i am willing to spend up to 6000. it will be a multi purpose cam. sports and weddings and whatever.

yeah, get the JVC HD-110 - Comes with an IDX battery steup right now for just over $5000. The extra $$ you can use for a nice case, tripod, etc.

How about the Canon A1? It's around $3500, looks professional, great quality, and you can spend some of that other money towards accessories. Plus, you should even have enough money left over for a smaller B camera, like the HV10, HV20, or HC7.

I got an A1 2 weeks ago and am very happy with it. Nice lens, manual ring iris and endlessly customizable. If you've got an extra 2500 to spend you could think about a really nice tripod and some lights, wide angle converter etc. You could also go the Panasonic HVX route, but by the time you got your P2 cards and laptop etc you'd be lucky if you could afford a decent tripod. this was the debate that went round in my head for some time before i went with the Canon, but i think i made the right choice.
Good Luck
D

Camera choice for my gap year
 

I'm 17/18 and I'm just about to start my gap year in the UK before I go on to do a degree in either Media Arts or Film/TV Production. During my gap year my intention was always to get some practical experience both with companies and by purchasing a camera and making a short or two, which leads me to my dilemma; which camera to get.

My budget is probably £2000 give or take a bit but that alone is sooo much to be paying for a camcorder when I don't have a fulltime job yet and from only ever using £350 cameras so far. I hate being limited by small dinky auto cameras though so it's an expense I need to take on.


Now my options are probably xh-a1 at the upper end, dvx100 and the pd150/170. Maybe the XL2 but that's kind of xh-a1 pricing territory - all three cameras are roughly in my price range. So anyway, my major questions.

Which one would hold its value best? I intend to sell it on in a years time
Is it worth buying used or is it a bit too risky? (only really applies to the pd150)
Should I really buy an HD camera? (I don't have the equipment in my house although my PC should be able to cope but I just don't see it being that worthwhile if I'll only have the cam for a year)
And finally, should I even buy a camera this expensive? Might the HV20 do for example (harder to sell used though, I'd expect - no real pro demand)?


Best prices I've found for the cams are
XH-A1 - £2180
DVX100BE - £2000
PD150 (used) - £1500
XM2 (used) - maybe? - £1150

Hi Edward

Not an easy one... Most people would say that for longevity you should buy HD, and that's probably good advice. That said, the UK is a little way behind the US, and SD is still popular. I would suggest that for learning, something which allows full manual control is essential. Don't know much about the Canons and Panasonics, but I have a PD150, and various Sony DSR's including a 450, and have always found the 150 a bit fiddly to manually - no iris ring, and most features only accesible from menus.

One big point though is to budget for all the extra bits you'll need like a tripod (you'll struggle with any camera on a bad tripod), batteries (plenty of them!), cables, tape etc. etc

Hope this helps

Yeah, with SD v HD it's a complicated decision. My house certainly is all SD and I'd need to upgrade my PC for it to be able to edit HD well (although I'm doing that anyway). On one hand SD should probably do me fine but I don't want HD to take off and to be left with a lump of electronics. Similarly, I want to get used to something that's going to be around when I'm at uni and afterwards. SD will be completely gone by the end of my degree.

I'd agree on the manual control thing. I can't cope at all with things being done automatically and I need to be able to manipulate the camera as best as I can if I'm learning and generally being experimental.

I've pretty much factored everything into a budget but that said I'm bargaining on buying lights and stuff used and selling most of the stuff on for not a considerable amount less than I bought it.

Gap year. What a wonderful concept & tradition. Wish it existed here instead of "hit the grindstone and make something of your life!".

I think the decision depends upon where you INTEND to see your work presented in the final form. I recently watched a video on the subject of a blind American jazz musician who learned Tuvan throat singing on his own and then traveled to Tuva to participate in that country's national singing competition. The whole thing was shot on SD cameras and later mastered for film. The feature got the producers (not much older than you) an Oscar Nomination.

Any one of the cameras you are considering will produce the quality you need. What do you believe you can accomplish in 12 months with your camera purchase? How much of it's cost can you recover? 75%? 50%? 25%? How much revenue can you produce with it that will offset your living expenses? How long can you expect to use it to support your financial and creative needs before upgrading?

My preference (mostly based upon familiarity) is Canon XM2. Its 16x9 is impressive, as are manual adjustments. The Panasonic viewfinder is really nice! The PD 150 can perform miracles in low light. The Canon HD camera only suffers in light sensitivity when compared to the others you mention, which is an expected trait of the higher data volume of HD. HD acceptance here is slow. A similar trend seems (based upon other comments to your post) apparent in your area.

In the end, owning the camera is the most important element. An expensive camera sitting on the shelf gathering dust is the best incentive I know when matched with the need to pay bills. Next is mastering the camera. Master the tool. Master the craft (Ferenc Berko).

Good adventure! I hope my opinions will be or service to you.

Television quality camcorder?
 

Hello Everybody,

I am new to this forum, and in anticipation of receiving some much needed help I want to say thank you for any recommendations/comments posted. After reviewing B&H's web site, more specifically their professional video section, I'm more confused than ever. With all the different formats and camera functions/features available, I'm finding it very difficult to determine just what if fact it is that I'm looking for.

I'm primarily interested in finding a professional quality video camcorder, one that can deliver the type of quality seen on your typical television/cable program. I'm not at all interested in broadcasting over the internet, producing CD's, etc.

I recently worked with a Florida based production company that uses the Sony CineAlta HDW-F900 1080/24p – 1080/60i Camcorder. I took a look on the B&H web site and nearly fell off my chair when I read the price tag, $90,000.00. Way out of my budget. Upon searching further I came across the Sony DCR-VX2100 3 CCD Mini DV Camcorder, which sells for a bit over 2,000.00. The reviews were very positive, with some mentioning that they had even used if for low budget TV programs. Which leads me to my question.

What are the functions and/or features that are required of any video camcorder to produce TV quality videos/programs? The Sony CineAlta HDW-F900 1080/24p – 1080/60i Camcorder costs nearly 45 times more than the Sony DCR-VX2100 3 CCD Mini DV Camcorder. If the same scene were recorded with both camcorders and projected on TV, would there be that much of a difference between the two? I guess what I'm trying to determine is just how much does one have to spend on a camcorder in order to use it for TV quality broadcasting? $4,000, $10,000, .....? Are there specific features or functions that are required?

I'm not asking for a long answer, I realize the subject matter is complex. But, if somebody could mention or point me to the least expensive Sony, JVC, or Panasonic camcorder that they feel could produce TV quality output, that would be a huge help. I could then investigate things myself. Or even, if somebody could point to a particular web site that might offer insight into this issue, that would also be great.

Anyway, hope I've asked the right questions. I am a professional photographer and feel quite comfortable discussing digital cameras, but video camcorders seem to be much more complex, and thus more difficult to grasp.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Mark

P.S. If this helps, I'm most interested in recording outside, during daylight hours. I'm not particularly concerned with low light functions (perhaps sunsets). I just want high quality output, that's all.

Mark, I suggest that you just start reading this site as much as you can.

Your question, even though I know you think you might have narrowed it down a bit, still leaves too much up in the air.

Even then, many people are going to chime in after me recommending this camera or that, and chances are they will be decent enough suggestions for knowing next to nothing about what you want to do. Television programs have been aired using all manner of cameras, from $1k to $100k. What is acceptable to one person is not acceptable to another. Therefore, you will get a huge range of responses.

But I suggest, given the state of your knowledge, to sit down every night for a couple weeks and read, read, read. Think of this as insurance against plunking down $3k for a camera, and then finding out 2 months down the road that you really wanted/needed another, and the experience costing you hundreds (or, potentially, over a thousand).

Nate
 

Nate, thanks so much for your reply. I totally understand. Really. I just came across this site, http://www.mediacollege.com/ and I'm finding it very helpful.

Thanks so much for your imput.

Regards,

Mark

That depends what network you're dealing with and what requirements they have for source footage. Almost anything can be broadcast if the content is important enough, but in general the networks want high-quality stuff to make sure they deliver the best quality to viewers. If you plan to do a lot of network shooting you might take a look at the Panasonic HVX200 as a good starting point, with a price starting at ~$5200 for the bare camera. (Plus you'll need some expensive P2 memory cards if you want to record in HD rather than DV.)

Kevin
 

Thanks so much for pointing me to that particular camcorder. At least I can review its features and use it as a starting point. Much appreciated.

Regards,

Mark

You could compare the Sony Cine Alta as the equivalent of a Mercedes compared to the VX2100 which might be the equivalent of say a go kart. They both might get you around the block and sometimes the Go Kart will be more fun than the Mercedes but the Mercedes will be more durable and useful in situations the Go Kart would fail in.
If you are trying to determine what is Television quality you do have to pick and choose your television. Many small documentaries and reality shows have been shot with DV cameras but the standard concept of Televison video has been 2/3 inch cameras using a variety of formats including Digibeta, DVCPRO, Betacam Sp on. These range in price from 10K on up to 50K for Standard definition. You can definitively see differences on the way up some of which are worth it and some you may not care about.
The standard has been changed by the smaller cameras but they haven't completely changed the equation. High definition is also something which is changing the equation. You probably should look at getting something like a Panasonic DVX-100B for SD or Panasonic HVX-200 for HD to get in on the low end of TV but don't think you are getting the equivalent of the 90K HDCAM. Check out anything you are interested in in person and see if you like the way it works.
Fact is this is a pretty expensive business to get involved with even on the low end. I have radio mics which cost almost $3000 for one full unit and there are even more expensive models.

It's pretty much a dying out tradition here as well, most of my friends are going straight into their film/tv degrees. My intention was ideally to take out a year and work to raise some money for uni and then do a bit of filming as well to build up some sort of portfolio and get a bit more experience than I've got from the two small projects I've done during my a-level course.

Also, I can get hold of a brand new XM2 for £1180 new and I've found the XH-A1 for £100 cheaper so maybe factor that in.

Another consideration is that I'm going to my friend's house in Florida over the Summer and I could bring back one from there although it'll be NTSC and I'm sure that might provide a few pitfalls if I want to connect up to a TV for example, and almost certainly when I want to sell on.



Anyway, as a more detailed response. I'm not really aiming incredibly high as for my first short at least I intend for it to be a bit of a learning experience. That said, it'll need to be a solid portfolio addition and if I'm pleased with it, it's possible I'll send it off to film festivals. I don't really intend to make any profit or money off it though, I intend to cover that through my job. The likelihood is that I'll buy all the equipment and then sell it off at the end for about 75% of what I've initially purchased it for, with the rest and some more being covered by my graphic design job.

I'm also considering possibly getting some kind of 35mm adapter because depth of field and such has always interested me so much ever since I got a project to copy a film that we couldn't do on account of our budgety cameras and their lack of it. How are they for resaleability?

Thanks for your help by the way, the XM2 certainly looks good - I'm just worried that it's becoming outdated technology. That said the £800 saved could go on some rather good stuff.

Hi Edward,

Not wishing to confuse things...HD is a way off yet and I very much doubt any camera you get will be useless in the next 3 or 4 years...

However 16:9 is pretty much the standard format now so if I were you my choice would lean towards a native 16:9 camera.
Also for me audio is as important or more so than video so good XLR audio inputs would be a must...

From your list I'd go for the A1 as it has all of the above..plus HDV is you decide you need it...it is head and shoulders above the rest in all but low light...unless you shoot night clubs or theatre... you can add light.

all the other cameras are already from the last generation...so yes they are cheaper but if the future is a concern I personnally wouldn't buy a 4:3 SD camera now..

Finally as you're in the UK.. don't even think of getting an NTSC camera..it'll be more trouble to you than it's worth. The only camera worth getting in the States right now in your bracket is a Z1, as it does both Pal and NTSC.

Just my 2 Euros worth

Gareth

Daniel
 

Thanks for your replay. I fully realize that there are unlimited options, which complicate things, but one does have to start somewhere, and you, like the one before, mentioned the Panasonic HVX200, so it's probably a good start. There are so many accessories, both hardware and software, that I'm sure you could go broke in a hurry in this industry, so I'll just have to start off slowly.

Thanks again for your time.

Regards,

Mark

You might also be interested in the Sony XDCAM cameras, ranging from about 18 kilobucks to 30 kilobucks, depending on camera model, lens, etc

"Typical" right now is standard definition (that will change in a couple years). Do you want standard definition or high definition?

Sorry back now, internet died on me for the last few days. Anyway, the XHA1 looks awesome, really it does. It's probably the perfect camcorder for me, it's just at the top of my price limit and as such it's a much larger investment and I'll need considerably more money in the first place. On top of that, it doesn't leave me with an incredible amount of money for other things - probably £900-£1000 at the most.

Thanks for the advice about NTSC. Also, how much would you expect a used XH-A1 to go for in a years time?

I work with the DVX100 a lot and I like it pretty much. The controls are as close as they can get to a professional shoulder mount. But as far as I can see the controls on the XH-A1 are about the same (a major improvement over older Canon models like the XL1 ). The only thing that's probably still better on the Panasonic is the manual zoom, which is direct and analog, while on the Canon it seems to be indirect through a servo. However that shouldn't be too much of a problem unless you want to use that kind of boulevard-tv ultra fast zoom-in effect a lot.

You'd have to check the usability of the manual focus ring on the Canon. I tried a Canon XL1 twice and I didn't like it at all (and the lens controls look very similar). The DVX is (alongside the HVX and let aside the JVC GY-HD200 which has a "real" lens) the best to focus manually of all the Mini DV camcorders I tried.

I used a Sony PD 150 once or twice and I didn't like the handling at all (just like I didn't like the Canon XL1 handling). With the DVX - coming from shoulder mount camcorders - I just knew where everything was, without consulting the manual.

So, regarding that you want to re-sell the camcorder in a year or so you'd probably be best off with the XH-A1 because it's HD and it's not much more expensive than a DVX100. I don't know the XH-A1 but it sure looks good. I'd say try to get your hands on both camcorders for a day or so and see what you like better.

Which Camera?
 

I am a high-school film student and I am looking to buy a new camera this year. I think that the Canon XH A1 is the best option so far. How much better is the A1 than an XL2? The XL2 might provide more learning experiance, but at a price in resolution and size. Any suggestions on which camera I should buy?

I can't recommend an XL2 over an XH A1 these days, but *any* camcorder that works, even at the low-end consumer $250 price point, will provide you with a valuable learning experience.

Optura Xi
 

Right now I have an Optura Xi. So I'm looking for a better camera to replace it.

I'm a recent college grad and cut my teath on canon gl2s and eventually got to use my university's xl1s and xl2. That said, the xl series cams that I used in no way provided a better "learning experience." You can certainly learn how to use your basic camera functions from either cam, but the a1 will provide you with more resolution and more latitude.

Suggest a camera for training videos
 

I'm working in Atlanta as an SEO Manager for an advertising firm, but because of previous video experience I'm also creating a video training capability here.

I'd love to have the company acquire one of the cameras I've used before like an JVC HD-100, Sony PD 150, PD 170 or Canon GL1 GL2.
However, the budget for this project is too small for that. We're putting together the edit PC, lighting, support and camera. The current budget puts us at only $ 700 to $ 1500 for the camera.

Unfortunately we can't buy used or we could get a used PD 150, GL2 or Panasonic GS400 with 3 chips. So that won't work.

We prefer to go DV rather than HD since the videos will all be down-rezzed for network and internet distribution. But HDV is possible since we'll edit with VEGAS 7.

Under these constraints, what's the best best new video camera, either 1 chip or 3 chips? Manual f-stop control is not crucial but nice to have.

OK, on reflection I say we shouldn't go HD because of the size of video files on the hard drive. We're starting with only 350 Gig of SATA drive space. On my home video PC, the HD 100 footage ate up most of my 400 G of space.

It just makes more sense to go with DV for eventual release on the network and internet.

Have a look at the just released Canon HV20. I believe it's selling for around $1100 at various vendors. BTW, it's anecdotal but many folks feel that starting with an HD master and down rezzing to SD results in a better image than shooting SD to begin with. It also allows you some leeway for framing because you can keyframe pans and tilts in the NLE. If you're shooting HDV, the data rate is 25mbs CBR, which is identical to mini-DV so hard disk storage requirements are identical.

Just my opinion,

-gb-

I second what Greg sys...look at the HV20. I have an HV10, and have been able to cut with my Canon XLH1 and Sony FX1.
Bruce yarock
www.yarock.com

Hmm, Need a shoulder mounted camera!
 

I've decided that I want a shoulder-mounted camera.
Not only for cosmetics, but also stability. I can't really hold a GS180 very well without shaking it a bit, so I want the next best thing! But....

I want to spend only about $600.

Why do camcorder manufacturers spend all their time cramming all these components into smaller casings, if you want to actually look professional!

I hope I'm not dreaming.

Monopod - $50

Sounds like the AG-DV7 might be your camera:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&sku=274107

You MIGHT find a used one close to your budget.

I think I'm going to get an XH A1 because they are only $250 more and they are obviously HD. Does the XH A1 shoot in SD also?

This is something I am also missing... guess I'm showing my age here, but I still long for those good old full size VHS Panasonics. Fortunately they still make a few shoulder mount miniDV camcorders.

I personally would hold off on the HD.

The HD world right now is a total mess, not to mention very expensive. By the time the smoke clears, the A1 will be history, old news, and the "A4" will be all the latest rage.

I would get an XL2, especially if you're just going to be shooting SD on the A1 anyways.


What kind of computer do you own, and what editing software are you using? Keep in mind the switch to HD is going to require a new fast computer and new editing software also.

I drool over the A1 every day. But I just don't think the right time to jump is now.

I have a MacBook Pro 15" with 2.33 core 2 duo and 2 gb of ram. I use Final Cut Studio for editing. I'l;l probably have to buy a new external HD with firewire 800 regardless of which one I get. But in the end, it comes down to price. If the XH A1 is only a tiny bit more, Ill take it. If not, Ill get the XL2.

"The HD world right now is a total mess, not to mention very expensive."

I would say that is more than a bit of an exaggeration. Computers that can edit HDV smoothly have been available for two years (>2GHz dual core). No, it wasn't smooth two years ago, but software improvements make those machines work nicely. Unless you have an outdated computer, HDV is not out of the question. It only cost me $350 to get Vegas 7, so that really isn't a stumbling block. I did have an outdated machine, so I had to upgrade. Not everyone will require this expense. Even so, I upgraded for less than $2000, so a total of $6000 to go from nowhere to HD isn't so bad.

There is also no reason to shoot on SD if you don't already have a quality SD rig. Shooting on HDV and down-converting often gives a better SD product and may keep your projects relevant for years to come.

There is no smoke and ruins in the HD world. The second generation of cameras has arrived and the first generation is still good. The distribution formats exist for about $600 and anyone that really wants/needs it can pay the same now as many videographers paid to go from VHS to DVD.

You don't need to wait for every single household in the world to go to HD before you upgrade. The benefits to HDV were present from day one.

On the other hand, if you already have a nice SD rig, you don't need to feel pressure to spend money. If your customers/audience is only using SD, you can put off the expenditure.

I'm going to back up what Chris Hurd said with a caveat. Any camera, with manual controls, will provide an excellent learning experience. Starting from zero, the expense of HD vs. SD isn't very great considering the increase in quality so it may be advantageous to start there (budget permitting). If you don't have the budget, a decent used DV camera and any old computer with a clean OS install will be a great learning tool.

That advice may make sense for someone who already has a good DV camera and isn't ready to spring $3-4K for an upgrade, but there's little reason to buy a DV-only camera any more. Get the XL-A1.

I think that sums it up better. Instead of all the blabbity-blah in my previous post; the advice repeated many times around here has been to buy what is best for you now. Technology keeps changing and you should change when it is beneficial for you.

On the other hand, don't get stuck in a hardware trap. You are the most important factor in determining the quality of your video. Although I generally think it is time for HD, there are some great DV cameras out there that are getting quite affordable that you can cut your teeth on. A cautious buy of a used model is also an option.

The best instrument you can afford
 

Being a musician, I don't see an issue in getting the best musical instrument you can afford. High school students regularly purchase expensive instruments because quality translates into better overall musicianship. Likewise, if you are frustarated by the available option on your current cam, then upgrade to the XH A1.

However, truly gifted musicians can play anything and be great. Charlie Parker (jazz legand) played a different sax all the time because he pawned them off for his addiction. But he always maintained that signature Charlie Parker sound. Likewise, if you give a great film maker any camcorder, you will get a great story. The tool isn't as important as the process of creating the art.

If you are a techno-junkie and want the latest gear, get the XH A1. It has lot's of features that will make a person a more knowledgable camera operator.

It comes down to wants and needs.
Want: This cam works but a better cam would work great.
Need: This cam fails as a tool.

Only you know where you're at on making this judgment call. I'm not. I just bought an XH A1 and an HV20 along with a decent tripod to shoot a ballet performance (Actually, I've been waiting for the HD dust to settle for a couple years. The XH A1 was the right cam for me.) When the performers see the finished DVD will they notice the improved quality over the PD150 I would have used? Only if they had seen video from both cams side by side, otherwise probably not.