I'm a professional still photographer and workshop leader (35 mm digital) who is pondering expanding to video. I've read a lot, played with a friend's camera for an hour, and done some editing in Adobe Premiere Elements, but otherwise I have no video experience. The Canon X-series videocams have caught my eye (I shoot Canon EOS) and I'm trying to figure out what I might be able to accomplish with them.

I would anticipate that most of my shooting would be telephoto, and virtually all would be tripod mounted with a good fluid head. I assume the IS in these cameras works on a tripod? The hand-holdability of these cameras isn't that important to me.

I of course dream of making my own "March of the Penguins." But I am also considering making some how-to videos of nature photography techniques; these might be partly in a studio. I also specialize in hummingbird photography, and would love to capture them on video. And I have a lot of questions:

1. How much can a single person accomplish? I realize this is a vague question, but what has scared me away in the past is the thought that it takes several people to "do it right," e.g., camera operator, sound person, more than one camera at multiple angles. Should I be scared off at the thought of doing it all myself?

2. What are special considerations to be aware of for wildlife photography, and are there other cameras that would be better than the XH-A1(s)? It seems to me that power would be a critical concern. In general, I wouldn't be away from electricity all day, but maybe for part of a day; so I could carry extra batteries.

3. I like the "film look" and I'm attracted to the fact that the image parameters in the Canon have a lot of adjustments. Is Canon particularly good this way, or do all similarly-priced videocams allow this?

4. For hummingbirds, which are iridescent and can benefit from it, I would like to use extra lighting (beyond daylight). I have no idea how feasible this is. In some cases, these lights could be plugged in, in others they'd have to operate on battery. I can photograph them from less than 10 feet away (they are fearless and come to feeders). (For an example of a still photo with multiple flash, see Green-crowned Woodnymph photo (http://www.rpphoto.com/gallery/view.asp?galleryID=5&offset=20&photoID=206-20-0927).

5. The photo link above used high-speed flash at ca. 1/10,000 sec. Obviously video is a completely different world. I've read about different codecs, compression, "image breakup," etc. but have no experience with these in practice. I know Canon uses HDV, which isn't "as good" as formats on much more expensive cameras, but is still "pretty good." But for action, e.g. penguins running, Sandhill Cranes flying by, things moving, how do these cameras compare to movie film? I've seen that other cameras offer some degree of slow motion, which I don't think the Canons have, but I don't know how valuable this would be. SHould I be worried about doing this with HDV?

6. **Important** What will I need besides the camera? Things like shotgun mikes come to mind, and sound quality would be important. I would probably get Adobe Premiere CS4 for editing; I have a pretty good quad-core Windows PC I built and can expand; I already have an external SATA box and Apple Cinema display.

I realize these are somewhat general questions, but I have to start somewhere. I've been thinking about this for years -- I almost bought the SD Canons, but then the HD models came out and I decided to wait becasue that was "new technology." I have this sense that I should just jump in, get a reasonably good video camera, and learn by doing. WOuld the XH-A1s be a good starting point for my interests?

Thanks for any advice. (If there's a better place to ask these questions, let me know.)

Welcome to the forum Ralph.

I expect that you will get more expert advice than mine but as an XHA1 owner for a year here's my input.
You don't want to use the Optical Image Stabliser (OIS) when using a tripod. It isn't necessary and will give you weird results if you do any pans.

You shouldn't be scared of doing it yourself. For shooting drama and suchlike you need separate people for sound etc but for most of what you are planning to do you can get by. There's a lot to learn but you can learn a much of it by reading what's on this forum eg the audio section and then posting when you need to.

With one extra high capacity battery you can shoot for hours. I can't remember how long but I shot for over three hours on Sunday with the standard battery and there was still quite a bit left in it. So power is not going to be an issue unless you are using lights, which is unlikely.

There are people on this forum who use the XH A1 for wildlife. Do a search and read their posts to find more. There's also competitions to look at. Do a search for UWOL. I think that's wildlife. As I'm sure that you realise you cannot change the lens on the XH A1 ie for a longer one.

The XH A1 allows you to dial in a large number of presets. You can find information about this in the presets thread. They affect the look that you get. However you may not want a look. You may prefer to shoot neutral and get your look in post.

If you want you can shoot progressive rather than interlaced to get more of a film look. But I don't know if this will work with hummingbirds wings. Too much movement probably.

Lights and your hummingbirds. It depends how tame they are. If you point a light straight at them it might bring out some colours but the overall effect is going to be flat. You will probably have more success without lights. If you do use lights you want them to be pointing at the subject from a different angle as the camera. I don't know why I am telling you this. The principles are the same as for still photography. Take a look in the lighting section of the forum. There's masses of good advice there too.

Google Stephen Dempsey and Phillip Bloom to see what can be done with HDV.

The HDV codec has a problem coping with lots of movement within a frame. It's trying to compress an image onto the same size tape as standard dv tape - but there is a lot more information. It's certainly not 16mm film. But then you can't shoot and edit that on your computer for peanuts using 16mm film. HDV can give fantastic results but it has it's limitations. I suggest that you go to Vimeo and search for wildlife, hummingbirds etc to see what's possible.

You'll need to ask someone else or search the forum for advice on slow motion.

Extra equipment. For what you are doing I would think that you need a good quality tripod that won't shake when you are zoomed right in.

I would definitely take the trouble to learn about sound and buy some decent kit. It's half the picture eg if you show someone some video with ropey sound and then come back to them later with the same video and good sound the chances are they will think that the picture is better, and not notice that it is the sound that is improved. Bad sound is a bigger problem than a bad picture. I will probably depress you if I say that my sound kit cost more than my camera. Read the forum for more info. Essentially you want good mics, a good mixer and a good recorder and you want to get the mics as very close ie a few feet away from the source if you can. Technique is more important than kit. The recorder could be the camera but you will get better quality in many situations with a separate recorder.

Google Chris Watson for some sound inspiration.

There is no right or wrong with editing software. You want to try to look at it in action and hope that you pick the one that's best for you. Bear in mind that you are going to invest a humungous amount of your time learning it so don't pay too much attention to the purchase price (within reason). Get the one that takes your fancy the most.

Would the XH A1 be the place to start. For the money, yes. I have never regretted buying one. Sure there is always something better 'just around the corner' but you sound like you want to do and not wait.
You've come the the right place.
Good luck!

Welcome to DVinfo.

The most important question you need to answer is "how big is the budget"?

Everything hinges on that.

As you're a pro stills photographer you'll no doubt have set the bar pretty high on what you want to achieve with video.

That costs - a lot.

I personally reckon on it working out like this:

$Camera: Support: Sound: Other = $1:1:1:1

and I think that is understating it.

Your video chain is only as good as the weakest link, a fact blithely ignored by many starting out in it.

Sitting a $7k camera on a $200 tripod/ head is probably the most popular here on DVinfo.

Next, the camera(s) themselves.

I can't in all honesty recommend the A1/ A1(s) for your application (I do have one, BTW).

That fixed lens will very quickly drive you nuts - nothing wrong with it, it's a great lens, but it's fixed.

As you're already shooting Canon, maybe the XL H series instead with a lens adapter to allow the use of your other Canon glass.

Then there is HDV.

Hmm. Well, let me tell you this story.

I've shot HDV coming up for two years. It looks fantastic. There are issues when panning with detail (among other things), the good 'ol HDV smear. I just accepted it as "the way it is".

Earlier this year NZ got it's first HD television transmissions, part of the package being a dedicated Demo channel showing wall to wall HD content, mostly in full 1080, a great deal being wildlife.

Seeing those demo's on a biiig full 1080 screen bought home with a thump just how bad HDV can look when intercut with other higher data rate/ less compressed content.

Bad doesn't really do it justice - it leaps off the screen and smacks you 'round the head with a mallet.

It was a perfect demo of why so many broadcasters restrict or ban HDV altogether.

It also brought home to me that HDV is less than perfect when it comes to wildlife, where the devil is in the detail.

Which brings me back to that budget and your expectations.

To make the leap to the next level up from HDV is hugely expensive and not one I can contemplate, sadly, tho' I would dearly love to.

How picky are you and where is this stuff destined?


CS

PS: There is one, very specific to wildlife shooting, reason for not recomending the A1, which may, or may not, have been addressed in the A1s. It only came to light quite some time after the cameras release and gave me no end of grief.

I personally wouldn't touch another Canon camcorder till it was proved this issue had been resolved, as it was a total "game over" situation for me.

I do stress it probably wouldn't affect 99.9% of shooters, so pretty esoteric, tho' fatal if required.

PS: There is one, very specific to wildlife shooting, reason for not recomending the A1, which may, or may not, have been addressed in the A1s. It only came to light quite some time after the cameras release and gave me no end of grief.

Come on then. What is it?

Hi,

Why is Canon A1 not good enough for wildlife?

See some test videos on Vimeo Leopard at night (Canon XH A1) on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1378508)

I am not agree but the question is always do you want to make movies like national geographic. Of course more professional cameras are better but I am satisfied with the canon A1 results.

Wil

Richard:

Not that it's germain to this thread, but I was referring to the well documented inability to accurately control the focus system using a remote Lanc controller (note, the operative word here is "accurately").

If you have an A1/ G1 you will already be aware that manual focussing, even with it set to "slow", is a true art form, especially as the lens is racked further and further out to Z99 (which is where it usually sits when shooting wildlife). Using a Lanc it ceases to be "art" and turns into a lottery.

I don't really want to set this argument going all over again as it's not relevant to this thread, surfice it to say, Canon have put their collective hands up to this, referring to it as a "design limitation" (of what, exactly, was never explained).

The reason it's such a deal breaker for me is that when shooting birds, rather than get the worms eye view from ground level, I use a rather large jib to get a birds eye view way up in their habitat. You can't use auto focus, 'cos it's all over the place like a dogs dinner, and because of this problem, you can't use manual focus either.

Game over.


Wil:

I think you may have misread or misunderstood my post.

The A1/ G1 takes beutifull video, I should know, I've got hundreds of hours of it.

What I was pointing out to Ralph was that if one's expectations/ intentions was/ were indeed to shoot like/ for National Geographic, HDV ain't the way to go.


CS

Hi Chris
I agree now that I know the point you were making.
Lack of push autofocus via the lanc also means that I can't use my A1 with my Fig Rig, so that was a big disappointment for me too.
In the context of this thread I suppose it comes down to whether you will want to use a lanc controller for wildlife photography.

If you're going to stick with HDV, you could do worse than pick the XH-A1S. And you will want the A1S over the A1. The ability to zoom and focus simultaneously will be important.

The 20X zoom of the A1S should give you good reach, but unless you're going to be close to your subjects, lighting can be dodgy.

If you shoot 60i, you can get some good slomo with Adobe Premier's time remapping but getting razor-sharp super slomo of a hummingbird's wings will likely be out of reach. Shooting with a fast shutter speed will help. 1/500 to 1/1000 will be optimal.

Good sticks will be key. I have, and like, my Cartoni Focus. A Vinten Vision would be better. If you're hiking into the bush, carbon fiber legs will be a bit lighter. Their added stiffness is also a boon. Get something with mid spreaders. A floor spreader will just make you crazy shooting in the wild.

As to the LANC focus issue, I find it annoying but not a deal breaker. I generally shoot with one hand on the LANC and the other on the focus ring and it works OK. As I mentioned before, the A1S's ability to simultaneously zoom and focus is something you'll want. It's something I want!

Finally, you might want to trundle down to LA and rent something for a day to get a feel for a specific kit you're interested in to see how you like it before you plunk down the big bucks.

You didn't state your intended delivery media. If you intend to make docos to sell to networks I don't think this approach will work. As good as HDV can be, it'll never look like Discovery HD Theater. The limits of the HDV format are the major impediment. If you go BD or Web for delivery, this will probably work.

The HDV codec has a problem coping with lots of movement within a frame. It's trying to compress an image onto the same size tape as standard dv tape - but there is a lot more information. It's certainly not 16mm film. But then you can't shoot and edit that on your computer for peanuts using 16mm film. HDV can give fantastic results but it has it's limitations.
I've shot HDV coming up for two years. It looks fantastic. There are issues when panning with detail (among other things), the good 'ol HDV smear. I just accepted it as "the way it is".

Earlier this year NZ got it's first HD television transmissions, part of the package being a dedicated Demo channel showing wall to wall HD content, mostly in full 1080, a great deal being wildlife.

Seeing those demo's on a biiig full 1080 screen bought home with a thump just how bad HDV can look when intercut with other higher data rate/ less compressed content. Bad doesn't really do it justice - it leaps off the screen and smacks you 'round the head with a mallet. It was a perfect demo of why so many broadcasters restrict or ban HDV altogether. It also brought home to me that HDV is less than perfect when it comes to wildlife, where the devil is in the detail.

Which brings me back to that budget and your expectations. To make the leap to the next level up from HDV is hugely expensive and not one I can contemplate, sadly, tho' I would dearly love to. How picky are you and where is this stuff destined?
If you're going to stick with HDV, you could do worse than pick the XH-A1S ...

You didn't state your intended delivery media. If you intend to make docos to sell to networks I don't think this approach will work. As good as HDV can be, it'll never look like Discovery HD Theater. The limits of the HDV format are the major impediment. If you go BD or Web for delivery, this will probably work.

I've wondered about "how good" HDV is. And I have to admit, I'm not sure what I will do with my footage. That's partly because I don't have a good feel for the limitations of HDV. I travel to many great places, and I've been struck by how interesting it could be to capture the dynamics of the wildlife on video. I also like the idea of creating my own "narrative." And maybe I'm just a little bored with shooting still (not to mention the fact that the market for still nature photography is hugely oversupplied and underpaid).

A while back, I realized that significant advances in "affordable" video might make it possible to make "high quality" videos. And I happened to meet Donald and Lillian Stokes, who had published a number of nature books and were expanding into video. They were able to shoot for a PBS (?) series they were producing with the top-of-the-line Canon SD videocam. So I've been intrigued. Then HD came out. The impression I have is that, although the sub-$10K cameras are very good, the networks et. al have raised the bar for the type of footage they want. I myself just bought a Sony 1080p LCD TV -- the image quality is amazing, so I can see why video suppliers have a high standard to meet.

I would love to be able to produce National Geographic/Discovery Channel stuff. But I wonder how realistic that is? I.e., what can samone working alone produce? Of course, you have to start somewhere ...

I would also like to produce how-to videos, both for the web and DVD/Blu-Ray. There, I imagine HDV is not so limiting.

And I'm partly tempted to just get something and jump in and see what it can do. Learn by doing. I could even envision expanding my photo workshops to include video ...

And of course, I have a finite budget. I need a sub-$10K camera -- and realistically right now, sub-$5K is more appropriate. (And I am taking into account that I'll need more than just the camera. Ouch!)

If not HDV, what are my options? The competition to Canon in this price range would seem to be Panasonic, Sony, and JVC? I see that Panasonic offers the HPX170 with the DVCProHD codec. That camera might not suit my needs (e.g. fixed zoom maxes out at 368 mm). But how does the DVCPro HD codec compare to Canon's HDV? Are there other HD encodings I should be looking at?

May I make a suggestion?

Go get yourself a Canon HV30 (or any other of the current litter of sub or nearly sub $1K HD cameras) and have a serious play.

It (the HV30) takes stupendous HDV video and will really highlight some of the plusses and problems with working with HD in general.

Armed with a wide angle adapter and even the telephoto adapter, you have a pretty versatile shooting machine, which your new screen can do justice to.

See how you go with it.

Be warned: The problems of shooting HD are as visible in a sub $1K as a sub $100K camera, so you can start working on that 1:1:1:1 equation to see where you stand budget wise.

There you go, the perfect educational Christmas present to yourself (hey, even the kids can use it!).

If they can prise it off you, of course.


CS

PS: Just in case you think it - no, the HV30 and it's like ARE NOT TOYS!

Just in case you think it - no, the HV30 and it's like ARE NOT TOYS!

Quite true. I have an A1, HV30 and HV10 and they are pretty remarkable pieces of kit. All can look quite good. The main difference between them is the amount of control one has over the manual functions. You can do a lot with some of the least of these. As an example, check this out: First Snow (http://vimeo.com/660544). It was shot with the HV10 on a lark one morning as a practice.

With the HV30 available for less than US$600 right now and is a powerful little tool. And lest you think the cost will be wasted if you do get an A1, fear not. If you do get serious about this it's always helpful to have a second camera either for B roll, and more importantly, as a backup should something happen to your primary camera.

I hesitate to add to this group of very educated and excellent responses but if, like me, you are limited in budget to something like an A1 or A1s but want to shoot nature at the highest quality possible with HDV, you can study the things that affect the footage compression in a negative fashion and try to minimize those things. It's not a hard concept -- anything that changes from frame to frame affects compression quality. Naturally, you want video images to change from frame to frame, but things like narrow DOF and isolating the change in the image or movement to your intended subject as much as possible, for example with a stable tripod, helps improve quality.

I'll definately take that under advisement for my next shoot.

Silly me, I thought you just blasted away and hoped for the best.

Now I know what I've been doing wrong all these years.

Ah, the waste! The lost opportunities!

I feel like turning in my $50k worth of gear and becoming a monk.


CS


PS: Sorry about that, but I can resist anything but temptation.

The lads know I have a wicked sense of humour.

Well spoken and timely advice.

Thanks again.

Ralph, first off, I suggest you take a look at the "under water over land" threads. There is heaps of info regarding your interest in wildlife. If your serious about wanting to get into wildlife shooting I would only consider cameras that have removable lenses, so that you can mount your 35mm slr lenses via an adapter. Using these lenses gives you about a 7x magnification (200mm slr= 1400mm!!) which is great for animals a long way off. Also since you probably already have a good range of cannon lenese the XLH1 is a good bet, its probably the top choice for "lower" budget cameras in wildlife filmming. I couldnt afford the cannon XLH1 and I wanted to shoot HD so I bought myself a JVC gy-hd100 camera. I have only had it for a few months and am very new to all of this as well, there is lots to learn!

I've been away for a few days, or I'd probably have jumped in earlier on this one. No camera is 100% perfect for any application, and as others have said, it is usually a matter of compromising to balance the budget.

I have nearly thirty years of wildlife stills photography experience, and came to videography about five years ago. Wildlife is the only subject I'm interested in shooting (though very occasionally I am persuaded to do something else).

Most of what I would say, has already been said, so I'll just say why I chose the Canon XH-A1. I had to balance the costs against the size and weight of the camera (ie what I was willing to carry around in the field), simplicity of use (including a "top-loading" tape mechanism), a good zoom necessary for most wildlife, and good quality output. At that time, the best fit was the Canon XM2/GL2. By the time that camera needed replacing, I had worked out what extras I needed - mostly in terms of easily accessed manual options - and looking at the market a year ago, the Canon XH-A1 fitted the bill. If I'd understood more about HDV, I might have held out for the XH-G1, but I think I'd have needed a demonstration for the whole process from filming to processing to work out if the extra cost was worthwhile.

The three main disadvantages of the A1 for me are that
1) it uses tape - something with non-moving parts such as a solid state recorder would cut down noise, and the potential effects of dust getting into the mechanisms (there is now a tapeless solution, see the thread about awesome news for Canon owners)
2) it is not good with fast moving subjects or panning.
3) while interchangeable lenses have great advantanges, a camera that uses these would cost more in terms of weight and cash (I do have Nikon lenses that I could use), and again there is the disadvantage of dust getting in. (My 400mm lens is permanently fixed on one of my D200s, and the other D200 usually has whichever lens I feel is most appropriate to the situation, so that I don't keep changing in the field).

In addition to the Canon A1, I have a Sony A1. It's not a camera I would recommend for wildlife, but it does some things the Canon doesn't. In particular, it has a night shot function which does excellent work in poor light or infra-red, it works with a remote movement sensor, and it is small enough to use handheld in places with limited space (eg bat roosts).

Basically it is a case of finding a horse for your particular course. I'd suggest getting something relatively cheap or second-hand to start with, working out from that what its limitations are and what facilities are important to you, than looking at what's on the market within your budget. You may find that having the interchangeable lens option is a necessity for you.

Sorry to have stated the obvious. The OP said he was new to video and as a still photog I felt he would understand what I was saying in case he went with HDV.

I hesitate to add to this group of very educated and excellent responses but if, like me, you are limited in budget to something like an A1 or A1s but want to shoot nature at the highest quality possible with HDV, you can study the things that affect the footage compression in a negative fashion and try to minimize those things. It's not a hard concept -- anything that changes from frame to frame affects compression quality. Naturally, you want video images to change from frame to frame, but things like narrow DOF and isolating the change in the image or movement to your intended subject as much as possible, for example with a stable tripod, helps improve quality.
Thanks for that advice. It's only starting to be clear to me that all these video formats (as well as the different camera brands) have their advantages and accompanying limitations. The degree to which the HDV format can handle motion is (I anticipate) important to me, since a large part of my motivation for shooting video would be to capture wildlife in action.

Thanks for all the very useful advice so far. The question of fixed versus interchangeable lenses is significant, as are the capabilities and limitations of the HDV format.

I originally was eyeing the Canon XL-H1 for its removable lens (after almost buying the SD version, but then putting it on hold when the HD version came out).

I have two motivations for adding video to my repertoire: (1) It just seems like a wonderfully expressive medium, beyond still photography. (2) It's obviously a fast path to fame and riches while traveling the world. HAH!Still, my initial budget is limited ...

The XH-A1(s) then struck me as a significantly more affordable option that has gotten good reviews for its image quality and versatility. The 20X zoom works out to 650 mm (35mm film equivalent, if I've done my math right) at the long end, which is pretty good.

I was also encouraged by the increases in output quality at the "prosumer" level these last few years, which made me wonder if I could make "big-budget films" with a somewhat "low-budget" camera. If it takes a $25K or $100K camera, well, that's way out of my league. But if you can do great things with and $8K or $4K (and now even $3K for the HX-A1 while it's available) -- that's a price point where I could jump in and get started and gain some experience.

(And once my work is out there, I could maybe get a meeting with Leo and Kate, and pursue my concept of doing a re-make of "Titanic", but -- and here's the nature angle -- I'd do it from the perspective of the iceberg. But, I digress ...)

As I consider my options, I've noticed the Sony PMW-EX3 with its XDCAM EX format, which apparently is "good enough" for Discovery Channel HD, whereas HDV is not. Broadly speaking, and with nature/wildlife in mind, what do you think of this camera versus the Canon XH and XL models. I am open to both tape and tapeless workflows. I'm more interested in HDV versus XDCAM EX, and in the differences in the cameras and what you can do with them. I suppose the removable lens Sony PMW-EX3 is better compared to the XL-H1 than the XH-A1; the fixed lens PMW-EX1 maxes out at 440 mm, which is too short for my needs.

Of course, the PMW-EX3 is a much more expensive option. But I'd consider it if XDCAM EX is superior to HDV (after initially getting drawn in by the low cost of the XH-A1!).

I suggest you start a new thread over in the Sony EX Cine Alta forum and let the EX mob give you the low down.

I don't know how many of them stray into these Canon woods and I personally know of no one who has both an EX and either a XH or a XL.

What detail I know about the EX cameras and XDCAM would go on the back of a (small) postage stamp, so not much use to you.

Using the bulk of your last post here pretty much paints the necessary picture.

I'll follow the resultant thread with great interest.


CS

Thanks for all the very useful advice so far. The question of fixed versus interchangeable lenses is significant, as are the capabilities and limitations of the HDV format.

I originally was eyeing the Canon XL-H1 for its removable lens (after almost buying the SD version, but then putting it on hold when the HD version came out).

I have two motivations for adding video to my repertoire: (1) It just seems like a wonderfully expressive medium, beyond still photography. (2) It's obviously a fast path to fame and riches while traveling the world. HAH!Still, my initial budget is limited ...

The XH-A1(s) then struck me as a significantly more affordable option that has gotten good reviews for its image quality and versatility. The 20X zoom works out to 650 mm (35mm film equivalent, if I've done my math right) at the long end, which is pretty good.

I was also encouraged by the increases in output quality at the "prosumer" level these last few years, which made me wonder if I could make "big-budget films" with a somewhat "low-budget" camera. If it takes a $25K or $100K camera, well, that's way out of my league. But if you can do great things with and $8K or $4K (and now even $3K for the HX-A1 while it's available) -- that's a price point where I could jump in and get started and gain some experience.

(And once my work is out there, I could maybe get a meeting with Leo and Kate, and pursue my concept of doing a re-make of "Titanic", but -- and here's the nature angle -- I'd do it from the perspective of the iceberg. But, I digress ...)

As I consider my options, I've noticed the Sony PMW-EX3 with its XDCAM EX format, which apparently is "good enough" for Discovery Channel HD, whereas HDV is not. Broadly speaking, and with nature/wildlife in mind, what do you think of this camera versus the Canon XH and XL models. I am open to both tape and tapeless workflows. I'm more interested in HDV versus XDCAM EX, and in the differences in the cameras and what you can do with them. I suppose the removable lens Sony PMW-EX3 is better compared to the XL-H1 than the XH-A1; the fixed lens PMW-EX1 maxes out at 440 mm, which is too short for my needs.

Of course, the PMW-EX3 is a much more expensive option. But I'd consider it if XDCAM EX is superior to HDV (after initially getting drawn in by the low cost of the XH-A1!).

Would love an EX3 but i have to make do with my plain FX7 but with its 20x plus d extender
1122mm 35 equivalent its good in that respect,by the way i dont know what 16mm was in the converstion but standard 16 you can keep that i far prefer hdv,super 16 is only allowed a percentage of hdv broadcast in programns here like hdv but super 16 does look good with the right film stock for sure,good luck with your choice and filming.

Ralph I have the XH-A1. As others have said, despite a few flaws, it is one of the best values out there. The lens is incredible. It is sharp and contrasty all the way out to 650, and some have said they prefer it over the EX1 lens (which I think has less telephoto extent). While HDV can give you motion artifacts, it seems to me that the A1 shows less of this than the other 3 HDV cameras I've owned. Finally, I'm not sure that this is true, but I've read here that when shooting in 24F there is actually a little bit more headroom (fewer compression artifacts) since Canon does not use pulldown to write the file to tape.

I am very happy with it.

Pat

I own the Xh-A1 as well and have to say that since I bought it a year ago I have virtually no complaints. The biggest complaint I do have is that I wish the lcd was bigger. I usually use it for sports footage that ends up on local sports TV but also on occasion for commercials on national TV. I recently bought a 42" Samsung 7-series 1080p TV which has an awsome picture, and to be honest A-1 footage looks better than HD broadcast on it. I think often the limitation is the quality of the display as opposed to the footage. My last TV was a 50" Panasonic 720p DLP and the same footage wasn't nearly as impressive. I took some zoo footage in Australia in June, and my father in law had just purchased and older lcd TV for a few hundred bucks and to say the footage looked horrible would be an understatement. That same footage is out of this world on the Samsung. Here is a link to that footage Adelaide Zoo on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1190833) . It's not the most stable as I was willing to drag around a monopod all day but not a tripod. You should take a look at Steven Dempsey's stuff on this site as well. While it may not be the be all and end all of cameras, it's not a bad place to get your feet wet by any means.

You should take a look at Steven Dempsey's stuff on this site as well.
There is so much information here that we are beginning to repeat ourselves.
Ralph - stop procrastinating. Go out and buy one!
;-)

it depends what you mean by wildlife. For shooting ducks floating round ponds, or deer grazing in meadows round your house A1 is fine.

But for working in difficult lighting conditions, following wildlife at (moderate) speed at extreme focal lengths then you are taking a hand-gun to hunt tigers. At a minimum - you will likely have to spend more on accessories like tripod, matte-box etc than you do on an A1.

You are a pro-photographer. For A1 think digital rebel, for H1 think Nikon D200 - but you want D3 top of the line then RED or another flavor of HD.

Packing into the back country even with a tricked out XLH1 and heavy duty tripod is a an expedition. An A1 with a monopod is a walk in the park, so it is tempting. But if you are looking to make the $$$ then the old "no pain no gain" is an axiom to ponder. My personal view: Leave the walks in the park for the week-ends.

I would like to know more about the hdv comment that came from Chris Soucy :"Then there is HDV.
Hmm. Well, let me tell you this story.
I've shot HDV coming up for two years. It looks fantastic. There are issues when panning with detail (among other things), the good 'ol HDV smear. I just accepted it as "the way it is".

Chris..can you elaborate some on your earlier comment " Earlier this year NZ got it's first HD television transmissions, part of the package being a dedicated Demo channel showing wall to wall HD content, mostly in full 1080, a great deal being wildlife.

Seeing those demo's on a biiig full 1080 screen bought home with a thump just how bad HDV can look when intercut with other higher data rate/ less compressed content.

Bad doesn't really do it justice - it leaps off the screen and smacks you 'round the head with a mallet.

It was a perfect demo of why so many broadcasters restrict or ban HDV altogether.

It also brought home to me that HDV is less than perfect when it comes to wildlife, where the devil is in the detail."



I have not seen a comparison of hd and hdv shot wildlife film on anything larger than a 52" screen and am curious how great that difference really is. other than artifacts with movement..is there really a profound difference.

i had the pleasure of photographing, videoing in se alaska last spring and an independent crew was filming with a gyroed cinemax camera in a housing, running a 1/2" tape. amazing clarity on a small screen..but who would compete with that. this team had produced a high def dvd on humpback whales issued in the beginning of 2008. i guess i, and the gentleman who originated this thread..am curious as to a more specific difference. i am not savy of red hd production etc and cost.

william boehm
bothell wa

Well, just got back from Central Wet America, and had a great trip, except for my A1 quit in the middle of the 10 days. I could not use any buttons on the left side of the camera. Also the rewind button was inop, So I kept shooting and said a prayer. Got home and sent the camera to N.J. They charged me $900 and replaced the pcb assembly, recoeder assy, lens assy.I called them and never got to speak to a teck guy, I asked and did get the parts back.

Today I called and talked with another rep, not a teck person, and she told me that the humidity caused all the damage. I keep it in a waterproof box, and try to be careful about rain. But what more can I do? All my tape came out great, so how bad could have the damage to the camera have been?

It is and was under warrantee. Should I be happy that I got my A1 back and working or should I be pissed that it cost me $900. I feel like I took my car in and it needed a spark plug, and they replaced the engine.

What would you all do?????

Will, it's not really about image quality under optimal conditions. It's about ergonomics, control, usability and working confidently in difficult conditions. You have problems with panning. Probably because you don't switch image stabilization off. I don't blame you. It's kind of awkward to access that submenu while shooting. Especially if the camera is in some protective rain cover. So you switch off OIS to do a smooth slow pan of the veldt, all of a sudden you see a herd of giraffes, you zoom right in and see them attack a herd of lions. Amazing footage - but oh dear, a slight breeze, a light camera and you you didn't have the time to go hunting back through those menues to switch OIS back on. The footage is useless.

Ken, thanks for pushing home the point about rain covers and build quality.

Well, just got back from Central Wet America...

What would you all do?????

I think your first line says it all.

The extreme dampness of that locale is beyond of most normal electronics. And cameras get the worst of it because that's where the action is. Special protection, and I mean more than a normal rain cover, is required in situations like this.

I would not consider your situation "normal use" relative to warranty coverage and, as such, shouldn't be covered.

I now return this thread to the OP's topic.

A little elaboration on my comments?

No problem.

My A1 turned up a couple of days before Christmas 2006. Needless to say I went mad and shot everything in sight for weeks.

It was while viewing it on my 24" Dell I started to become aware that there was an issue with detail when panning, but just couldn't nail it on the small screen.

When my 46" Sony Bravia X screen arrived in February that really showed the problem big time.

Static shot, everything was rosy.

Start the pan and the background detail immediately starts to "fuzz" (if there is no forground detail it all starts to "fuzz").

If there is a distinct forground object moving across the screen and you follow it, keeping it more or less dead centre of the frame, the forground object stays more or less perfectly clean whilst just the background goes fuzzy.

OK, F FWD to recently, and the start of HD transmissions here. As I mentioned, one of the HD demo programs is a wildlife compilation running about 30 minutes.

This was my first opportunity to directly compare what I was getting against what "the pro's" were getting.

I should say at this point the entire program is unattributed to any camera, operator, director, source or anything else, and may well be a compilation of "out takes" for all I know.

Most of it is simply stunning. For the most part it exhibits none of the HDV smear - fast pans don't result in loss of detail anywhere and the compression artifacts that are there with HDV are entirely absent.

Except!

There is one particualr shot that bears all the hallmarks of HDV and against the rest of the compilation it stands out like a Saturn 5 missile in a back yard.

It's a beutifull stationary shot of Galapogos marine iguanas on the rocks, long zoom to make the background waves crashing look inches away when they are probably yards away.

Beutifully lit, heaps of contrast, yet really good colour depth and detail to die for in every inch of frame. Every detail of the 4 or 5 iguanas in frame is picked out in all it's glory, the minute nodding movement of the one in front the only movement apart from the background waves.

Then they pan the camera!

Splat!

The entire picture suddenly turns, for the entire 2 seconds of the pan, to complete mush.

As soon as the pan stops, the picture comes right again.

They compound the felony a few clips on when they do a much wider zoomed pan of the same colony but obviously using 24p as, not only is the picture extremely fuzzy but juddering to boot.

Every time I see it I think "Oooh dear".

Just in case this is coming across as totally negative, I hasten to add that I have deliberately used the HDV smear to great effect in long panning shots where background detail was irrelevant and where it's smearing/ softening only enhanced the forground moving subject to very good effect.

CS

Ralph - I think the XH-A1 is a fine camera for wildlife (which is primarily all I do), in fact, if you plan to do a lot of backcountry work it might be the best unit out there (great image, long lens, portable). (Yes, some networks are not keen on HDV, but even they will accept some if the content is what they need.) If you really get into it and buy more equipment in the future the XH-A1 will still be a good B camera. But more to my "2 cents worth" - if you are doing wildlife I would strongly encourage you to go tapeless. You can do this with the XH-A1 by using something like the Focus harddrives. They have a need pre-record feature (6 to 10 seconds) that will let you capture that calling bird just after it called. Although the Sony EXs are tapeless, they unfortunately don't have a pre-record (i.e., cache). For than just getting that shot of an animal you want a shot of it doing something interesting, and the best way to get that is to keep the camera runing, and running, and ... Good luck.

There really is no perfect camera within the budget range you have stated. EX-1 and EX-3 have jello issues due to CMOS chips, HVX200 and HPX170 are not as sharp as Canon, all the other Sony's and the XH-A1 use HDV compression, and the XL-H1 and XH-G1 can bypass the HDV codec through HD-SDI but you would need to be tethered to a desktop or laptop. Soon there will be Scarlet which will offer up some interesting possibilities. I considered many of these when I purchased the A-1 and I've been delighted with my decision. I've also been delighted with Prospect HD and would definitely recommend at least Aspect or Neo for anyone dealing with HDV on a regular and/or constant basis. I'm also encouraged by the resale prices I'm seeing for the A-1 which indicate that they tend to hold their value. That makes upgrading down the line much less painful.

Hey Ralph, one A-1 user posted this http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/xh-series-sample-clips/139110-promotional-video-xha1.html#post975621 in the A-1 clips section. Kinda says it all for me!

Hey Ralph, I hope I'm not too late to chime in here but I did exactly what you're mentioning. I'm no pro by all means I have only been doing Still Photgraphy for about 19 months total. I do nothing but wildlife, mostly birds in flight. I made the jump into HD Video a couple months ago with a Canon XHA1. Here are my observations thus far, please take from them what you fnd useful, if anything.
1-There is a definite lack of information available when comparing Still Imaging to Video, epecially HD Video. I attribute this to how new HD is.
2-While some aspects (not many I have found in my case) from Still Imaging will help your transition into Video, it is a whole new ball game.
3-This forum, DVi, is the best source of help and info available.
4-Get ready to learn an entirely new language and sharpen up your comuter skills.
I hope this helps Ralph, good luck!
Tim