Sony DCR-VX2000 compared to Sony DCR-VX1000
 

I can get a fairly cheap vx1000...but for 800 more bucks i have a new vx2000

Is it worth buying the new one?

def. get the vx2000, you can get a longer lasting battery, a vx1000 only allows you one size, the 2000 is lighter, has the flip out monitor, more features and copes with low lighting a hell of a lot better.... I would spend the extra $$$.. ebay is a good place to get a whole kit...

Thanks...
Is it possible to grab screenshots from tape directly to a memorystick? And with the old cam?

how much is a new VX 2000?

I edited my first post...it isnt 800 bucks...

yeah that's what i though you meant, i think they are 2-3 grand?

Yes, it's possible in pause mode.
We have used VX2000 for a 1.5 years and really happy with it. Don't forget to buy Canon wide angle converter

"It will shoot in progressive scan; however, I don?t believe this will be the camera of choice for web production. Unlike the Canon GL1, who?s progressive scan is actually smooth enough that some people shoot with it for web video, this camera?s progressive scan mode appears to be more of a convenience to grab a non-interlaced still. I believe it shoots progressive at 15 frames per second."

Can someone comment on this?

What exactly does progressive scan means?

yeah, you can do screen grab with the memory stick and it's pretty good.. doesn't stop the tape or anything.. I saw one tripod you can get that has a control arm that comes off and you can control the camera (zoom, focus, taking pix) with it no prob..
just the camera is likw $1500-2k... but def. check out ebay and get like lens and case with it cheap...

Why?

the vx 2000 progressive scan is excellent. it's actually at 30 frames per second. if you're looking for something int the middle like 24 frames per second try the new panasonic:
http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat...ag-dvx100.html

this mothafucka is bad! whooooow!

progressive scan only means that you can grab still from video and it will not have the jaggies on it (like if you grabbed the still from a video shot in continuous mode). it will basically look like a low res pic shot from a digital camera. makes your video size a helluva lot bigger though for MPEGS.

for wide-angle shooting

As for progressive scan we experimented with it. It's good for video grabbing but the quality of regular mode is better for inet streaming video. So we still shoot in 29.97 fps regular mode

Aha thanks...

I guess im gonna pick up the vx2000 then...looks good.

I want to use it for web purposes only..making mpeg of the vids and take screengrabs.

Thanks.

How much are those lenses?

Alchemist,
u're absolutelly right.

Battus,
it's not a lenses, it's a converter. Not sure about price, schould be around $200

The real questoin should be Canon GL-2 or Sony VX2000? Go with the Canon, better sound, better lens, better picture. I have shot tons of video, used Sony for years, but I love the GL-2. Trust me you will be happy :thumbsup

Thanks.

Bah...stop confusing me.

Ok, after talking someone with a store, i now can get either:

A vx2000 for $1600
A gl1 for $1999

I have to deceide quick.

What to do?

for web video it does not really matter to be honest. the movies are going to end up being compressed to their smallest size. i personally own and prefer the VX 2000 with a wide angel lens. Plus the battery life on the Sony is unbelievable get a NP 960 and you can shoot for roughly 10 hours. try that with a canon cam, prolly comes with a battery belt that weights 30 pounds or some shit.

Does anyone else like the Canon GL-2 better? I think I lean towards Canon more because it has a 20x optical zoom. Which is important in party content type situations.


I'm about to either get the VX-2000 or the GL-2.

I have a GL2 but I use it for shooting wildlife outdoors so that extra bit of zoom is important to me. Indoors, I'd go with the Sony because it is better in low light. If you need more zoom, Century Optics makes a sweet 2x teleconverter that you can pick up at B&H for about $400. I would really doubt that you would need the extra zoom though.

The GL2 is a sweet camera and I love mine. I guess it depends on what you are going to use it for.

If you have very specific needs, then you should consider all the details. Both cameras offer very good quality pictures.

The Canon has a better lens, with a higher optical zoom, so if you need to zoom deep, the Canon would be a good choice.

The Sony has slightly better low light capabilites. Min 4lx compated to 6lx, so if you need really low light conditions go with the sony. But there is not toomuch of a difference.

Canon has better sound.

Canon is 1/2 lb lighter than the Sony.

The Canon shoots a 'warmer' picture and the Sony's white balance is rather 'cool' (as in colder). This is more of a personal issue, subjective in nature, but many agree that the Canon shoots a nice warm picture.

For more info:

http://www.sonystyle.com/intershopro..._dcrvx2000.pdf

http://www.canondv.com/gl2/s.html

Have fun:winkwink:

Thanks for all the info.

Im gonna order a Sony because of the better low light conditions.

Thanks for all the info.

Im gonna order a Canon because of the better zoom.



ahh....variety is the spice of life

I think this will be the next addition to my collection:
http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat...ag-dvx100.html


Shoots 30 FPS Progressive! :thumbsup

This fucker looks sweeeet!
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni..._AG-DVX100.pdf

I would get the Vx2000, because it has 1/3 inch ccd's. The GL2 has 1/4th inch ccd's.

Make sure and get a wide angle lens adapter, and a on camera light.

fucking awesome post guys I just got my vx2000 3 hours ago :) god there is alotto lear with this damn thing lmao

TOM

Actually, the VX1000, VX2000 and TRV900 camcorders all limp along at 15 fps in progressive scan.

And the only way you could consider it "excellent" is for pulling stills, it's far too jerky for video.