Where'S the JVC HD10? Is there another group of cameras to follow? I thought the HD10 would be in this group.

Well I know what I can say about Panasonics official lux rating for this camera compared to the other two, it should be pulling a picture at least as bright as the XLS1. Definitely need a VX2100. Most reveiws claim clear wins for the Pana, how do you feel about those claims Robin. It would be interesting to see if the VX2100 has more sensitivity/range (like the PANA) compared to the VX2000.

I've been waiting through the series for the reveiw of two cameras the Pana DVC-7 Proline and the HD1/HD-10, because one is affordable and the other is the only HD with woeful low light claims, is this the last reveiw. Actually with the price of the GY-DV500, 5000, Pana DVC 215 (?) being so low and low light quality that walks over the Sony, it would be good to see a PRO reveiw of these models.

Thanks Robin


Wayne.

Without even reading the article, I suspected the Panasonic last. Why? Because it is not from Sony or Canon. Remember the humorous article that claimed Sony was right not adding 24p. hahaha
Sony can do no wrong on this site.

As for the HD1 or HD10, it would have been last because this site does not like JVC at all.

[HD1]

I have a little trouble understanding why you, or anyone for that matter, would say "Without even reading the article, I suspected the Panasonic last" given the fact that this site voted the Pana PV-DV953 camcorder of the year for 2003. In addition to that this site voted the Pana 953 camcorder winner in the 1000 to 1299 $us comparison. And that was aginist two other Sony camcorders. My own opinion is that these series of comparisons have been fair as far as they have been taken. Sure it is always possable to be more exhaustive in comparisons, but I am sure there are limits as to time,money,personel available for these comparisons. BTW I am a Pana camcorder owner (PV-DV953) and my personal choice in this comparison would be the DVX-100.

D

testing full manual cams the same way you test auto cams is like comparing an automatic film cams the same way you would compare slr cameras

sorry to say this but you have wasted your time...

a test that would be worth while would show what the shutter, fstop, and gain were at any time also distance to shoot

...by the looks of it you had the dvx on full auto with the gain shut off or a combo of the iris on manual...i have all three cameras right here and your test in no way represents them at all...that is wrong, you are doing a dis-service to your readers...

i have been shooting on the xl1 since 1999 and have used the s version many times, it my weapon of choice but no way is it able to out shoot a dvx at 15lux, anyone who uses one will tell you

it makes more sense to redo this test or take it down, it makes bh look like they don't know what they are talking about with there name all over the place... again i know you don't get paid and do this out of the goodness of your heart but this is misinformation

to me it looks the like the vx clearly beat the xl1s in low light what doesn everyone think?

I would have to agree with manny woods! This doesn't look like fair and professional review at all - more like something done by the person who has no idea of the nature of the cams involved... Pity, cause it does nothing in the way of helping anyone reading it and seriously making or influencing his/her decision. I would particularly say about colour representation of Panasonic AG-DVX100 in normal light: something must be wrong!!! In all units which I have handled (quite few) colours were perfectly saturated and very very accurate, far more accurate that those on Sony VX2000. But then again if it is possible to claim leadership (in this review with pictures attached) to the camera that has such a STRONG colour bias (just look at the colour of the card that suppose to be GREY!!!! it is ridiculous!!!) then what else could be said!? I guess it is pretty much like religion... some people just believe and nothing could be done about it...
Low light performance is fishy too. I admit SONY is better at it then Panasonic, but that much??? Not really!
Problem is that after that kind of "review" the whole credibility issue arise. How should one take the claims dome in regular reviews of the cameras on this site where NO prove or any kind of illustration is provided when claims are made about cameras performance... Why couldn't it be done like on those japanese sites6 where plenty of pictures are normally support any review?

I could agree with you guys, but this is a pretty good effort for a english website. Many of the sites out there are pretty pathetic (there is one site that posts footage under three indoor lighting conditionions though) so we have to appreciate this effort. Still it is only two pictures per camera, and all put together there is enough content for two articles. What did need to be done is low and bright light pictures for best auto and best manua. That would have really help some cameras but takes an extra half an hour on some cameras to work out how to do it best (the DV3000 for instance has a few obscue low light features). From my experience with camera store staff is that there are people on these groups that can answer questions that they should know.

I was thinking of doing some custom charts myself and volunteering to do a reveiw of the best cameras, I think I emailed Robin instead and suggested she do this (can't remember properly as I don't think I received a response). The charts would have been designed to test resolution and range of color and luma response/exposure, accurately to the pixel where it becomes under or over exposed and where it is wrong in the range, one chart, one test could test virtually everything. I appreciate that these are "professional" charts but they seem to be limited to testing a few values. So while what haru has done in Japan may look good, nobody but Robin, has been willing to do anything like this for us in the English market.

What people say about more example pictures in camera reviews is 100%, test for highest and lowest light for man and auto is the minimun with xample footage/stills of excellence or errors would make it as good as virtually any consumer video mag out there. I think, apart from not wanting to offend the suppliers of cameras for reveiws, that magazines don't like to publish these sorts of pictures and charts because they are not terribly accurate when printed in their magazines using the cheap ink colour processs used, but this is a computer based media and we can (for instance, I have a certified colour accuracy on this monitor).

This is the most laughable piece of review on anything I've ever seen. I'm surprised and disappointed that such an established vendor, B&H would stoop to this level of low. This review is obviously done by a novice whose only notion of camera operation is "point n' shoot". I especialy like the small thumbnails of the 3 images.. buwhahaaha like that shows us anything!

am i right about the vx beating the xl1s in low light it is clear as day, any one can tell that the vx won right?? WHat does everyone think. Also why isnt the gl2 in this test last time i check the gl2 was 2,230.00. I think the gl2 would be nice to see compared to these cameras rather then the trv950

I think that Robin is giving clear preference to the lack of grain in the image over the brightness of the image, this is OK if the grain is more than what we are used to seeing with our own eyes in any light that allows colour vision, but when grain is minimunal then it should clearly be the otherway about. But as long as the posted pictures are posted in a lossy compression format and below the resolution of the DV format it is hard to tell (frames canbe posted in looseless compression with reduced dimensions to fit page format, but keeping full res).

Now this series has been running for ages and this is the first time such a large amount of really negative comments has been posted, which makes me think that maybe it is mostly one person using multiple usernames?

No actually, I just registered here. I was directed to this review from thread on DVInfo. I came here a couple of times before but was turn off by the amateurish tone used in all of its reviews. But I just couldn't resist to give my feedback on this rediculous piece that they're trying to pass as a review. I didn't even know this series of reviews has been going on. Man this just makes Robin look even worse. What the hell do these comparisons at auto setting even tell you? This is just purposely bad information.

i am the only randomock (Joel) and all is thought was that the low light was better on the vx then on the xl1s

waynemm what did you learn from this review?

I'm guessing this test was done while the DVX100 was in one of the progressive modes (thus eliminating any gain up). That's probably the excuse for the poor low light image. In 60i mode, the DVX100 should be closer to the XL1s. It would have been interesting to see how the 60i mode would have looked in comparison to the XL1s and the VX2000.