Thinking of getting the XL H1… good/bad idea?
 

Hi guys… first off I’ll explain where I am at… I am starting up a new wedding video business, I was going to buy the XL2 but after posting on these forums it became clear to me this could be a bad idea… after all in two years or so I will have to go HDV and selling the XL2 could be very hard and I could loose out on a lot of money.

I am now thinking of the XL H1… I know what it can do etc but getting advise from people who use this camcorder is priceless. If anyone could give me some advice I’d be so grateful, it’s a very hard decision and a lot of money so I am not rushing into anything without real considering.

The XL H1 also has the Image stabilizer Auto focus, another big turn on. Thanks in advance guys.. and again any advice will be gladly welcomed.

Quick question, what are you going to edit in?

If you shoot HD for weddings how will the viewers be able to watch HD? How many people do you know with true HD TV's or Plasmas in their house? Not only that, but DVD is pretty standard in the majority of households - I don't see half America switching anytime soon. As with anything new, it takes years to catch on and several factors at once for the average consumer to be encouraged to change technologies.

Starting a new business is no reason to go broke so save yourself some dough and buy yourself a used XL2 on ebay for as low as $2800 USD. If you do 2 weddings this year your camera will be paid for, the XLH1 costs $10k last time I checked. Yet another point of consideration is editing. Editing HD can require more a workhorse PC than editing SD.. something to also think about.

Have you seen any raw Canon XL2 footage in 16:9 mode? It's razor sharp killer stuff. Would make most newlyweds happy I'm sure ; )

If a DVX100A can do this, www.danmccainproductions.com/democlassic.html an XL2 will not dissapoint you with the extra resolution.

Good luck and let us know how you fair out!

For the time being… Adobe Premiere 1.5

As to shooting in HD I wouldn’t be shooting it in the near future, but I like the option of having it there when I will need it. Then down the line I will only have to update the editing side if things.

This too is a good point… I am just unsure of what to do at the moment… some people say go HD some SD… I know SD and would love the Xl2 but at the same time don’t wont to get sold short or make a slow start in the world of HD.

If you can effort it; Go for the XL H1. If not, go Xl2. The XL H1 is a newer, better camera. The lens is newer, the viewfinder is new and it has HD. Maybe you're normal average production isn't in HD yet, but with a bit more investment you're set for the future. Again, I can not look in your wallet, but if the investment can come back to you, go XL H1.

Also correct me if I'm wrong guys, but shooting in SD mode on the XLH1 will not result in the same SD quality/noise/low light levels as shooting in SD on an XL2.

Chris Hurd explained this somewhere in this forum I was reading today. It has to do with the number of pixels on a 1/3" CCD.

My point anyway is that although you think you're doing yourself a favour by going for the HD camera now as to not sell yourself short, if you buy HD but shoot SD you definitely are.

I'd love for the people who are saying to go for HD in your situation speak up on this forum... there could be lots to talk about. :)

This is very interesting Dennis… especially the point about buying HD but shooting in SD, which in all honestly I would be doing for possibly the next two years.

The XL H1 is nearly the price of two XL2’s but I am trying to think long term too but don’t want that to make the short term results suffer.

If you’re wondering what others said about SD vs. HD in my situation here are the forum links…

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=59864

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=60029

By the way I am not trying to double post at any time, just trying to get all different views of people…. In all honestly my heads pickled!

I think the killer thing the H1 offers in a wedding business scenario is this:

Shoot HD, even when delivering on SD...but tempt them with an HD version.

Workflow:

Shoot HDV and edit in DVCPRO HD via SDI transfer (FCP is the simplest solution) and then convert to either DV50 or DV via compressor. If you go DV50, you will get an especially phenomenal SD image with lots of color sampling and a low compression ratio.

Offer deliverables in SD,(most likely DVD) but show them the HD and charge a premium for it. You can create an h.264 or WMV HD file and burn to DVD, and offer the Avelink DVD player for playback on their HD set until Blu Ray and HD DVD are available on the market.

Yes, most will opt for plain-vanilla SD, but many might be tempted to splurge on an HD version.

i spent the day on a stage shooting product demos with the H1. we used the camera to feed a dvcpro 50 deck component and 4x3. i can tell you that the quality of the image was very close, almost indistinguishable to shooting with the sdx900. we had to match footage that was shot with the panasonic on the last batch of these commercials.

tommorrow we wil be shooting a ton of green screen in the same manner. H1 to dvcpro 50 deck component.

this camera handles SD beautifully in a controlled environment. again, i cannot over emphasize that the workflow options were the number one reason i bought it and i do not regret it for a second.

vince

It's true about editing--if support isn't readily available, take that into consideration. If the client is okay with DV, then the XL2 or DVX100b is probably the best solution.

heath

So the only other way around what I said about shooting SD on HD is to shoot HD and downgrade it to SD in post. This brings you back to the question of how you plan to edit and your workflow. It means always shooting SD and downgrading it later - but to Barlows point this will definitely result in footage looking better than SD native shot footage.

Here's what I think:

If you have the means to edit HD, know what you're getting yourself into in terms of the workflow (even if it means bringing SD to your customers but having shot HD), and you can afford the XLH1 - go for it, get HD. (I honestly wish I had one)

If you want a more shoe-string approach and wouldn't mind saving some money for now to see how your first year goes... just get an SD camera. I can almost guarantee any wedding you shoot this year will not be playing in HD rez and for the price of a used XL2 it'll be paid for in 2 gigs. Sell it back before at the end of the year on ebay and likely get back what you paid. In 2007 start shopping for the HD version all you want. If you stick with the same brand, hopefully the accessories will be compatible.

If you decide to go for HD now my last question is are you set on the Canon?

Not sure whether I agree with this. This is bit like comparing apples and oranges. I have not tried to compare the noise or low light levels, so don't want to take sides on that. (It is right that smaller CCD pixels of the same type imply less sensity, but the XL H1 and XL2 CCDs are not of the same type.)

In fact, I was rather surprised when saw for the first time the XL H1 HDV image downconverted to a SD television. The color representation appeared rather pleasing. Then I took some footages directly to DV tape and found those shots also very pleasing.

One needed proper tests to find the real differences between XL H1 SD and XL2.

Andrew - pardon my impiety , but might I suggest a relook at the fx1. In your particular situation , a compromise might be a better alternative. The h1 is the best you can do for 10k for this type of shooting, however market aside , with a sony you can do sd out at a great res and still have the hd quality if needed at a third of the cost. It is a business isn't it ? Kurth

Kurth makes a good point. The truth is the FX-1 probably represents the best bang-for-the-buck in the affordable HD realm. You can buy three of them for one H1. The real question is...do you want/need a 24p/film look?

If you do, I would suggest the JVC as it can be had for about $5K, but it doesn't offer a truly "live" or normal 60hz look for HD. It's 480p is fabulous, and actually would probably upconvert quite well into a 720/60p timeline.

I think you should be looking at the Sony or JVC and buying other equipment you will surely need.

Then go for the JVC if not the XL H1. You know why? It's a shoulder cam. You will like it better in operating but... also, and don't underestimate this, for the looks.

People see a big camera and think; wow, a professional crew! People see a smal handy breast-hight camera, and think; hmm, uncle Marty has exactly the same, why pay that much for that...? I know it sounds really stupid but that's how simple and stupid it is.. Just my 2 cents, don't shoot the messenger! ;-)

Another good point. Looks do matter. It's certainly superficial, but it's true, people that aren't camera savvy will think a JVC HD100 or XL-H1 is more professional than a camera with a handycam form factor, no matter how beefy, ala FX-1 or even HVX200.

Neither the JVC or Canon is all that big, but it crosses a threshold towards the pro cam look.

If it were me doing this, I think I'd opt for the JVC.

Anyone know the main differences between the HD100 and XLH1 and why the dramatic price difference? I'd love to upgrade from my XL2 but I myself am stuck with which way to go. I use the mini35 so I definitely want a camera where the lens comes completely off. I also need to shoot 24p but read in the HD shootout on DVXuser that the H1 does some kind of weird field doubling in 24p mode... this does not sound that great to me. But as Barlow pointed out the JVC does not do live 60hz HD.

take a look at a few 24F H1 clips. Do these look field-doubled to you?

I believe it's a good deinterlace of 48i to make a virtual 24p. Definitely works for me!

www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton (btw, the gun isn't real. It's a PSA about gun safety)

I think the price differential is partly Canon being Canon, (I think a fair amount of R&D went into the cam to be fair) and the Pro Jackpack options.

The JVC is a screamin' deal, but it's a little bit limited when you consider you don't get 60p from tape.

Being an XL2 owner and using Sony, I have had the opportunity to shoot with Canon and Sony in wedding environments. Which one is better? Depends on the wedding. Anything outdoors with good light?-Canon. Having the flexibility with a long lense and or wide angle is nice. Canon loves light. Shallow depth of field is easier to achieve with the Cannon.

Now the last wedding I shot I used a Sony PD-170 and my XL2 (and a third cam rolling for establishing shots). This was an indoor wedding and I had to use lights because it was so dark. I still had to gain up the Canon and the image became soft....too soft. The sony loves low light conditions and it is easier to tote around getting interviews (smaller cams mean less intimidation from interviewees).

On a side note, even though I don't make my living shooting weddings, I feel 3 prosumer cameras are essential for wedding shoots over $2,000 (and 3 of the same cameras makes it way easier to match.) I spent many moons figuring out how to match the color of Sony and the Canon. So if you are serious about running a wedding video business, I would not worry about HD and I would really hone in on SD with 3 nice cameras. If it were me, I would probably go with Sony, because they work well in low light and are easier to move around. Turning on lights is a hasstle, and just seems too intusive for a wedding. Having the good "looks" with big camera is not important to me. If I have 3 PD-170's or FX1's, I will look professional- no doubt. Plus the proof is in the pudding- and your reputation as a shooter. Believe me, a third camera is a must. Live shooting can be stressful for some and it's nice to have a third cam grabbing the audience in case of a focus pull issue or in case you need to move your camera because the wedding party missed their marks on the alter. I don't know the demand for HD weddings right now, but I wouldn't worry about that. Go for a solid SD package that is seemless with edits and good imagery. Just my $.02. Hope this helps!

Just to throw in another angle.. ;-) :
I've shot with the XL1 since 1998 and still using it occasionally. But I'm aware that the camera is on it's end. So 8 years with that camera.

Now I'm shooting with my brand new XL H1, mostly in SD, but I think that with in 2 years from now most of it will be HD. So you can say 1 investment to handle both..

Vincent, how much better is the SD picture from the XL H1 compared to that from your old XL1?
I know it of course be much better, but can you go into more detail? Just curious...

@ Mathieu: A world of difference I can tell you that! More detail, more resolution, richer colours, sharper, less noise.. All the things you can think of. Beside the picture there's the whole operating aspect which has been improved as well (viewfinder, shoulder pad, xlr, lens, settings etc.). No wonder, we're about 9 years further since the release of the XL1..

But I think this is bringing us slightly of topic don't you think? Maybe an idea for an other topic..? ;-)

So many angles, so many choices...

So Andrew - have you come to any conclusion yet? Will it be SD or HD, and if HD which one? Sony, JVC, Canon or Panasonic?

Well Dennis… these are questions that I can’t wait to answer myself… although I now feel I am getting very close to these answers. I am not one to rush into something like this lightly… after all why make a quick decision and end up paying for it in the long run as I am sure you will all understand. Although I really cant wait to have it all ordered… also the hard drive of my editing computer packed in last night… ever feel like the world is against you sometimes? ;-)

So far my train of though has been this… I have wanted the Canon XL2 for some time, called it my dream camcorder but felt it was too expensive for just SD. I then looked at the JVC HD100 and was very impressed and really considered it but it hasn’t got image stabilizer and auto focus… a bit of a kick in the teeth as if it had these it could have been ordered and all. (for weddings… no second chance et these two things are needed IMO)

Then came looking at the XL H1… looking back I think it was too hash to look into this camcorder at this time, I just figured it was an XL2 with HV… I figured how could you go wrong? Although I got priced a very good deal with one with (package deal with all accessories etc) I took a step back and figured this is just too much money… you could get two XL2’s for this. So my mind went back to the XL2.

Then last night for no reason at all my mind was drawn to the Sony FX-1, as I could get three for one XL H1, shoot in HD and convert to SD with the option for bride and groom down the line etc to get a HD version, then just now I come onto this forum and people have been suggesting the Sony FX-1… funny how that happened… or maybe not.

So I am now seriously looking into the FX-1, I read reviews that the mic isn’t too hot on this camcorder so I will look into an external mic (any suggestions). A downside of this camcorder is it’s looks when you see a XL2 of HD100 because I feel this is a very valid point as its been said before but at the end of the day when the happy couple are sitting watching excellent footage will they say “pity the camcorder wasn’t bigger or didn’t look more professional” I’d doubt it very much! Also I could upgrade a year or two down the line or even keep this one for all the price of it.

If your still reading this thanks and any more comments on the stuff I have written will (as always) be very welcomed and thanks again guys for all and the continued input it’s a great site and community I have come across here, one which I will now very much be part of.

"A downside of this camcorder is it’s looks when you see a XL2 of HD100 because I feel this is a very valid point as its been said before but at the end of the day when the happy couple are sitting watching excellent footage will they say “pity the camcorder wasn’t bigger or didn’t look more professional” I’d doubt it very much! Also I could upgrade a year or two down the line or even keep this one for all the price of it."

I couldnt use a Sony because of this. It looks like a toy and I can charge a lot more for my work with the Canon. I do like the JVC but it worries me that it doesnt have image stabalisation. I use my camera for a living and it is important that the gear I use looks professional. I cant for the life of me see how anyone would think that the Sony was more then a camera that Uncle Bob would have at home.

Again good point… this is a reason I wanted the Canon XL2, you bring that out at a wedding and everyone will think professional!!!

Hi Andrew,
I have been reding the posts here for some time but that was my first post. How do you select a quote like you displayed mine?

Click on the quote button underneath each post. Then delete the text you do not want to quote..

Thanks Vincent,
I just have to try it.

I just recently saw the JVCHD100 camera but I understand that it doesnt have auto focus and image stabilisation. Does anyone have any thoughts on the lack of these features. I am currently using a Canon XL1s and want to move to either the Canon or new JVC HDV cameras

You know what Andrew, I think for your purpose the Sony would be the wisest choice. Sound on board any camera is never that great, especially for weddings so I suggest picking up an Audio Technica Pro 88 wireless mic system. What I love about it is the receiver can fit in the shoe of your cam if you want.

Just to help reinforce some of your thoughts, the Canon is expensive and I'm not sure how exactly you'd benefit from it. SDI output for you? Who cares.

Having done weddings myself WAY back as a way to pay my way through my painful addiction to new camcorders I first started shooting with the VX1000, after I went to the XL1, XL1s and now use the XL2, but my use now has shifted from weddings to independent film projects where everything is staged - not like the live coverage I use to do. If I had to do a wedding tomorrow with the Canon 1.) I can say even using it on a tripod is a pain due to it's offset center of gravity and long lens 2.) the widest angle you can get does not suffice - especially for those mornings walking through the brides house. I would likely rent completely different cam if I "had to" shoot a wedding, likely I'd borrow a VX2100, PD150/170 or my buddies DVX. Perhaps it's just me cuz I got use to the smaller sized cams, but hey if versatility is going to make my work look better in the end WHO CARES how it looks on the outside.

At the end of the day when you've crammed yourself into the back of a corner and start to break a sweat because you can't fit everything in the frame and you don't know what to do - the last thing you'll be concerned about is how cool your camcorder looks and what people on this forum were saying about Canon or Sony :) Let's face it the "wide" on the Canon is pathetic, you most certainly would also need to buy a wide angle adapter... all that money.. and it still can't do what you want?

Sony HD: 4.5-54mm f/1.6-2.8 (for 35mm Conversion 32.5-390mm)
Canon SD or HD: 5.4 to 108 mm (for 35mm Conversion 39mm-780mm)

And I don't agree at all with Dennis Robinson that his camera should make him look professional to clients - hopefully it's his work. ; )

As for the JVC? The price is attractive but it has no 60i in HD mode, no stabilzer and no auto focus. This is not a wise choice for you, that's for sure.

To be fair Dennis, I understand what you are saying but I have never done a wedding and dont intend to in the future. Maybe the little toy looking Sonys are easier to use for that purpose, but my work is on TV commercials and coporate DVDs and I only have 3 years experience using a camera so the larger form size helps me provide a professional image to clients.
I have friends in the business with PD170's working for little or nothing and I can buy a new Canon HD camera with less than 3 weeks work.

There's always a Century Optics WA in a pinch. Anyone tried an HDV ready one yet?

I suppose it depends on the work. For me I never use auto focus anyway, but I guess for some odd reason when we pay $5k for a camera we expect to have it. :)

As for image stabilisation - I'm on the fence for that one. For filmmaking, interviews or other staged events I don't need it. For live event coverage it really does help.

I use the mini35 alot so I'm use to not having these features and I'd say for most professional use the lack of these features is not a big deal. What I'm completely stuck on as far as the JVC is the fact it doesn't offer 60i HD. Other than for filmmaking, who would buy this as an "HD cam"?

Haven't read the entire thread yet but it seems most of replies are missing one point. Video shot on HDV and downrezzed to DV in post for delivery to the client using something like Cineform delivers a clearer and sharper SD image than shooting DV to begin with. That should be factored into the decision matrix when deciding on whether to go with an XLH1 or an XL2.

I can concur with this statement. I haven't had the privilege of converting to Cineform as I am FCP based, but even HDV converted to DVCPROHD and then downconverted to SD DV or DV50 looks better than starting out with plain-vanilla DV, which is still exceptional on the H1.

Barlow,

What are you using for a deck for the H1?

Currently...the H1. I don't batch capture with it, typically. I simply capture entire tapes into DVCPRO HD via Kona SDI, and that's it...until or unless I need to go back to HDV, which I haven't had to yet.

Buy HD. Shoot HD. Edit HD. Give the a DVD and the option of a Windows Media 9 HD DVD for playback on their PC.

To invest in an SD camera today is lunacy. Lunacy I say!

Peter does have a point. But I like the Z1 best.

heath