeming to get accurate WB, (probably because the card was not quite the right white?)

Another small thing but I find it inexcusable of Sony *not* to have this feature - the MX300 has an 'end search' that works with any tape,at all times, even if it has been removed/replaced, not like the TRV that only works with the chipped Sony tapes or until you remove/refit the tape. Only a small point but important if you use NLE...

I really like the zoom control of the MX - it is much easier to control a slow zoom and also the slowest 'crawl zoom' speed of 29 secs across the full optical (12x) range is very nice - you can acheive a very slow, sublime zoom effect with the MX300.

Another 'plus' for the MX - there are no buttons, not one, behind the flip-out screen.
All buttons are reachable whilst using the viewfinder - a lot of them are different size/shape so that you can 'drive by feel'.
Oh and the manual/auto focus button is totally silent, unlike the (only) noisy button on the '900.

A couple more important things the MX does that the TRV900 does not do:

25fps 'frame' mode - Panny's version of Canon's 'progressive scan' mode.
Useable with video (not just stills like the Sony 12.5fps PS) and quite attractive if you like 'film look', especailly when coupled to the 16:9 setting.

A colour saturation and sharpness control

Analogue to digital transcoding 'on the fly'
(TRV900 has to record analogue to tape first)

Last (but not least) on my list of MX300 'likes' - the picture and audio quality is superb..
Yes, the TRV900 can produce excellent results too but IMHO, the MX has better output. The video is stunning - it seems to have more of a '3D' look to it - (perhaps that's a better signal/noise ratio(?)or maybe the Leica lens is more than just marketing hype) the images just look so real it's uncanny. Compared to the MX300 the TRV900's image looks just a little flatter and lack lustre
and I have never liked the TRV's 'cool' look - it's a personal thing but to me the greens of the TRV900 always look too dark and toward the blue end, whereas Panasonic greens are more towards the yellow end, like Canon greens...
The auto-iris control is also much nicer on the MX - it is very smooth and gradual, unlike the 'clunky' brightness changes you get with the TRV on auto exposure...

The MX300 audio is excellent as far as stereo separation is concerned - here it leaves the Sony for dead - the TRV900 output played back on a decent hi-fi sounds very flat and almost mono with most of the sound coming out dead centre with very little stereo information. The MX produces a really realistic stereo soundfield with tons of ambient sounds from right *or* left, not right *and* left.
OTOH, the MX300 seems to have quite noisy pre-amp stages that would probably spoil quiet recordings like interviews etc.
Both the TRV900 and the MX300 have manual audio controls but neither of them allow adjustment during filming which is rather bad - no 'riding the pots' here...

Finally - size and style - the MX300 is just so tiny and yet so functional and capable - it really is amazing -the capabilities of such a small cam. Compared to this the TRV900 is a good deal larger and chunkier.
I carry the MX300 around almost everywhere in a small Lowe-pro bag, complete with extra battery and two tapes in a package that the TRV900 by itself cannot fit in to...

Phew! Sorry for all the waffle - nearly finished...

Things I miss in the TRV900:

Info-lithium batteries - quite simply, far better and more powerful than the Panasonic lithium batteries, although with the MX300 you do get a decent battery as standard unlike the pitiful thing suppied as standard with the TRV900

built-in ND filter - the MX300 really needs one of these - you *have* to buy an external one as it can't cope with bright conditions, even with it's f16 setting...

Low-light capabilities and slow shutter speeds - the TRV900 is better in both these aspects

I wish the MX300 had the manual adjustment of the auto-exposure and the '-3db' setting of the TRV900 - to get the best from the MX you generally need to be using it in manual mode, although that's probably true of the TRV900.

Sorry for such a long post - I feel I have overstayed my welcome but hopefully this will help (although I think it may just confuse even more) anyone shopping for a small 3 chipper at the moment...

Best regards from down under
GB

I just bought the MX3000 because I too do lots of trecking. Alos I live in Japan and got it for 1200 US.

I admit it is a very fantastic camera with one very serious cproblem. I would like to know your experience in this area:

When I film a night scene with a naked light, for example a night market stall with a light bulb hanging down, the glare from the light, rather than just make a four pronged star like most cameras, makes a four pronged star with the bottom prong extending all the way down the fram. So any shot like that has a bright white line cutting down the frame. Popint your camera at a spotlight in your living room to see what I mean.

I have chabged cameras once and the second one has the same problem. This is supposed to be a Leica lens so this is very bad.

What are your thoughts? I still have time to return it but there are no other light weight 3ccd cameras so I am a bit stuck.

Hey Keef, could you help me out please? I live in the U.S. and was interested in buying a mx3000. Could you recommend a good place to buy an mx3000 Japanese model online? I found a couple of Japanese sites selling them for 154,700 yen. roughly $1300 U.S. Thanks alot.Surfer

Hi there,

for my website (http://www.feuerwerk.net) I want to buy a digital camcorder. I mainly plan to videotape and take pics of fireworks displays.

For best results I decided to buy a 3 chipper. Only these camcorders are able to catch all the bright metal fueled red and green stars and the lowlight golden effects.

For some reasons there are 2 possible camcorders left:

> Panasonic NV-MX 300
> Sony TRV 900 (DSR-PD100?!)

My questions to all the professionals outside - please give me some hints which of both are better for videoing fireworks:

- Are you satisfied with the results when videoing fireworks (good colors of bright stars at the same time as lowlight golden effects)?
- The Sony is said to produce "noisy" pictures at lowlight. Does this happen without automatic but manual configuration too?
- Sound: when shooting fireworks there are always very loud buuums and bangs at the same time with the musical background for the fireworks show. Which camcorder can handle that better?
- Someone mentioned the "dynamic range" would be better with cameras with fewer pixels. I guess "dynamic range" is very important for fireworks?!

BTW - of course the Sony DX2000 or Canon XL 1 would be more professional but these fine machines go beyond my financial capabilities

Thank you in advance,
any hint is appreciated!

It's not the Leica lens that's giving you the flare you complain of - it's the chips. It's a big problem that all camcorder manufacturers face though the TRV900 seems remarkably free of it.

I've used my TRV900 to film fireworks with excellent results. Of course fireworks are very intense lights and need manual exposure. In these conditions the grainyness of the gain up doesn't arise, you'll be shooting at something like f8 to retain colours in the bursts.

I left the audio on auto and the inbuilt mics did an amazing job of capturing all the explosions onto tape. Judicial timeline decompression later restored the dynamic range somewhat.

tom.

quote:Originally posted by keef:
I just bought the MX3000 because I too do lots of trecking. Alos I live in Japan and got it for 1200 US.

I admit it is a very fantastic camera with one very serious cproblem. I would like to know your experience in this area:

When I film a night scene with a naked light, for example a night market stall with a light bulb hanging down, the glare from the light, rather than just make a four pronged star like most cameras, makes a four pronged star with the bottom prong extending all the way down the fram. So any shot like that has a bright white line cutting down the frame. Popint your camera at a spotlight in your living room to see what I mean.

I have chabged cameras once and the second one has the same problem. This is supposed to be a Leica lens so this is very bad.

What are your thoughts? I still have time to return it but there are no other light weight 3ccd cameras so I am a bit stuck.

hello,

can you tell me where is the cheapest place to order the mx 3000? i'm in the states, so of course it isn't here...

Since Mike’s bought his new camera now, this is maybe a bit academic to him, but I was interested in Angryofmayfair’s reply (is there a mayfair in Aus?)

I too bought a TRV900 which I've always thought was a ‘lemon’. Three repairs in it’s first year and still not reliable, etc etc. Just to make things worse, I bought a GVD300 to enable me to keep editing while the camera was back with Sony, and that’s had three repairs too, and I still can’t rely on it.

After months of grief, I tried to convince Sony to call it a day and make a refund, but no success.

If there are any more people out there who have had similar experiences and might like to approach Sony as a united front, please email me and let’s talk.

Over the years I have owned a house full of Sony consumer product - most of it from the 'top end' of the range (TRV900, £550 portable MD etc) despite being treated with 'kid gloves' just about all of it has broken, usually just outside the warranty period which has then resulted in large repair bills or junking the stuff in favour of another brand name.

(BTW, my decision to toss my MD recorder and buy a *Sharp* one - a brand I never really considered as that good has proven to be a good move - it cost ne exactly the same as the repair quote for the Sony and is still going strong after three yrs)

Anyway, I have become quite vocal about my perception of poor quality Sony product over the years but evrey time I stand up and shout Sony is crap there will be an equal number of folk who will respond with the opposite - that they have owned Sony gear for ages, mistreated and abused it and it has never let them down....

So, what's the real story? Only Sony knows and we will never see that data.

As for the TRV900 - yes there are a lot of owners of this cam having problems - see the TRV900 list:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/nibbit/trv900-list.html

or John Beale's TRV900 FAQ: http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html

But again, who's to say what the % of failures is to the % of units sold?

Whatever, I would happily take part in any joint effort to get Sony to acknowledge some of the defects in this cam - there are similar things happening right now on the TRV900 list as far as mic failures - a very common occurance and yet Sony deny even having the problem on their database!

To be honest I doubt that you would ever get any response of any sort, even goodwill from Sony - in my experiance they are the most arrogant company with absolutly no idea of how to gain (small) customer loyalty.

In comparison, my recent dealings with Panasonic Australia have left me feeling very happy in that here is a company that communicates and cares about it's customers...

GB

GB

(BTW, 'Angry' was pinched from my favorite luny Kenny Everett but I guess it's appropriate when it comes to my feelings about Sony

Hello KEEF,

Please, tell me what is the cheapest place you would recommend to order the MX3000? I am in Australia, but would love to have MX3000...This is great camera!!

Many, many thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by keef:
I just bought the MX3000 because I too do lots of trecking. Alos I live in Japan and got it for 1200 US.
I admit it is a very fantastic camera with one very serious cproblem. I would like to know your experience in this area:
When I film a night scene with a naked light, for example a night market stall with a light bulb hanging down, the glare from the light, rather than just make a four pronged star like most cameras, makes a four pronged star with the bottom prong extending all the way down the fram. So any shot like that has a bright white line cutting down the frame. Popint your camera at a spotlight in your living room to see what I mean.
I have chabged cameras once and the second one has the same problem. This is supposed to be a Leica lens so this is very bad.
What are your thoughts? I still have time to return it but there are no other light weight 3ccd cameras so I am a bit stuck.

Mike

I use both the Canon XM-1 and Pana MX300. Both are excellent. The Canon looks more 'posie' good for weddings to get guests out of the way but the viewfinder/screen aren't up to the Panasonic. The Canon has a brilliant 20x zoom (pana and most others 12x) and is a top loader. The bottom loading of the Panasonic is only really a pain if you're shooting on a tripod for more than 60/80 minutes and therefore need to change tapes.

I'd avoid the dx110 as it has an electronic stabiliser.

Apart from that The Pana stills are fine and I'd recommend it slightly over the Canon on viewfinder but rate the Canon higher on lens (if you want long zoom)

Both are about the same on wide angle and I's strongly recommend an extra £100 for either the Panasonic wide adapter or a Raynox one for the Canon.

------------------
Good Luck

Cliff

CMac Video Wedding Videos in Northern Ireland.

Just for the record, in about 3 years time 3 chippers will be inferior in quality to single chip cameras. Not a lot of people realise this but there is a compromise in having 3 chip cameras, it's all to do with the lens and back focus (read Jon Faurs "DVcam" to find out more).

In the future the ultimate will be a single chip that is the same size as a 35 mm camera frame.

A camcorder with a single chip the same size as a 35mm film frame? I hope you mean a half frame (or a motion picture frame). Even so, the lenses required to cover such an expanse of chip will be H_U_G_E !!

tom.

Jon Faure does a better job of expaining it than I have in his book "DVCam" a riviting read even if you arn't into DVCAm.

Hot rumours have it that sony are to announce the TRV950 later this week. It is expected to be a 3 x one Megpixel CCD (YES three BIG CCDs), which will be a landmark in vid cams. I can't wait.

Further gossip and rumours here :
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/display.php3?display=sony_announce_dcrtrv950_03_27_02

Dave Bluck