The "The camera to get"

[John Bosco Jr.]

Let's take wildlife, since it came up. Say you shoot birds. You need a long lens with great image stabilization, as you will be shaky at full telephoto. It doesn't matter if the HVX200 has a codec forged by God, it lacks the long lens of the XLH1 to actually reach out and get that close shot that will make viewers ooh and ahh, and buyers go "wow, I can't believe you got that shot".
This is why the XLH1 is the camera to get for wildlife. It will get the shots that other cameras won't.

Hope this helps reframe your views of what makes a camera the right tool for the job.[/QUOTE]

Why the XLH1 for nature? Why not the Sony V1? It has less wide angle, so it has even more telephoto for those extreme closeups and also a very nice OIS. It's also cheaper and less bulky. I see what you are getting at, and you made some good points until you specified "...the XLH1 is the camera to get for wildlife." The XLH1 might be one camera that will work for nature but maybe not the best one out there for nature for everyone. The interchangeable lens might give it an advantage as far as adding an even longer lens, but what about JVC's ProHD? It has an interchangeable lens as well, and some might actually prefer its form factor. I believe you can make decisions on a camera based on difficult shooting environments, like getting a shot in a very small confined space probably will be best accomplished with an HV20 or HC7, but deciding on a camera for a specific genre is basically what the operator is going to be most comfortable with. Heck, with the right adapter and lens, the HVX 200 might be a better option for nature for some.

I know I've been very vocal on this "which camera is better than the other" rant. I will try to stay away from that as we all should.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by John Bosco Jr.

I see what you are getting at, and you made some good points until you specified "...the XLH1 is the camera to get for wildlife." The XLH1 might be one camera that will work for nature but maybe not the best one out there for nature for everyone. The interchangeable lens might give it an advantage as far as adding an even longer lens, but what about JVC's ProHD? It has an interchangeable lens as well, and some might actually prefer its form factor. Heck, with the right adapter and lens, the HVX 200 might be a better option for nature for some.

I know I've been very vocal on this "which camera is better than the other" rant. I will try to stay away from that as we all should.

Why do you feel the need to defend the HVX in every thread? It's just a camera, not a lifestyle.

So, here's why the JVC PROHD cameras are not as good as the XLH1 or XHA1for wildlife:
The JVC, with a fully manual lens does not have image stabilization.
It's 14x is considerably shorter than the Canon's 20x.
If you want a killer wildlife rig, then get a Canon XL with an EF adapter (ok, it only works in SD mode I think) but no other camera can match the zoom of an EOS lense with a 7.2x magnification for getting right close to wildlife.
If you don't need that much zoom, than an XHA1 will do fine. The 60p mode of the JVC HD200 would be nice though if you were shooting fast moving wildlife.

The best camera is always the one in your hand, any tool can be made to work for the job... but this thread isn't about that. It's about what camera works the best for a specific task.

[Mike Burgess]

Originally Posted by Steve Royer

All I need is an HV20 with a non AVCHD Hard Drive or wireless transfer, but something that compresses better. Oh and for under $1500 ....

One major reason I shy away from the HV20 is the 10X zoom. It is not enough. Other than that and the small size (too small and light for me with my big hands), the HV20 is a very nice camcorder.

Still, something more like the JVC HD7 size, but with the Canon PQ and a 20X zoom would be nice.

Mike

[Steve Royer]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

One major reason I shy away from the HV20 is the 10X zoom. It is not enough. Other than that and the small size (too small and light for me with my big hands), the HV20 is a very nice camcorder.

Still, something more like the JVC HD7 size, but with the Canon PQ and a 20X zoom would be nice.

Mike

So I then ask, what if you added lenses to enhance the zoom... added a stabilizer so you would not be phsyically holding the camera? I suppose I'm just very disappointed that there is not a hard drive camera with a decent PQ under $2000.

[Mike Burgess]

Well Steve, many times when an aftermarket zoom lens is added to a cam, you can lose a part of its function due to the fact that as you zoom back, your field of view becomes a circle with a fair share of your shot (picture) being blocked by the lens housing. This would necessitate removing the lens every time you wanted to zoom out of a shot. Unacceptable. Adding a stabilizer like a monopod might be OK as long as you didn't mind carrying around the extra equipment. As for the PQ improvement, how would you do that?

No. The only solution I can see is to settle for something less than what you really want and can afford, or buy nothing and wait for better. Niether is a very attractive choice in my book. So here I sit with a nine year old DV camcorder that is still working fine, but for how much longer I cannot say. AND I WANT BETTER RESOLUTION. Hence my desire for an HD camcorder that meets my demands and expectations, and is within my means.

Maybe if I save for another year, I can get the FX7. Please Sony and Canon, don't make me wait that long.

Mike

[Meryem Ersoz]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

How about a $2000 "prosumer" camcorder with large enough multiple sensor chips (3 third inch CCDs or 3 third inch CMOS), 20X zoom, minimum 60 degree wide angle, decent mics with XLR, capable of matching the PQ of the HV20, FX7, etc., with the more common manual controls without getting overboard and overwhelming simpletons like me.

so you basically want an XH A1 or V1U...since that's exactly the camera you are describing. but think they're what? overpriced?

we're getting unprecedented feature sets at unprecedented prices. at the risk of repeating myself, we're getting unbelievable $1000 cameras that require a $3000 editing system and a $4000 TV upgrade to watch. oh, yeah and add in a $500 hi-def DVD player...most of us can afford more camera than we can actually afford to view.

i just don't get complaining about the prices of cameras these days. the options are outstanding. if you want value added, buy used from one of our reputable frequent sellers in the DVinfo classifieds. i've bought and sold some great, barely used cameras and gear here at excellent discounts. we're awash in an abundance of riches.

i think the current "it" camera as of right now is the HPX500. if i didn't have a RED reservation lined up, i'd be clutching one right now....oh, but then there's that XDCAM EX looming on the horizon. that's a category killer, for sure.

[Mike Burgess]

Thanks for your response. Didn't think I was really complaining, just wishful thinking out loud. No, I don't need all the manual controls and presets and options of an A1 or a V1u. I am not that patient to try and learn it all nor technically gifted enough to understand it all. Nor would I expect a camcorder manufacturer to produce an A1 or V1u type cam for $2000. What I am wishing for is something between the FX7 and the HV20, feature-wise and size-wise, with the fantastic PQ of the forementioned cams, with an XLR included.

To be honest, never gave a thought about purchasing nearly new, used, equipment. Perhaps it is my reluctance to get anything electronic used. Would make me nervous wondering if anything were wrong with the product and what would happen if there was. But thats' just me.

AS for the $4000 TV, my $1600 new Toshiba 42" plasma does just fine. Haven't gotten far enough in my thought process concerning my computer and editing software, not to mention the player. One thing at a time. Right now I am just concerned with capturing material now in HD, before it is gone, and archiving it for future development.

Mike

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Right now I am just concerned with capturing material now in HD, before it is gone, and archiving it for future development.

In HD before it's gone? It's not even completely here yet.

Then again, with the rate of obsolescence in our field, I wouldn't be surprised if they're making us all buy new TV's, cameras, computers, and optical disc players again in another six months for the arrival of UHD (or something).

[Mike Burgess]

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

In HD before it's gone? It's not even completely here yet.

Then again, with the rate of obsolescence in our field, I wouldn't be surprised if they're making us all buy new TV's, cameras, computers, and optical disc players again in another six months for the arrival of UHD (or something).

It looks as if I wasn't clear. It is not that I wish to capture material before HD is gone, but rather capture material before the material is gone. Sorry for the confusion.

Mike

[Jarrod Whaley]

Sorry, Mike. That makes a lot more sense. :)

[Jon McGuffin]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

What makes a camera "the camera" to get.
a rant by Dylan Couper


What some people here fail to understand... and it boggles my mind sometime since it's so obvious... is that if you can't get the shot you need, then it doesn't matter what codec you shoot on. If the picture that comes into your camera isn't what you want because you've picked the wrong camera for the job, then it doesn't matter whether it's a Varicam or an HV20. Cameras are tools built to do certain jobs better than others.
Think of a hammer. Not all hammers are created equal. There are ball peen hammers, framing hammers, roofing hammers, sledgehammers, etc... Ferrari may one day make a roofing hammer. No matter how sweet it is, it's going to make a mess of a job that requires a ball peen hammer.

The same applies with cameras. We like to think they are all good, and that the picture is everything... BUT IT ISN'T! We need to be able to get the shot that we want, and if we can't it doesn't matter how good the picture is.

Let's take wildlife, since it came up. Say you shoot birds. You need a long lens with great image stabilization, as you will be shaky at full telephoto. It doesn't matter if the HVX200 has a codec forged by God, it lacks the long lens of the XLH1 to actually reach out and get that close shot that will make viewers ooh and ahh, and buyers go "wow, I can't believe you got that shot".
This is why the XLH1 is the camera to get for wildlife. It will get the shots that other cameras won't.

Hope this helps reframe your views of what makes a camera the right tool for the job.

It's a good point Dylan but I think you have to realize that 98% of all people in the market for purchasing a camera can't go out and buy a wide aray of camera's suitable for all the various shots they want to take. When most go looking for a camera, the question isn't "I'm shooting X,Y,&Z, can you guys tell me the 3-4 camera's I should get to cover this?"

Typically speaking, people are asking the question "I have $X which camera should I buy" and then it becomes something of a debate as to which camera will fit the job *most* of the time.

But I hear your point and I'll go one more further by saying people take the camera way too seriously and should really be spending more time thinking about their shots, angles, actors, scene's, edit points, etc, etc...

Jon

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Jon McGuffin

Typically speaking, people are asking the question "I have $X which camera should I buy" and then it becomes something of a debate as to which camera will fit the job *most* of the time.

Ah, truth is any of these cameras will do the job 90% of the time or more. Everyone spends way too much time worrying about what camera to get. Many of them fall into the trap of "I need this camera to..." The answer is usualy tied in with visions of grandeur and Academy Awards.

Most of the people here (probably including me, no wait... especially me!) would produce exactly the same results with a 10 year old Canon XL1, or an HV20, or a Varicam. We are gear junkies and pixel peepers by gender.

Oh, and the answer to "I have $x, which camera should I buy?" is...
Buy the cheapest camera you can get away with, and spend the rest of the money on stuff that will actually make a difference... like a tripod, mic, lights, filters, etc...

But if one camera had to cover more bases than anything, under $10k? The Canon XLH1 probably offers the most versitility in one camera. It does everything well. Some cameras do some things better, but other things poorly.
Of course the Canon XHA1 does 95% of what the XLH1 but for less than half the price. That kind of makes it "the camera to get" for a lot of people, unless you have one specific need that demands another tool.

From now on, I'm just going to take a girl with me to the camera store and get her to pick out whatever looks the sexiest. ;)

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

From now on, I'm just going to take a girl with me to the camera store and get her to pick out whatever looks the sexiest. ;)

So what do you do if she picks out the guy behind the counter? You'll go home alone and without a camera. (hehe)

-gb-

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

So what do you do if she picks out the guy behind the counter? You'll go home alone and without a camera. (hehe)

-gb-

On the other hand, it pretty much guarantees me a discount! In fact...
Wait, this might not be a response suitable to the general public... I'll tell ya later.

[Chris Soucy]

But will someone, anyone, please put a dignified end to this thread............pretty please!

I have seen people arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but this really takes the Oscar for a "go nowwhere conversation".

Just my PO, of course.

Cheers,


Chris