Go with the panasonic DVX100a, its great. The lens on it is nice. It has xlr inputs. Great image. Seriously, go with the panasonic. I've worked with the XL2 and wasn't so impressed. Also, the XL2 doesn't have a screen, but the panasonic does and that really is a big advantage that no one realizes. Haven't worked with the sony.

Yeah, the DVX100 footage I've seen looks great, and I agree about the usefulness of the LCD screen. However, if you really, really want interchangable lenses and will use them, then the XL2 is the only choice.

I did second camera work on a DV feature years ago with my TRV900 where they used an XL1 for the main camera, and they were always using the TRV900 for playback so the director didn't have to watch through the XL1 viewfinder. On shorts where the TRV900 has been the main camera it also means that when we're actually shooting the director can be watching the action on the LCD while I'm watching through the viewfinder.

Of course now I've replaced the TRV900 with a Z1, I'd highly recommend looking at HDV cameras as well as DV if you're upgrading.

Seems that having the director watching the little LCD screen on the side of the camera would complicate things. What about the script supervisor and the gaffer? They all need to be looking at the screen.

And handheld, dolly shots, boom shots, high angles, low angles...

My JVC GY-DV5100U has one. I never use it. We always run a cable to a monitor. Sometimes being tethered to a 15 meter video cable is a pain, but is sure beats three or four people all trying to look at a 2.5 inch LCD screen.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Even if you don't have a small lcd screen on the camera u should always have at least one video tap no matter if the camera has an lcd screen or not.

I work with two Sony VX2100s. They have many interchangeable lenses you can buy and work well with tons of filters. They are 2000 dollars cheaper than the GL2 and are very highly rated by their buyers. I just shot a wedding reception in almost pitch black conditions. I put a few candles together and shot the Speeches by the best man, and maids of honor! The Camera recorded brilliantly even in such low light conditions. I have a Music Video from that wedding you can watch at www.theperfectvideo.net Go to weddings and click on that sample. They have changeable frame rates, exposer setting, white balance, their own keying capabilty, and basically everything you can think of, including a hot shoe on the top for running lights or mics and powering them from where they attach!
They are light weight and user friendly. I would highly recommend them.

Matthew Sconce

I understand the merits of the 24p to get a more film like transfer. I need to be honest with myself and say that the odds of us actually having our digital films transfered to film are in the neighborhood of slim to none. At the same time, we do have a full production schedule, and want a camera system that is going to capture the best possible visuals. All this being said, it seems that the consensus has really pointed me towards the Panasonic.

With the exception of the XLR mic inputs and 24p capture rate, are there any other differences that anyone can identify between the Sony & Panasonic?

If money was not an issue would you recommend the Panasonic or Sony, and why?

(I'm not a fan of the XL2 simply because of the view screen issue, plus, I hate to say it, all the extra stuff that it seems that you need to purchase)

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the DVX100 is a true 16:9 camera while the VX2100 is 4:3. Of course in some parts of the world that might be a disadvantage :).

I think they are both natively 4:3 with the ability to block off and do mocked 16:9.

I was more concerned with the quality of the image, the handling, audio inputs. Things along those lines...

I just want to get the best possible unit for our needs, but at the same time, I would like to save the $1000 is possible, but am willing to spend it.

Right now it's coming down between the Sony and Panasonic

The Sony records flawless audio and allows for Manual audio adjustment so you can change levels to suit you Microphone needs. It has a beautiful picture, even in Low Lighting conditions, and a large viewscreen (which the XL2 should have had on it).
The Sony is just under 5 pounds with record and zoom buttons on the top handle as well as the back, so handling and shooting styles are up to you. It is easy to learn and the Manual is straightforward. I have never used the Panasonic, so I cannot compare, but I have never regretted purchasing these cameras. I hope you love whatever you end up getting!

Matthew Sconce

Thanks for the great news on the sony. Honestly, you just made my decision that much more complicated. I am in this whole torn state, where I just can't decide. Obviously we're going to be using external mics, but picture quality and professionalism of picture quality is of the utmost importantance.

To the forum then, if you had your choice, which would you choose and why?

quote:

---

I think they are both natively 4:3 with the ability to block off and do mocked 16:9.

---

Looks like you're right, from what I've found on the web: I'd wondered why the DVX100 footage that I burnt to DVD for a friend recently was letterboxed and not anamorphic 16:9.

quote:

---

if you had your choice, which would you choose and why?

---

Well, I could have bought any of them last month, but got the Z1 instead :).

Personally, out of those three cameras I'd still go for the Panasonic for the 'look', but to be honest, it would be hard to go too wrong with any of them: they've all got benefits and problems but they should just about even out.

Incidentally, there's a DVX100 vs XL2 (vs FX1/Z1) article at:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

Obviously it's rather Panasonic-biased, being on a DVX site, but it does include a lot of frame-grabs to compare the two cameras.

great article... I spent a while reading it. I think it is kind of subjective by far though, especially when looking at the footage shot. The XL2 looked better than the DVX (not to start a flame war), but I've already elminated the XL2. The picture of the shadows in the tunnel just show the better look of the XL2.

I think ultimately, because I am not interested in going the HD route, pretty much for the reasons listed in the article, that the DVX is the way to go.

Out of curiousity, how good/important is the 24p result? Has anyone played with this recording option and able to offer any insight to how it comes across looking?