I actually did a search on "pd170" and "dvx100" and didn't get much in the way of "choice" or attirbutes - more " I shot a vid with the xxx, etc" stuff.

I have both, both are really good. If you need the "film look", the Panasonic is the way to go.

If you don't care about the film look (or if that is low priority), the PD170 is a better camera for general use- great low light capability, interval record, comes with a nice wide angle, better manual controls, seems to be the more rugged of the two.

Vegas works great with both.

May i suggest that the Pana real frame mode is a big plus when it comes to multimedia applications. Other advantages for me:

1.Better weight balance. (The Sony feel heavier on the lens side)
2.More natural image rendition to my taste (more natural colors and less video "edginess" )
3. I just like it better in term of ergonomics and general manipulation...

some drawbacks:
1.low light noise
2.noisy electrical zoom
3. some chroma patterning on critical applications

I have, and always film with, a DVX100. I recommend the 100a (newest model, same price) for the additional reasons that it is SWITCHABLE between 60i and 24P as well as 30i, also has a wide-angle Leica lens, and has superior audio capability to the PD150 or anything else in its price range (dual XLR inputs in the camera body).

DVX100 here as well. I've shot with the PD150 in the past and prefer the Panasonic over it. I rarely shoot anything in interlaced mode however so the Sony wouldn't have worked for me. Both are great cameras by great companies.

Mike

Put simply:
If you shoot videos, the PD170
If you shoot movies, the DVX100

If you don't know the difference, the PD170

Bob.

I love my DVX 100. I just screened a short comedy I shot last year (edited in Vegas). It was digitally projected off a DVD and people in the audience could have sworn it was shot on film. I also shot my sister's wedding in 60i with it last year and even though it doesn't have the best low light performance (the SONY's are definitely better) it was fine for that as well.

Thanks all for great input -

FARSS - I'm not too sure what you mean by the differences between "video" and "movies" are... would you be kind enough to explain?

What is the advantage of the 24fps vs 60i vs standard 30fps?

And, logiquem,,, what is "real frame mode" and why is it a plus in multimedia?

I greatly appreciate all the answers (to come) and belive that this will be a great thread... without cameras, no video to edit.

Personally, I live by the output of my cameras - and I've always been a "Sony" guy, (I've owned or rented only Sony video equipment since the BVW70 BetaSP camera came out in the late '70s, and have never been let down), but I am, of course, intrigued by the prospect of even more beautiful imagery.

So please keep the input coming.
thanx in advance,
v.

Not a true reply, here, just a thought...

Considering the investment these cameras require, it's a real shame that there isn't some kind of "try before you buy" arrangement one could use. Yes, you could go rent the cameras, but that would get expensive!

J--

Video NTSC= interlaced fields
Movie= frames (non-interlaced)

I talked about real frame mode refering to other faked ones, where deinterlacing is made in real time to combine fields with different temporal stamps. The Pana record optically a complete frame each 24 or 30th second, so there is no blurring caused by deinterlacing process.

This is a preferable source for computers (and newer HDTV) because basically, they dont need to deinterlace the video to display it and they display at 30 fps (or lower) anyway.

If you record at 30 fps pregressive, you loose 50% in term of temporal resolution provided by 60 fps interlaced *but* you get double horizontal image resolution for each 30 frame (you record one complete frame instead of even or odd fields). So: motion video and stills are much clearer cause they have 2x resolution and are free of deinterlacing artefacts.

I can send a still of a video shooted lastly and you will see what i mean.

Hope this help (even in my so,so english...)

Ah ha!
Thanks for the very clear explanation -
now, I wonder... in the "old" days of film, you'd never pan too quickly or the 24fps "non-interlaced" film would strobe the image.
Once we converted to video, this problem disappeared, partly due to the fiield effect.
So how's the panning with progressive?
And if you're not grabbing stills or action freeze frames, what's the advantage - on screen - to the end user?
Can you see a difference between 30p and 60i?
Can you see a difference between 24p and 60i? (Especially if your end product is DVD deliver for normal TV viewing).
This seems to be the biggest difference between the two cameras.
Also, we've got a long term "art" project in production which is about 50% shot, on a PD150. If we switch to the 24p, will the footage intercut? Or will it look dramatically different?

It used to be that you'd buy a (film) camera, and plan to have use for it, for the rest of your career. I had a 16mm Auricon that I used (on and off) for twenty years.

Now of course, you have to upgrade your camera every three years or so,and your computers - well, at least every two. It hurts, because you'd like to spend the bucks and buy the best. Anyone holding a 5 year old $75,000 Beta camera can tell you all about pain.

The good news is that the cost is down so much compared to the "old" days, that if you're a working professonal, you should be able to pay off the equipment before the next upgrade comes around. The problem is that all these new formats are like soft sand - thus this inquiry.

To anyone following this thread, here's a gold mine of great information:

http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html#Introduction

It's an article by DV magazine author Adam Wilt which covers all of my above questions, in depth - thanks Adam, where ever you may be...
v.