I primarily shoot plays, recitals and choral concerts for my business. Currently, I use a Sony VX2100 and a Canon GL-2. Since I am a "one man show", the two cams are usually side-by-side with the Canon locked down wide, while the Sony picks up my closeups, additional angles, etc.

I am finally to a point where I can purchase an additional camera (mainly because the Canon and I DO NOT get along). I've read through all of the "Which camera should I buy?" threads, but I'm still stumped at which direction to go. Obviously, it makes sense to go HD (even though I only deliver on DVD) and I would like to go tapeless. With about a $2500-$3000 budget, can anyone offer advice that can help me with my situation? I'd love to be able to get two cameras to match up better, but one may be the only viable option.

I have looked at the Panasonic AG HMC-40 &150, the Canon XA10 and the Sony HXR-MC50U. All of which are in my price range and seem to have the features that I need.

Am I better off picking up one of these or going to something like the Canon Vixias? The idea of two new HD cameras is appealing, but I do not know their quality vs. what I am shooting with now. Am I going to run into workflow problems if I shoot with one SD cam and one HD cam?

While the money is not exactly "burning a hole in my pocket", I feel like I need to make a move before something comes up and drains the funds. :)

By the way, just to clarify, I do not currently do weddings and I have my own audio system that is either recorded digitally to a Zoom H2 or fed into the Sony via a 1/8" mini plug. Maybe not the optimal way, but it produces great results for my clients. So while XLR inputs would be great, it's not a deal breaker.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

If you are doing this for paying clients I would not recommend mixing the footage from a HD cam and an SD cam. I recently did just that for a wedding shoot and I regret it. The HD footage-even down rezzed is so much sharper. I know others have had different experiences but I can only speak for myself.

About a year ago I sold my two Canon Gl2's and made enough money to pay for one Panasonic HMC40. Perhaps you could sell your two SD cams to buy one HD camcorder and use the $3000 you have to supplement that so you end up buying two matching HD camcorders. Of course the pool of money you end up with would help determine which camera you could afford to purchase.

I have the HMC40 and it is great in good light, but not so good in darker venues. I will admit however that you can add a lot of gain without it looking too grainy, but there might be other cameras out there that do better in low light settings.

I agree with Tom too!!

Choice is more than often going to be a personal one!! I'm a Panasonic person so I shoot the same as you do but with two HMC82's (I laso love shoulder mount cameras!!) With an ENG support rod I can get free shots off the shoulder almost as good as a tripod which makes life a lot easier as a one man band.

It's pointless me saying "get 2 x HMC40's" if you don't like Panasonic but trading in what you have and trying to get two matching cameras (whatever brand takes your fancy) is the way to go!!!

Chris

Tom,

Most of my events are those that we show up, tape for free and count on DVD sales to pay off. It works for us.

Selling off the two SD cams is exactly what my wife wants to do. My issue with that is firstly, I love my Sony. I purchased it new and would really like to have a backup on hand - just in case. Secondly, the Canon was purchased used a few years ago. Considering the issues I've had with it (a couple of times, it recorded nothing on the tape - probably a loading error). It is also noisy. So much so that you can hear it through it's mic, making the audio unusable except for low level reinforcement. Just a mechanical whine that has always been there. It could be inherent to the model as far as I know, but it makes me uncomfortable and I'd really hate to be the guy that passes off a problematic camera to someone. It just wouldn't feel right. I'm vigilant now about checking it closely before a show and doing test shots, but it worries me to no end. Hence, my push for at least one new cam.

Thanks for the opinons on the HMC40. I deal with a lot of dark venues, so that may indeed pose a problem.

Say I were to go the route of selling off what I have and buying new. Am I better off to sell outright and hope for the best, or trade the equipment into B&H for store credit?

Obviously, I'd probably get more from a private sale, but it seems like less of a hassle to turn it over to the guys at B&H - no angry calls if there is a failure whether it's the fault of the buyer or the cam.

Sounds like you already know the answer to your dilemma. On one hand, if you go with B&H, you're pretty much guaranteed to get rid of your gear with very little hassle. The downside of this approach is that you likely won't get anywhere near as much money as you would with a private sale. Of course with a private sale you'll get more for your gear but now you have the hassle of "selling" it somewhere. You could always list your gear in the Dvinfo classifieds and see what happens.

When I tried to sell B&H a wide angle lens adapter, they quoted me a price of $75.00. Just a week before getting my quote they had a used one on their site listed for $250.00...so as you can see...their mark up was quite high, but I guess that's how it works in retail sales. In the end, $75.00 wasn't worth it to me so I'm still trying the private route.

Thanks, Michael.
The automated quote from B&H on the Canon is around $500. I paid $1600 for it used about three or four years ago, so that doesn't sound too bad - all things considered. Of course, that still leaves me with the problem of one SD and probably just one HD camera (if I go with a $2000-$2500 range model). Just not sure of what to expect there in terms of workflow and quality of the end product.

I'm not sure what the value is on a Canon GL2 but looking at eBay, they seem to be averaging 500-800. Perhaps B&H has a fair price in your case.

I agree with Tom however, that I would not want to mix SD with HD. Maybe others have good luck doing that but I think it's a big pain in the arse. I know that everyone's budget is different, but if there's anyway you can match cameras or at least use two HD cams vs mixing HD with SD, you will have a much easier time in post and likely a much nicer looking product.

Some thoughts on this.

If you go with a trade to B&H you are locked into being their customer for your next purchase. That is limiting your options to only what B&H has to offer. If you sell your cameras yourself, you are then in a cash position and are ready to pounce on the best offers available anywhere. The HMC 150 is not the newest thing going and I have seen some very low hours used ones starting to show up for sale.

The best route is always MATCHED cameras. If you can't duplicate the cameras, then for heaven's sake try to at least duplicate the manufacturer !!! When you bounce between manufacturers you leave yourself open to variations in color etc.

If you are shooting two cams side by side, you might want to consider the switch to dslr. The shooting style is a tad different than a video cam but $2500-$3000 buys a lot of camera and lenses.

Don't bother trying to mix SD and HD... plan for two cameras.

Sell the camera that's finicky on eBay AS-IS, with full disclosure, it'll bring what it brings. People buy stuff to fix all the time... just be honest about condition.

Here's a way around your budget... lets say you go with the MC50U... buy a CX550 for the second camera - less $$, but SAME CAMERA (I'm biased, I use a pair of CX550s). Similar situation on the XA10 - they make a consumer version. Panasonic may be similar, but you could prolly match a TM900 with the bigger cam.

Get creative with the budget, get cams that can share accessories (or maybe re-use ones you've got already if you're lucky) so that budget isn't stretched.

Hope that solves your dilema!

Thanks, Dave. I'll look into the models that you suggested. I've always bought Sony equipment and even use Vegas Pro, so I'm a little biased myself.

The Canon has been a great camera and really seems to have no problems aside from the noise (again, not sure if that is just inherent to that model) and the one time it did not record correctly (it has had NO hiccups since that night back in January and I have shot about 20 events since then). I just hate the idea of selling used equipment to an individual. The "as-is" route may be the way to go, however.

Just an idea of what these two cams are still able to accomplish together:
https://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Magical-Memories-Productions/35765855876

I guess I have some thinking and additional researching to do!

If you can't replicate the problem, I'd suspect "user malfunction", the dreaded "double punch", or as you suspect, a bad tape/head clog. There's always the DVi classifieds too, that way you avoid the unknowns of eBay.

You might want to take a quick look a few forums up at footage shot with a Sony DSC HX9V... it's a $350 P&S camera that shoots 1080/60p video too... has it's limits, but honestly there are some pretty inexpensive ways to get a very acceptable image for a paltry sum... the magic is in the skill of using the camera and the edit, the price of the "acquisition" equipment is becoming darn close to inconsequential...

If you're going new, you also might consider the NX70U, though it's at the top of your range, but it's a "go anywhere in any weather" camera, looks pretty good so far, especially if you like to shoot in a downpour! The CX700 is the consumer version (sort of) of the NX70, but honestly a lightly used CX550V is a bargain, sub $1K, you can tack on a good mic and a hood if you really want the MC50 "look". I prefer the 3.5" touchscreen over a 3" one that Sony for some strange reason went back to for the 2011 "consumer" CX series...

There are ways to stretch your budget and still have plenty left for a couple tanks of gas even with today's prices! Once you go over to non-tape cameras, there's less to go wrong, so buying used is just a matter of finding a clean sample that is working as expected.

Dave,
You may very well be correct in your assessment of the malfunction. It happened after quick tape change in the dark while the stage was being reset during a play. The first half (tape 1) was beautiful. After the tape change (tape 2)....nothing. The tape ran through, but with only a blank image and no audio to show for it. Luckily, I wasn't feeling well that evening and was shooting with the Sony in a lazy fashion that lent itself well to a single camera shoot. A quick disclaimer on the DVD just before the video and not a single complaint in return! I would have not been so lucky had it been a choral concert I was shooting as they require quicker movements. :)

Since you mentioned it, I do like the idea of a lower end pro cam, coupled with the consumer version as the wide angle lockdown (i.e. Sony HXR-MC50U @ $1499 + Sony HDR-CX560V @ $1098), or even two MC50Us at a lower price after trade in of the present cams. Again, lots of research to do.

I agree with others that you should not mix SD & HD, especially because both your current cameras shoot 4:3 video whereas a HD cam will shoot 16:9.

Your best bet is going to be a low-end pro/prosumer camera and a small consumer camera. That way both cams will be HD and, if you get them from the same brand, somewhat similar when it comes to matching the footage in post. It will also make life easier if both your camera shoot the same format to the same media, rather than having a seperate workflow for each camera.

Aside from the looks I may get walking into my events with what (at least appears to be) one consumer camera alongside a more "pro" looking one, is there any drawback to using these cams compared to something like the Panasonic HMC150? I'm talking quality of the video. I am fully aware that features such as XLR inputs will be missing. I just don't want our quality to suffer in any way.

Espcially if it comes down to purchasing two of the Sony HXR-MC50Us. I'm still going to need the manual adjustment features for lighting changes and dimy lit staging. The idea of geting back into weddings at some point will be an issue too.

Am I painting my self into a corner with this move?

Hi Rey

One thing you will have to get used to if you move to a real HD camera as opposed to a DSLR is that they are all a lot worse than you are used to in low light (based, of course on a normal budget and not top of the range cameras with 2/3rd " chips!!!)

The Sony VX series were amazing in low light cos the chips only have to contend with a tiny 720x480 image...just going to widescreen SD started off the challenge for low light performance but when you have chips the same size as an SD camera attempting to resolve a 1920x1080 image you just are not going to get the same low light performance...My shoulder mount DVC20's with tiny 1/6" chips were amazing in low light because they only had to produce a 4:3 SD image but that was maybe 5 years or more ago!!! ....chips have gone up to now 1/4" or 1/3rd " but the image is nearly 6 times as big (assuming SD at around 340K pixels and HD at over 2000K ) Chips and processing are way better but you are not going to get the same low light performance for the price you want to pay.

Maybe DSLR's with really fast lenses would be a better option as stage performances have their own lighting!!! I shooting on nice looking HMC82's but the cameras really struggle in low light!!

Chris

Rey, I wouldn't worry about what other people think of your equipment. Let your work do the talking! You can always dress your cameras up a bit with a lens hood, rails and a Rode Videomic (which will also give you better back-up sound for emergencies) if you are concerened.

I remember reading something a while back about the design of CMOS sensors (which are used in most HD cams) making them better for single-chip designs than CCD's (which were used in most SD cameras). Basically what that means is that the widespread use of CMOS chips in HD cameras means the image quality gap between 3-chip Prosumer cameras and Single-chip consumer cameras is closer than ever. I've mixed footage from a Sony SR12 with my FX7 & Z1p without too many problems, and I know alot of people rave about the quality of some of the smaller cams, particularly the Panasonic TM900 and the Sony XR500/550.

Rey,

I agree with John about letting your work do the talking, yet looks of the equipment is a factor with some clients. My main camera is a used Canon XH-A1 that I bought nearly two years ago when starting up my business. I already had two consumer Canon HV-30s, that match up well with the A1 in good light.

All three cameras have a lot of attachments. All three have lens hoods, all three have shotgun microphones. The HV-30s with the Rode Videomics and lens hoods, plus a special focus ring from an inventor on the internet, tend to make all three cameras look like a set. Of course, that's what they are when I shoot multicam.

Being a one man band, I man the A1 myself, and set the two HV-30s up unmanned. The A1 has the wireless microphone system, an external hard drive recorder, etc, and that big Canon Wide Angle Adapter with lens hood. Most clients think it's a studio camera. No kidding, they do. And since their footage comes out looking great, why should I tell them otherwise?

Everything works together, the cameras, the audio, the NLE software, everything. You'll save yourself a lot of grief if you take a systems approach to your business. You expressed a concern about "painting yourself into a corner."Make sure your cameras can match up well. Think about your workflow, after all, time is money.

Along with not painting yourself into a corner, don't dig yourself into a hole either. Think about your costs, your cash flow situation. Place your emphasis on "client relations". Customers are more important than gear. I think you're already thinking along those lines. Don't count on the economy improving. It's hard, but the truth is, we'll have to make our business improve through making wise decisions.

IF as you say you show up for free, and make the $$ on the back end sales, who cares what your gear looks like, it's your DVD's that will make or break you. You're selling your expertise in camera operation, and your editing. WHAT you acquire that image with is a nominal consideration - people with HD cell phones are going to be shooting TOO, the difference will be in the total package you supply...

I know there's lots of parroted critique of "low light" when you go to HD. Turn on the low lux mode on ANY of the 500 or later series Sonys... you'll be fine. Really. They do quite well in low light, including lighting conditions where most cameras will be terribly grainy. Worst case, if you're shooting in situations where the light is REALLY awful, a $40 dimmable LED light will solve your problem in most cases. The XA10 and it's siblings have gone to lower pixel density, so they seem to do quite well in low light as well from samples I've seen.

Cameras today are "smarter", so IMO manual becomes less of an issue, except for very rare situations. Face recognition will tend to quickly lock focus and exposure on a face in the frame, faster than you can adjust the settings. The lattitude of the 500 series is quite good, and will help you avoid blown out footage if you learn to use it to your advantage (using AE shift or exposure when needed).

Poke around, and you'll find several people here using the small Sonys alongside larger more expensive Sony cams, and most of the time, image quality is equal or "better"... what you get in the 1K ($750-1500, depending on how you purchase) price range is pretty good, whether you buy Sony, Canon or Panasonic. While I'm a Sony user, primarily so I don't have to go re-buy all the accessory stuff, I'd not hesitate to use Canon or Panasonic, I've had both in the past, just sorta like the Sonys overall.

The whole "size" thing is really not a big issue for the most part, trick your camera out a bit, and most will go "ooooh, ahhh" that's really high tech... you know, high tech makes things smaller and all that. The only "critics" might be guys with some big ol' camera sitting in the closet and they have to justify how much they spent on it. I've got a farily low investment in my cameras, a pair of CX550's and a pair of CX500's which may well be replaced by a couple of the new Sony P&S cameras for additional angles. I have hoods and a couple mics, plus decent "rigs" that make them look reasonably professional and ensure I get good steady, stable level footage. May not be as impressive as larger "toys", but get the job done, are easy to cart around and allow me to keep the budget low in a difficult economy.

The proof is in the image quality, the camera work, and the editing, as I've said, the image acquisition equipment portion of the equation is becomming inconsequential, and quite rapidly.

When we did the band work we shot with up to 5 consumer cams. Everything was on tripod or monopod and all the gear around made enough of a statement that no one questioned what the cams were.

Dave seems to have the experience with those upper end consumer Sonys. I can't say as I have not shot them. But a suggestion might be to look for somewhere with a "liberal" return policy like Amazon and order one and then see if you can make it "dance". Take it out to the worst possible situations/environments and run it through its paces. Then, for you, you will know for sure what most of us are guessing at.

If you can get great results from the $1000 cam, then I wouldn't spend less money, I'd get MORE CAMS!

I have always been a fan of having more views to work with in editing. If you had the space available, one locked from the left and another locked from the right, one locked wide center and one roving for closeups gives you a ton of various perspectives/options to work with, that can only enhance you end product.

There, did I just muddy up the options available as you enter your decision process ??? :-) :-) :-)

Rey:

What Dave and Chip have just said reflects my experience as well.

Following up on what Dave said, footage from the little CX cams will seem pretty amazing alongside that from your VX2100 and GL1.

I would suggest skipping the MC50 because it is simply a rebadged CX550 with a lenshood and small proprietary shotgun mic. If I recall correctly, a used MC50 can be had for about $1150 which is about what you would pay for a new (and somewhat more capable) CX700.

If you have the funds, I would strongly second Dave's suggestion of an NX70. The NX70 is a bit larger than its CX siblings but still small. (I have not actually seen one but seems like it would be about 2/3 the size of your GL1). The NX70 does have XLR inputs, a good lens hood, a lens ring, and external buttons which make it look a bit more impressive, to the extent that matters in a dark room. The NX70 also can record LPCM audio with full 60p video. LPCM is a mroe robust recording format for audio and I use it exclusively with my NX5. (However, as of this writing, I do not believe any NLE will recognize the 60p/LPCM audio combination. The video is fine but you have to use AC3 audio This may not be a concern for you when using external devices since, presumably, you only use the camera audio for sync purposes). There is now a forum here on the NX70 and CX cams where you can see some shots of Mike Beckett using one on a tripod so you can get a sense of the size and appearance of this unit.

Like Dave, I also can highly recommend the CX cams. I regularly use two CX550v cams as locked-down "b" cams (paired with an FX1000 and an NX5) for multi-cam shoots of events, dance and stage shoots and weddings. They have a pretty good reach into dim lighting --- close to what my treasured old VX2000 got, though not as deep as the VX2100. Even in low light situations, they have low video noise in full auto modes with the "low lux" setting engaged (it basically allows the shutter speed to drop to 1/30th of a second). They have usable white balance adjustments (more important for me in changing lighting conditions at wedding receptions than for theatrical settings.) There is limited manual control -- these cams are too small for ergonomic manual control --- but the auto functions and settings are good enough that this is often not a problem for theatrical shoots. If you bump the AE shift down to -3 or -4, they have a surprising amount of headroom for lighting changes in theatrical settings even when spotlights pass over your scene.

If you have not already done so, check out this long discussion which has a lot of good information about how to use CX and XR cams for shooting 5 hours of dance recital in a theater.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/495672-amateur-recital-video-production.html

There is an equally long follow-up thread in the Vegas forum where you can see examples of the footage he obtained.

An additional consideration with newer tapeless cameras like the Panasonics and the Sony is that there is greatly extended battery life because there is no tape mechanism to power. On Friday, I recorded a Continuing Legal Education program (which our state's Supreme Court wants to distribute), and used my CX550 cams with NPFV100 batteries. I basically ran the CX cams on one battery all day long, recording just over 6 hours of the presentations between 8:45am and 5 pm. I used the CX cams as back-ups to my NX5 which also ran all day long. Never having to swap batteries or replace tapes is something I find extremely useful. ) In the last couple of months, I've shot long-form year-end dance school recitals, two of which ran over three hours of shooting time. Much less stress with the big batteries and the solid state recording media. (Note that the NPFV100 batteries add weight and bulk to the NX70 and CX cams and that they stick out enough to impede access to the viewfinder.)

Besides not needing to change tapes (no worrying about breaking in at 1 hour or 1½ hour intervals) there is no worry about drop-outs, either.

The CX cams and the NX70 go very-wide on the wide angle end of the zooms. As wide as a wide-angle adapter on your VX or GL. Maybe wider. Like the Panasonic HMC40 (another of the above suggestions), there is a trade-off with somewhat limited zooms. Basically the Sonys only go out to 10x and the Panasonic only goes to 12x. This may or may not be a problem for you. As I recall, your Canon had a 20x zoom but maybe you have not needed the full zoom?

As for mixing with SD cams: you can do it but you may not want to. Several years ago, as I transitioned to HD, I mixed HD and SD on timelines under PPro CS3. I found that the color balance of the SD footage seemed off (a bit garish, actually) and the focus seemed soft in comparison to that in the footage downrezzed from HDV. The color problems could be adjusted (somewhat) in editing, and the soft focus issue was less noticeable on wide shots. As long as the color was balanced reasonably well, few folks noticed these discrepancies until I pointed them out. For me, with the time spent editing, it was very noticeable. Fingernails on chalkboard noticeable.

Conversely, it is possible to shoot SD with the CX and NX cams, but the cams record it as 8 mbps MPEG2. My opinion is that this SD often does not look as good as what you get from a miniDV SD cams like your VX2100 and GL1.

So, in sum, the current crop of small cams would serve you well. Do note that AVCHD footage may require upgrades for your editing computer. You may be able to put that off by going with Cineform's NeoScene, which converts HDV and AVCHD to more readily edited AVI or MOV formats. (It more or less decompresses you HD footage into all "I" frames which lowers the computing overhead at the price of greatly expanded files sizes.) So, in addition to buying the cameras, you may want to budget for NeoScene (about $99) and another hard drive (1 Tb SATA internal drives can be had for $60-$70; e-Sata drives will be more.)

Thanks again to everyone for all of the advice.

Just to address a few concerns:

My current editing computer has an AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor running at 2.6GHz and 6gb of RAM and 64-bit Windows 7. It does quite well with my current editing load, so I am not sure if AVCHD editing will bog it down.

Low light is a definite concern. With showchoirs (my mainstay), there is usually plenty of light unless the school is older and ill-equipped to properly light their risers. Otherwise, taping plays and recitals could be problematic if I don't get something that can at least match the low light quality I get currently from the VX2100 and GL2.

Battery life is not much of a consideration. Since I run up to 6 condensor mics for choral shows, the sound mixer requires a/c power, so I tend to plug into a power source at all of my shows. There's really no way around it and most venues are very accomodating. However, if I went into weddings again, I would need additional battery power.

While I shoot in manual focus mode (as I'm told ALL professionals should), I do have a horrible habit of using the "Push Auto" focus button on the Sony to properly focus. I simply can't work the ring fast or accurately enough to keep up. I'm hoping that feature is on some of the newer models or assignable to the manual button. Call it laziness or unprofessional, but it works for me. :)

I guess I need to get past the whole "size matters" thing. My cams have never been loaded down with extra equipment such as wireless receivers (mine is an a/c powered XLR external - used rarely), lights (mine is an older dimmable tungsten with the battery waist pack - used rarely) or mics (all of my sound is recorded from mics stage-side and connected through a 100' snake to the mixer or via digital recorders patched into the venue soundboard). In case you can't tell, I'm BIG on capturing the best possible audio and spend more time planning and setting that system up than with the video portion. The samples on our Facebook page are completely captured with my mics - with the exception of the lead vocalists. As long as I can find tapeless cameras that can equal or out-perform my VX2100 and GL2, I'll be VERY happy!

Some comments in response.

Number one: these little cameras exceed the low light capabilities of the GL2 although they do not go as dim as the VX2100. Sony rates these cams as having 3 lux low light capability. My recollection was that the GL2 only went to 6 lux. My VX2000 was rated at 2 lux. I think Sony may have rated the VX2100 down to 1 lux. There is much more difference between the GL2 and the VX2100 than with the CX cams. (I gather that the Panasonics may be akin to the GL2 in this area but I do not have the experience to say whether they are better or not.) It has to be reallllllllyyyyyyy dim before you get to a point where a VX2100 will pick up stuff the CX cams will not. The only time I've seen these cameras challenged was a wedding reception where the wedding planner turned down the lights for a "romantic" first dance and the lights were so dim that the audience could barely perceive more of the couple than a dim semi-flourescent glow from the bride's white dress. The only way I got anything at all was to get close to the couple with my NX5 open as wide as possible with the gain all the way up and the shutter stopped down to 1/15th. If you have those kinds of dim lighting situations, you need to spend a lot more money on a lot more camera. But, are you really shooting where you need that see-in-the-dark or surveillance camera capability? I've used CX cams in shooting candlelit choir performances at night in a century old church, and they were fine. I even had one of them on autofocus, but with the face-focus enabled there was no problem with focus or image visibility, and there was remarkably little video noise.

Number two: Manual focus is a tool as is auto focus. Manual focus is neither a moral imperative nor a measure of one's worth as a human being. The only "should" is getting good video. Sometimes that can be done with auto focus, sometimes not. These little cams are optimized for auto modes and do a generally excellent job, much better, for example, than the auto modes on my much larger NX5.

It is possible to constantly manually focus and refocus the CX cams but it is a big challenge and one that I avoid. Where I need to deal with things that will throw off auto focus --- stage lighting fading up and down from black, for example -- a better choice than running manual focus --- one that I started with many years ago with my VX2000 --- is to set a manual depth of field. Zoom in as far you can on the stage on something where you can get a sharp focus. Switch to manual focus and then zoom back out. You have now set a wide focus range and you do not need to worry about refocusing. Also, the NX70 and CX700/560 and the CX550 have LCD view screens that are much bigger than those on your old cameras and which have much higher resolution. The NX70 and CX700/560 also have an "expanded focus" function. Press the button and the viewfinder doubles the zooms (but only in the viewfinder) and you've got a far sharper focus capability there. Plus, the cams also have additional capabilties where you can run spot focus and spot exposure control from the view screen, and they also have a face priority mode which makes the auto focus zero in on faces to assure focus. I've used all of these and found them all helpful. Remember, these are tools. As is the push to focus button.

Number 3: Computer specs seem a bit light for multi-cam editing with AVCHD. Depends on what NLE you use. If you are not using Edius 5 or 6 (which have their own conversion utilities), you may find Cineform helpful. There is a fully functional trial download (good for 15 days) so you can experiment if AVCHD proves burdensome on your system. AVCHD is a much bigger load than SD. This is because AVCHD is highly compressed. The NLE basically has to convert from compressed to decompressed formats on the fly and that sucks a lot of computer resources. Converting to another format (Canopus HQ or Cineform AVI) avoids that workload.

Number 4, long battery life can be helpful to position your second camera in a different location where there may not be ready access to mains power. Having your wide camera with a different angle of view has advantages for editing (no risk of jump cuts) and disadvantages (harder to check and adjust). This is discussed in the dance recital thread I cited.

Great points, Jay.

There have only been a few instances where auditoriums have been so dim during a choral performance, that the cams didn't fair so well. Although, I let the director know up front how it would affect the video and I simply moved that performance to the beginning of the DVD using the audio only under the opening titles. Problem solved...crisis avoided. No one was the wiser. :)

Cineform may be something I'll need to look into. I currently use Sony Vegas Pro 10 64 bit. No problems in editing, but the cooling fans definitely kick in when it's rendering. I do have room to add more RAM, though and in conjunction with a video card carrying it's own RAM (rather than the onboard) may be an quick fix for the lower-end specs.

No camera will shoot a black cat in a dark room with no windows... but if there's something there to work with the little Sonys do pretty well, give a little kick with a small LED for close shots, and you're set. If it's so dark you can't see well with your eyes, you can't expect a camera to "adjust" around that.

The Sony's have touchscreen spot focus - not bad, and better than trying to twiddle the small knob IMO. Sure, it's great to know how to make manual adjustments, but if the camera can make those adjustments faster and more accurately most of the time... You learn to work with what these little cams CAN do, and you're likely to be pretty happy in your application.

I'm not 100% certain on the AMD CPU's, yours MAY be good enough. A lot depends on the overall system from what I've found with Vegas - you're only as good as the slowest link... I think you're at a minimum "doable", and depending on the amount of patience you've got and the edit/render time available, you may be able to make it work, although the higher bitrates may tax any system!

I can endorse Dave's recommendation of the CX550. Though we've never met I was so convinced by Dave's enthusiasm on this forum for these little cameras that I bought one for just these sort of events where my JVC HM700 just wouldn't cut it in low light. I was so amazed by the little beauty that I bought two more and these are what I use now for stage shows and discos. They are a joy to hold, quite easy to set up the way I want them, quick and responsive. With the 64GB on board and a 3900Ahr battery I can set them anywhere, high or low,the wide angle allows me to even put them one each stage side with a full view, though they do suffer some barrelling effect. These are angles I could never achieve with bigger cameras. I can switch them on and leave them to run, they will last all night (more than I can these days).

The CX550 seems to have been discontinued. Is the CX560V it's replacement?

Sony HDR-CX560V Camcorder HDR-CX560V B&H Photo Video

I believe it is Rey. There are a few differences the main one being that it will shoot 1080p whereas the CX550 only shoots 1080 interlaced. I think that the screen is smaller.

So the idea now is that I simply replace my existing cameras with two (or possibly even three) of these?

The only concern I have is that it lists one 1x 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo mini input jack onboard, but also lists a mic input. Are they one in the same? Does it not have a line level input jack? That has always been something I loved about the VX2100 - the input jack is switchable between mic and line level. However, it is line level that I use 98% of the time.

One thing you will have to get used to if you move to a real HD camera as opposed to a DSLR is that they are all a lot worse than you are used to in low light
Chris, I don't know what real HD camera you refer to, but camcorders that Rey mentioned were CX and XA series,
I will not comment on CX series, but Canon XA and HF camcorders have way better low light performance than GL or VX, and this is not a guess, I still have a footage from my GL2 and PD170

Rey, I'm always reluctant to say the way I go is the way to go, just pass on my experience, but as you can see I'm happy with them. But I use them as un-manned lock-offs as to use them as a main camera would not fit my way of working. I find it hard to frame shots quickly with a touch-screen zoom.

I still use a 'pro' camera for recording the master shot and audio. That has line-level XLR inputs and full control so I can monitor the sound live. The audio recorded on the CX550 is good and you can input an external mic, albeit only through the mini jack and not at line level. There are no manual controls or visual meters, though you can lower the record level in a menu setting. I've used it with a shotgun mic and also a radio mic receiver attached. I just monitor with headphones to make sure it's picking up and then leave it. There is a headphone socket as well as the mic input socket.

George,

Out of curiosity, what model do you use for your main camera? I'm sort of leaning in that direction - a slightly higher-end cam for "A" shooting and something along the lines of the CX560 as a wide lockdown cam. I know experience and opinions differ from person to person, but the more opinions I get from people that shoot in similar circumstances than I do, the better I feel about the decision.

Again, we're talking live stage events (plays, choral concerts, some music performances, recitals, etc) and possibly weddings again at some point - if I get the nerve back. :)

With that said, while three cameras would be nice, I could always add another CX560 equivalent sometime down the road if they do indeed fit my needs.

My main cameras are two JVC HM700. They are fine until it comes to low or wide latitude light,; very bright and very dark in the same scene, as are most stage presentations. That was where I started to despair after switching from Panasonic DV200. I now see that they were brilliant in low light. Unfortunately they are DV and 4:3 so I had to move from them.

I had narrowed my options down to Sony Ex1 or the JVC. On balance the JVC became my preferred option as it has the form profile I'm use to, uses the same batteries and remote lens controller as the DV200, and fit my existing travel cases and is more economical in use as it records to SD cards rather than SxS.

I had never even considered using a consumer level camcorder until I tried the CX550. I now use them for the full front wide shot for stage shows (replacing one of the JVCs) I can even clamp it to the tripod I have the JVC on eliminating the need to use a second tripod for the other JVC that I used to use for the wide shot. I use the more controllable JVC for my close and follow shots. I can place the other two Sonys just were I think I'll get good or interesting points of view, stage side, high on a lighting bar or flush at stage level for dancing feet. So many options with them. I'd like to try one sometime at 90 degrees above the stage for a Busby Berkeley type shot. They are still available here in UK for less than £800m so I may get a couple more before they become extinct.

I also use my CX550 cams the way George mentioned.

I note that we have missed answering Rey's question about the CX560 being the successor to the CX550. Actually, there are two successors: the CX700 and CX560. The differences are: (a) the CX700 has both a viewfinder (EVF) and a fold-out viewscreen (like the CX 550) while the CX560 only has the fold-out viewscreen ; and (b) the CX700 has a 96gb ssd and the CX560 has a 64gb ssd (same as the CX550).

Not everybody feels they need a viewfinder, especially those who would use the camera only indoors as a locked down “b” cam. I like a viewfinder in at least two instances. One is that, when I have these very-wide angle little cams down front at either side of a stage, the viewfinder is much less likely to be a distracting light than the viewscreens. You turn the CS cams on by opening the viewscreen and, if you have a viewfinder, by pulling back on the viewfinder. Of course, you could drape a piece of cloth over the viewscreen once you have the cam running. The other use for a viewfinder, for me, is outdoors in bright light where the viewscreen is hard to see. (I find these little cams so good that I often haul one around with me. Much easier to carry than my much larger pro-style cams. But no viewscreen is easy to see in direct bright light.)

The extra memory in the 700 may or may not be useful to you. The ssd (flash drive) in the CX560/550 gives you about 6 hours of recording capacity with 24 Mbps 1080i AVCHD while the CX700 give you nine hours. The extra memory may mean you can leave your video on the camera longer. Do note that going tapeless requires a back-up strategy. It is not enough to just feed the video to the computer for editing because something can happen to your computer or your project. The CX and NX cams allow you to back up the camera files directly to a USB drive (no computer required), and it is a good idea to take advanatge of that. I believe Canons and Panasonics also have this capability.

With regard to your interest in line level feeds from your mixer at choral concerts, you would need either an an NX70(more on this in a moment) or you would need to an XLR adapter, with Beachtek, Juiced Link, Sign Video and Studio One being the brand names that come to my mind. The adapters will have two XLR and two 1/8'/3.5mm mini-jacks which can be individually switched between line and mike level. I’ve found no problems using them my CX cams except: (a) they will block access to the SD slot on the bottom which is a problem if you are somebody who hates to use the SSD and insists on recording only to SD cards (I'm not) and (b) one needs to be aware that the on screen audio meters are far from precise and that there is no manual audio volume control on the CX cams. There are some audio control functions on the CX cams but they are are rudimentary and very limited (as they are on all small cams.) An XLR adapter gives you more control by allowing you to hold down overall audio levels and also to vary levels between channels.

For feeding line level output from your mixer, you may want to think about the NX70 because it has the ability to record Linear PCM audio in additon to having the built in XLR and min plug jacks (and phantom power if you need that.) . I believe the NX70 can do this with 1080i as well as 1080/60p. (The problem with 1080/60p at the moment is that even Vegas 10, Sony's own NLE, does not seem to read the LPCM audio with 1080/60p video). I’ve been using LPCM with 1080i from my NX5 for a about a year. I’ve found LPCM is more robust than the standard AC3. I’m less likely to get clipping, it seems much less prone to noise issues in quiet passages of pieces with a lot of dynamics, and I’ve found that audio editing from LPCM (in Soundbooth and Sound Forge) is less likely to result in untoward artifacts than AC3 audio. If the NX70 is like the NX5, using LPCM also gives you an in-camera audio limiter (as opposed to automatic audio gain control). Haven't seen a manual yet so I don't know if the NX70 has the limiter function.

I do have a Beachtek adapter that I have used on occasion. My concern was being saddled with a mic-level only input. I'm not sure having never attempted it, but I'm afraid that even with the use of the Beachtek, the mic input may still be too "hot" to get a smooth signal from a line-level source. I was actually hoping that there was a switch or menu option that could change that input between mic/line like the VX2100. I can't find any information on that, though.

There is definitely not a line level input, remember that this is a consumer model aimed at a point and shoot market, with a little bit more. It's just that it gives so much but not everything. I'd only recommend them as a support camera for anything in the way of commercial work. I don't think I could produce 'A' grade work with these alone.

Just a though, if you are keeping your VX2100 could you not use that as a reference camera and capture audio to that. Lay it on your timeline and sync the others but only use the audio. I've done that before with a DVX100, used it for audio when a cable run was too far and radio was not an option.

No worries about using an XLR adapter. They'll drop line level to mic level.. The output from every adapter I have seen is always mic level to the mini-stereo plug that goes to the jack on the camera. The line level switch attenuates the input signal just fine. I did this most recently at a Dance Recital last month: line level RCA out from the "record out" plugs on the Dance School's pre-amp, put RCA-to-mini plugs on the end to the adapter, adapter to camera and had no problems at all. Used a 15 year-old Studio One adapter.
.
Again, if you want "line level" built into the camera, you've got to go up to something like an NX70.

One more thing. The preamps on my CX550 are cleaner and quieter than the ones on my VX2000.

Yeah. There doesn't appear to be anything within my price range that gives me the flexibility of a line-level input, aside from the Canon XA10. I tend to be brand loyal when I have had no issues, so moving away from Sony is unsettling.

Any recommendations in the Vixia line that will sit well alongside the XA10? B&H actually has the HF M32 on sale at $400 off list.

You might get better info on matching XA10 cams by posting a new thread in the XA10 forum and asking about cameras to match with it for multi cam shoots. It seems as though almost everybody in this thread is using Sony cams and (like me) do not have enough experience with the Canon equivalents to to give you much helpful info.

Again, though, you will not blow-out the a camera mic jack by feeding a line-level signal to an XLR adapter (at least one that has a line/mic level switch.) So, if you go for the XA10, you can still use your adapter to feed an audio source to a second or third camera for those times when having a mixer is not convenient.

As noted the CX550 is still available, and sub $1K, if you shop around. I was tempted to pick another one or two up until I started evaluating the latest Sony P&S cameras... aside from low light, they are producing a pretty darn good image. The CX550 will cover the "low light", all I'm interested in is enough angles to give good stuff to edit.

The 560 is more of a replacement for the CX500 (and it's a bit better than that model feature wise, but not quite as nice IMO as the CX550). The CX700 is more or less the replacement for the CX550 - you lose 1/2" on the LCD screen, gain more internal memory, get a lens hood, 60p (the only feature that tries to "grab" me), and a couple other things like zebras and focus assist if my memory serves. Because the CX700 is "new", you'll pay a premium for it.

In my case, I had larger cameras... but when I started using the small ones and getting used to what I COULD do with them, I sorta sold off the bigger ones, and didn't find a compelling replacement. The NX70 catches my eye, although it's tough to call it a "big" camera, it does have more controls...

In the spirit of another thread that just popped up (how much gear is too much?), I've stripped down to smaller and lighter at every possible point, and although I have a lot of "extras", I am re-evaluating going even smaller and lighter! The main question is whether you can get high quality images, and it's pretty tough to beat the 500 series Sonys and their kin when you do the bang/buck equation. I've got tripods, monopods, and a couple shoulder rigs to get the nice stable footage, even if the camera is small!



OH, the "consumer" version of the XA10 is the HF G10 - looks like it's $500 cheaper than the XA10. IMO doesn't matter that much which brand you choose, just figure out the total cost with any accessories you need to get, and try to get cameras as similar as possible to make life easy in post/edit - crossing brands is possible, but you do end up fiddling a lot trying to get the "looks" to match well.

Thanks, Jay.

Whatever camera I choose for my main ("A") cam is the one that will get the audio feed from my recording system and mixer. My lockdown B cam is never used for anything but ambient audio through the standard built-in mic. Even then, it's used at a VERY low level in post just for some added reverb. Of course, picking up a Rode mic in this transition will only enhance that sound since I only use that track for choral shows anyway.

I'm not sure if my model Beachtek adapter has that mic/line switch, but I'll have to pull it out and take a look.

Dave,

You re-evaluation of your equipment needs pretty much sums up what I am facing. I rarely shoot without tripods and if the smaller cams can do an equal job as the larger ones while still allowing some control, that's all I need in my situation. Aside from a good sound input, I've never had the need for interchangeable lenses, shoulder mounting or room for mounting a lot of gear on my cameras.

My audio system is a completely separate entity. I could even use the Zoom to capture that, were it not for the pain of synching in post.

Still, even after 6 years of doing this, I somehow feel that my growth will be limited without having those additions/features at my disposal. ::sigh::

Dave are you using only CX550s now?

What are the Sony P&S cameras you mentioned?

I'd like to work totally with such lightweight gear if only to save my legs and back, but I fear that I'm too set in my ways with using larger cameras that I'd be too nervous to give over to the little beauties for other than support footage. One of the positive aspects is that I can always carry a CX550 in my pocket and I find that the stabiliser is good enough to allow me to get in close and grab spontaneous shots I couldn't attempt with a bigger one.

Thanks, Jay.

Whatever camera I choose for my main ("A") cam is the one that will get the audio feed from my recording system and mixer. My lockdown B cam is never used for anything but ambient audio through the standard built-in mic. Even then, it's used at a VERY low level in post just for some added reverb. Of course, picking up a Rode mic in this transition will only enhance that sound since I only use that track for choral shows anyway.

I'm not sure if my model Beachtek adapter has that mic/line switch, but I'll have to pull it out and take a look.

Since you have a whole separate audio recording rig and a mixer, and everything you want to use goes through that, I'm not sure what you gain by going for something with XLR inputs. The XA10 and NX70 do give you more manual control on the images, but mgith not give you much more on audio than what you would get with an XLR adapter. (Unless you like shooting surround sound with on-camera mikes.) What I see that the NX70 has that the XA10 does not is basically two things: ruggedness/waterproofing and LPCM audio. That may or may not be worth the $700 price difference between them.

To me, the difference between the specs of the Canon Vixia cams and the Sony CX cams mostly seems to be the amount of built in memory. The Sonys have more. (My experience is that on-board ssd flash drives are a bit quicker with footage transfer than SD cards. Some people find SD cards more convenient to work with, however.) The new Sony's do have 1080/60p, if that matters to you. I think I read that the Canon cams will do 24p and 30p but not 60p.

You mentioned a Rode Videomic as a shotgun to plug into one of the new cams. The Sony CX cams have a small, proprietary shoe on top and I'm not sure if the Rode's mount will fit in it. (There may be a Rode model specifically for the Sony small-cam shoes.) My recollection of the Vixia cams is that they have a normal sized shoe on top. If you get either the XA10 or NX70, I believe each comes with its own detachable shotgun mic.

I'm with Dave on buying cameras in the same line because it makes you editing life a lot easier.

Some months ago, Philip Howells started a provocative thread (in this forum, I believe) about using an array of inexpensive small HD cams in place of the big guns many of use for weddings. He called it a "security cam" approach, and noted that the high resolution would allow digitial zoom and reframing in editing. At some point, I started referring to this as a RAIC (redundant array of inexpensive cameras) and it reflects a part of my shooting style. I've found that I still need a "big gun" for some of what I do, but I often reach for the CX550 for a lot of things.

George - pair of 550's and a pair of 500's, which I may be selling... I finally upgraded my aging Alpha bodies to ones that shoot video so I can finally do some of those "glamour" SLR shots <wink>! The Alphas don't do long clip times (prone to overheat...), but they provide another image acquision source I'd have anyway.

P&S (point and shoot) refers to the latest little pocket rocket Sony still cameras - TX100V, HX9V and the HX100V - all do 1080 60p video, so you get some pretty nice footage, and they are cheap and small - if you're running dual audio (not too impressed with the audio quality, but what do you expect!?) or other cams, they provide 29 minute record times, and from my experimentation with a WX10 (same CMOS, but only 1080i), they will do almost as well as the CX550's before you turn on low lux (so not bad in bad light!), and overall the image might be a tad softer than the CX's, but seems to be pretty clean and looks good on my 24" monitors and larger screens... Considering prices of P&S cameras with this new sensor start at $220 RETAIL... it's definitley worth a think! Albeit the lower end ones just shoot 1080i, but they are definitely as good as dedicated "video" cameras I shot with just a few short years ago (easily better than the "7" series sony cams)



Rey - the amount of control required really depends a lot on how well the sensors and processors handle "difficult" scenes - that's where the greater lattitude and low light performance of the newer CMOS sensors kicks in - I find just using exposure shift solves about 90% of any "problems" that crop up. Focus can be a pain, but if there are a couple cams, one is likely to have a good lock (or set one to manual).

I've got clamp pods that I can lash to the tripod for secondary cams, and I tooled up a metal bar that allows me to put two ball heads alongside the main pan/tilt head... good for stage shows. It's funny how we evolve similar approaches to the problems of event shoots!

You have to evaluate the budget - the economy is still tight, so big $$ expenditures for nominal or incremental quality increases have to be balanced by whether your market expects it and will pay for it. I'm pretty tempted by the NX70, but in the end it's 3 CX550's, or 1 CX700 and 2 CX560's, or... well, you get the idea.

In my book a couple extra camera angles properly positioned can make the "one man band" look more like a full production crew, so if the cams are "cheap", you just have to work out the process and the edit. Adding a discrete audio souce and multiple video tracks is really easy once you've done it, and you quickly get used to the idea of being able to "cut away" in post to the "best angle"... no sweating how to cover that bad pan/zoom or other glitch!


I still say that the image acquisition device part of the equation is becoming almost inconsequential - you still want to get the best camera(s) you can, but the choices are many, and the prices are lesser! IMO it comes down to the "grip gear" that ensures you get STABLE footage, your instincts as a camera op in "getting the shot", and the skill in the edit bay in taking "good" and making it "genius" (with good gear choices you don't have to "salvage the horrid" nearly as often!)

Dave,

Once again, you bring up a great subject. The economy is horrible right now and our sales (aside from a handful of shows in the past year), have been down across the board. We even declined a few shows this past season because the sales and support just wasn't there after multiple tries previously. Most would say that this isn't the right time to make such an investment in equipment.

My issue is not about "keeping up with the Joneses", but remaining competitive. With six years of use on the VX2100 and four years on the GL2 (It was purchased used off of eBay, so there's no telling how many hours were put on it before that), I have a fear that one of these cameras will simply go down in the middle of a show. If that happens at a time when I can't afford to have it fixed or replaced, I could very well be out of business. I gotta be honest, that thought gives me more anxiety setting up at an event than actually pulling off a good taping. In other words, I view my cams as a weak link right now.

The initial idea was to get a decent camera that also shot SD to use as a third or just as a backup. However, with the shift to HD, it really makes no sense to go that route. Add to that, MiniDV tapes are becoming harder to find and an unnecessary expense with the advent of tapeless acquisition.

So, yeah. It's a very bad time to make such a leap. I'm not even sure my customers will notice a change to HD since we would still be providing our product on DVDs for the foreseeable future, so I can't even pass an additional cost onto them with the local competition ready to pounce at a lower price point.

In the end, it comes down to peace of mind - and even then I'll still have to worry about learning the new cameras and a different editing workflow. I'm still wavering back and forth on what is the best direction for us.

Hi Rey,
Just butting into your conversation there with Dave.

I was in a similar position last year to the one you describe. I have been shooting SD 4:3 up until then and never had any complaint about the work - weddings, small business and stage/dance shows. No one ever asked for HD nor even questioned that it was 4:3. However I felt that eventually I would be asked for HD, or at least widescreen so I had to take the plunge. My experience was at first very rocky adapting to an HD workflow, which still has its wobbly moments but at least the most of that is behind me now and like it or not the future is never going back to DV or 4:3.
However whether the change in technology has gained or retained any work is difficult to say. I have had a few dance schools drop out for reasons similar to yours, can't raise the order level to make it viable. but I have gained a couple of new ones. Business work has more than doubled but that was through previous connections based on old work so it wasn't the technology that brought it in.

I've still never been asked to provide anything other than DVD even though I offer Blu-ray, and never had any wildly excited comments about the picture quality, despite trying to tout for comments when I presented the new work. I just wanted to try and gauge if people who knew my work would notice a difference.

I'm someone who doesn't spend money easily believe me so I always go though mental battles when buying new kit, and there never is a good time to take a risk, but taking risks it what business is all about.

In the end I guess you just have to decide if you want to be a sustainable on-going business, in which case at some point you're going to have to invest some money, or trickle along until things blow out for you; which I hope they never do.

A couple additions to George's thoughts...

Most of the time you'll still deliver on DVD... but IMO because you start with HD, you can crop and still have better initial image quality - not to mention that if your render settings are well chosen, you simply will get a sharper end result by starting with more data/resolution.

Unless your video is truly dreadful, 99% of people probably won't "notice" - bad WB, focus issues, funky framing... yeah, they "look" bad, but it's still about what people "expect", even if it's not the level of quality YOU expect...

I think this is one of the main reasons I tend to upgrade/update - if *I* can see the difference, I will do the upgrade - the improved lattitude, sharper image, cleaner low light performance, and the results of 60p... such things matter to "me", even if no one else "cares" - I want my output to look as good as possible.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I doubt you could buy a new 4:3 SDTV if you tried... 4:3 displayed on the average widescreen of course looks "wrong" (yeah, so they COULD set there "tee-vee" up "right" for 4:3, like that's ever going to happen...). HD 16:9 will "look" right - it's also WAY better for framing stage shows - less space that goes to waste, and better side to side coverage. Widescreen is here to stay, and as 4:3 TV's "retire" due to age, they will be less and less of a market slice.

Equipment can fail anytime, that's just the way things are - stuff breaks - that's why multiple redundancy is necessary if you're getting paid. Tape is twitchier because of the mechanism, but you still need a backup of some kind, I tend to buy all but the most indestructable gear in pairs... if you're really stressing that your cameras have so much use on them that they are nearing the end of their life... you probably should sell while they still have some value, and save yourself the stress, but remember, ANY camera can fail, and not many will withstand an accidental gravity related incident unharmed...


From a practical economic standpoint "new" gear (bought at retail rather than at a reduced "street price" from a reliable vendor) always will cost the most, and have a pretty steep depreciation curve if you 'had" to sell it. Slightly used, nearly new "toys" can be had with careful buying for 20-40% off "retail" - I've never had a problem buying used, and my balance sheet is happier for it. I keep my eyes out for the "killer" deals and try to snap them up when they present themselves, I can always re-sell at "good" prices if I don't keep my insane deals! After the first year, prices tend to stabilize and go into a slow decline until the gear is nearing the end of its "useful" life, or is sufficiently obsolete that there's little demand for it. Your SD cameras are getting into THAT part of the curve... I've watched prices on "consumer" SD tape cameras absolutely collapse over the last couple years... and some crazy low prices on pro gear that's relatively new, but tape based.

You shouldn't just go blow a wad, and doing what you're doing to evaluate your options is the way to go - buy a piece at a time used once you've identified your "targets", sell off whatever becomes redundant to fund your "next find", and you shouldn't bust your budget. Things like tripods and support gear will last you a while, audio purchases shouldn't be "obsolete" nearly as quickly as cameras, and honestly the "improvement curve" is starting to get pretty flat in the camera domain - you're not going to get drastically "better" images beyond a certain point... there are a lot of economical options that shoot good HD now. Put a couple potential "kits" on paper, and go hunting!


Oh, as George notes, there is a learning curve with HD, you'll have to deal with it EVENTUALLY... the good thing is that lots of people have already done it, so you can study the forums here and save yourself some grief!

I want to expand on a point that Dave just made about "cropping." Since you have not worked with HD cams before, you would not have realized how handy this is for editing multi-cam shoots to DVD.

What I'm talking about is basically doing some mild digital zooming and reframing with your "b" cams. This is virtually undetectable when shooting HD for DVD. Let's say you have a CX cam on the opposite side of the room from where you are running your main cam and recording your audio. You have the CX set to the full width of the stage to get everybody in the choir. The small Sony cams, as well as the Panasonics and Canon Vixias, not only shoot in widescreen but they also have the equivalent of a 30° wide angle lens, which is far wider than you can get with your VX2100 and GL2 cams. So, at some point in the performance, you get a small group of choir members standing by themsleves for a particular song, say three or four of them. The full wide shot leaves a lot of empty space around them. You can (judiciously) zoom in to a better frame so the group does not look alone and tiny on a large empty stage. (You do this mentally while watching in person, but the mental adjustments work differently when watching later on video.) Or, maybe somebody walks in front of your main camera and you need a closer shot from another angle. Or, maybe somebody in the middle of the choir starts a solo while other folks on stage are block your view or, if you are like me, your drop the ball in zooming in promptly zooming in on the soloist with the main cam. n editing, I can cut to the other camera and pull a bit of zoom-in (actually, in Vegas, I think you crop and enlarge) and get a tighter shot.

This really is not practical with SD video. I find it to be a significant advantage (and stress reliever) in my multi-cam shoots of events, particularly recitals and choir performances.

Now, to add to the response to your question of whether or not one needs HD cams for what you do? I've always tried to spend the least to the most capability I could use --- I mean, I bought a VX2000 and used an XLR adapter rather than buying a PD150, for example --- so I fully understand what you say about economics. Let me add that I have yet to get even an inquiry about Blu-Ray versions of the weddings, events or shows. On the sign-up sheets for the dance recitals I've shot in the last couple of months, none of the hundreds of orders were for a Blu-Ray. My personal take on this was that I "needed" HD when my SD cams started to fail.

What I discovered with the move to HD, however, was that I had more capabilities and flexibility and much better video to work with. Even though I am not producing Blu-ray DVDs for anybody other than myself (I do make archival copies for myself), I find that HD cams make it significantly easier for me to do what I was I was doing with SD cams. By shooting multi-cam, I can offer both a quality and a kind of video that folks around here cannot make for themselves. That is what has turned out to be the business incentive for me. YMMV.

Both George and Dave have mentioned a learning curve to working with HDV. Personally, I have found the change over to be pretty easy except for some audio sync issues with HDV under Adobe CS2 and 3. (Cineform turned out to be an easy solution in my case.) The "curve" was in finding all sorts of new capabilities such as the crop and zoom with b cams. Again, YMMV.

Jay,

Cropping is one thing I never thought about and would definitely use. There have been many instances where my wide cam could/should have been zoomed in closer to a smaller group on a large stage. Most times, I am able to lean from the main cam just long enough to make that adjustment, but there's always that chance of missing a shot or not getting the zoomed shot focused properly in time. Frequently, it's a missed opportunity and I'm stuck with it in editing.

It looks as if I'll be stuck just under the $3k range for camera upgrades. I'm not sure where that will lead me in the next few weeks (the window I have to trade in the old/obtain the new) before more events on the calendar. However, a backlog of about a dozen projects currently in editing will allow plenty of "me" time to mull it over! :)