HD200 vs XDCAM HD

[Paul K. Towne]

Although this is my first post to this forum I’ve been reading and getting info for over a year. A little background, I’ve been shooting JVC products for over 15 years. My first camera was the original KY27 (2/3” chips). For the last six years or so I’ve been using a GY-DV500 (1/2” chips). I’m considering upgrading to HDV and I’m looking at the HD200. My big concern is the 1/3” chip size and low light capability. I still do the occasional wedding and although since I’ve moved to AZ I haven’t run into as many old dark churches, low light is still an issue especially at the reception. While browsing this forum I’ve started looking at Sony’s XDCAM HD. I know that this camera is about double the cost of the HD 200, so my question is, is it worth the extra money? Also does JVC have anything similar coming down the pike? Thanks in advance.

Paul

[Alister Chapman]

The XDCAM HD cameras are very different to the JVC HD200. For a start the sony offerings shoot 1080I and 1080P. They are disk based recording discreet files on inexpensive disks. XDCAM HD is the lowest cost format approved for mainstream HD production by Discovery HD. You can use any of the many standard 2/3" broadcast lenses via an adapter on the XDCAM'S. There are more discussions in the Cinealta/XDCAM forums on this site.

Low light sensitivity is an issue that affects all HD cameras, even the ver top end HDCAM cameras. It is the fact that the same amount of light is being focused onto smaller pixels so each pixel is getting less photons. If low light shooting is critical you might want to stick with SD cameras.

[Bob Diesso]

I haven't yet seen the GY-HD200, but did get to spend time recently with the GY-HD250. It's amazing. A very big step ahead, from a quality and function standpoint. It's definitely worth the time to see it in person.

[Nate Weaver]

As a former HD100 owner, and current XDCAM HD owner, I can tell you they're very different cameras.

-The XDCAM HD is a much higher res camera

-XDCAM HD is a much BIGGER camera in practice. If you at all enjoy the benefits of having a smaller camera you can throw around, but still have a real manual lens, AND you have never had a broadcast-size camera before, proceed carefully. I miss the size/ergo of the HD100 for sure.

-Although I managed to, with VERY careful and patient shopping, keep my F350 kit well under $30k, be aware, it's a money pit. I'm currently spending $5k on a new tripod because the camera/format demands it.

-The XDCAM workflow, so far for me, truly is problem free. But boy, did I pay for it.

If you're looking for the 60p of the 200 or 250, I would bet that the end subjective result of that 60p is pretty similar to the 1080i of the XDCAM (P vs I). If 24p is your game, the gulf widens.

[Warren Gentry]

If you're looking for the 60p of the 200 or 250, I would bet that the end subjective result of that 60p is pretty similar to the 1080i of the XDCAM (P vs I). If 24p is your game, the gulf widens.

Nate, Just curious as to why you chose the Sony PDW-F350 over the GY-HD250. The gulf widens in that the 24P on the Sony is much better than the JVC?

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

I'm currently spending $5k on a new tripod because the camera/format demands it.

So you're the one who keeps outbidding me on the auction sites... ;-)

Just kidding,

-gb-

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Warren Gentry

Nate, Just curious as to why you chose the Sony PDW-F350 over the GY-HD250. The gulf widens in that the 24P on the Sony is much better than the JVC?

In my opinion, yes. But that's no knock on the 250, I mean an F350 body is $26K! The two are not really in the same category.

[Brian Ladue]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

As a former HD100 owner, and current XDCAM HD owner, I can tell you they're very different cameras.

-The XDCAM HD is a much higher res camera

-XDCAM HD is a much BIGGER camera in practice. If you at all enjoy the benefits of having a smaller camera you can throw around, but still have a real manual lens, AND you have never had a broadcast-size camera before, proceed carefully. I miss the size/ergo of the HD100 for sure.

-Although I managed to, with VERY careful and patient shopping, keep my F350 kit well under $30k, be aware, it's a money pit. I'm currently spending $5k on a new tripod because the camera/format demands it.

-The XDCAM workflow, so far for me, truly is problem free. But boy, did I pay for it.

If you're looking for the 60p of the 200 or 250, I would bet that the end subjective result of that 60p is pretty similar to the 1080i of the XDCAM (P vs I). If 24p is your game, the gulf widens.

Hi Nate, Can you post a jpg of the XDCam next to somthing for a sense of scale? I was under the impression that it was not too much bigger than the JVCs, i know its about 12-14 lbs loaded with batt, disc etc.. but i wouldn't mind to see the scale of the camera, it would be cool if I could see a picture of an XD cam side by side with a HD100, XLH1....

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

Hi Nate, Can you post a jpg of the XDCam next to somthing for a sense of scale? I was under the impression that it was not too much bigger than the JVCs, i know its about 12-14 lbs loaded with batt, disc etc.. but i wouldn't mind to see the scale of the camera, it would be cool if I could see a picture of an XD cam side by side with a HD100, XLH1....

Here's a picture that gives an ideas of size:
http://xdcam.com.au/modules/xoopsgal...lbum02/nz5.jpg

Here's one with a Chrosziel Matte Box:
http://vsa1.com/images/XDCAM%20HD%20pdwf350_efp.gif

[Scott Spears]

Here's some pictures on a person:
http://www.fieldcamera.net/camera1.htm

Fyi, that last one is of a person with a dockable BetaCam recorder, not XDCam.

Scott

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

I know its about 12-14 lbs loaded with batt, disc etc..

Mmm, more like 18-20lbs, depending on the lens and batt. Mine's 19lbs. It's heavy enough your arm will complain if you have to hand carry it long enough.

Here's a pic from the Texas shootout earlier this year. In overall dimensions they are not too far off, but think of the XDCAM as being "really dense" weight wise for it's volume. The HD100 sits on your shoulder nicely, and doesn't bother you much. The XDCAM feels like putting a 20lb bag of dog food on your shoulder...you won't ever forget it's there.

[Brian Ladue]

Thanks guys, much appreciated.... now i have a better sense of size... I want to get the XDCam 350 for sure, but i'm thinking of getting the HD110 for now. They could be a nice match later, it would be nice to have a small camera like you said you could easily fling around.... as well as a camera like the 350 for high quality productions.

[Brian Ladue]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Mmm, more like 18-20lbs, depending on the lens and batt. Mine's 19lbs. It's heavy enough your arm will complain if you have to hand carry it long enough.

Here's a pic from the Texas shootout earlier this year. In overall dimensions they are not too far off, but think of the XDCAM as being "really dense" weight wise for it's volume. The HD100 sits on your shoulder nicely, and doesn't bother you much. The XDCAM feels like putting a 20lb bag of dog food on your shoulder...you won't ever forget it's there.

19 lbs...... are you using a Hytron 140?, that thing is like 5.5 lbs...thats like sticking a Z1U Camera on the back! How does the AB Dionic 90s perform? they are like 1.7 lbs. I'm guessing that you can probably get about 4 hours out of one of them.

No, I'm using a very light battery, a 90wh lithium from Batteries4broadcast. I get 3-4 hours out of it.

It's my lens that adds so much, a Canon H9ax3.8IRS. Any of the good wide-angles weigh as much or more than the body. Or a 2/3" HD lens is the same or worse.