Why is picking a new camera so hard?! at DVinfo.net

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 09:34 PM

Well, after having the GL2 for 2 years...i sold it and have money for a new camera..After searcing, reading, revising, posting, asking and thinking about it all...I've come to the conclusion that...i need to hurry, cause its costing me money NOT having a camera... Af first it was the dvx100a, xl2 or Fx1...Dont wanna get the fx since im mainly doing music videos and film like projects and even with the "cineframe" i think it's called...i still dont think it looks filmic at all. I kinda like the xl2's DOF and the low saturated out the box quality. I also like the fact that it's VERY cusomizable and can suit many filming situations given in the hands of someone that can set each shot up. And iv'e seen some amazing things shot on the DVX...like the short "water" was def. amazing. Another thing is, i usually do alot of CC in post so i'd want a camera unlike the GL2 which will look good out the box as well.
I know it's totally my option but ive read every possible thing in the past few months on these camera's and am still VERY stuck at this point... i have about 4500ish to spend...

My options now are...
(1)
Dvx100b-3400 after M.I.R
batteries-100
pelican case-200
cavision bellow w/few filters-800

(2)
Canon xl2 4400
Nice cardboarding carrying case coincidently the same one its shipped in.
The happiness of a nice big professional camera knowing that your only 18 and look younger and people think you can't even spell the word Camcorder.

Is there anything else i should take into consideration that i might be missing? help me please...

Josh Bass · December 12th, 2005, 09:42 PM

Just one thing ---

The depth of field on all cameras you're considering should be the same, since they all have 1/3" chips. Unless you're using a 35mm adapter, of course.

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 09:49 PM

maybe a little confused about what your saying...the xl2 has a larger DOF if im not mistaking. or am i just saying something wrong and confusing everyone?

Josh Bass · December 12th, 2005, 10:03 PM

Probably so.

All the miniDV cameras with 1/3" CCDs should have similar depth of field characterisitics.

When I say depth of field, I mean the area of the picture in focus at a given time, for a given focal length (how far you're zoomed in), at a given fstop (your iris setting), with the subject a certain distance from the camera, and the background a certain distance from the subject.

Most guys want a shallower depth of field, since, with 1/3" CCDs you're often battling to NOT have everything in the shot (foreground and background) in focus at the same time, because it's more "film-like" (or professional--since "real" movies are usually full of shallow focus shots).

My point was that the XL2, DVX100a, and anything else you mentioned you might buy will have similar/identical depth of field characteristics 'cause they have the same size censors. They WILL, however, have less depth of field (what I'm assuming you want) then your GL2, with a 1/4" CCD (bigger CCD = less depth of field), but it's not gonna be a night and day difference. You won't get those beautiful soft focus background easily with any of these cameras unless you're in the right locations (lots of space) or you zoom in so tight it's ridiculous (more zoomed in = less depth of field.

As I mentioned there are a handful of 35mm lens adapters (35mm will give you shallow depth of field despite the CCD size on your camera) for these miniDV cameras, that allow you to use 35mm lenses, but that option is not cheap at all. And I don't really have experience in that area, so if you ask, I'll let the other guys answer questions in that realm.

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 10:17 PM

Ohh ok. yea..i was a little confused. but the Xl2 has more film-like DOF given the lens it has and that is the main reason i really like that camera...I could just use an adapter and have similar/Better DOF and film like qualities using the Panasonic.

Kevin Shaw · December 12th, 2005, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Palumbo

Is there anything else i should take into consideration that i might be missing? help me please...

Yes, you should take into consideration that more and more people are buying widescreen TVs, so you should at least get a camera with a native widescreen sensor. If I'm not mistaken that rules out the DVX100 and favors the XL2 as one of the few true widescreen DV cameras.

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 10:41 PM

Could this possibly be bringing the fx1 up for a battle? haha

Josh Bass · December 12th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Well, that's what I'm saying, the XL2 does NOT have more film like depth of field than the DVX. I promise. The lens is a 20x, whereas the DVX's is a 10x (that's how far it can zoom), but the depth of field characteristics at any given focal length will be identical between the two cameras. I suppose if you wanted to get nitpicky, you could say that since the XL2's lens can zoom in farther, you can use those shorter focal lengths (being more zoomed in) to get shallower depth of field, but to make that work for you in the real world be be quite ridiculous. You'd have to get waaaaaaaaay back from your subject to get a head and shoulders CU zoomed in to 20x.

For all intents and purposes, however, the XL2's and the DVX's depths of field will be the same. Just 'cause the lens on the XL2 is bigger and detachable doesn't make the depth of field shallower. It's NOT a 35mm lens.

Kevin Shaw · December 12th, 2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Palumbo

Could this possibly be bringing the fx1 up for a battle? haha

I'd personally recommend the FX1 over any SD camera because it's more future-proof, but if you don't like the way the output looks then what are you to do? Just dont' be surprised if you buy an SD camera and two years from now have to sell it for next to nothing to buy an HD camera.

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 11:10 PM

Well, i guess one of the reasons i didnt really take the fx-1 into consideration is the lack of footage from it. The only thing ive seen is the 3L-Flex Music video from pixelloft. Can anyone show me anything convincing enough?

Kevin Shaw · December 12th, 2005, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Palumbo

Can anyone show me anything convincing enough?

You can take a look at the following samples on my web site, which are downsampled to compressed formats for internet delivery.

Yosemite Falls, Windows Media 720p at 5 Mbps:
http://www.videomem.com/hdv/yosemite_720p.wmv

Wedding video highlights, Windows Media 640x360 at 1 Mbps:
http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gor...highlights.wmv

Some of the highlights shots could have been better, but if you disregard that and look at the quality of the best scenes you'll get some idea with the FX1 can do. It's not a perfect camera, but it's pretty darn good for the price.

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 11:38 PM

Both links are the same. Thats really amazing looking footage, but im going for a more film-like example. Like maybe a music video or a short trailer or something. I know that no matter what camera i buy, it will be way better then the GL2...but still looking for something different.

Kevin Shaw · December 12th, 2005, 11:42 PM

Sorry, I just fixed the second link and that has lots of shots of people and such.

Giuseppe Palumbo · December 12th, 2005, 11:49 PM

yet again. i think the footage looks amazing, even down-res' that much. i guess its just not the look im going for if that makes sense.

Ash Greyson · December 12th, 2005, 11:56 PM

Future-proofing is 1% format, 99% content. I have seen your stuff and you do a great job with editing, CC, effects, etc. I can tell you right now that for a guy like you the HDV workflow will frustrate you to no end and will require a significant upgade in computers/HDD/etc.

To me, the choice is easy. If you want 16:9 then it is the XL2 all the way. If you want 4:3 the DVX100b comes into the picture. For someone like you I would recommend the XL2 which gets the cleanest most detailed SD image to tape so you can play with it later. As far as cost, you can pick an XL2 up for as little as $3700 new if you check around. If I were you, I would consider getting a used one from a forum member who has cared for it well. You can prolly pick up a case and the 3X wide within your budget.

ash =o)

December 12th, 2005, 09:34 PM	#1
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	Why is picking a new camera so hard?! Well, after having the GL2 for 2 years...i sold it and have money for a new camera..After searcing, reading, revising, posting, asking and thinking about it all...I've come to the conclusion that...i need to hurry, cause its costing me money NOT having a camera... Af first it was the dvx100a, xl2 or Fx1...Dont wanna get the fx since im mainly doing music videos and film like projects and even with the "cineframe" i think it's called...i still dont think it looks filmic at all. I kinda like the xl2's DOF and the low saturated out the box quality. I also like the fact that it's VERY cusomizable and can suit many filming situations given in the hands of someone that can set each shot up. And iv'e seen some amazing things shot on the DVX...like the short "water" was def. amazing. Another thing is, i usually do alot of CC in post so i'd want a camera unlike the GL2 which will look good out the box as well. I know it's totally my option but ive read every possible thing in the past few months on these camera's and am still VERY stuck at this point... i have about 4500ish to spend... My options now are... (1) Dvx100b-3400 after M.I.R batteries-100 pelican case-200 cavision bellow w/few filters-800 (2) Canon xl2 4400 Nice cardboarding carrying case coincidently the same one its shipped in. The happiness of a nice big professional camera knowing that your only 18 and look younger and people think you can't even spell the word Camcorder. Is there anything else i should take into consideration that i might be missing? help me please... __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 09:42 PM	#2
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Just one thing --- The depth of field on all cameras you're considering should be the same, since they all have 1/3" chips. Unless you're using a 35mm adapter, of course. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 12th, 2005, 09:49 PM	#3
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	maybe a little confused about what your saying...the xl2 has a larger DOF if im not mistaking. or am i just saying something wrong and confusing everyone? __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 10:03 PM	#4
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Probably so. All the miniDV cameras with 1/3" CCDs should have similar depth of field characterisitics. When I say depth of field, I mean the area of the picture in focus at a given time, for a given focal length (how far you're zoomed in), at a given fstop (your iris setting), with the subject a certain distance from the camera, and the background a certain distance from the subject. Most guys want a shallower depth of field, since, with 1/3" CCDs you're often battling to NOT have everything in the shot (foreground and background) in focus at the same time, because it's more "film-like" (or professional--since "real" movies are usually full of shallow focus shots). My point was that the XL2, DVX100a, and anything else you mentioned you might buy will have similar/identical depth of field characteristics 'cause they have the same size censors. They WILL, however, have less depth of field (what I'm assuming you want) then your GL2, with a 1/4" CCD (bigger CCD = less depth of field), but it's not gonna be a night and day difference. You won't get those beautiful soft focus background easily with any of these cameras unless you're in the right locations (lots of space) or you zoom in so tight it's ridiculous (more zoomed in = less depth of field. As I mentioned there are a handful of 35mm lens adapters (35mm will give you shallow depth of field despite the CCD size on your camera) for these miniDV cameras, that allow you to use 35mm lenses, but that option is not cheap at all. And I don't really have experience in that area, so if you ask, I'll let the other guys answer questions in that realm. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 12th, 2005, 10:17 PM	#5
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	Ohh ok. yea..i was a little confused. but the Xl2 has more film-like DOF given the lens it has and that is the main reason i really like that camera...I could just use an adapter and have similar/Better DOF and film like qualities using the Panasonic. __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 10:41 PM	#7
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	Could this possibly be bringing the fx1 up for a battle? haha __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 10:45 PM	#8
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Well, that's what I'm saying, the XL2 does NOT have more film like depth of field than the DVX. I promise. The lens is a 20x, whereas the DVX's is a 10x (that's how far it can zoom), but the depth of field characteristics at any given focal length will be identical between the two cameras. I suppose if you wanted to get nitpicky, you could say that since the XL2's lens can zoom in farther, you can use those shorter focal lengths (being more zoomed in) to get shallower depth of field, but to make that work for you in the real world be be quite ridiculous. You'd have to get waaaaaaaaay back from your subject to get a head and shoulders CU zoomed in to 20x. For all intents and purposes, however, the XL2's and the DVX's depths of field will be the same. Just 'cause the lens on the XL2 is bigger and detachable doesn't make the depth of field shallower. It's NOT a 35mm lens. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 12th, 2005, 11:10 PM	#10
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	Well, i guess one of the reasons i didnt really take the fx-1 into consideration is the lack of footage from it. The only thing ive seen is the 3L-Flex Music video from pixelloft. Can anyone show me anything convincing enough? __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 11:38 PM	#12
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	Both links are the same. Thats really amazing looking footage, but im going for a more film-like example. Like maybe a music video or a short trailer or something. I know that no matter what camera i buy, it will be way better then the GL2...but still looking for something different. __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 11:42 PM	#13
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Sorry, I just fixed the second link and that has lots of shots of people and such.

December 12th, 2005, 11:49 PM	#14
Giuseppe Palumbo Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 199 Images: 7	yet again. i think the footage looks amazing, even down-res' that much. i guess its just not the look im going for if that makes sense. __________________ AIM - N film B www.nbfilms.us

December 12th, 2005, 11:56 PM	#15
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Future-proofing is 1% format, 99% content. I have seen your stuff and you do a great job with editing, CC, effects, etc. I can tell you right now that for a guy like you the HDV workflow will frustrate you to no end and will require a significant upgade in computers/HDD/etc. To me, the choice is easy. If you want 16:9 then it is the XL2 all the way. If you want 4:3 the DVX100b comes into the picture. For someone like you I would recommend the XL2 which gets the cleanest most detailed SD image to tape so you can play with it later. As far as cost, you can pick an XL2 up for as little as $3700 new if you check around. If I were you, I would consider getting a used one from a forum member who has cared for it well. You can prolly pick up a case and the 3X wide within your budget. ash =o)