Any recommendations for 16:9 camera's in $3000.00 range? at DVinfo.net

Derek Mills · January 31st, 2008, 12:30 AM

I'm VERY close to purchasing my first miniDV camera, and I want to purchase one that shoots 'true' 16:9 for playback on widescreen TV's.

What is available out there in the $2,500.00-$3,300.00 range? What do you recommend and why? I will be shooting documentary type films, i.e., indoor/outdoor interviews, and using a glidecam occassionally.

Kevin Shaw · January 31st, 2008, 12:34 AM

Try either the Sony FX1, V1U or Canon XH-A1. These are currently the best values in your price range.

Derek Mills · January 31st, 2008, 12:49 AM

WOW..talk about a fast response! Thank you very much. I went and posted a reply to another post, and when I came back, there was already a reply. I knew that I would like this forum when I stumbled across it this past year.

I just went and looked at them on B&H and read their specs...quite impressive. I also like the XL2 but the only drawback is that it doesn't shoot HD. But it has a host of other accolades that sets it apart from the 'pack'. I really like the feature of interchangable lens!

My question...since I will be shooting documentaries, is HD really that big of a concern? Is the difference in picture quality that apparant shooting SD vs. HD on a widescreen?

Kevin Shaw · January 31st, 2008, 08:17 AM

The XL2 might be worth a look if you need interchangeable lenses, but HD is becoming standard for professional work and it could be a problem to get left behind shooting widescreen SD. Resolution isn't everything, but consider that the XH-A1 records 1.5 megapixels per frame while the XL2 is only 0.3 megapixels. Also, if I remember right the XL2 has a 1/4" sensor while the XH-A1 is 1/3", giving the latter better depth of field control.

Chris Hurd · January 31st, 2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

...if I remember right the XL2 has a 1/4" sensor

The Canon XL2 actually has three 1/3rd-inch sensors. The full width of the sensors
is used when shooting 16:9. For more information on how it works, see my article at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php

There is no significant difference in depth-of-field control between 1/4" and 1/3" chips.

Kevin Shaw · January 31st, 2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The Canon XL2 actually has three 1/3rd-inch sensors.

My mistake, I see that only applies to the smaller GL2 camera. Thanks for the correction.

Quote:

There is no significant difference in depth-of-field control between 1/4" and 1/3" chips.

Compared to cameras with even larger sensors that's true, but I did see some difference when upgrading from my Canon GL1/GL2 to the Sony FX1.

Chris Barcellos · January 31st, 2008, 05:27 PM

Sony FX7 is more in price range, and similar to V1u and other cameras listed. Also, though I have FX1, I find that the diminutive HV20 which I also have, and that sell on street for around $ 800.00 provides a magnificent image.

Derek Mills · February 4th, 2008, 01:57 AM

When I visited the CanonUSA site, it lists the specs for the A1 as follows:
HD: 1440 x 1080; Approx. 1.56 Megapixels
SD (4:3): 1080 x 1080; Approx. 1.17 Megapixels
SD (16:9): 1440 x 1080; Approx. 1.56 Megapixels

Does this mean that16:9 capture can only be obtained in SD? OR....both formats (4:3 & 16:9) are captured at 1.56 MP in HD all the time?

Michael Wisniewski · February 4th, 2008, 02:31 AM

HD is always 16:9. You would crop the HD image if it was intended for a 4:3 display.

Derek Mills · February 4th, 2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

HD is always 16:9.

Thanks!!!! I kinda, sorta figured that may have been the case, but wasn't 100% sure.

Marco Leavitt · February 4th, 2008, 04:47 PM

I think the XL2 is a great camera for the price. It all depends on whether you really want HD. For me, there's no point until authoring HD-DVDs becomes easier and people actually have a way to play them and HD-TVs to watch them on. Man, I would never have guessed that it would take this long but this whole conversion is moving at a glacial pace. In my neighborhood, there isn't even a venue to project HD material. Sheesh.

Petri Kaipiainen · February 11th, 2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Mills

When I visited the CanonUSA site, it lists the specs for the A1 as follows:
HD: 1440 x 1080; Approx. 1.56 Megapixels
SD (4:3): 1080 x 1080; Approx. 1.17 Megapixels
SD (16:9): 1440 x 1080; Approx. 1.56 Megapixels

Does this mean that16:9 capture can only be obtained in SD? OR....both formats (4:3 & 16:9) are captured at 1.56 MP in HD all the time?

Well, the sensor has the amount of pixels mentioned above, but the actual SD image saved on tape has only 720*480 pixels (720*576 on PAL), on both 16:9 and 4:3 formats... All SD DV cameras have the same specks on tape output, no matter if they use "overpixelled" sensors like HDV (good) or "underpixelled" like most old DV cameras do (not so good), even prosumer models.

XH-A1 can shoot HDV, always 16:9, and SD in either 16:9 or 4:3 modes. The same sensor is used all the time and output downscaled for SD as needed.

January 31st, 2008, 12:30 AM	#1
Derek Mills Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Colony, TX Posts: 29	Any recommendations for 16:9 camera's in $3000.00 range? I'm VERY close to purchasing my first miniDV camera, and I want to purchase one that shoots 'true' 16:9 for playback on widescreen TV's. What is available out there in the $2,500.00-$3,300.00 range? What do you recommend and why? I will be shooting documentary type films, i.e., indoor/outdoor interviews, and using a glidecam occassionally.

January 31st, 2008, 05:27 PM	#7
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Sony FX7 is more in price range, and similar to V1u and other cameras listed. Also, though I have FX1, I find that the diminutive HV20 which I also have, and that sell on street for around $ 800.00 provides a magnificent image. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

February 4th, 2008, 02:31 AM	#9
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	HD is always 16:9. You would crop the HD image if it was intended for a 4:3 display. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

January 31st, 2008, 12:34 AM	#2
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Try either the Sony FX1, V1U or Canon XH-A1. These are currently the best values in your price range.

January 31st, 2008, 12:49 AM	#3
Derek Mills Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Colony, TX Posts: 29	WOW..talk about a fast response! Thank you very much. I went and posted a reply to another post, and when I came back, there was already a reply. I knew that I would like this forum when I stumbled across it this past year. I just went and looked at them on B&H and read their specs...quite impressive. I also like the XL2 but the only drawback is that it doesn't shoot HD. But it has a host of other accolades that sets it apart from the 'pack'. I really like the feature of interchangable lens! My question...since I will be shooting documentaries, is HD really that big of a concern? Is the difference in picture quality that apparant shooting SD vs. HD on a widescreen?

January 31st, 2008, 08:17 AM	#4
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	The XL2 might be worth a look if you need interchangeable lenses, but HD is becoming standard for professional work and it could be a problem to get left behind shooting widescreen SD. Resolution isn't everything, but consider that the XH-A1 records 1.5 megapixels per frame while the XL2 is only 0.3 megapixels. Also, if I remember right the XL2 has a 1/4" sensor while the XH-A1 is 1/3", giving the latter better depth of field control.

February 4th, 2008, 01:57 AM	#8
Derek Mills Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Colony, TX Posts: 29	When I visited the CanonUSA site, it lists the specs for the A1 as follows: HD: 1440 x 1080; Approx. 1.56 Megapixels SD (4:3): 1080 x 1080; Approx. 1.17 Megapixels SD (16:9): 1440 x 1080; Approx. 1.56 Megapixels Does this mean that16:9 capture can only be obtained in SD? OR....both formats (4:3 & 16:9) are captured at 1.56 MP in HD all the time?

February 4th, 2008, 04:47 PM	#11
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I think the XL2 is a great camera for the price. It all depends on whether you really want HD. For me, there's no point until authoring HD-DVDs becomes easier and people actually have a way to play them and HD-TVs to watch them on. Man, I would never have guessed that it would take this long but this whole conversion is moving at a glacial pace. In my neighborhood, there isn't even a venue to project HD material. Sheesh.