Near Broadcast quality prosumer Camera

[Sean McHenry]

What Glenn said.

Examine your shooting needs first. For me, I see primarily outdoors 16:9 in my future so I went with the superior 16:9 of the PDX10. Ease of use and general shooting, I would go with one of the Panasonics, 80 (if you can find one in a box), the 30 or the soon to be released 60.

Want to impress folks AND shoot 24p, the Canon XL2 (after some reviews to make sure it isn't a dud - I doubt it will be) and then the 100A Panasonic for its 24p and small size.

The choice is yours, the red pill or the blue pill.

Sean

[Giroud Francois]

As you can see, each team is proposing its solution.
On the sony one, you get an cheap aging star but still standing.
For Pana, you got several model, but only the dvx100 can compare to the others.
And finally the Canon team that has only a veteran or a not born yet.
My question is why are we reviewing camcorder.
I think for the price you should take a look on real studio camera (head only) that you could link to a video recorder, whatever it could be , beta, dv, blueray, d-vhs.
It is probably the same price, but you can have best of the two world, good picture , nice recording.

[Mike Rehmus]

Interesting responses.

Truth is, any of the mentioned cameras will deliver that elusive quality known as 'broadcast quality.' In fact, a Hi-8 will do it too.

Broadcast quality isn't dependent on a camera, it is dependent on how well you can control your video and audio to meet spec.

And cable doesn't require broadcast quality anyway (check with your local company to make certain). Just close. In fact, acceptable (technical quality) video will depend more on your NLE than the camera.

Good looking video will depend more on your lighting and camera operation than on the camera.

Having run a live-to-tape studio, I know you have much more to concern yourself with than the camera.

As was mentioned, you will require a decent tripod or pedestal with wheels. The tripod itself isn't very important as long as it is sturdy and you have a dolly for it and a good head for smooth moves. That assumes you aren't going to need a camera rise during the shoot.

Studio lighting is going to be critical as that determines more than anything else, the quality of the video image.

Your background (the set) can be very simple as long as it is lit properly. A virtual set is probably out of the budget for now.

For sound, most studio sports programs run lavalier microphones into a mixer and then into the camera (if you aren't shooting double sound). That alone suggests that you want a camera with native XLR connections if at all possible.

In fact, if you have a portable NLE or the NLE is in the studio, you could capture directly to disk with a tape backup (in the camera).

[Sean McHenry]

Amen Brother Michael.

What he said.

We can talk about specs all day long. There is no shortage of experts around, including me : )

Shooting technique that is great, with modest tools, will beat out a Thompson Viper camera, SteadyCam and Videscence lighting instruments in the hands of a hack every time. Don't become a hack. Use whatever basic tools you can afford to their optimum. Pay attention to most of the folks on these forums and learn from their mistakes.

Most of us here have some broadcast experience. Myself, 16 years with NBC. Engineering experience with a local, well known post company and sales in broadcast gear.

We will try not to stear people wrong but occasionally let our prejudices on gear get in our own way.

I drug this bananna far enough off topic. Good luck.

Sean McHenry

[Mark Michaels]

HI Everyone,

Thanks for all the responses!!

We are only in need of a camera. We already have the support equipment - tripods, studio set, lighting, NLE suite, etc. I simply wanted to know what the best camera was to use for "broadcast" quality work. I relized that the camera ws only as good as the lighting, lens and operator, so with that said we were looking for(and got) some opions regarding the best camera to use for our studio TV show.

Thanks again for everyones help!!

[Jacques Mersereau]

Right now for a 'sports center' type show?
The DVX100a. Very nice images and more than
good enough for cable TV. Our group here at work just put in a PO for
three kits from ZGC (a dvinfo.net sponsor who rocks imo!).

The XL2 is yet unknown and really untested. I personally need
to replace my XL1 and the XL2 is the camera I am interested in.
That said, it's always smart to wait a few months for a new
product to be put through the paces.

So, for image quality, availability and price, the DVX100a
would be my pick.

I got a better price than B&H.

[Matt Bleistein]

Get a used Sony 300A, it will blow the doors off of any of the cameras mentioned thus far.

They can be had for under $5,000.

Cheers.

[Jacques Mersereau]

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Bleistein : Get a used Sony 300A, it will blow the doors off of any of the cameras mentioned thus far.

They can be had for under $5,000.

Cheers. -->>>

There are some issues to consider when buying a used betacam camera.
Repairs can exceed the cost of a new DV camera like the DVX100a.
They require yearly maintenance too.

How do you get the video into the computer? You'll spend more money
than the firewire input that comes with most computers today.
A UVW-1800 deck costs more used than a DVX100a new. Tapes are much more
money than miniDV.

OTOH, betaSP is still the broadcast standard.

[Mike Rehmus]

The DSR-300 series are Sony 1/2" DVCams and they do not require the level of mainenance that is needed by Betacam products. The DSR-300 series and any of the pro DVCam transports (like the DSR-20/40 . . .) using its mechanicals have a very long life.

Most pro products, as these do, have readily acessible operating hour meters so a prospective buyer can determine their degree of use.

A DSR-300 series camera can run mini as well as full-sized cassettes although they will only record in DVCam mode so the max time is 40 minues on the mini cassette and 4.5 hours on the large cassette.

The DSR-300 does not have a firewire port. The firewire port was included on the 300A, the 370 and now the 390.

Compared to the smaller DV cameras, the 300 Series has better (and removable) optics, viewfinder, audio, controls, superior DSP results, and, it has a flesh-tone detector that will smooth out wrinkles if you want it to do so.

That said, I do buy used cameras even on ebay. But I always pick them up in person with a cashier's check in my pocket. Test first and then buy. So my rule is that I have to save enough money to pay for the trip to check out the camera before I pay for it.

If you've never shot with a real pro camera, it is a surprise how good DV can really be. And how fast a pro camera handles.

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : As a matter of fact, the XL series does require expensive lenses. Consdering the XL1 is discontined, Mark would be getting the XL2, which has a similar feature set to the AG-DVX100.

The MSRP for the XL2 is US $3999. The MSRP for the XL2 PLUS the new 20X "stock" lens is US $4999, and you can bet those prices will not be coming down any time soon. The going price for the DVX100A at B&H is $3,500, and that includes its lens. So no misinformation was being spread.

Go with the DVX100A, Mark. You get good green screening capabilities and true progressive scan. BTW, what will your ouput medium be, DVD's, school TV station, etc...? -->>>

You assume Mark is going to get an XL2 when they won't be available in stores for weeks at best? Sure, have at it. I already stated that the XL2 is considerably more expensive, technically out of Marks price range, with or without a lens. The XL1s and the XL1 are the only XL series of cameras available now, so lets talk those, unless you want to speculate the XL3 as well?

The XL1, and XL1s both come packaged with lenses, and can be had used much cheaper than DVX100s. I think the going price for a mint XL1s, including the 16x IS lens is about $2600. Want to buy new? They are still around online, new, for less than a new DVX100A. That means an new XL series camera, including a lens, for less than the DVX100....
Wait, lets go one more step.... I could get a complete mint XL1 for $2000 and that would do the job. Even better, I could get a used XL1 body for $1000 and a used 3x lens for $800. That would do the job and still leave $1700 in our friends pocket ($2190 actually including taxes where I live) over a DVX100, with which he could purchase a light kit and mic and deliver a much superior product.

OK, I've wasted enough time on this. The XL2 is an expensive camera overall. $1000 for an L-series IS lens is a freakin' bargain. The body just happens to be expensive. Every other XL camera package was priced to about the same point as the DVX100 and PD150, and shot fine with the stock lens. As soon as the frenzy wears down, the XL2 will probably drop to $4000 with lens.

Look, it's a free world, believe whatever you want. Your statement about the XL cameras needing expensive lenses comes off as pretty ignorant to me, like you are an XL1 hater/DVX lover, or someone that has never used either and shoots with a one chipper (nothing wrong with that). Have a nice day.

[Jesse Bekas]

I only own a 1-chipper (and there is something wrong with that! ;) ), but I have shot with both the DVX and the XL1S, and while they're both proven cams, the XL series does require that you buy an additional lense; that's just a fact with any camcorder that includes lens swapping. They are usually sold as bodies, with lens optional (for more money!), so I don't think my earlier posts were in ignorance. $1,000 L series lenses might not be very expensive for a decent studio, but they are when your budget is $5,000 including acessories.

I was wrong, however, about only being able to get the XL2. I assumed because B&H stopped carrying it, that they would be very hard to find. The lowest price from a trusted store I found for the XL1S was $3000 (through resellerratings). For a little more, I'd still go with the DVX.

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : They are usually sold as bodies, with lens optional (for more money!).
-->>>

They really are usually sold with lenses included.


<<<--I was wrong, however, about only being able to get the XL2. I assumed because B&H stopped carrying it, that they would be very hard to find. The lowest price from a trusted store I found for the XL1S was $3000 (through resellerratings). For a little more, I'd still go with the DVX. -->>>

For a little money, for a studio gig, I'd go for the DVX100 too.

Sorry for being a little bitchy in my last post, it's been a rough day, I didn't mean to insult you (well, a little, but I take it back).

[Bill Pryor]

For broadcast work I wouldn't want to go with anything less than a 1/2" chip camera. The Panasonic DVC200 is a nice one and so is the JVC GY5000. They're both significantly cheaper than the Sony DSR300 (now the 370). Although the 370 is the best 1/2" chip camera made, in my opinion, it's also the most expensive.
Most broadcast stuff you see is going to be shot with 2/3" chip cameras, so going with a 1/3" chip prosumer camera is going to make your stuff look softer than surrounding things that will be on the air. There's also the latitude issue--you don't want blown out highlights for broadcast, and the bigger chip cameras will be better in that regard.
As for chromakeying (green or bluescreen), any of the 1/3" or better cameras will key fine if you light things properly and have decent keying software.
Somebody

[Cory Moorehead]

Im a true believer in whatever you have, you can make it work. Which means if you have a Sony TRV9....you can add great lighting and tweak the setting and get an external mic and make one AWESOME production, without the need of something expensive. Sure the higher end camera's provide nicer images and colors, but if you have a cheaper camera, dont get discouraged. I have a Canon ZR60. It is not even close to being remotly good, but I can make it work for myself and make some wicked productions.

Sorry, I got a bit off topic, but with all this talk about 7000.00 cameras and whatnot..I had to say that.

[Mark Michaels]

OK, let me make sure that I'm getting this straight.:)

MOst of the "PRO Broadcast" cameras like the Panasonic and the JVC GY5000 are great in the final footage qulaity, but they are lacking the firewire ports to get the footage in and out of your computer. by going this way, We will need to buy additional editing decks to get the footage into our NLE system, Right??

But if we go with the something like the XL1, DVX100a we will not be getting the "broadcast quality" footage, and our show will be noticeably different than the others, but we will have no toruble getting the fotage into the computer for editing with our NLE software. Right??

So I am almost forced to go with the DVX100a, with a budget of $5000 and then hopefully sign on some big $$$ advertisers, etc to step up to the next level which would be the pro cameras like the JVC GY5000.