Just ordered an HD1000!

[Bryan Daugherty]

What was the real difference? Experience and an external monitor. My colleague was brought in to shoot one act of one show on short notice. He mentioned to me that he had not used that cam in over 3 months while we were chatting (he has an EX3 he shoots with more frequently.) I, on the other hand, had shot 2 days of dress rehearsal and 3 days of live production. I knew the lighting cues and what to watch for. I was monitoring on an IKAN v8000HD and could see what my image looked like without having to guess through the forest of feedback icons on the camera LCD. My image (the one on the right) is more accurate to what was really happening both in color and tone. The "haloing" mentioned above, I see it on some of the girls hairpieces but those are actually gold and silver sequins reflecting stage light. If you want to see more close-up shots, I have several on my website from this event. You can find them at Stage Screenshot Gallery 01:: The Video Professional

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

...I doubt you'd notice any difference unless you were watching it on BD on a huge screen.

Unfortunately this is far from true. I edited in HD and tested on a 42"1080p TV and there was a huge difference between the EX1 shots and HD1000U shots. Again though, I attribute this to the monitor and my familiarity with the show at that point. My shots were much more consistent.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...Drop the lighting down to what you'd have available in a typical older church or at a wedding reception though, and the difference in image quality would be unmistakable.

I have not tested this, though I do have several shot comparisons with a PD170 and HD1000U in that type of environment and again, until you get down to extreme low lighting, shot for shot the HD1000U gets better images in my opinion. This camera is not equal to the 170 in extreme low light, no question but neither are most cameras on the market for the last 10 yrs. But in general, with moderate light to full sun, I will take the images out of this camera to the bank.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

I'm really not trying to knock the HD1000....

It really sounds like you are. Perhaps we are misunderstanding your points.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...I'm sure you can get great images, just like my HV20 can shoot stunning images ...under the right conditions. I wouldn't consider an HV20, transplanted into a shoulder mount casing, a professional grade camera either though...

True, and neither would I. (...edit...) The HV20 doesn't have nearly the same amount of manual control as the HD10000U. If they took the HV20 and put it in a shoulder mount and added more manual control then I would consider it but it would depend on what kind of results I could get out of it. Again, it is my opinion that the HD1000U is a prosumer camera but the lack of a manual gain control and separate iris control make it a stretch to be a serious contender as a mainstream professional camera. It is not a consumer camera.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...I have some low cost wrenches from Walmart in my toolbox, that I indeed fix my car with, but I'd only be using Snap-on wrenches if I worked as a professional mechanic 40 hours a week.

And why is that? Do you get better results with a snap-on wrench? No. Both of them can tighten a nut just as well. The difference is if you used the cheapo wal-mart wrenches they will break more frequently and need replacing. The quality of the product is not made for pro-usage and over the course of time it will be more expensive to replace cheap-o walmart wrenches then it would be to buy snap-on wrenches.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...I was once considering doing weddings, but it appears that there just isn't much demand for quality wedding video, nor much willingness to pay for it. It amazes me that many couples put a high value on stills, but don't seem to care hardly at all about the video.

There are two big issues here. First, your statement implies that you don't even shoot these events while most of the people responding to you do. If you won't consider the point of the person doing the job then why bother. yet you are still taking potshots at the users of these cameras implying that we don't get "quality video" or "professional results" because we choose to thread the needle of the narrow margin that is wedding video in a suppressed economy. The second part of your statement is the bane of every wedding videographer on the planet. So if you don't do weddings than what is your basis for your statements? I am trying to understand why you are so hard on this camera being used in a market you don't work in.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

Can you get an HD1000 for $1100 nowadays? (FX7s list for $2000 now.) You might consider a used FX1. They're getting dang cheap on the used market nowadays.

FWIW the HD1000U is running around $1600 these days from most vendors.

[Jeff Emery]

Originally Posted by Bryan Daugherty

The HV20 is a single chip CCD camera...

The HV20 has a single 1/2.7" CMOS sensor.

Jeff

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Bryan Daugherty

My image (the one on the right) is more accurate ...

So if I'm understanding you correctly, my guess was both right and wrong. I did think the one on the right was "better" but I wrongly assumed that the better image would necessarily be from the EX1. Interesting.

[Robert M Wright]

Actually, I worked as a mechanic at a VW dealership, for a short time, years and years ago. Yes, the durability of the tools is a big deal, but the precision craftsmanship of the tools is also quite important. Try using a cheapy and then a Snap-on ratchet wrench. There's a considerable difference. You'll get more work done in a day, with less hassle, with the Snap-on. Obviously, there's a difference between cameras and wrenches. The point is, that there is a difference between pro caliber tools and tools you can make do with. The professional mechanic at your local garage could fix your car with wrenches from Walmart, but he doesn't (and would refuse to do so). You won't see HD1000s being used by your local news station either.

I'm aware that the low margins on weddings make it awfully tough to justify the costs of pro caliber production equipment, while squeaking out a reasonable living. That's why I decided not to do it. Essentially, the demand (or lack there of) for wedding video is astonishingly weak, apparently because couples just really don't give a rip about getting a quality video of their wedding, and the market only really supports what is analogous to back yard mechanics.

I'm not trying to knock the HD1000, and I don't knock anyone for shooting weddings with it (especially on the ridiculous margins the market will bear), but that doesn't make it a professional quality camera in my mind, anymore than guys doing mechanic work in their back yards with Walmart tools, to earn a few bucks (on slim margins also), makes those tools professional quality (and I don't knock backyard mechanics for using cheap tools either - heck, I've paid good back yard mechanics to fix my car, using tools that aren't professional caliber).

As Jeff mentioned, the HV20 uses a CMOS chip. I think most folks here would much prefer to use CCD to shoot weddings though, because of rolling shutter issues with still camera flashes.

[Robert M Wright]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

So if I'm understanding you correctly, my guess was both right and wrong. I did think the one on the right was "better" but I wrongly assumed that the better image would necessarily be from the EX1. Interesting.

Blow those image up, like you would see it on a typical 50" or larger living room HDTV.

[Bryan Daugherty]

Jeff - sorry about the gaff on ccd and cmos I have edited that post to correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

Adam - I also assumed the EX1 footage would be the better image and was pleasantly surprised with the result.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

Blow those image up, like you would see it on a typical 50" or larger living room HDTV.

No matter the size of our HDTV, it is still 1920x1080 pixels. The greater the inches the greater the optimal viewing distance but the image is 1920x1080 no matter what so what is your point with this statement?

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...You won't see HD1000s being used by your local news station either....

Is this the only standard for what defines "professional"? ENG does not establish what is pro and what is not. There are many grades of "professional" videography. I am sure there are many people in Holloywood, Bollywood and independent cinema throughout the world that would scoff at the equipment used by many local News Stations. Does you local CBS affiliate shoot on Viper?

To claim that a news station wouldn't use it and therefore it is not professional, is a ridiculous assertion that alienates scores of professional videographers who do this as a professional and make a good living doing other forms of videography.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...I'm aware that the low margins on weddings make it awfully tough to justify the costs of pro caliber production equipment, while squeaking out a reasonable living. That's why I decided not to do it. Essentially, the demand (or lack there of) for wedding video is astonishingly weak, apparently because couples just really don't give a rip about getting a quality video of their wedding, and the market only really supports what is analogous to back yard mechanics.

I'm not trying to knock the HD1000, and I don't knock anyone for shooting weddings with it (especially on the ridiculous margins the market will bear), but that doesn't make it a professional quality camera in my mind, anymore than guys doing mechanic work in their back yards with Walmart tools, to earn a few bucks (on slim margins also), makes those tools professional quality (and I don't knock backyard mechanics for using cheap tools either - heck, I've paid good back yard mechanics to fix my car, using tools that aren't professional caliber)...

I am not a backyard mechanic or a weekend warrior. I do this for a living and have been for several years. In my EXPERIENCE, couples care very much about getting QUALITY video of their weddings but they do not always budget for it. Professional results matter more than expensive equipment. Could I get a better wedding video for a client if I shot with a $20,000 ENG camera? Maybe, but what would it take for me to ROI that equipment and still make a living? We are doing this for a living and we use this camera and are getting professional results. Is it good for all circumstances? NO. But to draw a line in the sand and say this is not professional because it doesn't meet ENG standards to me is insulting.

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

...but that doesn't make it a professional quality camera in my mind...

Perhaps this is the missing piece for me. This is your opinion and at the end of the day you are a stranger to me and that opinion does not change who I am or what I do. I have tried to make my points clear and back my argument up with facts and personal experience but you are entitled to your opinion and it seems clear that you have your mind made up. I just hope that anyone trying to decide whether to buy this camera because they can afford it or go into debt buying another camera that meets your definition of "professional" will see that this camera can be deployed professionally in non-eng markets.

[Adalberto Lopez]

...You won't see HD1000s being used by your local news station either....

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The way the news industry is going I wouldn't doubt they start investing in HD1000s with one of Sony's memory recoding units to cut costs. They still come out to less than P2 cameras. :-)

[Robert M Wright]

Originally Posted by Bryan Daugherty

Perhaps this is the missing piece for me. This is your opinion and at the end of the day you are a stranger to me and that opinion does not change who I am or what I do.

Indeed, we have an honest difference of opinion, which does not change, nor diminish, either of us at the end of the day.

I expect you are quite professional in your work, and certainly understand the very good reasons for using an HD1000 in your work. If I were to shoot weddings, for pay, here in rural Minnesota, at typical going rates, I wouldn't be embarrassed or have any qualms about showing up with my HV20s (or an HD1000) for the shoot (and be confident of producing very nice results, under the right conditions - but not in a poorly lit venue, like the local church here, which is a beautiful Catholic church built early in the last century). It would be hard to justify putting head wear on my XH-A1, for that kind of money (I'd do it as a favor to a friend, but not to put bread on the table).

I don't consider "a backyard mechanic" to be unprofessional (or even second rate), just because they don't work out of a commercial establishment, in a garage with a lift, and may employ some tools that aren't really of professional caliber. I know some dang good mechanics that work out of their garage/back yard at home, some part-time for extra cash and some full-time for a living.

This is my opinion, but I don't consider a tool (whether it's a wrench or a video camera) to be of professional caliber, simply by virtue of being used to earn money by a skilled craftsman. I also don't consider someone to be a skilled professional (or not), simply based on what tools they employ in their work (or whether they work from home or at a commercial establishment).

Originally Posted by Bryan Daugherty

No matter the size of our HDTV, it is still 1920x1080 pixels. The greater the inches the greater the optimal viewing distance but the image is 1920x1080 no matter what so what is your point with this statement?

It's a lot easier to see detail on a larger screen (like a typical living room big screen TV) than a smaller one (like a typical computer screen) regardless of how many pixels are displayed. To get a good idea what an image will look like on a big screen television, on a small computer screen, it does help to blow it up. I was able to confidently distinguish which camera shot which image when I blew it up on my 22" computer monitor, as I would likely be able to on my 60" TV (didn't try that though). I could not confidently determine which camera shot which image, on my computer monitor, without blowing the images up.

[Gene Gajewski]

Funny, but if a significant number of pros do use a tool - it is in fact professional caliber. The tool fits the job - you don't drive a limosine to deliver groceries and don't drive a pickup as a taxicab. Fit,finish, and quality match the purpose and economy of the job at hand - anything else is wasted expense and non-profitable.

[Duane Steiner]

Originally Posted by Bryan Daugherty

Congrats on your purchase. I really like my 1000U but would highly recommend you invest in an on-cam HD monitor 7 inches or greater to really push it. Lighting is a good idea but often customers will balk at large or overly bright set-ups. A monitor you can use every time you shoot... Good luck and happy shooting!

Any suggestions on monitors?

[Bryan Daugherty]

Personally, I use an Ikan v8000HD and they now have a version that has HDMI in which would be handy. I am very happy with my purchase. I have also heard good things about something called the "SmallHD" (there is a good thread on here if you run a quick search.) But I have not had opportunity to personally check out the small HD monitor.

Pros for the Ikan V8000 HD:
-can use sony l-series batteries
-good size for pulling focus and using when tripod mounted
-HDMI model has HDMI in
-monitor has pass-through if you need to dual-monitor
-multiple mounting configurations (directly to separate tripod, shoe mount, or hang from bracket with optional arm and invert bracket.)

Cons:
-sucks down batteries pretty quick
-is awkward when using shoulder mount configuration
-can be difficult to use in daylight (recommend purchasing optional sunshade)
-with battery mounted, can stress your shoe when shoe mounted
-not as adjustable as more expensive "studio" monitors. calibration can be difficult...

That is my experience, but in the end it has paid for itself many times over.

[Steve Struthers]

Originally Posted by Bryan Daugherty

Recently I hired a 2nd op to shot a (professionally lit mind you) musical with me. He is very good and shoots with a SONY EX1. Here are 2 comparison images. One is from my HD1000U and the other is from the EX1. These are raw captures from my timeline which I have not altered. Do you see the difference here? Does it justify the price point difference? Which is which?

Whichever vidcap is the HD1000U, it compares very favourably to the EX1. Personally, I think the shot on the right is the one from the 1000U - in that image capture I see noise in the roof of the gazebo and I see some slight fuzziness and interlace combing in the faces of the performers situated on the right hand of the stage. The colour balance in the left hand shot seems smoother, with colours better defined.

If anything justifies the higher price of the EX1, it's the better lens, more extensive manual controls and bigger/better image sensors. Plus you're getting a bigger and better viewfinder.

In a way, asking if the cost of the EX1 is justified is a bit of an unfair question, if using the HD1000U as a benchmark.

All video cameras are light-hungry and do best with lots of light. Few video cams except high-end pro models do very well in low-light. The comparison you made between the EX1 and the HD1000U illustrates that very clearly.

Now in bright light, the qualitative difference of the EX1 should be immediately apparent.

And, if you were to ask me which camera I would buy if I was on a budget and low-light capability wasn't critical, and could live without all of the features and controls a pro model provides, of course I would say I'd buy the HD1000U!

[Bryan Daugherty]

Steve, those are some good points and certainly the HD1000U is not equal to the EX XDCAM cameras on all feature sets. My point is that the HD1000U is a pro camera with a niche market (notably shooters on a budget.) The Ex series, XDCAM cameras offer many other benefits to the HD1000U that justify the price point (and then some.) I am a huge fan of the EX series cameras and hope to move to those models when my capital budget allows. However, the HD1000U can get professional results and in the proper conditions can hold it's own with many of the bigger cams.

If you ask me, I think the HD1000U was born because SONY saw the writing on the wall and believed that there are enough of us wedding and event guys out there who thread the narrow margin. Yes, there are some guys out there able to regularly charge $3000-$6000 and up on weddings and for them the more expensive cameras work but carving out a slice in a repressed market means lowering cost or raising prices and the HD1000U allows you to offer services at a price point that is more reasonable to many cost conscientious clients in this economy. I can purchase 3 HD1000U cameras for the price of one EX1 or 5 for the cost of one EX3. If my shoot doesn't require the expanded capabilities of the XDCAM cameras, then it makes since to use them.

But they are far from equal. Right tool for the right job and in my experience this is a great prosumer camera.

[Jonathan W. Hickman]

I know I'm very late to this, but I just started using my HD1000u again because I, frankly, was going to sell it. I thought, what the heck, my girlfriend needs some video on her website and I'll see what I can do.

The camera was purchased to shoot a golf course job because the client wanted HD (my HD1000u cost me around $1500). I shot the same course with the DVX100 and it looked great, you know. But outside, the HD1000u looked very good for golf courses and competed well with the 3ccd camera (I'm not forgetting the lines of resolution but I matched the two cameras, old and new footage, and edited in SD for output to web in flv).

But after I sold my DVX on ebay with a bunch of old gear, I bought an FX1000. Honestly, I love my FX1000 and use it for all my professional work.

Now, one thing I noticed from the EX1/HD1000u debate (which is kind of dumb) is no real discussion about media. The EX1 records onto SXS cards and aren't they expensive? I think they are more expensive than the P2s.

I have the CF recorder for the Sony and it is okay. Rigging is tricky. I use it on professional shoots and shoot on tape and card. Neat thing about that is that I take the tape and stick it in a file box and I have an archive. You can't really do that with the EX1, I don't think.

So, media is an issue and should be a consideration.

[Bryan Daugherty]

I have been seriously considering the SONY CF recorder for my HD1000U. What has been your experience with it? What modes have you used it in?