what is todays Sony VX2000?

[jessiejess]

in 2000 I bought a VX2000 for around 2K, Its recently had a nasty fall, right in the middle of a project.

Im about to send it to the insurer and would like to know what is Sony's equivalent today, haven't been keeping myself up to date and there seem to be are so many..

 

Thanks

[Pete McCrea]

Sony VX2100 I believe is still current. Might be worth trying to push for the HD version something such as the HVR series.

[Nick S]

The Sony PD-170 is something of a VX-2000 equivalent. I've known it to be used to replace stock VX-2000s in a couple of environments.

[paulears]

With the 2100 still current, I doubt the insurers will cough up for what is pretty well a direct replacement - but the HDR-FX1000 is useful at about 2.5K compared to the typical £1700ish for the SD version?

 

With HD firmly in place, buying a SD camcorder now seems a bad buy, unless you don't have the dosh to pay the extra for the price difference - if the insurers even allow it?

[Pete McCrea]

The Sony PD-170 is something of a VX-2000 equivalent. I've known it to be used to replace stock VX-2000s in a couple of environments.

Not really. The Professional PD170 replaced the PD150 at the same time the consumer VX2000 was replaced by the VX2100.

[Nick S]

Hear me out, here's my logic:

 

The VX-2100 is, AKAIK, about to be discontinued (it's definitely already been discontinued in the US, so says B&H). You will probably be able to pick up new stock for a few months, but it's not in production.

 

The VX-2100's most direct replacement (according to my supplier) is the Sony HDR-FX7. This means Sony no longer make an entry level pro-sumer SD camera (the 2100 being definitely more pro-sumer than consumer). Whilst obviously the FX7 can shoot down to DV, given the price of the PD-170 is only marginally more (say, $200) than the retail price of the VX-2100 a few years ago and given the feature parity between the 170 and the 2100 (the main difference really being DVCAM and an XLR breakout, the latter definitely being retrofitted to a lot of 2100s out there), I'd stand by rating the PD-170 a reasonable option to present as an equivalent camera.

 

Of course, this would depend on how one's insurance policy paid out (current market value versus replacement value). I'm basing this on my own experience with a large stock of VX-2000 and VX-2100s that were replaced (and continue to be replaced) with PD-170s as an equivalent camera.

 

With HD firmly in place, buying a SD camcorder now seems a bad buy, unless you don't have the dosh to pay the extra for the price difference - if the insurers even allow it?

I wouldn't necessarily agree - it would depend on your editing setup and your final product. Both the extra computing power and hardware you need to deal with HD, as well as the facilities to display it, may well preclude using HD to shoot. It's not just the camera, but the tape deck, monitor playback, screening playback, etc. Especially given the UK's general resistance to HD broadcasting (which in itself is odd/another topic of discussion, because the UK has been very up on other developments such as 16:9), and many companies now shooting for digital distribution (where bandwidth precludes HD) it might not always be the best option to go with hi-def.

[jason5d]

fx1000

[gnomatron]

I really think you'd be daft to not buy HD at the moment - while you're right, nick, about the extra processing power etc., if that's an issue for you just now then you can shoot in SD for the time being, or use the camera to downconvert HD footage to SD for editing. Your next computer will be happy editing HD, and in the next few years most TVs are going to be HD capable. The price difference isn't massive and people are going to expect HD more and more over the next few years. It's also a good sales tool - I'm sure a wedding video in HD would be worth a few more quid than one in SD, for example. The only particular advantage of SD cameras other than being a bit cheaper is better low light performance as far as I'm aware.