Thanks Bill...that is just what I was looking for. I am still new enough that workflow problems give me nightmares :)


Russ

If your not worried about HD which camera would one choose.
The camera would still have to be a hand held maybe no bigger than a Sony Z1. Camera would have to be native 16.9 and good in low light. Pal camera for me as i'm in Australia, balanced audio in,white balance, manual everything, I cant think what else oh yes the most important one under $10 grand.

What do ya think.

Cheers
Simon

Are you trying to figure out what camera you should buy, or what cameras other people like?

If it is the former, it would likely be more helpful to specify your needs. Some cameras are particularly suited for certain tasks and not others.

Hi Glen,
I was wondering what other people might be using instead of going down the HD path?
My needs are 16.9, handheld size, pal, able to set manual everything, a general all round camera. I guess i would be looking at something like the Sony PD 170 only with true native 16.9.

Cheers
Simon

Hi there,

Well,... if you don t need 'low light' capabilities... : just get a Z1 or XH-A1 and shoot in DV (SD).

You will get a true 16/9, manual everything, and a good "all around camera".

Philippe

I've been shooting on a Sony Z1 lately and it handles low light beautifully. The curves can be tweaked to look quite cinematic and the autofocus drastically outperforms the Canon XL series. I love it, but I'd rather have a Panasonic HVX 200 with a few GB of P2 cards, but for a lower budget I really recommend the Sony HD Z1 and V1 lines.

If I need a lowlight camera with good sharp video I always grab a VX 2100 ...those are still great DV cameras to use. I'm still blown away by this old camera and how sensitive it is to light.

Not the widest angle lens on it but its good for anything else.
I shot a tv pilot with it back in Jan 07 and only had to bump it to 3 db under street lights....and these were not the brightest lights.

I used the xl H1 this weekend outside and in one bar scene. Still testing on it.

Hey,

For the past 18 months I have been using Canon XM2's and a XL2 to make some promotional videos. Although the XL2 is an impressive camera I found myself more fond of the XM2. I liked the way it was no bells and whistles.

With myself soon to be without a camera (the ones I have been using were owned by the people I had been making the videos for) I am looking to buy a new camera. My maximum budget would be around the £2000 mark and am wanting something in the same style of the XM2 but with HDV. Am I right in thinking the XH-A1 is as close as I am going to come to getting what I want, or is there something else around that I could pick up?

You'd not go wrong by choosing the XH-A1 in my view. Its hot competitor is the Sony V1 but it's dearer and has smaller (CMOS) chips. You're spending a lot of money, so I'd get to grips with them both before you hand over the sweaty lolly. And read the reviews where all the little twinkly menu options come to light.

tom.

Wow, that was a quick reply! Thanks :D

I will certainly be trying to get my hands on the camera's mentioned before I part with any cash and have been reading some of the good reviews on them. The only problem being that not many places around me seem to actually stock these sort of camera's so I want to know two or three that I can try and track down and have a go at.

What I guess I was trying to get at, was whether the A1 had the same sort of feel and interface as the XM2. It had a no nonscence approach that I really liked. Could it be seen as a pretend XM3 (if you know what I mean?) :)

The XH-A1 as an XM3? Not really James. It's a complete redesign and rethink and better in every single way. You may find that Canon have had to move away from the 'no nonsense approach' just to keep up, and the XH will keep you digging in that multi-layered menu for days. By comparison the XM you could figure out in 20 minutes.

tom.

Greetings all,

I am in the process of planning my first ever project incorporating video. Up until this point, I have worked exclusively with 35mm and DLSR's for projects as a nature and wildlife photographer. I am now in the planning stages for an upcoming project incorporating video with still photography. Essentially, I will be documenting the work of a plant ecologist as he studies the effects of global warming on the tree canopy of Costa Rica's Monteverde Cloud Forest. My job will be to take his work and through photography and video, create 5 mini curriculums that will be used in classrooms across the US and Costa Rica to promote whole ecosystem conservation.

I am a bit of a perfectionist and always want things to be in the highest quality possible even if I am not going to be distributing on Blu-Ray or HDDVD or the like. Probably, this will be distributed either through internet downloads or via a DVD for a very minimal charge (likely just shipping). So for that, I probably don't need to shoot in HD but I really want to. We also are planning a traveling exhibition of photos and I would love to include some video as well and I want that to be displayed in HD. Basically, I have decided to shoot in HD and then convert to SD before burning DVDs.

So, the camera will be used to film some documentary style work. Lots of interviews with scientists and researchers. Lots of work in the tree canopy. That means I am going to be dangling from a fixed rope in the air, no tripod. I love time lapse work and will be doing some of that but using a DSLR for that portion of things.

I was looking at the Canon XH A1 as the quality looked great and had many professional features. My hope is this will essentially be a pilot project and I can continue projects like these with researchers around the world in the next few years. So, while the XH A1 is probably overkill now, I am looking for something that will serve me well for say the next 5 years.

One thing I am worried about is handholding some of the smaller cameras. I am used to a heavy professional DSLR and feel like smaller cameras are much more difficult to hold steady.

So, what would you all recommend. If it matters, I will be doing all my editing work on a MacPro with Premiere CS3.

I look forward to hearing your opinions.

Best,
Drew

Drew...

I spent 24 years as a newspaper photographer so I know where you're coming from.

One of the problems with the smaller video cameras such as the HVX-200, PD-170, etc. is that they're small.

The short bodies means it's easy to pitch, roll and yaw them with the slightest movements. And that translates into unwanted shake.

What I do is attach the cameras to a shoulder mount. What a shoulder stock does for a rifle is the same that a shoulder mount does for a camera. It makes the whole assembly longer and easier to stabilize. Having it braced against your body is also a big help.

As a test, get a stick that's about 2 feet long and duct tape it to the back of the camera. Brace the stick against your shoulder and you'll see that you'll be able to get a much steadier picture since the camera's now much more resistant to any unwanted tilting or rolling.

The only drawback is that it's less compact.

As for cameras, it's a pretty wide field out there. I'm currently using a Panasonic HVX-200 but am in the process of getting a Sony EX1 to do long-form work.

Good luck with your adventure!

Drew,

The XH A1 will serve you well, and the 20x zoom might come in handy, but I've found it difficult to hand hold for long periods of time, and that's standing in the street, let alone hanging from the tree tops. Unfortunately, the XH-A1's weight distribution makes it tilt very easily to one side, this is more so than most other camcorders in it's range. I've found the Sony V1U ergonomically much easier to hand hold. Get some hands on to get a feel to see if it works best for you.

For my XH A1, I use a DV MultiRigPro which solves the hand holding problems very nicely. With a quick release adapter, it's very easy to switch between handheld and tripod.

I am a newbie with multimedia production experience who splurged and bought a camcorder beyond my comprehension - XH A1. I don't care for its quality because I see a lot of dull grays and lack of sharpness. The Sony EX1 is an option, but it's obviously more. People I've spoken with have told me to get more familiar with the XH A1, and I will. However, is the EX1 comparable other than the way it records to flash drive media and the fact that it records in High Def only? Would you sell your A1 for the EX1?

Hopping from an XH-A1 to an EX1 is a good move, not the least of which is demonstrated by the fact that the EX1 is more than double the price. Hopping from the A1 to the Z1 wouldn't be worth while simply because both cameras are after the same client.

I'm slightly concerned that you view the Canon as giving poor blacks and poor sharpness Lillian, but somewhat relieved to read that it's 'beyond your comprehension'. Once you comprehend it, the high quality will reveal itself.

Same goes for the EX1. It won't give you better quality out of the box. It takes a great deal of time, effort and understanding.

tom.

I was looking at the Canon XH A1 as the quality looked great and had many professional features...
Another option is the Z1U from Sony - while some wildlife videographers go for the Canon A1 mostly for the x20 zoom, depending on your other requirements the Z1 might be a viable alternative for you. The Z1 has better low light capabilities, in handheld situations is more stable (one of your concerns), and since it sounds like you will work all over the place, shooting in PAL might be a requirement at some point. Either way, you won't go wrong with either one of these cams.

Keep us posted on your decision!

Please tell me the differences in performance capabilities that account for the big difference in prices between these 2 camcorders ....

Sony HVR-V1P HDV 1080i/1080p, 50i/25p PAL @ $4700

Canon XH-A1 3CCD HDV, 1080i, 16:9, 20x Lens, 24f Mode @ $3400

............

Brendan, the Canon XH-A1 and G1 straddle (pricewise) the two Sonys - the FX7 and the V1, so you can see how far your money goes. I think you really need to have both cameras on the table in front of you to come to an informed decision, but of one thing you can be sure - whichever camp you join you'll not be disappointed.

Me? I rather like the Canon's bigger chips and more wide-angle to start with, and the money saved can go towards a stack of tape this high. It's shooting lots and lots of footage that will get you the best results, regardless of which camera you choose.

tom.

Brendan, the Canon XH-A1 and G1 straddle (pricewise) the two Sonys - the FX7 and the V1, so you can see how far your money goes. I think you really need to have both cameras on the table in front of you to come to an informed decision, but of one thing you can be sure - whichever camp you join you'll not be disappointed.

Me? I rather like the Canon's bigger chips and more wide-angle to start with, and the money saved can go towards a stack of tape this high. It's shooting lots and lots of footage that will get you the best results, regardless of which camera you choose.

tom.

Very helpful Tom, thanks. Can you take me a step further please and tell me how Century Optics 1.6x teleconverter would work with XHA1 particularly for wildlife at about 50metres?

I'm sure the Century 1.6x teleconverter will work just fine, but unlike their zoom-through wide-angle converters adding the telephoto converter will probably reduce your 20x zoom to something like an 8x or so. It will also add to the distortions and flare levels of course.

Also, a lot of people are somewhat disappointed with teleconverters. They're big, bulky affairs that vignette the image fairly early on in the zoom range whilst at the same time not giving much extra 'reach'. It will be worth while using the digital zoom to show what adding this telephoto converter will give you - it's a bit more, but not much.

Adding the converter also covers up Canon's external sensor that measures camera-to-subject distance first using contrast, to get the focus “in the ballpark.” This may not matter much, but is worth mentioning.

Also, are you sure about those 3.4k and 4.7k price figures? Are there street, with no add-ons? Here in the UK the prices are pretty much neck and neck and far closer.

tom.

Back again. Currently still saving for my next camera, but whilst I am I have been hired by a friend to help him shoot a short film. Based on The Office meets The Bill it's going for the documentary feel, so for the most part will be shot handheld.

The problem I face is that the film is going to be shot at night and my previous encounters with HDV camera's in low light (Z1) were not great. Is there any specific models out there than I can rent which hold up better than most in low light conditions and have a pretty good light attachment that I can hook up to get that documentary feel?

That advice is helpful Tom.



Also, are you sure about those 3.4k and 4.7k price figures? Are there street, with no add-ons? Here in the UK the prices are pretty much neck and neck and far closer.

tom.

About camcorder prices, where in the U.K. are they competitive?

Well, Calumetphoto.co.uk sells the XH-A1 for £2540 and the V1 for £2670, just 5% dearer. The CMOS sensors and the smooth slo-mo may be worth that on their own.

The wife is going to allow me ;-) to invest exactly $4000. to help me get my fledgling event video business started. I already have some small jobs ordered and need to look and be more professional when going out to shoot on location. These are small but detailed corporate style projects involving training films, kiosk presentations and workshops with guest speakers.
If you had this same situation and same funds, how would you spread around the funds. I realize this is not alot to work with but I'm interested to see what the veterans would do in a similar situation.
Below are the main things I currently have. Help me fill in the blanks. Thanks for any suggestions!

Still Camera: Nikon D40 kit (new)
Video Camera: Panasonic PV-GS250
Video Camera SD:
Video Camera HD:

Mics: (2) Radio Shack powered lapel mics
Wireless:
Shotgun:

Lighting: DIY flos, 500/1000 watt work lights and small background tungsten spots.
General Lighting:
Soft Box Kit:

Editing: Edit Studio Pro, Serious Magic VC 2 Studio, Adobe Premier Elements 4/Photoshop 6, GIMP 2 and tons of other software.
Extra Editing Tools:

Web Site: very soon!

Thanks !

You'll need a good tripod in there Steve, and something like the Manfrotto 503HDV + 525 sticks will last you for years and years. And of course microphones and backup audio recorders are so very important. A shotgun on camera and radio mic on speaker is usually a good starting point, and a Zoom H2 recording to SD card mave save the day. Phones to monitor that all's working as it should be are needed too.

tom.

Nothing less that a prosumer 3CCD camera. But I personally think you're not going to do it for $4000. That Canon XH-A1 Or the Sony Z1 /V1 for HD and for SD I'd go with the PD170 still a workhorse in the ENG / Event field. You want XLR connectors for the audio.

Problem is these cameraas are all in the $3500 to $500 range. I jsut bought a Sony DSR250. Got a great deal on it. You can find them used sometimes new the 250 is $4000 with nothing included. No power supply or cables. Not even a tripod plate. I wound up paying around $7k for the whole thing and the darn tripod and head was another $1700 to support that camera as it's 9 lbs without the battery.

Probably a PD170 is around $3600 or so with a battery and charger. Like the post above says, good audio equipment and I'd be careful of Radio Shack stuff.

Hope this helps.
Allen

The wife is going to allow me ;-) to invest exactly $4000. to help me get my fledgling event video business started. I already have some small jobs ordered and need to look and be more professional when going out to shoot on location. These are small but detailed corporate style projects involving training films, kiosk presentations and workshops with guest speakers.
If you had this same situation and same funds, how would you spread around the funds. I realize this is not alot to work with but I'm interested to see what the veterans would do in a similar situation.
Below are the main things I currently have. Help me fill in the blanks. Thanks for any suggestions!

Still Camera: Nikon D40 kit (new)
Video Camera: Panasonic PV-GS250
Video Camera SD:
Video Camera HD:

Tripod: I have junk (need better $200-$300)
Tripod:

Mics: (2) Radio Shack powered lapel mics
Wireless:
Shotgun:

Lighting: DIY flos, 500/1000 watt work lights and small background tungsten spots.
General Lighting:
Soft Box Kit:

Editing: Edit Studio Pro, Serious Magic VC 2 Studio, Adobe Premier Elements 4/Photoshop 6, GIMP 2 and tons of other software.
Extra Editing Tools:

Web Site: very soon!

Thanks !

I had a Pani AG-DVC60 in mind for a shoulder mount. Even with the 1/4" CCD's, it has alot of features I could use. The Sony VX-2100 is really good too, but not shoulder mount.
I don't really feel need HD right now with type of work I'm doing. I'm still looking at the new Sony HVR-HD1000 if more people would post some feedback.
There are what seem to be good deals on ebay for lighting kits and other video equipment. I'm not sure about the quality though. You get what you pay for usually.

If I had to start all over I'd skip the budget equipment. Start with first rate mics, audio, and lighting equipment. Rent the camera as needed. Camera upgrades are a never ending treadmill but good pro mics, audio, and lighting equipment will last you a long, long time. If you're production "bidniz" gets off the ground, you'll be able to own a camera soon enough.

I am in an undergound Hip Hop group who has recently signed a record deal and is in the process of recording our new CD. I plan on filming a DVD called "A Year in the Life Of Potluck" I want to film... recording in the studio, touring (behind the scenes and the actual performances), mettings at the record label, interviews, home life, etc... basically every situation imaginable.

The biggest problem I have is that it will take me a year to film, several months to edit it, and 3-5 months to properly market the release. So I am looking at a minimum of 2 years before this thing hits the store shelves.

Technology changes so fast. What type of camera should I get now that can film all the things I need it to film now and still keep up with what will be on the shelves 2 years from now.

I am a newbe to cameras this will be my first one ever. I have looked on alot of forums and searched google for info. This is what i have learned i should get.

AVCHD
3ccd's
mpeg 4 technology
1080i
front facing mic
2.7 wide screen LCD
record onto minidv tapes

I have a budget of $500 but.... the give my very last dollar for my struggling career budget is $1000

I know all of you on here know more about cameras then me and some should feel my indie struggle. Can anyone PLEASE give me some advice?

Is this a joke? $500? It will cost you more than that for tapes>

I am very green when it comes to cameras but I am not an idiot. The budget is for the camera only. Sorry if I was confusing in the original post.

I am very green when it comes to cameras but I am not an idiot. The budget is for the camera only. Sorry if I was confusing in the original post.

You weren't confusing- its just that your project is probably very much more difficult than you think it is, and frankly I don't think you can do it... yet.

You are off by an order of magnitude on the camera alone for a project like this.

I recommend either a Panasonic HVX200 or a Sony XDCAM EX1.

In your case I lean towards the HVX200. It is an older camera, but a good one. It has a more mature "ecosystem."

The HVX200 is about $5500

The EX1 is about $6500

I'd skip recording to MiniDV cassettes. You want to archive your footage onto hard drives.

Now, that's just what I think about the camera.

If you want my real advice, scale this project back A LOT.

For starters try producing a "road" video.

Get a cheap camera, shoot your own behind the scenes footage. Hire a decent lighting cameraman (Or a DP or a videographer) to shoot live footage of one of your more popular songs. Let them bring their own camera or hire one for the day.

As far as the bits you shoot yourself- I advise you to take at least a day course in camera operation. If you are near a major city you should be able to find one nearby. If nothing else you should be able to hire a pro camera operator to show you the ropes for a day or two.

If you are a student, try and get permission to "shadow" a local news camera operator. I did this early on and I learned a TON. Stupid simple stuff and tricks you might otherwise spend years figuring out and collecting.

Then get an editor to edit it together. I don't mean your uncle who's always tinkering with "that stuff" I mean a professional editor. At least a senior film student. They'll put together your behind the scenes stuff with the stuff from the "real" camera operator.

See how that turns out, then revisit this idea.

Seriously. At this point its very clear that you don't know what you don't know. Take a little time, and tackle some smaller stuff first. You'll learn a lot and your big project will turn out much better as a result.

Good luck

Sorry James. I wasn't trying to be mean but $500 for a camera!! A decent still digital camera costs that. I am afraid I don't understand. The cheapest 3ccc tape camera in Australia would have to be over $1000 and that would be only good enough for family holidays.

Two of your requirements puts things significantly over your budget:

3CCD
1080i

Hi-def 3CCD camcorders are $3000 and up.

To record to miniDV tape, your single option is HDV. AVCHD/MPEG4 camcorders record to an internal hard disk or mini DVD-Rs.

Some of Sony's HDV camcorders use CMOS imaging sensors instead of CCD and even their higher end ones use a single CMOS sensor - they are highly rated and don't suffer from some the problems the CCDs do. i.e., reviewers report that 1 x CMOS = 3 x CCD. Whether that's exactly true is another matter but they certainly perform well.

But even at this level, you are looking at at least $1500 to get something new that has a decent level of manual control.

That brings you into the realm of used equipment. Just recently, I got a barely used Sony HDR HC-1 off eBay for $1100.

$500 will limit you to the lower end of consumer units that offer little manual control.

Technology changes so fast. What type of camera should I get now that can film all the things I need it to film now and still keep up with what will be on the shelves 2 years from now.

I am a newbe to cameras this will be my first one ever. I have looked on alot of forums and searched google for info. This is what i have learned i should get.

AVCHD
3ccd's
mpeg 4 technology
1080i
front facing mic
2.7 wide screen LCD
record onto minidv tapes

I have a budget of $500 but.... the give my very last dollar for my struggling career budget is $1000

I know all of you on here know more about cameras then me and some should feel my indie struggle. Can anyone PLEASE give me some advice?

Something will have to give. Some of the options you have listed are good, but push the camera way out of your price range. Given your financial situation, the best solution that comes to mind in the Canon HV20 with an external mic. It is a consumer HDV camcorder, can be found for $699. Despite being almost a year old, it still beats anything else in its class, and is a favorite of indie filmmakers.

I'll back Tom's advice and point you at the Canon HV20. This is the one camera that appeared last year that raised everybody's eyebrows, and the performance for the dollar is just unbelievable. It's just been replaced by the black face-lifted 30 version (really no different) so the 20 is the one to aim for at your budget point James.

The good thing is that it's HDV and records onto super-cheap and super-available and super-reliable MiniDV tapes. You'll need a wide-angle converter on day two and a little mic (Sennheiser MKE300?) and away you go.

At first reading your post I'd have aimed you at a second hand Sony FX1, something like that. And I'd still not discount it because of its good low light capability (you're going to need that by the sound of things), its toughness (same build as the war-zone Z1) and the great balance of features.

Whatever you buy, get out there and shoot lots. And I mean lots. Watch back home and be critical of what you see. Learn to use the manual controls for sure, but shoot, shoot, shoot. There's no other way of gaining experience other than growing old.

tom.

I'll echo the other comments: can't be done for that price. I have the Canon HV 20. It's more than $500. Although it's a wonderful camera, I wouldn't want to shoot your project with it. It's a little lacking in professional capabilities and, of course, it is not 3 CCD.

I'd add that you will need way more than $500 just for audio. The built in mics on almost all cameras are pretty lousy if you want good results. A wireless lav and or proper boom mic, alone, will be more than $500. Audio is often overlooked but it's the quickest way to turn a good project into a home movie.

Cheers

Rather than set a budget, then attempting to find something that might work, ask yourself what you want it to look and sound like.

What's the final product going to be? Where is it going to be presented? What are the expectations of your intended audience?

First determine what you want for a final product. Then figure out what you will need to achieve that goal. Then find the best price for that set of equipment. And if you don't have the cash to pull it off, find a way to finance it.

Trying to do it the other way around -- get cheap equipment, then struggle to get something for IMax screens -- will lead only to frustration and disappointment.

Of course, if this is just a hobby then it doesn't matter. But if you want to launch a career, then you have to think in terms of investment and a return on that investment. It's a business and has to be dealt with on those terms.

Most of all, if it matters, don't be sloppy about it. For every "Blair Witch" success, there's a vast plain of failures. Don't use films like that as a standard to measure your own efforts. Audiences have become very savvy in recent years. And when it comes to HD programming, their expectations are high. With a hundred channels of TV shows at their fingertips, it doesn't take much to lose an audience.

I'll go along with everyone else re the advice so far. I also agree that you need to consider audio and good mics are not cheap, nor are they all that easy to use well. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising for the audio gear to cost substantially more than the camera.

It's been said dozens of times, and it's true, that you can get away with crappy video a lot more easily than with crappy audio. The ear is vastly more discerning than the eye, and the point of any kind of musical performance be it symphonic or rap is the sound. The visual stuff is the accompaniment! Think about it - a lot of people buy music with no video. How many do you think would buy video with no music?

How long do you think you'd watch your group jump around if they were silent?

One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned yet is what you will need to support the camera. Hand held cameras, particularly small cameras, seem to amplify the normally shaky motion of your hands and after a few minutes will turn most viewers off pretty completely. You'll also soon discover that tripods etc intended for still cameras do a prety poor job of supporting video cameras. Nothing to do with the weight, mind you, just the fact that video is about capturing motion and still camera supports flex and wiggle alarmingly when used with video cameras.

You'll also need some kind of software editing suite to cut out about 90 or 95% of what you shoot and pare it down into the the 5% or so that people would want to watch/hear.

Video technology has advanced by light years and you can buy surprisingl good technology for surprisingly little. The dirty little secret is that it isn't anywhere near as easy to use well as the advertising would have you think. Just look at any advertisement and you'll see smooth shots of smiling people. If they used REAL hand held shots that looked remotely like what most users get, the customers would disappear faster than beer at a frat party. And the on camera sound would be even worse.

I don't think anyone here is trying to dissuade you and all of us would love for you to go out and shoot a super video and prove us all wrong. But we also don't want to see you invest money and time without a good appreciation of the magnitude of the task in front of you.

Think about it - a lot of people buy music with no video. How many do you think would buy video with no music?

Yet for 50 years or so amateur movies were silent and much more popular than amateur tape recordings, so pictures are still king.

But know what you mean Jim, and yours is a very good post.

tom.

Tom,

Great point!

There's something I think really interesting in what you said re amateur movies. Namely, they were MOVIES on FILM. In other words, the "recorders", if you were to call them that, were quite portable and rather sophisticated. Sound recording in the same period would have entailed carrying a massive amount of equipment about with you. I had an open reel recorder in the late 50's that was supposed to be "portable" because it had a carrying handle. I think TRANSportable would have been more accurate. It weighed around 25 pounds. (I still have it by the way) And the "technical" term for the results was "Sucko". Bad sound to the nth power.

I also remember some of the early "portable" video camera setups - a tape recorder that you slung over one shoulder and a camera attached by umbilical cord to the recorder. I think the total setup weighed more than 25 pounds - and you got a grainy black and white (or maybe washed out gray) image for your pains.

The contrast between the magnetic and film recording technologies was staggering.

The situation today is so different - people have become so used to high quality professional sound and video that home movie level video wouldn't be tolerated by anyone except the proud parents of the little tyke taking his or her first steps.

If I had to guess, I'd suspect that 80% or more of the consumer video gear sold today winds up in a dresser drawer after the novelty wears off- which I think is also where most of the amateur movie cameras wound up. Editing was (and is!) such a chore that most normal people won't do it.

Regardless of the technology, pointing the camera and pushing the button is a vanishingly small part of the effort required to produce anything people would want to look at or listen to.

I'll echo the other comments: can't be done for that price. I have the Canon HV 20. It's more than $500. Although it's a wonderful camera, I wouldn't want to shoot your project with it. It's a little lacking in professional capabilities and, of course, it is not 3 CCD.

I'd add that you will need way more than $500 just for audio. The built in mics on almost all cameras are pretty lousy if you want good results. A wireless lav and or proper boom mic, alone, will be more than $500. Audio is often overlooked but it's the quickest way to turn a good project into a home movie.

Cheers

I'll agree that its not the best for the job, but his is one post that tells me that stretching the budget is not going to be an option. If it comes down to shooting the video with the HV20 or not at all, definitely shoot it with the HV20 (with an external mic). In good hands it could handle this project, but its going to take some practice with it to make it good.

I appreciate all of the people who came on here to give me advice. I am real rookie at this stuff as one person put it, "I don't even know what I don't know". I have spent 10 years in a recording studio environment so I know how dealing with a person like that can be. This makes me even more great full for all of your help.

Thanks to your advice this is where I am at right now and I left out a very important piece of info the first time.

1. The footage will be edited by a professional who edits music videos and DVD's for the bigger groups on our label.

2. Also when we tour with bigger acts and do bigger venues I have access to professional crews who shot for the bigger acts. These guys in the past have
been able to shoot a show or two for me per tour with all of their pro gear.

So this camera would be for mostly behind the scenes stuff, impromto interviews, and some of the show footage. I can record audio directly from the sound board at live shows in most venues and some venues even have crowd mics set up already and they can give me a submix that includes crowd noise.

Overall I want this thing to have a raw feeling. Our story told through our eyes. To some way capture the feeling of 10+ years of hard work paying off in the biggest year of our career (Hopefully) maybe the disappointment of thinking it was going to be the biggest and not be. Regardless of my skills with a camera this year is going to happen and it is going to be a story. I wanna try my best to do it justice on a DVD.

I want me and my partner to be able to operate it solo. It seems a major suggestion is to get an external mic. Can this mic be mounted on the camera? Which mic would you recommend?

I have a separate budget for a tripod ($50)? any recommendations?

In addition to the cameras recomended how do the following cameras compare they appear to have alot of the features I need.

Panasonic HDC-SD9 (No mini DV tapes)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8696592&type=product&id=1198888991200

Panasonic PV-GS320 (Not HD)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8216389&type=product&id=1166236106283

Thanks again for everyone's advice

Your point 1) says immediately that you should talk to the editor before taking another breath. If he can't access AVCHD files or doesn't want 4:3 footage or insists on HDV, you should know this up front.

You talk of impromptu interviews, so a tie-clip mic is probably the best idea. Of course a radio mic (the Samson AM1 would probably suit the budget you're talking of) is ideal - letting you move and not having trailing wires.

A short shotgun on camera mic (Sennheiser MKE300D) is next best, but the in-built mics on cameras are really only good for buzz tracks. As a recording studio man, you know that a cheap mic up close beats an exppensive mic further away every time.

A tripod - any tripod will be good. Bean bags are good, anything that adds stability is good. There's a place for run 'n' gun, but do have some rock steady shots for the editor as well.

And don't forget the wide-angle converter. I don't want you hose-piping the groupies inside that Transit van.

tom.

I knew you were having a lend of us.

Hi

This is my first post, im hoping if someone can tell me witch is the better carmea for the price, im using it for a greenscreen moves, i think the Panasonic AG-DVX100B uses dvd disks and the sony uses a chip, im i right?
i use after effects for my editing.


Panasonic AG-DVX100B
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=94944&catGroupId=14571&surfModel=AG-DVX100B

thank you for any help..



Sony HVR-A1U

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?omid=113&ref=dealtime&utm_id=9&utm_source=Dealtime&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=SNHVRA1U&sku=SNHVRA1U


thank you for any help..

Tom,
Well, actually they both record to miniDV tapes. But an important difference is that the DVX100 is STANDARD DEFINITION while the A1U is HIGH DEFINITION.

The DVX100 is know for having very good natural-looking color, versatile video adjustments, and the ability to record in progressive mode. Also, it's probably better in low-light conditions.

The A1U is one of the least expensive "pro" high definition camcorders. (In this context, I'm using "pro" to mean having XLR mic inputs, and more video adjustments than a "consumer" camcorder.)

If you're doing stuff for the internet, I'd go with the DVX100. If you're doing ultra low-budget features (or shorter movies) to enter in film festivals, I'd say go with the A1U. (Although, in the past, the DVX100 has been very popular for ultra low-budget features; but now high definition seems to be the way to go.)

Hope this helped.
Ken

Also take a look at the Canon Hv20/HV30 and the Sony V1U.