The gigantic "which camera should I buy" thread!

[Patrick D. Harrington]

I have been trying to decide what to buy for a while! I need something I can shoot fast motin with in low light, and still get great image quality, I would preffer something I can change lenses as well. I have looked at Canon's stuff and think I may be stuck shooting standard deff to avoid the horrible gop issues with high deff compression. does anyone have any advise? I shoot lots of racing videos, I would also like to shoot nature and scenic videos. I plan to shoot s short documentary in the future as well.

[Allen Plowman]

I use a PD170 to shoot racing videos, due to the low light capabilities.
advantages: fairly cheap since its 4:3 native, and not HD
Disadvantages: its 4:3 native, and not HD

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Patrick,

I shoot drag boat racing videos. Our team does the liquid quarter mile in under 5 seconds with a clocked speed of over 248 mph (after coasting the last 300 feet!). In order to keep up with the boat I have to do some fast pans.

The Canon XL H1, with the long GOP. works very well for this.

Long GOP allows for a high level of detail and for a high degree of compression. There are proper techniques for editing long GOP's, but it is desirable in many cases to convert the ".mpg" to an ".avi" to remove the long GOP structure.

Experts that have actually used this camera do not describe it as "horrible long-GOP".

There are tremendous advantages when shooting HD.

For example, with the high resolution that the XL H1/ XH A1/ XH G1 / etc. provides you with the ability to zoom in, in post, to get the actual framing you want. This is a huge advantage over shooting in HD.

Unless you are a perfect cameraman, it is difficult to zoom in and correctly keep your fast moving subject tight in the frame. Doing it in post works great.
If your target is a DVD, then you have plenty of resolution, even after you zoom in and pan in post.

[Andy Tejral]

I can testify to the low light capabilities of the pd170. Compared to a Canon HV20, the pd170 had about a 20 ire, which neatly works out to be 20%, difference.

Now, that's very much like comparing toadstools to gold fish but its something to consider.

[Mark Hoefflin]

Hi Jonathan,

this thread has jumped around a bit! :-)
based upon what I have read here in the forum and in other areas online I will be purchasing a canon GL2 for my work with the workprinter xp. I have been looking into which raid set up I wil be using with my macbook pro and have decided to go with the Sonnet Fusion F2 external raid - according to sonnet it should be fast enough -
Somewhere here in the thousands of posts I had read that one can read the personal classifieds when one has been a member for 30 days... but I am still not getting access - or I cant find them in this column.
At any rate, I am looking for a good canon.
At the moment an HD Camera will not be of any help, because the capture software ( at least the way I understood it ) is not capable of processing the frames as HD.

[Arun Balchandar]

Hello All

Greetings from India.

I have read almost all these post and I am very impressed and gratefull for the wealth of information that can be found in this forum.

BRIEF DEsCRIPTION OF WHAT I DO
I am video producer making 30 sec informative videos for the web. There are a couple of directory listing company's that give a free 30 sec video to all company's and individuals who sing up for their service. SO whenver a client signs up, I get the call to go and shoot this video for this client and the directory listing comapny pays me. I basically have been shooting on Sony PD 170 , edit it on Final Cut pro, compress it and upload it to the web.

I use three to four teams, to film atleast 20 clients every day. These teams consist of a camera person and an assistant and they go on a motor bike with the camera, tripod and a basic hand held light.

My question

WHICH CAMERA IS BETTER SUITED FOR THE WEB?

I DONT REALLY NEED A BRODCAST QUALITY CAMERA TO SHOOT THESE VIDEOS AS I HAVE TO EVNTUALLY COMPRESS THEM FOR THE WEB.

Is there another video camera that is better sutied for the web?

Appreciate some light on this matter

Regards
Arun Balchandar

[Patrick Jenkins]

Really.. any camera that allows you to dump into an editable format in your editing software of choice. DV is tried and true, if you need higher res hit HDV, etc.

Since your quality limited (compress to web), invest a little less in the camera and more in mic/sound and a light kit (doesn't need to be fancy - just know how to use it).

Sounds like you've got a pretty workable system already, but it may be showing its age. To spin a phrase.. If it's broke, feel free to fix it. =)

[Bill Pryor]

If your camera is in good condition, it's probably perfect for what you're doing. No need to change unless it dies.

[Arun Balchandar]

Hi Patrick and Bill

Thanks for yur suggestions. I went ahead and bought a Sony VX2100 to save some money for accesories and light kit. I plant to rent a Sony PD 170 as well.

thanks
Arun Balchandar
Chennai, India

[Avilee Goodwin]

Hi DV folks,

I’m looking to upgrade my current video setup, and -- not being a professional at all -- could use some advice, Background / usage: I’m a high school dance teacher and mostly use video for documentation of my student performances (as well as in class - instant feedback). So I need something with pretty decent low-light capabilities, as I shoot in a darkened theater a lot (although the stage itself is well-lit).

For the last 5 years I’ve been working with a Sony DCR-TRV38 DV recorder. It seems to have a good lens and I’ve appreciated the quality of video I get in the theater (especially for home-video consumer model). But it doesn’t seem to be as dependable as I would like -- had to take it in for repair already a few years back, and now the sound is often severely corrupted -- so I figured it’s time to upgrade.

I have sworn by Canon for my still cameras for years, not least because the engineering seems dependable (have never had any kind of repair problem). So I would like to get a Canon for video as well. I have read a little about the newer recorders that shoot to internal flash drive + memory card instead of digital video tape, and wondered if that might be the way to go -- would undoubtedly save some time on the capture end of things, I think. I read a couple of good reviews of Canon’s HF10, and I’m just about ready to jump

So, here are my main questions (sorry if this post is getting awfully long!):
1. Stupid/ignorant amateur question first: if I go with a flash drive/memory card camera, how will the video download onto my computer -- is there still a real-time capture process, or is it more direct (I’m envisioning the way my still photos automatically download as JPEG files)? Is there anything about this system I haven’t thought of that I need to know about? I use Final Cut Express for editing, and I see that the latest version (to which I need to upgrade anyway) does support AVCHD...

2. Specifics -- my main concern, after reading the reviews of the HF10, is that apparently the higher # of pixels does mean lower light-sensitivity... I worry that that might be a problem in the theater -- but again, I’m not really comparing the performance against professional models, or even the bet consumer model on the market right now, but against my 5-year-old Sony TRV38 -- could the low-light performance actually be worse than a 5-year-old camera (given the jumps in technology since then)? I’m looking for a step up from my Sony, but I’m a teacher not a professional so a high-end consumer model rather than a professional camera is really still what I need, I think.

3. Anything else I haven’t thought of that should be glaring me in the face?

Thanks for reading this long post, I’d appreciate any advice!

[David Beisner]

Hello Avilee and welcome to DVinfo!

Originally Posted by Avilee Goodwin

1. Stupid/ignorant amateur question first: if I go with a flash drive/memory card camera, how will the video download onto my computer -- is there still a real-time capture process, or is it more direct (I’m envisioning the way my still photos automatically download as JPEG files)? Is there anything about this system I haven’t thought of that I need to know about? I use Final Cut Express for editing, and I see that the latest version (to which I need to upgrade anyway) does support AVCHD...

You'll just pop the flash memory out of the camera, pop it into a flash memory card reader on your computer (which you probably already have from doing still photography) and transfer your files! Many cameras are also equipped with USB for transfer directly from the camera, but that can be slower than using a dedicated flash drive. Easy to do and you should be able to jump straight to editing if you've got the proper software.

2. Specifics -- my main concern, after reading the reviews of the HF10, is that apparently the higher # of pixels does mean lower light-sensitivity... I worry that that might be a problem in the theater -- but again, I’m not really comparing the performance against professional models, or even the bet consumer model on the market right now, but against my 5-year-old Sony TRV38 -- could the low-light performance actually be worse than a 5-year-old camera (given the jumps in technology since then)? I’m looking for a step up from my Sony, but I’m a teacher not a professional so a high-end consumer model rather than a professional camera is really still what I need, I think.

You're correct, higher number of pixels does not mean better low-light sensitivity. Generally speaking, consumer, and even many prosumer, grade HD cameras have much worse low-light sensitivity than SD cameras. I've not used the HF10 myself, but from what I've read, it does have a number of manual controls, including manual shutter and iris, which should allow you to make the most of what light is available. Your low-light performance will probably be worse than what you have now, but the benefit is that what you will get with an HD camera will be much more crisp than your current SD camera which means that even in lower light, your outlines and features should be much easier to see clearly. I feel your frustrations with low-light and dance. I do a lot of the video work for the dance classes at the college where I work and the instructor will frequently use very little light on the stage, even going so far as doing silhouetting, that even with a good SD camera like the GL2 or the VX2000 I had trouble getting enough light without ruining it through the noise of the gain. All that said, I wouldn't let that scare me away from making the move to HD. In fact, it didn't. I'm now using an XHA1 (just got it this summer) and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works with the dance stuff.

3. Anything else I haven’t thought of that should be glaring me in the face?

Thanks for reading this long post, I’d appreciate any advice!

Maybe. Have you given much thought to your workflow with a tapeless camera? Even though they're quickly coming down in price, flash memory is still too expensive to really archive well. Computer hard drives are too finicky and prone to mechanical failure to be a reliable archival method. With HD video, archiving to DVD is time-consuming and requires a lot of DVDs (unless you can get DVD-9s or Blu-Ray). If you're shooting stuff that goes into the computer to edit, out to DVD, and is done with, then you should be okay. But if you want to be able to archive your work (I imagine you keep tapes of your dance recitals, etc.), then you're going to have to figure that out. It's not a major thing, just something to think about.

Also, editing AVCHD material is much more machine-intensive than editing DV material. If you've got a fairly new Mac, you should be okay, but I've read that for editing AVCHD you are best off with a multi-core machine and several GB of memory. I'm editing HDV with the Canon XHA1 on a quad-core with 4GB of Ram and it runs okay, though I can still tell a difference between it and DV, even with DV done on a much slower machine.

Definitely don't let HD scare you--the footage you'll get will blow you away! Have fun!

[Avilee Goodwin]

Hi David,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply... Since I posted all those questions, I discovered that Final Cut only supports AVCHD technology on Intel-based Macs (damn!). Since I'm not quite ready to throw over my trusty G4 machine (or learn a whole new editing program), I'm considering going with the HV30 instead (the equivalent to the HF10 but using DV) -- which does have a slightly better sensor and is highly rated by at least one reviewer... Maybe I'll try for the solid-state camera in a few years, when they're a little less new and I need a new computer anyhow. In the meantime, your XH A1 sounds pretty tempting -- I'm not sure I'm ready for a professional recorder yet, but I may take a look when I actually get out there...

thanks again for your help.
Avilee

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Avilee Goodwin

Since I posted all those questions, I discovered that Final Cut only supports AVCHD technology on Intel-based Macs (damn!). Since I'm not quite ready to throw over my trusty G4 machine (or learn a whole new editing program),

...

Maybe I'll try for the solid-state camera in a few years, when they're a little less new and I need a new computer anyhow.

If you are going to work in HD, then the time for a new computer is now.

Working with HD is extremely taxing to your computer- even if you have a brand spanking new 8 core Mac Pro.

Seriously, any Macbook Pro (including the oldest Core 1 processor based units) will dramatically outperform your G4 for HD editing.

Heck they are close to on par with my Dual 2.7GHz G5 for most tasks, but they are often faster for HD post production due to the newer feature set of the hardware. (New SSE and GPU instructions) So even with a much newer machine the laptops are an overall upgrade for me.

[Ervin Farkas]

Originally Posted by Alexander Ibrahim

Working with HD is extremely taxing to your computer- even if you have a brand spanking new 8 core Mac Pro.

Your statement might be true for professionals making a living with video, their time is money... but for some people here on the forum editing HDV is just a hobby. I am editing HDV on a 4 year old plain office Dell P4 @ 3GHz with 2GB of RAM and it's just fine.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Ervin Farkas

Your statement might be true for professionals making a living with video, their time is money... but for some people here on the forum editing HDV is just a hobby. I am editing HDV on a 4 year old plain office Dell P4 @ 3GHz with 2GB of RAM and it's just fine.

There is a huge difference between your relatively modern Dell P4 and a G4.

The very newest G4 was released in June 2003. The fastest G4 available is a dual CPU at 1.42GHz, released January 2003. It has a 167MHz bus, uses PATA drives (with compatibility issues). The fastest CPU available is 1.8GHz.

Sad to say, because I am an Apple fanboy, but your P4 has aged better than this gentleman's G4. Apple's transition to Intel has really changed the life span of those machines.

Like I said, even the most modest Intel Mac will seriously outperform his G4 for HD video. I talked about a Macbook Pro... but I've worked with HD on the dual core Macbook and Intel Mac Mini, and by comparison to ANY G4 its buttery smooth on those machines.

So, in closing- even for a hobbyist who will never make a dime- I recommend an upgrade from any G4 or older PowerPC Mac to an Intel Mac that supports the minimum requirements for Final Cut Studio 2. While you are at it though, I'd make sure it was Color Compatible too (See "Color Specific Requirements" at the link above.)

Most Intel iMacs and Macbook Pros fit the bill. While they would be an upgrade froma G4, stay away from "Core 1" Intel Macs, go for the Core 2 units instead, and definitely get dual core.