I'm about to get into doing weddings and independent films. What mini dv camera should I get? And why? Also what are some good editing software for effects for weddings?

Could you also name what accessories I would need for the camera. What are IRiver recording devices? Is it better than Sennheiser's mics? Thanks for all of your help.

I'm about to get into doing weddings and independent films. What mini dv camera should I get? And why? Also what are some good editing software for effects for weddings?

Could you also name what accessories I would need for the camera. What are IRiver recording devices? Is it better than Sennheiser's mics? Thanks for all of your help.

Hey Tony how are you? I'll list the gear I suggest though keep in mind everyone is going to be bias towards the equipment they own and operate.

Cams:
- Sony PD 170
- and/or VX2100(s)

Audio:
- Sony UWP-C1 wireless system
- Several 790 series iRiver units
- Senheisser ME66 (though after Douglas Spotted Eagles "Now Hear This" seminar I'm not quite sure

Support:
- Bogen legs and heads (501, 503 style)
- Monopod with tilt head
- Glidecam 4000 pro

Lense Accessories:
- Canon WD-58 (.7x) good all-purpose wide-angle with FULL zoom through
- Century Optics .55x, my favorite for handheld moving camera shots- very wide with minimal distortion, helps smooth handheld shots, limited zoom through
- Raynox .3x fishe-eye, effects lense only...great for exageratting distance and movement. Heavy distortion.

Software/NLE:
-Sony Vegas 6.0; smaller investment and just as much power as any other NLE if not more (in the audio arena), easiest to pick up and learn if your new to NLE's,

Panasonic DVX100a
Panasonic DVC30
4 extra batteries (5400mah)
UV & polarizing filters


Sennheiser G2 wireless kit w/ buttplug (2)
iRIver 799 (2)
Giant Squid Lavalier (2)
AT 897 shotgun mic
(cables as needed)

Bogen 503 head tripod (2)
Bogen 682B monopod w/ 501 head
Glidecam 4000 w 577 QR attachment

Bescor on-camera light with giant battery

Pelican case to carry stuff

a strong back
a power board
a car
a 30metre extension cord
good shoes
comfortable pants that wont split
a good eye (can u view your viewfinder and scope around with your other eye? you'll learn this in time... )
strong hands.. (if doing handheld work, RSI may set in over time)
A good attitude
A thermos with WATER
a spare shirt.. oh and deoderant...

as for gear.. it depends on what features you require from the camera. Dont let "low light" performance dictate your choice as this isnt the only function the cameras should have...

For weddings I use -

Cameras
2x DVX100's
1x MX500 as a backup and capture deck
1x DS88 single chipper as a throwaround camera or to hoist up on a monopod fitted with either a .3 or a .5 lense depending on the situation.
3x 9hr Belt clip batteries 5300mah (does wonders for weight carrying)
2x 10hr bolt on batteries 5400mah (bloody heavy but work a treat. good
battery to use when working for that stabilsed tracking a shot., The heaver the cam, the greater stability you get.
3x 1 hr 1800mah emergency batteries whcih we keep in our pockets
4x chargers
Powerboard
UV and Circualr polarising filters.. not that i ever use them...
and i ALWAYS carry a lens cleaner with me

Lighting-
1x basic Vitan on cam light with 20w lamp with half stop diffusion paper
1x Luxman/Bescor on cam light with 35w and half stop diffusion paper
3x 12v 6cell batteries
Lowel Omni Light as a keylight or dancefloor spotlight (500w adjustable)
Lowel Tota with diffusion brella (either 500w or 800w tubes Perfect for chromakey work)
Manfrotto gas lift light stands for Lowels
2x Generic Gas lift stands with crossbar. (Numerous uses, predominately Chromakey work and getting lights up to over 16feet high (theyre that high... )
Numerous backing cloths, greens blues, photographic textures etc etc
A sony LED flashlight ;)

Sound-
Panasonic MK100 (not bad actually... not the best either)
Senny K6 and ME64 (very crisp, senstiive sound with fat low ends, but runs a little hot.. the Rode NTG1 would be my choice now as its much flatter and not as hot )
Senny G1 wireless mic (its a back up now)
Senny G2 (got 2 of these for each camera unit with AA NmH batteries)
Senny buttplug for wireless boom
Lightwave boompole (no cable needed with using buttplug)
Rycote pistol grip
Rycote softie

Stability
Manfrotto/Bogen 501's and 055 legs (had these for years without ANY problems..
Manfrotto 127 foldaway Dolly's, fold em up and throw em over ur shoulder when ur done. Comes in handy for almost everything.
BeBob DVX Lanc controllers which are CRAP.. (prolly the biggest waste of $550 bux in the studio to date.. the bastards wont even zoom anymore..)
Manfrotto monopod with tilt head and 501 type release plate.
Custom made hand grips which screw into the thread mount of the camera (much more stable for handheld work.. much like a bike handle with a screw at the end.. )
Steady paced breathing
Learning to adapt your arms to counter your footstep (takes about a year of practice, but i can get glidecam like shots going handheld. Works going up stairs as well.. )
good shoes but i think i mentioned this

>>I'm about to get into doing weddings and independent films.

Well, they are two totally different things. So, this would be my recommendation for weddings (not independent films)

This is what I use and am very happy with it.

Camera > PD170 (X2). Or actually PD150 they can be found much cheaper

Audio Technica AT-100/AT-101 (Really rugged It also uses Diversity) $500 and worth every penny.

2 Mini disc recorders and small mics from minidisco.com. It’s kind of a pain capturing it to the computer, but works great for that far away sound that would normally not get captured. Also some adapters i.e. 1/8" to 1/4" for plugging into the board. I find it's usually easier/better to just plug into a headphone jack than try do dig through a soundboard at a church.

Nice small Bogen Sticks and Bogen 501 head. Not the best but definitely good for the cost.

A good onboard mic ME66 for instance.

Some super 8 junk as well

That's pretty much it. I have a very light package which makes me nearly invisible. The one piece of advice I would give you is that nobody likes to be on video. I can't tell you how many referrals I've gotten over the years from bridesmaids who say "I didn't even see you". The lower the profile the better more success you will have.

Jonathan
www.lumierebridal.com

Does anyone have any other advice on cameras and accessories? Do the IRiver 799 really work that well? As well as the Senn wireless mics?

PD-170 is better in low light than a PD-150.

iRIver and Senn wireless are different. Neither one is "better", just better in specific situations. Each has its positives and negatives. Many pros put two lavs on groom, one to wireless and one to iRiver. Then you hope the wireless works and you don't have any issues with that camera, so you don't have to sync up the iRiver in post.

Forget DV: it will be essentially obsolete in another year or so. Save yourself the trouble of getting left behind and buy two Sony FX1s now, then do all your recording in the HDV format and edit in either DV or HDV mode depending on specific project requirements.

For editing there are lots of choices, starting with whether you plan to be working on Macs or PCs. Either way you'll need a good dual-core or dual-processor system to handle the HDV footage, and any well-known editing package with HDV support (see list below). Such editing programs come with a variety of built-in effects and may also support additional add-on ones:

Final Cut Pro 5 for Macs
Adobe Premiere Pro with Cineform HDV plugin
Sony Vegas with Cineform HDV plugin
Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6
Canopus Edius Pro 3
Ulead Media Studio Pro 8 (release pending)

Why go HDV now? It still very expencive to work with and edit on, and still a very large amount of people still can't watch High Def. . .

SD is the way to go if your starting out IMHO, a Panasonic DVX100A, Canon XL2, or Sony PD170 should do the job just fine for you now and make your customers happy.

I do a ton of independant film work (just getting into weddings) and have had great sucess with the DVX100A and now my new toy - the Canon XL2.

Wait a little while longer to see where HDV goes, in my opinion - it's not worth the money right now.

Buy for your needs now and get yourself up and started, use the extra money you would save on a HDV camera and spend it on good microphones and accessories (filters, lights, etc). Then in anouther few years - think about moving up to HDV.

just my 2 cents.
Ryan

Hey Glen

Is this the Century .55X lens you are using?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=212873&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Why go HDV now? It still very expencive to work with and edit on, and still a very large amount of people still can't watch High Def. . .

If you already have SD cameras then you can take your time upgrading to HDV, but for someone just starting out now the Sony FX1 is a good option to consider. It doesn't cost any more than some of the DV cameras being recommended here, and you can shoot and edit either DV or HDV. So you can make nice widescreen DVDs today and be ready to deliver full HD quality next year when the HD DVD players start shipping. To each their own, but if you buy DV cameras now and decide to upgrade to HDV later, that's a lot of extra money down the drain.

Kevin,

Only down-side I can think of with regard to your reccomedation is that Tony mentioned weddings - and "weddings" means "wedding receptions."

From what I've read, the low-light performance of this initial crop of HD cameras is not quite on par with the SD best-of-breed cams. When I selected the cameras I have now, low-light performance was in my top 3 criteria for camera selection... to overlook such an important characteristic, for a wedding videographer I believe is a big mistake.

HDV might be High 8 all over again. We are already seeing evidence of true HD cameras falling below the $8,000 mark. I suspect it will not be long before they push HDV aside.

I'll be sticking with SD for a while yet and renting true HD when I need it.

Mike

HDV might be High 8 all over again. We are already seeing evidence of true HD cameras falling below the $8,000 mark. I suspect it will not be long before they push HDV aside.

Mike

I have always believed in waiting for the second generation of anything electronic. Get the bugs out, get some customer input, plus see if it really works. The brand new, latest and greatest, is always very tempting, but waiting has always paid off for me. Besides prices start to drop.

Craig: it's true that low-light capability can be a concern with current HDV cameras, but this tends to be overstated. The Sony HDV cameras do fine in all but the very dimmest conditions, and if you really need the "best of the best" for that you wouldn't buy any of the cameras being recommended in this discussion. If we'd had cameras as sensitive as the FX1 a few years ago we would have tripped over each other to buy them, so it's all relative whether they're adequate in marginal lighting conditions.

Regarding Mike's comment about "real HD" pushing HDV aside, that both downplays the fact that HDV is a legitimate HD format, and mis-states the current economic realities of the situation. The upcoming Panasonic HVX200 is indeed an impressive camera at a base price of under $6000, but you'd need at least $5000 worth of Firestore drives per camera to record a typical wedding, so that's $11K x 2 = $22,000 of equipment for a two-camera shoot. Compare that to a little over $6K for two Sony FX1s plus a pocket full of miniDV tapes, and it's easy to see which solution is going to be more popular with wedding videographers. If you can afford to use the Panasonic camera that's great, but it's not a good option for someone just getting started.

After what I saw at the WEVA Expo last week I have no doubts that HDV is going to be a successul video format. It's clearly a compromise of sorts, but it's a compromise which works surprisingly well. And as I said before, with the FX1 you have the choice of shooting in either HDV or DV, so if you're not sure about HDV you still have a nice DV camera. Not the perfect camera for everyone under all circumstances, but worth considering.

in all honesty, if your starting out, go find yourself a second hand DV camera like a dvx100 or pd150 and LEARN how to use the bloody thing.

forget HD and HDV. WHy?? put it this way.. the only way your client can watch this as it was recorded is as a DivX or WMV.. now the time it takes to process this depends on your computer specs, but in the ned, youll be making more work for yourself. Also most players scale this HD/DiVx, so its still all up in the air.
Until BlueRay and HD-DVD is released, commercially, and until at least 50% of my clients have one of these players THATS when to start worrying about HD delivery..

Ive been in this game long enough to see whats happening and to tell you the truth, i wouldnt bother with it jsut yet. sure native 16:9.. wooptydoo.. i can do that with a DVX and an anamorphic lense... or if i felt cheap i can just crop in post and still retain full res while only loosing my top/bottom frame area (ie im NOT losing resolution as people seem to think.. im only DISCARDING that area)

In all seriousness, get a good camera (DV, HDV it doesnt matter so long as the colour gradation is accurate and your compfrtable with it), learn how to use it. Get a good Lav mic (Senny G2 or something) learn how to use it. GEt a good camera light, and learn how (and when) to use it. Get an NLE that works for you and learn how to use it. Get a good collection of music and and afew styles together and learn how to SELL them.
Hell even if you do ONE wedding, you can edit it in a number of ways. When consulting a client, ask them their style and then show them the edit you have closest to their choice.

Forget the fluff.. In your situation, starting out... it will do you no good to concentrate on what could be, as opposed to what should be.. once youve got some cash in your pocket, go and get a HD cam if thats what you want.. But at least this way youll still end up with a backup, or better yet, the ability to service 2 camera jobs..

Work smarter not harder..

sure native 16:9.. wooptydoo.. i can do that with a DVX and an anamorphic lense... or if i felt cheap i can just crop in post and still retain full res while only loosing my top/bottom frame area (ie im NOT losing resolution as people seem to think.. im only DISCARDING that area)

One could just as easily argue that the true widescreen nature of HDV cameras is one of their best features, and clearly preferable to anamorphic lenses or cropping 4:3 video to 16:9 if you want widescreen output. Cropping in particular is a terrible way to get widescreen output if someone might view it on a widescreen HDTV, where they would enlarge it to fill the screen and see how bad it looks compared to real widescreen video.

I like your suggestion to buy inexpensive used cameras for getting started, and that's better than paying full price for DV cameras at the beginning of the HD/HDV revolution. Your other suggestions would obviously apply to anyone shooting in any format, and have no bearing on whether or not to consider shooting HDV.

To each their own on when to start thinking about the inevitable shift to HD video production. Maybe it's still early in the game to worry about that, but if you're going to spend any real money on equipment better give it some thought.

actually cropping and in cam squeeze modes give the same resolution, all thats happening is that the image is being cropped top and bottom and then stretched vertically. Aspect is converted during final processing, There is no actual loss in resolution, only a manipulation of resolution and aspect. There is no zooming involved if done properly.
In the past this was the only way to get 16:9 (even with an anamorphic lens, youd still need to manipualte aspect ratio in post, and back then it was fine.. nothing has changed since then apart from the release of cheap native 16:9 ccds' )

as for HD displays, ANY sd footage will look a lil crappy on it unless its interpolated during the resolution scaling. Which is where full res progressive scan comes into play, but thats for another thread. Personally full res progressive 576p scaled up to 720p, to my eye, looks better than 1080i... but thats a matter of opinion.
ALso if acquiring HD, youre stil limited to delivering to SD DVD at this time, so your back to sqaure one.. albeit with a different colour compression ratio.. but again, thats another subject for another thread..

My point here is that with any method of shooting, there are ways to achieve the same or similar results.
For weddings, the previous statement is far more prevalent than for corporate work.

I shoot HDV with Z1's for all my corporate stuff. WHy, because theyre paying me for it. Not becuase its HDV, or that its a "sony" or that its a spanky new format..
Hell, I didnt spend more than what was necessary when starting out.
For me, the fact that most of this HDV stuff is going out to DigiBeta SD or DVCPro50 is probably the only reason i use these cameras.
There are hundreds of reasons why i dont particularly like these cameras (well, the lenses actually and subpar image manipulation within the camera itself... gimme XL2 or DVX tweakability anyday... then there are my gripes with HDV compression in general), but the fact that the colour sampling is on par with DigiBeta, it suits me for now.
The comment on waiting for the next Gen of cameras is a good one...

Dont get me wrong, HD is the way of the future, but right now, theres no point in jumpin on the wagon (for weddings at least) unless it can improve your work, your workflow, your delivery and your final product.

In the end, there are many choies to make.. jsut make sure the choices you make are the right ones for you and your work

I have the money. Which one is best for weddings? How often is there low light at weddings and receptions?

Ryan: You have the XL2, how is it in low light?


Everyone, do all these cameras compare in picture? If you all had the money for one of these cameras which one would you buy? Also, In Final Cut Pro 5 can't you shoot in DV and edit it up to HD?

I have the money. Which one is best for weddings? How often is there low light at weddings and receptions?

Ryan: You have the XL2, how is it in low light?


Everyone, do all these cameras compare in picture? If you all had the money for one of these cameras which one would you buy? Also, In Final Cut Pro 5 can't you shoot in DV and edit it up to HD?

Tony, I've said this before and I will say it again. Receptions are VERY dark. Unless YOU add light. If you don't mind adding light, get whatever you want. However, you will be seen as a "wedding videographer with the bright light that everyone is looking at". As much as I think the XL2 has a beautiful image, if you are shooting ceremonies and receptions, I would say PD170. You are going to get the most genuine shots of the guests this way. Otherwise be prepared to have people looking at your camera with dismay as they enjoy their evening.

I would encourage you to rent all of the cameras you are thinking about and test them. That is the only true way to find out which one you will be comfortable with.

Jonathan
www.lumierebridal.com

Everyone, do all these cameras compare in picture? If you all had the money for one of these cameras which one would you buy? Also, In Final Cut Pro 5 can't you shoot in DV and edit it up to HD?

No, All of them are VERY different in picture. If I were to shoot a short film I would go with something very different than if I were to shoot an event. Some say that low light performance is overrated. I say, if we are all here to serve the B&G, they want their guest's to be as comfortable as possible. Nobody likes to be on camera, and if you have to light a reception, there is no way you will be able to get the shot you want without the guest's feeling uncomfortable.

Jonathan
www.lumierebridal.com

Jonathan, Have you shot with the Sony Z1? If you have, does it shoot as well as the PD 170? What do you shoot with? What lense accessories would you recommed?

Also what case, tripod, and light for camera? Is the mic on the camera good or should I get a different one? Which one? Thanks for your advice and help

Jonathan, You said earlier to get 2 mini disc recorders. Is that the same as IRiver's? Did I already ask you about a wide angle lense for either the PD 170 or the Z1? If not, what would you recommend? What is Super 8?

There's a lot of duplicate discussion on the topic of the Z1/FZ1 in low light situations. Take a look at this thread which specifically compares the VX-2000 and FX1 in low light situations:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49518

Tony: the Z1 and PD-170 use different sized wide angle lenses. Sony makes them for both cameras; I have theirs for my VX-2000 and it's very good although there are no front threads for filters. Unless things have changed, Sony used to bundle this lens along with the PD-170 and I think B&H still sells it that way. I haven't used a wide angle yet on my Z1, but have read good things about the Sony. Century Optics also makes excellent lenses for both cameras but they're a little more expensive:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/

Do you want to shoot in 16:9 widescreen? If that's important to you then realize that the PD-170 does a very poor job of that. I have a VX-2000 and a Z1 (the VX-2000 has pretty much the same image as the PD-170). I know everyone has their own preferences, and these have been very well articulated above. But personally I feel the Z1 is far, far better than the PD and VX series. It's a much newer design with much nicer physical manual controls, far more picture adjustment options, and higher resolution - even if you never use it in HDV mode. It will also shoot PAL DV if you ever need that. Of course it costs something like $1,800 more than the PD-170 though...

"It's a much newer design with much nicer physical manual controls, far more picture adjustment options, and higher resolution - even if you never use it in HDV mode. It will also shoot PAL DV if you ever need that. Of course it costs something like $1,800 more than the PD-170 though..."

Most definately Boyd, i agree 100% with this. Also balance of the cameras has been weighted out evenly as oppsed to the PD/VX front end heaviness... and DV straight out of the camera is probabaly some of the best interlaced imagery youre going to get at this range... hell, i sold a DSR570 to get 2 Z1's and in decent light the image is comparable, albeit with a slight inferior lens.
One thing i still despise, is the fat assed hand grip.. ive got big hands and i still ahve to stretch out ot bugger to get comfortable.. my wife cant use the camera handheld at all..
But when the technology evolves, theyll release a Z2 with a smaller lighter form factor and afew new tweaks.. theyll need to compete with JVC on this one... and the HD100 is an absolute kick ass machine so theyve got their work cut out for them..

Peter and Boyd: I take it that you like the Z1? It is very good in low light? Does the Z1 do better in low light than the Canon XL2?

personally I feel the Z1 is far, far better than the PD and VX series. It's a much newer design with much nicer physical manual controls, far more picture adjustment options, and higher resolution - even if you never use it in HDV mode. It will also shoot PAL DV if you ever need that. Of course it costs something like $1,800 more than the PD-170 though...

But then again, the PD170 and the FX1 are basically the same price now, so that's an easier choice. (Add an XLR adapter for $200 if you need that capability.)

I would definitely agree with the above posts. The Z1 is a VERY nicely built camera. It feels like a tank. I love the placement of the iris controls compared to the PD/VX series of cameras. It seems like the LCD is always in the way. However, it is bigger, more expensive and it will get a few more looks. Personally I don't want looks. Those bad when you are shooting events. One main reason I don't shoot with XL series of cameras.

I have shot many many weddings with the VX2000 and the PD-150. I use the PD for audio and the VX as B cam. For the bang for the buck, I would recommend those cameras. There is no worse feeling then being in a reception or at a ceremony (candle lit) and realizing you do not have enough light. If you find yourself in that situation, it won't matter if you are shooting 16x9 or HD. You're sunk!

In the way of accessories, I personally like century's .65 zoom through wide angle. It has some slight chromatic aberrations, but it's the best wide on the market. The zoom through is a very nice feature. I keep it mounted to my PD. Expect to pay $400 for it.

Yes, MiniDisc will give you the same result as an iriver. MD's are just a bit more of a pain to get into the computer. I'm thinking of getting a few irivers myself.

actually cropping and in cam squeeze modes give the same resolution, all thats happening is that the image is being cropped top and bottom and then stretched vertically. Aspect is converted during final processing, There is no actual loss in resolution, only a manipulation of resolution and aspect. There is no zooming involved if done properly.

My brother and I recently tested the in-camera widescreen mode on my Canon GL2 and saw a noticeable drop in image quality compared to shooting in 4:3 on the same camera -- and the Canons are supposedly better than other DV cameras for this purpose. If you think about it this makes sense, because both squeeze mode and cropping are compromising something to generate 16:9 output. Either you're simply throwing away the top and bottom of the image to end up with 720x405 pixels per frame, or you're trying to trick a 4:3 sensor into generating anamorphic DV footage with 480 lines of vertical information. Neither approach yields as good a result as HDV footage downsampled to anamorphic SD video with 720x480 "real" pixels of information, generated from 1440x1080 pixels per frame in the source image. This is both logical and easily confirmed by trying it. Only a true widescreen DV camera could possibly hope to compete for generating widescreen SD output, and there are only a handful of those.

P.S. HDV also gives you a wider field of view than squeezed or cropped SD video. The only way to get the equivalent on most DV cameras is with an anamorphic lens adapter, which adds a lot to the price and lowers image quality by adding more glass. Might as well buy an HDV camera...

It is totally untrue that you cannot distribute high definition video. An HD-VHS deck sells for $300 and you can easily bundle this with the wedding package.

The saga goes on and on I think we all are after the holy grail in picture quality but at what cost, I dont doubt that HDV is the format of the future and I have thought about replacing my 170 with the FX1 but things to consider,

1 None of my clients seem to bother what its shot on as long as it looks ok

2 Iam i right in thinking that even if I down rez it to DV I would have to use the FX1 to down load it to my computer, hence causing more ware on it, something I don't do with my cameras

3 I have also read on these forums that even if you don't use the Hdv you have got when it becomes more widespread! but by then will these 1st generation cameras be old hat?

am i right in thinking that even if I down rez it to DV I would have to use the FX1 to down load it to my computer

If you shoot in HDV then you will obviously need an HDV compatible deck, or the camera itself to play that tape, regardless of whether you're using the i.Link downconvert feature.

However, the FX1, Z1, HC1 and A1 can also shoot in regular DV mode. These tapes can be played by any deck or DV camera. The A1 can also record in DVCAM mode, while the Z1 can record DVCAM and also switch between PAL and NTSC.

So any of Sony's HDV cameras can be used just like regular DV cameras if you don't want to shoot a project in HD. But you would still have that capability to shoot HDV if needed.

I have read reviews of the Sony-Fx1,Cannon XL-2 and Panasonic DVX- 100A,and the Sony FX1 is by far the worst of the lot.For example, the FX-1 does not hold up well when you transfer the tapes to DVD. I shoot events with a Sony PDX-10 and my client's and co-editor were stunned by how good it was.Sure it does not do well in low light situations,but my clients have told me that the dim lighting add's to the romantic mood of the wedding.As long as they are happy what else can you ask for?

I have read reviews of the Sony-Fx1,Cannon XL-2 and Panasonic DVX- 100A,and the Sony FX1 is by far the worst of the lot.For example, the FX-1 does not hold up well when you transfer the tapes to DVD.

If you're referring to the same reviews I've seen, those are pretty biased in favor of the DV cameras. And I don't know who said that FX1 footage doesn't transfer well to DVD, because most people I know who have tried that (starting from HDV footage, not DV) say it makes some of the best DVDs they've ever produced. In any case, once you've seen HDV footage played at full quality on a good HDTV, you'll understand why standard-definition video is at the end of its 50-year run, and is going to be replaced sooner or later by affordable HD production options.

I don't know what you're reading Matt, but the reviews of the FX1 which I've seen have been very good. I have a PDX-10 and an HVR-Z1. The PDX-10 is a great little camera, but no match for the Z1 (FX1 should be the same). Bigger chips, better low light response, much, much better manual controls, more image adjustment, component video output., much nicer LCD screen and viewfinder... the list goes on and on.

If you're happy with the PDX-10 then there's no reason to change. But there's absolutely no question that the FX-1 is a much nicer camera, even if you only use it in regular DV mode.

I use:

Canon Opturas (3 or 4 - depends on the shoot)
4 or 8 amp batteries (custom)
AT897 shotguns + custom shockmounts and cables/preamps
Sony MiniDisc + boom'd AT897 (depends on the shoot) - also have an iRiver but I don't really trust it
Spiderbraces
Steadycam (custom)
Monopod (depends on the shoot - for simple crane stuff)
Handycams (custom - I designed/built them a while ago - it's a handheld figrig looking thing sortof.. great minds think alike ;-) - has cam, audio, LCD, battery, two handed operation for stability, etc)

No tripods (not a big fan of a stationary camera - used for a dolly shot a couple times, but never during the ceremony)

Lenses
Filters & Matte boxes (custom)
Sunshades (custom)

No lights (on camera or otherwise)



For something other than a wedding (indy, corp, whatever) light kit + tripod is standard.

My oh my, the HD vs HDV vs DV battle rages on. Dude, please wait before you go dumping all of your money into HDV technology, it is NOT necessarily
the wave of the HD future. There are other options being developed, and it is still arguably early in the game. Getting a NLE that is HD ready is probably wise, but as far as cameras for weddings, I shoot weddings and so far this year NO one has requested anything in HD. No one wants to pay for it. Everyone on this board knows HD is around the corner, because we are all in the business or very familiar with the technology. But the average couple getting married right now does not have an HDTV, that is just a fact. Most just want a high quality, professional DVD. Do you think that as prices of equipment come down, that there won't be other HD options out there for videographers in the future? Hold out a little longer before going HDV...

You state the case very well Brian, and this is getting beaten to death in several other threads as well.

However, the FX1 and Z1 used in DV MODE ONLY are arguably better cameras than the VX-2100 and PD-170 because of their optics, manual controls and image adjustment options. They really shine at 16:9 because of their native widescreen CCD's.

But of course, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you like the PD-170 and VX-2100 then stay tuned, because the prices are only going to go down on those models. Having more choices is a good thing for everyone.

To each their own, but a good percentage of my current customers own HDTVs, and people definitely like the image quality which HDV offers. How much extra people are willing to pay for HD/HDV remains to be seen, but HDV has a much better chance of being cost-effective in this regard than anything else currently being proposed. And the irony is that the most common way to distribute high-definition video in the future could turn out to be high-bandwidth MPEG2-TS on blue-laser DVDs...so basically HDV. In the meantime, HDV yields better widescreen DVDs than most DV cameras, and that's something which is useful regardless of what happens in the future.

If your customers aren't asking for HDV maybe it's because you're not offering it to them. Too bad, they'd appreciate it when they watch their video years from now on their big HDTV display...