So far there has not been any one new "semi-pro" level (or prosumer) HD, HDV camera produced that everyone got excited for. And when I say excited, I mean like the talk that surrounded the original DVX100 when it first came out.

There are a bunch of HDV cams out there but not one that really stands out on the market as the leader. Granted, that might be proper economics in this field operating as they should... I guess if the V1E was the only HDV camera on the market everyone would talk about the V1E as the "the camera to get". That's what ive been waiting for; A "the camera to get" to come out... but it hasn't happened. Or maybe the problem is, that lots of the new HDV cameras are good but the fact that the market is saturated with lots of choices the majority of shooters are not getting behind any one model and really pushing it as "the best cam out there". However for me, I am apprehensive to make a decision when there isn't a clear winner. Before the DVX100 the XL1 was the top presumer cam. - or maybe the VX200. But now a days there is no one market leader.

I bring this up because< I want there to be a "the camera to get". So I can rest assured I am making the right choice. Do you think that will ever happen -again? Or will it always be as it is now -with lots of choices making the decision harder?

Note: In this thread I'm not referring to the above $10 grand cameras as they are out of our price range as average vidographers and independent film makers.

There never is, nor will ever be, an end-all solution, for any market regardless of product, service, or otherwise.

You can wait each day for a new product and never get anywhere, either, and that's just the way of business and development.

That being stated, get what works for you for your specific applications.

I love the Sony cameras - Z1U's, V1U's, etc. They are great if you know how to use manual features...but again, some hate them. I have no preference of them over the Canon's, JVC, or Panasonic simply because I have what works for me and have no reason to go elsewhere.

Your right it's all about compromise.
All are good but all have issues.
Sony V1 and Z1 are toyish, no real lens.
JVC GY has shocking viewfinder,it's noisy, terrible battery life.
Panasonic has those damn P2 cards and the lowest resolution CCDs.
Canon H1 also has bad viewfinder and odd shoulder mount plus quirky lens.

Both the Canon and JVC can be optioned up to make them more Pro but by the time you've spent that kind of money your up there with XD-Cam HD which shoots far superior quality than HDV could ever manage.

I think the Canon XHA1 is getting some pretty good buzz. For the price, it's hard to beat right now...

<pleased A1 owner!>

If there was the same price differential now as when I bought my V1, I might have become a Canon owner. There was almost no difference at the time, so I went for the V1 due to the better LCD, HDMI, and the lack of smear from CMOS. I also tend to like the Sony physical format since I was coming from a VX2000. I like the V1 more than the FX1 so I would say the V1, FX7, and Canon A1 are the "IT" cameras right now.

When flash is cheaper, the successor to the HVX200 will probably be a fantastic camera. 1080i/p with flash recording would be really nice. Still, the HVX makes some pretty pictures. The JVC cameras are very nice, but they are sized for a different audience than me. I like the small format.

I think if the V1 had 1/3" chips that it would have blown everyone away. As it is, it's a bit of a toss-up between it and the Canon A1. For the price, the FX7 is going to be hard to beat. That's a lot of camera for that size and price.

I think we are lucky to have so many different choices all with their own strengths.

When I bought it, the XH-A1 and V1 were neck and neck on the boards it seemed for being the camera to get. They still are, often. I'm very pleased with my A1, but I've seen some spectacular footage from the V1. I'm sure I would have been happy either way, but to answer your question, at least at the time I think those two were the main contenders (at least back in January).

I think the XDCAM eX (available by the end of this year?) just became the hot ticket.

1/2" chips on the little Sony is the only spec that really means anything to me.

After using DVC-200s in sd, there is no way I would every go down in chip size for the jump to HD.

1/2" chips on the little Sony is the only spec that really means anything to me.

After using DVC-200s in sd, there is no way I would every go down in chip size for the jump to HD.

I also like the fact of a professional manual Fugi 14x lens and possible 1080P recordings and the addition of 720P and variable frame rates. It sounds like a dream camera, but I'm sure the other companies are not going to sit quietly and let Sony steal the limelight.

If you want a full auto camera, and you are satisfied with HDV for all your production needs then I think that nothing under $5000 MSRP beats the Canon XH A1 (uh... the one without HD SDI outputs) Of course

Under $10,000 the hot ticket right now seems to be the XDCAM EX. I am not a fan of the XDCAM codec- at all. Its a gussied up version of HDV. Still fairly standard Expresscard media makes for a happy day.

The prior title holder was the Panasonic HVX200, and it is still a great choice. The main reason it is falling off my radar is that it still has a vestigial DV tape transport and it uses Cardbus for its (much too expensive) P2 media. I am a huge fan of DVCPRO HD. It isn't "perfect" but its far better than HDV and XDCAM.

I happen to love the XL-H1, but unless you need uncompressed HD-SDI or interchangeable lenses this camera is an also ran.

That uncompressed HD-SDI is huge though. People are not aware that most HD camcorders send out fully processed scaled and compressed video over their HD-SDI. Yep, even Varicams and HDCAM. Puts the H1 and the XH-G1 up there if you have a lot of effects to do. Of course... this all means you get tethered to the video village.

The next step up for me is the Panasonic HPX 500. 2/3" imagers and DVCPRO HD. This is my under $20000 camera. The downside? P2 workflow.

Finally in my unlimited budget camera I pick RED ONE. The body can be had for "peanuts" at under $20000. The imager is mightily impressive, it can compete with film without caveat. You can put just about any glass you want on it, and oh the picture!!

The future?

I am anxious for more details on the RED Mini. Since they are lacking I'll make some up. I'm hoping for a 2/3" 2K version of the Mysterium imager with output to REDCODE RAW 2K or Pro Res on media of the users choice, including Expresscard flash based media.

P2 is dead in its crib. It showed us the way, but its already history. If Panasonic can accept that, perhaps they will jump aboard Expresscard based flash media and call it P3.

The HVX200 needs to lose the tape transport. That camera also needs an imager with higher resolution capable of driving DVCPRO HD to its limits.

who cares about better cameras or "it" cameras? i want better DELIVERY SYSTEMS! i can shoot phenomenal footage with my pair of Canon A1s, but to what end? a 4'' web view? a down-rezzed SD DVD. an expensive HD DVD or Blu-Ray that is compatible with no one and nothing?

as it is, widespread delivery does not even support what we already can make in a $1000 camera package with an HV10 or HV20.....

*rant over*

I am a huge fan of DVCPRO HD. It isn't "perfect" but its far better than HDV and XDCAM.

Have you had any specific problems with XDCAM HD footage, or is this just general dislike for the compression format? Technically speaking, DVCProHD has the lowest resolution and is the most expensive to use of the three formats you mentioned, so it's not "far better" by all measures.

Compression issues aside, the XDCAM EX looks like "the" camera to beat for under $10K once it starts shipping, based on the proposed specifications. A lot of people see this as the answer to various drawbacks with other cameras in this price range, but of course we'll have to wait and see how it actually pans out. If you need something less expensive you'll have to accept more compromises, with the Sony HVR-Z1U and Canon XH-A1 arguably being the two favorites.

And by the way, there's no single "prosumer" DV camera which gets top marks with everyone, but we should add the PD170 to the list as one of the contenders in that category.

who cares about better cameras or "it" cameras? i want better DELIVERY SYSTEMS! i can shoot phenomenal footage with my pair of Canon A1s, but to what end? a 4'' web view? a down-rezzed SD DVD. an expensive HD DVD or Blu-Ray that is compatible with no one and nothing?

It has been a bit frustrating finding ways to deliver edited HD footage, but the situation is improving. One solution is to render out to WMV-HD or H.264 at 720p resolution and distribute via the internet, which gives you a way to reach anyone with a sufficiently powerful computer for playing such footage. You can also put short projects in these formats on a standard red-laser DVD and try to play that on an Xbox 360, Playstation 3 or Avel Linkplayer 2 connected to an HDTV. For longer projects use an external USB2 drive connected to one of the aforementioned devices. Or you can render and record back to your camera to play from there to any suitable device, which is as good as anything else for watching your own work.

And we do finally have the ability to make proper high-definition DVDs using reasonably affordable burners, discs and authoring software. The cost of doing that isn't any more than it was a few years to make SD DVDs, so the only problem now is waiting for consumers to buy the players.

Have you had any specific problems with XDCAM HD footage, or is this just general dislike for the compression format? Technically speaking, DVCProHD has the lowest resolution and is the most expensive to use of the three formats you mentioned, so it's not "far better" by all measures.

Defending DVCPro HD for a minute... recording DVCProHD is dirt cheap. You remember that it was a tape format long before it was a P2 format right? For workflow reasons I usually go to an FS-100, which isn't so cheap. Then again I use a similar gadget when I shoot HDV anyway.

As far as resolution goes DVCProHD has less pixel resolution in its "1080" modes. It uses lower (and less lossy) compression than either HDV or XDCAM. Combine these two facts and you have a wash as far as effective resolution. If you are looking at 720p I think the overall image quality (based on the CODEC) tips to DVCPro HD.

As far as my distaste for HDV and XDCAM formats (and it is the format, not the cameras, that I am on about), it is really all about long GOP, which is a post nightmare. That's why we have/had all those intermediate codecs for HDV.

If you want a specific example, HDV offlined on an Xpress Pro system that then had to be conformed on Media Composer for inclusion into a bigger project. The NLE's couldn't agree on the frame contents, as they recomposed the frames differently. At least that's what Avid said. We ended up having to adjust every edit point on the Media Composer.

I had a similar issue between Final Cut and a DS Nitris with XDCAM. This time we had access to the FCP system, so we just exported the project as uncompressed HD on the SAN and imported that to the Avid.

Then there is the fact that most edits require re-compression because you break the GOP. In fact HDV and XDCAM are a step backwards from DV in this regard.

For either HDV or XDCAM my workflow usually starts with rendering it out to another codec, or even uncompressed. Usually I've chosen Avid DNxHD, but I think that will be changing to Pro Res as soon as I get my grubby paws on it, because I strongly prefer Final Cut Studio over Media Composer.

Now that I am done abusing XDCAM as a format, I am going to repeat that I think that the XDCAM EX is one of the most interesting cameras coming down the pike. I plan on waiting for more details about the cameras before making any purchase.

What I really want is a lossless codec like DNxHD or Pro Res going to solid state media.

RED delivers the closest to this for now with REDCODE.

Eventually we'll get there, and then I'll be genuinely excited about a workflow.

Sorry for the longish rant.

Defending DVCPro HD for a minute... recording DVCProHD is dirt cheap. You remember that it was a tape format long before it was a P2 format right?

Yes, and I've seen what the tapes cost, so either way it's not a cheap format. Of course if you ditch most of your footage before archiving it and don't count the value of your time to do the archiving then it's almost competitive with other formats, but that's a lot of "ifs." Practically speaking, DVCProHD is more expensive than either HDV or XDCAM HD: that's one reason we're not all using it.

As far as resolution goes DVCProHD has less pixel resolution in its "1080" modes. It uses lower (and less lossy) compression than either HDV or XDCAM. Combine these two facts and you have a wash as far as effective resolution. If you are looking at 720p I think the overall image quality (based on the CODEC) tips to DVCPro HD.

DVCProHD has less spatial resolution at both 720p and 1080p than competing options, but does make up for some of that by being able to handle extreme motion better. Call the resolution issue a wash if you'd like, but it's not "far better" on that point. What DVCProHD does have going for it is better color depth, and we'll see how that compares between the HVX200 and the XDCAM EX

I think the Canon XHA1 is getting some pretty good buzz. For the price, it's hard to beat right now...

<pleased A1 owner!>


Thats what I like to hear hahaha. The more video I see from that camcorder I'm impressed. Need to get my funds together ASAP!!

Yes, and I've seen what the tapes cost, so either way it's not a cheap format. Of course if you ditch most of your footage before archiving it and don't count the value of your time to do the archiving then it's almost competitive with other formats, but that's a lot of "ifs." Practically speaking, DVCProHD is more expensive than either HDV or XDCAM HD: that's one reason we're not all using it.

Well I just looked up XDCAM and DVCPRO media. I have to admit I was surprised at the price of XDCAM media, which is cheaper by half than what I remember.

I still think that DVCPro HD is a cheap format to shoot, even at $0.83 per minute. It isn't as cheap as XDCAM ($0.67 per minute) but it is still dirt cheap compared to the rest of production expenses.

As far as archival goes... these days the only thing I archive on tape is DV/HDV camera masters. Archive is too grand a word... I just store them.

Everything else is archived using an IT workflow as data. Archival costs me the same, in terms of time, for that stuff regardless of what format I use.

DVCProHD has less spatial resolution at both 720p and 1080p than competing options, but does make up for some of that by being able to handle extreme motion better. Call the resolution issue a wash if you'd like, but it's not "far better" on that point. What DVCProHD does have going for it is better color depth, and we'll see how that compares between the HVX200 and the XDCAM EX

Well, I think we are agreeing contentiously. Part of that may be that you may be conflating the codec and camera performance. While it is important to look at the whole system, right now I am talking about just the codec.

Seeing the same footage (out via HD-SDI) from an XL-H1 in DNxHD, DVCPro HD and HDV... it pretty much made me want to kick the people who decided HDV was a good codec. XDCAM is essentially HDV when you are running 25Mbps. For it to be better you need to run it at 35 or 50 Mbps. (Check out the Texas Shootout results of the F350, by all accounts a superior camera. XDCAM at 25Mbps kept its results comparable with HDV.)

I really want to impress upon people that some of the cameras we are shooting are better than HDV allows for. The XL-H1 and the XH-G1 definitely fall into this category, and you can test that yourself. I think other cameras in this price range would perform just as well if we could get to their signal before its compressed.

Both 4:2:2 and motion quality matter, but intraframe compression (i.e. the lack of long GOP) is what earns the DVCPRO HD codec the "far better." I don't want to discuss it more, except to say that while I like this codec it is far from perfect.

I am pretty excited about XDCAM EX. My take however is that the codec we'll see on the SxS drives is the same codec we presently get on Professional Disc. I think XDCAM is better than HDV, despite its flaws, and its pretty darn good for acquisition. But that is it.

That means I have to consider a workflow that gets me out of XDCAM and into something more resilient.

I am hoping that the FCP 6 mixed timeline will allow me to create a Pro Res sequence with XDCAM clips, and have any compositing on those clips done entirely in Pro Res space. Essentially I am hoping that I get "upconversion" to Pro Res for "free" on the timeline.

I can't wait for a chance to test it and see what I get. I am such a geek, I'll probably have way too much fun.

Canon XH-A1 - The more I use it the more I love it! Show the footage to people and sit back and listen to the "ooh!"s and "arh!!"s and gasps of amazment as they take in that HD magic.

The ONLY downside is that the body is made from plastic and it has a bit of a cheap feel to it,but that really is the onlt downside.

XDCAM is essentially HDV when you are running 25Mbps. For it to be better you need to run it at 35 or 50 Mbps.

Can we assume the XDCAM EX will offer a 35 Mbps mode? If so, I would think footage recorded in that mode from 1/2 inch sensors will look very nice compared to typical HDV footage. And note that 35 Mbps is just a few percent shy of the 40 Mbps mode used by many people recording DVCProHD on the HVX200.

As far as editing goes, converting to an intraframe codec for that shouuldn't be hard to do these days, if you need the extra resiliency that offers. Edius will do what you described for editing in an intraframe codec space; hopefully FCP gets the same ability in the new version.

I don't see any affordable way to record DVCProHD compared to HDV (at ~5-10 cents/minute), and the XDCAM EX will be more practical than the HVX200 in terms of solid state memory cost. All three formats will have their place for different reasons, along with AVCHD and any other new HD formats to come along.

But getting back to the original topic of this thread, the XDCAM EX seems poised to become "the" camera to beat in the sub-$10K price range. People who don't like GOP-based recording will keep buying the HVX200, and those on a budget are mostly getting the Sony Z1U and Canon XH-A1.

Can we assume the XDCAM EX will offer a 35 Mbps mode? If so, I would think footage recorded in that mode from 1/2 inch sensors will look very nice compared to typical HDV footage. And note that 35 Mbps is just a few percent shy of the 40 Mbps mode used by many people recording DVCProHD on the HVX200.

As far as editing goes, converting to an intraframe codec for that shouuldn't be hard to do these days, if you need the extra resiliency that offers. Edius will do what you described for editing in an intraframe codec space; hopefully FCP gets the same ability in the new version.

I don't see any affordable way to record DVCProHD compared to HDV (at ~5-10 cents/minute), and the XDCAM EX will be more practical than the HVX200 in terms of solid state memory cost. All three formats will have their place for different reasons, along with AVCHD and any other new HD formats to come along.

But getting back to the original topic of this thread, the XDCAM EX seems poised to become "the" camera to beat in the sub-$10K price range. People who don't like GOP-based recording will keep buying the HVX200, and those on a budget are mostly getting the Sony Z1U and Canon XH-A1.

Kevin,

You seem to have a few facts wrong. First the XD Cam's 35mb/s codec is variable; it averages 26 mb/s. The 50mb/s XD Cam codec will be better. In any case the XD cam's codec is a tad bit better than HDV, but a compression codec doesn't make the whole camera. Images from an XD cam look stunning, and with an HD-SDI jack, professional lens and 1/2 inch sensors it will be a great camera.

The HVX 200 records in the DVCProHD Codec which is 100mb/s, not 40mb/s. Its downfall isn't the codec; it's the low-rez 1/3 inch chips. If Panasonic comes out with an HVX 250 or 300 with 1/2 inch sensors, then look out; there will be a heck of a war between Sony's and Panasonic's under $8G cameras. However, right now Panasonic does have the edge on SD by offering DVCPro50 and 25 on the HVX 200.

I won't comment on P2 vs SxS because we don't know how SxS is going to perform.

The HVX 200 records in the DVCProHD Codec which is 100mb/s, not 40mb/s. Its downfall isn't the codec; it's the low-rez 1/3 inch chips.

Shooting 720p24 DVCproHD is only 40Mb/s. This is the most common shooting mode for the cam as you get extra minutes on the P2 card and the 1080p mode doesn't get you any more real resolution. Considering HDV's 4-5 times compression advantage the numbers aren't as cut and dried as many DVCproHD fans would believe.

Perhaps the reason that DVCPro100 was universally described as 'soft' compared to other 1/3" cameras was that the codec is permanently limited to 1280x1080 -- so a 4:2:2 chroma will better a 4:1:1 by some, but not as much as you'd guess: 640 chroma samples per line, as opposed to 480 ... but still only 1280 luma samples not 1920. And it is luma samples that will define 'resolution'.

GB

I used to be really into the techni-babble about pixel numbers and such, but nowadays the yip-yap bores me. Never have I EVER been aware of any of my audiences having an issue with the picture quality of my FX-1, and this is on 40 foot screens after deinterlacing, 24p conversion, enough post-processing to take some of the punch out of the resolution. All I get is "wow what great quality!" I think the only way to properly select a camera is to view equatable test footage and decide for yourself. 2K seems to be the max resolution people notice, and most HD cameras these days come pretty close.

I had one guy tell me 720p has more resolution than 1080i. And I think he was right too, although I can't remember his explanation. So number specs for cameras mean nothing to me anymore.

If you think camera quality has to do with making a good film, watch any of the Dogme95 movies. Especially "The Celebration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme95

Not sure what you mean at all by '2K seems to be the max resolution people notice ...' , but reading your post you maybe don't mean anything at all.

Not caring is one thing -- circulating false information entirely another. 'Good' films are made from good ideas -- but understanding the technology you work with is an indication of a good craftsman too. You can have one without the other, though I don't see why you wouldn't aim to have both.

GB

I had one guy tell me 720p has more resolution than 1080i. And I think he was right too, although I can't remember his explanation.
No, not true. Vertically, there may not be a great difference, as the interlace effect with motion goes a long way towards cancelling out the benefits of the greater number of lines. But horizontally, 1080 is potentially far superior to 720, no argument. (Assuming the camera is capable of making use of the potential.)

But it's not as simple as that. The EBU is currently in favour of 720p FOR TRANSMISSION, but that is down to how the relative systems compress with limited bitrate transmission channels. The 1080 signal may look better in a lightly compressed form, but worse than 720 for a given allowed (low) bitrate.

But all this assumes a 50 or 60Hz motion rendition, 720p/50 v 1080i/25, and ignores that a huge amount of production desires 24/25Hz rendition - "the film look". That the EBU seems to take no account of 1080p/25 may be one explanation why many broadcasters are preferring to go the 1080 route.

You seem to have a few facts wrong. First the XD Cam's 35mb/s codec is variable; it averages 26 mb/s. The 50mb/s XD Cam codec will be better.

Good point about the variable bit rate, but even there I would think the extra overhead yields better results than fixed-rate HDV. Has there been any indication whether the XDCAM EX will support the 50 Mbps recording mode?

The HVX 200 records in the DVCProHD Codec which is 100mb/s, not 40mb/s.

As someone else noted, I was referring to the commonly used option of recording in the 720/24pn mode, which is only 40 Mbps. The option to use a higher bit rate is good, but impractical and unnecessary for some purposes.

However, right now Panasonic does have the edge on SD by offering DVCPro50 and 25 on the HVX 200.

The widescreen SD options on the HVX200 are potentially useful, but even for those P2 memory card prices are a problem. This is what makes the XDCAM EX interesting: it promises high-quality flash-based recording using affordable non-proprietary memory cards.

I won't comment on P2 vs SxS because we don't know how SxS is going to perform.

Sony's promising 800 Mbps throughput on a 2.5 Gbps bus, which sounds feasible. SanDisk is already shipping CF cards with read/write speeds of 320 Mbps (40 MB/sec), or several times the required speed for recording XDCAM HD.

As things have strayed quite a bit off topic, back to the original post.

Right now, (as defined by what we can purchase AND take delivery on TODAY) the market seems to be quite saturated with great products, all of which carry the "but" suffix.....

For 80% of situations, in the hands of 80% of users, any of today's cameras deliver more than could ever be asked. However, it all depends on context and market segment. Right now, we don't have any products that can really "grow" with users as their experience and skills improve. The closest to that concept would be the Canon cameras with their easy-mode dial. BUT (there's the suffix), when a user grows past the auto modes of any of these cameras, there is little true manual control. Only panasonic and jvc have figured out that an important part of focusing a camera is having repeatable marks (panasonic IS repeatable within reason). Only JVC has brought to market a usable focus assist feature to allow accurate manual focus. And therein lies the problem.

By combining the feature sets of any number of cams on the market, we could have a fantastic, 99% camera. The problem of the market as dictated by current manufacturers is that they research their "segment" of the market, and deliver for a very narrow band of users. They basically tell us that people unable to spend $18,000 on a camera body (no lens, vf or battery) will be unable to shoot using the skills and controls of an 18,000 camera. And this is partially true. The majority of XH-A1'a or V1's that are sold will never have ANY of their manual controls used.

We have become spoiled by the level of image performance we can now achieve at a very modest budget. We nickel and dime every camera when it comes to this many lines per millimeter, or this level of chroma noise, etc... In real world performance, it's a 0 sum game - when used properly, any of these units can deliver astounding pictures, and it all comes back to the user experience. So the decision on buying a camera TODAY lies in which features you're willing to live without.

Want a real camera that shoots 24p at the expense of battery life? Go JVC.
Want a fantastic compact that can shoot 24 frames, at the expense of terrible zoom performance? Go Canon XH.
Want a tapeless workflow and flexible framerates at the expense of... expense? Go Panasonic HVX.
Want HD-SDI and extreme telephoto options at the expense of ergonomics? Go Canon XL-H1
Want great image quality at the expense of awful manual controls? Go anything Sony.

Want it all? Call it a quiver, a pallette, or whatever you'd like - the truth is that no camera can deliver EVERYTHING, you'll need a few to get 100% of your needs covered....i.e. rent! XDCAM-HD or HDX900's can deliver probably 90% of the time anything you could ever want...BUT they aren't small, cheap, or auto anything. So no, even the bigger cams can't do everything. If you're shopping today, make a grid on a spreadsheet or on paper and compare features side-by side and don't neglect the user interface. Resolution means nothing if you can't get your picture in focus, set the iris properly, or find the proper focal length.

I had one guy tell me 720p has more resolution than 1080i. And I think he was right too, although I can't remember his explanation. So number specs for cameras mean nothing to me anymore.

He was probably talking about temporal resolution.

The only resolution I'm really interested in is my New Years resolution to stop reading technobable, stop pixel peeping, stop worrying about cameras and technology at all... and start focusing on story and actors.

He was probably talking about temporal resolution.

The only resolution I'm really interested in is my New Years resolution to stop reading technobable, stop pixel peeping, stop worrying about cameras and technology at all... and start focusing on story and actors.

....Bingo.

I had one guy tell me 720p has more resolution than 1080i. And I think he was right too, although I can't remember his explanation. So number specs for cameras mean nothing to me anymore.




I think I may have been the one who made this argument, as I argue pro progressive scan quite a bit. If so, I believe my arguement was more about progressive scan being better for a film print then an interlaced format and pointing out the native resolution of JVC's chips instead of the pixel shifting that some less expensive 1080i cameras are using. Also, of course, progressive scan tends to handle compression better than interlaced formats.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that that there are alot of very good cameras out there, no one is clearly the leader. All can produce super high quality pictures. I think in shopping for a sub $10,000 HD camera considerations such as batterylife and ergonomics should take highest priority, because just about everything will deliver superb picture quality.

About picture quality, I'm sure I'll get alot of arguments about this, but all 1/3inch chips will look more or less the same. There is a noticable quality difference once you go up in chip size, but overall the size of the CCD's your using seems to affect the overall quality of the picture more then any other factor.

Good point about the variable bit rate, but even there I would think the extra overhead yields better results than fixed-rate HDV. Has there been any indication whether the XDCAM EX will support the 50 Mbps recording mode?



As someone else noted, I was referring to the commonly used option of recording in the 720/24pn mode, which is only 40 Mbps. The option to use a higher bit rate is good, but impractical and unnecessary for some purposes.



The widescreen SD options on the HVX200 are potentially useful, but even for those P2 memory card prices are a problem. This is what makes the XDCAM EX interesting: it promises high-quality flash-based recording using affordable non-proprietary memory cards.



Sony's promising 800 Mbps throughput on a 2.5 Gbps bus, which sounds feasible. SanDisk is already shipping CF cards with read/write speeds of 320 Mbps (40 MB/sec), or several times the required speed for recording XDCAM HD.

Regarding the Panny HVX 200, that's Fine, but that's only one mode; I was speaking in general about the camera. You should have specified "in 24pn mode" in your original post. Regarding XD Cam, I said the 35mb/s variable mode yielded better results than HDV: "...a tad better than HDV."

No mention of the 50mb/s mode on xdcam ex; however, they might want to throw that in because I have a sneaking feeling that Panasonic is going to lay a bomb on Sony with an under $10k camera with more robust chips and the addition of their new AVC-Intra codec, the 50mb/s one. No official news, just a feeling.

What is promised and what is actually delivered as we have experienced can be entirely different. I'm taking a "wait and see" approach regarding the SxS cards. I guess it is hard for me to believe that the king of proprietary, Sony, would create something non-proprietary. That said; I am excited about the XDCam-Ex. If my budget allows, that's the camera I'm currently looking to buy. Of course, who knows? Maybe a new offering from Panasonic or Canon will peak my interest. You gotta love technology.

You should have specified "in 24pn mode" in your original post.

I could have been clearer about that, but anyone familiar with the HVX200 should know what I meant in my earlier post. The main point here is that the XDCAM EX has the potential to deliver excellent HD footage at a fairly reasonable price, and its recording bit rate isn't likely to be a problem for many users. Agreed though that it would be nice to have a 50 Mbps option on the camera, which should be technologically feasible.

No mention of the 50mb/s mode on xdcam ex; however, they might want to throw that in because I have a sneaking feeling that Panasonic is going to lay a bomb on Sony with an under $10k camera with more robust chips and the addition of their new AVC-Intra codec, the 50mb/s one.

That would be a fine example of competition at work, especially if Panasonic also ditches P2 in favor of non-proprietary memory. We'll see...

I'm taking a "wait and see" approach regarding the SxS cards. I guess it is hard for me to believe that the king of proprietary, Sony, would create something non-proprietary.

Good point. And even if SxS isn't specifically proprietary it could be a nuisance to keep corresponding card readers handy, but hopefully those won't be too expensive.

Ok, here's my take on *THE* HD camera to get (sub $10k), by category, since you often need a different tool for a different job, and there isn't one camera that does everything best. Because these are my personal pics, they are to be treated as gospel and are not up for debate! ;)

ENG: Any JVC PROHD camera
It has the right ergonomics for the job, and you will blend in with real live professionals.

Sports: Canon XLH1 Best zoom/stabilization combo, and sharp. Or JVC HD200, lacks IS and zoom, but has 60p mode.

Weddings: Sony. Has anyone ever beaten a Sony for low light performance?

Nature: Canon XLH1 See above + only affordable wide angle lens in this range.

Indie Film: Panasonic HVX200 or JVC HD200. Arguably the most filmish look, both can overcrank, HD200 has one edge with being able to flip the picture from a 35mm adapter. HVX200 has an edge with DVCPRO HD, but limited storage.

Documentary: Sony. Low light wins again.

Studio: JVC HD250 or Canon XLH1 for output options.

Best Bang For The Buck: Canon XHA1

Personal home use: Canon HV20 seems unstoppable at this point.

Excellent post Dylan and I think you pretty much nailed it.

Mike

Dylan's list is the way to start thinking about which under10K camera you can buy today. You put it simple, Dylan.

I've been away of this great forum for a long while, when the HVX200 was coming out. I can't believe in all this time, no external, dockable hardrive has appeared for recording something better than HDV out of the Canons with HD out.

The other way to look at it is to review tests that determine TVlines resolution. The actual format, be it 720p or 1080i are still restricted to a certain amount of actual resolution or detail determined upon resolution charts. DV.com has up to this point done the most elaborate cross cam chart comparissons. Under $10,000 cam award goes to the Canon HD cams in its interlaced mode. As far as progessive mode goes it is the 720p JVC's that hold the crown despite what many would assume a a lesser 720p format, besting the Canons consideably. These charts do not consider the advantage of the 720p60 modes of the newer JVC cams as far as high motion resolution.
The bottom line is that there is far more to the eqation then "big" numbers, despite what many here are trying to promote.

First the XD Cam's 35mb/s codec is variable; it averages 26 mb/s. The 50mb/s XD Cam codec will be better. In any case the XD cam's codec is a tad bit better than HDV

It may average 26 or more depending on scene complexity. This is part of the 'magic' in the XDCAM HD codec at 35mb VBR. It can also go slightly above 35 mb if the scene calls for it. The bits are used very efficiently and this is why it achieves PQ that is more than a 'tad' better than HDV.

Sorry that you have such a distaste for long gop, but it's very efficient and a very mature technology that modern encoder chips are able to wring a lot of performance out of. Modern NLE systems know how to deal with MPEG Long GOP whereas this was not the case a few years ago.

-gb-

I'm also very curious to see what the Red guys do with their proposed "pocket professional" camera. Probably a year or more away, though...

Ok, here's my take on *THE* HD camera to get (sub $10k), by category, since you often need a different tool for a different job, and there isn't one camera that does everything best. Because these are my personal pics, they are to be treated as gospel and are not up for debate! ;)

ENG: Any JVC PROHD camera
It has the right ergonomics for the job, and you will blend in with real live professionals.

Sports: Canon XLH1 Best zoom/stabilization combo, and sharp.

Weddings: Sony. Has anyone ever beaten a Sony for low light performance?

Nature: Canon XLH1 See above + only affordable wide angle lens in this range.

Indie Film: Panasonic HVX200 or JVC HD200. Arguably the most filmish look, both can overcrank, HD200 has one edge with being able to flip the picture from a 35mm adapter. HVX200 has an edge with DVCPRO HD, but limited storage.

Documentary: Sony. Low light wins again.

Studio: JVC HD250 or Canon XLH1 for output options.

Serious Amateur: Canon XHA1. Best bang for the buck.

Personal home use: Canon HV20 seems unstoppable at this point.

When you say Sony wins low light are you saying just in general? I'm just curious b/c I've read that the V1U's low light seems to fall short of the XH-A1. Just a thought but when you bring in the Z1 into the picture then thats what your talking about? Can anyone comment on the HDV format in general and shoot fast motion cars and surfing? That my target project areas, and theres a ton of knowledge on here. Haven't gotten a clear answer weather I should wait on the HDV format and go solid state got get around the GOP issue. If I do go HDV its A1 all the way.

Can anyone comment on the HDV format in general and shoot fast motion cars and surfing?

Not a comment on HDV, but on the camera.

For surfing you'll want a long lens and great image stabilization if you are shooting from the shore. So Canon.

If you are shooting from the water, I'd look for something that has an affordable waterproof case with a wide angle adapter, and overcrank abilities. So HVX200.

For cars, do you mean car shows or racing? If racing, then long lens and IS, so Canon. If car shows, pretty much anything goes.

Not a comment on HDV, but on the camera.

For surfing you'll want a long lens and great image stabilization if you are shooting from the shore. So Canon.

If you are shooting from the water, I'd look for something that has an affordable waterproof case with a wide angle adapter, and overcrank abilities. So HVX200.

For cars, do you mean car shows or racing? If racing, then long lens and IS, so Canon. If car shows, pretty much anything goes.

What about a camera for shooting in Las Vegas? What is your recommendation there, Dylan? (snicker)

-gb-

What about a camera for shooting in Las Vegas? What is your recommendation there, Dylan? (snicker)

-gb-

Heh heh.... I can't answer this question without breaking The Vegas Rule. What happens in Vegas...

Oh yeah, thanks for the sample XDCAM EX, I'll put it on my list of best cameras as soon as I'm done testing it. ;)

So far there has not been any one new "semi-pro" level (or prosumer) HD, HDV camera produced that everyone got excited for. And when I say excited, I mean like the talk that surrounded the original DVX100 when it first came out.

There are a bunch of HDV cams out there but not one that really stands out on the market as the leader. Granted, that might be proper economics in this field operating as they should... I guess if the V1E was the only HDV camera on the market everyone would talk about the V1E as the "the camera to get". That's what ive been waiting for; A "the camera to get" to come out... but it hasn't happened. Or maybe the problem is, that lots of the new HDV cameras are good but the fact that the market is saturated with lots of choices the majority of shooters are not getting behind any one model and really pushing it as "the best cam out there". However for me, I am apprehensive to make a decision when there isn't a clear winner. Before the DVX100 the XL1 was the top presumer cam. - or maybe the VX200. But now a days there is no one market leader.

I bring this up because< I want there to be a "the camera to get". So I can rest assured I am making the right choice. Do you think that will ever happen -again? Or will it always be as it is now -with lots of choices making the decision harder?

Note: In this thread I'm not referring to the above $10 grand cameras as they are out of our price range as average vidographers and independent film makers.

I think the camera "to get" is the one that Sony will be releasing end of this year that uses 1/2" sensors and uses express cards to record in dvcam or some variant of it. I read that it will go for about U$8K, maybe slightly less once it stabilizes in the market.

Being 1/2" in sensor size, hopefully, it will be close if not be the same as the VX and PD family in low light. For sure it will be better than today's FX1/FX7 or Z1/V1 copies in terms of low light. And using expresscards, now frees the shooter from the shackles of tape.

With it's size, weight, and handling, it will appeal to both events/wedding shooters, as well as journalists, or even indies. Of course, not everyone will be happy with the bitrate in encoding or in other aspects, but this is probably why it is positioned in this price point.

If one can wait, this may be the camera that is "to get." Otherwise, most of us already know the compromises that we go through if we get a panny, sony, canon, or jvc with today's current lineup.

-Mel

I think the camera "to get" is the one that Sony will be releasing end of this year that uses 1/2" sensors and uses express cards to record in dvcam or some variant of it.

Sorry Mel, only cameras that are for sale on shelves right now are eligible. If you can't get it now, it ain't the camera to get. Otherwise, I'd argue that the wallet sized Red camera coming out three years from now is the camera to get. ;)

this "serious amateur" is making $10,000 next week for a shoot with a pair of canon A1s. i can hardly wait until i can move up another rung on the ladder! i wanna turn pro!

this "serious amateur" is making $10,000 next week for a shoot with a pair of canon A1s. i can hardly wait until i can move up another rung on the ladder! i wanna turn pro!

That's easy, just buy a JVC HD200! ;)

That's easy, just buy a JVC HD200! ;)

omigosh, who knew it was so easy??? thanks for unveiling the Secrets of Pro Video! there oughta be a DVD version...maybe with a bathtub scene. or two!

there oughta be a DVD version...maybe with a bathtub scene. or two!

Be careful Meryem, Dylan might just make good on that request. Bashful is not a term I would use to describe him. ;-)

-gb-

The only thing holding me back from going all out with the Canon HV20 is the fact it uses tapes. Yeah I understand the quality is better than AVCHD but if there were a hard drive camera... that had 24P or comparable video quality to the HV20 I'd be sold.

Is there really no Hard Drive camcorder out that can compete with the HV20 (quality/price) ??

-thanks

Sorry Mel, only cameras that are for sale on shelves right now are eligible. If you can't get it now, it ain't the camera to get.

If you need a camera now that's certainly true, but if you're still in decision-making mode then the Sony XDCAM EX is relevant because it should solve a lot of issues with other sub-$10K HD cameras. I've talked to several people recently who are confident that this will be "the" camera to get when it ships, and are excited to finally see something like this coming. Until it ships there isn't a comparable "the" camera because everything else in this price range has too many drawbacks.