Thanks busterkeaton .
Have you ever encounterd noticable 'droputs' when working with 'DV'?
I only had it once or twice in the 2 years that I have my VX 2000.

How about the Sony HDR-FX1? does it also have dropout problems compared to the bigger HD cams? because of it's Mpeg - 2 compression?

I was thinking of replacing my VX 2000 with HDR-FX1 in the near future.

This what Sony brochure on DVCAM says
"................By maintaining wider track pitch of 15 microns (10 microns for home-use DV), DVCAM format ensures higher reliability for pro use"
Looking at the spec, apart from track pitch (DVCAM=15, DV SP=10 and DV LP=7) the acquisition spec is identical.

I have now gone thro' over 200 DVCAM tapes with less than six 1" drop outs.
My second camera is miniDV and I would say, that one in five tapes would produce atleast one drop out.

Just to correct something, both DV and DVCAM use the same width tape, the track width is wider with DVCAM hence the lower risk of dropouts but it's the same tape. One other thing, DVCAM writes fully locked audio whereas the DV spec permits the audio to wander a few frames off from the vision, I've yet to hear of that ever being an issue though.
Certainly the lower risk of dropouts with DVCAM is very attractive, typically on any DV tape you'll find at least one dropout, they're usually very small and hard to notice, quite oftenly they only affect the audio. Downside to recording in DVCAM in a PD170 is shorter record time per tape though.
As others have mentioned there's more to the differences between the VX2100 and the PD170 than the DVCAM capability of the 170. The 170 gives you XLR audio connectors, for that alone it's worth the extra money. One other thing, when your 2100 needs service it's off to a Sony consummer service centre, your 170 goes to a Sony pro service centre. Depending on where you live that can make a big difference.
Bob.

The PD-150 also lets you set user-bit timecode when shooting in DVCAM mode. A few more manual settings than the VX-2000, too.

Doesnt the PD150/170 also let you shoot in native 16:9? I cant remember.

PD150 and 170 have black and white viewfinders, which makes focusing easier

The PD-150 has 16:9, but it ain't native, just letterboxed 4:3.
Can't say for sure on the PD-170, but I think it's the same.

PD170 is the same as PD150, not native 16:9.
Only differences between the 170 and 150:

Body painted different color, slight improvement in audio S/N.

That was straight from the mouth of a Sony Japan engineer, in that order, I still get a good laugh everytime I remember that.

Bob.

16x9 on the PD150 and PD170 looks pretty miserable. Another good reason to get an FX1 or ZU1, even if you're just shooting standard DV. Now, if the HDV camcorders just had the low-light performance of the PD150/170...

John

FWIW, I know some folks who are pretty happy with the Century 16:9 anamorphic adaptor on a PD-150.

John, you're right, though about the low-light capability: that feature is so great for documentary shooting. That was supposed to be another improvement on the PD-170: it's supposed to be rated down to 1 Lux, instead of 2 lux on the 150 (if you believe the Sony marketing guys or any kind of 'lux' standard). That and Sony threw in their wide angle adaptor for free if you buy the 170.

When my Vx2000 is set to 16:9 it compresses the footage (not adding two black bars up and under) is that 'native' ?

v_gts

I've got a Century anamorphic adapter sitting on a shelf: I hate it! Why you might ask:

Only being able to zoom in a 1/3rd or so of the way is bad enough, but not being able to zoom out all the way is even worse! Normally I use a Sony wide angle lense on my 2000 and that's the way I like to shoot most of the time. With the anamorphic adapter, you can't even go as wide as the stock lense. Boy does that suck. Not only that, but everything looks out of focus and skewed on the viewfinder. Manual focusing is pretty much impossible.

The best way to go wide angle with the 2000/2100/150/170 is to do it in Vegas with Celluloid or Ultimate S. It looks about the same as the built in 16:9, but gives the option of either 4:3 or 16:9 final format. It still won't be that great on a large 16:9 TV, but it really is the best you can do right now with this camera.

You can get a fresnel lens thingy that goes over the LCD viewfinder so you get a correct aspect ratio look to the thing, I think Hoodman make it. Down side is lots of reflections in bright light but maybe better than nothing.
You can perhaps get the adaptor to focus over a wider range IF you watch the aperture and don't try to actually zoom. I know even on the DVX100 this is an issue and over at dvxuser.com someone produced a chart of focal lebgths and apertures that you need to use to ensure things stayed under control.
The other problem with these types of adpators is you really need a matte box when you use them if for nothing else than to protect the expensive glass as it sticks out quite a bit.
Bob.

Both VX2000 and the PD-150 have 4:3 proportioned CCDs. So the only way to do 16:9 is to lose resolution. Even though you're seeing "squished" video in the viewfinder, it's still chopped up 4:3. If you show this on a projector or very large screen, you'll see the loss of resolution right away.

Sorry. ;-)

The 150's automatically stretches to 16:9.

The other differences between the VX2000 and the PD 150 are that on the 150 you can control the audio channel levels independently, and on the 150 you can control iris, shutter speed and video gain simultaneously.

Do I understand from the above discussions that the low light performance on the HDV cams is less than on the VX200/2100?

RalphM

On the "locked audio" - It's really a marketing point because unless you're doing audio dubs on the third and fourth audio channels, and the first two channels are already near saturation, you will never run into unlocked audio. And the spec won't let it drift more than three frames before correcting itself anyway.

On the "fewer dropouts" of DvCam - This is pure marketing. While technically true that the increased tape speed of DvCam does result in fewer dropouts, you will never see them unless the tape is in really bad shape. The data on every tape will contain some errors. (These are the dropouts that the marketing material refers to). Every frame is recorded ten times on the tape and a matrix error correction algorithm fixes all but the most damaged data. When the error correction cannot fix them, you get a dropped frame. Considering that most of us won't ever see a tape-related dropout in DV mode (clogged heads don't count), then a 50% improvement is kind of pointless.

On the "more robust" claim - most of us don't re-use tapes many times, certainly not as much as in news gathering. Also, DvCam cartridges are built to handle a lot of insertions and re-use. Again, most of us don't treat tapes like a news crew, so is the "more robust" tape worth the extra expense?

On the data differences, unless you are shooting for broadcast and need to deliver a specific timecode format, DvCam doesn't give you any big advantages over DV.

Bottom line is, most average PD-150 users don't really benefit enough from the features of DvCam to justify the increased cost of shooting over DV.

That said - pick a brand of tapes and never change.

But, the original question was why a PD over a VX. Easy answer - 1) XLR michrophone connectors and individual audio channel control. 2) Monochrome viewfinder.

Steve Mann

Thanks n19093.

"most of us don't re-use tapes many times'' .
Now that I think about it, in the last 2 years I have only re-used a tape twice or so.....
So that is indeed a good point.

Anyway after reading your reply I have no regrets of choosing Dv standard instead of DvCam! thanks, next step is going to be the Sony HDV Camera! for me.

By the way, in which situations are the 'individual audio controles' used??

V

One small correction about locked audio, it can drift +/- one-third of a frame, not 3 frames. For more info:

Adam Wilt on Locked Audio

John