Just wondering if one of the three main cameras in this range has come out as the clear winner for filmmaking (as the DVX100 did for SD)?

I've heard lots of great things about the JVC HD100 (or 110 or 200 now), the HVX200 is the successor to the legendary DVX100, and the Canon XL H1 is a beast too. I bought the HVX in the spring, and stopped following other cameras, so I'm just wondering if one of the three came out as the clear winner?

Criteria being film look/filmmaking only.

It's still not declared, nor would I expect it to ever be.

What the DVX had over everything else was 24p and it's color reproduction. It was and still is the standard to which all new professional cameras should live up to or exceed in the SD realm.

But things have changed now since everyone has adopted 24p in one form or another. Also, all of these new cameras you've mentioned are HD, different flavors, sure, but still HD nonetheless. Plus, unlike the shootout of old between the DVX, XL2, and what have you, where there were vast differences between each camera, these cameras are just about the same really. No one is sharper than the other or doesn't have its image compromised in some way (ie. HVX - Lower native resolution CCD's, XLH1 - Telephotoish and Chromatic Aberations, HD100U - Glare and some Chromatic Aberations too).

But all of these things are miniscule things that 99% of people either in the audience or using them won't notice or care about.

Basically the stance right now is "use what you like best" and that seems to be working out for everyone. =)

Edit: I forgot to mention my preference, silly me. ^_^

I basically like them all, but I'm more partial to the JVC or Canon emotionally, but the kind of work I'm going to be doing requires the framerates of the HVX200. So I'm divided. Yet, as you can see in my sig, I've decided to go another route and experiment.

Plus, unlike the shootout of old between the DVX, XL2, and what have you, where there were vast differences between each camera, these cameras are just about the same really.

On the contrary, there are many more differences between current HD cameras than there were between commonly used DV cameras. For example, of the three cameras asked about in this thread each uses a different recording format, two use interchangeable lenses, one can record to P2 memory cards and so on. When I tested several HD cameras earlier this year I concluded that such differences should be considered at least as important as differences in image quality, since each camera will suit some people nicely and others not so well before you even get to talking about the images.

That said, I think the Panasonic HVX200 is proving popular with film-makers for its recording format flexibility and progressive-scan recording, among other things. But the lack of interchangeable lenses could be a limiting factor for some people, so what to do? As Jack said, use what works for you today and don't worry about it beyond that.

What the DVX had over everything else was 24p and it's color reproduction. It was and still is the standard to which all new professional cameras should live up to or exceed in the SD realm.



I have never heard this before. Compared to your basic betacam the DVX looks pathetically weak--as it should based on relative price points.

Are you talking indy filmmaking cameras?

everybody has different needs, therefore there are different cameras. Being different is good.

Are you talking indy filmmaking cameras?

Yes, exclusively. Real filmmakers still shoot on film. :)

Yes, Brian, I was talking specifically about prosumer cameras in the <$10,000 range.

Also, Betacam is a different subject entirely.

Yes, exclusively. Real filmmakers still shoot on film. :)

I guess David Lynch, George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez are not real filmmakers then.
;-)

The new Sony V1 now shoots 24P and that may start a new round of fun for those looking for THE feature camera (if there is such a thing).

I guess David Lynch, George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez are not real filmmakers then.
;-)



Who didn't see that coming? :)

Who didn't see that coming? :)

Hey, it's a dirty job, but SOMEBODY had to do it. LOL.

Seriously though, I thought it was verrry interesting that Lynch shot Inland Empire entirely with PD150s. The parts that were shot normally didn't look bad and even the grain produced by noise made for interesting effects when used correctly.

Oh, and that David Lynch is a very strange fellow. And I learned a three hour strange/disturbing movie is punishing. But, I think this one is one of his best.

I guess that makes me a very strange fellow too. :)

Don't forget Robert Altman. His last 2 films were shot HD.

We had an excellent movie at our festival this past year called "Mojave Phone Booth." I didn't know until recently it was shot with the Z1. Looked great.

It's still not declared, nor would I expect it to ever be.


Exactly. And I'm not sure it *should* ever be. One of our skills as filmmakers and creative types is making the choices that affect the final creative outcome of our films.

Which Film stock is better Fuji or Kodak? Film Cameras, Arri or Panavision? Are these even legitimate questions? "Better" is a slippery term. It's probably "better" to think in terms of picking gear that fulfills a specific production challenge in a specific situation. The HVX-200 and XL-H1 bring different qualities and strengths to the table, for instance, and so neither is universally "better".

Which Film stock is better Fuji or Kodak? Film Cameras, Arri or Panavision? Are these even legitimate questions? "Better" is a slippery term. It's probably "better" to think in terms of picking gear that fulfills a specific production challenge in a specific situation. The HVX-200 and XL-H1 bring different qualities and strengths to the table, for instance, and so neither is universally "better".


The word "better" is not once mentioned in my original post.

The specific situation you ask for WAS mentioned though, and that was to produce a film "look". :)

I think he's asking if the people who are buying a camera for film making are buying one camera more so than the others. It wouldn't indicate that one camera is better than the others, only that the features and look it provides are most useful for film-making.

From what I've seen the Sony Z1 would fit that more than the others, probably because it was the first and there are more of them out there than any of the others. Almost all the low budget films shot with 1/3" HDV cameras seem to be with the Z1. Although, there was one shot here a few months ago, and they rented an HVX200 because it involved some athletic match and they wanted the slomo, and that camera is perfect for that sort of shooting. As one post above mentioned, it's whatever a given filmmaker thinks is best and can afford, and/or is available.

Dylan, the word "better" is indeed... never used in your original post. The word you used was "winner" as in "Clear Winner". Curiously, you have left this an undefined term or phrase. Hence, your question is rhetorical and cannot be definitively answered.

To find the "Clear Winner" that your post asks for, you must qualify your definition. What constitutes, TO YOU, a 'clear winner'? The camera that sells the most? The camera the makes the most 'indy films'? The camera that makes the most 'documentaries'? That camera who's films win the most 'awards'? The camera whose adherents sing the loudest praise on this board?

I don't know what you mean by the questions, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to see if this is a rhetorical question posed in order to discuss the merits of each camera, or if you are looking for some quantitative datum that might exist in cyberspace: IE some sort of 'score card'/box score listing of achievements - from which a 'clear winner' may be determined?

Hey Richard, a fair question!

I did mention at the bottom that I meant strictly in terms of film look, but here's a more interesting answer, and it includes the reason I asked....

If I had asked the same question this time two years ago (or arguably last year), the answer from the indie film community would have certainly been the DVX100. It emerged the clear winner (again, somewhat arguably) of the SD cams in that range, not in terms of what it was better at, but how it was percieved as THE camera to have for a film look, much like the XL1 (and PD150 to a lesser extent) was for several years before it.

Of course we know that the winner is not always the better of the choices. I don't believe the DVX was the better camera, but it was the winner of the race in the sense that most indie producers would specifically seek out camera ops or DOPs who owned it before any others. In Vancouver anyway, if you owned a DVX100 you'd get significantly more (double or more) the opportunity for work over owning a Canon or Sony. Perhaps I should have asked what was the hot camera in the indie film world rather than winner, as winner indicates a state of permanancy.

One of my main reasons for buying an HVX was it's marketability, it worked for the last year as people in Vancouver picked it as the new incarnation (I should say "new coming") of the DVX. Now I'm wondering that if as people in the rest of the world realize that the JVC and Canon are serious heavyweights, HDV isn't the devil, and the HVX isn't a mini-Varicam, one of the others has become the new hotness?

How's that? :)

Ummmm okaaayy... reading between your lines. I THINK what you're asking is "Which camera is more likely to get me hired?". It seems that you're looking for which camera is more 'asked for'?

Well, that might be a searchable datum. Some possible courses of action. Pick three or four 'hot' cities for indy filmmaking. Say, NY, Vancouver, LA, Austin, and yes my local San Francisco. Do a Craigslist search for film crew listings, for specific camera types? Catolouge the number of requests for each camera? Subdivide that between 'paid' and 'beer' budget requests? Do the same thing for Mandy.Com perhaps?

Nah... I'm not gonna do it. I've got a list ofther chores with the new year. But it might be an interesting excercise. I once did a comparitive search for NLE's in a similar fashion. FCP was the most 'desirable' editing skillset, but LEAST likely to get you PAID. AVID was next as 'desirable' and MORE likely to get you paid. (Most and Least meaning comparitive number of hits) You might turn up some sort of similar data?

Yeah Richard, I took Dylan's original question to be the 'most popular' camera in terms of people requesting or using it for film projects, paid or otherwise.

Your idea of culling data from Craigslist and Mandy might work pretty well.

I don't think the market has a clear winner in that regard because each of the cameras Dylan mentioned has strengths and weaknesses, depending on the nature of the project.

-gb-

The thing is, it really doesn't matter because all the 1/3" chip cameras are closer together in quality and features than they are apart. All of them have their plusses and minuses, and anybody who's reasonably competent can do an equal job with any of them.

Plus, I suspect you will find posts that ask for 'Three chip HDV cams like the..."
insert name here. So they will take whatever cam you have on hand.

(I know when I scan craigslist, you see requests for "Panny DVX or Xl2 or other cams that can shoot 24p")

So the short answer is most likely, "No Dylan, there's no clear 'winner' yet."

The thing is, it really doesn't matter because all the 1/3" chip cameras are closer together in quality and features than they are apart. All of them have their plusses and minuses, and anybody who's reasonably competent can do an equal job with any of them.


It doesn't matter to the quality of the film, no... but you'd be surprised (maybe) how many clients/producers only want to use a certain camera because their boss/brother/aunt/auto mechanic told them it was the camera all the cool kids use!


Richard, good point about scanning Craigslist and a better point about free vs. paid jobs. I'll take a good look.