Hello everyone, I currently own a XHA1 and I am looking to upgrade but feel very overwhelmed by the amount of options available today. I am not a pro in any way shape or form, I film mostly events , dance recitals, school plays and such and as you can imagine the lighting isn't always the best at these events and I was looking for something that might help out in this situation. I also have a Focus Enhancement HD recorder to go tapeless and I guess my question is, is there really anything in the 5000 dollar range to make it worth upgrading. I have done a lot of research on some of the newer cameras, from Sony JVC, Panasonic Canon but the more I read the more confused I become, lots of pros and cons, I have also read reviews that the Canon XF300 does not do much better than the XHA1 in low light. I know there are a ton of other features that come along with higher end cameras and low light isn't always a main focus, I do not need broadcast or 4K.

Any info anyone could provide would be a tremendous help , I know there some amazing Pros here and I hope someone can point me in the right direction , maybe its not worth upgrading yet either ?

Thanks everyone

Paul

I moved to the XA20 for much of the work I did with my XHA1 and am quite pleased with it, even though it is missing some of the convenient manual control of the XHA1. (I also have used the XA10 and HV40, XL1, GL1, GL2, L2, A1-Digital, etc. over the years.)

At this point I would give serious consideration the the just announced XF200, due to ship this summer. It offers 4:2:2 video, three control rings, 4-channel sound, the improved 20x lens and sensor of the XA20, and other benefits. (It looks very tempting to me.) And from what I've seen the advantage of 3 sensors over 1 is not what it used to be.

However, whether or not to move from the XHA1 now is a personal decision, (not a business decision if you are not shooting for money). I suggest you try find a XA20 (and any others you are considereing) that you can borrow or rent and do some side-by-side comparisons under the lighting condition you have to deal with to see which you like, and which you don't. Maybe you have some friends or acquaintances with different models to compare as well.

Other issues to consider include what are the final delivery formats and uses of your video, how a camcorder fits into your work flow, any other changes you might need to make/buy if switching from HDV to AVCHD or MXF (e.g., older NLEs may not like the new formats them), and of course what makes you comfortable.

Some folks have moved to shooting video with DSLRs, which may make sense for their personal/business model, but might not fit yours. Only you can determine that. (I've seen some venues may prohibit camcorders, but allow DSLRs and smart phones. Go figure!)

On this Good Friday I will make the observation that camcorders and video-capable cameras are a lot like religion. Folks will defend to the death against all others their choice (or bad decision depending on how others look at it). Be of stout heart and do not let anyone talk you into something with which you do not fully agree. (It amounts to; "I know how my shoes fit me, but haven't the foggiest idea about yours.")

Good luck on your quest.

...Folks will defend to the death against all others their choice (or bad decision depending on how others look at it). ...

I think there are some "Folks" here at DVInfo that take exception to being put in a box like that.

@Paul,
I went from the A1 to EX1R after a long analysis. Many others have gone down the path you are on from the A1 with the same desire to improve on low light performance. I found it was the one thing that, if improved, would radically change the efficiency and fun of shooting. Additionally, there was no way I was going backward from the pleasure of shooting with a 3-ring camcorder. Lastly, there were specific flaws in the A1 that I wanted to make sure my next camera didn't have. The 1/2" sensors of the EX1R and both camera and lens ergonomics won the day over the XF300 whose biggest advantage (at the cost of a stop of light performance) was 422 which I will never ever need.

There are more cameras to choose from today but are easily winnowed down if you know what's most important to you such as body size, lens rings, audio, sensor size, low light and ergonomics. All the chips are CMOS as well (no more CCDs like the A1). Bear in mind that the physics haven't changed. A single sensor camera has to have more pixels on it than a 3-sensor camera's chips do and cramming more pixels in the same space means smaller pixels and worse low light performance. Technology (back lighting) has been brought to bear to help that somewhat in small sensors while large s35 sensors overcome it for cinematic cameras at the expense of other things. The ergonomics of traditional camcorder and DSLR/cinema cameras are quite different. YMMV.

Thanks for the input Don, unfortunately I live in a small town and the closest Pro camera store is over a 1000 miles away so I can't try anything out , I have to rely on testimonials and reviews so what I end up with I'm stuck with, but looking at the XF200 it might be a good bet , also looking at the sony NX3 ?, they seem to run around same price, not a lot of info right now on the XF200 so maybe waiting a few months might be a good idea, Guess I better read differences between 1 chip vs 3, Thanks agin

Paul

Search on Bayer filtering. That's the basic thing that is done on single sensor cameras for video that reduces the pixel count (resolution) of the output image.

Hasn't the PMW-EX1R been discontinued?
It came out around 5 years ago.

Perhaps I should have qualified my comment to read "some folks."

Vancouver - in Canada or elsewhere?

Hasn't the PMW-EX1R been discontinued?
It came out around 5 years ago. ...

Yes but the EX1R is still the camera I moved to after the A1 back in the day. The PMW-200 is Sony's current 1/2" 3-mos 3-ring model that replaced it. Further, I wasn't making a recommendation on a specific camera but was rather, trying to illuminate camcorder characteristics I thought would be relevant to an A1 owner making the transition at this time. That was the kind of help I thought the OP was seeking as opposed to buy this one or that one.

Hi all , thanks for the comments, I see the EX1r is selling at around 3500ish on E-bay and the Canon XF200 and Sony NX3 about the same price but both brand new. Are these 2 Cameras as good as the EXR1 ? I don't know maybe in some areas but not in others ? I guess one has to weigh the pros and cons in regards to buying new as apposed to a few years old at the same price , I would hope that with new technology comes better performance in low light but maybe I am asking to much of a camera for my budget, I agree with Les in regards to not taking a step backwards as far as the 3 ring option goes as I have gotten used to them on the XHA1, I guess this conversation can easily branch of in many directions but low light increased performance is certainly my main concern. Again maybe I'm asking to much, thanks for all the help so far

Paul

Your budget may not be enough to afford as far of a step up in low light as going to a 1/2" ENG camcorder unless you go used. It does seem to get you into 1/3" territory.

Both xf200 and NX3 are new. The XF is a single 1/2.8" sensor versus the NX3 has three 1/2.8" sensors. Wait for some trusted experts to evaluate them. I remembered an article on single sensor effective resolution that may help:
Single Sensor Cameras: Pixel count is not the same as resolution! | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2012/06/single-sensor-cameras-pixel-count-is-not-the-same-as-resolution/)

I would hope that with new technology comes better performance in low light but maybe I am asking to much of a camera for my budget

Any camera that is being sold today will outperform the xh-a1 by quite margin in low light situations, I have shot with the xh-a1 for a few years and found that the difference in clean higher iso is like night and day on any other camera' I have bought since I sold my xh-a1 where 6db of gain was already too noisy. I get cleaner images at 24db of gain on my Sony cx730 handicams.

The XHA1 came out in what, 2006 or so, that is about three generations of technology advancements back. That is not to say it can not produce good video, but the bounds of the usable envelop have been extended a lot since then.

It all rests on what you need. Keep in mind that buying used is a bit of a crap shoot, especially gear that may have been beat-up in a 24/7 sort of production environment. And once camcorder are out of production for a few years maintenance support can become problematic

Thanks for all the input , greatly appreciated, so I have been doing a ton of reading and now I am learning that most of the new cameras available today are using CMOS sensors instead of CCD, I understand that CMOS is causing a rolling shutter issue , is this really a huge issue when shooting handheld situations ? can it be avoided and based on anyones experience is it a drastic change shooting with CMOS vs CCD , do you have to change your style and approach to shooting ? Thanks

Paul

Rolling shutter is a fact of life nowadays. Different cameras are worse than others. I've only seen it on an airplane propeller not on any camera moves. YMMV

I've seen it with shots from a moving train, mainly the track-side poles and other close, tall vertical objects. That was shooting with a VADO a few years ago. I have not noticed it with my XA10 or XA20, but then I have not shot similar scenes with them either.

As I understand it the effect is largely dependent on scene content action/motion, and not likelty to be a significant issue with typical camcorder movements intended to produce smooth motion with viewable detail in the scene. Where I've seen it is in scene content that would have been pretty much unwatchable even without the rolling shutter effect added. It would likely be apparent in any object that has significant movement across the screen within the frame/field sampling time and that has a significant vertical component in the frame.

I estimate the poles I shot with the VADO were perhaps 5 feet from the camcorder and moving past at around 40 feet per second; i.e., visible passing by in the image for 4 or so frames. They were a foreground distraction.

Some good replies in this thread. As an XH-A1 owner, I thank you all for the info.

Paul go onto Youtube and check out the reviews of different cameras. While some are just a lot of hot air, some are useful.

Hi Paul,

I moved from XHA1 to Sony NX3 last week and am very surprised and happy.
If you are concerned about low light performance NX3 is the best out there.
You can even shoot in dark with the help of built in LED light. Other features suits for your work are:

Cheaper media (SD card).
Relay Recording, Independent or Simultaneous dual Recording.
Brighter and Bugger LCD screen.
XLR Audio Input etc... etc...

Follow NX3 closely then decide.

Rajiv

Thanks for all the great suggestions, Looking at the Sony NX3, also anticipating the Canon XF200 release and compare the 2, anyone had a chance to review the Canon XF200 ?, if so any input would be greatly appreciated , thanks again

Paul

I understand that CMOS is causing a rolling shutter issue , is this really a huge issue when shooting handheld situations ? can it be avoided and based on anyones experience is it a drastic change shooting with CMOS vs CCD , do you have to change your style and approach to shooting ? Thanks

Paul
rolling shutter depends also on the focal length (zoom) panning: closer you go more rolling you get. The XA20 records in both avchd and mp4. Select mp4 at 35 mbps instead of avchd @28mbps and the rolling shutter will be much better.
I shoot sports and AVCHD looks bad (panning) while MP4 is surprisingly good. WAY better than the old ccd FX1 for example (but at some stunning quality instead).

Paul - I've got a question about the primary use after reading the original post:

"I film mostly events , dance recitals, school plays and such" Question: are the "events" indoor or outside? If everything, or nearly so, is indoor, then low-light will be important, but not necessarily critical - it would depend on the lighting.

If, by "events", this includes sporting or outdoor events, then rolling shutter could very well be an issue as one tries to pan while following the action. Plus, there is bright sun and therefore neutral density filters would be nice to have.

Depending on the use, one would tend to lean one way or the other for a camera.

Which Vancouver are you in?
Here are a few stores that stock video cameras:
Glazier's Camera, Seattle: Welcome | Glazer's Camera (http://www.glazerscamera.com/)
Pro Video and Tape, Portland: Professional Video Equipment Sales | Portland, OR (http://www.provideoandtape.com/) (DVinfo advertiser)

An earlier thread for someone in your situation:
"Upgrade - but what? Solo shooter advice?"
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/521305-upgrade-but-what-solo-shooter-advice.html

I'm also on the hunt for a new/newer camera and, like you say, it isn't easy. I've also got the CCD vs CMOS dilemma.

It would be nice if there was a thread section: "What new camera to get?"

Hi John, I probably shoot 90% indoors, most events are in a theatre type room, however most of the lighting is done by volunteers and varies dramatically, but is always on the underlite side, Dance recitals and school plays mostly, some outdoor shooting but for my own personal intrests, there is an overwhelming amount of things to consider and so many camera choices, and the more I read the less I know , lol, thanks for the resonse

Paul

With a preponderance of the video likely to be indoors the main problem one would expect is poor (i.e., inadequate) lighting. This opinion is based on a "been there, done that" bad "once burned, twice learned" experience. Indoor shooting is going to be common given our long winter nights and inclement or cold weather so indoor venues provide protection from the elements.

While my personal choice for a camera is a video camera - one with all the important buttons that are easily accessible and one that has a shape-factor that is longitudinal with the line of sight, given the low-light and cost limitations, this really seems to say DSLR. These cameras have the capability to attach glass that can capture the light needed to make the video look good. Indoor action can be captured with faster shutter speeds.

As for the rolling shutter problem in an indoor stage situation, my guess is this probably won't be as big of an issue but I'd like to hear from those who actually do the kind of shots you're doing. The rolling shutter problem I've seen videos of usually use cars, buildings (things with rectangular shapes), light poles, etc. In the case of, say, a stage situation with moving people, this might not be as apparent.

With a DSLR one might need more of an investment in lenses for wide and close work while the video camera relies more on a single zoom lens, but lenses can be acquired over time while with a video camera the cost is all up-front.

The amount of available light is quite critical. What looks like "enough" to the naked eye isn't necessarily enough for the image capture system. Another thought is to use "noise reduction" software to make up for the lack of glass but I'd hate to rely on that as a workflow model.

I'd be curious what others have to write.

Stages are lit for human eye and include artistic effects that complement the action. This is rarely good for camcorders. Convenience of exposure controls and wide latitude are important, as is influence with the lighting director.

I've found the XA20 to work well for events like weddings, courts of honor, night time high school ball field events (I have read that the HS lighting standard is about 1 stop less light than college, 2 stops less than pro sports), and in-school activities. I have not had occasion to shoot drama with the XA20.

Honestly, theater lighting should be perfectly fine for modern day camcorders that have decent low light performance with backlit sensors etc. Even a used professional camcorder like an EX1 or XF300 will do the trick. Things have come a long way since the A1 days.

My experience in theater is that lighting changes rapidly as part of the presentation or by din of characters moving to a different part of the stage. Having a lens ring so you can "ride the iris" is critical to getting professional results. Many small camcorders only have a knob. DSLRs generally have a noisy wheel and only adjust in full stops. 3-ring camcorders like your A1 actually give you iris adjustments in partial stops.

Another feature you'll want is custom white balance. Using AWB in theater lighting means your automatics will get faked out by certain color lights and skin tones will go wonky. If purple lights are on skin, you should get purple skin. That was what your eyeballs saw.

Thanks Les , yes I agree with the need for 3 rings as it has proved essential in some situations I have encountered as well as the custom white balance option, I have been toying with the idea of buying a used XF300 but wondering if buying older technology might lead me down the road of buyers remorse, would I be missing out on something from new tech ?
Also my location does not provide me the opportunity to demo and get a hands on to any camera as I am in a remote location, I can only rely on solid reviews and testimonials, I will have to narrow it down as I can see getting lost in a sea of options and I am sure every Camera out there has its merits, But thanks everyone for the input, much appreciated

Paul

So just wondering if there are any XF200 happy users out there, looking at this one but still not sure ,? any comments would greatly be appreciated, thanks

so after much research and debating what to upgrade to from my trusty XHA1 I saved my pennies and purchased a canon C100 Mark ii and can say I am one extremely happy camper, this camera is, well all I can say is wow, low light shooting is phenomenal, everything about this camera has met all my expectations, very easy to setup and use right out of the box, no regrets, this camera will not disappoint