Which 16:9 SD or HD Prosumer Camcorder?
 

First time post here...

Anyway, when my first daughter was born 8 years ago, I bought a Sony TRV310 Digital 8 camcorder. At the time, it was the best I could afford. However, I've started the process of converting all the footage to DVD via Adobe Production Premium CS3 and I've begun to realize just how bad that camcorder is. At least compared to the kind of footage I want to be taking.

Now we are at the point where we would like to have higher quality video of the girls (2). I have been frustrated by the almost complete lack of manual control of my existing camcorder. Also, my two girls are showing an artistic bent and it would be nice to have something that would allow them to express themselves (with Daddy's help, plays, chroma keying, etc.).

Anyway, I've been lurking around here for awhile (before registering) and some comments I have been reading about the pros/cons of 4:3 vs 16:9. A couple years ago (the first time I got the upgrade bug, but couldn't afford it) there was no doubt (to me) that 4:3 was the way to go. It was the TV type I and the rest of my family had. However, things have really changed...

Now just about everyone either has or is planning on getting a 16:9 TV. This means that I need a camcorder that supports (preferably natively) 16:9 recording at the very least for future proofing. Not only that, it just looks better not having the bars on the side.

Anyway, I'm looking for a "prosumer" class camcorder with "broadcast quality" video that has adequate auto controls for "run and gun" situations, but enough manual controls to optimize shooting for important events like birthdays, etc. Color fidelity and low light performance are also very important, so I assume I'm looking only at 3CCD models. And who knows, I may want to expand my horizons, so I want to make sure I have my bases covered.

I know that SD is on its way out, but some of the higher end SD cameras have a pretty darned good picture, especially when upconverted. However, HD is the future.

Sooo... My dilemma. Do I buy a 16:9 native SD camcorder (do they even exist at the prosumer level?) or spend a bit more for a HD model? I'd like to keep it under $1500 for a used unit, though I may have some extra money coming in the next month or so to bump that up to as much as $2500. Or am I just kidding myself?

I've been keeping an eye on eBay and see Sony FX1 and Canon XH-A1's for around the upper amount. I see Sony VX2100's and DVX100A/B's for around the lower amount (but they are 4:3 units). These seem to have the features I'm looking for.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

Scott

A Sony SR12 or a HV30 would satisfy your needs, not so strong on manual controls but the IQ would please you and would be HD.

Real manual controls for 1500? Hmmm the Sony FX7 is not produced anymore, that would give you V1 quality (search Vimeo if you want samples) and strong manual controls for $2500.

So, since the FX7 is out of the game, you'd be left with the more expensive Canon XH-A1, you wouldn't regret the buy, but it's way beyond the budget you determined.

Some links you might find useful:

SR12
http://vimeo.com/1329068

HV30
http://vimeo.com/1289501

Thanks for the quick reply!

I've looked at those cameras, but (at least with the HV30), the low light performance is a below what I'm looking for. I've looked at both at Best Buy and they look great in good lighting. However, Christmas mornings, birthdays, etc. don't have such good lighting and I don't want to regret the purchase afterward, especially after it is too late (after the event(s)). I find desaturated colors rather irritating, though I probably would dislike a lot of grain more.

I have spent the last couple years trying to refine my skills with my Nikon D70 DSLR by learning how to use its manual abilities. Now I feel it is time to do the same with video. I have looked at the video from various single CCD and 3CCD camcorders and just do not think that even the best of the single CCD cameras have as good color fidelity as even average 3CCD cameras, except in almost perfect lighting. At the same price point, the 3CCD's, IMO, have a clear advantage at the top end.

Anyway, because of this, I am looking at 3CCD cameras. I have seen that the VX2100's and DVX100's are selling for between $1200 and $1500 (and, of course, higher) on eBay at the low end for cameras with <300 hours, and sometimes with <150 hours... *IF* you can catch the right auction. And I'm rather patient. :D The Buy It Now prices for used Canon XH A1's and Sony FX1's are ~$2700 with individual auctions as low as $2200.

Are there any prosumer SD cameras that have native 16:9 chips or, at the least, don't lose any resolution when filming 16:9?

Hey Scott,

Welcome to a fun hobby/profession! You've got a lot of choices, but let's start with the 16:9/4:3.

No HD cameras are native 4:3 anymore--they're all 16:9. You can get most of them to shoot in 4:3, but you're just wasting the sides. Panasonic's DVX100 cameras also allow you to shoot in 16:9 using either letterbox format or what they've called "digital squeeze." I'm not really sure what the "digital squeeze" technology does, but I can't imagine it looks bad or they wouldn't have done it. Though I don't have any experience with Sony's VX2100, I do have extensive experience with its predecessor, the VX2000 and I can tell you that it doesn't have good low-light or color representation.

If you want an SD camera that shoots good low-light, I don't think you'll find much better than the DVX100b. It's also got lots of manual controls which you'll really like. If I was to go out and buy an SD camera for myself or the company I work for, I would buy the DVX100b without a second thought.

If you want to go to the HD realm (I would very highly recommend spending the money for HD--Walmart in backwoods podunk Tennessee doesn't even sell SD TV's anymore) you really can't beat the XHA1 for the price. It's got pretty good low-light response and the color is beautiful. It's got decent auto controls and full-featured manual controls, including an iris ring on the lens--something you don't see often on prosumer fixed-lens cameras.

If you can find a used model from a trusted seller on E-Bay, then I'd say go for it. Otherwise, see if you can shell out the cash for a new one with full warranty and everything. I think you'll really like the picture you can get from the camera. If you want to see examples of the footage from any camera, go to www.vimeo.com and search for videos by the camera model number. There's lots of footage from the XHA1 that looks really good.

One last thing--if you do make the jump from SD to HD, you'll probably have to upgrade your editing computer as well. In order to successfully edit HDV, you'll pretty much have to have a multi-core processor (recommend at least a quad-core) and at least 2GB of memory. You'll also want to have your "scratch disks" (the ones that hold your video data) separate from your OS/programs disk and you'll want them in some sort of a RAID array optimized for performance (RAID 0 or 5 is best for that).

Good luck!

However good the VX2k family are in low light I'd cross them off the list for the simple reason they were designed as 4:3 cameras and they do that very well indeed. 16:9? Move to their natural successor - the FX1.

You now have one of the best value 3 CCD chipped units around. Built Z1 tough, reliable as pyramid bricks, everything you could imagine under manual control (should you want to). You can shoot HDV to future-proof your master tapes or downconvert to make SD DVDs today.

Of course the Canon HV20 or 30 might suit you just fine. These (contrary to their picnic-cam looks) deliver mighty fine video footage that you'd be amazed at.

tom.

I have both, and second Tom's analysis.

DVX and V2K family cameras crop the image, on the sensor, in 16:9 mode. The result is essentially 360 lines of actual resolution (regardless of the recorded format).

Welcome to DVinfo Scott!

I'd also echo what Tom has said. But regarding 16:9 native 3-chip standard definition cameras, Sony used to have the PDX-10 to fill this niche in their pro lineup. Low light response was not as good as the VX and PD series however, due to the small chips (about 1/5"), but it was actually pretty similar to the Z1 (I have owned a VX-2000, PDX-10 and Z1). My observation was that the PDX-10 was about 2.5 f-stops slower than the VX-2000.

The TRV-950 was the consumer version of that camera (as the VX-2100 is to the PD-170), and later it was replaced with the HC-1000 which kept the same chips but dumbed down the controls a bit. If you're on a tight budget you can probably find some of these on the used market. See our forum for these cameras here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Aside from the FX-1 you might also have a look at the FX-7 or HVR-V1 (see: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=140). Another possibility might be the HVR-A1, although low light will suffer a bit there - see: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=99

I might point out that although the PDX10 went some way to giving good 16:9 from the essentially 4:3 CCD chips on board, the TRV950 had this feature blocked, so I'd not recommend that one. The HC1000 that followed was as Boyd points out, so dumbed down that I'm not even sure it did 16:9, and it faded quickly from the scene. Sony make some corkers and crackers, but they also make some nonsense.

And although David B says 'I would buy the DVX100b without a second thought.' he should know that its 16:9 modes (squeeze or mask) both compromise image quality to an unacceptable level in this day and age. Lovely cameras and I know them well, but so too was the VX2000 lovely in its day.

tom.

Thanks Tom... yeah, that would be if I was buying an SD camera... but in this day and age, I would personally NEVER spend money on an SD camera. I'm more likely to go for the XHA1, HD110U, the HVX200A/HPX170/500, the HD200U/250U or the EX1/3, the choice of those cameras depending on my budget with the XHA1 at the bottom end and the HPX500 at the top end.

If you want to stay within your stated budget - you could purchase a LitePanel Micro for the Sony SR12 or Canon HV30. The light can be used on/off camera and it's battery operated so no wires. With a clamp or stand it can give you more flexible options in low-light situations. And you'll still have enough left in your budget to get a shotgun mic and lavalier, maybe a Rode NTG-2 and Audio Technica AT899.

If you want to do keying and shoot in-camera, look into using Cineform as it gives you 4:2:2 and can help keying the 4:2:0 HDV video. If you don't mind being tethered to a computer you could shoot direct via HDMI to a Black Magic Intensity Pro card. Starts to get a little over your budget at that point, but do get 4:2:2 video.

[EDIT] But keying HDV ain't bad, it's doable within limits. So all the extra stuff for keying might just get in the way of doing what you want to do which is unleash the creativity of your girls.

A dissenting "second opinion"
 

Scott, it looks like the general consensus is: go HD. I will offer an alternative view.

No, I am not all for the old, I AM NOT saying HD is not good - in fact, I bought into HD a couple of years ago when my church asked me to purchase cameras for our video ministry; what I AM saying is that in your particular situation, given your budget and your high expectations for quality, at this moment it would be better for you to go for a broadcast quality SD camera. Check the classifieds here on DVinfo, look around on the auction sites and you will find amazing deals on used broadcast cameras as most TV stations and lots of independent videographers are upgrading to HD. I am not saying that SD looks better than HD; however, with time you will find that resolution plays a lesser role (compared to other factors) in defining a "good" motion picture. You will never find the low light capability a 1/2 chip pro camera can give you, in a $2K consumer/prosumer HD camera!

And another thing: don't get intimidated by the computer requirements some people suggest... those refer to professionals who's time is money - for hobby, and even for weekend videographers, a good single core will still work. I am editing HDV natively on a P4@3GHZ HT w/2GB RAM - playback is real time for cuts, of course it needs rendering if effects are applied.

Again, this is just a "second opinion" for you to consider.

I sold my VX2000 half a year ago and picked up an hv20. Although I dislike my now lack of manual controls (although you can trick the camera and get some, its just not as convenient) the picture quality is so, so much better. I loved my vx and it was really hard for me to sell especially since the hv20 doesn't look as professional, but really the picture quality of the VX doesn't even compare especially hooked up to an HD monitor.

But that's just my experience, and I look at HDCAM footage all day at work.

Ervin, I'm impressed... I'm running an Athlon FX64 at 3.6GHz with 2GB of ram and I can't even make the HDV footage play in Premiere! (Well, it plays, but very jerkily and drops frames non-stop.) And the P4 core structure isn't even optimized for the type of processor power used in multimedia editing. Are you perhaps running a high performance RAID or something?

No, the media is on a cheapo external USB hard drive, Western Digital MyBook 500GB.

What else do you have running on that machine? One thing I did to that computer is, I deleted everything on it, reformatted the 30GB C drive, and loaded it with XP, drivers, SP2, and then the Adobe CS2 suite including Photoshop - that's it, nothing else. Runs like a dream, stable, no crashes, no corrupted projects.

Wow! It has been a busy week...

Thanks everyone for your feedback! It has been very helpful.

I just confirmed how much money I'm going to be able to spend and it looks like it will be enough for either a Sony FX1 or Canon XH-A1. Now I need to decide between these two cameras (or anything else interesting in this range).

This last weekend I went out to Vimeo as Pietro Impagliazzo and David Beisner recommended to look at video from both the Sony and Canon. I have to admit to being a bit disappointed by the video from the Sony. The color fidelity and saturation in the videos just did not seem to match what I saw from the Canon.

However, I don't know if this is typical or if it is because the people who are using the Sony do less set up in camera or fixing in post or whatever. Then again, perhaps what I was seeing are limitations due to Vimeo compression for web streaming. Though this held true whether I was viewing in SD or Vimeo's "HD".

Have many of you had a chance to work with both of these cameras? Is what I am seeing inherent to the cameras or the videographers? Or am I just seeing something that is not there?

As for my editing system, it is AMD Opteron 165 (dual core) based, with 2 GB RAM, over 1.5TB disk space (C: 250GB RAID 1 boot, D: 960GB RAID 5 for video, 400GB RAID 1 for backup of all PC's on my home network), and an ATI Radeon X1950XTX video card. It is fairly good, but not a powerhouse by any means.

As you can see, it used to be state of the art a couple years ago, but is now about average (power-wise). When I am processing my video, all the effects/cuts/etc. happen in real time (at least for now) with the SD footage I'm working with.

Anyway, to recap, I'm looking at the 1/3" Sony FX1 and Canon XH-A1 ("entry level" HD prosumer cameras) right now because of their low light performance and for future proofing. The Sony FX7/V1U are out, IMO, because they use CMOS and/or 1/4" chips and suffer a bit compared to the 1/3" chips in lower light levels (at least from what I have read). If anyone has any other ideas for cameras (in the Canon XH-A1 price range or lower), please do let me know as I am open to new ideas. The Sony and Canon appear to be the best at this level at this time.

Thanks for all of your help!

Best regards,

Scott

Your observation is accurate: out of the box Sony cameras have a sharp, cool look (slightly blueish) while all Canons capture a more saturated but somewhat softer picture. The reason is that the two companies cater to two different user groups: Sony is mostly broadcast oriented, in most TV studios you will find predominantly Sony cameras, while Canon develops cameras for the independent producers, event- and wildlife videographers and such.

Ervin,

So this difference would explain why I have read people saying that they recommend using Canon's to cut with Canon's and Sony's with Sony's because it is difficult to match them in post?

Since my preference is for the way the Canon looks (color/saturation-wise), I assume that the Sony can't be made to look like the Canon by white balancing, etc. either in camera or post?

Also, does anyone have a feel for how they compare in lower light situations?

Thanks.

Scott

Generally I find it more successful and it looks technically better to warm up footage in post rather than cool it down, so it's Sonys for me.

1. That is correct; it's not impossible, but it's very hard and takes a lot of time to match different cameras.

2. Theoretically it can be made but if the Canon look is the one you're after to start with, why work extra?

3. That's a religion in itself. Most videographers hold Sony's the kings of low light, but the difference might not be as significant, depending on your shooting conditions.

Thanks everyone for your feedback. It has definitely been a learning experience.

However, I am curious to know if the Sony FX1 and Canon XH-A1 are equivalent cameras or if the Sony Z1U is more equivalent to the XH-A1?

Also, if you had the choice of buying one of the three above at these prices (FX1 @ $2K-2.5K, XH-A1 @ $2.5K-$3K, and Z1U @ $2.5K-$3.2K), which would you buy?

The only differences I can see between the FX1 and Z1U seem to be XLR inputs and the ability to shoot both NTSC and PAL with the same camera. The Canon appears (to me) to have better (more natural, saturated) color, has that wonderful 20X lens, and can shoot in 24F and 30F, but has slightly worse low light performance. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to balance these out at the various price points.

Another thing that has thrown another wrench in the works is I was watching the Olympics the other night and saw at the end of the program that the cameras were supplied by Sony and the lenses were from Canon. IMO, the video of the Olympics has been fantastic. I would be ecstatic to get video like that. Just before the 100m finals, there was a moment when one cameraman was trying to cover Usain Bolt's mother and another (the camera the feed was coming from) and it LOOKED like the camera in the bottom of the picture (the non-feed camera) looked to be one of the FX1/Z1U/Z7U family. You could see the LCD screen and fixed lens that is common to these cameras. When they briefly switched the feed to that camera, I really could not detect the difference from the rest of the program... at least in that short a time frame.

If that is the quality video these Sony's can provide, I am amazed!

With mostly videoing home events and some sporting stuff, I think the Canon will be the best option for me, but I'd hate to miss something and regret the purchase later. I need to be mindful that the auto functions need to be "good" so that I won't get poor footage if family are running the camera.

Anyway, I'd appreciate one more round of input, if anyone has anything further to add. I just wish there was somewhere here in Memphis to check out these cameras before I make a purchase...

Scott

Whoooah - there are 43 differences all told. Of course there's the XLRs, but there's also some amazingly useful extras that mean I never ever pick up my FX1 when the Z1's on offer.

The undescan screen, the fine tune of the manual wjite balance, the focus assist (not expanded focus, note), the assign button choice, the v'finder's zoom readout and lots more.

The progression order is FC1, XH-A1, Z1 in my view.

tom.

Actually, 44 differences...
 

... at least as listed by the attached PDF file.

Scott, if you can afford it, please go for the Z1. As picky as you seem to be, you will never be happy with an FX1.

I am not sure the info about Sony and Beijing is accurate... according to several websites, most of the cameras are Thomson and Panasonic. See Cameras being used at the Beijing Olympics - Camcorders and Panasonic HD selected for Beijing Olympic Games, Panasonic USA Pressroom.

Now, if we're talking about the NBC coverage, that's another story, and it does look like that's all Sony:

"Sony cameras NBC is using include:
30 PDW-700 cameras ($29,800, 2/3-inch CCDs MPEG-2 1080i)
42 Sony HDC-1400 studio cameras, ($65,000, 2/3-inch CCDs, 1080i memory stick camera)
HDC-3300 3x Super Slow Motion cameras ($118,000.00)".

So I don't think there are any HDV cameras around the stadium, it's all studio cameras and XDCAMs for NBC , with 2/3 inch chips, an entirely different league, and $100K+ Gras Valley/Thomsons for the actual games. What surprizes me is that they all shoot interlaced (excepe maybe the slowmo ones?).

By the way, according to the same websites, the Beijing Olympics are the first to be covered entirely with HD cameras!

Unless you need XLR inputs the FX1 should be fine for your purposes, and XLR can be added via a third-party adapter (eg Beachtek) if necessary. The Sony colors are muted at default settings but this can be enhanced significantly using the "picture profiles" - I shot a dance performance this way which looked great with no post enhancement. Color balance can also be modified the same way and I've been warming it up a little in situations where Sony defaults look bluish. The FX1 is also easy to use with excellent autofocus and decent auto exposure plus a one-touch "backlight" button, so it's suitable for handing to family members with minmal explanation. All things considered the FX1 is still a good value almost four years after it was introduced, and can be used for pro shoots as needed.

The Z1U is a beefed-up version of the FX1 with some nice pro features and a hefty price tag to match, with images indistinguishable in most situations. The Z1 is largely being displaced by the newer Z7U, but I wouldn't recommend the latter in this situation.

The Canon XH-A1 has a better zoom range and 24-fps recording than the Sonys, plus XLR inputs at a reasonable price. The Canon images are grainy in low light at default settings but this can be mitigated by adjusting various camera options, similar to comments I made about the FX1 above. Autofocus on the Canon appears to be less reliable than the Sonys based on user comments here on this board and elsewhere, so is arguably less friendly for
novice users.

For general use and value I'd rate the FX1 first, then the XH-A1, then the Sony Z1U. Any can produce great images with some care, so you can't really go wrong compared to your current camera.

Well I will take Scott at his word in the post above - he indicates a $500 difference between FX1 and Z1 prices. Of course "your mileage may vary", but assuming you've narrowed the choice down to these two cameras I would definitely spend the extra $500.

The chips and basic guts are the same, but the features which Tom mentions above really to set the Z1 apart from the FX1. Black Stretch is another important difference, and it can clearly make a difference in the image plus it gives you a bit of an edge in very dark places.

And let's not forget that the Z1 can shoot PAL as well as NTSC standard definition. AFAIK, this is the only reasonably priced camera which can do this out of the box without factory modification. It's the only reason I bought my Z1 in 2006. I was doing a big PAL project at the time and didn't want to buy a PAL-only camera.

I'd agree that at that price the Z1U is worth the extra money, but I'm surprised to hear such a small price difference. The FX1 can be found on eBay for $2500 or less - is someone selling a Z1U for $3000?

It goes beyond that. You should also consider the advantages of having *one* battery type, *one* AC power supply type, *one* menu and controls system to learn, etc.

I have an FX1 and an XH-A1. You can certainly shoot some great footage with an FX1, but I like the A1 much better overall. I doubt I'll every buy another camera that is limited to shooting interlaced video (cineframe on the FX1 is for the birds - 24F and 30F on the A1 works well). The A1 is way more tweakable than the FX1, and the instant auto focus on the A1 is actually useful (blows away the AF on the FX1).

Another difference worth considering: should you need service from Sony, the Z1 is handled by the pro division where usually a phone call takes care of the problem, while the FX1 by the consumer division, which we all know how it works...

Surprised me too. I haven't done any real research, but just now I looked on B&H's site. The Z1 is selling for $3,900 which includes a $400 rebate. The FX1 sells for $3,300. The price gap certainly has narrowed over the years. When I got my Z1 I think it cost $4,700 and the FX1 was somewhere around $3,500 IIRC.

Another thing I like about the A1, is being able to use either an XLR mic or a mini-plug mic (like the Rode SVM) easily. I don't know if you can do that with a Z1 or not.

Just a quick post on the prices...

As I noted toward the beginning of this thread, I'm looking at used prices. And, for example, I just missed out (got home 4 minutes too late) on an A1 with matt box w/flag, and a bunch of other extras with <50 hours that ended up selling for $3K.

Anyway, that price range seems to hold for used equipment on eBay. At least it has been for the last month or so. Sure some are selling for more, especially new, (FX1 ~$2500, A1 ~$3200, Z1U ~$3900), but they usually have a lot of extras like wide/tele lenses, filters, extra batteries, etc.

Now, I have probably stuck it to myself because a bunch of new people will begin buying equipment and I'll have to wait another 2 weeks for prices to settle down... :D

Personally, I see this as a function of the economy rather than a statement of the intrinsic values of the respective cameras.

I was just reading an article on the FX1 on dv.com and they mentioned an "excessive horizontal aliasing" problem. I wonder if this extends to the Z1U?

From what I'm reading, I should keep the Z1 and A1 as my front runners.

Now my question is how much of a difference will I notice (for family bdays, church events, sporting events, etc.) between the 20X Canon lens and the 12X Sony lens on the Z1U?

Thanks for all of your help, it really is helping me narrow down my choices. I just hope I'm not "picking fly manure out of the pepper" (where you end up with all fly manure and no pepper, after all how can you really tell the difference?). ;D

Scott

DV - Reviews - HDR-FX1

I was quite surprised by Boyd's revelations regarding the price of the FX1 and the Z1 - but perhaps I was more surprised that both cameras were still in production, and for all intents and purposes selling well.

I'd have thought the FX7 would have taken over from the FX1 and the Z7 from the Z1, but Sony as always is sub-dividing the niche again, even introducing the V1 and EX1 to grab more of the undecided. It makes Canon's range look very limited.

On paper the '20x zoom' wording grabs a lot of attention and alongside a 12x sounds to be a whole lot better. But if you attach a 1.6x teleconverter to the 12x zoom a lot of people are rather disappointed at how 'little extra' such a lens brings to the telephoto reach - and that's the difference between the 12x and the 20x zoom.

Of course adding a tele converter is not a nice way of doing things. You can't zoom far before vignetting takes hold, it's a heavy and lumpen optic but at least it doesn't lose you lens speed (well, not noticeably). The 20x zoom on the XH-A1 drops from f/1.6 to f/3.5 if I'm not mistaken.

tom.

I haven't heard of any major aliasing problems for the FX1 and haven't seen that in own footage, but if there were such it would apply to the Z1U as well. These two cameras are very similar and look like they come off the same assembly line when you put them side by side.

As far as zoom range is concerned, for family videos you'd notice the maximum wide angle more than the telephoto, and I think the Sonys may have a slight advantage on the wide end.

I use the Century Optics 1.6x teleconvertor on my Z1 to get close shots when shooting our opera performances at a distance of about 110' from the stage. If you do this sort of work you will definitely want a teleconvertor.

As I mentioned, B&H sells the Z1 new for $4,300 and a $400 Sony rebate drops it to $3,900, so unless there are a lot of extra goodies and the mileage is very low, $3,900 is no bargain for a used one.

Sony | HVR-Z1U 1/3-Inch 3-CCD HDV Camcorder | HVRZ1U | B&H Photo

Well the FX1 is still going strong, in spite of premature rumors of its demise: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/area-51/8...continued.html

Meanwhile, the FX7 has actually been discontinued... go figure!

This thread has been very helpful and I would like to thank everyone who has participated and provided their experience/insight!

I think I am getting a handle on most aspects of the two cameras I have narrowed this down to, the Sony Z1U and Canon XH-A1, and would like to confirm one final question.

A big factor I have to consider is having other family members running the camcorder while I am busy. Not only that but there will likely be times when I will need to be able to just turn the camera on a "run and gun" it with little or no time to configure it for the current shooting conditions. You know, the old, "Oh, look, isn't that cute how she is doing THAT? Quick, get the camcorder out and get it on video!"

Because of what I've read here so far, it appears that the Z1U would be the best for this, in most situations with the XH-A1, while not bad, a fair amount behind. Am I understanding this correctly?

Scott

I'd say there was nothing in it Scott, and that both cameras would need a clear head as they were lifted from the kit bag.

Unless you’re getting actors to perform for your camera, most of us are using our camcorders in a real-time, ‘capture it now or its gone’ situation. This raises many issues, as the opportunity to recapture the footage may be lost forever. In real life many things happen fleetingly and fast, and to capture such things successfully means both you and your kit need to be well prepared.

This means knowing that you have fresh tape in the camera and full batteries on board. For speed and near fail-safe operation it’s as well to have the camera set to the full auto mode, and this means focus, audio levels, white balance and exposure.

In situations such as this it’s as well to know your camcorder inside out. As you bend down to pick the camera out of your kit bag you’ll be mentally stepping through the actions you need to take next. You’ll know that as you raise the camera to your eye you’ll need to have turned it on to the ‘camera’ mode, removed the lens cap with your free hand and be ready to zoom out to wide-angle to make sure focus errors don’t lose you the shot.

With more complex cameras you have to assess the situation you’re going to be filming in. You have to make sure the camera is switched to record either from its in-built mics or from the external mics you may have plugged in. I like to be in full control of my camera settings and don’t much like leaving things to the automation, simply because it makes so many assumptions.

Consequently if after filming outside I suddenly decide to move indoors I’ll be switching off the ND filters as I head for the door. Experience will have me thinking of adding +6 or +9dB of gain up and I’ll be switching to a warmer white balance setting. I’ll remember to check how much light is being supplied by the overhead filaments and how much daylight is being allowed into the room, as this will determine the manual white balance setting I lock in.

I unlock the iris as I walk so that I can quickly lock it again once the camera has had a look at its new surroundings without the NDs in place. My fingers immediately go to the iris control to be ready to make fine adjustments and my zoom rocker is zapped to max wide-angle as a less dangerous and more useful starting point.

You now see why you need to know your camera so well. The simple fact of stepping indoors has meant you flipping 2 switches into a possible 4 positions and pushing 3 buttons a possible 7 times. There’s no time allowed to fumble or forget; this day will never come again.

tom.

A big advantage with the A1, for run and gun, is the instant AF.

I've heard that the AF on the XH-A1 is a bit dicey, so I'd be interested in any user comments to the contrary. The FX1 and Z1U autofocus definitely work in most situations, with an occasional miss but little or no "hunting".