I get asked all the time, but is there a consumer HD camcorder you would recommend? Say around $500 range ? The Sony CX100 looks alright, or maybe canon HG20 or HF200? I just don't know much about the new formats AVCHD and how usable they are for most people.

Canon HV30 or HV40. It's HDV, uses miniDV, has excellent glass, reasonable low-light performance and its auto functions work very well. It also appears to be the camera of choice for aspiring indie producers, with a variety of depth of field adapters and other toys.

Before answering this question one must ask what will it be used to video. There will be a big difference if the intended purpose is family video or an aspiring film maker who wants to shoot their first feature film! For family video ease of playback and ability to "show" the video is important. In this case the large hard drive AVCHD cams will win because it is easy to show the video and certainly in the case of Sony easy to backup and make DVD's for others with the included software( not great but usable). My choice would be the XR520 with 240G hard drive that the user may never fill up! I know its outside your price range!
For the film maker HDV would be a better choice as this will be easier to edit etc.
I have a mix, FX1 ( HDV), the SR11 and XR500 AVCHD. Have to admit the new XR500 has the best picture in all but the most difficult situations.

Ron Evans

Thanks Paul & Ron,
I really don't know anything about the new consumer camcorders using HDD or AVCHD, and I get asked from coworkers or family about what they should buy in a camera. Having a pro HDV camera I dont know how usable these formats are for consumers with beginner skills and limited computer knowledge. I would think you might need an up to date computer to download AVCHD files. My niece is having a baby so I know she will be filming alot of home movie stuff. 10 years ago I was still editing super 8 wedding videos to VHS tapes! Things have sure changed now... Thanks Garry

I have to admit a bias to the Sony XR500 or XR520. The OIS is the best, they have excellent low light capability, face recognition that really works in most instances, good stills too and a large very clear LCD as well as a viewfinder. GPS is a little gimmick but at least will set the time correctly!!! They can transfer selected clips to the memory stick for transfer to others etc and easy in camera editing too. Sony have a stand alone burner so there is no real need for a computer at all if one doesn't want to do fancy editing. Either making backups or a menu based AVCHD disc to play on a Bluray player.
Any computer will do for backups so there will be no need to upgrade. However if one wants to do any sort of fancy editing a more powerful computer will be needed. The Sony Browser software that comes with the camera also solves the issues of FAT 32 file format by transfering long clips as one file into a NTFS file format on the PC that seem to be an issue for some people using Canon or Panasonic with flash memory. Long files are seen as one file on the LCD clip selection and one file when transfered to the PC.
With the XR520 there is no fear of running out of tape at a critical moment as it will record for almost 30hours at the highest data rate and with the largest battery would record for almost 6 hours. With the HDMI connection it is easy for one to show video to friends as long as they have a HD TV with HDMI. With this large storage most consumers would be able to keep several years of video on the camera to show others. I would certainly not recommend a tape based system for family video with these new AVCHD cameras being available.
I just wish Sony would make an AVCHD version of the FX1000 as the XR500 I have makes my FX1 look a little dated with better resolution and cleaner image by a long way.

Ron Evans

I too would recommend the XR500/520V - the super OIS helps a lot for a novice user to get usable footage (heck, it helps an experienced user!). AND the low light performance is a big help for the average sort of shooting many users will encounter (indoor events, birthday parties, etc. It also has pretty solid intelligent algorithms to set the key settings for "best" results. The only downside is the price, which is about double the $500 range... But aside from the "prosumer" camera Ron and the rest of us are dreaming of, it's hard to see where the XR will be "obsolete" right away, and it's a big step up from earlier cameras.

Under $500 becomes an interesting proposition if you're trying to do HD in ANY flavor, as the average user may not have the computer horsepower to edit comfortably (though they should be able to archive the footage and burn to DVD).

If one goes used, there are a lot of bargains around for the smart shopper willing to go with "last years model" or one of the lower models in the Canon or Sony lines (saw a HF20 or similar for under $500 brand new, almost bought one out of curiousity).

There isn't a simple answer for everyone - there are also some decent "dual mode" cameras that do both stills and video too, which may be more practical for some people - I've been playing with the Sony HX1, and while it's not quite up to the video quality I'd like (it's usable though), the stills are fairly good, it's got some trick features, and all in all it is not bad for a sub $500 "super zoom" camera you can stuff in your pocket (or purse)... wouldn't be a bad "general use" family camera for the money, it's actually rather fun to shoot with, and for a user that also might be wanting a still camera or is just testing the waters on video, it's one possibility.

The usefulness of buying used and knowing your needs cannot be overstated. I bought an HV30 for my stay in Japan and found it gathering dust all year. Then I bought an HD1000 for $250 used recently and found myself doing nothing but shooting shooting shooting since it's so dang portable and gives a pretty good picture for the money!

Dang, if I could snag an HD1000 for $250, I'd grab one too! (the Sony)

Me too, but somehow methinks that that referred to the Sanyo... a pocket camera...

I don't see the Sony being "so dang portable"... unless one has really large pockets. I know I wouldn't lug my FX7 around unless I was getting paid...

For the film maker HDV would be a better choice as this will be easier to edit etc.

As the budding indie filmmaker, I have to say that since I switched over to AVCHD editing's a lot smoother as a whole, as I no longer have to worry either about dropped frames during capture (annoying) or dropped frames during recording (disasterous.) I simply do not trust digital tape as a recording or a backup medium - I know others feel differently.

I'd say that among indie filmmakers, the choice of Tape or Digital comes down to personal preference and advantages vs. disadvantages.

For me, I can't stand tape. In fact, I won't take a job if I know I'm going to have to be dealing with tape as a medium. Record on it if you wish, but as a director, I don't accept them, as an editor, I refuse to do capturing from tape.

Right now I use the Canon HG20 as my main camera, but will be getting the Panasonic Lumix GH1 as soon as it comes out. I'd recommend either the HG or HF series of Canon cameras, but the fact that it uses tape is why I sold off both of my HV20s.

I'm also an indie filmmaker and would never go back to tape again.. currently using an Hf s100 and love it! The thing with AVCHD is you can't really edit it natively at this point, you'll need something like Cineform neoscene or VoltaicHD to convert the footage to make it really easy to work with (all the editors I've tried so far haven't integrated AVCHD technology very well yet). Even with this current hurtle I'd much prefer doing a conversion than the hassle of transferring footage from tape.. not to mention how quick and easy it is to preview and delete unneeded footage from the card to avoid needless transfers..

I'm also doing a lot of car shooting and the flash card format has been so much more reliable than tape, on my old Canon dropouts weren't a serious issue but they did occur, and you definitely don't want that happening on a crucial take

Anyway, either format will probably be fine for regular consumer use.. if they plan on doing any editing I'd probably recommend they stick with tape for now unless they're willing to invest in some additional software and learn how to properly import footage

I'm also an indie filmmaker and would never go back to tape again.. currently using an Hf s100 and love it! The thing with AVCHD is you can't really edit it natively at this point, you'll need something like Cineform neoscene or VoltaicHD to convert the footage to make it really easy to work with (all the editors I've tried so far haven't integrated AVCHD technology very well yet).

Try Vegas. I actually don't see a difference in editing speed between AVCHD and HDV.

Try Vegas. I actually don't see a difference in editing speed between AVCHD and HDV.

I agree. Vegas will edit either. AVCHD drops the preview resolution to play at normal frame rate but its fine for editing. However Vegas and a new PC will be more than the camera!!!
For a family camera I still think that HDD based cam is just great as the user can show everyone who has a TV ( SD or HD) videos they have taken for maybe several years!!! Learning to edit "in camera" can get rid of all the wasted shots of feet etc and then learning how to create a playlist is likely enough for most people. The supporting disk recorders from Sony means the user doesn't even need a PC to create disc to play on their Bluray player.

Ron Evans

Would any of you recommend the Sony as a "first" camera for shooting wedding videos.. given it's superior low light performance and OIS? I haven't been able to see yet if it has an HDMI output on it?

You mean the HD1000U? Yes, it has HDMI. All the specs are readily available at the Sony and B&H websites.

Edit: now clear that you meant the XR5xx. Several Sonys were mentioned previously so not sure which one you meant. The CX, XR and HD1000U all have HDMI, as shown on the respective Sony Product pages.

I'm not sure I'd call its (the HD1000U's) low-light performance "superior." Hm, what's the word I'm looking for.... Oh, yeah, "crappy." I don't shoot weddings but have read a lot of complaints about it here. I've found it's fine on a well-lit sports field at night but struggles mightily in a theatrical environment.

AFAIK, the HD1000U is basically and HC7 in a big shell... I wouldn't call it's low light performance anything more than bearable... barely.

If Sony did the same trick with the XR500V and made it tapeless, then you'd have something.

Otherwise, it's several year old consumer technology in a fancy shell... in which case you'd be a bit better to consider the FX7, for not a lot more, you get a camera at least somewhat designed for the "prosumer" from the get-go. Probably still not the greatest low light performer, but a rather nice camera.

Dave's got it exactly right. I much prefer my FX7s and while they aren't perfect and still are not great in low light, feature for feature they are the best bang for the buck out there.

With the XR500 sporting good low light and great OIS, I wonder if there is a new FX-7 model coming soon that will make it better? The 3 CMOS chips is appealing, but I'd like to know if it shoots better in low light than the XR500, and how it's stabilization is. Seems like for the price, the XR500 is a great buy.

I often wonder if I showed up at a wedding video shoot with the XR500 and using its HDMI out, if anybody would look at the home camera and think how unprofessional I was, not realizing I was getting uncompressed 1080P video off of it.. or if the look of say the FX-7 makes people think I am professional because of the longer body, the lens cover and the handle with the mic on it?

Be careful that you are clear on the following concepts:

1. OIS, or any IS, for that matter, is largely irrelevant, as you should be shooting on a tripod all the time anyway if you want professional footage. No IS, no matter how good, can even out something like motion while you are walking. It's only meant to smooth out the small tremors your hand makes when you are braced against a wall. On a tripod, you'd turn off any form of IS anyway.

2. Not likely that the FX7 is any better in low light than the XR.

3. Using HDMI out for what? Capturing from tape? There is no benefit to this, as your signal has already been compressed when recording to tape. Capturing live to a PC? Yes, it's uncompressed, but are you going to drag a PC around with you at a wedding?

4. Yes, unfortunately, people will judge you by how the cam looks, silly as that is, and they'll wonder why they're paying you when Uncle Harry has the same cam, as far as they can tell. Here's the chief benefit of the HD1000U, which is, in all other respects, a big HC7.

5. Uncompressed 1080p? Be sure you know what you mean by this. 1080p is meaningless without a frame rate. It isn't 1080p60, which is what most people think they mean by 1080p. 1080p60 is not an acquisition format, and while there are a few cams that claim to do this, there is no way to edit or distribute this footage. You could play direct from the cam IF you have a 1080p60 HDTV but you can't make a DVD or even Blu-Ray disc with it and have it still be 1080p60. If you like the look of 1080p*30* there are a bazillion cams that can do this, or you can do this in post. But that's not part of the DVD or BD spec either.

5a. BTW, there's nothing in the XR5xx specs to suggest it does any form of progressive at all, at least based on the Sony and B&H pages. Please don't tell me you saw the phrase "Full HD" somewhere and took that to mean, well, anything.

From Sony's product page:

"Video Signal : HD: 1920 x 1080/60i;..."

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665736672

6. It's highly unlikely that we'll see an update for the FX7, although this is just a guess on my part. But I think many of us are hoping for a prosumer model with the XR5xx series' chips and internals. Only Sony knows if or when this might happen, and it certainly isn't likely to be before next year's NAB in April.

Shooting a wedding with a nanoFlash attached to a consumer camera doesn't make a lot of sense. By far, most weddings are delivered in SD, on a DVD - you'll never know the difference, if it was originally recorded as HDV or using a nanoFlash.

Aside from that, weddings generally don't pay a lot - even if you are delivering in HD. If you can get a fee that would justify virtually lossless recording, you can afford to attach that nanoFlash to a real camera, that gives you full manual control. If you want great quality - save yourself a lot of headaches, and just shoot with an EX-1 - it's not like the compression leaves you with a horse-crap picture.

Exactly right... I assumed someone in the market for a $1k consumer or $2K "prosumer" cam wasn't in the market for a $3K nanoflash...

You guys are right.. why buy a 1K prosumer and a 3K professional recording device. I agree. But I had other ideas for this.

Primarily I am looking at stock footage. Shooting stock footage to sell would not be good in a compressed HDV/AVCHD format. I'd much rather offer almost uncompressed 1080p30 (sorry for skipping that earlier) where those that pay for it can then decide how to edit it and what format to put it in.

Honestly guys I am probably overwhelmed with all of this. I am one of those guys thats into everything computers. I build them, network, am a software engineer by day, build web sites, work on music with the full midi/studio setup, work on editing videos and learning AfterEffects for "vfx" stuff.. I have too many things I Want to do and not enough of me. I need that Duplicity movie to be real! :D

So when I talk about doing wedding videos, my primary reason for bring all this up is trying to find a way to make a good supplemental income or downright replace my current job should I decide to. Having the ability to record high quality video and yet still use it to shoot wedding videos would give me two avenues of income. I am no doubt biting off way more than I can chew, but my angle of questions and information seeking on this forum is aimed at trying to figure out how I can do a few things with as little gear as possible given my low budget right now, or if I might need to look into some sort of business loan or something to acquire better gear to make it possible.

Bringing a small computer with a BM Intensity card and a long HD-SDI wire from the camera to the computer to a wedding is ridiculous. AS I have learned in the last couple days, there really is no gain from shooting with HDV or uncompresed for a wedding video. My angle on this was that if I could have pristine uncompressed (or close to it..I am aware that there isnt really much to record full 1080p uncompressed video yet) video as a source AND it was in a better format to work with in the NLE than say, AVCHD which I hear is horrible to work, not to mention is a lossy compression scheme.. I figured I'd be able to offer the best SD/HD quality possible by having a much higher quality source video to work with. That was my intent. But.. as I said, my intent was ALSO to acquire this high quality almost uncompressed video for use as stock footage shoots and green-screen as well.

There..I said it. It looks like, for the money, the Sony EX-1 is probably what I am after. In another thread someone replied that the EX-1 can record uncompressed. I don't know if that is only thru its HDMI/HD-SDI outs (sorry..don't know what connectors it has), or if it can be selected to record at varoius compression levels on the SDHC cards directly..basically you choose how much you are willing to store per card based on compression. If the EX-1 out of the box can record CineForm/REDCODE Raw quality of video, and I can only fit say 3 mins of video on each 16GB card.. then that works well for me for stock video footage, and meanwhile I can use it for a wedding and store HDV or slightly better on SDHC to get 30+ mins or so per card..then I am set..thats the one to get. But for 6K, I then bounce back to the RED Scarlet.. thinking the 2/3" sensor is more than the 1/2" sensor on the EX-1 aka better low light which I would want for wedding shoots. It also has REDCODE raw, 120fps 3K/2K modes, and so on.

I guess for me to even afford the EX-1 and a tripod and such, I will need some sort of business loan to afford it, so my point here is... if I am going to go after a business loan, I may as well get the RED for the money and what it offers.

I better stop..I am rambling... but hopefully I've made my point on what I "think" I want and why.

I agree. Vegas will edit either. AVCHD drops the preview resolution to play at normal frame rate but its fine for editing. However Vegas and a new PC will be more than the camera!!!

Get the OEM version of Vegas - that's $200, and you can build a Core 2 Quad system for around $800. So, maybe not less than the camera but not more than the camera, certainly.

Kevin -
1) Do a little market research on stock video...
2) Spend a lot of time in the DVi wedding forum...

Don't want to be snarky, but wedding shooting is not for everyone, and it's not about the camera, it's the nut behind the viewfinder. The good wedding shooters are "nuts", and I mean this sincerely. They could shoot with just about anything and get insanely great results. Conversely, some people could shoot with a pro camera and get garbage.


Not to argue, but a really good OIS can make a LOT of difference, and shooting a wedding, where at least some advantage goes to a highly moblie shooter, I appreciate the super OIS of the XR500V (I shoot multicam, so for the cams on tripods, OIS doesn't matter as Adam says). You still have to aim and compose, but the new Super OIS really does take a LOT of movement out of the equation - darn close to a steadicam when used correctly, and with some stabilization, it's hard to beat.

I'm pretty sure the XR500V will beat the FX7 in low light, it's extremely good and has a low noise signature that is a HUGE improvement over previous generation CMOS sensors. That said, it's not much for manual controls... the cameras "intelligent auto" does pretty well, but forget about overriding it beyond the most basic level.

I don't see the advantage of an HDMI recorder. The images from the XR500 are 60i, and are pretty hard to argue with. You're overthinking the theoretical value of more 1's and 0's - the reason compression works (when working properly) is that it's possible to reduce the size of the data stream without overly compromising the image quality - with a proper algorithm, you can remove the redundant information with minimal "loss" - again some CODECs achieve this better than others. And too I think you're overthinking the various flavors of "i" and "p"... and there's no "p" on the XR... you can always render to a "p" format in post.

IMO the "looks" of the cam are not that important, but many conisider that a larger cam says "pro", and I notice I get a very different reaction when shooting a bigger cam over a small one. That said, I prefer the "discreet" profile of smaller cams with appropriate add-ons - I think I'm in the minority, and I'll admit I'm still looking for another larger camera - the mythical XR in a bigger body with manual control and professional features to compete with the HMC150...


I'll make a suggestion, pick up a small HD camera, just about anything from Sony or Canon would do, but the XR500/520V and HF-S10/100 are good choices. Pick one up used and you can always resell or use it for a second cam if and when your business takes off enough to justify a bigger cam. Taking out a loan to buy a big fancy camera without a business plan just because you "think" it's what you need (it's not, it's what you "want", that's OK) is not a very practical plan. While the camera may in the long term "make you money", it's not going to do it on looks or specs, it will do it based on your shooting, editing, and business skills.

I'll ask what may seem to be a silly question, what camera do you currently have or have access to/use regularly?? You're obviously busy, and have "ideas", but sometimes you just have to get your hands on a camera and see what happens. You can shoot great stuff with a cheap camera and drek with a good one, and innate talent and experience both come into play, but you need to shoot...

I'll admit I'm still looking for another larger camera - the mythical XR in a bigger body with manual control and professional features to compete with the HMC150...

Why not just buy a HMC150 ?

I bought one a couple of weeks ago, after looking at everything I could find in the less than $6K price range. I love the "film look" from the Panasonic prosumer cameras. I like having a wide zoom as standard. Best of all SDHC cards are completely affordable.

Probably would if it fit the budget at the moment, or if the right price comes along... at the moment the HMC150 is commanding full price even used.

I bought mine from B&H Photo in New York for $3,400. I had to wait a month to buy mine because they kept selling out before I was able to place my order. ( I would get an email notification that more were in stock, but I was busy at work. When I went to place the order a day or so later they were sold out. )

I am surprised you were able to find a used HMC150, as I haven't seen any listed anywhere. ( lots of DVX100's and HVX200's, and occasionally a HPX170 ) B&H had a few used HPX170 cameras, but $3650 with no P2 card and a 90 day warranty didn't sound like such a great deal to me.