Hi everyone

I had been looking around for a camcorder, and i came across panasonic mx500.
WOW With 3CCD and 3 megapixel still shot. it like to good to be true.

Just like to know if anyone of you own or had play around with this camcorder. I would like to know how the preformance of this camcorder. is it value for money?

Thank you
Cheers

Yes, I have a 500. Upgraded from the 300 (also 3chip) due to problems with analogue capture/conversion. Both cams have superb picture quality, but the 500 takes a much better still shot.
I tested my original 300 against my old man's single chip Sony. (can't remember which model) In bright sun light, it was hard to tell the difference, but indoors under artificial lighting, there was just no contest. You could 'tweak' the Sony manually to get an improvement, but the panny was still better even on full auto mode.

From my other post:

For what I heard from different sources (and still-frames) the Panasonic MX500 is VERY bad when used in low-light conditions.

Indoors you need a 200 watt light MINIMUM to get descent results!

http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/100W.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/200w.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/200Watt.jpg


(p.s Pictures are taken in photo mode and the author said videomode was even worse)


When I take the dramatic low-light performance in mind, I think the JVC GR-DV3000 is a better alternative. Like someone else said the difference betwee 3 CCD and 1 CCD under good light conditions is hard to see. In low light a 3 CCD should be better than a 1 CCD, but the Panasonic MX500 has very small 1/6 inch CCD's that require mucht light. The lens is an F1.6 if i'm correct whereas the DV3000 has a F1.2 lens and a 1/3.6 inch CCD.

This makes the DV-3000 a better choice when you plan to shoot indoors too, especially if in normal outdoor light the difference between 1 CCD and 3 CCD is 'hard to tell'

Originally posted by Bram1982
[B]In low light a 3 CCD should be better than a 1 CCD, but the Panasonic MX500 has very small 1/6 inch CCD's that require mucht light.[B]

That's not the whole story. The MX500 has more effective pixels in each smaller block - 640,000 for video and 700,000 for stills - rather than 570,000 for each. Don't know why the guy is saying 200w minimum for decent pics - especially as my own video light only sports a 20w (twenty) bulb! With this I get good shots even in a very dark disco enviroment.

If you think about it, what digital stills camera (or any stills camera) takes good shots indoors without a flash? No DV cam is as good as a dedicated stills cam - but the MX500 is rated as the best yet.

For all cams, the better the light the better the picture. Lux rating is higher on DV cams than analogue. Typically 7-10 for DV & 1-3 for analogue.

Try here for an unbiased opinion. http://www.computervideo.co.uk/april03-2.html
CV mag can always be relied upon for warts & all reviews. I've yet to see a review in [i]any[i/] mag on the 500 that slagged off it's performance.

Bram, I've looked at your pictures in some detail, and I was wondering what the two different light sources were?
If they were both tungsten filament bulbs, but with different wattage ratings, then I would say that the pictures are the result of a non linear response in the Camera rather than any specific limitation for low light shooting with the MX500.
Also is the shutter speed constant between the two pictures and the gain likewise?

I can't really answer that question since I didn't create those pictures.

Eli Schwarz from this thread made the pictures: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=8022

Originally posted by Arthur.S

Try here for an unbiased opinion. http://www.computervideo.co.uk/april03-2.html
CV mag can always be relied upon for warts & all reviews. I've yet to see a review in [i]any[i/] mag on the 500 that slagged off it's performance.

Hi,

Indeed for what they tell everything is true... but in my opinion this review is far from complete...

They don't mention that the 3mpix pictures are interpolated and thus not real 3mpix... Also I think they spend quite some text to the webcam function which I don't think really matters since we don't buy this $2000 cam for it's webcam function And what about the true anamorphic 16:9!?

Anyhow, I'm surprised how little examples there are! After searching the net for over 2 days I only found 8 photo's and no sample movie at all! Especially with camera's image qualtiy is also a subjective matter. People like to see for themselves how good/bad the image quality is before they spend $2000 on a cam

DpReview for example has LOADS of photo's from almost all digital camera's on the market! Why is there no "DvReview" with short sample movies from all cam's on the market?

Perhaps you can supply me with a short movie? A movie that is shot in the evening in a room with normal lights would be exactly what I'm looking for? If it's not bigger than 10 mb you can mail it to me at: bram.corstjens@planet.nl

Thnx

I'm afraid you'll have to mbuy the mag for the full in depth review Bram. I totally agree that the webcam function is a complete waste of space. By the way, there are 2 low light modes. A colour night view mode, which is really only usefull for stills due to the slow shutter speed. But it's certainly better than the gimicky green 'night shot' that other cams have. There is also an AE 'low light' function. I've tried this mode here in my little studio which has one 60watt (shaded) light bulb. Viewing direct to my monitor/TV, the pics look perfect to me - just about exactly as my own eye is seeing them. Why Eli would need a 200watt(or even 100w) is beyond me. (But then what wattage is a camera flash?)

I really would like to send you a short movie, but with my S***t
dial-up service(no broadband here yet ) it's not feasible.

Strange that the original thread starter hasn't been back to comment yet!

Arthur, I just recieved a short Mpeg 4 movie in my mailbox created with the MX500 in a normal room with normal lighting... (made by Eli Schwarz)

Since I'm at school now, I cant upload it yet, but in a few hours I will and post the URL here.

Would you class MPEG4 as the same as 'normal' DV though Bram?
This Eli seems to be going about things in a very strange way- still shots without a flash - MPEG4 instead of real DV. Must admit, I've never even tried MPEG4 on the 500. Might get round to it tonight. 2nd thoughts......I'll probably be too depressed after the Turkey game.

Yes I know quality is bad at Mpeg4, but if gives still quite a good indication of the low light performance of the MX500 cam. Mpeg4 is definitely not in the same class as DV though....