Hello all,

I am looking for a prosumer camera that will be either broadcast qulaity or near broadcast qulaity. I was told that the Canon XL1 is a good choice? Is this true?

We are shooting a sports show much like ESPN's Sportscenter, except it will be for High school sports. I would like to purchase a camera, rather than dilly dally around with rentals and the associated hassles.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

I forgot to add that I know most cameras quality depend on the lens, but I would like a camera that can be used right out of the box with little or no extra lenses, etc to achieve the broadcast look.

Thanks again for any suggestions, comments or help:)

What is you budget and do you have a budget for the accessories (batteries, mic, filters etc)?

Jeff,

I have a budget of around $5000 all said and done, however as many others, I would like to get away with spending less if at all possible:)

Thanks for your reply

your best guess will go to a vx2000 or 2100, since it is the easiest to use, most sensitive, cheapest camera you can get.
XL1 is good but a bit older versus vx2000 and require expensives lenses.
AGDVX100 is a nightmare to set up, but is the best camera.
just think to add a wide angle lense + tele lens so you can afford all situations.
It will left enough money to get a good tripod (a real one) and a big LCD monitor, because filming sport over the internal monitor is ok for the first 10 min only.
You can even add a direct-to-disk device like the new FS-4, as miniDV tapes could be a bit short for long events.
(usually i double record, by using the firewire output of the camera directly to another BigDV tape recorder with up to 4 hours of recording, so no surprise.)

Are you shooting live sports witht he camera or just a sports show?...or are you going to be using the camera and other equipment for both? This makes a big difference on whether or not you need certain kinds of stabilizers, audio equipment, lighting kits, etc, which in turn can make a BIG difference as to which camera you should buy...

Also the AG-DVX100 isn't that difficult to setup in terms of necessary add-on equipment, but will involve some research and use to get the best out of all the manual controls if you've never used a highly manual camera before. I have a feeling that the AG-DVC60, might be best for you, but 1st we must here whether the camera is for live sports, a "produced" show, or both.

HI,

We are shooting a Sports show in a studio that will be like espn's sportscenter. We need a camera that can be used out of the box and get the best possible broadcast qulaity. We were looking at the Canon XL1 b/c we rec'd a DVD that showed that canon used it for a national TV commercial to prove that it was possible for a prosumer. We are going to use this camera solely for the purpose of shooting the anchors in a studio.

I hope this clears up some questions, I guess I should have been more specific when posting the initial question.

Thanks

I would personally go for the Pana AG-DVX100 because it is the highest quality cam that doesn't use a lens swapping system, and still gives options to shoot true progressive video (30p and 24p), which will aid in green screen shoots.

If you have a little time to wait yet, definatly hold out for the soon to be officially released Canon XL2. It will have 24p and XLR connectors as well as the features of the standard XL1, interchangable lenses, interesting design, social acceptance and a decent reputation in the field as a workhorse.

If you can't wait, if you wil be doing mostly 16:9 and in daylight, go for the Sony DSR-PDX10. It has native (ie built in anamorphic) 16:9 with an incredibly high pixel count. I own one of these and it is great. Has a few minor flaws but they are well known and don't seem to hamper me.

Tied for second on my list, and I have used all of these at some time, the Panasonic AG-DVX100A. 24p, xlr connectors, a good reputation and quite in demand and use by documentry film makers the world over.

Last, they killed off the AG-DVX80 but gave us the 30 model. Same basic functions as the 100A without 24p in a small package that looks amazingly like the Sony PDX10. Be aware that the extra mic xlr input "box" is an option on this camera. It has an optional IR spotlight that is good in total darkness out to about 50 feet or so. The image will naturally be in that sort of glowing B&W you see in ir photography and videography.

There is a new Panasonic on the horizon, the guts of the 30 in the shoulder mount package of the DVC7. Called the something-60. Probably the AG-DVC60 or something similar. I didn't read the whole notice as it slipped by my desk.

How do I know all this stuff? I work for a company that sells Braodcast and Post Production gear in Ohio. Write me if you need details on any of these.

Sean McHenry

First off, the XL1 does NOT requite expensive lenses, let's not spread misinformation, OK? The stock lens is fine for what 95% of XL1 owners use the camera for. If you want a full manual pro lens, then you'll pay more.

For an IN STUDIO SHOW
The DVX100 has the best looking picture I've seen in this level of cameras. I'd choose it. Then I'd spend the rest of your money on a light kit to properly light your studio. Shows look good because of the lighting, not the camera.

For LIVE SPORTS EVENTS
For me at least, the DVX100 is possibly the worst choice for a live sports event. Besides the fact that it has a limited zoom, it's form factor does not lend to stable handheld shooting (for me), and the OIS seems to be less effective than the other cameras in this range. 24p is not really suited to sports videography, since you will likely be using fast pans and may want to do lots of motion effects, (depending on the type of sports).

The VX2000 or PD150 are more solid choices than the DVX100, but the XL1/XL1s is even better since it gives you a wide angle lens option, and is much more suited to handheld shooting, in that you can shouldermount it. It is heavier, but a little workout never hurt anyone.

I'd hold out for the Canon XL2 if you don't need it right away. The stock lens will be great for live sports events, 20x zoom, great IS for handheld, native 16:9, and probably a great picture. The 24p doesn't matter much for sports.
Of course, you could buy two used XL1s' for what one new XL2 will sell for, and do a two camera gig. Plus the price of the XL2 is out of your budget including accessories.

As a matter of fact, the XL series does require expensive lenses. Consdering the XL1 is discontined, Mark would be getting the XL2, which has a similar feature set to the AG-DVX100.

The MSRP for the XL2 is US $3999. The MSRP for the XL2 PLUS the new 20X "stock" lens is US $4999, and you can bet those prices will not be coming down any time soon. The going price for the DVX100A at B&H is $3,500, and that includes its lens. So no misinformation was being spread.

Go with the DVX100A, Mark. You get good green screening capabilities and true progressive scan. BTW, what will your ouput medium be, DVD's, school TV station, etc...?

The output will be for cable TV, so the best quality would be needed.

When is the XL2 scheduled for release? We are shooting our first spots in mid September.

Thanks for all your comments and sugestions so far

Yes, EXTRA lenses for the XL series are very expensive to some but not for those of us in the broadcasting field. the good news is it comes with a rather nice all purpose lens.

To get the Canon or even the EOS series lenses and the adapter is sometimes more than the body is worth. That's just the way it goes on pro gear.

My advie is try anything you can get your hands on and go for the higher pixel count when it makes sense.

Sean McHenry

If you're deciding between the DVX100 and the Sony PD150 there's a good comparison at
http://www.lafcpug.org/review_dvx_pd150.html

2- Figure out what your needs are first, then get the camera that suits your needs the best. For example, you probably need a good tripod (~$800USD+), a lighting kit for studio work, and decent audio gear (XLR inputs, and the appropriate mics). You probably don't need green screening, 16:9, or 24p.

If I were in your position I'd research the Panasonic DVX80 (which is being discontinued but should still be in stock for a while). It runs around $2400 which means you should have enough money for a decent tripod, lighting gear, and audio gear. Its image quality is broadcast quality (the camera won't make your show broadcast quality though). It has XLR inputs so you don't need to pay extra for an XLR adapter box (i.e. beachtek DXA8).

You should probably research how well it could fit your style of shooting (do the manual controls work well for you, do you want a shoulder-mount camera instead, etc.).

Glenn is right. You don't need 16:9, or 24p, but the true progressive scan options would be helpful. That way you could green screen in backdrops instead of actually building a full set. You could put two guys in chairs behind a decent looking desk and in front of a big screen and then add in whatever background or even moving video (sports clips) suit you later. The DVC80 is the DVX100 minus progressive scan shooting modes, and cinegamma, but the cam isn't being discontinued...it is discontinued, and Panasonic is quickly moving to the smaller AG-DVC30, and shoulder mounted, XLR inclusive version of the DVC30, the DVC60.

What Glenn said.

Examine your shooting needs first. For me, I see primarily outdoors 16:9 in my future so I went with the superior 16:9 of the PDX10. Ease of use and general shooting, I would go with one of the Panasonics, 80 (if you can find one in a box), the 30 or the soon to be released 60.

Want to impress folks AND shoot 24p, the Canon XL2 (after some reviews to make sure it isn't a dud - I doubt it will be) and then the 100A Panasonic for its 24p and small size.

The choice is yours, the red pill or the blue pill.

Sean

As you can see, each team is proposing its solution.
On the sony one, you get an cheap aging star but still standing.
For Pana, you got several model, but only the dvx100 can compare to the others.
And finally the Canon team that has only a veteran or a not born yet.
My question is why are we reviewing camcorder.
I think for the price you should take a look on real studio camera (head only) that you could link to a video recorder, whatever it could be , beta, dv, blueray, d-vhs.
It is probably the same price, but you can have best of the two world, good picture , nice recording.

Interesting responses.

Truth is, any of the mentioned cameras will deliver that elusive quality known as 'broadcast quality.' In fact, a Hi-8 will do it too.

Broadcast quality isn't dependent on a camera, it is dependent on how well you can control your video and audio to meet spec.

And cable doesn't require broadcast quality anyway (check with your local company to make certain). Just close. In fact, acceptable (technical quality) video will depend more on your NLE than the camera.

Good looking video will depend more on your lighting and camera operation than on the camera.

Having run a live-to-tape studio, I know you have much more to concern yourself with than the camera.

As was mentioned, you will require a decent tripod or pedestal with wheels. The tripod itself isn't very important as long as it is sturdy and you have a dolly for it and a good head for smooth moves. That assumes you aren't going to need a camera rise during the shoot.

Studio lighting is going to be critical as that determines more than anything else, the quality of the video image.

Your background (the set) can be very simple as long as it is lit properly. A virtual set is probably out of the budget for now.

For sound, most studio sports programs run lavalier microphones into a mixer and then into the camera (if you aren't shooting double sound). That alone suggests that you want a camera with native XLR connections if at all possible.

In fact, if you have a portable NLE or the NLE is in the studio, you could capture directly to disk with a tape backup (in the camera).

Amen Brother Michael.

What he said.

We can talk about specs all day long. There is no shortage of experts around, including me : )

Shooting technique that is great, with modest tools, will beat out a Thompson Viper camera, SteadyCam and Videscence lighting instruments in the hands of a hack every time. Don't become a hack. Use whatever basic tools you can afford to their optimum. Pay attention to most of the folks on these forums and learn from their mistakes.

Most of us here have some broadcast experience. Myself, 16 years with NBC. Engineering experience with a local, well known post company and sales in broadcast gear.

We will try not to stear people wrong but occasionally let our prejudices on gear get in our own way.

I drug this bananna far enough off topic. Good luck.

Sean McHenry

HI Everyone,

Thanks for all the responses!!

We are only in need of a camera. We already have the support equipment - tripods, studio set, lighting, NLE suite, etc. I simply wanted to know what the best camera was to use for "broadcast" quality work. I relized that the camera ws only as good as the lighting, lens and operator, so with that said we were looking for(and got) some opions regarding the best camera to use for our studio TV show.

Thanks again for everyones help!!

Right now for a 'sports center' type show?
The DVX100a. Very nice images and more than
good enough for cable TV. Our group here at work just put in a PO for
three kits from ZGC (a dvinfo.net sponsor who rocks imo!).

The XL2 is yet unknown and really untested. I personally need
to replace my XL1 and the XL2 is the camera I am interested in.
That said, it's always smart to wait a few months for a new
product to be put through the paces.

So, for image quality, availability and price, the DVX100a
would be my pick.

I got a better price than B&H.

Get a used Sony 300A, it will blow the doors off of any of the cameras mentioned thus far.

They can be had for under $5,000.

Cheers.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Bleistein : Get a used Sony 300A, it will blow the doors off of any of the cameras mentioned thus far.

They can be had for under $5,000.

Cheers. -->>>

There are some issues to consider when buying a used betacam camera.
Repairs can exceed the cost of a new DV camera like the DVX100a.
They require yearly maintenance too.

How do you get the video into the computer? You'll spend more money
than the firewire input that comes with most computers today.
A UVW-1800 deck costs more used than a DVX100a new. Tapes are much more
money than miniDV.

OTOH, betaSP is still the broadcast standard.

The DSR-300 series are Sony 1/2" DVCams and they do not require the level of mainenance that is needed by Betacam products. The DSR-300 series and any of the pro DVCam transports (like the DSR-20/40 . . .) using its mechanicals have a very long life.

Most pro products, as these do, have readily acessible operating hour meters so a prospective buyer can determine their degree of use.

A DSR-300 series camera can run mini as well as full-sized cassettes although they will only record in DVCam mode so the max time is 40 minues on the mini cassette and 4.5 hours on the large cassette.

The DSR-300 does not have a firewire port. The firewire port was included on the 300A, the 370 and now the 390.

Compared to the smaller DV cameras, the 300 Series has better (and removable) optics, viewfinder, audio, controls, superior DSP results, and, it has a flesh-tone detector that will smooth out wrinkles if you want it to do so.

That said, I do buy used cameras even on ebay. But I always pick them up in person with a cashier's check in my pocket. Test first and then buy. So my rule is that I have to save enough money to pay for the trip to check out the camera before I pay for it.

If you've never shot with a real pro camera, it is a surprise how good DV can really be. And how fast a pro camera handles.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : As a matter of fact, the XL series does require expensive lenses. Consdering the XL1 is discontined, Mark would be getting the XL2, which has a similar feature set to the AG-DVX100.

The MSRP for the XL2 is US $3999. The MSRP for the XL2 PLUS the new 20X "stock" lens is US $4999, and you can bet those prices will not be coming down any time soon. The going price for the DVX100A at B&H is $3,500, and that includes its lens. So no misinformation was being spread.

Go with the DVX100A, Mark. You get good green screening capabilities and true progressive scan. BTW, what will your ouput medium be, DVD's, school TV station, etc...? -->>>

You assume Mark is going to get an XL2 when they won't be available in stores for weeks at best? Sure, have at it. I already stated that the XL2 is considerably more expensive, technically out of Marks price range, with or without a lens. The XL1s and the XL1 are the only XL series of cameras available now, so lets talk those, unless you want to speculate the XL3 as well?

The XL1, and XL1s both come packaged with lenses, and can be had used much cheaper than DVX100s. I think the going price for a mint XL1s, including the 16x IS lens is about $2600. Want to buy new? They are still around online, new, for less than a new DVX100A. That means an new XL series camera, including a lens, for less than the DVX100....
Wait, lets go one more step.... I could get a complete mint XL1 for $2000 and that would do the job. Even better, I could get a used XL1 body for $1000 and a used 3x lens for $800. That would do the job and still leave $1700 in our friends pocket ($2190 actually including taxes where I live) over a DVX100, with which he could purchase a light kit and mic and deliver a much superior product.

OK, I've wasted enough time on this. The XL2 is an expensive camera overall. $1000 for an L-series IS lens is a freakin' bargain. The body just happens to be expensive. Every other XL camera package was priced to about the same point as the DVX100 and PD150, and shot fine with the stock lens. As soon as the frenzy wears down, the XL2 will probably drop to $4000 with lens.

Look, it's a free world, believe whatever you want. Your statement about the XL cameras needing expensive lenses comes off as pretty ignorant to me, like you are an XL1 hater/DVX lover, or someone that has never used either and shoots with a one chipper (nothing wrong with that). Have a nice day.

I only own a 1-chipper (and there is something wrong with that! ;) ), but I have shot with both the DVX and the XL1S, and while they're both proven cams, the XL series does require that you buy an additional lense; that's just a fact with any camcorder that includes lens swapping. They are usually sold as bodies, with lens optional (for more money!), so I don't think my earlier posts were in ignorance. $1,000 L series lenses might not be very expensive for a decent studio, but they are when your budget is $5,000 including acessories.

I was wrong, however, about only being able to get the XL2. I assumed because B&H stopped carrying it, that they would be very hard to find. The lowest price from a trusted store I found for the XL1S was $3000 (through resellerratings). For a little more, I'd still go with the DVX.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : They are usually sold as bodies, with lens optional (for more money!).
-->>>

They really are usually sold with lenses included.


<<<--I was wrong, however, about only being able to get the XL2. I assumed because B&H stopped carrying it, that they would be very hard to find. The lowest price from a trusted store I found for the XL1S was $3000 (through resellerratings). For a little more, I'd still go with the DVX. -->>>

For a little money, for a studio gig, I'd go for the DVX100 too.

Sorry for being a little bitchy in my last post, it's been a rough day, I didn't mean to insult you (well, a little, but I take it back).

For broadcast work I wouldn't want to go with anything less than a 1/2" chip camera. The Panasonic DVC200 is a nice one and so is the JVC GY5000. They're both significantly cheaper than the Sony DSR300 (now the 370). Although the 370 is the best 1/2" chip camera made, in my opinion, it's also the most expensive.
Most broadcast stuff you see is going to be shot with 2/3" chip cameras, so going with a 1/3" chip prosumer camera is going to make your stuff look softer than surrounding things that will be on the air. There's also the latitude issue--you don't want blown out highlights for broadcast, and the bigger chip cameras will be better in that regard.
As for chromakeying (green or bluescreen), any of the 1/3" or better cameras will key fine if you light things properly and have decent keying software.
Somebody

Im a true believer in whatever you have, you can make it work. Which means if you have a Sony TRV9....you can add great lighting and tweak the setting and get an external mic and make one AWESOME production, without the need of something expensive. Sure the higher end camera's provide nicer images and colors, but if you have a cheaper camera, dont get discouraged. I have a Canon ZR60. It is not even close to being remotly good, but I can make it work for myself and make some wicked productions.

Sorry, I got a bit off topic, but with all this talk about 7000.00 cameras and whatnot..I had to say that.

OK, let me make sure that I'm getting this straight.:)

MOst of the "PRO Broadcast" cameras like the Panasonic and the JVC GY5000 are great in the final footage qulaity, but they are lacking the firewire ports to get the footage in and out of your computer. by going this way, We will need to buy additional editing decks to get the footage into our NLE system, Right??

But if we go with the something like the XL1, DVX100a we will not be getting the "broadcast quality" footage, and our show will be noticeably different than the others, but we will have no toruble getting the fotage into the computer for editing with our NLE software. Right??

So I am almost forced to go with the DVX100a, with a budget of $5000 and then hopefully sign on some big $$$ advertisers, etc to step up to the next level which would be the pro cameras like the JVC GY5000.

I didn't realize you just had $5K to spend. Regardless of what camera you get, you ought to get a deck for loading footage. That's a lot of wear and tear on the camera. Just because you can do something with a camera doesn't mean you should. I think it's fine for the casual user, but if you're doing serious work on a daily basis, I personally would get a deck.

And it is true that you can make good stuff with whatever you have to work with. Look at "The Celebration" that Vinterberg did with single chip TRV7s. But broadcast TV is a different animal.

And...I just re-read the original post and see that it's all about high school football for local sports. I guess when I first skimmed over the message, "broadcast" registered with me and not "high school sports." Local sports guys get all sorts of footage in from lots of different sources, so I'd say the XL1 (soon to be the XL2) would be very adequate, as would any of the other cameras mentioned. For shooting football, I think I'd go for the XL2, which will be out in a week or so, mainly because of the 20X lens. Shooting sports is one of those situations in which a longer lens is good. And, it's still wide enough for most things you would do.

Bill, can you link me to "The Celebration" video that was made with the TRV7's ?

I don't have any specific links, but the film is available in VHS (not sure about DVD) from most artsy-craftsy video rental stores. You might check Amazon and imdb.com. Thomas Vinterberg is one of the Dogme95 guys, so you might check their web site too. It won awards all over the world when it was done. Keep in mind that they had a million dollar budget and a world class cinematographer and actors, as well as a totally cool script.

Thanks for the info, its appreciated. Ill be sure to check it out.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Pryor : For broadcast work I wouldn't want to go with anything less than a 1/2" chip camera. The Panasonic DVC200 is a nice one and so is the JVC GY5000. They're both significantly cheaper than the Sony DSR300 (now the 370). Although the 370 is the best 1/2" chip camera made, in my opinion, it's also the most expensive.
-->>>

The 390 is the latest 300 series camera. Nice thing about it is it comes ready to hook into a studio setup with the CCU (optional of course). The 370 could also feed into a CCU but the 390 can see in the dark better than the PD 170 or VX-2100.

If you wanted an affordable JVC, the GY- DV550 (1/2" CCDs) has a miniDV transport and also has a port for a CCU. Good little camera, I bought one for the local college when we could no longer get the jvc KY27 cameras. It has a very nice DSP.

It is a significant advantage to have a camera control person running the aperature of the camera while the cameraperson only has to be concerned with zoom, focus and camera placement.

But even with the JVC, you are still talking about $12K by the time you cable it up and pay for the lens and CCU.

Guy over on the Canopus board just posted a 150 hour Sony DSR-300A with lens, batteries and charger for $5300. That unit has a firewire port.

I'd still rather go used pro 1/2" than new 1/3" for studio work.