Camera pondering...
 

If you got some extra cash one day and was to buy a new camera, You can't afford the big HD cams. (So under 50K) But want better then a prosumer MiniDV cam. What would YOU buy?

I noticed that Panasonic had a "AG-DVC200" with 1/2 CCD. It seems alright for a price at 4K. Anyone heard anything about it?

I'm not going to buy a new camera so this is not that kind of question, I'm just curious to what you guys would buy...

esh @ size. Plannin on doing some serious shooting? They really need to work on their design. Looks like a friggin' box with bottons on it. My dad had something that looked like that about 23 years ago.

I can't say i've lookied too much at anything beyond my XL1s, but if i wanted a heavy-duty camera, that one looks promising.

P.S. Careful, its 1/2" 3CCD, not a half CCD.

Gino, do you mean "1/2" 3CCD not 2/3" 3CCD"?

What would I do? Simply make friends with someone that owned a HD camera! :)

Seriously though, it depends on what you are going to shoot. Stepping up to beyond miniDV means big dollar extras. A decent tripod will start at a few grand. A tape deck will cost as much as your XL1 or DVX100... Plus the shoulderbricks are heavy to use for extended periods, and forget shooting guerilla style. The come with a big sign that says "Hello Police and Security! Check my filming permit!!!"

If I had to, I'd get the JVC DV5000 since I think it can also use miniDV tapes, as well as DVCAM, which will save you having to spend $5000 on a deck. It's a 1/2" 4:3 chip camera, which is fine for me since most everything I do goes to that frame size. If I spent the ectra money on a 2/3" 16:9 chip camera, I'd have to crop the frame or shrink and letterbox, and not use the extra resolution of the 16:9 chip.

As it is, I'm sticking with the XL1 until the HDXL series comes out. <g>

I know this discussion is not the moderators favorite but do you think the "HDXL" will stand up to a pro camera? (Pure speculation that is?)

I know the current XL1 is good enough for brodcast, and I guess the picture will be better on the "HDXL" but do you think it would be as good one of the DIGIBetas of today?

And for everyone else that reads, everything that people will mention about the "HDXL" will be pure speculation and NOT facts.

I want to take a step up in picture quality for my independent movies, I'm one of those who can't wait for the "HDXL" and it will surely be like christmas when I get to read the official specs, but am a fraid it wont be as good as one might imagine, I expected a lot from my XL1 when I got it, it was my first camera I own and when I shot my first tests I got a little disappointed. I thought it lacked resolution where I wanted the cam to work (16x9 and frame mode) Shooting more and OTHER cameras I discoverd I might be to hasty in my decision. And what about europe, as far as I know HD isn't even thought of here yet. Will they still release a "PAL" version for the european market? Or perhaps just cut the HD part out?

There is only one fact about the HDXL:

1) There is no HDXL. I just made the name up on the spot as a joke. Hence the <g> at the end of the sentence!

Please, no more Canon HD speculations!!!

I'd trade in my DSR-300 for a DSR-390 to pick up the extra low-level capability and the latest chips. These cameras are extremely rugged, produce higher quality images than the prosumer cameras and handle faster because the controls are direct and all on the outside.


But if I wanted native 16:9, I'd go for the DSR-570WS.

The next step up would be for 50 mhz digital video. Either D9 (very nice indeed) or the Sony IMX cameras with the Sony probably getting the nod. Maybe the blue laser DVD recorder version?

Oh, and the widest lens they make. And a long lens too.

Next step up is the Panasonic SDX900---no doubt.

I think the DSR-570 and SDX900 are way out of the ballpark Andreas is talking about if he is considering the DVC200. The DSR-570 is around $20,000 and the SDX900 is in the low $30k range.
ALthough, that's what I'd shoot too if I had the cash.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I think the DSR-570 and SDX900 are way out of the ballpark Andreas is talking about if he is considering the DVC200. The DSR-570 is around $20,000 and the SDX900 is in the low $30k range.
ALthough, that's what I'd shoot too if I had the cash. -->>>

What he said was under $50K.

Once you get beyond the 390 and 570, you get way up there in the support gear necessary to make it a working system. Very expensive studio VCRs and editing systems are required to make a better-than-DV package work well.

At a minimum an operating 570 is more like $30,000 or more. Add a good wide lens, around $26,000 if you need it. Batteries and charger will add $3,000 or more depending on the brand and number.

My bad, he did say under $50,000.

I think the SDX900, with the proper editing gear and deck would run over $50,000. I think I'd stick with the DSR-570 and spend the extra money on a new car.

I hear you. Maybe a copy of Rick Bravo's camera response van!

For 50,000 he could put together a nice SDX900 rig that would blow away the DSR570. He could rent the deck as needed. This way he would have the ability to shoot both DVPRO and DVPRO50. As you can see, I want one!

Hey Mike.

is the difference between th dsr 300 and the 390 that big? And what about the 370?

Thanks.

Andreas, the DVC200 is a lot more than 4K.

Which camera would I buy if I had a lot of money? Easy. The right camera for the right job. Small cams serve me just fine, and besides, they do work well, you know. :-))

Frank, the listed price on the Panasonic Website is -> "U.S. List Price: $4,995.00" That's closer to 5K :) But it's not that far off..

I wrote is that I don't need hints for a new camera, I just wanted to know if you hade some extra dough in your wallet and wanted to go shopping for a more "serious" camera.

I don't mind small cameras at all, but when "small" cameras is played on a widescreen tv in anamorphic mode the resolution is no way near good enugh.. It's okay when you crop the image and go for bars on a 4:3 TV set.. But then I have some issuses with DV compression and the fact that on my television they are quite easy to notice..

I undestand all the technical aspects of how anamorpic video works and so on... But I guess I'll have to wait for NAB an see what santa brings us and how the image holds up to my requirements.

Alfred.

The 390 is a current camera. So the body is about $10K give or take. Gotta add around $2K minimum for a minimum lens, $700 for a charger for Sony LiOn batteries in V-mount and between $500 & $1K each for the batteries.

The 300 costs about $3K for one in good shape with around 500 hours on the heads. A complete 300, minimum lens & batteries should run between $5K & $6K. The 300A just a little more.

Once you are in to a Sony 1/2" system, you can trade bits to upgrade. As you can with any camera system.

300 is sort of the basic camera of the family. The 300A added i-Link. The 370 added CCU capability. The 390 added better low-light capability.

Any of them take superb pictures. Privately Sony will tell you that if you stick to 4:3, the 300 series is a good as the 500 series in terms of image quality. And the 300 is a ton lighter than the 500.

Thanks Mike.

I just wanted to check if there was a big difference since you said that you'd probably upgrade yours?
Better low-light capability is something that you really can't get enough of!! (Didn't know of the 300a either..)

Sorry Andreas, didn't mean to hi-jack your thread.

Thanks again.