Posted by doc on 01/11/04 11:50

that's probably because of the use of PAL in the UK however in the US it's
probably a completely different story.

we produce a tv show with the dvx100b and know of at least a dozen primetime
folks who we consulted with before making our decision to go with the
dvx100b's (like "24") and during our research we couldn't find a single
producer using the pd170's although we searched long and hard in cleveland,
chicago and atlanta. on the other hand, we found plenty of sources using
dvx100b's let alone over two dozen tv stations who were 100% panasonic
(having traded off there Sony betacam's because as they put it [summarizing
from all their inputs] "Sony just isn't keeping up with the market but
Panasonic is not only keeping up but pressing forward beyond it."

well, hope this helps.

drd

<mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HRAIv6LuRmREFwjr@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> Steve and Specs have answered Mikes question perfectly. With regards to
> the 170 over the 150 I always thought it to be a much greater improvement
> than usually acknowledged. The improved audio and iris graduation being
> significant. Also improved low light from 2 lux to 1 lux. Daylight
> viewable LCD, option to keep both view finder and LCD live simultaneously,
> two speeds slow zoom rocker on handle was handy for those without a remote
> assist. The 170 was a cracker for a 4x3 SD camera and with extremely high
> build quality too.
>
> From my own point of view I always found the image quality of the both the
> 150 and 170 to be consistently superior to the Canon XL types and the JVC
> DV500. The Panasonic DVX100 though was probably a tad better though not to
> the extent that I preferred its overall effectiveness compared with the
> 170. The BBC came to the same decision after extensive trials with DVX100,
> it was a close call but the 170 won because it ticked a lot more boxes
> than the DVX100.
>
>
> --
> John Lubran

[Back to original message]