PD170 to JVC GY HD110U?
 

I'm a wedding videographer using PD170's. I very tempted to go over to HD although in my parts of the world (South Africa) the PD170 is still a very respected performer. I have the option of getting a JVC GY HD110U right now, I need a camera that shoots well under low light and will be a good wedding companion. With LCD wide screens taking over the market HD and the addition of the M2 from RedRock I hope to offer better quality. I also do corporate ads and have a few well written stories for a mini series however lack of dept of field has stopped me from persuading these.

Is the JVC GY HD110U a good replacement for the PD170? The JVC GY HD200U is over my budget, does the JVC GY HD110U deliver?

Any input will be greatly appreciated.

Are you clients requesting HD?

In my opinion, no. You seem like you want to do more than just wedding videos. For your expanded type of work and budget, you might want to look at the Panasonic HVX 200 or wait for the Sony XD Cam EX. Of course, if you are just doing wedding videos, the 110U is fine. Another camera to consider for weddings is the Canon XHA1. You can always rent a better camera for corporate ads and mini series work. Of course, I agree with the last reviewer. If your clients are not asking for HD, then stick with your SD camera. By the way, you won't find an HD camera that has the low light capability of a PD170.

I second what John said about low light and the PD170. But on the other hand, the world is going HD, and if you can market it to your clients before your competition, you will have the upper hand.

My opinion on camera choice however, is the exact opposite. The HD110 would suit you well, and I wouldn't consider the HVX200 at all.
The HVX200 doesn't record HD to tape, which makes it useless for HD wedding/event filming, unless you spring for a firestore. Also, the DVCPRO HD format might be more than you want to work with and requires a big post production step up from SD (more money).
The HD110 records to tape, and has a great 24p mode for cinematic work.
Also if you are doing corporate/commercial work, nothing impresses clients like an HD110...

Either will work with a 35mm adapter (although the HD200 will work best of course, with image flipping), as will your PD170, so that isn't holding you back.

If you can wait until the last quarter of the year, a serious contender is the XDCAM EX, if you can afford a Firestore for event recording (it's tapeless) it may offer you the best combination for both wedding/short film/commercial work. But it and a firestore will likely cost equal to or more than an HD200 so it might be out of your range.

If you can wait until the last quarter of the year, a serious contender is the XDCAM EX, if you can afford a Firestore for event recording (it's tapeless) it may offer you the best combination for both wedding/short film/commercial work. But it and a firestore will likely cost equal to or more than an HD200 so it might be out of your range.[/QUOTE]

He might not need a firestore with the XDCAM EX. A 16gig card will hold near 45 minutes in its best quality, and a 32 gig card will hold near an hour and a half. Of course, I do agree that it might be over his budget. I don't consider any HDV camcorder good for commercial work. That's just my opinion, and a lot of professionals seem to agree with that opinion.

I've owned and shot both DVCPRO HD and HDV cameras. HDV is fine for comercial work. Viewers can't tell the difference. Clients can't tell the difference. Most videographers can barely tell the difference most of the time. The only time you can tell the difference is if you shoot both cameras side by side, just to prove a point. And then so what? It's slightly better, and doesn't affect your story at all.
Reality: The only people who really care are those who are on the internet bitching about HDV and not actually shooting anything anyway.... and who really cares about their opinions?

If you've shot with DVCPROHD and HDV, you would know that DVCPROHD is better for commercial work. There is not only video to consider; there's audio. It's still my opinion that HDV is not acceptable for commercial production. Oh, and the fact that clients don't notice. I'm sorry but they do. In fact, they are so informed that they request DVCPROHD or better. We have a shoot in a couple of days, and the minimun camera the client would accept is the HVX 200. If people are so high on HDV, then why are they spending time and money trying to find ways to bypass the HDV codec?
Of course, I just realized that our definition of commercial could be different. Did you mean corporate/industrial? If that's the case, then I agree; HDV will be okay. Commercial to me is anything that can be broadcast, and many stations will not accept it unless it's extradinary video, which they would accept any video for that matter, even from a cell phone.

So they want better then HDV (no mention of cam) and you give them a HVX200! Thats like taking one step forward and two steps back. If your going to give them a Varicam, I could see it. Otherwise its just codec snobbery. Lets get real here.

Codec snobbery... that's the term I was looking for!
Thanks Ken.

Look John, there's no question DVCPRO HD is better than HDV, but your statement is that HDV is not acceptible for commercial work. That is pure codec snobbery.
But since you want to play the snob game, I'll kick it up a notch.

If you want to play in the big leagues, the HVX200 is not acceptible for commercial work either. NONE of these cameras are. Sure, it's got a "pro" codec, but the resolution sucks. The Canon XLH1 puts out a far sharper, cleaner picture. Clients may or may not demand a camera, but as a producer it's up to you to bring them the right tool for the job, and convince them when they are wrong. You seem to be an HVX200 fan, but it ain't all codec, codec, codec... There's a lot more to a great camera than that, and just because HDV might not be the best codec, doesn't mean that the HDV cameras aren't worthy, regardless of what codec snobs and "professionals on the internet" think.

Thread is locked.