Which camcorder to shoot weddings?

Glen Elliott · October 16th, 2004, 08:59 PM

It was the original non-A version. I toyed with the DVX100a in B&H and it the lense rings were the same.

Peter Jefferson · October 17th, 2004, 03:40 AM

they shouldnt be...
the same that is..

ive got both models here and i jsut been giving tehm the once over and its true that the 100a has a taughter, more refined zoom ring. The focus ring is identical though.

I also like the new scratch proof viewfinder.. my old one has a zillion hairline scratches from cleaning :(

Glen Elliott · October 17th, 2004, 10:53 AM

Maybe the demo in B&H was beat up from all the handling. Them making the zoom ring tigher is definitly a good thing.

Tom Hardwick · October 18th, 2004, 03:20 AM

I'll go with Bob and say that the stepped manual iris control on my VX2000 is its biggest failing. I too use locked exposure (not just locked aperture - a completely different thing) at weddings, and there are many times when - although locked - the aperture must be changed to take into account varying lighting levels, shooting into as well as with the light and so on. I hate the half-stop bumps that the Sony puts into my footage, and the PD170 goes a long way into correcting this design failing. Note that the VX2100 still continues with the old half-stop bumps, so I've stopped recommending this cam.

But when the light levels drop (as they invariably do at weddings) you'll be so pleased you chose the Sony over the Panasonic or the Canon. The low-light capability of the VX/PD is unmatched, and however nice your DVX100A is out in the sunshine, when you're using +9dB of gain up in the dim vestry you can only wish you had a Sony at zero gain. DVDs just hate gain-up.

The other thing is that the Sony's 6 to 72mm focal lengths is much more useful for weddings I find. Such long focal lengths (combined with powerful Steadyshot) allow terriffic differential focus portraiture to be shot, and weddings is all about portriaiture I find. OK, I hve to have a 0.5x wide-angle to hand, but with the DVX100 I'd need a wide-angle AND a telephoto converter, and at a wedding ceremony if you're fiddling about changing lenses you're not paying attention to what's happening all around you.

Go for the PD170 I say. The discounts at the moment make this the buy of the decade. A truely wonderful aquisition tool that'll last you for years. And you'll never be thinking - Oh, if only I had more light...

tom.

Patrick Moreau · November 20th, 2004, 09:17 AM

Glen

I caught your review on the last page about the PD170 vs the dvx 100. For weddings, why would you say the PD170 is better than the XL1s or XL2, and would you say it is a major difference or more personal preference?

Thanks so much. I'm now deciding about what set of camcorders ot stick with and it has been some tough research.

Ralph Longo · November 22nd, 2004, 11:18 AM

I am going to get beat up here I can tell, but if you are on a budget a Sony VX3 takes the cake. I wasn't sure if I was going to want to do this for a living so I did not want to spend a lot of money and I was looking at the panasonic gs 3 chip cameras when I came across the much older VX3 with 1/3 inch chips. I did my first wedding video and I cringed when they turned off the lights for the dancing but I did not have to worry the footage came out fine. As far as transfering from the HI8 (I also want to add that I never have to change the tape durring a ceremony because of 2 full hours of recording time) I use a transcend tv box, it cost me about 60 dollars and can record in DVD 720x480 mode onto my computer which I can then access directly with my vegas 4. I hope this helps somebody and dont flame me too much for not shooting in digital

Glen Elliott · November 22nd, 2004, 01:49 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Patrick Moreau : Glen

I caught your review on the last page about the PD170 vs the dvx 100. For weddings, why would you say the PD170 is better than the XL1s or XL2, and would you say it is a major difference or more personal preference?

Thanks so much. I'm now deciding about what set of camcorders ot stick with and it has been some tough research. -->>>

It's both. I personally prefer the design of the smaller form factor 170 and the color reproduction. The XL-1s produces image that are way too warm. You can even see this in color charts when they review cams. The XL-1s is more expensive and needs a bunch of add-ons to make it as usefull as the PD-170. It doesn't have XLR inputs...you have to shell out for an MA/300-500 and then you still going through a standard RCA into the camera. The zoom and focus motors make a great deal of noise on the XL-1s...enough to be heard when shooting in quieter environments...you then have to buy a mic isolator to aleviate that problem. Then there's the HUGE issue of low light performance. The XL-1s is terrible in low light- not only does it get grainy but the image becomes muddy and the colors start to oversaturate.

The 170 gives very neutral color response- ie Grey looks like neutral grey and not yellowish/reddish grey. The 170 has a fixed lense which is a disadvantage but it's fixed lense is better than the stock lense included with the XL-1s. The low light capability is incredible. Crank the gain up to 12db with no added noise. Colors don't oversaturate in darker environments. The 170 also has built in XLR inputs, and the ability to shoot DVcam. Lastly it also includes a w/a lense adapter....all for much less the price than the XL-1s.

I'm not saying this with any bias- I've shot with both- my first 2 years shooting wedding videography was with Canons (XL-1s and GL-1s). The Sonys are so much more fit for this genre.

I challenge you to find anyone that has shot with both and prefers the XL-1s. And I don't mean just picked up and played with, but actually shot several full jobs with both cams. There's a reason the PD and VX are the most popular cams for this genre.

Ken Schreiner · December 3rd, 2004, 11:13 AM

I shot my first wedding last weekend using an XL1, an XL1S and a third small Canon. Canons look red anyway and low church lights aggravate this. I was disappointed with the graininess of the 6-12 db gain I had to use. I don't shoot a lot of low light stuff- I prefer to light things. But churches don't let you do your own lighting in a lot of cases like this one. The Sonys are probably a better choice here.

Tommy Haupfear · December 3rd, 2004, 01:46 PM

Ken, great post and I've had similar findings with the XL1s compared to the VX2000/PD150.

When you're at the mercy of an irrational bride or mother you just have to roll with the amount of light given. I have had some cam footage (Sony PDX10) that was a complete waste of tape.

Ken Schreiner · December 3rd, 2004, 02:20 PM

Oddly, my wife looked at the XL1 video and commented on how "warm" and "nice" it was. Which is exactly what Canon wants you to say! The light in the church was extremely orange and the rear camera was so far away I couldn't zoom close enough to get a good white balance so I left it on auto. I tweaked the heck out of the back camera's video in Premiere and got the color to match the other two but it wasn't fun or fast. You mentioned the oversaturation on XL1s in high gain. I experienced that as well. What also showed up was a tiny burn on the left side which I'd never seen before. The project will look fine but I sure learned a lot.

December 3rd, 2004, 11:13 AM	#23
Ken Schreiner Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 25	XL1 in low light I shot my first wedding last weekend using an XL1, an XL1S and a third small Canon. Canons look red anyway and low church lights aggravate this. I was disappointed with the graininess of the 6-12 db gain I had to use. I don't shoot a lot of low light stuff- I prefer to light things. But churches don't let you do your own lighting in a lot of cases like this one. The Sonys are probably a better choice here.

October 16th, 2004, 08:59 PM	#16
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	It was the original non-A version. I toyed with the DVX100a in B&H and it the lense rings were the same.

October 17th, 2004, 03:40 AM	#17
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	they shouldnt be... the same that is.. ive got both models here and i jsut been giving tehm the once over and its true that the 100a has a taughter, more refined zoom ring. The focus ring is identical though. I also like the new scratch proof viewfinder.. my old one has a zillion hairline scratches from cleaning :(

October 17th, 2004, 10:53 AM	#18
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	Maybe the demo in B&H was beat up from all the handling. Them making the zoom ring tigher is definitly a good thing.

October 18th, 2004, 03:20 AM	#19
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'll go with Bob and say that the stepped manual iris control on my VX2000 is its biggest failing. I too use locked exposure (not just locked aperture - a completely different thing) at weddings, and there are many times when - although locked - the aperture must be changed to take into account varying lighting levels, shooting into as well as with the light and so on. I hate the half-stop bumps that the Sony puts into my footage, and the PD170 goes a long way into correcting this design failing. Note that the VX2100 still continues with the old half-stop bumps, so I've stopped recommending this cam. But when the light levels drop (as they invariably do at weddings) you'll be so pleased you chose the Sony over the Panasonic or the Canon. The low-light capability of the VX/PD is unmatched, and however nice your DVX100A is out in the sunshine, when you're using +9dB of gain up in the dim vestry you can only wish you had a Sony at zero gain. DVDs just hate gain-up. The other thing is that the Sony's 6 to 72mm focal lengths is much more useful for weddings I find. Such long focal lengths (combined with powerful Steadyshot) allow terriffic differential focus portraiture to be shot, and weddings is all about portriaiture I find. OK, I hve to have a 0.5x wide-angle to hand, but with the DVX100 I'd need a wide-angle AND a telephoto converter, and at a wedding ceremony if you're fiddling about changing lenses you're not paying attention to what's happening all around you. Go for the PD170 I say. The discounts at the moment make this the buy of the decade. A truely wonderful aquisition tool that'll last you for years. And you'll never be thinking - Oh, if only I had more light... tom.

November 20th, 2004, 09:17 AM	#20
Patrick Moreau Still Motion Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,186	Glen I caught your review on the last page about the PD170 vs the dvx 100. For weddings, why would you say the PD170 is better than the XL1s or XL2, and would you say it is a major difference or more personal preference? Thanks so much. I'm now deciding about what set of camcorders ot stick with and it has been some tough research.

November 22nd, 2004, 11:18 AM	#21
Ralph Longo Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: St. Louis MO Posts: 44	I am going to get beat up here I can tell, but if you are on a budget a Sony VX3 takes the cake. I wasn't sure if I was going to want to do this for a living so I did not want to spend a lot of money and I was looking at the panasonic gs 3 chip cameras when I came across the much older VX3 with 1/3 inch chips. I did my first wedding video and I cringed when they turned off the lights for the dancing but I did not have to worry the footage came out fine. As far as transfering from the HI8 (I also want to add that I never have to change the tape durring a ceremony because of 2 full hours of recording time) I use a transcend tv box, it cost me about 60 dollars and can record in DVD 720x480 mode onto my computer which I can then access directly with my vegas 4. I hope this helps somebody and dont flame me too much for not shooting in digital

November 22nd, 2004, 01:49 PM	#22
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	<<<-- Originally posted by Patrick Moreau : Glen I caught your review on the last page about the PD170 vs the dvx 100. For weddings, why would you say the PD170 is better than the XL1s or XL2, and would you say it is a major difference or more personal preference? Thanks so much. I'm now deciding about what set of camcorders ot stick with and it has been some tough research. -->>> It's both. I personally prefer the design of the smaller form factor 170 and the color reproduction. The XL-1s produces image that are way too warm. You can even see this in color charts when they review cams. The XL-1s is more expensive and needs a bunch of add-ons to make it as usefull as the PD-170. It doesn't have XLR inputs...you have to shell out for an MA/300-500 and then you still going through a standard RCA into the camera. The zoom and focus motors make a great deal of noise on the XL-1s...enough to be heard when shooting in quieter environments...you then have to buy a mic isolator to aleviate that problem. Then there's the HUGE issue of low light performance. The XL-1s is terrible in low light- not only does it get grainy but the image becomes muddy and the colors start to oversaturate. The 170 gives very neutral color response- ie Grey looks like neutral grey and not yellowish/reddish grey. The 170 has a fixed lense which is a disadvantage but it's fixed lense is better than the stock lense included with the XL-1s. The low light capability is incredible. Crank the gain up to 12db with no added noise. Colors don't oversaturate in darker environments. The 170 also has built in XLR inputs, and the ability to shoot DVcam. Lastly it also includes a w/a lense adapter....all for much less the price than the XL-1s. I'm not saying this with any bias- I've shot with both- my first 2 years shooting wedding videography was with Canons (XL-1s and GL-1s). The Sonys are so much more fit for this genre. I challenge you to find anyone that has shot with both and prefers the XL-1s. And I don't mean just picked up and played with, but actually shot several full jobs with both cams. There's a reason the PD and VX are the most popular cams for this genre.

December 3rd, 2004, 01:46 PM	#24
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Ken, great post and I've had similar findings with the XL1s compared to the VX2000/PD150. When you're at the mercy of an irrational bride or mother you just have to roll with the amount of light given. I have had some cam footage (Sony PDX10) that was a complete waste of tape.

December 3rd, 2004, 02:20 PM	#25
Ken Schreiner Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 25	Oddly, my wife looked at the XL1 video and commented on how "warm" and "nice" it was. Which is exactly what Canon wants you to say! The light in the church was extremely orange and the rear camera was so far away I couldn't zoom close enough to get a good white balance so I left it on auto. I tweaked the heck out of the back camera's video in Premiere and got the color to match the other two but it wasn't fun or fast. You mentioned the oversaturation on XL1s in high gain. I experienced that as well. What also showed up was a tiny burn on the left side which I'd never seen before. The project will look fine but I sure learned a lot.