XDCam HD Wedding Use?

[Allan S. Gordon]

Ok, I am really confused

I had planned to get a F330 for doing weddings, as I like the idea of the disk based workflow. I was previously using a Sony DSR 250.

However, another well respected wedding videographer that I know has tried the F330, albeit with an sd lens and returned it due to poor performance in low light e.g. in churches.

Then again I hear from others that the F330 is in actual fact better thanthe Z1 in low light. My friend has also used the Z1 and feels its better suited to weddings due to better light performance.

So, yea, you guessed..........I dont know which way to go. My friend is staying with hid Sony 570 at the moment.

Could it have been the sd lens that made my friends experience with the F330 a bad experience? I can get the F330 with a Canon HD lens in the UK, or should I purchase F330 without lens and add on Fuji HD lens for around £4k

My choices would appear to be:-
F330 and a Z1 as 2nd camera, or F330 and V1 as 2nd camera, or
Two Z1s with Sony hard disk recorder on main Z1.

Anyone with actual experience of using these cameras able to help?

Also, is the F350 viewfinder better than the standard one on f330 and is it Ouch! to upgrade?

Cheers

Allan

[Robert M Wright]

I have my doubts that an XDCAM would be cost effective for wedding videography. You might want to consider the Canon HDV cameras also.

[Jonathan Nelson]

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

I have my doubts that an XDCAM would be cost effective for wedding videography. You might want to consider the Canon HDV cameras also.

I agree with this fellow. Xdcams are costly, especially since you have to buy all kinds of expensive gear to handle them e.g. instead of paying 1.5k for a tripod/head you will have to pay 5k for a tripod/head, etc.

I just think they are expensive for weddings.

Even if money is not an issue, the weight of the xdcam alone is not worth it in my opinion. The xdcam workflow is pretty freaken cool, but you will still have tape in your workflow if you use it with a z1 or v1. Never trust hardrives.

I actually almost went with the f330 but the weight factor scared me into getting jvc hd100's instead. Even the jvc kills me at the end of the day. I know, I need to get a smaller cam to use with it.

Out of your choices, I would go with two z1's or v1's with a hardrive. Never trust hardrives.

Me personally, unless you need a f330, I would go for the canon hdv cams instead. Get a h1 for your main and an a1 as your secondary. You will save some serious cash, and you’re lower back as well. The footage out these cams is fantastic and should meet your expectations.

[William Osorio]

I do event videography in my spare time, to be honest XD-Cam and a nice lens will cost you an eye. plus the weight of the cam. can you imgine 8 to 10 hours with that elephant on your shoulder??. NO WAY JOSE.

I have XD-Cam HD 350 but i won't use it in a social event environment unless I'm getting paid enough.

I will point you to the JVC GY-HD110 that's the one I use for social events and I also use this baby in the ENG field, just download those scenes files from their respectives creators, and start producing cool video, vivd color and HDV or NTSC-DV tech.

@ the finish line XDCam media cost around 30 dollars per disc while MiniDV 4 dollars or HDV 6 to 7 dollars per tape.

XDCam HD/with a decent lens= 40,000 dollars
JVC GY-HD110 around 6,000 dollars

[Thomas Quinn]

I have the 330 and the FX1 yes the 330 is better than the FX1 in low light. I do not think the lens will make much difference to the low light peformance on the 330 I use both cameras at weddings usually the 330 is on a tripod and the FX1 free hand if you want good low light Sony 450 is the best I have seen you could almost do the hole wedding without any lights also the tape is 3hours and you wont be caught out at a long mass or speeches but as someone has stated you will have a few pains in the old back after a few hours of carrying it around

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Allan S. Gordon

However, another well respected wedding videographer that I know has tried the F330, albeit with an sd lens and returned it due to poor performance in low light e.g. in churches.

The SD lens shouldn't make any difference to sensitivity - just may be a bit softer than HD glass. And poor performance relative to what? I'd expect it to be better than a Z1, but not as good as a DSR450, both due to chip size, though a DSR450 is not of course HD capable.

It's also conceivable that without gain it may not give a fully exposed picture in conditions that such as a Z1 might, BUT still give an acceptable picture with an amount of gain that would turn a Z1 into mush.

[Benjamin Eckstein]

Allan,
I have no direct comparisons...I have used the 350 and Z1s for narrative and corporate work, and from my experience with most HD cameras is that they are all less sensitive in low light compared with their SD counterparts. A 1/2" or 1/3" HD camera sensor compared with the same size SD sensor has a lot more pixels and each of those pixels is smaller so they require more light. Think of HD as 100 ASA film and SD as a faster film stock. A camera like a Sony DSR-570 (SD) or a PD-170 (SD) is going to handle low-light much better than a Z1U, 350, or probably even an F900....it is just the way the format works.

That said, in my experience with the Z1U it provided clean enough results with gain at +9.

Price being no object, in regards to ergonomics, I find a day of handheld shooting with a Z1U or other handycam type cams to be much more strenuous on my arm than a shoulder mounted rig. Therefore I would choose a JVC HD100/200 for its lightweight and shoulder mount handling.

Hope that helps.

[Allan S. Gordon]

Thanks to everyone for the replys.

A few folk have mentioned the JVC HD100 or 200.

What are the differences between the two?

Furthermore, I always thought the VF on JVC cameras were pretty poor in relation to use for focusing?

Does the "focus assist" overcome the low res of the finder?

It looks like I may need to consider these ahead of the Z1???

Cheers

Allan

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Allan S. Gordon

Does the "focus assist" overcome the low res of the finder?

I think it does. I have had a little time with the camera and between peaking and focus assist, it really lights up the edges of objects in one of 3 user selectable colors.

-gb-

[Robert M Wright]

Originally Posted by Allan S. Gordon

A few folk have mentioned the JVC HD100 or 200.

What are the differences between the two?

The HD100 can record 720/24p and 720/30p to tape. In addition to 720/24p and 720/30p, the HD200 can record 720/60p to tape.

[John DeLuca]

The problem is- The vast majority of weddings have a limited production budget range of say, $1500 to $3000. This means that most people will not pay more for the use of a higher end HD shoulder mount. The professional look of the body may get a few more clients, but most people don’t know anything technical anyway. If you do good wedding work, it doesnt matter.

I think it would be justified if you plan on shooting corporate work and high end weddings only, but that is just my 2 cents.

[Uli Mors]

Hey Allan,

did you proceed in your decision?

comparing the 330/350 with dsr250 is a hard job - since the dsr250 (=VX2000 = PD150) is a lowlight king - but the rest of the pircture cant hold up to any other camera like DV5000 , other Sony SRs (1/2", 2/3") .

When I compare the pic of my Panasonic DVC200 (1/2") vs. VX2000, I always prefer the PANA pic - though at "first sight" the VX2000 pics are fine.

I am in the same situation - especially since the PANA does not feature any 16:9 - so the thing is not only to move to HD but also move to 16:9 with another camera.

The F330 /350 is fantastic - if there is enough light.
To be honest: I´ll rent a f330 for my next wedding and have a try.

If the pic suffers to much, I´ll change to the VX (party, dancing) - the endformat will be DVD anyway.

I also will try a HD200 , I like the weight/formfactor and the 50p for slomo, though I guess the f330/350 is the better one.

ULi

[Jonathan Ames]

Respectfully as this is a forum of differing opinions where disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable, I have to disagree relative to the light issue. We used a pair of 350s to shoot a pilot in a 25'X26' set lit only by four 1X1 Lite Panels and 2 "Brick" LitePanels and we're not changing for the series. Yes, we were wide open but that was a conscious decision I made for DOF only. And to really test the performance of the set-up, we included a rack focus from 4''9" to 24'7" in this light-limited environment. The 350 has its limitations but Sony's biggest issue is overcoming misinformation abouth the the 350 including it's "only" a 1/2" camera intimating that a 2/3" is always better. This too is untrue. Every frame of every shot is dependent on three things; lens, light and camera. It starts with the proper lighting for the shot in the correct ammount, at the right temperature in the right direction and those issues are interdependent on the performance characteristics of the lens, the capabilities of the camera and the look you're searching for. In almost a shameless plug (and I'm sorry for that), we'll be presenting for Sony and Adobe at NAB this year and showcasing the shot I just spoke of on the big screen through a 2k projector. Please, please stop by, say hello and see what can be accomplished when light, lens and camera all come together. I promise you'll discover roll real estate that you neven knew was available to you.

As an aside, when people talk about "latitude", yes, it's true that typically a 2/3" camera will provide more than a 1/2" but that assumes you've optimized everything that's available in nthe smaller chip camera. Think of a cola in an 8" glass and you only have a 6" straw. There's more there; you just have to figure out how to get to it. And that again goes back to light, lens, camera.

[Uli Mors]

Jonathan, I 100% agree.

In the end, the best way to be convinced is to have a try. I´ve got very used to my DVC200 (F11@2000lux, 63dB S/N) that gives me a very nice picture even with bad lit situations.

I 120% like the XDCAM technology and workflow. f330 / 350 will give (like many other HD cameras in this price range) f9@2000lux with ~54 (56?) dB S/N. I will have a try with it and see if I can work the same way I am used to (e.g. Church / Social Event filming with no or very limited additional lights).

I´ll visit a prof. 350 User soon and try to make a test as well.