What camera do I need?

Ian Thomas · August 20th, 2005, 01:32 PM

The saga goes on and on I think we all are after the holy grail in picture quality but at what cost, I dont doubt that HDV is the format of the future and I have thought about replacing my 170 with the FX1 but things to consider,

1 None of my clients seem to bother what its shot on as long as it looks ok

2 Iam i right in thinking that even if I down rez it to DV I would have to use the FX1 to down load it to my computer, hence causing more ware on it, something I don't do with my cameras

3 I have also read on these forums that even if you don't use the Hdv you have got when it becomes more widespread! but by then will these 1st generation cameras be old hat?

Boyd Ostroff · August 20th, 2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Thomas

am i right in thinking that even if I down rez it to DV I would have to use the FX1 to down load it to my computer

If you shoot in HDV then you will obviously need an HDV compatible deck, or the camera itself to play that tape, regardless of whether you're using the i.Link downconvert feature.

However, the FX1, Z1, HC1 and A1 can also shoot in regular DV mode. These tapes can be played by any deck or DV camera. The A1 can also record in DVCAM mode, while the Z1 can record DVCAM and also switch between PAL and NTSC.

So any of Sony's HDV cameras can be used just like regular DV cameras if you don't want to shoot a project in HD. But you would still have that capability to shoot HDV if needed.

Matt Helme · August 23rd, 2005, 01:29 AM

I have read reviews of the Sony-Fx1,Cannon XL-2 and Panasonic DVX- 100A,and the Sony FX1 is by far the worst of the lot.For example, the FX-1 does not hold up well when you transfer the tapes to DVD. I shoot events with a Sony PDX-10 and my client's and co-editor were stunned by how good it was.Sure it does not do well in low light situations,but my clients have told me that the dim lighting add's to the romantic mood of the wedding.As long as they are happy what else can you ask for?

Kevin Shaw · August 23rd, 2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Helme

I have read reviews of the Sony-Fx1,Cannon XL-2 and Panasonic DVX- 100A,and the Sony FX1 is by far the worst of the lot.For example, the FX-1 does not hold up well when you transfer the tapes to DVD.

If you're referring to the same reviews I've seen, those are pretty biased in favor of the DV cameras. And I don't know who said that FX1 footage doesn't transfer well to DVD, because most people I know who have tried that (starting from HDV footage, not DV) say it makes some of the best DVDs they've ever produced. In any case, once you've seen HDV footage played at full quality on a good HDTV, you'll understand why standard-definition video is at the end of its 50-year run, and is going to be replaced sooner or later by affordable HD production options.

Boyd Ostroff · August 23rd, 2005, 06:32 AM

I don't know what you're reading Matt, but the reviews of the FX1 which I've seen have been very good. I have a PDX-10 and an HVR-Z1. The PDX-10 is a great little camera, but no match for the Z1 (FX1 should be the same). Bigger chips, better low light response, much, much better manual controls, more image adjustment, component video output., much nicer LCD screen and viewfinder... the list goes on and on.

If you're happy with the PDX-10 then there's no reason to change. But there's absolutely no question that the FX-1 is a much nicer camera, even if you only use it in regular DV mode.

Patrick Jenkins · August 24th, 2005, 01:27 AM

I use:

Canon Opturas (3 or 4 - depends on the shoot)
4 or 8 amp batteries (custom)
AT897 shotguns + custom shockmounts and cables/preamps
Sony MiniDisc + boom'd AT897 (depends on the shoot) - also have an iRiver but I don't really trust it
Spiderbraces
Steadycam (custom)
Monopod (depends on the shoot - for simple crane stuff)
Handycams (custom - I designed/built them a while ago - it's a handheld figrig looking thing sortof.. great minds think alike ;-) - has cam, audio, LCD, battery, two handed operation for stability, etc)

No tripods (not a big fan of a stationary camera - used for a dolly shot a couple times, but never during the ceremony)

Lenses
Filters & Matte boxes (custom)
Sunshades (custom)

No lights (on camera or otherwise)

For something other than a wedding (indy, corp, whatever) light kit + tripod is standard.

Brian K Jones · August 25th, 2005, 06:04 PM

My oh my, the HD vs HDV vs DV battle rages on. Dude, please wait before you go dumping all of your money into HDV technology, it is NOT necessarily
the wave of the HD future. There are other options being developed, and it is still arguably early in the game. Getting a NLE that is HD ready is probably wise, but as far as cameras for weddings, I shoot weddings and so far this year NO one has requested anything in HD. No one wants to pay for it. Everyone on this board knows HD is around the corner, because we are all in the business or very familiar with the technology. But the average couple getting married right now does not have an HDTV, that is just a fact. Most just want a high quality, professional DVD. Do you think that as prices of equipment come down, that there won't be other HD options out there for videographers in the future? Hold out a little longer before going HDV...

Boyd Ostroff · August 25th, 2005, 06:31 PM

You state the case very well Brian, and this is getting beaten to death in several other threads as well.

However, the FX1 and Z1 used in DV MODE ONLY are arguably better cameras than the VX-2100 and PD-170 because of their optics, manual controls and image adjustment options. They really shine at 16:9 because of their native widescreen CCD's.

But of course, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you like the PD-170 and VX-2100 then stay tuned, because the prices are only going to go down on those models. Having more choices is a good thing for everyone.

Kevin Shaw · August 25th, 2005, 09:10 PM

To each their own, but a good percentage of my current customers own HDTVs, and people definitely like the image quality which HDV offers. How much extra people are willing to pay for HD/HDV remains to be seen, but HDV has a much better chance of being cost-effective in this regard than anything else currently being proposed. And the irony is that the most common way to distribute high-definition video in the future could turn out to be high-bandwidth MPEG2-TS on blue-laser DVDs...so basically HDV. In the meantime, HDV yields better widescreen DVDs than most DV cameras, and that's something which is useful regardless of what happens in the future.

If your customers aren't asking for HDV maybe it's because you're not offering it to them. Too bad, they'd appreciate it when they watch their video years from now on their big HDTV display...

August 20th, 2005, 01:32 PM	#31
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	The saga goes on and on I think we all are after the holy grail in picture quality but at what cost, I dont doubt that HDV is the format of the future and I have thought about replacing my 170 with the FX1 but things to consider, 1 None of my clients seem to bother what its shot on as long as it looks ok 2 Iam i right in thinking that even if I down rez it to DV I would have to use the FX1 to down load it to my computer, hence causing more ware on it, something I don't do with my cameras 3 I have also read on these forums that even if you don't use the Hdv you have got when it becomes more widespread! but by then will these 1st generation cameras be old hat? __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

August 23rd, 2005, 01:29 AM	#33
Matt Helme New Boot Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Amboy New Jersey Posts: 22	Sony FX1 I have read reviews of the Sony-Fx1,Cannon XL-2 and Panasonic DVX- 100A,and the Sony FX1 is by far the worst of the lot.For example, the FX-1 does not hold up well when you transfer the tapes to DVD. I shoot events with a Sony PDX-10 and my client's and co-editor were stunned by how good it was.Sure it does not do well in low light situations,but my clients have told me that the dim lighting add's to the romantic mood of the wedding.As long as they are happy what else can you ask for?

August 24th, 2005, 01:27 AM	#36
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	I use: Canon Opturas (3 or 4 - depends on the shoot) 4 or 8 amp batteries (custom) AT897 shotguns + custom shockmounts and cables/preamps Sony MiniDisc + boom'd AT897 (depends on the shoot) - also have an iRiver but I don't really trust it Spiderbraces Steadycam (custom) Monopod (depends on the shoot - for simple crane stuff) Handycams (custom - I designed/built them a while ago - it's a handheld figrig looking thing sortof.. great minds think alike ;-) - has cam, audio, LCD, battery, two handed operation for stability, etc) No tripods (not a big fan of a stationary camera - used for a dolly shot a couple times, but never during the ceremony) Lenses Filters & Matte boxes (custom) Sunshades (custom) No lights (on camera or otherwise) For something other than a wedding (indy, corp, whatever) light kit + tripod is standard. __________________ PAL shooter in NTSC territory

August 23rd, 2005, 06:32 AM	#35
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	I don't know what you're reading Matt, but the reviews of the FX1 which I've seen have been very good. I have a PDX-10 and an HVR-Z1. The PDX-10 is a great little camera, but no match for the Z1 (FX1 should be the same). Bigger chips, better low light response, much, much better manual controls, more image adjustment, component video output., much nicer LCD screen and viewfinder... the list goes on and on. If you're happy with the PDX-10 then there's no reason to change. But there's absolutely no question that the FX-1 is a much nicer camera, even if you only use it in regular DV mode.

August 25th, 2005, 06:04 PM	#37
Brian K Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 68	My oh my, the HD vs HDV vs DV battle rages on. Dude, please wait before you go dumping all of your money into HDV technology, it is NOT necessarily the wave of the HD future. There are other options being developed, and it is still arguably early in the game. Getting a NLE that is HD ready is probably wise, but as far as cameras for weddings, I shoot weddings and so far this year NO one has requested anything in HD. No one wants to pay for it. Everyone on this board knows HD is around the corner, because we are all in the business or very familiar with the technology. But the average couple getting married right now does not have an HDTV, that is just a fact. Most just want a high quality, professional DVD. Do you think that as prices of equipment come down, that there won't be other HD options out there for videographers in the future? Hold out a little longer before going HDV...

August 25th, 2005, 06:31 PM	#38
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	You state the case very well Brian, and this is getting beaten to death in several other threads as well. However, the FX1 and Z1 used in DV MODE ONLY are arguably better cameras than the VX-2100 and PD-170 because of their optics, manual controls and image adjustment options. They really shine at 16:9 because of their native widescreen CCD's. But of course, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you like the PD-170 and VX-2100 then stay tuned, because the prices are only going to go down on those models. Having more choices is a good thing for everyone.

August 25th, 2005, 09:10 PM	#39
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	To each their own, but a good percentage of my current customers own HDTVs, and people definitely like the image quality which HDV offers. How much extra people are willing to pay for HD/HDV remains to be seen, but HDV has a much better chance of being cost-effective in this regard than anything else currently being proposed. And the irony is that the most common way to distribute high-definition video in the future could turn out to be high-bandwidth MPEG2-TS on blue-laser DVDs...so basically HDV. In the meantime, HDV yields better widescreen DVDs than most DV cameras, and that's something which is useful regardless of what happens in the future. If your customers aren't asking for HDV maybe it's because you're not offering it to them. Too bad, they'd appreciate it when they watch their video years from now on their big HDTV display...