I have a DVX100b and need to get a second camera. I am between another DVX or an XH-A1. Either way, I'm still going to be outputting to SD in the short term.

If I do go with the A1, is the low light performance good enough? Also, is there an issue with the rolling shutter and camera flashes? These are my 2 major concerns. Are there others I should consider?

I have just enough technical knowledge of this stuff to be dangerous, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Rolling shutter ONLY apply on SONY CMOS chip. The FX7, V1 and EX1 may have thiese problem. If is due with lot of flashing events than XH-A1 is good. Low light performance can check the forum user on XH-A1.

I have a DVX100b and need to get a second camera. I am between another DVX or an XH-A1. Either way, I'm still going to be outputting to SD in the short term.

If I do go with the A1, is the low light performance good enough? Also, is there an issue with the rolling shutter and camera flashes? These are my 2 major concerns. Are there others I should consider?

I have just enough technical knowledge of this stuff to be dangerous, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I feel that, unless you have a definite need for HD, you'd be better with another DVX (and I say this as a confirmed XH-A1 lover!). My reasons are:

1. Less risk in matching colour/texture between shots
2. You already know how to use the DVX, so not only no/little learning curve, but no risk of accidents when having to switch quickly from one camera to the other.

I've never done wedding video, but I have done wedding stills, and I am convinced that rule number one is keep the risks down.

I have a DVX100b and need to get a second camera. I am between another DVX or an XH-A1. Either way, I'm still going to be outputting to SD in the short term.

If I do go with the A1, is the low light performance good enough? Also, is there an issue with the rolling shutter and camera flashes? These are my 2 major concerns. Are there others I should consider?

I have just enough technical knowledge of this stuff to be dangerous, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

You should consider the AG HMC-150 for a HD camera option. The controls are very similar to your DVX100b and you may be able to match the video better.

The low light on the HMC-150 is looking a little better than the XH-A1 so far, but there is a steep learning curve on the Panasonic vs. the XH-A1 that I have had and learned for 2 years.

The HMC-150 does not record any variety of SD to the SDHC card. It may output it though.

I have a DVX100b and need to get a second camera. I am between another DVX or an XH-A1. Either way, I'm still going to be outputting to SD in the short term.

I used DVX's for weddings before I switched to the A1's. In my opinion I suggest you stick with Panasonic:
1. You will hate the A1's lack of low light ability especially during those dark wedding receptions.
2. The sound setup on the DVX is intuitive. The A1 has a convoluted array that was poorly designed. Also the DVX has a sound limiter which I miss every shoot.
3. The DVX has a vibrant color that can't be matched with an A1 preset.
4. The mic holder on the DVX is the correct size for most mics and it has a cushion from the camera. The A1 holder is too large for most mics forcing you to wrap it.
5. If you wear glasses you will prefer the DVX eye cup.
6. I agree with one of the other posts that it is easier to match color with DVX.
7. The learning curve on the A1 is steep.
8 Finally the small LCD screen makes accurate focusing very difficult.

BUT - If you are planning in the very near future to output to HD Bluray your decision would favor the A1.

Sorry, but I do no agree in one thing; I think the canon HX A1 handbook and learning curve is a very easy thing. Maybe this is a personal question.

Cheers.

Hi Jeff,

The low light on the HMC-150 is looking a little better than the XH-A1 so far...

Where did you read that? Or was it anecdotal? Have you seen any footage yet? Just curious.

Hi Mike,

I have a DVX100b and need to get a second camera. I am between another DVX or an XH-A1. Either way, I'm still going to be outputting to SD in the short term.

I agree with the others in that I like the idea of at least staying with the same brand of camera, both for the layout and the look.

If I do go with the A1, is the low light performance good enough?

In my opinion its borderline. You can get by but there isn't much latitude for very dark situations. I've only used the A1 for a few months and so far I haven't had a really demanding location. I shot this with 2 A1's and 2 HV30's this past weekend. It was a same-day edit so very little color-correction has been done:

~ annmarie and eric | 9.27.08 ~ (http://tinyurl.com/5xl5jn)

Low light performance is crucial, and I've been hearing that the A1 is good, but that's probably relative to other HD cams in that price range. It's hard to buy another SD camera, but I said that when I bought the other one two years ago, so hopefully I'll get another two years out of a new one.

Joel,

Didn't realize you did weddings until I watched your sample. Great Stuff! How do you plan on handling the extreme low light situations? Two weeks ago, I shot in a church where I had to go full open with gain (3 or 6, I forget). I can't imagine how a camera with lower light capabilities would handle that. Have you had any dark receptions yet?

Hi Jeff,



Where did you read that? Or was it anecdotal? Have you seen any footage yet? Just curious.

I got my HMC150 last week but have had only a little time to experiment. I also have XH-A1s which I may replace with HMC150s.

Hi Mike,

Joel,

Didn't realize you did weddings until I watched your sample. Great Stuff! How do you plan on handling the extreme low light situations? Two weeks ago, I shot in a church where I had to go full open with gain (3 or 6, I forget). I can't imagine how a camera with lower light capabilities would handle that. Have you had any dark receptions yet?

All receptions seem dark to me unless you're in the middle of summer and there are a ton of windows. The one in that sample would have been a cave but I use two remotely controlled off-camera lights on stands. You can see them in the dance portion.

I have no problem going up to 12db with the A1. Grain doesn't bother me as much as dark video does. I'd rather have a soft, bright image than a clean dark one. The ceremony was shot at 6db for the processional. Whenever I use gain I have a preset that cleans up the image a little.

The whole low-light situation bothers me. I was used to $2500 camera that gave me decent pictures at low light light levels and ever since the FX1 came out I've been saying I won't take a step backwards in light sensitivity just for more resolution. I finally gave in, but of course it was about 4 months too soon. The new Sony's seem like just what I was waiting for - a camera with a fixed lens and the chips from the Z7U in a smaller body. The A1 is a great camera though and I know it will have a ton of resale value if I go the Sony route.

I got my HMC150 last week but have had only a little time to experiment. I also have XH-A1s which I may replace with HMC150s.

Thanks Jeff. Keep us updated. You're in a good position to offer your opinion of how they compare.

Sorry, but I do no agree in one thing; I think the canon HX A1 handbook and learning curve is a very easy thing. Maybe this is a personal question.

Cheers.

I didn't mean that the A1 is hard to learn - I meant that, since he already knows the DVX, he won't have to learn anything new

I didn't mean that the A1 is hard to learn - I meant that, since he already knows the DVX, he won't have to learn anything new

I also own a dvx and a recently purchased xh-a1, there is only one area were the canon is much better if you downconvert to dvd in widescreen and that's resolution. If I go wide with the lens everything contains more detail in the background, the difference between the dvx and xh-a1 is in that area quite noticeable so beside the colormatching problem this is for sure the second biggest problem to match both camera's.
If you zoom in with the pana you notice it less but fully wide you clearly see it.

About the learning curve, yes the pana is a much easier camera to work with, every control has been thought about and you see that pana listens to their clients. The xh-a1 has some very awkward placed functions. I hate the fact that I can't turn the ois off with a button and some buttons are so tiny they are difficult to switch on or off. Also the pana is easier to whitebalance with, the canon has again placed a part of their whitebalance options under the lcdscreen which has to be opened to operate. And again a very tiny button that's hard to reach.

Their big function wheel on the side and especially how they assigned the functions to it I don't like either, if you don't want to operate the camera fully manual under run and gun situations but use one of the presets on the side valuable information is taken away in the viewfinder or lcd screen. F.i. I prefer using the tv mode as it locks down the shutter speed and automatically controls the iris, in that way I can easily switch between auto and manual for the iris when it's needed by a press on the iris button. Only the camera will not tell you anymore when to use the nd filter, only way to know that is to check your iris values by pressing the iris button to switch to manual, based on the iris values I now decide when to switch on the nd filter.

They say the xh-a1 is a camera that should be operated manual only which is true, but in run and gun situations it's very difficult to assure ALL values are correct and in the meantime assuring the you got your subject properly framed. In controlled situations sure, then it's easy as the camera has focus assist options as well as iris assist option in the viewfinder.

Also the iris ring should be better then that small wheel on the dvx but I think it's is not, it's more prescize yes, but for handycam type camera only an advantage if you work on a tripod. If I am handheld I hold the camera stable by pressing my arms against my body, my right hand can only control the zoom and on/off button and with my left arm I support the camera on the bottom, that leaves my thumb available to press the iris button and controll it real easy, because I don't have to move my left hand for that I can still have full controll and keep the camera stable. Same counts for focus which is an easy switch of a button and then pressing the one push focus button. I can all do this in "real time" without looking at the buttons and keeping my cam stable.

The canon has again a much smaller button to switch on/of the auto/manual focus option and a much bigger problem is the iris button which is too far apart from the irisring, meaning that if you want to switch the iris on/off during recording while handheld it's much more difficult to keep your camera steady.
If the xh-a1 were a shouldercam that wouldn't be any problem but for handheld type of camera's this option is not good when trying to stabilize your camera.

But, I must say I don't regret my choice, when I import the xh-a1 footage in premiere cs3 it's like looking through a window, there so much more detail to start out with and it just looks sharper on big lcd screens when downconverted to dvd. The pana might have much better colours out of the box but there are many presets to finetune your colors to look like the pana and some preset make your colours really "pop".

My suggestion would be, if you can take the price difference and have a fast pc get a hmc150. here in Europe the new hmc150 is about 1800 dollar more expensive then a xh-a1 so for me the xh-a1 was the best bang for buck. I do change camera's every 3 years or so and by then there only will be tapeless camera's and pc's that will handle this like they do now with mpeg2. The canon is by far the best mpeg2 camera you can get for the money now.
You only have to live with the tapes for a while longer but I don't mind that much as there are other tapeless additions for this cam as well.

About low ligh, it's not as sensitive as the dvx but if you stay wide with your lens, work with 1/25 shutter and experiment with some presets you can get the same low light performance. But you can't zoom in anymore, the dvx would then still retain enough light but the xh-a1 doesn't as your image gets real dark very quickly. I bought myself a led 40 watt light that you can dim. Now i just adjust my way of filming and get closer to my subjects and use the light I need to get a good image so for me the camera performs good enough in low lit rooms.

I think the bottom line here is one of aspect ratio, little else. Mike P - you're talking of shooting and outputting in SD and that's all well and dandy, but your clients will simply expect the films you produce for them to be in 16:9. They won't be 'asking for it' in the same way they won't ask for DVD. The tide has turned and they simply won't accept VHS or 4:3 any more.

So although the DVX 100 is a mighty fine camera, it's certainly had its day. Mind you, the XH-A1 has almost had its day, and it's a generation later camera.

So in answer to your original question I'd say this. Get the Canon, don't muck about with Panasonic's anamorphic. Accept the gain-up situation and stay at wide-angle (two stops faster).

tom.

I think the bottom line here is one of aspect ratio, little else. Mike P - you're talking of shooting and outputting in SD and that's all well and dandy, but your clients will simply expect the films you produce for them to be in 16:9. They won't be 'asking for it' in the same way they won't ask for DVD. The tide has turned and they simply won't accept VHS or 4:3 any more.

So although the DVX 100 is a mighty fine camera, it's certainly had its day. Mind you, the XH-A1 has almost had its day, and it's a generation later camera.

So in answer to your original question I'd say this. Get the Canon, don't muck about with Panasonic's anamorphic. Accept the gain-up situation and stay at wide-angle (two stops faster).

tom.

I haven't had anyone demand or comment on my videos not being 16:9. Gotta love the midwest! Which brings me to another question, can I shoot anamorphic on the DVX and expect reasonable quality? I've never tried it, assuming the resolution is just too low.

I could jump to the Canon, but I'd still be using my DVX as the other cam. So in the short run, the Canon doesn't address the issue.

Joel or others: This is getting off topic, but being at best a semi-pro at this, I've never tried slower shutter speeds. How much of an issue does that create in terms of motion (panning or fast action)?

I haven't had anyone demand or comment on my videos not being 16:9. Gotta love the midwest! Which brings me to another question, can I shoot anamorphic on the DVX and expect reasonable quality? I've never tried it, assuming the resolution is just too low.

When you say 'shoot anamorphic' I guess you mean switch on Panasonic's in-built 16:9 mode. You're right - both options on offer destroy the image quality.

The beauty of using an anamorphic lens on your DVX is that it effectively maintains the very high image quality that your camera is capable of. But there are down-sides - it means accurately aligning the A lens so that the image is compressed horizontally and of course it gives you more wide-angle - not something that a DVX owner is always happy about when the tele reach is so limited.

The A lens also distorts both viewfinders so you'd have to get used to that (but then so does one of the inbuilt modes). Generally (though I haven't tested Panasonic's dedicated A lens) they vignette the image if you stray too wide or too tele. It's an expensive, big and heavy lens, too, and means you can't use your other supplementary lenses.

Best you head for the XH-A1 I'd say, and start shooting true 16:9. I can't believe that couples that can afford your wedding filming services come home from expensive honeymoon and turn on an old 4:3 CRT, but then I'm not a Mid-Westerner.

tom.

I love my A1, but it does suck in low light.

When you say 'shoot anamorphic' I guess you mean switch on Panasonic's in-built 16:9 mode. You're right - both options on offer destroy the image quality.

The beauty of using an anamorphic lens on your DVX is that it effectively maintains the very high image quality that your camera is capable of. But there are down-sides - it means accurately aligning the A lens so that the image is compressed horizontally and of course it gives you more wide-angle - not something that a DVX owner is always happy about when the tele reach is so limited.

The A lens also distorts both viewfinders so you'd have to get used to that (but then so does one of the inbuilt modes). Generally (though I haven't tested Panasonic's dedicated A lens) they vignette the image if you stray too wide or too tele. It's an expensive, big and heavy lens, too, and means you can't use your other supplementary lenses.

Best you head for the XH-A1 I'd say, and start shooting true 16:9. I can't believe that couples that can afford your wedding filming services come home from expensive honeymoon and turn on an old 4:3 CRT, but then I'm not a Mid-Westerner.

tom.

They probably watch it on their 80" flat screen in a strech mode, like they watch 75% of their television shows. Besides, did I ever say that my services are that expensive? If I could get people to pay $3000 and up, I'd just go buy two HD cams right now.

can I shoot anamorphic on the DVX and expect reasonable quality?

some more downsides to this adpater is that you can't use the OIS, or attach a filter but by far the worst downside is that autofocus will not work and manual focus can only be done right using a focus setting chart.
This means for the kind of job your in you can forget about this thing, doesn't work for run/gun.

I can't believe that couples that can afford your wedding filming services come home from expensive honeymoon and turn on an old 4:3 CRT, but then I'm not a Mid-Westerner.

tom.

Shooting and delivering 4:3 here is common and has nothing to do with the price of your product. Statistics show that 4:3 sets are still very much the majority as is the broadcast programming.

Nielsen Gives Fuzzy Picture of HDTV Penetration - 10/30/2007 7:18:00 PM - Broadcasting & Cable (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495849.html)

I've been saying this all along - the big box stores and the manufacturers that are represented by the CEA are fudging the numbers claiming a much higher penetration of HD sets. The reason is to sell more of what comes in those big boxes.

Its not about the shape of the image or the number of pixels. Its about the content.

I see no reason why you can't use the OIS when you have an A lens in place Noa.

OK Joel - I'm really talking about Europe here, where widescreen sets have been around since 1995 -that is when brides today were just being born.

tom.

In the U.S.--finally--most TVs in stores today are wide screen. But people are not rushing out to buy a new TV until their old one dies. Next year, of course, they will have to buy a conversion box or a new digital TV if they are receiving only broadcast signals and not cable or dish. I doubt that will affect sales much, because if you can afford a new TV you can afford cable. So, it's been a very slow changeover, but at least it is finally happening. You have to look long and hard to find a 4:3 TV at any major retailer today.

Is digital (non-HD) broadcast capable of 16:9? I never paid attention to this, but just assumed it's still 4:3

I personally don't know why everyone is so excited about low light performance. I have had very few situations where I needed to use that feature and all of there were either when I forgot my light, the battery died or didn't care about quality. Most times at receptions, people don't mind the camera light. Actually most of the time, they're coming to you to be a part of the video. For me, wedding videography is all about quality. Since this is their special day, they want to remember it perfectly and not using squinty eyes trying to see if that's grandma or grandpa.

On numerous occassions, the photographers shot around me because I helped light up their targets so they could focus their lenses... That's funny!

Also, be careful with the NR features, sometimes they'll cause you to have ghosting.

I see no reason why you can't use the OIS when you have an A lens in place Noa..

I didn't invent that but that is stated in the dvx book by Barry Green. It appears to be stated in the user manual of the lens that it's not recommended to use the OIS. Following was stated: The ois works by using a series of gyros and motors to position the prisms to actually redirect what portion of the lens the camera "sees" through. While that is fine for camera's without adapter, the anamorphic adapter is designed to bend light in a certain way on a certain axis and if the gyros and motors move the internals of the lens so that they are not looking out through the optimal portion of the adpater, some image distortion may arise.

I personally don't know why everyone is so excited about low light performance

For me it means changing my way of working, at the reception I used the zoom of a vx2100 several times just to get some shots of people sitting at tables or drinking, by holding my distance I got some really natural shots as people were not aware of the camera. This is something I can forget with the xh-a1.
this means I have to get much closer to people but not everybody is that camera happy. :)
What do you mean with NR features? I did notice that with the low light presets you can find here as well some ghosting does appear, it works well for the first dance if they don't move that much but for fast motion it doesn't look that nice.

OK Joel - I'm really talking about Europe here, where widescreen sets have been around since 1995 -that is when brides today were just being born.

:O So it's common for brides to be 13?

Not here in the New York Metro area. Widescreen is becoming the norm. Even photographer's are hiring only widescreen videographers. 4:3 is dead in our area. If you really want to improve business Widescreen is the way to go...in our neck of the woods.

Shooting and delivering 4:3 here is common and has nothing to do with the price of your product. Statistics show that 4:3 sets are still very much the majority as is the broadcast programming.

Nielsen Gives Fuzzy Picture of HDTV Penetration - 10/30/2007 7:18:00 PM - Broadcasting & Cable (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495849.html)

I've been saying this all along - the big box stores and the manufacturers that are represented by the CEA are fudging the numbers claiming a much higher penetration of HD sets. The reason is to sell more of what comes in those big boxes.

Its not about the shape of the image or the number of pixels. Its about the content.

I personally don't know why everyone is so excited about low light performance. I have had very few situations where I needed to use that feature and all of there were either when I forgot my light, the battery died or didn't care about quality.

For me not using on-camera lights is a big selling point. A lot of people won't hire a videographer because they specifically don't want a bright light changing the ambiance they've designed. I also like the fact that because I don't use a light no attention is on me and I don't affect what anyone is doing by making them aware of the camera. As Noa said you're also much more free to shoot when, how and what you want if your subject doesn't have to be within range of your light. There are clients that expect camera lights and those that don't want them. There is plenty of work to go around if both styles are available.

You got me there Bill - brain fade this end.

Noa - the anamorphic is a cylindrical wide-angle converter as against the more common spherical wide-angle converter, so there's nothing special about it in reality. Sony added four Steady Shot settings from the FX1 onwards because of these problems Panasonic talk about, one of which is the wide converter setting. I'm pretty sure the DVX doesn't have these alternative OIS settings, which is probably why they think it safer to recommend switching it off entirely.

Auto focus is a different matter, and the differing planes of focus you get when using an anamorphic make switching that off good advice.

Kevin - low light performance is just so important for wedding videographers as there's no way you can light the typical church even if you were allowed to and had the time and equipment available. Same with the reception, and couples propensity for 'romantic' lighting means that very often you simply can't go round splashing on-camera light about and destroying their wants.

The beauty of the VX2100 was not only it's low-light supremacy but that it had a fast f/2.4 full telephoto - a good half-stop faster than the FX1 and a stop faster than the XH-A1. Of course both these cameras use 1080 chips of the same size as the VX, so they start out with a huge disadvantage light-gathering wise.

tom.

What do you mean with NR features? I did notice that with the low light presets you can find here as well some ghosting does appear, it works well for the first dance if they don't move that much but for fast motion it doesn't look that nice.

If you are using the NR1 feature of the A1 for moving objects, the high setting gives a ghosting of the image... I learned this one the hard way half way through shooting a school pageant... ;-)

From what I hear, the NR2 is much more friendly for moving subjects. I'd verify that info first however ;-)

If you look closely, all of the three NR1 settings have ghosting to varying degrees.

For me not using on-camera lights is a big selling point. A lot of people won't hire a videographer because they specifically don't want a bright light changing the ambiance they've designed. I also like the fact that because I don't use a light no attention is on me and I don't affect what anyone is doing by making them aware of the camera. As Noa said you're also much more free to shoot when, how and what you want if your subject doesn't have to be within range of your light. There are clients that expect camera lights and those that don't want them. There is plenty of work to go around if both styles are available.

I can definitely understand that point of view, but I think we must first qualify "low light". To me that mean candle lit tables... In which case, that can be tricky to shoot from a distance with any cam and no ext light... Most times, the venue has overhead lighting, especially if you are filming the wedding... Very rarely do you see a wedding with low light... For wedding receptions, that's a different story. I think you can shoot the ambience (people talking and mingling) without the light for a natural look, but when you are doing the one on one shots, lighting is a must. An example is for shooting the special words from first family (mom, dad, etc). Also, the garter, bouquet and first dance... For the fillers, it's not that important... But like you said, there's enough business to accomodate either shooting style. In the end, you have to do what works for you ;-)