DPF-X1000 v DPF-V1000 Does anyone know what are the key differences between these two 10" Sony frames? Thx
1362042
I've just read the specifications of these 2 models on Sony web site. In addition to the 4000 images (model X1000), there is only another difference which is the TruBlack feature. That's all. The rest is exactly the same. You can see the features comparison of these models on Sony Photo Frame web page. I have bought a DPF 8 inches. It has a perfect image even in a lower resolution than that of V1000. I'm very pleased with this Sony photo frame. I'm willing now to buy the DPF 10 inches.
967105
Sony customer support says that the difference is that the X1000 holds 4000 images and the V1000 holds 2000 images.
1253032
I'd be curious about this as well. I bought a standard definition FS200 which had really grainy, poor video quality. I'm ready to pay extra for the HD version but would like to know how you like the video quality of of the HF200 so far.
682412
It is very hard to separate the sensor and the EXR modes. Even in some of the "manual" modes under certain settings, the EXR functions will kick in. I will say the x10 is a bit quirky but you can get some very nice images out of it. The Sony has a larger sensor and does have more lines of resolution on Popular Photography's resolution test at its base ISO. Sony has 2270 lines of resolution and the Fuji has 2130. The Fuji earns a low noise rating up to ISO 800 while the Sony only holds onto the low noise rating only through ISO 400. Very similar cameras with similar audiences. I can't really speak to the Panasonic as I have never owned or used one. Popular Photography has a website and has a full review of both cameras. They are very good reviews. May be helpful to you.
2145502
As far as I know, the differences are minimal....Both are excellent; save the $20,go with the 190XB. I love mine.
725756
The big difference is the image sensor, the HFS100 has 8.59 megapixels and the HF200 has 3.29 megapixels. On the Canon site you can do a nice side by side comparison of all the differences.
1527058
I was wondering the same thing. I am thinking about buying the the 1019 and now I came accross the VSX-9049 and right now the difference is only around $20 in Amazon.
2190591
There's a user review posted on head-fi forum saying that Sony confirmed the difference to be only cosmetics and packaging. I own the XB920 and have tried store demo of the X10, and I find the builds quality almost identical, indicating at least the shell/housing is the same.
903010
HFS100 advertises 3264x1840 video resolution. Do you need a monitor/TV of that resolution to see the quality? The TV's on the market only go up to 1920x1080, I think. Does that mean there is no difference in quality between HF200 (2304x1296) and HFS100 when watching on TV?Also, HF200 has proprietary Sony file system (people complained). Does that really bother you?
7128
I've used both. WM1000 is larger but easier to handle. They are different animals.
1555925
I like the White framed and Burgundy framed LCD HDTV's better they look more distinctive, plus the sharp stand allows for Tilting and moving of the TV, the Sony does NOT allow any movement of the TV. However I wonder about the reliability of the Sharp... never have had a Sharp TV my Sony's have lasted at least 10 years without any problems... The Sharp model is native 1080p and built for gaming. You have to get the Sony 32XBR9 for a comparison...it just came out and is 999 at BB
1586352
Hi Techsavy-- I have to disagree with you. I just re-read the ad, and it's pretty clear to me that it is for one frame. I can't see anywhere that indicates that there would be two. So why, exactly, do you find it deceiving?
722138
Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell... » Read More Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) « Show Less
344031
They seem to be pretty comparable. I found a couple of reviews... check out dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx1is/page13.asp) for more details. The thing that turns me off of the Sony is that it takes memory sticks and I believe it saves the videos in a sony format.... Canon seems much more open and standards based.
70354
I went today to look at HDtv's. I saw both the 46XBR4 and the 3000W and another 3000? Sony. All I can say is that by far the XBR4 was crisper and brighter, it looked more like reality. They had ESPN-HD feed on from Direct-TV. Is the difference worth the price, that's something you have to decide. Go look at them, I saw them at CC. I actually spent a good hour in a recliner they had setup and just watched the 46XBR4 comparing it to the sets around it. This is the one I'm getting, it was simply the best picture constantly, even better than models bigger in size with 1080p. It really stood out in the finer details when next to the other sets.
1103916
Hey Josh,The image sensor in the two cameras is the same so low light performance will be the same as well. The major difference here is going to be the added xlr compatiblity and the handle/shotgun microphone atachment. As Michael stated, and these were differences that I didn't realize, There is an IR capability and different encoding format on the XA10. The IR capabilitys wouldn't apply to you because they wouldn't match the other shots, think of the green light video you see on tv. I don't know as though you would notice the different encoding format either, and likely whatever you use to edit/burn your video will encode the video upon output. So a bit more versatile but also a bit bulkier camera.Bryan Hey Josh,The image sensor in the two cameras is the same so low light performance will be the same as well. The major difference here is going to be the added xlr compatiblity and the handle/shotgun microphone atachment. As Michael stated, and these were differences that I didn't realize, There is an IR capability and different encoding format on the XA10. The IR capabilitys wouldn't apply to you because they wouldn't match the other shots, think of the green light video you see on tv. I don't know as though you would notice the different encoding format either, and likely... » Read More Hey Josh,The image sensor in the two cameras is the same so low light performance will be the same as well. The major difference here is going to be the added xlr compatiblity and the handle/shotgun microphone atachment. As Michael stated, and these were differences that I didn't realize, There is an IR capability and different encoding format on the XA10. The IR capabilitys wouldn't apply to you because they wouldn't match the other shots, think of the green light video you see on tv. I don't know as though you would notice the different encoding format either, and likely whatever you use to edit/burn your video will encode the video upon output. So a bit more versatile but also a bit bulkier camera.Bryan « Show Less
449718
I do not know the exact answer, but my experience as a videographer tells me, that most likely there is no difference. The most significant step up would be Sony DVM 63HD tapes that are of a really higher quality, and can record in two formats. The are also very expensive.
1634370
I have them both in front of me for comparison: The 2000 has a slightly rougher surface than the 1000, which is probably what the "precision control" is referring to. The 2000 has a stitched edge, while the 1000 has a cut edge. If I tug at the corner of the pads, the 1000 seems to stretch more than the 2000. The 2000 has an extra "DX-2000" logo in the upper left corner, while the 1000 only has the Perixx logo in the lower right. The Perixx logo on the 2000 is a much brighter white and the logos seem to be layered on top of the fabric (if I rub my finger across the logo I can just barely feel the lettering, which has a rubbery texture), while the logo on the 1000 seems to be inked into the fabric.