now, i know this topic has probably been answered by many of you at one time or another, but i dont have time to sift through all the threads to find the answer.
ok, so my question is, which one is better to get, DVX 100a or Canon XL2?!?! if any of you could review each pro and con of each camera, that would be nice.

Uh, why do I get the feeling that I'm being made fun of...?

Or am I just self-involved and/or paranoid?


EDIT: Hey, what just happend to Rhett's response (the one I'm referring to above in this post)? After I submitted my reply, his had disappeared... Maybe I really am paranoid...

John: don't be paranoid, I removed Rhett's post from public view because it seemed harsh and bordered on flame-bait. Rhett: I would have sent you an e-mail about this but you haven't provided us with an address.

For everyone else: Rhett's suggestion was that Cole should first do his "due diligence," and then ask us specific questions.

This is a very helpful review of both of those cameras you mentioned as well as the Sony FX1. It compares and contrasts them all, using them all in the same situations, so you will be able to choose what camera you will need to best suit what you are doing.
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

now im paranoid! but, mr. stooky, that review is great thanks a lot!

Cole, if I may (since this my hobby horse for the day): The problem (if there is one) arises from the fact that you said, "i know this topic has probably been answered by many of you at one time or another, but i dont have time to sift through all the threads to find the answer."

It has nothing to do with who is a professional and who is a hobbyist. It has to do with taking the time to do your own initial research. There is a wealth of archived information here at dvinfo.net, and it is going to waste when people don't take the time to review what has already been discussed. Once you've read through the exisitng information, you can asked a better-formed question, one which we might actually be able to help you with.

EDIT: OK, since you seem to dive headfirst into the review posted above, you obviously have no problem with doing the research. You were just looking for a condensed review...

im sorry if that sounded rude. the truth is, is that i have looked all over the internet for the past few months and have come up with pretty much nothing. in addition ive gone to many retailers and asked them what they thought, every last one of them said they didnt know. when i said i didnt have time what i really meant was "ive been on a DV internet binge for the past two hours and now im hungry, answer my question now". i was hoping the harshes wouldnt be apperant, but apperantly it was. i really am sorry if i sounded like an ass but i really didnt mean too.

OK guys, I think we finally have all this sorted out. I've trimmed this thread down a little to remove some posts which really have nothing to do with the topic. Please, let's try to be constructive and discuss cameras instead of personalities....

Well, having read the above review, what do you think now? What sort of projects are you looking to do? The DVX100 is still moving off shelves fairly steadily -- which either says something about the quality of the DVX or the power of inertia...

Jan Crittenden of Panasonic says that currently the DVX comes with "a copy of Magic Bullet for editors, a copy of Barry Green's DVX Book and DVD and now a $300 [rebate]" Bonuses like this may or may not matter to you. What features would you prefer in a camera?

I've been very happy with my DVC80, and had I had the money at the time, I most likely would have gotten the DVX. Were I a more accomplished photographer, I might consider Canon's line, which would provide me with interchangable lenses. But, as some members like to mention, even an accomplished filmmaker like Soderbergh can make the Canon look like a one-chipper. The review Mitchell posted is some good reading, though...

Wow, I guess I missed something.

Boyd, I sent you an email.
John, not sure what you're referring to but I wasn't trying to make fun of you or anyone.

Cole, I guess my point was that these forums ARE one of, if not THE best resources for information on the internet. By doing a few searches (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?s=) you can find tons of information and links to even the most obscure information regarding DV and video production available. It is all provided by professionals of different levels of experience, for free, by voluntarily donating their valuable time. I certainly appreciate it, and hope everyone else does as well.

Good luck on your quest.

Cole, you haven't told us what you plan on shooting. It's pretty important to the choice of camera.

well, ive really been leaning towards the XL2 because it was the first one i knew about. you see, i love movies and thats what i want to do, make movies. im still fairly young and i have all these ideas swarming around in my head and for the longest time, ive wanted to shoot these movies. then, one day i saw an add for the XL2 and it blew my mind! i was shocked that a camcorder was capibal of such a thing. well, several months later, here i am, deciding which one i should buy.

I guess what im looking for with the camera is:

a. something thats reliable

b. produces the "film look" (which is a great idea) and

c. very nice audio.

so, with which ever camera i get i want to be able to make a "proper movie" and not some cheap 200 dollar handheld camera movie. so which one works best for a begging film maker? the xl2 or the dvx 100? they both sound so good and im still undecided.

help?

by the way, is that 35mm movie really shot on the xl2?!?! becasue if it is, thats totally what im looking for!

<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Lanter : by the way, is that 35mm movie really shot on the xl2?!?! becasue if it is, thats totally what im looking for! -->>>

What movie are you referring to? Did I miss a comment?

Also, I've seen some amazing looking stuff from dvinfo and dv.com members that was shot on a PD150, GL2, etc (older, non-progressive cameras) -- and they looked good because the director understood lighting, framing, and other important aspects of filmmaking/videography. You may be very disappointed (as many first-time DVX100 users were) to find out that you can't just take a 24p camera out of the box and make a "film-like" movie. There's a lot more to making a "proper movie" than just the camera.

yeah, thats something i never really thought about... (the lighting and all that stuff). well in that case, where can i learn about all the aspects of film making? is there a book you would suggest? maybe i could get the camera (XL2 preferably) and fiddle around with some different tecniques to see what really looks right, good idea or bad idea?
but you're totally right, i think it would be wise for me to grasp all the technical aspects of making a "proper movie" before i open the box. so to restate my question, whats the best way to learn about all the technical aspects of making a movie with a DV camera?
and i would just like to say that i really appreciate all of you guyses advice... ive learned more about DV cameras in one day than i have in the past 3 months. thank you

You're looking right at it.... it's DVinfo my friend

Cole: Browse through our book forum for lots of good ideas on what to read http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=36

Cole

Take it from somebody who has worked trade shows for years now, where people come up to me and ask the exact same question as you did in your original post.

Get your hands on the cameras. The right one for you is the one which *feels best* in your hands. End of story. It's that simple.

There's a lot of good reading to be found here at DV Info, I hope you enjoy your experience here.

<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Lanter :
but you're totally right, i think it would be wise for me to grasp all the technical aspects of making a "proper movie" before i open the box. so to restate my question, whats the best way to learn about all the technical aspects of making a movie with a DV camera? -->>>



Not to sound sarcastic, but....

How about four years of film school, followed by a few years of experience working in the industry working under masters of the craft?


Just a thought.

I want to add my two cents....

First on your list Cole:

a. depends on your definition of reliable, but most pro-sumer camera's (what we are talking about here) are "reliable"

b. this hasn't got much to do with the camera (see below)

c. this also hasn't got much to do with the camera (also see below). Good audio is a function of the EXTERNAL MICROPHONES you attach to a camera (onboard DOES NOT cut it for fictional work, unless there is no speech), your guy/woman who records the audio for you and the final audio mix

With all due respect to everyone who is eager to get started
making "great" movies and think that the "film look" is the holy
grail and the answer to the look you want, think again.

The single most important thing is still the story. A "film look" can
definitely enhance a good story, but it can never fix a bad one.
After this acting, editing, lighting, audio recording, framing, camera
moves etc. are all much more important than your camera.

Yes your camera decides how things look (although you can change
a lot in post with things like color correction!) and it is very important,
but do not blindly look at just the camera.

Camera (technically) wise, the look is most decided by the quality
(3 chips better than 1 chip etc.) and framerate. Film is shot at 24
fps and both the XL2 and DVX100 support this framerate, so that
is good news for you. One of the final things is emulating the
exposure latitude of film (we simply don't have that with our
video camera's) which the DVX seems better to do in camera (film
look gamma curves, which the XL2 also has!) according to users,
but I find the DVX too grainy for example.

Personally I'd rather do the S like gamme curve adjustment in post
in the editing package (I'm using Sony Vegas 5).

My ramblings here have hopefully opened your mind to see there
are lots of things to learn / consider.

One of the biggest questions that I think no-one has asked here
yet is: what is your budget?

the most ill spend on a camera is the XL2, which is from my understanding the most expensive.
And yes, i have thought about film school but i fear that most of the schools are out of my budget.

As stated before, dvinfo.net is a great resource for you to start with -- it's a little like you're standing in the middle of a library and asking, "Where can I find some books?" :)

Another suggestion would be to pick, say, 3 to 5 movies (on the low end) that are similar in style, scope, and/or genre to the movie you want to make. Go rent those titles and spend a weekend holed up in your house, watching movies and taking notes. Seriously -- take notes like you're getting ready for a test. Pay attention to how shots are framed, how the story evolves, how lighting is used, how dialog is used, etc. Find what you like and make note of it. It's the cheapest film education you can give yourself (well, next to great, free resources like dvinfo.net).

ok sweet. ive been going through a lot of the threads with the search function and found a lot of great stuff. you guys have been really helpful, thanks a bunch.

Hi,
I'm an happy owner of mx500, but I've to shot wedding with another xl1s, so my mx500 has a lot of problems in low light (I think everybody knows this)...
In your opinion wich is the best camera for replace an mx500, without spending a lot of money?
In my opinion one of these could be a good choice for my budget:
xm2
jvc gy-dv300

Ok I need your help, I know little bit the xm2, but I don't know how it is compared to the xl1s...
And....the jvc, I search in the forum, but I found only few and old post, anyone has this camera?It seems very good...but a lot of people prefer sony or pana or canon...any opinon?

If you already have a Canon XL1S I would stay in the Canon range
so your footage more closely matches. The XM2 would be the
obvious choice if you can't get a second XL1S.

Hello guys,

I'm looking for a small DV camcorder with adjustable sound input. I wanna make candid concert recordings. Therefore I need a small but manual operatable camera. Especially in the sound departement.

What would you advice me at the moment?

Cheers,
Dirk

The current Canon Optura models, namely the Optura Xi, Optura 500 and Optura 40 all have manual audio (see my comparison chart at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/compare.php). You might look into the current consumer-range Panasonic three-chip camcorders, they are just as small and I thought they had manual audio as well.

That's a cool chart!

I heard that some lower end camera models will no longer support S-Video! Might you add a column for that?

I find my camcorders work great even dubbing to betacam sp, but I always use the s-video connector. I wonder if those cameras with the manual audio also have s-video.

Thanks -- none of the Canon ZR series have S-video anymore. I'm not interested in doing charts on entry-level budget cams. The Optura line is the only Canon single-chip camcorder that I want to spend time on. All Optura models have an S-video jack, by the way.

The ZR that I have has an S-video connection, so it must be the newest ZR's that don't have S-video.

Glad to hear there is a beginning camcorder with manual audio input AND S-video.

Thanks for the replies!
What's the best audio solution for a loud environment like a concert:
AGC audio or manual audio?

Cheers!

That's a great question, Chris!

I shot an indoor "rock concert" and I felt that the camera microphone (AGC style) on my Digital-8 camcorder resulted in slightly distorted audio but was actually acceptable if I absolutely had to use it. However since I shot with three cameras I decided not to use the sound from the Digital-8 camera other than to find sync with the other cameras.

(I primarily used the sound from the BetaCam SP and S-VHS ENG cameras instead because the Digital-8 camera was not left on at all times...argh, syncing was a bit annoying and as a result if I had tryed to mix in the audio from the Digital-8 camera it would suddenly disappear because the camera was mistakenly turned off at times.)

I'd say the single most important thing you can do is rig a wireless audio transmitter to send a feed from the board to one of your cameras. (I'm assuming you'll have more than one camera available?)

You'll probably need to "Pad" any on camera microphone that you use. My belief is that a -40 menu selection for microphone sensitivity should work really well in a loud environment (-60 being the normal setting) but many cameras don't allow one to set the sensitivity of their microphones in this manner.

I'm real curious if the Canon cameras with the manual audio inputs have internal padding, that would be awesome for your application.

My opinion is your best option would be an externally mounted camera microphone that allows you to pad the audio down signficantly before the audio recording signal actually reaches the camera audio record heads.

I've been searching the internet for hours to learn as much as I can on this subject. Hopefully I can get some good suggestions from y'all.

My church wants to start video recording the services. The problem is finding a good video camera. I will be using it with my Mac to produce DVDs on a weekly basis. The biggest issue is light: The majority of use from this camera will be on a tripod in the church which is not very well lighted.

Which dv cam gives the most bang for the buck in low light? We were looking to spend $500-1000. I MIGHT be able to talk them into spending $2,000. Is something like the GL-2 really worth the price? If people tell me that the extra $1,000 is a must to get good video indoors, I'll swing for it. But honestly, will something around $1,000 or less be THAT much worse?

I don't want the DVDs I make from the camera to look like the Blair Witch Project. I want something that looks professional.

Other requirements (which most camera have anyway): Audio in from our sound board and analog video in to convert some old VHS tapes.

Your help is greatly appreciated!

The Sony VX2100 is your very best bet, if you aren't going to light your stuff.

$2400 US

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=303956&is=REG

The difference in light sensitivity between this camera and and anything less expensive that's not a 3CCD cam is, well, night and day! Several fstops worth, anyway. This camera is the entry level of light sensitive, professional image making instruments.

WARNING: do not attempt to go and find a cheaper price for this camera. You will undoubtedly be buying gray market or from an otherwise irresponisble dealer.
I promise.

If money is really tight and if you're comfortable with used equipment then you might look for a VX-2000. One recently sold in our Private Classifieds (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=16) forum for $2,000, including accessories.

Speaking of which, don't forget to budget for the other things you're going to need: larger batteries, a decent tripod, carrying case, audio adaptors, etc. These things will be needed and will cost several hundred dollars over and above the cost of the camera. You might also consider a service policy/extended warranty.

What about these 3CCD cameras that are around $1,000? Like the Panasonic PV-GS200? It would be a lot easier for us to swing for one in that price range.

We'll need the cables and a good tripod and whatnot. Probably not a fancy case since the camera will rarely go anywhere.

My American Express gives me an extended warranty for free, so I can avoid the expensive service plans.

See what you can do about bumping up the light level without creating a hazard. Just switching to higher wattage bulbs will help. Have an electrician look around and see what can be safely done with the present system, but see what installing a few more fixtures can do. Perhaps installing a couple of 1K lights high on the walls or ceilings to light up the altar area would help. Theatrical fixtures should be fine and they'll be cheaper. Altman or Source Four are two good examples, Strand.

It would be worth the extra bucks to have the lighting upgraded so that the video will be well lit and therefore look good.

And then there's sound...

The NUMBER you want to look at is LUX rating. (I think 2100 is rated at 1 Lux) This will roughly provide light sensitivity comparisons among different cameras. But there is no absolute number. If you do not have enough light for the camera, it will degrade into grainier image long before it disappears or goes to the blair witch/infrared look. Your best bet is to see if you can try out any of them, maybe find someone who has one to come shoot for 10 minutes in actual lighting you will be using. Maybe you have some wedding videographers who have shot in your church before (or coming soon) under identical conditions?

You should probably try to buy all one camera model to make combining them into a dvd easier.

Another consideration is copyrights. While your church may have licensed certain music for performance purposes, it does not give you the right to make a recording or synchronization rights needed for an edited video. Especially if you are issuing/selling DVDs, this should be a concern. There have been cases lately of churches getting sued just for photocopying hymnal pages, so churches are in the attorney target zone these days. (easy to find, collectible judgements). You could also be personally liable for copyright infringement if it comes to that.

John is correct on all counts, but I'll add this: there is no standard for LUX measurement, so a lot of manufacturers try to compete on paper by claiming unrealistically low LUX numbers (actually Sony tends to err high). You're concerned not only with actual sensitivity, but also video noise, chroma noise and saturation, all of which tend to suffer at low light. I'll second (third?) the recommendation for a VX2000 or VX2100. I have a VX2000 and am constantly amazed at how well it does in extremely lowlight situations. If you want to get an idea, I have a couple of short clips here:

www.ruyitang.com/venice at night - 9.wmv

www.ruyitang.com/florence.wmv

I guess that's what I was trying to get across, Spencer. You want professional looking but aren't willing, apparently, to turn the lights up. Lighting is what makes for a professional look. Also, these $1000 3CCD cams have tiny sensor chips, making for dismal and grainy images in less than optimum lighting conditions, something we wedding videographers face often (which is why the VX2100/PD170 models are so popular with event videographers: 1/3 inch CCDs, light sensitive, clean gain...)
You get what you pay for.

sensor size has such influence on things as:

- depth of field (how large the area is that is in focus)
- how large the pixels are (depending on the amount of pixels), this can change the light sensitivity of the camera
- resolution (number of pixels) in combination with light sensitivity

mathew,
i might sound bias but bigger ccd do give you better image. in terms of setting and control, xl2 is no way near gy-dv5000.

ed

Hey,

Now I'm reading this thread, I'm very interested, just out of curiosity: does anyone has samples of such a 1/2 inch CCD cam?
I really want to see once how much difference it now actually is.

I suppose bigger CCD gives you shallower DOF or is it the opposite?

Thanks for the information

BTW: I'm not asking because I want to buy a new cam, but now I'm reading this I'm rather wondered that a 1/2 CCD cam is offered at the same price of a 1/3 inch CCD cam...
Does that JVC has interchangible lens system?
What would be the best for filmmaking? The XL2 I suppose?
Are the 1/2 inch CCD cams more used for the news broadcast?

Thanks,

mathieu,
i'm not sure whether dof got anything to do with ccd size but i've compare different ccd size camera on a side by side basis. the result is tremendous especially when working in low light enviroment. 2/3"ccd is very much sharper compare to the smaller one.
if you compare jvc gy-dv5000 with canon xl2, gy-dv5000 would definately be more superior as it was design for professional. xl2 is popular with indie and profesional because its the only affordable camera wtih interchangeable lens. with the pricing gap coming closer, i think indie and professional have a better option of choice.
i don't think 1/2"ccd is only use for news broadcast. its a matter of how the person behind the camera uses it. i have seen even, 1/3"ccd footages used for tv program.

ed

From the samples I've seen, the XL2 footage is "filmier". Not sure, but it might pack as much 16:9 resolution into the smaller chip than the 1/2" DV5000 CCD cropped to 16:9.
Bigger chips always win in low light though. I'd pick the XL2 for indie film where you can control your own lighting, but probably the DV5000 for everything else.

Thanks for the information, Ed.

I'm shooting PAL for my up comming project but I wonder about my camera choice because of budget and the choices I have.

I was set on the XL2 PAL with true 16:9 being the main factor.
2nd best was DVX 100A PAL The warm colors being main factor.

Both 24 fps a MUST but now I'm wondering if I'm shooting 25fps anyway. Why would that be important? I'm not taking advantage of that feature anyway.

So can any one give me CAMERA PAL options for a feature FILM? I'm transferring to Film is the XL2 still the best option or I'm I spending to much money on a camera that could easily be replaced by a cheap one if shooting 25fps.

Don't ask me why I'm not shooting 16mm or why I'm going PAL. Please just concentrate on the question a thousand thanks,....

forgive me, are you shooting at 24 or 25?

I wouldn't go for the DVX100 if it's only for the warm colours. I think you can achieve that with the camerasettings of the XL2 also, and in postproduction, where it's the best to adjust your colours.

Both cameras will do the job. But if you're shooting PAL, you will get 25 fps, not 24 fps. So if you need to transfer to film, you will end up with hassle. Contact your transferhouse to discuss the conversion issues, they sure will have some good advices and examples.

I use the PAL DVX100 and really like the machine. The DVX100A is even better. Use the squeeze mode or the anamorphic adapter with the DVX100A and you will have a great picture. The progressive video settings combined with the cinegamma color features will give you a good filmlook, as long as you light your shots properly and have a good DP.

I don't have any experiences with the XL2. Based on info on these kind of forums, I understand it has a nice widescreen feature and interchangable lenses. But it's more expensive than the DVX100(A) and it's cinegamma settings won't bring you as far as the DVX100 can.

Check the following webpage, it's about a comparisation between the DVX100A, XL2 and Sony minidv HD camcorder:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/