I have been using the DVX100A in Iraq for over a year; I had started shooting on the previous model, the DVX100 -- and then upgraded to this one. Filming in 24p(Advanced) letterbox format. Between the two cameras I have shot 300 hours of material in difficult conditions. The DVX100A is a very serious improvement over the DVX100 -- and the difference lies in better signal processing that stretches the exposure range of the camera. My material shot with the DVX100A has much better latitude -- the skies don't burn out so much, detail is better, colors are richer -- and the blacks are far nicer and less noisy.

I owe a great deal to Panasonic for making a camera like this -- it really is the best low-budget filmmaking tool around. The quality is something like shooting on 16mm film -- but much easier and much less expensive. If you are a documentary filmmaker, or interested in shooting an indy film -- this is an excellent choice. The only DV camera I would consider buying, in fact. Now Panasonic has released a HD camera with a similar form factor called the AG-HVX200 which may be a better choice for productions with slightly more financing -- but the DVX100A is going to stay around for a while as the standard for what DV tape can do in SD. It remains a very viable camera for making films.

A side issue:
Many people have commented that they prefer to use an anamorphic adapter on this camera to give a 16:9 aspect ratio without losing resolution -- I think this is a toss-up. The anamorphic adapter itself will slightly lessen the sharpness of the image, and close-up focusing is very difficult. I think the option of using "letterbox" or "squeeze" (the same thing, in terms of resolution) gives very nice results without adding extra weight and optical issues to the camera. It's analogous to the difference between shooting Cinemascope and Super35 on film -- Cinemascope uses the whole area of the negative, but Super35 (which crops the top and bottom of the frame to get a wide aspect ratio) has much nicer optical resolution because you can continue using spherical lenses instead of anamorphic. I once asked Robert Richardson (ASC) about how he dealt with this issue when he was shooting widescreen on Super8mm film for inclusion in JFK -- he preferred to simply letterbox the tiny frame and live with lower picture res than mess around with the focus problems of anamorphic lenses. The case with the anamorphic adapter on this camera is similar -- I think you can get fine results using letterbox format on the DVX100A, with fewer complications.

If this is your first camera, you will be in trouble. Because, yes, the manual is very limited, and it has a lot of advanced features. However, this camera was not made for the beginner's market. This is my third video camera, an upgrade so that I can produce higher quality independent films. First, the 24P feature, it shoots 24 frames per second and I must say, it does look like film. It looks rather spectacular, actually. The first day I had it, I was a little overhwelmed. But, with every feature available as both automatic and manual, a little experimentation, the quality of my images has improved drastically. The 24P does take a little work and knowledge in order to make it work, but the result is well worth the time. Also, there is a spectacular user website out there with hundreds of users and experts who can help. Personally, I love that everything can operate manually, as I now am able to correct for poor lighting when shooting scenes that do not allow studio lights, like birthday parties, and the such. For a year, this was my dream camera, and once I got it, I was not disappointed. For any people out there who are considering this model, feel free to contact me, and I will either answer any questions I can or direct you to someone who can. This camera is an independent filmmaker's dream.

I just bought the DVX100AP to shoot a documentary, and I'm so glad this camera is available. I don't need soundmen, grips, or other crewmember to just shoot. The quality of the images from the camera, set on the cine-switch shot at 24fps are amazing - no, not 35mm film shot by a member of ASC with a $100,000 Arri package, but compared with the 16mm world, this Panasonic liberates filmmakers from the world of chemical filmmaking.

You don't have to wait days to see your work back from a lab; you can plug in your firewire and capture to Avid Xpress. You don't have to pay through the nose for syncing, work prints, answer prints, release prints which are really besides the point for independant filmmakers anyway. If you've ever shot and cut film, you know what I mean.

No question: this is a pricey unit. No question, it is worth the money because even if the images aren't absolute film quality, they are not simple video either. When I first opened the camera and starting shooting, I couldn't believe what I saw in the viewfinder, not what I saw when I watched the footage on a tv, or on my plasma monitor. This camera loves to shoot well-lit shots too. If you take time to emulate film lighting of any kind, you will end up with a rich, detailed look that includes richness in the shadows and a wide exposure latitude.

Whoever said you can't do depth of focus with the DVX-100AP ain't trying hard. The utter crispness of the focus I've seen knocked me out. Other great issues: 2 XLR jacks, firewire connector, and usable on-board mics, which while not great for interviews, do a fine job for ambient and room tone captures, and in a pinch, with work in Avid, even interviews shot without an external mic are not only useable, but good. And nobody else need be there; no unwilling family members, no film-school whiners, no untrained sound recordists, no Arrifascists looking down at your Bolex.

I love film; I love the smell of film in the morning; but man, film is the crack of visual arts, and I have hocked blood to burn light onto Kodak emulsions. Freddy's dead. DVX-100AP my ass, honey.

All of these technical details are important; I find them fascinating and vital to read, as I am trying to decide on a camcorder to shoot a feature with. But I do think some of you DPs have missed the point.

THE most important factor is getting your work out "there," and "there" does NOT need to be Sundance. The work simply needs to be a finished product, not an idea in your head that has nowhere to go.

I, and many like me, cannot afford to make a film for 50 or 100 grand. It is not going to happen. But if there is a way to get a film done, or a promotional short of your film done for much, much less, then every writer and filmmaker now has a chance. [And many producers merely want a decent visual form of one's story; they have money to invest in remakes.]

To all the DPs who chastise would-be DV filmmakers by saying it is going to be so far below quality that the finished product will be limping around to sorry, class B festivals... better to have a faulty DV product and be in the race, then be sitting on the sidelines empty-handed.

CineTech22's information is correct regarding effective resolution, exposure latitude, etc. Film is a chemical process, and the amount of detail that can be delineated on essentially a molecular level on celluloid is staggering, even with 16mm. BTW, DV resolution is 720x480, not 640x480, but your point still is made--WAY less info than film. As far as the focus operation is concerned, there is an aftermarket "follow-focus" rig available to address this, but yes, the stock camera doesn't let you set your focus-pulling marks.


I would contend, however, that you've lost the forest for the trees. This camera DOES spell the end of 16mm as the preferred medium for indie filmmakers. Premium Panasonic DV tapes are about $5/cassette (63 minutes). And are reusable. What does 16mm cost in stock and processing for an hour of footage?

The path to indie glory is no longer only "shoot in 16mm, blow it up to 35mm for festivals or limited release, get discovered". Now we have "shoot in anamorphic DV, release on DVD, get discovered" as the new, much more cost effective option. Another note: DV footage shot on a DVX100a looks great uprezzed to HD, even better than some low-end prosumer HD cams out there, mostly due to its great color abilities.

I have used both the DVX100 & 100a, and have run up against their limitations. Exposure and depth of field are the biggest and require a lot of production compensation to get around--lots of zoomed, wide open aperture shots with heavy ND filtering to get that truly cinematic look.

Still, if you know what you're doing, this camera is fantastic. Audio is superb (phantom-powered XLR's--yeah, baby!!), 24p is beautiful to work with, color is very "film-like", and although it is easy to "bloom" the whites and "crush" the blacks, the range is better than most DV cams, and both can be avoided by indie filmmakers who pay attention to settings and lighting.

Would-be filmmakers who want to go this route need two important accessories: the 16x9 anamorphic adapter by Panasonic (AG-LA7200g), and Barry Green's book/DVD package http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook . By understanding the camera's strengths and weaknesses, you can get fantastic results from the DVX100a. If you are an independent fillmaker with a limited budget, buy this camera, the anamorpic adapter, Barry's book, and do some test shots to figure it all out, Then spend the $$$THOUSANDS$$$ you've saved by shooting with the DVX100a and use it for better lighting, production, script doctors, better actors, and more time in post. The result will be far more impressive than 16mm done on a shoestring--a turd that could more easily be blown up to 35mm, but is far less likely to be worth it.

That's my take, anyway. This camera does for independent filmmaking what the Alesis ADAT did for digital audio recording in the 90's--completely "democracizes" the field so that young, up-and-coming creative people can produce work of incredible quality for very little money and absolutely no "studio" control.

So buy this camera, indulge your creative freedom, make your prize-winning indie film, and "stick it to da MAN!"

Can't seem to decide between the two, will try to rent each out for a day and see the difference. But can't help notice (i) XL2 has a 20x optical zoom compared to DVX's 10x and (ii) the DVX weighs twice (10 pounds) the XL2 (5 pounds).

Good Camera nice color beautiful image, as time goes by image dulls, Good Camera nice color beautiful image, as time goes by image dulls, focus softens, if you have to get it serviced -Forget it! I had to pound my way all the way to the CEO in New Jersey, took 3 months!
Stick with Cannon, they have it together, I have a DVX 100A from Panasonic and an XL2 from Canon, so I have the luxury of comparing, Cannon has it more together.The hardware on this DVXA Camera is also not as solid as the Cannon (that cheap red turn on and record button has been used by all models including the cheap one chip cameras, grow up Panasonic, the 24 frame per second does not allow you to be sloppy in other fields. But I am not a panasonic fan.