Have you considered locking down the XA10 for a wide shot and using your Z7 as the main camera? Then you could retire the FX1, still lighten your load and keep the XA10.

I really hadn't considered that as an option. I still don't have my head completely wrapped around the whole AVCHD concept. One problem is that I've been so busy I haven't had as much time to work with it as I would like ... but I must say that it looks like ClipWrap is the way to go, so thanks for that.

I'm going to guess that since I have to convert all footage anyway, that the two would work together without a problem.

I'll consider that suggestion. The only thing is now ... I wouldn't need the xlr inputs and could have gotten away with something less expensive. Lot's to think about.

Scott

I wouldn't need the xlr inputs and could have gotten away with something less expensive.

It's better to record the good audio on the XA10 because there will be no possibility of tape dropouts. This also allows you to maintain mobility with your main camera.

Scott, something to keep in mind: moving to avchd files may be problematic for you at this point, but millions of people worldwide are edting AVCHD files in FCP or with X.

The problems you are having is related to you NLE, not the files themselves. In Sony Vegas you drag and drop the files onto the timeline and you edit. It is not complicated. It shouldn't be complicated.

I read the about the gyrations that FCP users, etc go through with AVCHD and it just boggles my mind that Apple has made it so freaking complicated to edit AVCHD.

The fact that it needs to create proxies or perform conversions before you can edit blows my mind. At least with Vegas, despite the problems with the new release (crashes, etc) I can at least choose to convert my files or not.

The XA10 has every feature any average event shooter needs. The exposure compensation wheel on the rear of the camera is easy to use, though not as nice as the dials and such on larger cameras, but it works perfectly fine. The audio quality produced by the camera is absolutely second to none, in it's price range.

I'm not knocking the older cameras, but I wouldn't give 10 cents to have my old FX1000 or FX1 back.

The XA10 is very easy to use, but yes it takes a bit to learn with the stupid menus. I hate the damned menus. But for $1899 the video produced rivals some $6K cameras, and that is worth a lot.

AVCHD is what is happening, and people are doing it every day everywhere. The format was designed as a delivery medium, not for editing, which is why it's so taxing on a CPU. I fought AVCHD for a long time, but I eventually realized that for me, on my budget, I couldn't fight it any longer.

I feel your frustration, but you can do it, it's just a real pain to get past the learning curve.

Good luck with whatever you end up doing.

"I'm not knocking the older cameras, but I wouldn't give 10 cents to have my old FX1000 or FX1 back."

No, I'm not looking to keep using my FX1. As a matter of fact I'm probably going to look for a Sony AX2000 which means I'll have the same file issues. BUT ... it does have the manual buttons and a 20x optical lens. I'm not sure what other camera can deliver those features.

I'm thinking that Eric might be correct in that I can use the XA10 as a wider shot for events when needed.

I don't like the way FCPX handles the files, but I use nothing but Macs for everything else in my life and I'm not crazy about learning a new editing system. But I don't know ... maybe Vegas is just drag and drop. It wouldn't kill me to purchase a laptop with an affordable editing system if I knew I could pick it up quickly. (Normally I don't.)

My editing needs are very, very basic. I need to be able to capture and sync two or three audio sources and switch between two cameras. In fact ... the majority of my events are single camera with multiple audio sources.

I have a very simple wedding later this month. I'm going to shoot with my Z7 and have my wife shoot from the back with the XA10. That should give me a good idea of how far I can go with it.

Bottom line ... I'm not ditching it yet, but do have to look for something to use with it.

You know Scott, I hear really, really great things about Edius. Problem is I think it's expensive, and I'm not sure how easy it is to learn.

If you're so heavy into Apple products, I see your problem. I personally would want to stick with with what I have also. Learning a new NLE is not my idea of fun.

FWIW: some MAC users use BootCamp to run more format friendly editing software on a MAC; e.g., Edius.

From what some have posted, sounds like moving from FCP 6 or 7 to FCPX is about like learning a new NLE.

Workign with a freind who switched from Matrox ona PC to FCP6 ona MAc, he is haveing fits due to the propensity of Apple to not play well with others. Getting video to him to include in a project has been difficult. I cannot just send him an AVI or MTS file.

I downloaded a trial version of Edius 6. You can drag and drop files onto the timeline from a windows explorer window, or import them, just as you can with Vegas.

Edius has a very nice multicam feature, and playback of multiple video streams is absolutely perfect, no judder or slowdown of any kind. It really puts Vegas to shame in this regard. It doesn't have thumbnails on the timeline, which I miss, but it may be possible to change a setting to make that happen. Edius really does have some nice features. It runs a smooth as silk. I may try to find time to make a mini movie and see how it works from beginning to end.

I moved to Edius after Avid killed Liquid, in large part for its AVCHD support, and have not looked back. It makes working with mixed formats of video a snap, and it offers a high degree of customization of the inteface.

Glad I found this thread. I am considering the purchase of a HF G10 and have questions about its ability to handle wide changes in light level at stage events.

I have a Sony XR-500V HD camcorder that I am very happy with except for shooting stage events, which I do several times a year at my grand children's elementary school. The lighting is erratic at these events - not so much in colors but in light levels. They have white spot lights that they move across the stage in apparent random fashion (the lights are run by 5th grade school students). Auto-exposure doesn't work well at all for these events (black curtain at the back of the stage fools the meter). So I use manual exposure, but when reviewing the footage at home on a large screen I often find that the faces of the students in the spot light (and only those students) are overexposed and they look like featureless ghosts.

The rest of their body is exposed OK, it's just their faces that are over-exposed. And the faces of the rest of the kids are exposed OK. While shooting, I can't tell that the faces in the spotlight are over-exposed because in a wide shot of the stage with 30-40 students on stage, each student's face occupies such a small portion of the camcorder's LCD screen that I can't see the overexposure (and the Sony doesn't have zerbras.) The only solution I have found is to intentionally under-expose the overall scene so the faces in the spotlight don't overexpose. But then the rest of the scene looks too dark.

I know that no camcorder can duplicate the human eye's ability to handle wide differences in lighting levels, but I would like to be able to minimize these over-exposures and am wondering about the G10's ability to do so.

Two questions;

1. The G10 claims to have 280% better dynamic range (not sure what they are comparing to). Do you G10 owners notice a significantly better ability to handle the the type of lighting that I described, when compared to other camcorders you have used?

2. Will the G10 zebras show up on its LCD screen when only a tiny portion of the overall scene is over-exposed, such as 4-5 students' faces that are in the spotlight while the other 30-35 students are out of the spotlight? Or do the zebras only show up when a larger area is overexposed?

Thanks for any insight you can provide. I'd hate to spend $1,300+ on a camcorder only to find it doesn't do much better than my Sony in these situations.

I shot my first "School Play" with my G10 a couple of days ago. At first I tried the "spotlight" setting but it didn't open up when panning to a darker area, which I needed to do, so I used "Program" instead.

I am absolutely blown away by how this camera handles stage conditions. Canon say that fewer, but larger pixels gives wider dynamic range.... and does it ever! It's not quite "HDR" but it's not far off. The footage was gorgeous, with deep blacks in the shadows, and crisp, well exposed highlights on the stage.

Compared to my old XM2, which seemed to want to "average" exposure, the G10 is a huge improvement.

In my experience, the zebras will show up if a small portion is over exposed.

Thanks, Geoff. That helps.

I've just seen this thread and although it may be past the time of helpfulness, I still felt compelled to make some comments.

I have the XF100, the next model up from the XA10. It has the same sensor and chip, but a 50mps 4:2:2 codec, more manual buttons, a bit more size, uncompressed audio, etc. and use it with Final Cut X now although I used FCP 7 for several years. First, if anyone is having trouble adjusting from Final Cut 7 to X, I highly recommend taking the time to go thru a few tutorials - you'll never go back. Last fall I subscribed to lynda.com for a month ($25) and did the tutorials there - but there are others that are also good. And for someone like the OP who is doing fairly simple clips and cuts - FCPX is worlds faster than 7.

I also don't understand the problem with AVCHD - either with FCP7 or X. There are certainly no "gyrations" to go through. You just tell the video to import, and it copies it from the card and converts it in one step. It doesn't take very long (it of course depends on the speed of your computer), and In Final Cut X you can even see the files immediately, go ahead and begin editing native, and the conversion finishes in the background. There is definitely no reason to use Clipwrap or similar software. The codec used by my XF100 can actually be imported and edited natively in FCPX, but I never do that - the experience is just so much better using ProRes.

In fact, you can even scan through your clips and set in and out points before importing in both 7 and X. I actually use this as a first rough cut in my workflow.

So, count me as VERY pleased with my little Canon and FCP X.

David ... how timely for your post as I have an update regarding the camera and FCPX.

My understanding was that the App store would not allow your computer to upgrade to X if you did not have a compatible graphics card. Either I was wrong or it let me slip through. Turns out my iMac did NOT have a compatible card, which made it almost impossible to use.

Just today I received the latest iMac (I know ... coming out with new stuff soon) with an upgraded card and the fastest I could get. I still need to add RAM.

I shot a wedding this weekend with the Canon and Sony AX-2000 and FCPX did a great job of getting the files. In all my posts in different forums, no one ever asked about the graphics card and me not really getting all the tech stuff never checked. I came across someone elses post which led me to a compatibility list.

I'm still not overly excited about the camera for what I do because of the lack of buttons, but I grant that it does take some really nice shots. For now I'm holding onto it, but we'll see how it goes.

Thanks again to everyone.

I also don't understand the problem with AVCHD - either with FCP7 or X.

One of the issues is you have to have the camcorder, or the card with the camcorder folder structure on it, not just the MTS files alone. That can makes working with stuff shot be someone else a bit less convenient.

Scott:

Yes, you'd probably enjoy the buttons and features of the XF100, but it's more expensive.

And on your iMac, if they introduce new ones next week at the World Wide Developers Conference, I'd return it and get the newer one - you may still be within the return period!

One of the issues is you have to have the camcorder, or the card with the camcorder folder structure on it, not just the MTS files alone. That can makes working with stuff shot be someone else a bit less convenient.

So, you just give them the card, or a disc image of same - takes (on a Mac) literally a right-click to create. And, I have read that the downside of editing native files is that the export of the final movie takes longer in Premiere Pro on a Mac than in FCP X, so - there are pros and cons to every approach and workflow.

Look, I don't care what someone chooses to use, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to change anything they do. However, there were just some messages earlier in this thread that seemed to imply that using Final Cut Pro X in general, and AVCHD files in particular, on a Mac was really complicated. That's simply not the case, and I just wanted to provide a little counterpoint. As someone else pointed out, millions of editors use FCP, both 7 and X, with AVCHD daily without drama.

One just has to know and follow the work flow rules. They are not obvious to all users. And if the material originates in a not-a-Mac environment ...

I've just seen this thread and although it may be past the time of helpfulness, I still felt compelled to make some comments.

I have the XF100, the next model up from the XA10. It has the same sensor and chip, but a 50mps 4:2:2 codec, more manual buttons, a bit more size, uncompressed audio, etc. and use it with Final Cut X now although I used FCP 7 for several years. First, if anyone is having trouble adjusting from Final Cut 7 to X, I highly recommend taking the time to go thru a few tutorials - you'll never go back. Last fall I subscribed to lynda.com for a month ($25) and did the tutorials there - but there are others that are also good. And for someone like the OP who is doing fairly simple clips and cuts - FCPX is worlds faster than 7.

I also don't understand the problem with AVCHD - either with FCP7 or X. There are certainly no "gyrations" to go through. You just tell the video to import, and it copies it from the card and converts it in one step. It doesn't take very long (it of course depends on the speed of your computer), and In Final Cut X you can even see the files immediately, go ahead and begin editing native, and the conversion finishes in the background. There is definitely no reason to use Clipwrap or similar software. The codec used by my XF100 can actually be imported and edited natively in FCPX, but I never do that - the experience is just so much better using ProRes.

In fact, you can even scan through your clips and set in and out points before importing in both 7 and X. I actually use this as a first rough cut in my workflow.

So, count me as VERY pleased with my little Canon and FCP X.

David, good post which I agree with fully. My G10 works fine with FCPX and I'm on an older (2006) MacPro. There is one fly in the ointment, and that is FC can't see PsF files as progressive. They come in as interlaced and I've tried a few ways to get around it, but no joy. So I stick with 60i or 24p, which is a pity because I have a feeling 30p would be a happy medium, but causes too may problems at the moment. Anyway, back on topic.... I think the G10 is brilliant for stage events, and I bet the XA10 is even better... :-)

You can make FCP X treat PsF footage as progressive as follows:
Select the clip(s) in the event library.
Select the "Info" tab in the inspector.
Select "Settings View" from the drop down menu at the bottom of the inspector.
Change the "Field Dominance Override" field in the inspector to progressive.

Hope this helps.

This was quite a thread about a year ago and the info I received was quite helpful. By the end I was ready to give up on the XA10 and considered selling it. I did also end up purchasing the Sony AX2000 because of the 20x zoom. So what happened in the last year?

I ended up not doing a lot of video after spring, but then it started picking up again. The amazing thing is that I now like my XA10 more than the AX2000. When going to DVD I just don't see any difference in the picture.

What happened is that I'm now providing a regional theatre with archive videos of their shows. It almost killed me not to be able to physically run the camera, but I'm required to set it up at a wide angle, hit record and leave it alone ... I don't even sit near it ... but then it showed me how much the camera can do on its own and I really like the results.

I started setting the camera in Program Mode with shutter priority (Tv) and using manual focus. I didn't want the camera shooting in anything less than 1/60 shutter speed, but any other adjustments was fine with me.

This weekend I shot 5 events in 4 days. The last day I finally decided to use my Canon as my main camera and Sony for the wide. The 10x lens isn't as restrictive as I thought it was going to be and now I'm going to consider the new XA20 when it comes out.

I do think that the Canon is harder, much harder to get used to, but that's because I've used Sony's for a lot of years and they all basically worked the same.. I miss the external controls, but I'm getting used to the wheel on the Canon.

After hauling around equipment this last week I kept thinking ... if I could put two cameras in one bag and XLR cables and digital recorders in another it would make things so much simpler. So, that's the way I'm headed.

Thanks for all the input last year. It was quite helpful and opened my eyes to a new way of shooting. It's probably time to put up a couple of Sony's for sale.