Comparison of the Sony
DCR-VX2100 / DSR-PD170, DSR-PDX10, DCR-TRV310, and DCR-TRV350
Camcorders

Firstly, I would like to start off with this comparison in saying that the purpose of this is to assist both professionals (such as event videographers and on-location camerapersons for broadcast television), amateur filmmakers, and camcorder aficionados that are faced with the decision of choosing between the VX2100/PD170 and the PDX10, as I recently was.  The different areas reviewed are: 

It's probably also appropriate for me to introduce myself.  My name is Robb Ryniak.  My educational background is in Broadcast Communications and Computer Science.  I am the president and chief software architect of Ingenuware, Ltd., a company I started in 1999.  I have always believed that the integration of television and computers & networking is inevitable; over the past decade, we can see the progression towards such predictions.  I'm not really a futurist or anything, but computers and video/film have both been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember.  In any case, understand first that the following analysis is my opinion only, and you have the choice of trusting it, or getting your hands on these devices and trying them for yourselves.

Secondly, I would like to note that the VX2100/PD170 and PDX10 are both excellent camcorders, depending on your usage.  (And the TRV310 is really not bad either, but as always, it depends on your usage of it how useful it can be.)  As always, mileage will vary, depending on which features are the most important for you.  Throughout this analysis, the PD170 and the TRV350 will be referenced occasionally, but only by way of specification comparison, as I did not have either camcorder in my possession for review.  For those of you not familiar with these two camcorders, the PD170 is the twin brother of the VX2100, and the TRV350 is the replacement for the TRV310.  (Which in reality amounts to sort of a distant cousin.)  As such, there is less need to actually have the PD170 or TRV350 in hand.  The only reason they are included in this comparitive analysis and review is because: (1) The PD170 is the official "Professional" version of the VX2100, and (2) The TRV310 (my "old" camcorder, which at one time was the "elite" Digital8 camcorder) is no longer sold by Sony, and the TRV350 is the closest thing still offered by Sony.

Also, this information assumes that the reader wants to do at least some (if not most) of their shooting in 16:9 widescreen.

Lastly, all of the sample images were taken with all settings on each camcorder on automatic, since I tend to trust the automatic settings for stationary shots, so the shots exemplify the best of each camcorder.

Now that I've introduced both myself, and this article, let's get on with it.  The following sections each have a different focus, read what you will, all or some, it's up to you.  The sections are:

I. Important Specifications

DCR-VX2100 DSR-PD170 DSR-PDX10 DCR-TRV310 DCR-TRV350
Imager / Optical Specifications
Filter Diameter 58mm 58mm 37mm 37mm 37mm
Optical Zoom: 12x 12x 12x 20x 20x
CCD Count: 3 3 3 1 1
CCD Type: Advanced HAD Advanced HAD Interline Transfer N/A N/A
CCD Size: 1/3" 1/3" 1/4.7" 1/4" 1/6"
CCD Resolution: 380,000 380,000 1,070,000 460,000 460,000
CCD Actual Res: 340,000 360,000 690,000 290,000 290,000
Min. Illumination: 1 Lux 1 Lux 7 Lux 1 Lux 4 Lux
Anamorphic 16:9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
True "Native 16:9" No
(Click Here for
CCD Pattern Use)		 No
(Click Here for
CCD Pattern Use)		 Yes
(Click Here for
CCD Pattern Use)		 Yes
(Click Here for
CCD Pattern Use)		 Yes
(Click Here for
CCD Pattern Use)
Image Quality DVD; High-End
Broadcasting		 DVD; High-End
Broadcasting		 DVD; High-End
Broadcasting		 Minimum for
Broadcasting
(in good light)		 Minimum for
Broadcasting
(in great light)
Recording Specifications
Format Mini-DV
SP or LP modes		 DVCAM or
Mini-DV SP mode		 DVCAM or
Mini-DV SP mode		 Digital8
(DV on Hi8 tapes)		 Digital8
(DV on Hi8 tapes)
Recording Time 60min or 90min 60min or 40min 60min or 40min 60min 60min
Maximum Res.  480 lines
(front & back)		 480 lines
(front & back)		 480 lines
(back end)		 400 lines (front)
480 lines (back)		 400 lines (front)
480 lines (back)
Recording Quality Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good
Audio Specifications
Recording Mode 48khz, 16-bit 48khz, 16-bit 48khz, 16-bit 48khz, 16-bit 48khz, 16-bit
Included Mic. Stereo; Built-in Mono; Attached Mono; Attached Stereo; Built-in Stereo; Built-in
XLR Inputs Adapter Req. 2 Built-in 2 Attached Adapter Req. Adapter Req.
Shoe Microphone
Compatibility		 Yes No Yes; by replacing
attached mic.		 Yes Yes
Viewing Specifications
Viewfinder Color; 180k pixels B&W; 180k pixels B&W; 180k B&W; Unknown B&W; Unknown
Flip-out Monitor Color; 211k pixels Color; 211k pixels Color; 246k pixels Color; 105k pixels Color; 123k pixels

II. Individual Reviews

A quick note about "Broadcast Quality" and "DVD Quality".

In the most general sense, broadcast quality can be defined as any video signal whose quality is acceptable for broadcasting.  Since there are many factors that contribute to picture quality, all such factors are relevant in determining what is called "broadcast quality".  Generally speaking, there are three major factors that are the most obvious contributors: 1. image resolution, 2. color fidelity, and 3. picture clarity (image structure, "smoothness" vs. "graininess" (noise), etc.)  To achieve the optimal results for these three categories, it is generally agreed that 3 CCD cameras/camera heads of appropriate size and definition are required, high quality lenses are required, and an appropriate tape format is required.  Out of the camcorders in the review, ALL of them are broadcast quality on the "back end" (the tape format), since they all maintain a resolution of 720x480 for NTSC television signals, the maximum sized standard image for broadcasting and DVD.  (Of course, you are probably already familiar with the notion that NTSC signals are 525 lines.  However, only around 480 are used for the image, while the remaining signal space is used for other information, such as closed captioning, ID information, etc.)

For those of you that don't know, DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) quality is at the highest possible end of broadcasting.  DVD is not however, high definition.  It is still standard definition NTSC.  DVDs are often called high definition by many consumers since DVD is so much better in quality than VHS... so high definition is assumed.  It is a fairly common misconception.  It should be noted, however, that VHS images contain about 1/4 the image information of a high-end standard definition broadcast NTSC signal such as DVD.  (They are not very sharp, plus, they are only 240 lines of resolution.)  The resolution of ALL DVD video, whether widescreen or so-called "full screen", is always 720x480 pixels at maximum (some players allow lower resolutions, but 720x480 is the maximum) for NTSC DVDs with a frame rate of 30 frames per second.  (Actually, that's 29.97 frames per second, but who's counting?  NTSC DVDs = All DVDs produced and sold within the United States and Japan.  Europe uses a different standard, called "PAL", which supports 625 lines of resolution (576 lines actual video data) in exchange for a lower frame rate, approximately 25 frames per second.  The reason for the differences is allegedly because the US and Japan use 60hz A/C electrical signals while Europe uses 50hz electrical signals.  Since NTSC is 60 fields per second (2 fields per frame) and PAL is 50 fields per second (also 2 fields per frame), the number of unique images per second is at the same rate as the pulse of the A/C current... allowing lights and such to appear smooth and flicker free... so I am told.)

As such, it would seem apparent that Digital Video and DVD were developed with each other in mind, since they share the very same discrete resolution; that is, pixels in both directions are the same in both devices: 720x480.)  So it is possible for camcorders to be broadcast quality (in varying degrees), with the highest end being "DVD quality".  I should also note that most people notice a dramatic difference between broadcast imagery and DVD imagery in the real world.  This is due to the fact that many broadcasters still only broadcast at 400 lines of resolution from the source (scaled to fit the NTSC signal patterns) and the sharpness is equivalent to 400 pixels across, with few exceptions.  DVD quality surpasses most equipment used in the broadcasting world, and so it appears better than broadcast.  However, it should be stressed that this DVD is still only broadcast quality... just that broadcasters aren't using equipment that fully maximizes the capability of the NTSC format, while DVD does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCR-VX2100 Review (Reviewed with camera "in hand")

The VX2100 is an absolutely phenominal high quality camera.  Images are sharp and crisp with excellent color fidelity and virtually no noise whatsoever.  When comparing it's results with a movie on DVD (both in pause, toggling between the two), there is very little visible difference if any.  If it weren't for the "flat" room lighting vs. the dynamic lighting in the movie, one may not have been able to tell the difference in quality.  This isn't too surprising however, since the "effective" (used) pixels on the CCDs are approximately 340,000 pixels.  DVD resolution is 720x480.  Do the math.  720 x 480 = 345,600.  That's really, really close.  Since the CCDs have 380,000 pixels total, it's also possible that there is stricly a 1:1 ratio between CCD pixels used and video pixels recorded, and Sony just "rounded down" to 340k.  Who knows?  In any case, this is the camcorder I have chosen to use.

All I know is that this camera is an excellent choice for anyone looking for outstanding picture quality.

Total Initial Investment: $3100 (B&H December 2003 Pricing; $2400 for the camera + $700 for Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic lens bayonet attachment.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSR-PD170 Review (Reviewed referencing the VX2100 and PDX10, whose combination of various features accurately exemplify all PD170 features.)

This camera is essentially the same as the VX2100.  In fact, they far more the same than not.  The only real difference is that the PD170 offers built-in XLR inputs for audio, and the tape format can be DVCAM, a "pro format".  Frankly, however, the VX2100 supports line level input for audio, and there are adapters that you can buy for under $200 that give you XLR balanced input, making the VX2100 still the better choice, since it is still considerably less expensive.  The DVCAM format is allegedly "better" than Mini-DV, because it records over a larger tape area (hence the 40 minute recording time limitation) and has locked audio.  However, while tape "area" (lenth and width of tape used to record a signal) was paramount in analog formats, back in the day, it is not relevant to digital signals.  The images recorded are still the same.  Error correction handles any variances from the shorter tape format.  I suppose compression is an issue, but so far, I have not noticed any compression artifacts with the VX2100.  Locked audio is not as useful as it seems.  Why?  At least for me, having dealt with unlocked audio for quite some time, I have never ran into a situation where my audio stream drifted away from the video stream.  It just hasn't happened.  It can happen in some NLE software, such as older versions of Adobe Premiere, but using ULEAD MediaStudio, I have never run into this issue.  Not even ONCE.  So, the way I see it, why pay an extra $1000 for audio features you may never use (or can get for a mere $200), and for a tape format that offers virtually no advantage over Mini-DV?  Then again, if you're working for a professional company that will only buy equipment officially labeled as "pro", then the PD170 is just as good as the VX2100.

Total Initial Investment: $4100 (B&H December 2003 Pricing; $3400 for the camera + $700 for Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic lens bayonet attachment.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSR-PDX10 Review (Reviewed with camera "in hand")

This camera is not a bad little thing.  And I mean little.  It's barely over 2 pounds, and is a bit tinier than the TRV310.  It's literally about half the size of the VX2100 / PD170.  It's so small, the attachable microphone assembly looks disproportionately large.  But hey, good things do come in small packages.  One thing that REALLY stood out about this camcorder (besides it's amazingly low price) is that it is very high resolution in both 4:3 and 16:9 recording modes, making it a prime contender for 16:9 widescreen shooting.  While it's resolution is very good, it is rather poor in mediocre light and terrible in low light.  Images are way too dark, making on location lighting an absolute must for most situations.  Still, this is the camera I wanted to have because it is so light, it would be an ideal Steadicam JR camera.  However, after reviewing it, I returned it to B&H, where I purchased it, and plan to get another VX2100 instead.  Bottom line, this can be an excellent in-studio backup camera for 4:3 or 16:9 shooting.

Total Initial Investment: $2000 (B&H December 2003 Pricing; $2000 for the camera, no attachments required.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCR-TRV310 Review (Reviewed with camera "in hand")

The TRV310 is nice medium quality camera.  Images are reasonably clear with great color fidelity.  When comparing it's results with broadcast television, it appears to be a better image than some major network stations [cable] while being a slightly poorer image than other stations.  The downside is that, in spite of it's great low-light capability, in mediocre to low light, while it can take a picture in such environments, the auto-gain on this camera introduces a lot of graininess from 12db gain on up.  (Some very minor noise in 9db, usually not noticeable.)  One of the surprising features on this camcorder is that is supports native "true 16:9" using an identical technique as the PDX10 for generating 16:9 images.  The downside, of course, is that the lower resolution means it's not really suitable for shooting in 4:3 or 16:9 if you plan to upconvert to high definition relatively soon.  Notwithstanding, if you can use it in situations with decent lighting, and use it mostly for long range close-ups (like zooming in to catch a speaker's face), this will create superb images for this type of shooting.  For most other uses, however, the VX2100 with the Century Optics adapter is a much, much better choice.  (Note: This is also a great choice when you want your audience to know that this is "home movie" footage, such as showing a home movie on a TV in a movie, such as was done in the movie "Signs" (Mel Gibson), where the home movie footage of the alien at the birthday party was shown.)

Total Initial Investment: $50 to $400 (Depending on Auction Pricing)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCR-TRV350 Review (Reviewed by referencing TRV310 and reviewing TRV350 specifications and manuals.)

The TRV350 is allegedly the replacement for the TRV310, but its CCD is 1/6", which is much smaller than the TRV310's 1/4" CCDs, and the LCD monitor is 2.5" compared to the 3.5" monitor on the TRV310.  I haven't held this one in my hands, but I imagine, based on its specs that it's not quite as good as the TRV310.

Total Initial Investment: $460 (B&H December 2003 Pricing; $460 for the camera, no attachments required.)

III. Image Comparisons

I should note before you view these image comparisons, that the TRV310 images will appear over-sharpened (very hard edges with poor definition) and a good bit of noise.  After I had already taken these shots, I discovered the "Soft Portrait" AE mode in the TRV310 which eliminated those hard edges and some of the noise, giving a much cleaner looking picture.  Oddly, I've had this camera for almost 4 years.  Duh on me!  Click here for a brief comparison between the VX2100 and the TRV310 w/ Soft Portrait mode enabled.

Outdoor: Dusk

This was shot from my porch to across the street during dusk.

Indoor: Reasonably well-lit room.  (Equivalent of 300w of lighting)

This was shot in my Kitchen with a mixture of fluorescent and tungsten lighting.

Indoor: "Comfortably-lit" room.  (Equivalent of 200w of diffused lighting)

This was shot in my Living Room with a tungsten halogen torchiere lamp set on medium, for a comfortable feel, particularly when watching television.  The light is very soft and balanced, as the torchiere lamp points up to the ceiling and the light is diffracted off of the ceiling and high up on the walls.

Indoor: Dimly-lit room.  (Equivalent of 100w of diffused lighting)

This was shot in my Workshop (which will eventually be my living room; we are remodeling) with a tungsten halogen torchiere lamp set fairly low, for the minimum amount of light required for walking around.  (When working, it's on high, naturally.  I do value my fingers after all!)  The light is very soft and balanced, as the torchiere lamp points up to the ceiling and the light is diffracted off of the ceiling and high up on the walls.

Indoor: Near-dark.  (Equivalent of 10w of diffused lighting)

This was also shot in my Workshop with a tungsten halogen torchiere lamp set so low, any lower it would be off, for the minimum amount of light possible without the room being pitch black.  Reading is really not possible in this light.  The light is very soft and balanced, as the torchiere lamp points up to the ceiling and the light is diffracted off of the ceiling and high up on the walls.

Extreme Close-Ups

This was shot in my living room using extreme close-ups so you can compare the differences, as close-ups don't require the same level of resolution, and that can affect your purchasing decision.

IV. Application Recommendations

Home Movies

For home movies, depending on your requirements, any of these cameras will do fine.  (Note: The graininess so obvious in the video stills from the TRV310 are not nearly as noticeable with moving video, because the picture is constantly changing.)  However, if you're really a stickler for the best, get the VX2100.

Low Light, Limited Lighting or No Lighting (Shooting in Ambient Lighting Only)

For shooting in low light, or without the aid of studio lights or portable lighting kits, the VX2100 is really essential.  The PDX10 is not really all that great unless you have suitable lighting, and the TRV310 is OK, if you don't mind grainy pictures.

Event Videography / Weddings, etc.

For event videography, such as weddings, etc., the VX2100 is definitely recommended because of it's ability to handle about any lighting scenario.  Most event videos are shot in 4:3, which the VX2100 does exceptionally well.  For 16:9 event videos, the VX2100 with the Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic adapter will work beautifully as well.  If you need to do close-ups (such as the clergy or the bride or groom's face), you can always remove the adapter and use the 16:9 WIDE mode and get great close-ups that way.  (See the close-ups image comparison and analysis, above.)

Television Studio & Commercial Production

For television studios and commercial productions where lighting is plentiful and controllable, the PDX10 is probably the better choice.  It's just as good as the VX2100 in great lighting in most respects, but at a substantially lower cost.

On Location Shooting (Interviews, etc.)

For on location shoots, such as for interviews, commercials, electronic news gathering, etc., it will depend on the application.  If you can bring (and use) portable lighting kits, the PDX10 or the VX2100 will do wonderfully.  If you can't, then the VX2100 will be necessary.

Movies (Amateur, Independent, or Other)

Ahh, movies.  One of my favorite things.  For movie-making, I definitely recommend the VX2100.  I know I'll likely take a little flack for this from the 24-frame-per-send-die-hards out there, but don't get sucked into the 24fps "film look" hype.  Chances are, your movies will never hit the big screen, so transfer to 35mm is not really terribly useful.  Notwithstanding, your films may get you noticed, which is the idea, but you don't have to get them on film for that.  DVDs will work very nicely, and are a lot less hassle for an important viewer.  DVDs are NTSC, which is 30fps, and Hollywood produced DVDs are always 480 interlaced, converted from 24fps to 30fps.  Your movies will look best in this 30fps/480i format, and they will be easier to work with in many regards.  Since your movies will likely never see the big screen, but remain viewed on TVs, the 24fps becomes an issue of hype.  This is one of the reasons so many manufacturers have not embraced the 24fps "film" format in the low-end professional, prosumer, and consumer markets.  Yes, 24fps "feels" more like film, but that's not what gets you noticed.  Your attention to detail, lighting, shooting style, editing choices, storyline/writing, etc., are what will get you noticed.  The VX2100 will help you do that very well, and give you crisp, clean pictures, ideally suited for DVD.

V. Helpful Tips & Techniques

Good Shooting Practices

To shoot quality video/movies, some basic "good shooting practices" apply.

Techniques for Filming Cinemascope (2.35:1 Aspect Ratio)

So, you're interested in shooting in a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35:1?  Cool.  Sounds like fun.  The Cinemascope aspect ratio (2.35:1) is 33% wider than 16:9, just as 16:9 is 33% wider than 4:3.  That interesting tidbit makes it possible for anyone to shoot in Cinemascope by using your Century Optics 16:9 Anamorphic Adapter AND your camera's built in 16:9 mode together in combination.  16:9 of 16:9 is 2.35:1.  Conversely, you may consider filming using the "shoot and protect" technique, by filming in 16:9 and marking the edges of your monitor with the top and bottom of the "black bars" in cinemascope, 12.5% from the top, 12.5% from the bottom.  You can even use black electrical tape to mask off the image.  If you're using an in-camera 16:9 mode, and your monitor displays black bars for 16:9 already, either use the Century Optics 16:9 adapter instead, OR, mark off the black bars by measuring 12.5% from the top and bottom of the actual picture area on the monitor.  ("Shoot and protect" is useful if you want to shoot for both 16:9 and 2.35:1 simultaneously.)

Getting Around the Zoom Range Limitation of the Century Optics 16:9 Anamorphic Adapter

If you need to zoom in past the 1/2 to 2/3 mark in your zoom range, then you're likely talking about taking a close-up, something the Century Optics adapter for the VX2000/VX2100 and PD150/170 does not do well at all without natural outdoor lighting.  If you can, introduce plenty of natural light (or equivalent) which should enhance your cameras ability to focus through the Century Optics lens.  If you can't do that, and must accept the lighting "as-is", then the in-camera 16:9 WIDE mode on the VX2100 (and likely other cameras that record anamorphic 16:9 but only mask the CCD) yield some fairly good close-up pictures.  In fact, they pretty much seem good enough to pass as native 16:9.  The reason for this, of course, is that close-ups (especially extreme close-ups) are focused on a smaller area where the detail in that area is not expected.  Consider this, showing a room full of people may show a lot of detail overall, but if you were to try to put your nose to the screen and study facial details, they're very simple and lack much detail, since the image of their face occupies such a small amount of screen space.  A close-up, even if it is technically less detailed than pure close-ups in full resolution, shows vastly more detail than wide angle shots at the better resolution, since the close-up reveals more detail, as the image takes up a much larger area on the screen.  As such, using the in-camera 16:9 WIDE mode can "trick" the viewer into believing they are seeing high-resolution images at all times.  (High resolution wide shots to Low resolution close-ups, etc.)  Because of this, you can get away with using the Century Optics 16:9 Anamorphic Adapter for wide to medium shots, and remove it, and switch the camera to 16:9 WIDE mode for close-ups, particularly extreme close-ups.  Your audience will likely never know the difference.  Granted this takes a bit of planning, but it can be done, and rather effectively as well.  Then again, if you can get the right quality lighting, you can zoom all the way through (or at least 90% through) and not have to worry about it at all.  (I'm not entirely sure why natural daylight improves the ability to focus, I'd be glad to hear any explanations on this.)

Movie Magic (or "Make Your Movies Look Like Hollywood Blockbusters")

So you want to make your movies look like a Hollywood Blockbuster?  Of course you do!  To be honest, there is no quick fix or easy answer, but you can accomplish this with practice, as long as, in a nutshell, you shoot like they do.  Forget about the technical parts of making your movie for long enough to focus on the art of making a movie...

Eliminating Lens Flare When Using Century Optics 16:9 Anamorphic Adapter

Buy or create a sun shade / lens hood for your Century Optics adapter.  Century Optics sells a lens hood for it for $150.  But you can, if you feel so inclined, save your cash for a rainy day and buy a $5 plunger instead.  Yep.  A plunger.  Go figure.  The plunger I bought was just barely smaller than the width of the adapter, allowing me to stretch it over the adapter for a nice tight fit.  Cut the bottom of the plunger with an exacto knife and be very careful both to not cut yourself, and to cut the hood with nice even lines.  (See diagram.)  The end result will be a lens hood/sunshade that fits your adapter very nicely.  (See picture... although you may want to make your plunger hood about 2 or 3 times longer for a more effective sunshade.)

Getting Focused Audio With A Zoom-Synchronized Variable-Cardioid Microphone

Sony makes an excellent Microphone (mono, however) that when attached to the intelligent hot-shoe of your Sony camcorder, will work with the zoom feature to change the cardioid pattern that it accepts.  So, when you zoom in close, your mic is focused on the audio where you are pointing your camera towards, while when you zoom out wide, the pattern is more omnidirectional.  This is a great microphone that's inexpensive and you will get lots of use out of.  The model number is ECM-HS1, and it's less than $50 from B&H.  See a picture of this mic attached to my TRV310 by clicking here.