I'm looking for a good quality Digital Video Camera. The Sony PD150 sounds great, but now I saw something about the Panasonic MX300, which seems to be much smaller with the same features. Sometimes it looks like the same camera is refered to as the MX3000. Information is very limited. I found one web site that pushes it, but no one else seems to be commenting on it capabilities, final quality, even price. I can't even find it on the panasonic web site! Any information would be helpful.

-- charlie (shalda@rebamail.com), August 02, 2001

Answers

well, www.supervideo.com is pushing the MX3000; according to the site it is the international version of the Panasonic PV-DV951 (which you can read plenty about on CNET, et al.... the 951 is an update of the 950 but with optical instead of digital image stabilization and a few other improvements).

According to the supervideo guy the MX3000 is superior to the 951 in over a dozen specific features but i didn't dig up the whole list of what they were. He seems to feel that the image quality and many other basic things about it were far better and possibly for a better price, depending on international pricing at the time.

I left the site still not knowing how to get my hands on one other than to email him, which is easily done through an onsite link.

Panasonic USA has stated that there will be no USA release of the MX3000. Be advised that it is sold in Europe in a PAL version and the US-compatible NTSC version is found in Japan.

-- Eric O (erico@lmi.net), October 16, 2001.

Aha! A few minutes later on European websites I discovered the primary difference. The PV-DV951 still uses only 1/6th inch wide CCDs, while the MX300 has 1/4" CCDs. This would potentially gather 2.25 times as much light and result in much better performance in low light situations.

This is still only supposition, however.

-- Eric O (erico@lmi.net), October 16, 2001.

ONe of the replies mentioned the larger (0.25" CCDs); the DV951 also has 410K pixels per ccd while MX3000 has 480K (the PAL version has even more of course). As you only need 345K pixels for a 480*720 raster it's not clear how useful these extra pixels are given that both are optically stabilized there is no need for extra pixels as with EIS.

-- John (tnr@canadawired.com), December 01, 2001.

Aloha Every now and thenvideographers find a great video cam and want to share their experiences and explore some of the unique featurs it may contribute to the body of VIDEOGRAPHY. Such was the Japan DJ100 and its European PAL version DX100. There were, however, many issues and many questions for improving this very practical and comfortable to hold 'Palmcorder' Pana calls them. About eighteen months after dropping off the list I was called back to see a proto-type. I was amazed to find virtually every issue and recommendation addressed. This was unheard of that a camcorder manufacturer would take it to heart to do such a dramatic move. We have been rewarded with a very fine piece of equipment with this new Millennium version MX300/3000. The performance is such and its features are to a level that Pana North America refuses to this day (2002) to allow the the MX to compete in Mexico, Canada, USA, Phillipines, Korea or any (ANY) NTSC country in the world. Japan excepted. Now, comes the third generation MX with WiFi, Blue Tooth, USB, GB Flash Memory and a host of other achievements that Canon and Sony are relegated to follow. The marrying of the Leica Lens to a DVPro prism block with quarter inch triple CCD's in a form factor that is not too small to be professionally operated or too large to be cumbersome is one of the most common feedbacks from the thousands that now own it. I never in my 60 some years have heard so much devotion to a video camera... it rfeminds me of the Photographers love of the Hassy, Nikon F & Leica! I have tried to devote enough space so that as much feed back and owner's first impressions can be freely read by all 24/7. The Owner's Manual translated into English is free and always available along with all other major camcorders to compare by the web surfers. I always thought the web was for the Free Exchange of Ideas and that is what http://www.SuperVideo.com is All About... ALOHA

-- chuck meister (chuckmeister@supervideo.com), January 22, 2002.

Take a look at the EZ-50 it is from the Panasonic Professional division, it is the same size, same feature set - 3-chip, 1.6 megapixel stills, except it has a 3" LCD instead of the 2.5" LCD on the MX300.

-- Michael Hastings (mike@aquavideo.com), February 07, 2002.

I have owned a Sony TRV900 since 1999 and last year I went out to buy another as backup. But what caught my eye was this Panasonic MX300. It was 10% cheaper than the Sony and I've done some pretty careful comparisons of the two cameras.

Firstly I fixed both cameras to one "L" bracket, aimed them at the same object about 5 metres away, and hand-held the combo in many lighting conditions as I walked indoors and out. I set both cameras on full auto and my conclusions are as follows.

In good light there's nothing between them as regards sharpness, colour and general overall quality. You'd be very pleased indeed with either camera. Into the light the Panasonic flares a great deal more, with very strong vertical smearing on the CCDs. Disapointing, that. Both cameras have the same coverage in wideangle regardless of the fact that the Leica lens claims to have a 3.55mm focal length alongside Sony's 4.2mm. Even writing 3.55 is nonsence as production tolerances make a mockery of the second decimal place. Five one hundredths of a mm indeed!

The Sony Super steadyshot is noticeably more powerful than the Panasonic version. They're both optical stabilisers by the way and neither degrade the picture at all. The Sony Info Lithium batteries are much more advanced then the Panasonic's and as the 900 uses 25% less power than the 300, the batteries last much longer, too. The Panasonic gets quite hot and the instruction book tries to cool the situation.

There are obvious differences between the two cameras. The 300 is very much smaller and lighter but has this nasty bottom loading tape compartment. I even have to remove the tripod quick-release plate to change tapes. Very poor. The metal jacket of the Sony is far better looking than the "silver painted" Panasonic. The 900's side screen is huge alongside the 300's postage stamp, but the latter is much more useable outside in good light. It's also viewable from a much wider angle - you have to be looking perpendicular to the Sony's screen to see the image properly.

The 300 has its microphones in a much better place and they sound better too. Neither camera records motor noise, but the 300's stereo is sweeter and the position means they're less likely to be obscured by your hand.

In low light the 900 wins hands down. Guess why? It has a manual ND filter that can be switched in or out at will, whereas the 300 has an automatic ND filter that partly obscures the lens at anything other than maximum aperture. At f16 the ND totally obscures the lens. I don't like this spoon feeding, and much prefer the "silent scream" of the 900 calling for the ND to be switched in.

The bayonet lens hood is better on the 300 as the Sony one is a right pain to fit. Both cameras are crazy though; both require you to ditch the hood if you want filters up against the lens (where they should be of course).

The zoom lever on the Panasonic is far better than the Sony. The 300's zoom can creep to crash, though the orientation of the riocker is more intuitive on the Sony, with the front of the lever being telephoto.

The 300 has a menu system which is often 3 layers deep and this is a pain. The 900 has real switches for screen brightness, loudspeaker volume and a neat "push to auto focus" button. On the Panasonic you have to delve into the menu system simply to enable the headphone out socket to toggle between A/V out and phones. But it does have a very comprehensive menu that allows various manual level settings on the audio as well as picture "sharpening" and more widescreen modes.

So, which camera do I love more? They're both so good, so sharp, so capable, so small, so light. If maximum compactness is your overall priority then the Panasonic wins by a mile - that bottom loading has meant the camera's a Weight Watchers delight. But if you handed both cameras to an experienced videoman and asked him to set artificial white balance, 1/100th sec, f5.6 and the audio level, the Sony would be shooting the scene about 5 minutes before the Panasonic, that's how much more user friendly it is.

So my heart goes to the older camera. It doesn't have a megapixel capability or neat SD cards, it doesn't have Leica splashed on the lens, it's fatter and heavier and it's side screen hinge creaks nastily but as a video making tool it really is the better camera.

tom hardwick.

-- Tom Hardwick (TomH@rdwick.freeserve.co.uk), February 13, 2002.

I put my test report on http://www.reenbo.com/MX300 It's in Dutch, I agree on many points with Tom Hardwick. I had a 890 as comparison which is a 900 without DV-in.

-- Bo Logiantara (bo@reenbo.com), February 24, 2002.

Hi Guys, The NV MX300 is history. What do you think of the new NV MX350 ???

-- Gabriel Gross (grossg@zahav.net.il), April 05, 2002.

Panasonic EZ-50 has 1/6" CCD not 1/4" as MX300

-- audrius (audrius@uh.edu), April 27, 2002.