new camera

[Rick Steele]

Originally Posted by Manny Caras

Not entirely a concern for me, however it only took Tyson 3 seconds to bite off Hollyfield's ear, I suppose it would be a disaster to miss that. :)

Anyway I'm still not sure which cam as yet. I'm in no hurry. I'm still re-searching.

Manny.

Yes... the record delay for the FX1 is a PITA for some, for others it's not. Plus, SD footage from an FX1 looks a little better too. And one day more people will actually be able to play HD footage too. :)

But I gaurantee a VX will outshoot an FX1 at a candle-light venue without burning the bride's eyebrows using high wattage lights.

I stand by what I say... In wedding video 2 low light cams for the same price are better than one. And I don't have any VX's to sell you :)

Don't know what your true intentions are though. If you only have $2500 to start this biz from scratch then any new cam is out of the question anyway IMO.

[Manny Caras]

Originally Posted by Rick Steele

Yes... the record delay for the FX1 is a PITA for some, for others it's not. Plus, SD footage from an FX1 looks a little better too. And one day more people will actually be able to play HD footage too. :)

But I gaurantee a VX will outshoot an FX1 at a candle-light venue without burning the bride's eyebrows using high wattage lights.

I stand by what I say... In wedding video 2 low light cams for the same price are better than one. And I don't have any VX's to sell you :)

Don't know what your true intentions are though. If you only have $2500 to start this biz from scratch then any new cam is out of the question anyway IMO.

Thanks for sharing that wisdom rick. :)
I'm actually leaning towards the pd's due to inbuild xlr's and slightly better manual controls. I'm sorry, I wasnt the one who said I was only looking at spending $2500 only, I believe it was Richard. Either way the more I read on here the more I'm leaning toward the pd's with low light rather than hd (for now anyway).

Manny.

[Glen Elliott]

PD-170. There is a $300 rebate right now. Still the #1 wedding work-horse camera for many including myself.

[Jeff Chandler]

I do dance videos and the FX can't begin to compete with the low light capabilities of the VX or PD's. When you can't add your own light you really appreciate what great low light cams the VX and PD are. And since my clients have no interest in HD, I don't see myself "upgrading" to an HDV cam for a long time.

[Nick Weeks]

B&H actually has a used PD170 right now with wide angle adapter for $2400

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

The iris adjustments on the PD cameras are closer together and have more steps, so the changes aren't as noticeable as the VX, plus you get the XLR. Same optics/sensors as the VX

[Rick Steele]

Originally Posted by Manny Caras

Either way the more I read on here the more I'm leaning toward the pd's with low light rather than hd (for now anyway)

Even better and I think with the rebate the PD is the same price as a new VX2100(Haven't checked though)

Pretty much the same innards as the VX and the XLR adapter is a big plus. You also won't have that annoying automatic standby mode on the PD line as we VX owners have to deal with.

[Manny Caras]

great I'm sold....pd170 it is:)

thanks for the feedback, Glen, Jeff, Nick and Rick.

manny.

[Daniel Boswell]

Originally Posted by Jeff Chandler

I do dance videos and the FX can't begin to compete with the low light capabilities of the VX or PD's. W

You speak from experience Jeff?

Have you used an FX in low light?

[Jeff Chandler]

Absolutely. And in situations where you cannot add light the FX can't compete with the VX or PD. If you can add lighting that's a different matter. I do a lot of high school dance and the dancers are often in silhouette (often very poor stage lighting) and the VX's and PD's are the only cams I have found in this price range that give a decent picture.

[Daniel Boswell]

Originally Posted by Jeff Chandler

Absolutely. And in situations where you cannot add light the FX can't compete with the VX or PD. If you can add lighting that's a different matter. I do a lot of high school dance and the dancers are often in silhouette (often very poor stage lighting) and the VX's and PD's are the only cams I have found in this price range that give a decent picture.

Just curious..do you own one? Did you rent one? If you did, what for?

I have used both, and while nothing beats the VX/PDs in low light, the FX is not far behind and is MUCH more easily color corrected because even at 18db the picture is very clean and the grain is tight.

And besides, why is it that low light is the barometer that HD cameras are always held up to to dismiss them? I shot over 100 weddings in all different enviornments with these cams now with absolutely NO issues with low light (paltry zoom yes..but low light no). I just flip on my 10/20 when needed at the reception. Big whoop.

Why not compare the imagery of the two and use that as a barometer? Or flexibility as far as being able to shoot native 16:9 and 4:3. HD and SD.

In both those categories its not even close. Even downrezzed HD material is significantly better than SD acquired material.

With the viable delivery options for HD already here I don't think its smart for anyone to be still purchasing SD cameras IMHO.

[Jeff Chandler]

I guess I haven't have made it clear, Daniel, that I'm not dismissing the HDV cams. If I was doing weddings I think it's a good possibility that I would have gone with one of the Sony HDV cams. I think an individual has to decide what their needs are and proceed from there. I had a friend that had an FX and I needed to add a third cam, and before I bought anything I wanted to try the FX. So he let me borrow it for a month and It just didn't suit my needs. I'm talking about very low-light and poorly lighted stages (lighting is done by high school students in collaboration with the dancers, and they look at what they think is "cool", not at what will produce the best video). I ended up adding a PD170 because it suited my needs much better. I also have an XL1s but it couldn't capture the darkest scenes without grain. Color correction has never been an issue because the cams match up so well. Most of my clientelle is high schools, because I teach high school television and video production (Emmy award winning, I just have to add! =) and this is a side business for me. And because high school students are my clients I have had no demand for HD. I haven't even been able to get them all to switch from VHS to DVD! If there was financial incentive I obviously would be making a change. For now these SD cams meet my needs. I'm sure the day will come that I will move on to some form of HD, and when I do maybe they will have improved in the area of low light (or I can convince the dance teachers that they need to take a more active role in deciding lighting schemes!). In the mean time I'm milking every dollar I can from my paid for SD cams.

[Daniel Boswell]

Originally Posted by Jeff Chandler

I guess I haven't have made it clear, Daniel, that I'm not dismissing the HDV cams. If I was doing weddings I think it's a good possibility that I would have gone with one of the Sony HDV cams. I think an individual has to decide what their needs are and proceed from there. I had a friend that had an FX and I needed to add a third cam, and before I bought anything I wanted to try the FX. So he let me borrow it for a month and It just didn't suit my needs. I'm talking about very low-light and poorly lighted stages (lighting is done by high school students in collaboration with the dancers, and they look at what they think is "cool", not at what will produce the best video). I ended up adding a PD170 because it suited my needs much better. I also have an XL1s but it couldn't capture the darkest scenes without grain. Color correction has never been an issue because the cams match up so well. Most of my clientelle is high schools, because I teach high school television and video production (Emmy award winning, I just have to add! =) and this is a side business for me. And because high school students are my clients I have had no demand for HD. I haven't even been able to get them all to switch from VHS to DVD! If there was financial incentive I obviously would be making a change. For now these SD cams meet my needs. I'm sure the day will come that I will move on to some form of HD, and when I do maybe they will have improved in the area of low light (or I can convince the dance teachers that they need to take a more active role in deciding lighting schemes!). In the mean time I'm milking every dollar I can from my paid for SD cams.

Thats great for you Jeff. I am not asking you to go out and dump your cams and get FXs. You have very specific needs. Most shooters are not that specific in their shooting. The thread was started as to what a good cam would be to buy now for someone looking to get a new one.

My points are:

- The supposed poor low light performance of the FX/Zs have been GROSSLY exagerrated. Mostly by people who have just read about them and have never actually used them.

- I just don't think it is smart to buy an SD camera right now given that you have MUCH more options with an HD camera right now in terms of shooting and delivery. Regardless of whether clients want HD or not.

I can shoot in HD, SD, native 16:9, 4:3 and have superior quality delivery in all of those formats.

The same cannot be said for a PD user.

[Jeff Chandler]

I don't disagree with you about the attributes of the FX. But the original poster was asking for a quality cam under $2500. That fits the VX2100 but leaves the FX out since it is $1000 more than the VX.

[Daniel Boswell]

Originally Posted by Jeff Chandler

I don't disagree with you about the attributes of the FX. But the original poster was asking for a quality cam under $2500. That fits the VX2100 but leaves the FX out since it is $1000 more than the VX.

I said a used FX1 or a new FX7. Both you can find in that range. :)

Granted, no XLRs though. But I use the RODE with mine and the sound quality is great.

[Daniel Boswell]

Originally Posted by Manny Caras

Not entirely a concern for me, however it only took Tyson 3 seconds to bite off Hollyfield's ear, I suppose it would be a disaster to miss that. :

Not exactly a good analogy because anyone who was filming that would be rolling the whole time. ;)