Jeff,

thanks for replying. I didn't realize that you had because i keep forgetting that just posting something or replying to a post doesn't automatically subscribe to the thread like i'm used to on other forums.

i do understand that i'm not simply going to get pro results from having 24P in the camera and that most of the film look has to do with the lighting of the characters and the set. At my budget, this is currently going to be next to impossible, but will hopefully become a reality as time goes by.

i did end up choosing the XL2 because of its slight advantage over the DVX in terms of image quality (i saw it for myself at a local store), stock audio quality and last but not least, the shoulder mount, which i realized was a huge plus half-way through this thread.

thanks for all your replies everyone! You've all been a great help

Hi, I'm currently in the market for a DV Camera and seem to be leaning to an XL2, but I was wondering what other people though of their camera's. If I'm going to get a Canon I think I what a Panisonic or JVC. Please tell me of any good camera's equal to the XL2 not XL2E. I really do not know where to put this post so I put it here, if I should have put it elsewhere please tell me where. I'm new to the boards. Thanks, John

Sounds like you may have already made up your mind.

If you want input from people, you need to be more specific about what you are going to use your camera for. XL2 is a great camera, but are you will to use it as it is intended ? If you are going to be "running and gunning", this camera may or may not be best for those needs. Each DV camera out there has its pluses and minuses, all anyone here can do is let you know based on their experiences how there particular camera holds up in the way you want to use it.

Chris Barcellos

Hello all. Newbie poster here, but been lurking and learning for months.

I know there's a thread already running asking which cam to hire for a feature shoot, but I'm hoping i can add this very straightforward and specific question into the mix as well.

There's much more to this of course, but I'll limit my question to the following:

I'm shooting my first short. I'll have a 35mm converter (SG35) for shooting and I'll have Final Cut Pro with Nattress filters for post (iMac). Naturally - among many other things like lighting and style - i want to use the available technology to get the best 'film look' i can. I have extensive experience of shooting and editing DV / miniDV (PD150/Z1 - Pinnacle Liquid 5.5/6). However, i'm not at all au fait with HD/HDV and haven't yet grasped how it differs re: shooting & post workflow / workload.

And so to the question:

I have the choice of 3 cams to shoot with. Which one (bearing in mind this is my first short) would people suggest...

1) Sony Z1
2) Canon XL1
3) JVC GY HDV

I'd like the finished product to stand up under scrutiny online and on DVD.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

PS - i'm a bit obsessive and determined ;-) so if it comes down to shooting for Gold or settling for silver, I'd usually choose to shoot for gold even if it takes longer to prepare for.

If you're only showing it on DVD and online, you may not need to shoot in HDV since you'll be converting it down to SD again. If you're planning to project on a screen or any other use where resolution is important, I'd go HDV.

In terms of editing, from what I've heard, it's similar to DV where you simply capture and edit, but it won't be as fluid since the resolution is higher.

From the list of cameras you present, I'd choose the JVC if you neeed HD. Is the XL1 you list the original XL1, or is it the updated XL1s? If you need SD, the XL series cameras are great, but if you can find the XL2, it's a significant improvement.

Thanks for your reply....any reason you'd not go for the Z1? I only ask cos its the only one i've got experience with (not HD mind).

The Z1 is great as well, I only suggested the JVC because I personally love the lens it comes with since it's a fully manual lens, as well as a few other little things the JVC has.
The Z1 will also give great results, and if you've already got experience with one camera, you'll do a better job since there won't be another learning curve.

how long is your short project ?
depending on length ? you might consider FILM.. = FILM look!!
it all comes down to the type of project ... if it's MOS ( no sync sound) you might think about it ..

Thanks for the advice Don,

You're right of course - if i can afford to shoot anything on film its this 2 minute short (shortette even at that length?)

However, we (the team i've assembled) are making this as a trial to see how we work together and what we can produce with what we have available. If the results are good, we've got plans to move onto an already scripted more ambitious project.

Also, we all have video experience from camera through to edit, so i figure we should stay in video with future projects in mind, rather than try to teach ourselves film production just for this one off project.

What is the best below $600 dv camera out there?

I have some friends gettting married and they want a camera to take on the honeymoon.

Check the Canon Optura line- they're great!

The pv-gs65 or pv-gs150 Panasonic 3ccd camcorders.

Thank you both appreciate the info.

Hi
Well, I'm thinking about a new camcorder. Especially since my Sony VX2000 is about 4 years old now. But, which one? Gee so many to choose from!

Was thinking about a VX2100 but been told to stay away from that as it's not that much of an improvement over the 2000.

Looked at the Panasonic Dvx100B but found out maybe there seems to be a noise problem, plus takes a lot of time to set up. My VX2000 is silient and I've never picked up camera "noise" from the on-board mic. Yea, sometimes I have to use it, basically for ambient sounds. And the VX2000 and 2100 doesn't have XLR. I got a Sign Video XLR pro though.

So how about the PD170? Hax 1 lux, xlr and shoots DVcam and MiniDV. So is DVcam any better in quality than MiniDV?

I'd like some opinions from other members please. Open to suggestions. Don't think the HD/HDV is my ticket right now though and I'm not sure if those HD's shoot SD anyway. Most of our work is MPEG-1's on multimedia CD's and now some of our clients are getting DVD players in their corporate computers.

Thanks
Allen

Allen:

I have the VX2000-- and despite its "datedness" I would put it up against most of the DV cameras out there. But that argument can be had on post all over this forum.

If you are moving up, and you liked the "no baloney" Sony formats, you should consider the FX1 as your next camera. It does shoot DV, in 16x9. But even better, you can shoot in HDV, and covert from the camera to DV, or capture in HDV, and then convert in post to DV. I've been messing with the latter, and I am finding the DV handled that way is much nicer than the DV of the same scene coming off the VX2000, shot under the same conditions.

You will find the FX1 is not as tolerant of low light, and that is the primary benefit of the VX and PD series of camera. Oh, well, at some point in our development, we have to learn about lighting, and gain, and all that nasty stuff....

I shoot DV CAM with a Sony PD-series camera (a PDX10, to be specific), but I don't do it because of 'higher quality'....I do it because I've found I get less 'dropouts' with it than I do in standard DV mode. I still get dropouts mind you, but just not as many as I get with straight DV. Admitedly, I'm absurdly harsh on my camera. ;-)

IMO, I can't see any quality difference between DV CAM and standard DV mode, and everything I've read indicates that the IMAGE data is the same between the two formats...it's just that DV CAM is more 'robust' in how it records to tape (150% speed difference in fact, so a 60 min DV tape only records 40 min in DV CAM mode), and that the AUDIO data is 'locked' rather than 'unlocked'. But in practice, I never noticed any sound-sync problems in standard DV mode.

YMMV, of course.

Hi and Thanks.

Chris, I agree with you about the VX2000. That's why I'm having a heck of a time trying to decide. Problem is 16/9 is not good for my technical work. Okay for my "tourist DVD's though. Also moving 'up' to HD I think requires quite an expense in upgrading software and possibly hardware. And I'm staying with Vegas 5.0d. V-6 seems to be having too many problems for me.

Duane, Thanks. I thought the DVcam tape was bigger! ;-). I don't get hardly any dropouts and never had a sync problem with the audio on the VX2000.

What a delimma! Anyway my main customer said they'd either contribute or foot the bill for a new camera, so I'm looking. I'd be adding to the VX2000 not replacing it.

Allen

Allen,

It sounds like you are the perfect customer for the PD170, but that means XLR mics instead of your current setup. If you already have a good wireless and shotgun, you may not want to switch. Since 16:9 is not appropriate for your product, you would need to move up to a camera that has 1/2 or 2/3" CCDs to get an improved image. Of course, that would mean a larger camera that would be less portable. I hate to say it, but unless you need 16:9 or HD, there is little reason to upgrade from the VX2000.

Marcus

Just so you know, you can shoot in 4:3 DV also, with the FX1.

Hi and thanks again.
Well, my VX2000 is about 4 years old now and I've convinced my company to purchase another camera for me.

I do some subway and low light shooting so need the low light availibity. With the technical shooting I do I have to set-it-and-forget-it so we have to carefully guage the weather and time of day. It has to be done in one take and one minute we're out in the open and the next minute we're going through a tunnel of trees or buildings.

Yes, I do have the Sign Video XLR pro as well as a Marantz PDM660 digital recorder that has phantom power and XLR. My mic's are AT2020 for studio voice overs, 2- Shore SM11's, an AT897 and Azden wireless AZD10HT and AZD100LT UHF systems.

Also I'd be able to do multi-camera shots. I've got a training video shoot coming up and It would be nice to have 2 cameras. Now I have to stop the scene and change camera location to effect the shot the way I want it. With 2 cameras I could do it easy in post. You certainly don't want to have a person talking (talking face) with a continuous front-on shot. Need to alternate front and side views.

Guess I'm probably leaning toward the PD170 then but haven't ruled out HD if I can get good low light and it still would shoot SD 4:3. Then I could do my tourist stuff in 16:9

Check out my web site in the signature and you can see a 1 minute preview of my 2 "tour" DVD's. Those probably would have been nice in 16:9 wide screen.

Sorry for the typo in my signature. Should be 265mph. It's been fixed.

Allen

Hello all

I am currently in the process of agonising over which camera to buy so that I can start making films (something I've wanted to do for a long time)

At the moment, the two cameras in my sights are the FX-1 and the XL2. I am aware that one is DV and the other is HD.

My concerns are obviously the allowance for future expansion, something that the FX-1 will provide, as well as the improved quality. I have used an FX-1 with the broadcasting station I do part time work for, and found it to be easy to use and quite impressive. My other concern is the capture of the HDV footage (using premiere v1.5.1)

The XL2 I am drawn to for many reasons, that being the fact that it has been out for sometime and is tried and proven. Also it has the interchangeable lenses and xlr inputs that could make it a very handy piece of equipment to do what I want.

Now, I know some of you might say, get the Z1, or XL-H1, but my sadly my budget to do this, does not reach that far. Also planned within my budget is the purchase of a steadicam unit, and boom mic.

My plan for films is to eventually moved to independant filming, but to start off slowly and careful, and build up experience, knowledge and a reputation.

So, I am currently umm'ing and aaah'ing over the best solution. And hence why I have turned to yourselves to advise me.

Your guidance is appreciated

Regards

Niall

PS. My first post, be gentle :)

Being I own an XL2, Im going to be biased. The only problem I would see with the XL2 is the steadicam work. I think it's a little big for that.

I don't own either of those cameras (I only have a GL2), and I'm not ready to upgrade yet, but if I was looking for a new cam, I would definitely go for an HDV solution, for future expansion. If your editing machine does not have the horse power to handle HDV, no worries, you can still use the FX-1 in SD mode for the time being.

Considering you are already familiar with the FX-1, it's a big plus. However, if you consider the XL2 to be within your budget, why aren't you considering the Z1? I thought they were both in the same price range.

Z1 is impressive, but perhaps more than I need. I think the FX-1 will meet my needs for now.

Thats not to say that later I cant get one, and demote the FX-1 to 2nd camera

I upgraded from Canon GL1/GL2 cameras to a Sony FX1, and the image quality difference is stunning. The XL2 isn't a bad choice given that it at least offers a proper widescreen recording mode, but the difference between SD and HD is too significant to ignore. My main concern with the FX1 at this point is how it responds in poor lighting, but it's basically only one stop less sensitive than my Canons and has a cleaner image. In adequate lighting, the FX1 blows away any similarly priced DV camera -- especially when viewing the footage on an HDTV.

There's no easy answer right now because there isn't any single video camera which does everything well for under $4000. Whatever you decide to get, make the most of it and figure there will be better options at a similar price a couple of years down the line.

Quote: My other concern is the capture of the HDV footage (using premiere v1.5.1)

With a decent computer system, you should be able to capture with the Cineform codec in Premiere 1.51. Premiere 1.51 uses that as an intermediate codec. It creates a high definition .avi file that you can edit in and export to whatever format you choose. In case you're confused as to whether you have to also purchase the Aspect program from Cineform, that doesn't have to be done. As I understand it, Aspect adds many editing benefits and can get you to near realtime preview of transitions and filters, but you can just use Premieres filters and transitions, and deal with rendering issues. The Cineform intermediate codec is included in the Premiere 1.51 update.

As I also understand it, Premiere 2.0 actually captures in native m2t format, but all the big boys on this forum are inidicating you should get the Cineform Aspect 4.0 for Premiere 2. I have Premiere 2 upgrade on order, and don't have Aspect, so I will see what happens when I try to edit native, with my 3800+ AMD dual core. Expecting delivery this week from Video Guys.

I have been capturing native HDV with a consumer oriented program from Pinnacle called Studio Plus 10, and haven't had any great difficulty using it to edit. This program uses the engine from Liquid Edition, as I understand it.

Being I own an XL2, Im going to be biased. The only problem I would see with the XL2 is the steadicam work. I think it's a little big for that.

Times have changed indeed when a 5 lb camera is considered too heavy for Steadicam! I'm sure you're referring to the handheld units like a JR/Merlin or Glidecam 2/4000, of course. However, if one is using a body-mounted system like the Flyer or Magiqcam or the larger Glidecams, the extra inertia afforded by the XL2 should be welcomed to maintain a more stable frame.

OK, 'nuff said...back to strapping on the 70 lb Steadicam...!

I was planning to get a Steadicam Flyer to go with this camera (whichever one I go for)

As for the capturing PC, its a P4 3Ghz, 1Gb of ram, and soon to have another 300Gb of storage space, as well as a firewire card!

Charles, quick question

What do you think is the better camera for the flyer, the XL2, or the FX-1..and why!

/shines spotlight at Charles :)

Regards

Niall

Greetings. I am new to videography and this is my first post on the network . A friend and I will be buying a couple of cameras and we are in the process of deciding between the Canon XL2 and the Sony DSR PD-170. I understand that the Sony is much better in lower lighting conditions. I am thinking about the Canon because of the capacity to interchange lenses. Any advice on using one of each in a multi camera shoot? Should we stick with one brand only?

Aloha, Michael

Pahoa, Hawaii

you also have to consider how important is PROGRESSIVE vs. interlace ..
the sony is interlace - yes it says it can do progressive BUT that is 15fps ( and i'm not so sure it's real progressive ?? might just double one of the fields?)

so if you need/want a camera that can shoot 60i , 24p , 30p then you can stop comparing the 2 camera's ...

you might look at the panasonic DVX100 over the sony pd170

Also remember the XL2 has high quality (real) widescreen, where the PD170 just crops.
I think, exept for low light, the XL2 is the better cam overall.

But it's also more expensive, so maybe you should indeed look at the DVX100b too.

I have never run into situations where the low light performance on an XL2 was unacceptable. I shoot stage productions all the time which are very low light and the XL2 looks much better in low light because it maintains its colour a lot better than the Sony does. Go with the XL2 - it's a lot more flexible in terms of lenses and other accessories and as mentioned, high resolution widescreen and you can get closer because of its longer lens. Not to mention, XL2 also does 24p and 30p.

I am a former canon owner and a current sony owner. Both are great camera's. In my experience I feel that the sony gives a much more viberent picture. Especially when lighting is less than perfect. It seemes to me that it does not give nearly the noise that the canon's do. In fact I ran a test with a friend in FCP and what we did was hook each camara up to the comp via firewire and used the exact same settings on each camera. What we did was looked at the vector and hyster scopes and the results were just crazy not only could you see a huge difference between the two pictures the color measurements were much higher on the sony.
But the great thing about a canon is that you can interchange lenses and the shoulder mount is really great.

My only question is what are you going to be using these camera's for?

Brandon, which Canon camera did you use in your comparison? (I'm assuming XL2?)

I agree with needing to know what you're planning to do with the camera in order to make the best suggestion.

For the time being I plan to shoot events....weddings, classes, workshops and such. In some of the workshops I will be shooting I plan to do a fair amount of close up work. I am encouraged to hear that the XL2 has good reports with low lighting situations. While money is a consideration, I definitely want a camera that I can grow into.

For events and weddings, go with the Sony, because of it's low light performance.

Haven't used the Canon, but the Sony PD-170 is really bulletproof. Great in low light, easy to manage, and extremely reliable. For what you are doing, it will be a very good choice.

All right, I'm a bit conflicted right now. I want to buy a new camera, but I'm not sure what to get. Between these two cameras, which would be a better buy:

Panasonic DVX100A: Has the benefit of 24p. 1/3" image sensors.

or

JVC DV5000U: No progressive. Not native widescreen (neither is DVX100). Has 1/2" image sensors. Looks more "professional".

I know a lot of you will ask what I'm using it for specifically. I would have to say that I would use it mostly for experimental short films. I would also like to pick up some freelance work on the side for extra income.

Any suggestions?

-Matt

Even though I have an Xl2, I would suggest the DVX100A in your case. I've used the JVC and have never been impressed with it. The DVX is a great camera. You'll love the 24p.

The JVC is in a higher price class than the DVX100 (or the XL2 for that matter). I've never actually used it, but larger sensors generally have better low light performace. You'll also need to consider the cost of a lens and tapes which will cost more than they would for a miniDV camera.
I've used both the DVX100 and the XL2 and I think they're both awesome cameras - the DVX100 for its compact size and excellent manual lens, and the XL2 for real 16:9 and unmatched telephoto reach. Pick the camera that suits your needs better, image quality between these 2 cameras is very similar. Like I mentioned, if the JVC is still an option, I think it would be better because of the larger sensors.

The thing with the JVC is, I found a used (it was used as a presentation model) camera for a pretty decent price, and it comes with a 14x lens. And yeah, the 1/2" sensors really appealed to me. Also, about the tapes, this particular model accepts both standard DV and miniDV. And, I was looking at some of the tech specs, it looks like the JVC offers 800 lines of horizontal resolution compared to the 500 lines that the DVX offers. It just seems that the JVC model is in an entirely different league than the DVX. All the reviews I've read on the DV5000 have been entirely positive.

-Matt

To the best of my knowledge, the DV5000 is basically in the next league up from a DVX100. You wouldn't get progressive shooting, image stabilization or auto focus from the JVC, but you should get a higher quality image (1/2" CCDs, options for much better lenses, and probably quite a few more manual control options for image acquisition).

I thought the JVC does shoot progressive?

I'm using one currently at my university and we have to edit and export using progressive settings.

Correct me if I'm wrong? But other than that, the JVC's are nice, a little heavy after a while but overall good image. You can see some of the video of it at www.aggieblvd.net/videos/TheParty.wmv

All shot with the JVC (and compressed).

The DV5000 is a real straight forward, high quality, SD 4:3 60i camera. The HD100 shoots progressive (HDV).

i am looking for a cam under $2000 that is both great for shooting a movie, and also great for shooting at night. The AG-DVX-100 and the Sony VX2000/2100 arwe the ones im considering...

Hello Everyone, Thanks in advance for your advice on this subject.

I'm leaving for London on April 24 for a 4 month backpacking trip around Europe. When I get back I hope that I'll be accepted into the Film and TV - Broadcast program at BCIT in Vancouver, BC.

I'm basically at a loss of what video camera I should get. When I was going to purchase a prosumer DV camera a couple years ago there weren't as many models out there and things seem much more complex now!

I've been looking at the Sony HDR-FX1 for the fact that it's HD, but I haven't been keeping up with other HDV models so maybe there's something better? I have a 27" WS LCD so I've learned the joys of HD content.

But then there's the option of buying an SD camera that does good WS footage... Like a Panasonic dvx100?

Or I just buy some $400-1000 consumer DV camera and use that and save the money for a better HDV camera down the road when I'm at school.

Like I said, I don't really know what to get and time is running out to get the camera into my hands! I really like the idea of shooting my travels in HD, but if the quality is bad( for the cameras in budget range ) I guess I could settle for something else and save some money. I live in a remote community right now so there really isn't an option to play with any video cameras in the $1500-6000 range....

Thanks again for your help!
-Paul Alberts

Hey Paul, good to see another B.C'er wanting to get into film production. My 2 cents would be for you to purchase a smaller consumer camera, something that u can easily carry around Europe, ESPECIALLY if you're backpacking.. you wouldn't want a bulky cam nor would u want something that's THAT expensive in your backpack, believe you me.

Whether HD or SD, if you have compelling enough footage from your backpacking travels, the format wouldn't matter.. sounds like a fun time so i reckon any small SD consumer cam would suffice.. maybe if you have the coin to spare, get one of those 3 CCD panasonic models- otherwise i'd save my $ and get the SOny HD or the Panny HD down the road.

Either way, have fun and looking forward to seeing yer footage.

Cheers

Paul,

If compact is what you want, and would like high def, check out Sony's new compact HD camcorder HDR-HC1. I saw it at Circuit City and was blown away by its form factor and size. Don't know much about its performance, but it's worth a look:

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=9kbJt8SsvtvJyYCgVorDvIugOTNN8nePLgQ=?ProductSKU=HDRHC1&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DICamcorders_HighDefinitionVideo&INT=sstyle-DICamcorders-heroleft-HDRHC1_HDV_1080i_Handycam_Camcorder

Kevin

Ditto what Kevin said about the HC1, or the more professional A1U. Most DV cameras can't shoot true widescreen video, and they obviously don't offer the opportunity to produce HD output. With HDV you can shoot one format and deliver your choice of HD, widescreen SD or 4x3 SD output, and have it look good in all of those outputs. Start with something like an HC1 and you can add an FX1 or better later to have a two-camera HD setup; buy a DV camera and you're stuck 50 years in the past.