I'd like some feedback from you gents on this camera versus my XL1. I'm thinking selling one of my XL1's and buying a DV500, as their price has dropped since the DV5000 has been released (too expensive for me now). Most of my shooting is definable as electronic film production, and I'm hoping to achieve a richer picture and shallower depth of field with the larger CCDs.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the price of the initial camera and battery purchase to be the same as an XL1.
Anyway, here are the advantages I'm weighing.

XL1 advantages
-Frame movie mode
-image stabilizing lens


DV500 disadvantages
-14x Fujinon lens is supposed to be mediocre, expensive to replace.
-No frame movie mode, which I love.
-no auto focus (hey, sometimes it comes in handy)


I'd really appreciate all of your thoughts on this. I'm very seriously considering it. I know I will have to spend more on a bigger tripod, for which I am prepared.

Anyway, here are the advantages I'm weighing.

XL1 advantages
-Frame movie mode
-image stabilizing lens
~4 channel audio
~lots of lens choice, especially long telephoto EOS 35mm
~Not super heavy
-------------------------
List the XL1 disadvantages:
Soft video images because of cheap canon video glass
Low pixel count
Soft standard viewfinder
Not so great low light performance
"Stepped" iris (except in auto)
Not very ergonomic
No stock XLR audio inputs
No +4db input attenuation

DV500 Advantages
Crisper images/better pixel count
Better low light performance and contrast handling
Better viewfinder
Don't need require stabilization because the camera is heavy
Smoother iris
Looks like a real pro rig

DV500 disadvantages
-14x Fujinon lens is supposed to be mediocre, expensive to replace.
-No frame movie mode, which I love.
-no auto focus (hey, sometimes it comes in handy)
~BIG and HEAVY
~Needs an expensive case
~Small lens choice-(Is there a wide angle zoom available?)
~Camera support such as steadicam and tripod are more expensive

Me? I am waiting for the XL1 that has progressive ccds ;)

The DV500 is dioscontinued; it's been replaced by the DV5000. See http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/features.jsp?tree=&searchModel=&model_id=MDL101367

The primary question you must ask yourself is, are you ready for the expense of transitioning from a 1/3" prosumer camcorder to a 1/2" professional camera.

Lenses, batteries, power supply, zoom & focus controls for a shoulder-mount camera now enter the realm of "professional" prices; be prepared to spend about $1500 to $2000 extra for power supply, batts and lens controls plus another $2000 for a seriously good tripod. If you can afford it, by all means go for it!

I guess we can add a much longer record time for the DV5000 advantages :)

But Chris is right, everything is going to cost MORE, still it is pretty amazing
at how inexpensive the DV5000 is. I was impressed by its handling of
contrast/dynamic range. Much better than my ol' XL1.

Oop, I should have pointed out I am looking at purchasing a used DV500. That brings the price down into my range. I would buy one with power supply and batteries included. I was hoping to find a used tripod in the $1000 range.
If I had the extra money for a DV5000, I'd get one for sure. They look fantastic.
The extra size/weight of the DV500 isn't an issue. I'll still have an XL1 for run and gun, plus I could use the workout of hefting a DV500 around. :) As far as the lens goes, I'd probably stick with the stock lens, does anyone know if it's any good? It has a 1/2" bayonet lens mount btw.
Does anyone know if it has a 16:9 mode?

So far so good. More opinions please!

Stock lens is fine. Fujinon doesn't make bad glass. No 16x9 on this cam.

Dylan, talk to Peter, Jeff Gin or Teena Gin---Teena is a very smart cookie. They are all professionals with credentials and they do not work on commission. They can tell you all the pros and cons with the DV500 and the XL1s.

Frank, fear not, I'm going to swing by Leo's Friday around noonish! :)

Just as a note- check the specs of the Panasonic DVX100- it might just be the ticket for what you're looking to do.

The picture quality will move up a level. It is due to the 63dB signal to noise ratio, larger CCD's, and 12 bit A/D conversion. It won't show in every scene. You will notice that in high contrast scenes, the JVC will handle the extremes of brightness better. You'll have less contouring or banding. However, if you are going to control your lighting the superior picture will not always be evident. The JVC excels at, the extremes and the differences will be apparent.

Your support and accessories will increase in cost. A tripod to support that camera will be $1,500 to $2,000 USD used. The lens is probably fine. To get a noticeably better lens you'd be spending $8,000 to $10,000 USD maybe more. There are some 1/2" mount WA lenses but your talking $12,000 plus for the good ones.

If you've got the work coming in to justify the costs, go for it. It's a very cool camera, you won't be disappointed.

Bottom line, as Jeff suggested, "If you've got the work coming in to justify the costs, go for it.". You have to ask yourself what you'll be able to do with this camera that you cannot do with your XL1. Outside of broadcast techies, nobody gives a rat's patooty about dynamic ranges, contrast ratios or lens A -vs- lens B. Moving into 1/2" or 2/3" cameras is a very big financial stretch, easily deep into the tens of thousands of dollars.

A 1/2" chip camera like the JVC is a good way to get into a fully professional camera. The bigger chips will give you a better picture. Also, even though it's a pro camera, because it's a 1/2" chip one instead of 2/3" chips, its lenses are significantly cheaper. A decent lens for a 2/3" chip camera is close to $15,000; for a 1/2" one you can get something very acceptable for $2500, sometimes less. The stock lens that comes with the package is not wonderful, but it is probably batter than the lens that came with your XL1.

I used a rental JVC 500 shortly after they first came out. I thought the picture quality was good, but everybody around our place liked the look of the video from the DSR250 better, even though it has smaller chips. I think they were reacting to the smoothness that it had on closeups of people and the higher color saturation. To be fair to the JVC, I pretty much had to use it right out of the box. If you have a manual, which I didn't, you can spend some time and get it tweaked up to look pretty good, or so I've read.

Some things I didn't like about the JVC...the stock viewfinder; I couldn't get it adjusted so it was sharp to my eyes; and the shoulder pad was weird and caused the camera to tilt in toward your head when hand holding. I understand they fixed the pad in later models. I also thought the lens was kind of flimsy, and the camera overall didn't feel too solid.

However, it does get you into a pro camera for a small amount of money. And, you can upgrade the viewfinder later if you want; you can upgrade the lens later, and you probably could even get the newer shoulder pad.

The very early models had some difficulties...there was talk of bad pixels, although the masking circuitry took care of them, apparently; and there were some electromechanical difficulties. As far as I know, those problems lessened after the first run.

As somebody else posted, batteries cost more, and you'll need a decent tripod. However, the camera is probably only one or two pounds heavier than the XL1, so it's not like you need an O'Connor. I used the camera on one of those lightweight Sachtler DV tripods, and it was great.

Every camera has its advantages and disadvantages, but generally, the bigger the chips, the better. Check the hour meter, look for dead pixels, make sure the tape mechanism works ok, take the lens off and on carefully and make sure there's no problem with the mount.

Well, here's my current position...
I may have found a DV500 (with some accessories) for a good price, I can sell one of my XL1's localy and with that money buy the DV500 for about $500 more. I was planning on spending about $1000 on a XL1 tripod already, so I can probably swing $1500.

Do I neeeed it? Not really. Will it get me more work? I don't know, but I'd like to think so. Can I raise my rates because I have a bigger camera? Possibly. Will it impress women and make me popular with the cool kids? Absolutely! ;)
My bottom line is I want something that will make nicer pictures than my XL1 does. Most of the stuff I do is in situations where I have no control over lighting. I'm hoping the DV500 will make a big difference there.

However, I don't want to dig myself in a 5 digit money pit. Besides the camera and tripod, I don't have the budget to blow a lot more money on it. I'd like to know what other things I would have to get beyond batteries, tripod, case, that I wouldn't be buying for an XL1 anyway?

As far as the Panny DVX100, the main reason I want the DV500 is for the 1/2" CCDs for better contrast, lower light shooting, and shallower DOF.

If you're going to be shooting in low light conditions, the 500 is definitely a good move. The time I rented the JVC 500 was specifically for the kind of low light shooting conditions I expected. That was when I was still shooting BetacamSP with a BVW300 and before my new DVCAM cameras had arrived. So I used the JVC 500, and the second camera was an XL1. The event was a wedding. We don't do weddings, but it was a client's daughter, and you know how that goes. Anyway, I was shooting with the JVC at between f2.8 and 3.5, while the guy with the XL1 was wide open. Later on at the reception, he finally put away the XL1 and just assisted me with the JVC because of the low light. Nothing wrong with the XL1, but bigger chips work better in low light.
So, it's a good camera for that sort of thing.

As far as a tripod, you might look at Gitzo. I got a Gitzo 1338 system for use with a DSR250, but often I use it with the DSR500, which is a lot heavier, and it works great. Very light weight carbon fiber legs. I think it was around $1500 or so, and comes with a quality padded bag, quick release plate, and even a separate strap so you can carry the tripod easily without the bag if you want.

As far as what else you'd get, the only thing I can think of would be more batteries and maybe some filters. Specifically, a Tiffen 812 for warming, and maybe a 1/4 and a 1/2 Black Promist. The camera I used did run through batteries about as fast as my old BVW300. For my DSR500WS I have 6 BPL40's, which usually can get me through an all day shoot if I'm careful. I wouldn't go out with less than that. I used to have 8 NiCads with the 300.

Oh yeah, you might get a power supply too if you plan on doing any studio shooting or long interviews. That's cheaper than a big huge battery. IDX makes very nice compact ones that run cool for under $200.

THanks Bill, what size filters does it take?

Also another tripod question as well. Why wouldn't I be able to use a Manfrotto/Bogen 503 head with it? It's rated for 6kg, while the DV500 is 5kg loaded with batteries? I know it's probably better to go bigger, but we are talking a $1000 difference in tripods here.

ANyway, the final question for you all. Should I buy it? Yep, I'm putting you all on the spot now! ;)

I don't know anything about that tripod, but if it's big eough it should handle the camera OK. As far as filters, I also don't know that the lens thread is, but you can probably look it up on the Fuji or B&H web site if you know the number of the lens.

Should you buy it? IF it is in good condition, IF the head hours are in line with the age of the camera, IF there are no dead pixels, IF the transport mechanism looks good, and IF you try it out, shoot a test, play the test back on another deck...then maybe you should buy it. Check it out thoroughly first! Sometimes there may be one thing on a specific camera that is a deal-killer to a specific person. I, for example, would not want that camera unless I could afford the pro viewfinder, but that may not matter to you. So you really need to use it a bit before you commit your money. Then if you like it, I'd say go for it.

If you find yourself around Sony snobs, just cover up the JVC logo with gaffer tape and use Sony mini DVCAM tapes when you shoot and nobody will know the difference. Keep in mind that there is an art to covering JVC logos with gaffer tape. You can't just put a nice, neat little piece of gaffer tape over the JVC...that will look like you're trying to hide the logo. Instead, stick several pieces of tape randomly over the camera, on one use a marker and write "Cam. A," or something like that. It will look as if you have more than one camera, and provide an excuse for having one or more pieces of gaffer tape on the camera; and of course, one of the pieces of tape would cover the logo. This will also give you a seasoned professional look.

"Most of the stuff I do is in situations where I have no control over lighting. "

I'd say that 90+% of the footage I shoot, I have zero control of lighting......

I'd be interested in your findings Dylan if you decide to go this route......

Bill, I took your gaffer tape advice some time back, and lo and behold, everyone thought I was a Sony Handycam man. Worked great with the cheeks. I forgot about using the Sony tape, though. Next time.

Should you buy the cam? I would if I had the money and wanted to make more money with event stuff---and maybe with other stuff. The low lux is a big plus. Never underestimate this.

Just by going to a 1/2 inch chip camera, all of your shots will not drastically improve. I used 1/2 inch and 2/3 inch chip cameras for years. Under good lighting conditions the larger CCD cameras will not produce a demonstrably better picture. Today, much of my DV footage (shot on XL1) passes for (is mistaken for) Beta SP footage (shot on larger CCDs). Not just by average viewers, but experienced camera operators, editors and producers.

So, why buy a larger CCD camera? Simple, the larger cameras will allow you to get shots that will be acceptable (not great) under very harsh conditions. Under the same conditions, smaller CCD cameras would fail. Very high contrast, in all or part of the scene will be useable. Your shadows block up and the highlights washout with small chips. Larger CCD cameras will capture subtle detail better. Feathers in birds for example, will loose a little detail and have a moire pattern with small CCDs. Larger CCD cameras can capture the detail and not produce the moire pattern as easily. Why, more bits, higher S/N ratio and somewhat better standard glass.

Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? For most people probably not. Somewhat higher resolution will make for better transfers to film. Better images when you encounter extremes in lighting conditions can help. But will it produce noticeably better images under all conditions? No, most of the time the images will be difficult to tell apart.

edited by Jeff Donald 2.6.03

Jeff, your post confuses me (but then a lot of things confuse me). You seem to be talking about DV as if all DV cameras are small chip cameras "...Simple, the larger cameras will allow you to get shots that will be acceptable (not great) under very harsh conditions. Under the same conditions, DV would fail." What if the larger camera is a 2/3" chip DV camera?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and that is entirely possible since I've been buried in editing a 4 hour audio program that's turning what's left of my brain to mush, but I've seen others talk about the differences between DV and Betacam when they really are talking about the differences between small chip "prosumer" cameras and larger chip professional cameras. Under almost all conditions if you record something with, say, a DSR500, simultaneously to DVand to Betacam, the DV tape would look as good or better. If you compare a PD150 to a BVW600, then the 600 is going to look better under those extreme conditions whether it's recording to DV or to Betacam.

Where bigger chip cameras look obviously better is in wide shots, regardless of lighting conditions. "Tadpole" is a good example--all the medium and closeups look really nice for a PD150 transferred to 35mm and projected on a full size theater screen, but all the outdoor wide shots look soft. Had the producer rented a 2/3" chip camera for those shots, they would have looked much better, I think.

My age is showing, Bill. Exactly as you are supposing. I mix DV and Betacam in my examples. I'll edit it for easier and more concise reading, thanks.

I agree 100% with the wide angle statements. I'll go even further and say that no WA SD video shot looks as good as film. Its a real weak point for SD video.

Yeah, if we could all avoid wide shots, life would be good.

Is there a difference between the DV500 and the DV500U?
I know the "U" designated the NTSC model, just not sure if the non "U" is just people not typing in the "U", and are indeed one and the same camera.
Thanks!

When the DV500 came out here in Vancouver, it had the U at the end.

JVC has always been fond of putting U's at the end of their equipment for some reason, at least in the U.S.

The DV500 is dioscontinued; it's been replaced by the DV5000





NOT SO according to JVC. Both cameras are being produced.

BTW: I tried to post my new JVC GY DV5000 review on this forum but it was not posted due to the length.

Love my 5000-the 500 was a good camera but the 5000 is GREAT!

Lou Bruno

Hmm...I think it was our fearless moderator, was it not, who posted that comment about the 500 being replaced by the 5000? Strange that they would still be making both cameras when they're so similar.

JVC still makes the 500U as well as a 550U (studio version) and the 5000U.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Pryor : Hmm...I think it was our fearless moderator, was it not, who posted that comment about the 500 being replaced by the 5000? Strange that they would still be making both cameras when they're so similar. -->>>





They are is NO WAY similiar. Different picture quality and menu layout---much more fesatures. See my post at www.abcdv.com

They MAY look the same in advertisements from a physical perspective.

I spoke to JVC today and the sales rep stated they have an abundance of JVc GY DV500's on hand and will manufactor more as the demand increases. The 5000 seems to be selling rapidly and so far no initial problems to report.

Lou Bruno

What I read was that they're both 1/2" chip cameras. The 5000 has more and different features, but they both use the same chips. Is that wrong? I did recently read one reference that mentioned the 5000 as having incorporated some of the features of the Gy300. So does that mean the 5000 has 1/3" chips instead of 1/2"?

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Pryor : What I read was that they're both 1/2" chip cameras. The 5000 has more and different features, but they both use the same chips. Is that wrong? I did recently read one reference that mentioned the 5000 as having incorporated some of the features of the Gy300. So does that mean the 5000 has 1/3" chips instead of 1/2"? -->>>


Totally wrong information. The 1/2 inch chips are different. They are made by SONY. REAL LIGHT SENSITIVE. The DSP is now 12-yes, like the 300-the only similarity. AAMOF-the ENTIRE camera is different-only shares a similiar (but not the same) appearance.


Read my post at www.abcdv.com for the differences between the cameras. Good luck if you decide to get this camera. So far no glitches or problems.