Now that you are looking in the 1500-2000 dollar range, you can definitely find a DVC 30 for that price.

First post here (hi all!). I'm a new camcorder user, but I'm a film major, so I know I'll get lots of use out of the camera I buy, and want something I can grow into, rather than something I'll need to replace in a couple of years. So I'm looking for something with as many bells and whistles as possible for under, or right around, $3,000.

Initially, I thought I had settled on a Canon GL2, but after reading about its problems, I've decided to scratch that and look for something else.

As a student, I'll be using my camera often and in many different types of environments, so I'm hoping you can help.

From the reading I've been doing, 3CCD seems important, as does the 16:9 resolution, and low light ability -- and I know I'll want good manual controls and the ability to change lenses. Is there anything else that is important to look for? It's good to hear about how your camera handles low light situations. I know that I want something that has good manual controls, as well as automatic (but I know the manual are even more important as I go along).

Anyone have any suggestions? I'm especially hopeful that someone with experience with various camcorders will weigh in. In any case, thanks for reading.

Oh, and because of a complicated situation, I have to find something by monday, Aug 15th.

First post here (hi all!). I'm a new camcorder user, but I'm a film major, so I know I'll get lots of use out of the camera I buy, and want something I can grow into, rather than something I'll need to replace in a couple of years. So I'm looking for something with as many bells and whistles as possible for under, or right around, $3,000.

Initially, I thought I had settled on a Canon GL2, but after reading about its problems, I've decided to scratch that and look for something else.

As a student, I'll be using my camera often and in many different types of environments, so I'm hoping you can help.

From the reading I've been doing, 3CCD seems important, as does the 16:9 resolution, and low light ability -- and I know I'll want good manual controls and the ability to change lenses. Is there anything else that is important to look for? It's good to hear about how your camera handles low light situations. I know that I want something that has good manual controls, as well as automatic (but I know the manual are even more important as I go along).

Anyone have any suggestions? I'm especially hopeful that someone with experience with various camcorders will weigh in. In any case, thanks for reading.

Oh, and because of a complicated situation, I have to find something by monday, Aug 15th.

Hi Tina,

Welcome to DV-INFO. With your budget, the current offerings include a couple cameras. The DVX100a is a great camera for an aspiring film major. Another option for slightly over 3K is the Sony HDR-FX1. A slightly feature limited version of the $4900 Z1. This camera shoots in HDV as well as standard DV. Worth a look for the increased resolution of HDV format. With either camera, you'll find a plethora of good, accurate info here to help base your decision on.

Good luck,

-gb-

Hi Tina - and Welcome,
As far as DV, I still consider myself a newbie, but I've learned a great deal in the last 10 months, and like yourself, I did a lot of research online to find a camera that suited my needs. I think Greg is right in recommending the DVX100a. You might find that it has an amazing following, and within your price range it pretty much includes most of what I think you are looking for.

One thing you mentioned that you might not find in your budget would be the ability to change lenses. I might be wrong on this, but I think the only prosumer dv cam that has the ability to change lenses would be the Canon XL2. This is the camera I own myself, and I love using it. I know I will continue to grow into this camera over the next few years at least - but it is somewhat outside of your designated budget - even with a 'good deal' at a trusted vendor.

If the lens thing is a biggie for you, you could probably look for an older 'used' XL1s. I think this model was originally released in 2001 and does not have some of the more advanced features found on newer cams touted by Sony, Canon, and Panasonic, etc. but it is still a strong contender in terms of image quality and customization. I am sure you could probably find a good working one within your budget range.

I am sure other, more seasoned folks will also be able to sound off on this thread. That's just my $.02.
-Jon

I agree with Jonathan: look for an Canon XL1s or a Panasonic DVX100a.

BTW: in your budget, you do have money for a tripod and maybe some accesoires, or a good case and such?
Good luck!

For making films, DVX100a (my choice) or XL1s/XL2.

But what about those restrictions?

True 16x9 or squeeze or anamorphic or letterbox?
Why do you need multiple lenses?
How important is 24p?
How important is "film look" cine-gammas?
Low light is a relative thing, and neither of these cams is as good as a VX2100 or PD170 (but it may not matter unless you shoot parties and bars).

For true night shooting, check out the DVC30 with an infrared light for B&W zero-light shooting.

You cannot really buy a DV camera witha laundry list. You need to understand why you want each fature, because there are a few major brands and models and they all approach the problems differently.

And leave yourself about $600 for a decent tripod, $80-$100 for at least one extra battery, $50 for a UV protective filter, $100-$200 for a case, $100 for decent headphones, and about $1000 for audio, depending on what you plan to be shooting. (total about $2k). Other stuff can come later.

Instead fo trying to buy the perfect camera for the future, I would buy a cheaper cam (DVC30 is possible choice at $1500), spend rest of money on GOOD support equipment (audio, tripods, etc), and learn to use it all. Next year you will want a high-def camera anyway.

I would rather have a $100 camera, $600 tripod and a $1000 in audio equipment than a $1500 camera, $100 tripod and $100 in audio equipment. And everyone on this board will agree with me (except for the doodooheads LOL).

Bob's advice about not skimping on the additional equipment is very good. And beyond that, are you equipped to edit what you shoot? Do you have good software, a fast enough computer, enough hard drive space?

You might have a look at the PDX-10 from Sony, for around $1,600 after rebate. It will give you high quality 16:9, DVCAM, XLR audio inputs and a short shotgun mike while leaving enough left in your budget for the other equipment.

Hey, thank you for such a friendly, helpful welcome. :)

I found this: Link. (http://www.priceritephoto.com/priceritephoto/customkititems.asp?CartId={1601F081-7A58-4BDD-93EVEREST69-66161EB64A20}&kc=AGDVX100APK) (hope the code works, as I'm more used to EZBoard code and see nothing here explaining how to do named links...

Anyway, does that look like a good deal, or do you think the kit accessories are crap?

Bob, thanks for asking those questions. I guess that with the short timeframe, I've just dug in and tried to learn what are the 'best' features that I'll be needing in the future. I don't see myself being able to buy another camera for several years yet, so that's a big part of it, too, wanting something I can grow into, rather than planning on trading up shortly.

Thanks!

Boyd, I just googled that Sony and it looks pretty good. How do I get that rebate?

Try this link:

www.sony.com/PDX10Cashback

However, I now see that B&H photo is out of stock on the PDX-10. Perhaps you can find one somewhere else though. There's been speculation that they are phasing the camera out and it's being replaced with the new HVR-A1.

Also visit our PDX-10 forum for lots more info:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Thank you, Boyd, I think I'll be taking a look around to see what I can find on that. :)

Tina, the PDX10 is a truly wonderful cam...I absolutely love mine and am constantly amazed by the astounding imagery I'm able to capture with it. :-)

It's 3CCD, shoots in true anamorphic 16:9, has good manual controls (real buttons, not touch screen), and the audio features are quite good (the XLR breakout box and included mic, for example).

BUT, it's not very good in low light (which you mentioned was important to you) and since you're a FILM MAJOR, you might not like the fact that it only shoots in 60i....and if you're looking to make student films with this, you really might want to look at a cam that can shoot in 24P, or even 30P.

Honestly, if I were wanting to do film-style work, I'd go for a Panasonic DVX100a or a Canon XL2 (or possibly a used XL1s). No, they may not have the pure "bang-for-the-buck" that the PDX-10 has, and yeah they might cost considerably more, but they might serve your needs better. If you can afford them, of course.

Barring that, I'd go for a Gl2 (even with it's potential problems) because it's affordable, can shoot in 30P, and of course like most cams can be outfitted with an anamorphic lense adapter to shoot true 16:9 as well as an aftermarket XLR adaptor.

Honestly, the GL2 was my #1 choice until I realized that 60i worked fine for MY needs (outdoor daylight action sports shooting for DVD release, *NOT* indy film making) and that the built-in audio, compact size, and the true 16:9 of the PDX10 just suited me perfectly. But as perfect as the PDX10 is for MY needs, it may not match up well with yours.


Also, have you considered a JVC HD1 or HD10? 16:9 & 720P/30 in HD might work for your needs, AND grow with you for a couple of years. I don't know much about those cams, but they might be worth looking in to.

:-)

Duane is right, for narrative work, you'd best go for a panasonic of a canon.
It's not that the sony ain't good cams, they are, but the colours are more cool, where those from the canon and panasonic a little bit more saturated, especcially the canon xl1s - which provides a more filmic look.
The sony are cams, better used for news work and event work, because of their very good low light capability and their absence of 24p or frame mode (30p, or in PAL land, 25p)
You can always deinterlace in post of course, but it's lots of rendering time, and you'll loose quality (not much, and in frame mode you also loose quality, but still...)

Also, have you considered a JVC HD1 or HD10? 16:9 & 720P/30 in HD might work for your needs, AND grow with you for a couple of years.
Don't these JVC cameras lack manual controls? Also, aren't they rather poor performers in low light? Tina indicated manual controls are important to her, and perhaps low light performance as well, so I don't think the JVC cameras would be a good fit for her.
It's not that the sony ain't good cams, they are, but the colours are more cool, where those from the canon and panasonic a little bit more saturated, especcially the canon xl1s - which provides a more filmic look.
I don't know about the Sony PDX10, but on my VX2000 I can tweak the picture to make it warmer and more saturated, so I wouldn't say that the Canons and Panasonic cameras have an advantage in this area. Of course, as mentioned the PDX10 lacks progressive scan capabilities, and is poor in low light, so one of the Canon or Panasonic cameras are probably better for her purposes.

All of your posts have been very helpful, and I thank you. I believe I'm going to go with the Panasonic DVX100a. Even though I think the Sony sounded great, and I've heard the images they produce are gorgeous, I think, as some have said, I'll need something more. When it comes to accessories, I'm going to buy a UV filter lens to protect the native lens, a battery pack and a decent tripod, and then add to it as needed to build up with decent accessories.

You're a great group here -- thank you!

Great decision, Tina! The DVX100a is probably the BEST camera for your needs as a film student. It should be the last SD camera you'll ever need to buy, certainly good enough for the next several years until you migrate to HD...and maybe by then there'll be an similarly-priced 1080/24p cam on the market!

I don't know about the Sony PDX10, but on my VX2000 I can tweak the picture to make it warmer and more saturated, so I wouldn't say that the Canons and Panasonic cameras have an advantage in this area. Of course, as mentioned the PDX10 lacks progressive scan capabilities, and is poor in low light, so one of the Canon or Panasonic cameras are probably better for her purposes.

Sorry about that, I don't have one, so maybe I wasn't the best judge to talk about them, just read very lots about them, so. My bad.

Tine, keep in mind that audio is at least half of video, and the biggest difference between pro and amateur is the quality of the audio. At least buy yourself a wired lav mic so you have one way to get decent sound right away. I have 5 mics in my location kit.

Be careful of DVX scams (buy from authorized reseller) and expect to pay around $3000 for a new one. Those deals for $1800-$2400 ARE too good to be true. And make sure you get the Barry book with your DVX or buy it separately. Learning curve on the DVX is a bit steeper than your average point and shoot camera. Stick with one brand/type of tape from day one (My choice is Panasonic MQ at $5 each).

Good Luck.

Be careful of DVX scams (buy from authorized reseller)

Best way to do this is to buy from a DVinfo sponsor; you'll be supporting the companies which support this site and they have all been chosen for their service and integrity:

http://www.dvinfo.net/sponsors/

Sorry about that, I don't have one, so maybe I wasn't the best judge to talk about them, just read very lots about them, so. My bad.
That's okay. We are all here to help each other with our respective areas of knowledge, which is what makes this forum great.

I've had my Canon mvx3i (optura Xi) for over a year, mostly family videos, but I am still disappointed with the color rendition, relative to high quality photos (shot on Nikon D70 with a good lens).

I can accept that the resolution cannot be compared, but in the same lighting conditions, the photos are usually very accurately colored (without enhancements), but the videos are very "under-colored" (bright colors are dull) and "over-contrasted" (whites are blown out). This is watching both photos and videos on the same screen or projector, without enhancements, in raw (nef) mode or avi mode.

It's as if I needed to increase the saturation of the colors in the videos, and decrease the contrast. I have always suspected that the single sensor was responsible for this... but still images taken with the DV camera were better than the videos (never as good as the photos from a dSLR), and this always puzzled me.

Yesterday, I realised that the 3-ccd entry-level panasonic from a friend had similar color and contrast issues...

Is this a limitation of the entry-level DV cameras? Would GL2 (XL2) type cameras solve these issues, and render images comparable to a dSLR photo camera?

Can the video from entry-level DV cameras be recovered in software (increase color saturation and decrease contrast in every frame)? (I use Pinnacle Studio 9+)

Or should I never expect to get equivalent image quality from consumer type DV cameras as a prosumer type dSLR?

Thanks
Christophe

Welcome to DVinfo Chris! You're never going to reach your goal I'm afraid. The really technical stuff is beyond me, but generally speaking you only have 256 levels of chrominance and 256 levels of luminance which is far, far less than you're seeing from your DSLR.

Having said this however, DV can look pretty good sometimes. Right now I'm working on the lighting design for an opera we're going to revive and am pulling stills from the video of each light cue. I also have digital still images taken with a Nikon 5700 for comparison. Of course the 5MP Nikon images are much sharper, but I actually like the color better in the video (it was a very dark, misty blue production of Les Pecheurs de Perles). But to get the video to where I wanted it I used Final Cut Pro's 3 way color corrector.

So I think you can get the saturated color you want with no problem, but there won't be as great a range as your DSLR. Now contrast is another matter. Even the digital still cameras have a hard time with the sort of high contrast inherent in our stage lighting, and video does an even worse job of that. Once you've blown out the highlights then the detail is just gone from those areas. Best strategy is to expose so the highlights aren't quite blown out, then when you edit you can use color correction to bring out the dark areas - up to a point. You start seeing a lot of noise in the dark areas if you boost them too much.

I don't know anything about your software, but it sounds limited. Look for a program that has more advanced color correction. On the PC I don't know what that would be, but I suspect Premiere and Vegas can do this.

At least you could improve your image in terms of resolution if you upgraded to some form of HD camera. Of course this will be considerably more expensive than your current model however. But the Sony HDR-HC1 might be something to look at, although the price is in the ~$2,000 range and you may be dismayed by its lack of true manual controls. The FX1 would probably be the next step up, and it offers a lot of image control but costs over $3,000.

Thanks for the advice.

Studio 9+ does have a color filter, and I am just now experimenting with increasing saturation and decreasing contrast, with levels adjusted scene-by-scene, and regenerating the AVI. It seems this should provide at least a useable video for my purposes (sharing with the larger family). I have not used this functionality to date! I'll let you know the results... does everyone always use this type of color correction?

I am a quality freak: I refuse to generate DVD quality mpeg, and image quality is critical otherwise the audience loses interest (and walks away with a headache!). I just store AVI on removable harddisks with a computer and a large LCD, and use a projector when needed.

So I was concerned that my mvx3i was the limiting factor, and wanted to know if I have to borrow someone's money to buy a better camera... clearly the HD cameras would have better resolution, but the image quality is more important to me today.

The image sensor and algorithms is clearly the critical part of the camera, but there are no controls for contrast or saturation real-time... do other cameras do that? I always use the manual exposure controls, but that's it...

All thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

A basic color control that lets you adjust hue and saturation will help I'm sure. But I was speaking of something which (I think) is a little more sophisticated. Here's an example (although a little dated) of the 3-way color corrector in Final Cut Pro:

http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_cc_dft_dvd.html

Some of the newer cameras have options to adjust the gamma curves and other settings to get greater exposure latitude (so you get less blown-out highlights). Cameras like the DVX100, XL2, and Z1 have this I believe.

2- Your computer monitor may be showing your video a little weird. Sony Vegas for example:
If you use the Sony DV codec (the default), blacks get mapped to 16-235 RGB. So if you leave the lens cap on your camera and close the iris, it'll record a black that shows up as 16 16 16 (RGB) on your computer monitor, which is a greyish black.

A broadcast monitor will give you an accurate idea of what your video looks like, although it may be hard to compare things with DSLR pictures.

Not sure what your video editing program does.

3- Saturation can easily be boosted in post, as can contrast (although this may bring up noise a little). A color curves filter is the best way to do this... Vegas has it, PPro has something like it, FCP doesn't have it (but you can get Nattress' G Film for $100). Some cameras can be tweaked to deliver higher contrast as well as saturation.

Color accuracy is dependent on your camera and its iris/exposure settings- I find that on a PD100, aggressive exposure (clipping be damned) leads to more saturated and accurate/vivid colors.

Exposure latitude is dependent on the camera. More exposure latitude means you see more detail in highlight and shadow areas instead of clipping.

How do you white balance?

I bought the proper cards from a video store (white balance card, 18% grey card for exposure) and found that made things much easier, and gave a far more accurate picture.

I don't know about the mvx3i but the Panasonic GS400 has a few settings that can change the picture for the best. For more information go and see this topic : http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45748

I am very happy with the picture of my GS400 now althought I sometimes tweak the colors and contrast in post.

Again thanks for the advice.

The pictures taken with the DV camera are fine if you have no choice, but cannot be compared to a dSLR, and no amount of jpeg adjustments (like those available on panasonic gs400) will ever be able to compare to shooting raw (or nef) and adjusting the image on a PC later. But my questions relate to DV videos, not stills. Thanks anyway.

I haven't figured out white balance for DV yet... I'll need to read the manual I guess! Usually I have found that the white balance is not a problem on the films (unlike dSLR, for which white balance is quite difficult)

Getting greater exposure lattitude would ne nice, so it's good to hear that it is available on more expensive models... on the mvx3i, I am constantly adusting the exposure manually, and using the "zebra" to highlight blow-outs and trying to reduce these without getting the zones of interest too dark.

The avi I regenerated after adjusting contrast and saturation is significantly better than the raw avi, but still a far cry from dSLR pictures (even without any adjustments on the pictures)... maybe the problem is the 256-levels limitation of DV as mentioned here... or maybe I need a better color filter software with more options?

Are you guys happy with the color / contrast from more expensive cameras? Is it significantly better than mid-range cameras like my mvx3i?

What I mean is, can we hope to get close to the TV or movies color / contrast quality with these amateur-ish DV cameras? I see "near-broadcast quality" on some cameras... Is this what is meant? How near is it?

A family relative on the other side of the world, uses Nikon dSLR for photos, panasonic GS-400 (3 ccd model) for quick videos, and XL2 for high-quality personal videos... Is this what you guys do? Unfortunately I have no way to compare his results... but I believe he does not spend any time to "fix" his videos.


For better color accuracy, Glenn suggests "agressive exposure"... does that mean I should blow-out highlights in favor of zones of interest? Isn't that the opposite of most advice, which suggests under-exposing slightly and recovering detail through software later?

Thanks
Christophe

What I mean is, can we hope to get close to the TV or movies color / contrast quality with these amateur-ish DV cameras?

In my opinion, the best stuff out there (features and national commercials) look good because of:
shot on 35mm film - greatest exposure latitude, which other formats can't touch. Shallow depth of field too (video needs 35mm adapter to get the same results).
talented and experienced people
lighting
color grading on a system like a Da Vinci with a professional colorist (it's all they do). While you can get comparable results with DV using tools like Final Touch SD or Nattress G Film + Shake or Vegas + Combustion, you won't necessarily have the talent and experience as someone who specializes in color grading.

For better color accuracy, Glenn suggests "agressive exposure"... does that mean I should blow-out highlights in favor of zones of interest?

Yes. I'm not sure if it increases color accuracy as I don't have a good way of testing that. But colors do seem to look more vivid. Saturation definitely increases, at least with the Sony PD100. You can test this with your own camera.

Isn't that the opposite of most advice, which suggests under-exposing slightly and recovering detail through software later?
Yes. I used to believe that you should be conservative with exposure... but aggressive exposure does have its benefits.
Without any color correction, the aggressively exposed image will be more saturated.
After color correction, you can match brightness and saturation. But, the colors will still be different (check this on a vectorscope... the hue of colors is different). Also, increasing brightness with make noise more apparent in the dark areas.

Hi there,

My name is David, thanks for taking the time to read my enquiry.

I am going to Asia in October to work in and around Refugee camps. I want to take with me a Digital Video Camera so that I can record the plight of the people there, their story etc. Also to tell the story of my 75 year old father who goes there to help stop Malaria and TB by providing equipment, medicine and advice…anyway

I have been looking at the new range of digital video cameras, happy that prices are lower because I am not rich; but confused by the lack of features in some cameras. Of course price IS a major factor; less than NZ$2000 (and lower than that if possible) but disregarding price a little for the moment:

I decided I would look for 1) a 3ccd camera (better colour etc), 2) the best optical zoom, and 3) a DVD-RW drive (hard drives are probably too expensive for me). I was of course mindful of other things like night shooting ability, colour in the viewfinder, stability when filming etc but the 3 main ingredients were what I was looking for.

Do you think I could find one? NO. There is a 3ccd, with 10x optical zoom and TAPE drive! I guess someone must have an excess of tape drives, why would you have a 3ccd camera with a tape drive, rather than at the same time making the recording media more up to date? I guess there may well be a very legitimate reason.

It was pointed out to me by a salesperson at a shop today ( 5 shops, one person actually new something) that JVC have just put out the GZ-MC500, 3ccd, 4gb microdrive, 10 x optical – the price unfortunately is NZ3500 so a bit out of my price range. I also read a review of it that said it doesn’t have a microphone jack, and that its viewfinder and low light performance are mediocre, and that though the 3ccd is great for still pictures it doesn’t do moving pictures so well.

So, PLEASE HELP is there a digital video camera that has 1) 3ccd (preferably three 1/4" CCD's that are optimized for video. No still camera needed), 2) non-tape (DVD-RW?/card) recording. 3) optical zoom of at least 10x. 4) decent audio. 5) mike in and perhaps an ie1394 port. ????

Or can you suggest something that would work for me. I need the best quality I can get for the least money obviously because I would like to be able to edit footage on my computer (Avid) and maybe make a doco or two.

PLEASE ADVISE

Thanks

Well, you seem to be too focused on the consumer aspects of cameras. No self respecting pro would ever use a DVD-R cam. The format is not stable and not easy to manipulate in post. Tapes are tried and true and have stood the test of time. Hard drives are not practical in most cases and would require dumping every few hours to clear up space. Solid state media will be on some new cameras but VERY VERY expensive at $750+ for every 20 minutes.

For a documentary, tape will be the standard for quite some time. We are probably 5+ years from significant penetration into the prosumer market of non-tape media.

ash =o)

Ta for that. I am basically a newbie, some experience in film and tv a long time ago. The purchase for me, though very little to pay for a camera, is in fact a large investment for me.

I spoke to a guy at the local CGD school today and he said similar things about tape. He seemed to think the stories of problems with tape mechanisms are few and far between.

He also said I might be better off to look at a single ccd camera but the bigger the lens the better.

I lookd up some of the models he suggested (vx2100, pd150) but they seem to have been superseded.

In all honesty, I think you're probably setting your sights a bit too high with regards to your budget... xe.com tells me that your budget is the equivalent of £733 roughly... unless very very lucky, you're not going to get a VX or PD cam for this money. But ignore the fact that the 2000 and the 150 are superceded, the new versions are essentially the same cameras with a few slight additions.. the bonus is of course they push the price down of the older models. The difference between the top end of Sony's consumer ("Prosumer") market and the bottom end of the professional market is staggering. I own the TRV950 and the PD150, sure the RRP of them is 2x the price, but there's only one camera in between and thats the VX2x00 (ok we should consider the PDX10 which is basically the TRV950 and PD150s bastard offspring heh, and in all honesty might well be your best choice.. more in a second..) so the range isnt full of cameras. Personally, I love Sonys and won't go back, especially if you like "pure video" (ie a camera that doesn't pretend its a film camera) and it sounds like you want to do something more documentarial from your description.

Definitely 100% ignore non-DV cameras. Microdrives are nice, but its a gimmick and 4gb? Well thats shooting in MPEG2 rather than DV which in all honesty, I'd prefer. Each DV tape is equivalent to close to 13gb of data, apart from the 4:1:1 space it shoots in natively, there's no extra compression of sorts. Plus.. tapes are cheap. Real cheap. No dragging around extra equipment to back up your drive, and DVD Cams are a consumer gimmick that only Sony (tsk, you let me down boys!) and Hitachi seem to bother with these days.

Now, regarding that lil PDX.. its small, it supports native 16x9 (which the pd/vx doesn't... BUT docu's are generally shot in 4x3 for a reason, to make it look nothing like film, more profiled shots in comparison to a wider screen.. adds to the realism factor) and also has XLR in's for pro mics. Invaluable!

Yes its gonna be harder to find one second hand within your price range, but see what you can find.. its a rare little camera in some areas i'm sure as it doesn't really fit in.. it just looks like a Racing version of the TRV, but they're cracking little things for sure.

As for lens size etc, triple CCD is going to give you better colour seperation, but lower light performance at that size.. personally, if I knew most of my work was going to be well lit, I'd go for the 3CCD option everytime, especially if the work was going to be serious. Alas with video, you get what you pay for, and a camera is a massive investment... but if its what you really want to do, definitely worth it.

David, since you will shoot in Asia, why not buy the camera there ? It will be much cheaper than in New Zealand and most of the countries in Asia use Pal.

And what would you think of the Panasonic GS400 ?

Thank you.

See this is why I decided to ask here, because you guys KNOW

No Ben I had never even heard of the GS400. However I looked at one today, it's within my price range and seems a good possibility.

James I really appreciated the response. I looked up the PDX10 and if I can get one within price then that would probably be the optimum for me, although the Canon XM2 looks good too. The PDX10 and XM2 are probably a little over what I actually have to spend but i"ll keep looking.

Any knowledge of the XM2 here? I think it's a PAL version of the GL2

At least I now have an idea of what is going to work for me. Unfortunately where I am going in Asia is great for cheap software but not for hardware (not going near Singapore for instance).

Thank you

So thanks.

I've been doing sporting events for a community TV station with 4 Sony PD170s, and have been disappointed by their performance, especially at indoor hockey games. Sony seems to crush the blacks too much (even at 7.5 IRE); I'm not too fond of the colors it gives me too. The predominant white floor of the rink and the horrible arena lighting conditions don't help either.

Today, I learned that we will have the budget to change our whole infrastructure. My boss is in love with the XL1, and never really liked the Sonys... My guess is he'll most likely want to push for the XL2. Not that I don't like the XL2, but I like to keep my options open, budget permitting. I have to keep in mind that some of our camera operators are not all professionals. I have been eyeing the JVC 5100 with its full auto feature... point, focus, and shoot! (Not that easy, I know, but an option nonetheless)

So my questions are as follow: What camera in the 4k to 8k price range is best suited for sporting events? Auto focus is a nice touch for the uninitiated, but very unforgiving for certain shots. If going the manual lens route, what sort of lens, and camera settings, should I require to get the widest DoF as possible, so as to minimize constant focusing of fast action sports?

Thanks,

Cant really tell you much about other cameras but i do use the XL2. One thing that i like about it is that allthough it looks like this monster cam that must be really hard to use it is really good in fully automatic mode in case you need to have somebody use it who has no idea.

One thing i do use it for is for ice skating and it gets really good results. In case of a skating rink you simply set it on manual anyway as the lighting doesnt change.

I'd go for the XL2 for a lens with real reach and solid IS system if you are using it handheld.

If you're looking at a camera in the $4,000-8,000 range, you should probably look to be doing more than just point and shoot with it, in my opinion. If you're unhappy with the colours, a camera of that cost should have quite a few video settings you can tinker with to get everything looking just the way you like it.

About the depth of field and focusing requirements you mentioned, adjusting the iris increases or decreases the depth of field. So, if you crank the iris and set a matching shutter speed, you should be able to get the greatest depth of field possible and thus reduce the focusing needed.

The Saskatoon Blades - WHL hockey team in the city I live in - own a Canon XL2 and use it for game tapes and webcasts. The guy who runs is is strictly point and shoot because he doesn't really know a lot of what the camera can do, but it sounds like he's pretty happy with the results so far.

What kinds of sports do you intend on shooting? With hockey, there's obviously high contrast between the players and the ice so you'll want a camera that can have its contrast adjusted. Also, regardless of the sport, you'll probably want to shoot in 60i mode (pretty much every camera will) because it'll give you the smoothest results.

The XL2 might be a good option for you. See if you can rent one from somewhere and test it out.


-mark

I've been supporting hockey here in Dayton, The Dayton Bombers, starting on my 7th season. If you're not necessarily needing 16x9, you might want to consider the Panasonic DV200. It is a full size camera with both full manual and automatic settings. We got it with a Fuji 20x manual lense and the thing rocks. You can tweak anything you want to. It has 3 1inch CCDs which really helps out with resolution and low light levels. You can run it hand held or get the studio controls and run it like a full studio camera. It records on full size DV tapes, so you can get upto 3 hour tapes. It doesn't do 16x9 or 24p or 30p, but it does have 16x9 guidelines in the viewfinder for framing something that you would either letterbox or adjust later in post. I highly recommend it.

We shoot all sorts of sporting events: Soccer, football, baseball, and basketball. Hockey is but one aspect, but probably the most problematic because of the high contrast range. Our shooting standard is 4:3 60i, so 16x9 24p is a nice to have for other productions, but not a necessity. (Don't care for HD either) The Panasonic DV200 is a good camera, I have used it before. Alas, it is discontinued. And getting 4 of them 2nd-hand is a big hassle, not to mention potential problems.

The XL2 is a nice choice, and will try to get my hands on one to try it out. How do all of you XL2 users like the 20x lens in manual focus mode? Is it easy enough to get accurate focus using the color viewfinder, or would you suggest the BW CRT optional viewfinder? Is the peaking function usable? Is the free running focus ring problematic? I have heard that in auto focus mode, the lens tends to focus hunt on wide shots. Is this so?

My fear of using the JVC 5100 is that it might not be as solid as it looks. True, not true, who knows? Can it take on some moderate abuse? On the other hand, I have been looking at the Panasonic convertible cameras (AW-E650 series). All added up with all of the necessary options, it comes just shy of the price of the JVC 5100; and there are no RCUs included. It’s probably more robust, but has no recorder, and is not a full-fledged shoulder mount cam that can be reused in other productions easily.

While on the Panasonic side, the DVX100 seems to be an option, except for it's limited 10x lens. I believe the XL2 and the DVX offer an advantage over many other cameras because of their image customization capabilities (such as black stretch, gamma curve, etc). However, as stated above, the 10x lens is limiting. Has anyone tried the 1.6x Century Optics tele adapter? How is the quality? Any loss of resolution? Any vignetting present?

Other then that, camera options are limited in the under 10K range. The Sony DSR390 is discontinued, and it's replacement the DSR400, although superior in some ways, is a lot more expensive. The Pany DV200 would have been a nice option, alas... The XL2 seems to be more and more the only way to go. Am I missing something???

Hi,

I am planning on shooting a feature film towards the end of the year and wanted some advice on the following:

I have access to an XM2 or a PD170, i own the xm2 so i have experience in using it and know what kind of pictures it can produce. i havent used a pd170 though.

Has anyone had experience with both these cameras who might be able to give their view on which would be most suitable for a feature film, pros and cons etc...

Also, do people on this board who shoot on a canon, shoot interlaced or frame mode?

Finally, assuming a good story, acting, well shot etc... would shooting hdv give the film much greater sellability? anyone have any experience trying to sell dv/hdv films?

thanks for reading, i look forward to anyones comments

Tony

I hope this is the right place for my question....

I am buying a DV camcorder, maybe a HDV?

I have concidered the following models:

Panasonic DVX100

Canon XL2

Jvc GY-HD100

Panasonic AG-HVX200

I'm doing fiction stuff and will mainly be shooting 24p, what I seek is good picture quality and a cam that can create pictures as filmlike as possible.
Also I require a good sound option on my cam.

First of I will only be shooting DV (cause I will be editing the projekt on a PowerBook), but later on HDV might be really nice......

I hope somebody can help me or refer me to a place where the same subject is being discussed.

Regards

Anders

I really like the HD100.

Don't have one but if I had the money, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Hello Anders,

I think the best thing for you to do is first to tell us your budget.

The cams you listed are all great cams.
My opinion is that maybe if HD isn't a must, don't look for one.
Be sure if you need it or not, because it's an extra expense.
As I have none of the cameras you talked about, I'll just talk about what I've heard about them.

Panasonic DVX100: great filmlook, but also the oldest model of all the models.

XL2: best SD cam, but pretty expensive of course. It's like the DVX but somehow sharper, interchangible lens system, somehow better audio options, but the filmlook is told to be not as good (out of the box I mean!) as the DVX. It's a more difficult cam to master then the DVX, but you should be able to get better results.

HD100: filmlook, but no option to go interlaced. completely manual lens, but is reported to be not that great, and the other option is a lens of 13.000 dollar. Is reported to look very filmlike, but also some people had some problems with them (look at the boards of the camera)

HVX200: isn't out yet. Is very expensive, no interchangible lens system. HD post production should be pretty expensive (in comparison with editing usual DV). I think it's like a updated DVX with some very nice extras (and I know that's kind of an understatement, but if you're only going for SD production, maybe for the price difference you should better get a DVX and a good tripod or microphone or...)

You really have to decide what you need
(interchangible lenses? HD(V)? ...)

I just sold my gl1 because I didnt like the grain and the low resolution that the gl1 tends to produce. I skate & film and I was just wondering what cam you guys would suggest. I would like to have a cam that has alot of manual controls and a cam that produces a high quality image. I was thinking about getting the HC1 or the vx1000 but im not sure about what cam I should get. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Well you didn't mention what purposes you need the camera for. Is it for work or play , or both? How much is your budget? If you want to go HD with fairly good manual control, go for the Sony HC1 thats out, its a really really good price for the fact that it is HD. If you don't care about HD as of yet, go for a used vx2000 or perhaps a vx2100. All this dependin on your budget, and your purposes. But you can't go wrong with the cams i mentioned...

There was another thread that went through this recently. Same scenario. A skate vid guy who was debating a couple of cams. Do a search for it.

I think he ended up going with the GL2 because he also wanted to use it for family ocasions.

I say GL2, anyway. With a fisheye.

Hi again.

Well first of, my budget i around 5000-6000$, but spending lesser would'nt hurt me....hehe.

I think I'm concidering either the xl2 or the dvx the most at the moment, because the jvc is a bit more difficult to use (the manual lens, etc) and also for HDV it might be good to wait a bit until the format has really entered the market and becoming a knovn and used standard like DV.

But I as i have read I could get a bit better pictures with the xl2 compared to the DVX.

The DVX has around 450.000 px pr. CCD

The XL2 has 800.000

I don't know excactly what this means? It all ends up in DV in the end right?

Also the XL2 shoots real 16-9, which means alot as most of my stuff is done in 16-9.

But the DVX is smaller and easier to handle, and also has a nice flip-screen LCD.

But regarding the filmlook, you said the DVX should be better. But am I right that both cams can shoot real 24p?

Hard to choose......

Regards

Anders

Anders, do not bother with pixel count. I worked witx XL2 and DVX100 and i must say that both are capable of producing brilliant picture. My favor is DVX because of the form factor. XL is just too big for me travelling around all the time (actually I am working with XM2 a lot, but at this moment I am using DVX for some educational stuff). XL2 is great, but will you ever think of buying other lens? Off course if you want real 16:9 XL2 is better, but the best way for you is to try them both and then pick up your favour one. And for the rest of the money you can buy extra batteries, mics, decent tripod etc...