Have the filmmakers settled on a favorite? HVX200, XL H1, or HD100?
 

Just wondering if one of the three main cameras in this range has come out as the clear winner for filmmaking (as the DVX100 did for SD)?

I've heard lots of great things about the JVC HD100 (or 110 or 200 now), the HVX200 is the successor to the legendary DVX100, and the Canon XL H1 is a beast too. I bought the HVX in the spring, and stopped following other cameras, so I'm just wondering if one of the three came out as the clear winner?

Criteria being film look/filmmaking only.

It's still not declared, nor would I expect it to ever be.

What the DVX had over everything else was 24p and it's color reproduction. It was and still is the standard to which all new professional cameras should live up to or exceed in the SD realm.

But things have changed now since everyone has adopted 24p in one form or another. Also, all of these new cameras you've mentioned are HD, different flavors, sure, but still HD nonetheless. Plus, unlike the shootout of old between the DVX, XL2, and what have you, where there were vast differences between each camera, these cameras are just about the same really. No one is sharper than the other or doesn't have its image compromised in some way (ie. HVX - Lower native resolution CCD's, XLH1 - Telephotoish and Chromatic Aberations, HD100U - Glare and some Chromatic Aberations too).

But all of these things are miniscule things that 99% of people either in the audience or using them won't notice or care about.

Basically the stance right now is "use what you like best" and that seems to be working out for everyone. =)

Edit: I forgot to mention my preference, silly me. ^_^

I basically like them all, but I'm more partial to the JVC or Canon emotionally, but the kind of work I'm going to be doing requires the framerates of the HVX200. So I'm divided. Yet, as you can see in my sig, I've decided to go another route and experiment.

On the contrary, there are many more differences between current HD cameras than there were between commonly used DV cameras. For example, of the three cameras asked about in this thread each uses a different recording format, two use interchangeable lenses, one can record to P2 memory cards and so on. When I tested several HD cameras earlier this year I concluded that such differences should be considered at least as important as differences in image quality, since each camera will suit some people nicely and others not so well before you even get to talking about the images.

That said, I think the Panasonic HVX200 is proving popular with film-makers for its recording format flexibility and progressive-scan recording, among other things. But the lack of interchangeable lenses could be a limiting factor for some people, so what to do? As Jack said, use what works for you today and don't worry about it beyond that.

I have never heard this before. Compared to your basic betacam the DVX looks pathetically weak--as it should based on relative price points.

Are you talking indy filmmaking cameras?

everybody has different needs, therefore there are different cameras. Being different is good.

Yes, exclusively. Real filmmakers still shoot on film. :)

Yes, Brian, I was talking specifically about prosumer cameras in the <$10,000 range.

Also, Betacam is a different subject entirely.

I guess David Lynch, George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez are not real filmmakers then.
;-)

The new Sony V1 now shoots 24P and that may start a new round of fun for those looking for THE feature camera (if there is such a thing).

Who didn't see that coming? :)

Hey, it's a dirty job, but SOMEBODY had to do it. LOL.

Seriously though, I thought it was verrry interesting that Lynch shot Inland Empire entirely with PD150s. The parts that were shot normally didn't look bad and even the grain produced by noise made for interesting effects when used correctly.

Oh, and that David Lynch is a very strange fellow. And I learned a three hour strange/disturbing movie is punishing. But, I think this one is one of his best.

I guess that makes me a very strange fellow too. :)

Don't forget Robert Altman. His last 2 films were shot HD.

We had an excellent movie at our festival this past year called "Mojave Phone Booth." I didn't know until recently it was shot with the Z1. Looked great.

Exactly. And I'm not sure it *should* ever be. One of our skills as filmmakers and creative types is making the choices that affect the final creative outcome of our films.

Which Film stock is better Fuji or Kodak? Film Cameras, Arri or Panavision? Are these even legitimate questions? "Better" is a slippery term. It's probably "better" to think in terms of picking gear that fulfills a specific production challenge in a specific situation. The HVX-200 and XL-H1 bring different qualities and strengths to the table, for instance, and so neither is universally "better".

The word "better" is not once mentioned in my original post.

The specific situation you ask for WAS mentioned though, and that was to produce a film "look". :)

I think he's asking if the people who are buying a camera for film making are buying one camera more so than the others. It wouldn't indicate that one camera is better than the others, only that the features and look it provides are most useful for film-making.

From what I've seen the Sony Z1 would fit that more than the others, probably because it was the first and there are more of them out there than any of the others. Almost all the low budget films shot with 1/3" HDV cameras seem to be with the Z1. Although, there was one shot here a few months ago, and they rented an HVX200 because it involved some athletic match and they wanted the slomo, and that camera is perfect for that sort of shooting. As one post above mentioned, it's whatever a given filmmaker thinks is best and can afford, and/or is available.