Why is picking a new camera so hard?! at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Open DV Discussion
For topics which don't fit into any of the other categories.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 12th, 2005, 09:34 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
Why is picking a new camera so hard?!

Well, after having the GL2 for 2 years...i sold it and have money for a new camera..After searcing, reading, revising, posting, asking and thinking about it all...I've come to the conclusion that...i need to hurry, cause its costing me money NOT having a camera... Af first it was the dvx100a, xl2 or Fx1...Dont wanna get the fx since im mainly doing music videos and film like projects and even with the "cineframe" i think it's called...i still dont think it looks filmic at all. I kinda like the xl2's DOF and the low saturated out the box quality. I also like the fact that it's VERY cusomizable and can suit many filming situations given in the hands of someone that can set each shot up. And iv'e seen some amazing things shot on the DVX...like the short "water" was def. amazing. Another thing is, i usually do alot of CC in post so i'd want a camera unlike the GL2 which will look good out the box as well.
I know it's totally my option but ive read every possible thing in the past few months on these camera's and am still VERY stuck at this point... i have about 4500ish to spend...

My options now are...
(1)
Dvx100b-3400 after M.I.R
batteries-100
pelican case-200
cavision bellow w/few filters-800

(2)
Canon xl2 4400
Nice cardboarding carrying case coincidently the same one its shipped in.
The happiness of a nice big professional camera knowing that your only 18 and look younger and people think you can't even spell the word Camcorder.


Is there anything else i should take into consideration that i might be missing? help me please...
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 09:42 PM   #2
Slash Rules!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,723
Just one thing ---

The depth of field on all cameras you're considering should be the same, since they all have 1/3" chips. Unless you're using a 35mm adapter, of course.
Josh Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 09:49 PM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
maybe a little confused about what your saying...the xl2 has a larger DOF if im not mistaking. or am i just saying something wrong and confusing everyone?
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 10:03 PM   #4
Slash Rules!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,723
Probably so.

All the miniDV cameras with 1/3" CCDs should have similar depth of field characterisitics.


When I say depth of field, I mean the area of the picture in focus at a given time, for a given focal length (how far you're zoomed in), at a given fstop (your iris setting), with the subject a certain distance from the camera, and the background a certain distance from the subject.

Most guys want a shallower depth of field, since, with 1/3" CCDs you're often battling to NOT have everything in the shot (foreground and background) in focus at the same time, because it's more "film-like" (or professional--since "real" movies are usually full of shallow focus shots).

My point was that the XL2, DVX100a, and anything else you mentioned you might buy will have similar/identical depth of field characteristics 'cause they have the same size censors. They WILL, however, have less depth of field (what I'm assuming you want) then your GL2, with a 1/4" CCD (bigger CCD = less depth of field), but it's not gonna be a night and day difference. You won't get those beautiful soft focus background easily with any of these cameras unless you're in the right locations (lots of space) or you zoom in so tight it's ridiculous (more zoomed in = less depth of field.

As I mentioned there are a handful of 35mm lens adapters (35mm will give you shallow depth of field despite the CCD size on your camera) for these miniDV cameras, that allow you to use 35mm lenses, but that option is not cheap at all. And I don't really have experience in that area, so if you ask, I'll let the other guys answer questions in that realm.
Josh Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 10:17 PM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
Ohh ok. yea..i was a little confused. but the Xl2 has more film-like DOF given the lens it has and that is the main reason i really like that camera...I could just use an adapter and have similar/Better DOF and film like qualities using the Panasonic.
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 10:33 PM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Palumbo
Is there anything else i should take into consideration that i might be missing? help me please...
Yes, you should take into consideration that more and more people are buying widescreen TVs, so you should at least get a camera with a native widescreen sensor. If I'm not mistaken that rules out the DVX100 and favors the XL2 as one of the few true widescreen DV cameras.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 10:41 PM   #7
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
Could this possibly be bringing the fx1 up for a battle? haha
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 10:45 PM   #8
Slash Rules!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,723
Well, that's what I'm saying, the XL2 does NOT have more film like depth of field than the DVX. I promise. The lens is a 20x, whereas the DVX's is a 10x (that's how far it can zoom), but the depth of field characteristics at any given focal length will be identical between the two cameras. I suppose if you wanted to get nitpicky, you could say that since the XL2's lens can zoom in farther, you can use those shorter focal lengths (being more zoomed in) to get shallower depth of field, but to make that work for you in the real world be be quite ridiculous. You'd have to get waaaaaaaaay back from your subject to get a head and shoulders CU zoomed in to 20x.

For all intents and purposes, however, the XL2's and the DVX's depths of field will be the same. Just 'cause the lens on the XL2 is bigger and detachable doesn't make the depth of field shallower. It's NOT a 35mm lens.
Josh Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 10:49 PM   #9
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Palumbo
Could this possibly be bringing the fx1 up for a battle? haha
I'd personally recommend the FX1 over any SD camera because it's more future-proof, but if you don't like the way the output looks then what are you to do? Just dont' be surprised if you buy an SD camera and two years from now have to sell it for next to nothing to buy an HD camera.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 11:10 PM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
Well, i guess one of the reasons i didnt really take the fx-1 into consideration is the lack of footage from it. The only thing ive seen is the 3L-Flex Music video from pixelloft. Can anyone show me anything convincing enough?
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 11:31 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Palumbo
Can anyone show me anything convincing enough?
You can take a look at the following samples on my web site, which are downsampled to compressed formats for internet delivery.

Yosemite Falls, Windows Media 720p at 5 Mbps:
http://www.videomem.com/hdv/yosemite_720p.wmv

Wedding video highlights, Windows Media 640x360 at 1 Mbps:
http://www.videomem.com/weddings/gor...highlights.wmv

Some of the highlights shots could have been better, but if you disregard that and look at the quality of the best scenes you'll get some idea with the FX1 can do. It's not a perfect camera, but it's pretty darn good for the price.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 11:38 PM   #12
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
Both links are the same. Thats really amazing looking footage, but im going for a more film-like example. Like maybe a music video or a short trailer or something. I know that no matter what camera i buy, it will be way better then the GL2...but still looking for something different.
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 11:42 PM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Sorry, I just fixed the second link and that has lots of shots of people and such.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 11:49 PM   #14
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 199
Images: 7
yet again. i think the footage looks amazing, even down-res' that much. i guess its just not the look im going for if that makes sense.
__________________
AIM - N film B
www.nbfilms.us
Giuseppe Palumbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2005, 11:56 PM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
Future-proofing is 1% format, 99% content. I have seen your stuff and you do a great job with editing, CC, effects, etc. I can tell you right now that for a guy like you the HDV workflow will frustrate you to no end and will require a significant upgade in computers/HDD/etc.

To me, the choice is easy. If you want 16:9 then it is the XL2 all the way. If you want 4:3 the DVX100b comes into the picture. For someone like you I would recommend the XL2 which gets the cleanest most detailed SD image to tape so you can play with it later. As far as cost, you can pick an XL2 up for as little as $3700 new if you check around. If I were you, I would consider getting a used one from a forum member who has cared for it well. You can prolly pick up a case and the 3X wide within your budget.



ash =o)
Ash Greyson is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network