px100 vs px100 II anyone know the difference between series one and the series II models ? cant seem to find any comparisons thanks for any help
1752362
Check the description tab of the PX 100 I product page.http://www.sennheiserusa.com/private_headphones_mid-size-portables_502816
1752363
When I sent in my px100 original for RMA at Sennheiser USA (Old Lyme, CT I think), one of the higher reps told me there's no difference except the -II looks better and is supposedly more durable. I sold the PX100-II's right after I recieved them and I miss them alot, as stupid as it sounds. Oh well, I'm using the Grado SR325's now!
1752364
I would not recommend buying on eBay. I just bought a pair of PX-100s and they proved to be fake unfortunately. Get them from an authorized dealer only
1752365
I don't see any authentic PX100 [original/classic] anywhere on the web or fleabay now. If anyone knows of authentic, let me know. and for you who use them, know them, know the competition - what's the alternative?I use mine for live sound - i'm a bassist and occasional guitarist - these work so stinking well with my personal mixer.... incredibly clean, do not color, efficient yet will not clip unless stupidity sets in.
2268102
I have the base but use it only on the original RX-100 as I don't have the Mark II. I liked the base a lot - it was of high quality and the manufacturer seemed excellent - but no longer use it. No reflection on the base but I now use a screw-in handle similar to the Clic Stic CIAK-0010 Universal Camera Handle. It gives a firmer grip and keeps my fingers away from buttons I constantly hit by mistake. Just sayin'.
1691038
Michael, I own a Panasonic DMC-FZ30. If I had the money I would switch to this S100 for one main reason, that being low light capability. The 30 is limited to ISO 400, I see the 50 can go all the way up to 1600 so that may do the trick. Other than that I'm quite happy with the 30. I've had it three years, taken 1000's of photos of which I'm pretty happy. However the low light limits me quite often. The 30/50 have sensors much smaller than the s100. I think Fuji would have been better off with the large sensor they used but with 8 megapixels which would have improved photo quality, especially at the higher ISOs. The megapixel race is one of the biggest problems in the digital camera arena today. There again the 50 and S100 aren't that far apart in the megapixel race but look at the size of the Fjui sensor - wow! I would enjoy the 2 1/2 inch LCD over the 30/50's 2". I wouldn't miss the rotating feature on the Panasonic as I mostly use it in vertical modes and the Fuji provides that. Another thing I'd want is better video. Even though the three cameras have the same specs I'm disappointed with the Panasonic results. The video from my 30 aren't as good as my wife's Sony W50 point-and-shoot. I guess I'd have to hold them in my hand to compare the Fuji 100 vs the Panasonic 50. My conclusion for you? If I had the 50 in hand already I wouldn't be looking to upgrade. The Panasonic is bound to have more noise due to the smaller sensor. The Fuji looks like it has less noise but there are rampant complaints about purple fringing although most say it only shows up on hard contrast shots. The Panasonic is better at purple fringing but worse on noise - choose your weakness. Battery life is awesome on my 30 and it is indicated to be lower on the S100. Are these differences worth the difference in price (50=$579 S100=$655 9/19/08 on Amazon). If it was me purchasing today I'd go for the S100. What did you decide?
400049
I have the SX1IS ad SX30IS. Going to sell one of them. I did a comparison of what I called final image quality. http://www.cameramike.com/cameramike/MEDI_1./Pages/SX30is_compare_SX1is.html Yes - RAW output is an advantage but when you reduce the noise of the SX30 image it is of equal or maybe better quality of the RAW SX1 image. Using my simple non technical setup. I did look at other setting but both like iso 80 the best. I do not need a high definition video - so that difference is not important.
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.
176622
How do you do, Mr. Ryan. I call it Suzuki, the staff of a bell. Thank you for your consideration. Since this mail is using the translator, it has made a mistake in it, and although it may be an acatalepsy, please allow it. Although I am carrying out simultaneous sale of this camera also in the store in Tokyo, it is still in stock. It is a late model of XP series of FUJIFILM. In order of XP60 -&gt;XP150 -&gt;XP200, it is the most expensive and performance is also the most wonderful. Is it an answer of the question? Moreover, please do not hesitate to ask a question.
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
489799
I have the SX1IS ad SX30IS. Going to sell one of them. I did a comparison of what I called final image quality.http://www.cameramike.com/cameramike/MEDI_1./Pages/SX30is_compare_SX1is.html Yes - RAW output is an advantage but when you reduce the noise of the SX30 image it is of equal or maybe better quality of the RAW SX1 image. Using my simple non technical setup. I did look at other setting but both like iso 80 the best. I do not need a high definition video - so that difference is not important.
1682411
The PX 100-II does have awesome sound range but they do not have a mic on it for use with a smart phone. THe PX 100-II i does have a mic that works great with my iPhone 3GS, 4S and 5S as I imagine it works well with them all and any other phone that uses a mini stereo plug. I have bought 3 pairs of these in the past 2 years... Clean crisp quality sound!
1271190
David, I'm still struggling to decide on the HX1 because on Amazon it says Windows Platform" and this is a little scary (referring to Mac usage) when it seems other camera listings do not carry this phrase "Windows Platform" =doesn't that seem to imply HX1would prefer not to work with Macs? (I am re-reading your remarks carefully BTW --just an additional question)
948238
Yes, back to your original post. I guess the sx1 is for those wanting the benfits of a CMOS sensor, greater zoom (over the sx200 which looks like a great pocket camera), true 1080p HD video, and standard AA battery usage (rechargable, of course, but standard in a pinch), and RAW+JPEG, all things I like very much.p.s. on that review site above the image quality of the rebel xsi is quite inferior to either the sx1 or sx10!
1962905
The /B marking is Sony's convention to say the camera has a black body, as opposed to the default silver. So, WX1/B is black and WX1 should be silver. However, at present I can't find WX1 listed anywhere, not even on the Sony site. So maybe at present it's any color you like it, as long as it's black! :-)
730626
It isn't. The "equivalent" to the LX100 is the new D-Lux Type 109--the comparable model to the D-Lux 6 is the DMX-LX7.I say "equivalent" in quotes, because the equivalency is somewhat false--the Leicas have a superior build, better materials, a cleaner design, Leica Glass made in Germany (as opposed the Panasonic's Japanese glass with Leica "Specs"), and a copy of Lightroom. Thanks for looking!
1132960
Because LX 7 and RX100 are the top two smaller camera on the market disregard the price difference. LX7 has bigger lens, better night photo. Sony has bigger sensor...
1505274
Hello Subhakar, the difference between this two senheiser, well both are the same, both sound amazing, great bass response. Check the senheiser webpage, you will find the details. For me, both models are the same in sound. try the cx 300b mk ii. Take care, rock on.
2051967
The big difference is that the AX100 is 4K and has 4 times greater resolution than the CX900s (3840 x 2160 vs. 1920x1080). Even if you don't have a 4K set, the down sampled 4k video is reported to be substantially better quality.
2023902
I'll be able to do a direct comparison soon, as I've got a PX312 coming in, after purchasing the VN-302PC. The specs and features are very nearly clones of each other, but I've found that the Olympus lacks some rather basic abilities that the Sony covers, such as a means of moving files between the 5 folders for organization. Also, the files recorded on the internal memory can't be moved over to the external memory card through the recorder; though it's easy enough to do when connected to a PC. It shows up as two separate drives on the PC, and the files remain uniquely named whether recorded on internal or external memory, so it's a simple matter to just copy them over. (If they reused file numbers on int vs ext memory then there would be an added complication of renaming before copying). I'd rather that the file names included the timestamp, like some other recorders do, but neither of these do that. Record quality of the Olympus is fine, so if the Sony does just as well, the Sony has more comprehensive features. The file erase process is better on the Sony as well, because it plays back the recording you're about to erase for confirmation before recording. With the Olympus you have to stop the playback on the target file first and be careful that it didn't advance to the next file, and watch the screen for the sequence of prompts to follow through with the delete process. I think the Sony method for deleting is better because it can be initiated while the target file is playing, and the playback of the recording as confirmation has less potential for inadvertently deleting the wrong recording. I believe the Sony also retains the time for at least a minute during battery changes, while the Olympus loses an hour or two and needs to be reset. It's not very significant since the batteries last so long, but so far, all the pros have been on the Sony side. When I get the Sony in hand I'll see if it actually performs as well as the Olympus