Hope this is not cross posting, but there was not a general forum here as there is in the HD category so if this is the wrong place, please move or advise.

Is there a newer 3 chip, preferably 1/3 " chip camcorder that provides better quality than the Sony VX2100 out nowadays?

I ask because I posted in the HD general forum that I was not aware of anything in SD only, and that was why was thinking of going the HD route. But in case there is something better in SD only I would like to look into it. As I said over there I would really like to have an option of full screen and not be restricted to 16:9, unless the vx2100 is the best quality option out there for SD only. In that case I would keep it and buy the best HD in my price range.

I have heard that the Panasonic DVX100b was great but it has basically the same chips in it as the VX2100..size, resolution and so on.

I would love to jump on the canon XL bandwagon as I have read great things about it, BUT I really don't want to get into an interchangeable lens system. I have enough problems with sensor dust on my digital cameras. So that kinda let's out the XL line.

Good low light performance would be nice too.

But that being said, will Canon and others continue SD only models or will they move on to producing HD camcorders and the SD only models become obsolete?

Advice appreciated and thanks for your time.
Jerry

Sounds like the XL2 is your best bet. You don't have to change lenses at all. I only use the 16x manual lens on mine. Fantastic camera that won't disappoint you. Great low-light performance, switchable 16:9 or 4:3, 24p or 29.97, progressive or interlaced, Balanced XLR mic inputs.... the list goes on..

Sounds like the XL2 is your best bet. You don't have to change lenses at all. I only use the 16x manual lens on mine. Fantastic camera that won't disappoint you. Great low-light performance, switchable 16:9 or 4:3, 24p or 29.97, progressive or interlaced, Balanced XLR mic inputs.... the list goes on..

Wow that sounds great. What is is your lens at the wide end? That is really the only major thing I have against my vx is not wide enough angle.

Is there a non manual lens that will word wide angle and zoom out that I can put on it and leave on it? Did you have to clean your chips or sensors when you first got the XL2 of dust? I am a little more proficient with the still camera and would be great to have a zoom lens like the still equivalent of a 24-70 or something better. I depend on autofocus more and more as my eyes aren't what they used to be, thus the need for a non manual lens.

thanks
Jerry

Jerry, you could just go with the standard XL2 package, though I don't know what the angle of view would be with that lens. If need be, you could be the wide angle lens for the camera as well.

There should be no need to clean the chips or sensors... I wouldn't touch them.

Jerry, you could just go with the standard XL2 package, though I don't know what the angle of view would be with that lens. If need be, you could be the wide angle lens for the camera as well.

There should be no need to clean the chips or sensors... I wouldn't touch them.

The XL-2 does not have an opening shutter like an SLR so you don't need to clean the sensors which are safely internalised out of harms way.

Jerry, if you're a casual auto-mode shooter, I'd make sure you actually put an XL camera on your shoulder before deciding to buy one. These cameras are enough larger than GL2 / VX2100 sized cameras that you might find yourself shooting less because it is more hassle to take along, set up, and use than smaller cameras. Also, depending on the venue, there can be a distraction/intimidation factor when you hoist a pro-looking camera on your shoulder, or you may even be barred from bringing it into some places where a "consumer-sized" camera would be allowed.

Be aware that the 16x is a much beloved lens but is strictly manual focus -- no autofocus capability. The XL stock 20x lens is optically "long," so often not wide enough for, say, indoor family events. The XL cameras all do exhibit some "hunting" in their auto focus; I personally tend to use it when the challenge to maintain manual focus exceeds my limited abilities. So again, an "auto-mode shooter" might get frustrated.

You might want to consider going smaller and less expensive instead of larger and more expensive; folks seem pretty happy with the HV10, except as one would expect in low light performance. Otherwise, the XH A1 at $4000 might work better for you. It is larger and heavier than the GL2 or VX2100, but still a non-shoulder mount and supposedly has a much improved auto focus system. Still, if you catch the bug for a shoulder-mount, the XL2 is IMHO the best SD camera around.

Cal and Allen..
Thanks for your response and advice. That is very comforting to know that the sensors are isolated. That is a BIG relief. I will research the standard package and see what lens comes with it. At least I can comfortably add this camcorder to my possibilities now.

Pete.
You have a good point there. I have not looked into the differences in sizes. Probably 90% of the time with my vx2100 I use it on a tripod. But your point is well taken.
That the stock lens not being very wide angle puts me right where I am now..the vx2100 is not wide enough, as you said many times...I have to stand way back for it on a lot of things.
"Hunting".....chuckling....Boy you don't know how many times I have read about that on a Canon DSLR...that is not good when you rely 99% of the time on AF.

Yes am considering the XH A1....but my thing with it is that it is 16:9 only, I believe, native chips and not able to shoot 4:3.

I wish I could go to the store and test these out and feel them out, but we have one camera/video store near and it never has any of the higher end stuff.

Thanks to all for replies and advice
Jerry

The XL2 and DVX are considered the "Cream of the Crop" you can't go wrong with either- the XL2 does optical 16:9 (I believe natively) as where the DVX doesn't but has a very good "Squeeze" mode that uses the actual video and digitally anamorphs it- not quite as good as true optical but really good nonetheless. (DVX100A/B)

The XL2 and DVX are considered the "Cream of the Crop" you can't go wrong with either- the XL2 does optical 16:9 (I believe natively) as where the DVX doesn't but has a very good "Squeeze" mode that uses the actual video and digitally anamorphs it- not quite as good as true optical but really good nonetheless. (DVX100A/B)
Thanks Steve, I think if I go SD then, from what I have learned here, I would go more with the XL2, one-to go all Canon, two-as you noted the DVX does the squeeze job and I have heard that as you said it is as good as native.

THanks.
Jery

Sorry to confuse you further, but the 20x lens that comes with the XL2 package is not very good for small spaces at all (sorry, don't have the exact specs). We finally decided on buying the 3x wide angle lens, and don't regret it a bit (though cost was a major factor). It's great for on the fly, run and gun interviews as well, as you can get closer to your subject without sacrificing audio quality.

Or you might consider getting a wide angle converter (like a Century Optics--for much cheaper) for use with the 20x lens.

--JA

The DVX has the widest angle lens on a stock 3CCD camera. If WA is what u crave the DVX is worth considering.

I second the rec. for the DVX. For the price, size, class, etc... it stands alone. The Canon gives you the options of both a manual lens and a good viewfinder, however you still need a big battery on the rear to make it balance at all. If you're just looking for a very high quality camera with a good built-in lens, the DVX-100 is the ticket. The 24p is a nice feature you can't get on the sony's, and the overall image quality is excellent. A HUGE amount of TV is shot on DVX, as are the majority of small "films." It has a real zoom ring, though the focus is still opto-electrically coupled.

Now, the Canon has better resolution, better lens options and accessories, but is a much larger rig. It will offer better expandability should you need it, and shoot all the same modes as the DVX. If you use autofocus, the Canon will trounce anything else out there. But, the interface is...cumbersome at best.

Not sure where you've read about "hunting" with Canon SLR autofocus, but I'd imagine the people you heard from didn;t do any exhaustive research beyond "I put a $50 lens on a $2500 camera, and the AF was slow." There are a lot of factors to consider in AF performance, and with SLR's (as with video cameras), the maximum aperature of the lens is a HUGE, if not the biggest factor. I shot sports as a photojournalist for a number of years, and I can tell you that we all switched to Canon for a reason - their cameras simply work better than anyone else's, and their glass is outstanding. And Canon correctly brags that they have the worlds fastest autofocus. So if AF is an important feature to you, rest assured nobody does it better than Canon.

Now, one other thing to note is that autofocus in Video is a crap-shoot. In still photography you focus and wait for the moment. In video, it's ALL the moment. The focus sensors of ANY camera are essentially in the center, and they are NOT smarter than you. They focus on whatever is in the middle 30% of the frame (more or less). You have to understand that what your eye focuses on in the frame may fall outside of the center 30%. If you always frame your images so the subject is punched dead-center, you shouldn't have any problems with AF on any camera. BUT, rarely do we want our subjects dead-center. As soon as you subject leaves the middle of the frame, the camera will focus to the next object it sees in that space. This is not "poor" autofocus performance, or hunting, or abnormal. The camera is exactly right, you just have to understand what it's doing and why. That's why most people choose to manually focus their lenses - because they can choose how focus will shift within a frame.

That said, SHOULD you want to manually focus, the Canon kit lens is terrible. The image it makes is gorgeous, but the manual focus ring stinks, perhaps worse than most prosumer cameras. The good news is they make a fully manual lens which is a beautiful piece and the best of the price range. The focus ring on the DVX is good - it works - but it's nothing compared to a REAL focus ring.

Between the Canon and DVX, you can't go wrong, either will make great pictures. Just understand the limitations of the systems before you go in expecting miracles, and you'll be very happy whichever camera you choose.

I've used my XL2 for everything from weddings to political to interviews...lots of run and gun. I've had it for 1 1/2 years, and have really enjoyed and learned a lot shooting with it.
It's native 16:9 and shoots in progressive in addition to interlaced.In addition, you can tweak the presets and have limitless different looks.
I'm sad selling mine, but just bought the new XLH1...
Bruce S. Yarock
www.yarock.com

I started out using a DVX, but now I own the XL2 and it's (now) my camcorder of choice due to a few reasons. First, I prefer a shoulder mount camera, it's more rock solid and professional. At the end of a gig I get more people asking me about my camera and my card than I ever did with a smaller camcorder. Second, the lens system. With a loner zoom I can get some really interesting DOF shots that make the images feel more film-like. Third, customizing your gamma and set-up levels have neer been so seemingly infinite. Third, native 16:9/BNC connection/24p/more pixels per CCD than any other SD camcorder.

Look, DVX is a great camcorder, and is used my tons of shooters and that does help if a producer is looking to only use that particular camera. And that's where the XL2 can prohibit you from work. Yet, when I shoot for MTV we mix DVXs and XL2s all the time and you can't really tell the difference.

i think you guys forgot about the PD170...

although my XL2 is the best sd camcorder as far as image quality and features, i still think the superb image quality of the 170 is way up there with the XL. plus, it's smaller, shoots dvcam, has xlr audio, very quick autofocus (vx2000 i think is quicker). best of all, it includes a wide angle adapter(which adds considerable weight).

although it has bad balance especially with the wide angle and a video light it makes up for portability. and the colors are like russian optics! super saturation. very good for tv- just dont forget to legalise.

if you're a run and gun shooter, consider the 170. the proof is in the number of users it has on the field, especially in the news.

thanks alll....
I have been monitoring the A1 for a few days but am hesitant at this moment till more is tested on it, of the noise that is in the clips.

So back to an SD that is better than the vx2100.

I understand what you mean about shoulder mount with the XL, can it also be tripod mounted? But if it or the others do sharper, better colors and better quality video than the 2100, I need to upgrade. But low light, in a lighted room or auditorium is a must. I would like one that I can zoom across the room at someone and see the features of their face once put on dvd, that kind of quality.
As for the DVC, and SD I would not shoot 16:9 anyway, so would not have to worry about squeezing it down.

The PD 170, I almost got that instead of the 2100 I think when it first came out but there was some reason i did not, and can't remember why..

Mention was made of the GL, but nothing about it..how is the quality and low light with it?

thanks..t

To zoom across a room and see details in a face requires quite a lens and zoom- the XL series is the only one that can perform this- you may need the EF adapter should you want more zoom, the XL series can't be beat in the zoom dept. and they are very good in low light- but the VX2100 is pretty much the king of low light videography.

You're going to have to make trade-offs- you may gain something in one catagory and lose in another- pick your battles.

(The GL series with a 1.7x high-grade tele lens add on gives quite a range also)

wow then maybe I should keep the vx for the indoor stuff and get another for outdoor stuff.

I just want to get the best quality video of kids growing up, vacation and so on, even if I have to get a "pro" camcorder. the memories would be worth it and since 90 percent of my videography is indoors thus the concern for low light. But with my daughter starting to ride horses, a very good quality camcorder would be nice. That is why I ususally use the auto mode so much. And 95 percent of outdoors I shoot stills with the 1d Mk II.

So I don't do interviews and such as that, but for the best quality memories I don't mind the cost.

For Jaren...i spend a lot of time at dpreview.com for the DSLR and I believe it was the 10d they had some probs with AF hunting or one of it's predecessor's or successor's I can't remember. My 10 d served me well as do my 2 Mk II's...can't wait to see what the Spring PMA brings...

I would assume Sd will be here for a long time. It would be nice to do 16:9 and see how it does but full frame would be ok if it will be around till after I am dead and gone..chuckling

Jerry

wow then maybe I should keep the vx for the indoor stuff and get another for outdoor stuff.Nonsense. Of course you don't need another camcorder for outdoor stuff.

Based on what you'll be shooting, the Sony VX2100 is all you need. The Canon XL2 is definitely overkill.

Ergonomics is *everything.* Try before you buy. The right camcorder for you is the one which *feels best* in your hands. Everything else, all of the technical stuff, is nowhere near as important as ergonomics.

Image quality is not determined by the gear. It's determined by the person using the gear. The single best way to positively influence the quality of your video is to shoot with a camcorder that feels comfortable to you, one that you'll enjoy using. Nothing else matters.

Also with the bigger camcorders- you'll find you tend to leave them behind because of their size- meaning you'll miss those moments when you wish your camcorder was handy.......a smaller VX series is a good choice....as for telephoto reach- you simply can't have it all.
Like Chris says- you'll need something that feels "right"- that's the camera you'll end up bringing everywhere.

THanks Chris and Steve.


I am about to the point that I agree. I had hoped to jump into the Hd and have the best of both worlds.

yes it would appear to be overkill to most, but I am paranoid in that if I can get better quality for those memories then I will go for it, but rightn now unless something better is found about the low light in the A1 I concur with your recommendation on the vx2100.

I can't go to the local store and try out a new camcorder as there are not stores near here that carry them..shoot the only one that might possibly carry one never even carried the canon 10d still camera, so that is something I don't have the opportunity to do thus must rely on pics and you guys's expertise.
thanks
Jerry.

I am paranoid in that if I can get better quality for those memories then I will go for itWhat you have to understand is that you can't get better "quality" from a larger, more expensive camcorder. That's a fundamental thing to comprehend, especially considering the type of shooting you're doing. The way you get better quality is to choose a camera that you'll enjoy using. One that feels comfortable, that you like to work with. One that you take along everywhere you go and that you shoot with a lot (the more you shoot, the better your images become).

Spend the money on a trip to B&H in New York or some large dealer closer to your area that has the cameras in stock so that you can try before you buy (and then be sure to buy from that dealer). It's the best research money you'll spend, and it'll be a greater help to your decision than the internet is. The more time you spend worrying about "quality," the more memories are slipping by without you recording them. All of the current camcorder offerings available today will give you excellent quality. It's such a non-issue. All that really matters is that you choose something that you'll enjoy using. Just do it, and make sure you pick something that's light and easy to carry around... definitely NOT the Canon XL2.

Point taken and understood and appreciated.
I don't think I was looking at necessarily a larger most expensive one, but my search at this point is just trying to see if technology has advanced enough to do better than the vx's. Does that make sense? really just a technology thing and not wanting the biggest and most expensive out there. Plus the addition of HD now. IF technology has advanced so there was something better than the vx in image and low light then I would be interested, but only from the better technology point.

I will keep keeping an eye on the A1, to see what the final word on it is, but will continue with the VX until I see some compelling better technology to upgrade. I hope this makes sense. It's kinda like with DSLR, started with 10d at 6.3 megapixels, then they came out with the 1dmkII at 8.x megapixels and each progression in technology offered betther image quality and better low light and so on. And that basically is what I was doing with these camcorders, seeing if the technology has progressed enough to be better than my older model.

I am just disappointed right now in the A1 low light. I thought it was the newest technology and would beat most older models/brands quite a bit, plus have the HD technology.

And I thank you for your replies and explanations....
Jerry

Hi Jerry

Low light is one of the ones that always amazes me...who cares, with in reason. All the modern cameras handle half way decent lighting fine.

Light is all about quality, control and intensity.... whatever your camera does in low light ... VX or whatever.. if that light is crap..your pictures will be crap.

If your light is controlled, if your scene is well lit, then it will look great.

Why do the guys in Hollywood, or even TV spend so much time effort and money lighting a scene right..coz it looks great.

I've started adding lights, reflectors etc to my shoots and I can tell you the pictures hum...you just have to be bothered. (How much does a Lastolite cost?)

I've used the Z1 in low light and to be honest and its great....if it needs more light than that it ain't worth shooting....

I come from a photography background, where we took time and trouble to light our subjects..ok flash makes its easier.. but good light is good light...

I find it hard to understand why people judge a camera on the low light reference, when this reference makes no mention of light quality....

Video and film needs good lighting... or at least controlled lighting... otherwise you get poor quality grainy images, what ever you use..

To me light is what all video and photography is about... (ok then you need good subject matter, good dialogue...etc...)

regards

Gareth

Gareth,
yes i agree that light is everying in photography or videography or even using telescopes.

To clarify what I mean for lo lite would be in a room lit with regular lights, or a church auditorium lit accordingly..that would be the lowest light I would consider shooting in. So for me when I say low light that is the level I am referring to...not a lo lit nite club or concert or anything else...so maybe I should term it medium lo light?

The lowest I ever shot was a night parade, night fireworks, and light show at disneyworld and that was a unique situation but those would be the only nite shooting i would do....99 percent of low light for me is in a lit room or auditorium, for what it's worth.

I even hate shooting above 100 ISO on my DSLR....noise is not bad at the higher on the 1d mk II..just don't do it unlesss I have to.


For what it is worth, in still photography I use neat image for noise reduction in post..

For Videographers, I believe they now have a version for video if you want to check it out. www.neatimage.com very highly regarded by still photographers now has a video version to help lessen noise. I haven't tried it but they have trial versions...just wanted to mention that in case anyone needs to remove noise, this is an option.
Jerry.