This may be a model upgrade that current owners can forego, especially those contemplating buying the 200 or 250.

But spending that much money makes me wonder about spending a few bucks more for the XDCAM HD 330 which can be had for prices the 13,000 USD range. But while that includes a viewfinder, it does not include a lens.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Tip

This may be a model upgrade that current owners can forego, especially those contemplating buying the 200 or 250.

But spending that much money makes me wonder about spending a few bucks more for the XDCAM HD 330 which can be had for prices the 13,000 USD range. But while that includes a viewfinder, it does not include a lens.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Tip
Too bad the cheapest hd lens is like 7k.

So maybe at the cheapest, the xdcam could go for 20000-23000 dollars. You could buy two hd250s at that price.

So maybe at the cheapest, the xdcam could go for 20000-23000 dollars. You could buy two hd250s at that price.

There's a place in Burbank selling an F330 with Fujinon S20x6.4 for just under $16k.

It's an SD lens, but if you go in the XDCAM forum, there's a couple guys using SD glass and getting acceptable results. I've gotten a close look at XDCAM HD with SD glass and with the right lens, it goes from anywhere to "I can live with that for how cheap it is" to "That's not an HD lens? Could have fooled me"

The 330 actually comes with a lens. The 350 doesn't.

The 330 actually comes with a lens. The 350 doesn't.
Does the 330 that comes with the hd lens sell for 16000? I did a quick search but couldn't come up with anything but a few articles that mentioned that it comes stock with no lens. I thought it was something you had to buy separately.

My understanding, and I've asked others, is that it comes with the lens for that price. That's the silver colored lens you see in the photos. I'm sure it's not going to be a great lens, but it should be useable until a guy can afford a better one, if the price is important (when isn't it).

I'm going to the Sony/Apple XDCAM HD seminar in Chicago on Aug. 1, so I'll find out for sure then. Even with the lens, this $16K price is more than double the JVC with lens. Of course it's a 1/2" chip camera and records to optical disc, but the JVC is still the best deal in terms of cost/benefit, in my opinion. I'm considering the Sony mainly because of some advantages the Blu-ray discs would give us. For personal use, I'd go for the JVC, I'm sure.

The 330K kit, the one with the lens, is not available in the states. Euro prices for that kit put it at about $19K USD.

So here in the states, you can get the 330 for about $15K, and put a cheap lens on it for about $1K.

Not ideal, but it will get you going. Funny enough, so far the 330 stills and footage I've seen with a cheap Fuji seems to have the same shortfalls as the HD100s cheap Fuji! I've been told the stock Fuji is just a renamed SD lens, now I'm starting to believe it.

I saw the 330 with Stock lens the other day. It is a white Canon lens with autofocus (I watched it do a full auto backfocus adjustment). I was quoted roughly AU$23,000 for the body only, and I think about $29,000 with lens. Memory is fading as it was only a very brief moment.

I certainly would like the 330 over the HD100, or more specifically I want a practical no tape solution with 1/2" over tape and 1/3" but I'll freely admit the price difference is nothing short of a joke (the joke is on Sony). The codecs of the two cameras are the same (MP@HL & DV), and while the 330 has higher bit rate options I don't believe it has native progressive support (its 720p is a conversion from its native 1080i). 50/60p? Don't think so.

but I'll freely admit the price difference is nothing short of a joke (the joke is on Sony). The codecs of the two cameras are the same (MP@HL & DV), and while the 330 has higher bit rate options I don't believe it has native progressive support

The Sony is a far cry from the JVC. I just used 7 F350s to shoot a concert and now that I'm editing (7 camera multicam 1080p24 on a dual 2.0 ghz G5, I might add), it's plain to see that the Sony is the far better camera.

The specs and numbers for the Sony do not tell the entire picture; it looks much much better than if I had used the JVC for the same shoot. But it should, at $23k for the body and another $20k for the lenses we had on each camera.

Specifically, the highlight handling of the current XDCAM HDs in a concert setting (lots of automated luminaires causing massive blowouts) was very graceful.

And thats why I want 1/2" over 1/3" but to me (and this is always relates to a personal position) the price difference isn't justified. No client I have ever had would notice the difference let alone pay extra to get it.

I sprung a lot more for my DV500 over the PD150s of the day, and I'd possibly go that far again for my own personal preferences, but the 330 is twice that price all over again, way out of my league.

I love many things about the 330, although I've only read about it. I had an incident on my recent shoot where we shot over 20 minutes of previous footage; that little mistake required an afternoon of re-shooting. That doesn't happen with the 330. Also, the fact that FCP supports it without the horrendous workarounds required for HD100 footage is appealing, as are the 1/2" chips in terms of getting much better DOF. But it will probably be awhile until I have the scratch to get one.

I love the 330. Being able to shoot hd on tape and blu ray is just the shit IMO. I wouldnt mind having that autofocus lens either, even though it sucks.

My next leap will probably be in something like the xdcam. I am too poor right now, lol

You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.

You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.

Correct. Disc only.

You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.
Sorry, my bad.

Sony website says it records in dvcam format. I am guessing it records dvcam to the optical disks. I scan too much instead of actually reading!

That would be cool though

As far as I understand there is no difference between DV and DVCAM except for the tape transport mechanics. So recording DVCAM to disk is no difrferent to recording DV to disk.

The only exception might be locked audio. Not sure if that still relates to the media or codec though, and my JVC DV500 records DV with locked audio as well so it is certainly something you can do with 'DV'.

As far as I understand there is no difference between DV and DVCAM except for the tape transport mechanics. So recording DVCAM to disk is no difrferent to recording DV to disk.

The only exception might be locked audio. Not sure if that still relates to the media or codec though, and my JVC DV500 records DV with locked audio as well so it is certainly something you can do with 'DV'.

Both NTSC DV and DVCAM use 4:1:1 compression and the same bit rate of 25mbs. DVCAM is locked audio and on tape transport, it records a wider track pitch to guard against dropout so your 60 minutes is reduced to 40. It also uses locked audio.

You can record DVCAM to disk which gives you 85-90 minutes. But these cameras don't record DV to disk so it's a non-issue.

-gb-

For us, the amount of time saved in logging alone makes this camera's price easily worth it. Yes, it looks really great (and I mean really great with the Fujinon bottom HD lens), but you've got to check out the xdcam file transport features to get the whole pictures. It's just a whole different (better) way of working from a tape based, linear situation. Essentially, it's the last piece of the non-linear puzzle. There's a reason Apple is pushing this so hard all of the sudden - a reason Comcast and CBS just moved all of their hd production to this camera - the workflow is awesome.

Max

I dont know why but for what the xdcam does it almost seems like a bargain. 20k and you get one screaming hd camcorder using 1/2 inch sensors and writes to blu ray disks. I have heard nothing but good things about them too.

Almost makes me wish I would not have bought the hd100s. I needed them though and there is no way I could pump out 40k for two of these.

Oh well, and by the time I have the money for one of these, red will be available.

Both NTSC DV and DVCAM use 4:1:1 compression and the same bit rate of 25mbs. DVCAM is locked audio and on tape transport, it records a wider track pitch to guard against dropout so your 60 minutes is reduced to 40. It also uses locked audio.

You can record DVCAM to disk which gives you 85-90 minutes. But these cameras don't record DV to disk so it's a non-issue.

-gb-

Do you know if DV footage and DVcam footage can be edited in FCP hassle free in the same timeline, or does one or other have to be converted?

Thanks

"and there is no way I could pump out 40k for two of these. "
And this is the most important thing for you then. Like me, a camera is only good to me if I can afford it, otherwise it is next to useless no matter what its features.


"Do you know if DV footage and DVcam footage can be edited in FCP hassle free in the same timeline, or does one or other have to be converted?"
Once on disk as a file there is no difference between DV and DVCAM, the codecs themselves are the same.