I'll try to make it short as possible...thanks in advance.

I have worked in wedding videography in the past and I'm looking to get back into it. Along with weddings, I'm also going to be doing sports work as well. (filming games and providing season highlights DVDs and editing recruiting videos). My equipment is outdated. I was shooting with Panasonic DVX100 (it was the IT camera when I first purchased..lol).

I would like some feedback on what I should be looking at. I know DSLRs are all the rage but I don't think one would be in my best interest for all the other work besides weddings. My budget is somewhere in the 3k range for a camera. I know this is vague but just looking for some guidance. I've enjoyed reading here for a while. Thanks

Hi Michael

The first time I came on here the advice was "run. run as fast as you can" I ignored it of course!!

Now this is just my POV but for me after 23 years on Panasonic they went downhill after the HMC150 ...I'm not sure why but my feelings about the AC series is not good. I bought (as a dedicated Panny user) two new AC-130's and the bottom line was I sold them in disgust 3 months later at a loss so I wouldn't look at them I have an idea that after the Tsunami in Japan they were made in China as quality took a huge hit!!

I liked the DSLR quality but hated the form factor and crappy audio (no XLR's) so I went to Sony EA-50's which have a bit of both video camera and DSLR and I love them. All I can suggest to look at everything and see if you can maybe rent a few selected cameras that take your fancy within your price range. It's a personal thing ..sorta like buying a car ... they are all good but we all have our personal favourites!!

Chris

Hi Michael, first thought -- save your money, use the DVX! As long as you have a light to get you through the reception, and are happy to work with tape, there's nothing wrong with that camera.

Hey Adrian

Depends on the head hours .. unlike card cameras DV tape camera head do wear and I doubt whether Panny would have spares now ... plus there is wear and tear on the capstan and the rubbers go hard after a while ... cards makes weddings a lot cheaper too .. I used to go thru 4 tapes at a wedding at $8.00 a pop ... in 6 months you have used up nearly 100 tapes and spent $800 ..probably more now!! I toss out 4 cards every 6 months only so it's a big saving on media. Then you can only transfer tape in real time so that also means more hours for editing to cost in ... a 60 minute tape takes 60 minutes to capture .. an hour of video on card takes only minutes to download.

Chris

You cant film a wedding on one camera so you need 2 perhaps three, get two canon hfg 25s and a hfm 56/506 and your good to go.

Hi Michael, first thought -- save your money, use the DVX

I have had a dvx100 and how wonderful it has been when it was introduced it is not a camera you would be using today as it's image is quite outdated compared to what camera's are able to deliver today. If you charge very low prices you might get away with shooting and delivering on dvd only but I would rather shoot an entire wedding with my sony cx730 handicam instead of a 4:3 SD camera and it will still look better on a big led screen. Also not sure if clients will accept a dvx100 image these days.

I think Michael will be most happy with a similar formfactor camera, maybe stretch his budget a bit and get the newly announced dvx100 successor?: New Camera: Panasonic AG-DVX200 (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/panasonic-avvcam/new-camera-panasonic-ag-dvx200.html)

I've been in your shoes . . . filmed high school football and events/weddings.
The problem is they are 2 totally different camera needs (in my opinion).

Sports require Lanc, long zoom, no need for xlr.
Weddings require low light sensitivity.

I have a Panny AC160a for sports and stage performances; Sony EA50 for weddings, events, interviews.
I pair both with a Canon G30 and a D70.
These days it's hard to find a lanc equipped camera for under $2k.

My advice with your budget is a camera like the Canon G30. You could get 2 for $2500.
It's not ideal (lame exposure controls compared to an iris ring, no XLR) but it's definitely do-able.
Beware of going the tempting route of the new 4k cameras . . . you may end up spending a lot in post hardware.

Beware of going the tempting route of the new 4k cameras . . . you may end up spending a lot in post hardware.

They also all shoot 1080p so you don't have to shoot 4K, but if you would have a project that required 4K you at least have the choice.

Frankly, I would keep shooting with the DVX100. Take it out, test it and make sure it's still in good working order, that you're not getting any kind of image issues with the tape heads or anything. Probably a good idea to go ahead and clean the tape drive mechanism if you haven't used it in a while. You might even want to have it professionally serviced (just a cleaning and inspection) if it's a reasonable cost.

Then book yourself a few gigs and get back into the swing of shooting with it. Decide what you like and what you think could be improved. Do you like the fixed lens? Would you prefer a lens mountable body instead? Would you like better low-light performance? What about workflow? Pick your gigs and be upfront that it's SD of course (but people still seem to deliver a lot of DVDs for this type of shooting), but I would do some cheaper gigs first and decide what would be the best investment in gear going forward instead of doing it all upfront.

I purchased a Sony AX100 for our "live event" coverage gigs to complement two C100s. It produces quite a nice picture both in 1080P and 4K. It's not great in low light, but I would think it's on-par with anything else out there in a similar fixed-lens price bracket. I'm happy with it and the autofocus works well for moving subjects.

I'm drooling a bit over the DVX200 as well, contrary to what others may think of it... Otherwise, what about a nice used EX1R or something?

Hi Michael, first thought -- save your money, use the DVX! As long as you have a light to get you through the reception, and are happy to work with tape, there's nothing wrong with that camera.

I respectfully disagree, Adrian. Michael specified that his equipment was outdated (which it is) and asked for recommendations on something newer.

SD? He can't post web samples in SD. Well he could, but it would be embarrasing, IMO. Plus, let's keep in mind that the DVX was never a good lowlight performer to begin with, so what do you do for ceremonies? Standards have changed, customer expectations have evolved with the newer cams and people expect somewhat more than they did in 2002, and Michael seems to understand that.

Personally I cannot make a sound recommendation, I'm not up with the newest. I have a preference for Sony so I would probably begin looking at the Sony CX900, the AX100, or the Sony PXW-X70. Very nice images if you can live with slow auto focus.

Nate's suggestion for a used EX1R is excellent, if you can get one at a great price.

+1 for Nates suggestion of a used EX1/r. Excellent camera, you wont go far wrong with one of these. The video on the opening page of my website was shot with an EX1, it was in one of the darkest churches I have ever worked in, the EX1 coped with ease. It has been said on this thead, and in many others that you cant shoot a wedding with only one camera, I would take that with a pinch of salt. Since 1982 I have shot over 1000 weddings, the vast majority of these were shot on one camera. With forward planning, and lots of infill shots, it works.The only reason I ever used to take a second camera with me, was for backup. I hasten to add that I have done many two and three camera shoots in recent years. But still shoot with one, when I can get away with it.

Wow, single camera operators still exists. I kinda thought and dare I say hoped such Videographers were extinct in this century. The 1980's and 90's are far behind us. Filming single camera is just so archaic. Oh look, lets cut to a shot of flowers cos the Videographer is changing position.
I've alas had the misfortune to edit single camera Wedding footage not too many years ago. It was frustrating. Speeches without jump cuts, but relying on slow pans across the audience back to the Best Man you desperately wanted to see when he uttered that funny line 20 seconds ago. No quick reaction shots from the couple. I also noted the Videographer moved about a bit during the Ceremony, no doubt compensating for a lack of other cameras and does explain the endless lectures from Vicars on how I must not move during the service like the last Videographer did. "Did he by any chance film with just the one camera?" "yes he did"; at which point I reassure him or her that they can expect differently from me.

No one denies you can't film with one camera, hell I can film with a Smartphone if the need arised and still make it look better than Uncle Joe's work. But really, there are so many situations where multi camera has raised the quality of the final video, or 'modern looking' as so many of my clients have chosen to describe my videos. Plus let me add, when 4K is seeing a rise, no one should be filming SD even if you're delivering a DVD. I get couples asking if I film HD and my reply is always, no Professional Videographer out there is filming SD at the moment. If 4K makes HD look good, HD makes SD look good. My SD work 10 years ago looks exactly as it is - a product of its time. My recommendation - make good use of that 3K budget and upgrade.

Hey Michael, I guess what I'd want to add is that better cameras are always around the corner, and prices are always dropping on existing cameras. The longer you can hold off before buying anything, the better deal you'll get.

If you want to treat a possible purchase as a pure business asset, then put aside the thrill of upgrading to a new camera, and ask yourself whether you can make do with what you have and whether a new purchase will actually generate any money. I think broadcasters generally think like this -- they won't upgrade till they absolutely have to, and then, when they do, instead of setting an arbitrary budget and looking for the camera that provides most bang for buck, they might look for the cheapest camera that satisfies their requirements.

Another consideration: if you already have a DVX, and want to buy another camera, think about getting a camera that will match your DVX, so that you can shoot with both at the same time.

There's no right or wrong about when to buy. And what no one, including me, who's responding to your question knows is what your particular requirements are. Do you want to shoot documentary or cinematic? Are your couples happy with SD? Would you really lose business if you didn't shoot HD? How dark are the venues that you're shooting in? Are you structuring your packages by number of cameras you bring? Do you include absolutely everything (for instance, all of a priest's homily during a ceremony), or do you have the discretion to truncate that to grab cutaways during that time?

For what it's worth, there are people out there that love the DVX100 still! I remember reading an article in American Cinematographer last year where someone (I forget who) shot their feature on a DVX, because they loved the image out of it. They said something like they want to keep shooting on it till it falls apart and there are no replacement parts available. At the end of the day, image quality is a subjective thing...

I think important to know is what "getting into the game" actually means for Michael, if he intends to shoot weddings and be competitive I strongly would advice not to continue to use his dvx100. This is not a matter of that there always are better camera's around the corner, wedding clients do see the difference today between HD and SD and a 4:3 SD camera like the dvx100 where the image has been letterboxed to 16:9 looks quite bad in comparison with any HD camera you buy today. Some months back I had cleaned up my office and came across some 10 year old weddingdvds done with my vx2100 and dvx100 and I looked at a few on my big led screen again, the resolution difference has become so obvious. Also consider that a dvx, just like a vx2100 shoots in 4:3 and looses quite some resolution if you deliver in 16:9 and that resolution hit can become unacceptable for todays wedding clients, only because it is so obvious, even when you share a video online.

There are ofcourse still people that shoot with sd camera's as in my country I still find a few that have 4:3 demo's on their website, and there are still people that don't see the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 or there are people that watch 4:3 programs stretched to 16:9 on their tv and they can't tell the difference. I also see 4:3 videos of sportscoverage like soccergames on youtube and then a dvx100 can look fine, so for some markets a SD camera will still be good to use.

However, if you want to survive in a highly competitive market you need to have at least a HD camera, even if it's only one. I have filmed several years with only one camera when I started out. During that time I didn't much think about it but many people asked me what I would do if my camera would malfunction. Now fast forward to today I think that I took quite a big risk and was lucky I survived it, I would not go to a wedding today with one camera only, I couldn't imagine having to go to the bride and say "sorry, my camera refuses to start up anymore and I have to go home now". But I know several shooters that carry just one camera, I currently feel it's not worth the risk.

Having a backup camera doesn't have to be a expensive upgrade, there are several camera's below 1K that are perfectly fine to shoot weddings with.

Wow, some of the advice provided here telling Michael to keep his equipment is down right wrong.

People are going 4K now. He has a budget of 3k and NEEDS to be filming in HD at least. That will last him several years from now before he can consider the jump to 4K.

If you plan on getting business and making your life easier film in HD.

With 3,000 to spend there are plenty of options. I would get a Sony EA50 or two ... it's practically a DSLR in a ENG style body so you have the best of both worlds. Or look in to a pre-owned FS100, they're ridiculously cheap now in the used market. I saw one sell for £1000 on ebay in perfect condition (body only) which is about $1600.

Wow, some of the advice provided here telling Michael to keep his equipment is down right wrong.

It doesn't have to be downright wrong, ofcourse he can continue to use this camera and sell anything that comes out of it, but weddingclients are not all that ignorant anymore. Almost everyone knows the difference between SD en HD these days and because they often will visit more then one videographer the difference will become very obvious to them if you show a letterboxed 4:3 SD recording on a big led screen.

James, you do amazing work. And the thing is -- I'm sure you could shoot an amazing wedding on a smartphone or a GoPro if you had to. The operator matters more than the camera.

Admittedly, both a smartphone and a GoPro are HD! But I think whether HD is necessary depends on your market and your circumstances. If you're only delivering to clients in SD, and they're happy with 4:3 aspect ratio, and you can make it look jaw-dropping, and the price is right, why couldn't you make money that way?

I have done 4 weddings in the last 6 months, getting back into the game, 3 for free and finally one paying.
This is what I have learned and used, using minimal budget.
First and second weddings used a Sony HDR-XR260 and a borrowed Sony HDR-XR500 and 2 x Go Pros.
Then I got a Sony a6000 at Christmas for an unbelievable price and added that to the above mix.
I found the Go Pros too unreliable to get running, and the batteries don't last. So I recently bought the baby Sony CX240 as a safety camera as it will run for hours unlike the GoPro's but is a bit noisy in low light, but Neat Video helps.
The a6000 has been great as my main camera, but can overheat and shut down in as little as 12 minutes. But, if I keep the tripod mount on it it lasts the full 30 minutes (usually) it must act as a heat sink.
I had a failure at the last wedding with the a6000 and lost a chunk of the wedding vows. I think it was caused by my choice of sd card, Samsung EVO, It only has a write speed of 19Mb/s gotta watch those specs. So I've just ordered a Lexar 600x that B&H were clearing out, that should do the job.
The important thing is I didn't know when the a6000 had stopped recording and I had swung my safety cam beside me to the congregation and it also missed that part of the ceremony. Luckily the little CX240 up on the balcony got enough to get away with, because I have great sound.

The best think I did was to get (2) Rode SmartLav+ mics and a Zoom H1 recorder. I use a Smartlav+ on the groom into my Sony Xperia Z phone recording with Recforge II and it works brilliantly. I have used the Zoom with a cable to PA systems or pointing to PA speakers the rest of the time.

If I didn't have great audio for the above mentioned CX240 clip, it would not be so good.

Of course I would like much better camera's but that will come it time. Honing my editing skills and upgrading to Adobe Premiere Pro CC was the best thing I have done.

I should add that back in the 80's my wedding videos were all single camera jobs and assemble edited on tape.

Those were the days Mervyn. Skill and nerve

Wow, some of the advice provided here telling Michael to keep his equipment is down right wrong.

Not really. Why spend money when he doesn't have to? He's trying to get back into the game after all, and what about the absolute ton of wedding videos that his DVX shot back in the day? All utter crap now? Is that how that follows? That all those poor people got married at the wrong time because their wedding was shot on a DVX?

People are going 4K now.

Are they asking 4K or are you telling them they should go 4K? I see a lot of pushing to go 4K, but not a lot of asking to go 4K.

He has a budget of 3k and NEEDS to be filming in HD at least.

Needs to be? Or is that simply a "need" that comes about because people have to justify their purchases? Do you know for sure that there would be trouble if you didn't film in HD?

That will last him several years from now before he can consider the jump to 4K.

But you just said people are going 4K now, and yet HD will last for several years? How does that follow?

Let me clarify something here with a question: what exactly does Michael lose by holding onto his 3K for now and trying to book some weddings? What is the terrible consequence going to be of shooting a wedding with his DVX if his clients are aware of his work and are fine with a DVD as the final deliverable? In my opinion, the absolute worst that can happen is that he cannot get any bookings. Fine, if you cannot book any weddings with your DVX, then look at spending some money to get what you are told you need in order to book that business.

But if he's upfront and has samples and a couple books him and loves their DVD, then what's your problem exactly? Remember, there was a time when DVX cameras were everywhere shooting weddings, and couples loved the video. I even shot one of those! And yet now those videos are just crap? Is that what is being said here? The venues don't seem to have changed that much, definitely not as much as the cameras.

As little as 6 years ago I still had my Panny AVC20 cameras ..that's right with 1/6" chips too and shots tons of weddings in 4:3 and brides loved them. Most, if not all DVD players will simply letterbox and the bride won't know the difference. He can use his DVX as long as the heads are still OK.

James?? Exactly what media are you proposing to supply 100 minutes of 4K wedding video on?? I'm all ears ... My brides STILL only want DVD even though they have big 60" flatscreen TV's, they still only have a $29.00 Chinese DVD Player.

I can see an advantage of using 4K like Noa does but I cannot see any practical way to give the bride a 4K video yet.

It's still all about content and a monkey with a 4K camera will get less work than a skilled operator with a 4:3 MiniDV tape camera

Also you buy a 4K camera and what happens when you try to edit the files on your DuoCore computer which worked fine with SD files?? Suddenly you are spending more on computer upgrades than cameras

I wouldn't freak the poor guy talking about 4K if he's actually contemplating still using his DVX100. HD will be more than adequate I'm sure - I filmed nearly 40 weddings last year and only 2 couples asked for blu-ray! 4K is a long long way off for me. I can see why it is handy for crop and zoom during the edit but not for delivery.

I started with a Sony Z1 and a Panasonic GS280 - filming about a dozen weddings in my first year, shooting in SD and delivering on DVD. My other kit was 2 tripods and 2 audio recorders - a damn site easier than all the kit I lug around these days! (having said that the quality of my work has improved because of it)

He could buy a Sony HXR-NX30 E along with a Sony PJ870 for within his budget and film happily for a couple of years at least.

Best option if I were him would be to buy a Sony EA50 used (about £2K) and a sony PJxxx handycam for a second camera - they'll match up nicely

Pete

I've transferred a lot of Wedding videos to DVD and in nearly all cases the clients have made some comment on how their Wedding video looks quite old fashioned compared to modern Wedding videos. And it is clear from watching them. Even those filmed with good quality cameras reflect the linear editing made to produce them. Of course they were happy with them at the time and still are; it is their Wedding video and valued because of it. Its like when I'm looking at old photos from my childhood. The quality of them is shit, but you kind of overlook it. Doesn't mean I'd accept that quality in photos taken now; same with video. Things move on. I don't begrudge my early Wedding work; I'm quite proud of it, but that doesn't mean I wish to dig out my first Camcorder and film a Wedding with it. Then again I don't pander to nostalgia.

4K is looking more likely as a future format for filming. I don't think its going to become the norm so soon as to need to put 4K as a priority now. It's a priority for me, but then I've just finished editing a 4K Wedding, which I'm delivering to the clients via an external hard drive. I have 2 more 4K jobs this year and expect more for 2016.

Obviously Michael is free to make up his own mind on whether sticking with SD or not is valid. All I can say is that when I got back into Weddings in 2010, the first thing I did was buy an HD camcorder. A decision I never regretted; a wise investment, as I still use the camera regularly as a Guestcam.

Needs to be? Or is that simply a "need" that comes about because people have to justify their purchases? Do you know for sure that there would be trouble if you didn't film in HD?

But you just said people are going 4K now, and yet HD will last for several years? How does that follow?

Let me clarify something here with a question: what exactly does Michael lose by holding onto his 3K for now and trying to book some weddings? What is the terrible consequence going to be of shooting a wedding with his DVX if his clients are aware of his work and are fine with a DVD as the final deliverable? In my opinion, the absolute worst that can happen is that he cannot get any bookings. Fine, if you cannot book any weddings with your DVX, then look at spending some money to get what you are told you need in order to book that business.

But if he's upfront and has samples and a couple books him and loves their DVD, then what's your problem exactly? Remember, there was a time when DVX cameras were everywhere shooting weddings, and couples loved the video. I even shot one of those! And yet now those videos are just crap? Is that what is being said here? The venues don't seem to have changed that much, definitely not as much as the cameras.

I would like to counter your questions by asking how the OP intends to advertise his services. From what I understand, he's shot weddings a long time ago. Now he wants to get back in the game.

So from what I understand he will set up a website, on that website he will talk about delivering services in DVD 4:3 format ? I can almost bet he won't get a single client.

He has told us that he has a reasonable budget of 3,000. Which is enough for 2 good camcorders atleast so I have told him to go HD and scrap the old tech that he is used too.


James?? Exactly what media are you proposing to supply 100 minutes of 4K wedding video on?? I'm all ears ... My brides STILL only want DVD even though they have big 60" flatscreen TV's, they still only have a $29.00 Chinese DVD Player.

I understand Chris, i'm in the same boat. But service providers like to stay on top of technology so I simply said people are going 4K now. Suppliers wouldn't be stocking them if they weren't selling !

Best option if I were him would be to buy a Sony EA50 used (about £2K) and a sony PJxxx handycam for a second camera - they'll match up nicely

Pete

This is exactly what I would probably buy with that budget. Great recommendation.

So from what I understand he will set up a website, on that website he will talk about delivering services in DVD 4:3 format?

First, you don't need to talk about delivering services on DVD in 4:3 format. That's the kind of technical jargon that I'm sure most potential clients will simply roll their eyes up into the back of their head over. You provide samples and say the deliverable is on DVD. That would be it.

I can almost bet he won't get a single client.

$100 says he can get a client regardless of it being 4:3 on DVD. You in?

Give it a rest Gary.

The OP has 3 grand to spend. I've made some recommendations. I don't understand why everyone is telling him NOT to spend that money when all you read now is people banging on about 4K.

The least the OP can do is move in to the HD era

I don't understand why everyone is telling him NOT to spend that money when all you read now is people banging on about 4K

Because the people banging on about 4K and the people who will pay him for his services are two different groups of people.

The least the OP can do is move in to the HD era

The least the OP can do is hone his skill set with a few jobs and see if he really wants to get back into it or not before spending $3000 of his own money. Why is the first thing on your and other like minded individuals minds to immediately spend all of it on gear? Are you trying to justify your own sunk costs?

For crying out loud, the guy wants equipment recommendations because he KNOWS his equipment is outdated and his camera is 13 years old.

Why are we trying to talk him into doing something else?

Why does this need to turn into a debate or argument? I don't get it.

Why does this need to turn into a debate or argument? I don't get it.

It's really quite simple, Jeff. There are some people who think before he does a single thing, that he should spend three thousand dollars. There are others who think that he has a camera that was perfectly fine at one point in history and that he might be able to get in some work before he has to go and start spending money.

How would you like to resolve those two differences of opinion?

Maybe Michael can chime in to let us know if he even would consider to continue using his DVX?

From a practical standpoint, you won't buy a 4:3 TV anywhere, so shooting in 4:3 SD is probably not a realistic option (particularly for the sports component of the OP's request).

I gather the OP has made the business decisions, developed a budget, and knows what he's willing to invest. Fortunately, technology is better and cheaper, so there are plenty of options, no reason to try to consider "competing" with an outdated camera that will likely look worse than many current cell phones...

Buy good reasonably current gear used, if it doesn't work out, it should still sell for enough to recoup a good portion of the investment.


I'd suggest a used Sony AX100 and RX10, which would leave budget for fast cards, extra batteries, and maybe a little to go towards a computer upgrade if that's needed for efficient editing. I don't consider the computer upgrades to be unreasonable, as they also mean you can do everything else faster and more efficiently with a current computer. Producing professional quality HD, with some 4K options available from the above pair should be easy enough, without spending an arm and a leg.

A computer upgrade SHOULD be part of the consideration if the computer is of the same era as the camera - tech moves fast, and you're not going to edit 100Mbps 60p XAVCS on a Core Duo turtle. A 4K capable system with a big 4K TV for a monitor is doable under $1K, so that shouldn't be an obstacle.

How would you like to resolve those two differences of opinion?

I would stop trying to tell the poster what to do and instead give him the advice he asked for, which was for equipment recomendations.

I think you should video and record in the highest quality format you can afford for the current era. Back in the 80's I would spend a heap of money and hire a 3 tube camera and uMatic portapak or even once ran cables from the camera to a desktop uMatic. I can still play back the original uMatic tapes and the images look great.
I can't afford an all 4k setup right now, but I would compromise for something like my current gear a6000 in my control and a Sony FDR-AX100 up high at the back of the church for example, recording in 4k and be able to zoom and crop into that footage to make it look like I have even more cameras.
I would not deliver 4k to wedding customers yet.
I agree with Chris H most only want a DVD.
They are happy to have a BlueRay or 1080p on a memory stick (limited bitrate) if I offer it.
But then I havent dealt with many people in recent time.

So I can only recommend the Sony a6000 from a personal view, I love the picture quality and low light capability, but be aware of its limitations.
You can pretty much use any Full HD camera. Knowing its limitations and what you do with it that counts.

I must say for the budget of the original poster, I would probably buy 2 Sony HXR-NX30 or one and a AX100.

New equipment now and then is exciting and sometimes exactly what we need to give ourselves a little kick in the pants when starting or re-starting out on something new. Whatever his decision, I would purchase something nice and modern but not something brand new. That way it can easily be sold if the situation changes without taking a loss. Sometimes you even can make money selling gear!

That way it can easily be sold if the situation changes without taking a loss. Sometimes you even can make money selling gear!

That's the thing. Both of those scenarios are extremely unlikely. I have sold a lot of gear. A lot and the best I can do is come out where I got enough use out of it that I'm well below rental rates when it comes to how much of a loss I take on it. And it only has gotten worse over the last two years. Nothing is worth anything after a year, hardly. Look at your own C100 Mark I. Look at the FS700. Look at the F3.

I guess what I meant by that was buy used sell used. Used camera X isn't going to typically lose a significant portion of its value if you sell it after 3 months (unless the manufacturer suddenly and drastically changes the MSRP...) A year, or more? Now you're losing value, but the main point I was trying to make was that a new camera will always lose value - immediately. Like driving a car off the lot. A used one? Sell it quick enough and you might come out even or at least minimize your loss. Use that camera a few times in that period and you're looking at an excellent return on investment.

It doesn't happen very often but I've purchased a used camera or lens for a project before and sold it afterwards for equal or more than I've paid for it. Not after owning it for an extended period of course, but for quick turnaround (or a change of heart by our OP) I find buying used over new a much better option. YMMV.

So, I started doing weddings last year. I've shot four, have two more in a few months time and one booked so far for next year.

After seeing the benefits and cons of using camcorders (Panasonic X800 and Sony AX100) and the DSLR (GH3, GH4, EM5 (less so)), I can say that I'd stick with a camcorder if I could for most of the day - that's a statement I thought I'd never say. The new Panasonic fixed lens camera with 13X optical zoom and the ability to record both 4K and 1080p HD simultaneously to two different cards is a huge positive for nearly all points of the day. If I were to look at the amount that I've spent now, I think I'd get two C100s and a bunch of Canon gear, simply because it doesn't have the recording time limits and yet still has all of the benefits of a DSLR.

Sure, one could recommend getting a DSLR, but once primes and pro zooms are considered, you're wayyy over the budget, regardless as to what system you choose. You could go GH4, but then you'd need an on camera mic, different forms of stabilisers (to make the most of your creative camera) and a bunch of lenses that can cope well in poor light. But if you go AX100 route, you could have two AX100s, decent on board sound and get a few pocket recorders and moderate lav mics and you're set to go with a two camera set up for most of the day.

After those ramblings, I think I'd go with the new Panasonic fixed lens camera that shoots 4K and 1080p. You have no need to shoot 4K at all for a very long time, but you know that that camera is going to last you for many years with its ability to shoot 4K when you are ready to do so, and sports a 4/3 sensor. I'd then match it with a Sony Camcorder - Noa uses the CX730s, but there will be other offerings that are newer than those... you'd have a two cam 1080p set up and the ability to shoot 4K with one of your cams in the future.

Bottom line: I wouldn't spend $3000 on a camera now that DOESN'T shoot 4K - regardless as to whether I'm delivering, cropping or even shooting 4K for the next 3 years, because 4K TVs WILL take over the marketplace and if even a 1/4 of couples are using a 4K TV in 3 years time, most of those will be couples in the age bracket who are wanting to get married. If I have a 4K TV and I'm frustrated by the lack of 4K out there, but have seen the picture quality of 4K somewhere, I'm certain that I'd be considering asking my videographer for 4K.

It doesn't matter now, so I can see why you could shoot an SD wedding for someone for free before deciding to splash the cash, but I'm sure the OP has knowledge of when it's good and bad to spend his cash. He's been in the game before, so he's aware as to what he wants / needs to do.

No need for the back and forth arguments that are unfamiliar here and why most of us continue to post here - just helpful responses, rather than you're right, I'm wrong type posts a la Facebook and it's mundane threads.

P.s. shot 4K at my last wedding for ceremony, and I can highly recommend it as a back up camera... it's an amazing benefit that can be used to powerful effect, but also means that you'd need a LOT of storage for back up. I'll continue to shoot 4K at the back, and 1080p on either side of my ceremonies, but I don't recommend 4K if your storage solution is below 30TB. I have a 20TB server, and know that I'd find it extremely difficult to store a full wedding season on it when my GH cameras run at 200mb/s and then a 4K file at the end of it.

Craig (and OP), the Sony AX33 is a 4K capable camera, and roughly a functional equivalent of the older CX and PJ Handycams.

I'm sure there are some differences, but as a current (under $1K retail list) offering, it would be worth considering, though I myself would like to see more samples, the ones so far come out with the AX100 having a better picture... I feel like the AX100 is the superior camera image wise, for a little more in the used market. But of course the AX33 is smaller, lighter, and has the Magic eyeball system that is so good for handheld... so it has potential uses. If I find one used cheap enough, I wouldn't mind replacing the PJ760/710's I sold (replaced by the AX100)!

I picked up a 4K action cam on the cheap to see how the small sensor looks, and it's not bad.... same sensor that is in the AX33 I believe. Still trying to figure out whether the 170 degree "fisheye" field of view will be of any practical use... other than one heckuva "dashcam"!

Craig (and OP), the Sony AX33 is a 4K capable camera, and roughly a functional equivalent of the older CX and PJ Handycams.

I'm sure there are some differences, but as a current (under $1K retail list) offering, it would be worth considering, though I myself would like to see more samples, the ones so far come out with the AX100 having a better picture... I feel like the AX100 is the superior camera image wise, for a little more in the used market. But of course the AX33 is smaller, lighter, and has the Magic eyeball system that is so good for handheld... so it has potential uses. If I find one used cheap enough, I wouldn't mind replacing the PJ760/710's I sold (replaced by the AX100)!

I picked up a 4K action cam on the cheap to see how the small sensor looks, and it's not bad.... same sensor that is in the AX33 I believe. Still trying to figure out whether the 170 degree "fisheye" field of view will be of any practical use... other than one heckuva "dashcam"!

Another good recommendation! If it isn't your main cam, and you'd be leaving it on auto - I think I'd have sprung for the AX33 too. Noa doesn't seem to think the extra size of sensor in the AX100 makes much of a difference to the low light performance. I'm sure either cam could do it, but I went with the AX100 for the additional buttons / control. After using it in Auto mode for the speeches at my last wedding though, I think auto on the AX33 would work just as well.

Going to purchase the AX100 once or twice more. Or two AX33s... but for the OP, it'll be interesting to see what he thinks after receiving all the advice here.

Quite clear that style is a huge part of your success when doing weddings, but the devices we use are massively different too, by the sounds of it; as are our perceptions.

Shooting black cats at midnight in a dark room on a moonless night is for the A7S... otherwise "low light" is low light, and nothing a couple bucks spent on an ebay LED light with a dimmer can't "fix" in a pinch.

What I've noticed in the few "comparison" videos I've looked at is that the AX100 has more fine detail than the AX33, but it's "pixel peeping" that 99.8% will never notice. The AX100 replaced multiple cameras for me, but the AX33 would fill a spot for handheld with that BOSS stabilization, and one of the old CX/PJ "slots".

OP could pick up a new AX33 and a used AX100 and still have plenty to add a couple extra batteries and the big capacity U3 rated SD cards needed to use the highest bitrates - batteries and cards could be shared as needed between the cams. The AX33 is too new to be popping up on the "secondhand/open box return" market... thus why I suggested an RX10/AX100 combo that also added a "stills" component to the capabilities that might help with bookings if the OP wanted to follow the footsteps of some here who have found it effective to offer both stills and video!



FWIW, I'd love to have that A7S too, but the budget with lenses makes me wince a bit!

I'll add my very brief (I'm meant to be editing) comment on the A7s - I hated filming evening receptions or in hotel bars and function rooms that were too dark as It meant (even using the NEX-EA50 with f2.8 lens) using a video light and as a documentary maker it defeated the object as everyone were suddenly aware of being filmed and any naturalness disappeared, they either looked pi**ed off or played up to the camera. Plus I don't like to be the centre of attention and the LED light was almost like a spotlight on myself.

The A7s with my 24-105mm f4.0 can film in the darkest of environments without any additional light and makes filming evening receptions a dream. turning up the ISO is just like putting a light on people without them knowing - I just wish it had a camcorder form factor.

Noa doesn't seem to think the extra size of sensor in the AX100 makes much of a difference to the low light performance.

Can't speak for the ax33 but by cx730 is equally light sensitive then my ax100 and produces less noise at it's highest iso, ax100 however has much more detail at those high iso's so some neatvideo treatment would make the ax100 footage look better. The cx730 gets a lot softer when you gain up high, not sure how tge ax33 would perform in such a case.

Sony Australia in their infinite wisdom have only released the FDR-AXP35 which is the AX33 with a projector. And they wonder why we buy from overseas!

Thought I'd mention I have an AX33 (no projectors here in the US... kinda miss it... or not) in hand....

First impressions, it's a bit beefier than the older PJ/CX cams, but not much, definitely smaller than the AX100. Mainly the length lens to battery is shorter, and it's shorter than the CX/PJ when the older cams have the lens hood attached.

The Video/Flash of the CX/PJ is gone, for what little it was worth.

No AV jack, replaced by the "MULTI" (enhanced USB port), will have to test compatibility with adapters...

The MI/hot/cold shoe is much more traditional than the "keyed" one on the AX100, pretty much any regular shoe should fit with ease, though unless you thin the front edge (of the accessory shoe) to clear the contacts, it won't go "all the way" into the shoe, and therefore may be slightly less stout. Still an improvement.

Tripod mount is much better centered side to side, and more towards the front of the camera when compared to PJ760. Not a big deal, but I personally never liked the tripod being offset to one side.

VF pulls out and tilts up (nice), but can't be turned on/off independent from the LCD (OK, so that's pretty standard now), and doesn't pop on when the LCD is flipped around 180 (some cams used to do this, so the cameraman AND the "talent" could see what was being shot).

Yet ANOTHER thread size on the front lens... not the same as any other Sony I've got, so more filters, if needed... liked how the RX10 and AX100 shared threading... and how you used to be able to use a 37mm on most any Handycam!

2.7" (touchscreen) LCD is OK, but somehow looks a little washed out, gotten spoiled by the 3.5 on the AX100!

Manual control feels a bit limited (just a button and the ring), so far I'm thinking set the shutter at 30 or 60 for motion blur in 30p, set the ring (full size around the lens, not the little wheelie thingy!) for AE shift... You can set a setting, then hold the manual button and choose another to alter - clunky, and it seems like only some things can be set at the same time, but seems workable so far...

Image quality so far is honestly a bit disappointing. Just playing around in the office with bad to awful lighting, the AX33 is definitely "slower" and worse in low light than the AX100 - stops down VERY aggressively at the long end of the zoom. There is a price being paid for the small sensor...
Hooked directly into the HDMI of my cheap-o 4K screen, the AX100 looks every bit the part of 4K in sharpness and detail... holds up decently as it zooms and in the worse light conditions. The AX33 looks more like 3-3.5K... not sure yet if it's just gained up and noisy, or really that soft (also need to test against the RX10 @ 1080), but it's pretty obvious again that the small sensor/lens/camera is paying a price... I'm not seeing the "pop" and "through a window" effect that the AX100 images (and some of the other 4K cameras out there) have.

It's nice to have the "magic eyeball" BOSS system back (that's actually the main reason I am evaluating the camera... for handheld use), it's working as you would expect.

Focusing seems a tad sluggish, but this may relate to the above noted low light "performance". Once it locks, it's good, but a couple times already it's just sat there not even looking for focus... may be a need for better firmware?



I hope to have some time to get some more experience with the AX33 - like the size, it could be "handy" just because of that, and I think it's better image wise than the older PJ760, though not by as much as I expected (and low light might break that "better" completely). At the moment, I'd have to say the AX100 is a LOT more camera if one had to make a choice.

Wanted to offer a bit of a "review" since the AX33 came up in discussion... hope it's of some help.

Great info Dave, I was planning to replace my cx730's when a better option would come available but since I won't be doing any weddings anymore in a year I just will ride those last months out with my little trusty handicams. I might be shooting some stage performances but then probably a second ax100 would be a better option, I really like that camera, a bit noisy at high iso's but a good all round performer and once you get used to the detail that camera resolves all other camera's appear soft.

I've got to shoot some samples, but direct to HDMI on my 4K TV, the AX33 is smoked by the AX100 and RX10 for clarity and relative noise... Not really sure the added stabilization makes up for the lack of sharpness and noise signature... like the size, but thinking a "backup" AX100 would be better - it's been a very good little cam for me.

I'm trying to find the "right" HDMI for the PJ760 to A/B it as well (dang different sizes of connectors!), but the GW77 I tested against was not bad (again a small chipper) vs. the AX33. For 3 yr old or so "HD", it held up OK, I suspect the same would hold true for the CX/PJ 7xx series, which should even be a tad better.

I guess we've been spoilt by the 1" class sensor cameras, maybe that's it! I still wish for a 4K firmware update (and maybe a little better tuned stabilization) for the RX10, that would really be my "best" second camera option - even with the current FW update (need to test recorded samples w/ high bitrate), it looked FAR better on the screen than the AX33 using the HDMI.

Trying to keep in mind the AX33 is a consumer camera, but having used "consumer" cams with good image quality, I am not as excited about this iteration as I'd like to be...

Thanks for the info, Dave.

Does anyone know how quickly Sony update their camcorders?

The AX100 has been out a while, and if by next wedding season a successor is expected, I might hold off on getting a second one for the two weddings I have left this year.

I realise that this is somewhat subjective, but if people think it could be two years, then I'll get a second. Thanks.

Dave, I really appreciate the AX33 review and comparison to the AX100. thanks for the effort.