The gigantic "which camera should I buy" thread!

Tom Hardwick · November 1st, 2005, 01:20 PM

The PDX10 has now dropped from Sony's books, so the A1 looks to be the camera to aim for. It has its drawbacks, but the image quality will blow your socks off, and the price will widen your eyes.

Of course you've specified 3 CCD Michael, but that was before this single CMOS sensor hit the streets running. If XLRs are really not needed then the HC1 could be the camera for you - but only if you don't want the size and weight and cudos of the FX1.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · November 1st, 2005, 01:27 PM

Anders, if you say you'll be shooting 16:9 (as you will in any western European country now) then the Panasonic DVX is only for you if you plan to splash out on the Panasonic anamorphic. But this is a strange way of going about things in this 16:9 chip age, and I'd not recommend it.

The DVX100B looks very like marketing over engineering to me; an attempt to keep the DVX breathing while the HD cameras come on song. Not to say that's all bad, as Sony found out by writing N-E-W all over their PD150 and calling it a PD170. But it's a face-lift interim step.

tom.

November 1st, 2005, 01:35 PM

Anyone reading this thread my also find the following thread interesting -

title: 16:9 - XL2 compared to DVX100A (B)
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...d=1#post378377

Especially with the footage that was just posted that has both XL2 and DVX footage. Both looked great. Just have to weigh out the pro's and con's for each on the 16:9 I guess. Decisions, decisions.

How about a Panon DVXL2? (or maybe it's Canasonic???)

Boyd Ostroff · November 1st, 2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

The PDX10 has now dropped from Sony's books

Not entirely true I think. On Sony's European site they say the PDX-10P (PAL version) has been replaced by the HVR-A1E. Hower on Sony's US site they still list the PDX-10:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...sp=11&id=65263

I'd agree it's days are numbered, but also see this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=49260&page=2

Mathieu Ghekiere · November 2nd, 2005, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders Obbekjaer

But regarding the filmlook, you said the DVX should be better. But am I right that both cams can shoot real 24p?

Yes both can shoot 24p, and the DVX is NOT better in getting a filmlook, it's just easier to get a filmlook with it (so I have heard).
But the XL2 gives you real 16/9 and other extra features (interchangible lens system, 4 channel audio recording,...)
I think the XL2 is the better cam of the two, but that doesn't mean it's the right cam for you, only you can decide that. The XL2 ofcourse comes with a 'better' price too.

Good luck choosing!
Maybe you can go to a shop and try both out?

Mathieu Ghekiere · November 2nd, 2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders Obbekjaer

But regarding the filmlook, you said the DVX should be better. But am I right that both cams can shoot real 24p?

Yes both can shoot 24p, and the DVX is NOT better in getting a filmlook, it's just easier to get a filmlook with it (so I have heard).
But the XL2 gives you real 16/9 and other extra features (interchangible lens system, 4 channel audio recording,...)
I think the XL2 is the better cam of the two, but that doesn't mean it's the right cam for you, only you can decide that. The XL2 ofcourse comes with a 'better' price too.

Good luck choosing!
Maybe you can go to a shop and try both out?

Mathieu Ghekiere · November 2nd, 2005, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders Obbekjaer

But regarding the filmlook, you said the DVX should be better. But am I right that both cams can shoot real 24p?

Yes both shoot 24p, and the XL2 CAN get that filmlook, it's just not as easy as with a DVX (so I have heard).
People say the XL2 is a more difficult cam, but once mastered, you should be able to get better pictures with an XL2 then with a DVX.
And the XL2 of course has real 16/9, which is important for you, next to the interchangible lens system and other features.

I think the XL2 is the better cam, but that doesn't mean it's the better cam for you. If you don't want such a big size, and/or a LCD screen and an easier cam, then the DVX could be right for you.

Good luck choosing!
I would advice to go to a shop and try both out.

Mathieu Ghekiere · November 2nd, 2005, 07:26 AM

(I accidently posted this 3 times because of an error I got while typing. the moderators can delete the other 2 posts)

Michael Stowe · November 2nd, 2005, 01:52 PM

Thanks for the responses. The ones listed where on my short list. Does anyone know where I can find video samples of the above listed? I found a couple of HD for the FX1 a little while back, but I am looking more for the SD version of each. Also...low light comparisons between the FX1, 10 and a1?

Thanks again to all

Mike

Boyd Ostroff · November 2nd, 2005, 02:05 PM

See the following for some info on low light shooting:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49518

Last night I shot my first full performance in SD mode using the Z1. My initial impression is that low light performance is very similar to the PDX-10 with a couple caveats. First, the gain boost is very clean. I haven't edited the footage yet, but it seems that you can add as much as 15 db gain and still get acceptable results. Second, you could pick up a full f-stop by shooting in SD at 1/30 shutter speed. On the PDX-10 you can use 1/30 shutter but at the expense of lost vertical resolution since the camera uses field doubling at slow speeds. On the FX1/Z1 the HD chips allow this without noticeable quality loss in SD mode.

Rather than looking at footage you really should try to get your hands on these cameras before choosing if at all possible. They are vastly different and you may have strong feelings about these once you've played with them. A field trip to B&H would be one way to do this...

Tommy James · November 2nd, 2005, 05:05 PM

Actually a JVC GRHD-1 is an excellent value for around 1900 bucks. Some say that it offers better color reproduction than a Sony HDR-FX1 even though the Sony is a 3 chip camera. This is because even though the Sony can shoot 3 CCD footage it cannot record 3CCD footage because of the limitations of the MPEG-2 codec. The reason is that after compression only a 4:2:0 color space is allowed so that means only 720 X 540 pixels of color information are recorded which is only a quarter of the total HDV resolution of 1440 X 1080. JVC rather than wasting resources on 3 CCD technology that will never get used gives you a camera thats truly light and affordable as well as givng you excellent color reproduction,.

Jesse Stipek · November 2nd, 2005, 06:47 PM

SONY HDR-FX1. My first professional camera, and I love it!

High-Def is the future, so I'd suggest you go there.

Jesse

Michael Stowe · November 2nd, 2005, 07:08 PM

I would love to take a field trip and handle the camcorders. B&H would be awesome to visit if I did not live in TX :-) I am going to try to locate video stores in the Dallas area. I am still a ways away from there, but it is the closest viable option. I have been leaning towards the FX1 with Blue-ray and other technology on the way that will bring HD to more households. My 3 top choices are now.

1) FX1 (Will have to down sample for most items)
2) PDX10
3) A1U (would love to see more on hands experience with this camera since I am intrigued by the cmos)

Justin Scroggs · November 4th, 2005, 03:31 PM

Hey guys. I am looking at buying a new camcorder. Usually I make my own decisions with no help, but I am still not sure.....So here goes. I now have a Sony TRV18 mini DV. I like it. I make horror shorts and music videos and skits. This is for a hobby only. I have a career job. Some day it'd be nice to make something worthy of selling on DVD, but not important. So I have narrowed it (I think) to 2 cams. Panasonic DVC30 or Sony VX2100. The Panny seems like it may have more of a "film" look than the Sony. Yes I know ALL the specs on both of these as I have read read and reread reviews on them. The only time I see people saying they use the Sony is for weddings or interviews. No one seems to use it for "indy movies" or shorts. I don't want to spend too much $ (that's why I ruled out the DVX100a, can't justify the cost for a hobby). With the Sony, will it look that much better than my TRV18? (one 1/4" ccd at 340,000 pixels vs. VX2100's 3 - 1/3" ccd's at 340,000 pixels / same count). Like I said, our main usage is horror shorts. I just didn't even know if it's worth the money at all. I do want manual features (I'm an SLR photographer). Anyways enough ranting. Any help is appreciated.

Mathieu Ghekiere · November 4th, 2005, 06:41 PM

The DVC30 has a little bit tinier chips than the VX2100 (1/4 vs 1/3) so the 1/3 chips give you a short DOF and better low light sensitivity.

People always prefer the Sony cams for interviews and wedding because:
1. for interviews you don't need a film mode or a frame mode or 24p
2. the Sony's are the kings of low light, and that comes in handy at dim lighted receptions at weddings.

But for a filmlook, the pannys could be more suitable.
But as I don't have any of the two cams, maybe somebody with more experience of the two cams can give you other, maybe better advice.
good luck!

November 2nd, 2005, 06:47 PM	#927
Jesse Stipek Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Monroe, WA Posts: 44	SONY HDR-FX1. My first professional camera, and I love it! High-Def is the future, so I'd suggest you go there. Jesse __________________ Trico Films Ltd http://www.tricofilms.com/ Proud Owner of a SONY HDR-FX1

November 4th, 2005, 03:31 PM	#929
Justin Scroggs New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 15	Need some input on buying new cam Hey guys. I am looking at buying a new camcorder. Usually I make my own decisions with no help, but I am still not sure.....So here goes. I now have a Sony TRV18 mini DV. I like it. I make horror shorts and music videos and skits. This is for a hobby only. I have a career job. Some day it'd be nice to make something worthy of selling on DVD, but not important. So I have narrowed it (I think) to 2 cams. Panasonic DVC30 or Sony VX2100. The Panny seems like it may have more of a "film" look than the Sony. Yes I know ALL the specs on both of these as I have read read and reread reviews on them. The only time I see people saying they use the Sony is for weddings or interviews. No one seems to use it for "indy movies" or shorts. I don't want to spend too much $ (that's why I ruled out the DVX100a, can't justify the cost for a hobby). With the Sony, will it look that much better than my TRV18? (one 1/4" ccd at 340,000 pixels vs. VX2100's 3 - 1/3" ccd's at 340,000 pixels / same count). Like I said, our main usage is horror shorts. I just didn't even know if it's worth the money at all. I do want manual features (I'm an SLR photographer). Anyways enough ranting. Any help is appreciated.

November 1st, 2005, 01:20 PM	#916
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The PDX10 has now dropped from Sony's books, so the A1 looks to be the camera to aim for. It has its drawbacks, but the image quality will blow your socks off, and the price will widen your eyes. Of course you've specified 3 CCD Michael, but that was before this single CMOS sensor hit the streets running. If XLRs are really not needed then the HC1 could be the camera for you - but only if you don't want the size and weight and cudos of the FX1. tom.

November 1st, 2005, 01:27 PM	#917
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Anders, if you say you'll be shooting 16:9 (as you will in any western European country now) then the Panasonic DVX is only for you if you plan to splash out on the Panasonic anamorphic. But this is a strange way of going about things in this 16:9 chip age, and I'd not recommend it. The DVX100B looks very like marketing over engineering to me; an attempt to keep the DVX breathing while the HD cameras come on song. Not to say that's all bad, as Sony found out by writing N-E-W all over their PD150 and calling it a PD170. But it's a face-lift interim step. tom.

November 1st, 2005, 01:35 PM	#918
Guest Posts: n/a	Anyone reading this thread my also find the following thread interesting - title: 16:9 - XL2 compared to DVX100A (B) http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...d=1#post378377 Especially with the footage that was just posted that has both XL2 and DVX footage. Both looked great. Just have to weigh out the pro's and con's for each on the 16:9 I guess. Decisions, decisions. How about a Panon DVXL2? (or maybe it's Canasonic???)

November 2nd, 2005, 07:26 AM	#923
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	(I accidently posted this 3 times because of an error I got while typing. the moderators can delete the other 2 posts)

November 2nd, 2005, 01:52 PM	#924
Michael Stowe Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 177	Thanks for the responses. The ones listed where on my short list. Does anyone know where I can find video samples of the above listed? I found a couple of HD for the FX1 a little while back, but I am looking more for the SD version of each. Also...low light comparisons between the FX1, 10 and a1? Thanks again to all Mike

November 2nd, 2005, 02:05 PM	#925
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	See the following for some info on low light shooting: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49518 Last night I shot my first full performance in SD mode using the Z1. My initial impression is that low light performance is very similar to the PDX-10 with a couple caveats. First, the gain boost is very clean. I haven't edited the footage yet, but it seems that you can add as much as 15 db gain and still get acceptable results. Second, you could pick up a full f-stop by shooting in SD at 1/30 shutter speed. On the PDX-10 you can use 1/30 shutter but at the expense of lost vertical resolution since the camera uses field doubling at slow speeds. On the FX1/Z1 the HD chips allow this without noticeable quality loss in SD mode. Rather than looking at footage you really should try to get your hands on these cameras before choosing if at all possible. They are vastly different and you may have strong feelings about these once you've played with them. A field trip to B&H would be one way to do this...

November 2nd, 2005, 05:05 PM	#926
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Actually a JVC GRHD-1 is an excellent value for around 1900 bucks. Some say that it offers better color reproduction than a Sony HDR-FX1 even though the Sony is a 3 chip camera. This is because even though the Sony can shoot 3 CCD footage it cannot record 3CCD footage because of the limitations of the MPEG-2 codec. The reason is that after compression only a 4:2:0 color space is allowed so that means only 720 X 540 pixels of color information are recorded which is only a quarter of the total HDV resolution of 1440 X 1080. JVC rather than wasting resources on 3 CCD technology that will never get used gives you a camera thats truly light and affordable as well as givng you excellent color reproduction,.

November 2nd, 2005, 07:08 PM	#928
Michael Stowe Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 177	I would love to take a field trip and handle the camcorders. B&H would be awesome to visit if I did not live in TX :-) I am going to try to locate video stores in the Dallas area. I am still a ways away from there, but it is the closest viable option. I have been leaning towards the FX1 with Blue-ray and other technology on the way that will bring HD to more households. My 3 top choices are now. 1) FX1 (Will have to down sample for most items) 2) PDX10 3) A1U (would love to see more on hands experience with this camera since I am intrigued by the cmos)

November 4th, 2005, 06:41 PM	#930
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	The DVC30 has a little bit tinier chips than the VX2100 (1/4 vs 1/3) so the 1/3 chips give you a short DOF and better low light sensitivity. People always prefer the Sony cams for interviews and wedding because: 1. for interviews you don't need a film mode or a frame mode or 24p 2. the Sony's are the kings of low light, and that comes in handy at dim lighted receptions at weddings. But for a filmlook, the pannys could be more suitable. But as I don't have any of the two cams, maybe somebody with more experience of the two cams can give you other, maybe better advice. good luck!