I would go for the XH A1.
I own an XL1s and I think it's a terrific camera, but an XHA1 should be able to give you a better picture then an XL2, and you have as much manual control as you have on an XL camera, it's only different, the ergonomics are different.

I love the controls on an XL camera, everything has its own button, but the XH A1 is just a tooo good bang for the buck.
You can shoot SD now and later you don't have to upgrade to a new HDV camera.

Hopefully I can get it next year if I get enough money.

Hi Mel,

If you want to keep your GS180, why not either buy a shoulder mount unit to mount it on, or build one yourself ??

I've made my own shoulder mount unit to use with any of my 4 small Sony D8/MiniDV Cams.

The Mono-Pod mentioned, in my experience, will work for some applications, but the shoulder-mount is better suited for others.

Eirvin, I've still got one of the Panasonic S-VHS Shoulder Cam units that still works like new, at age 18 yrs.

Harold

my 2cents please...........

After all my reading, searching and questions I have come to the conclusion that..............BUY WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD!

I think someone here told me that too!lol

It's hard to know what you can afford, even if you have an exact figure on your bank statement. There are always so many accessories that can make a difference that it can be hard to know how much of your budget should be the camera. If you already have a good set of sticks and you have enough left over for a good case and at least one extra big battery, you can probably blow the rest of your budget on the camera. Of course, there are filters and lighting to think about, but that's a different story.

The great thing about even a low-end professional camera is that it retains some value. I doubt an XL2 will have quite the same resale value in five years as the XH-A1. It's already an older model and SD will start to fade some day.

"Hopefully I can get it next year if I get enough money."

In that case, I think you might want to listen to Chris Hurd and get a nice little consumer camera now so you can at least start shooting something. By next year, the XH-A1 may not be the best option so it is premature to be making a decision now.

I'm going to get it around February 2008. But I already have an Optura Xi, I just am going to get a lot better camera that I can keep for four years and then upgrade again before I go to college.

Based on this review:

http://www.videomaker.com/article/10057/

I'd say that the Optura Xi is already a perfect camcorder for cutting your teeth on.....(save the loading from the bottom bit).

It's hard to say right now what's going to be a good choice in Feb. 2008 -- a lot can happen between now and then. The Optura Xi is an excellent little camcorder and it should serve very well for you between now and then. No real need to change in my opinion, and you can wait until Dec. before thinking hard about a Feb. purchase. It's way too soon right now. Shoot with what you've got -- it's not holding you back from making great images today.

Yet another question on which camera
 

Hello.

Hoping for some help with camera recommendations.

Purpose: Film a documentary for mass distribution on DVD. Shots are mostly outdoor interviews w/ about 15%-20% of athletic motion.

Would like recommendations on 2 price ranges.
1) less than $2500
2) $2500 - $4000

Essentially I am looking for an idea of if this can be done well with a lower priced camera and if so, which one. Sound quality is also a major concern.

Thanks for any help & advice.

One important question is whether you want to shoot in 4:3 or 16:9...

1) Sony PD-170 for 4:3
2) Sony V1 (slightly over budget) or Canon A1 for 16:9

1 had better low-light capabilities, 2 is HDV, but can be down converted to SD for DVD purposes.

Have a look also at the Sony HDR-FX7

Thanks for the help so far.

As for 4:3 vs 16:9, that does not make that much of a difference in this purchase.

I prefer 16:9 but 4:3 could work for this project and the majority of my projects.

My biggest concerns would be picture & audio quality. I'm sure those are everyone's main conerns though! :)

what framerate do you want to shoot? Since your distribution is in SD, you may consider getting an SD camera, even if it's "service life" may seem shorter than an HD camera. Truth is, the current HD cameras will be quite obsolete by the time people start moving to Hd-DVD or Bluray en masse.

For outdoor interviews and action? Why not try a DVX-100? You can pick them up used VERY reasonably and still have plenty of cash for additional sound equipment/a decent tripod. Small, light, battery efficient, very usable audio, easy manual operation, flexible framerates. The other thing to consider too would be a used XL-1s or XL-2 with the Canon manual lens. People are whosale dumping SD gear right now, so you can certainly find some great deals on equipment that will knock your socks off for your purposes. If you're doing 60i, you may even be able to find a betacam or DVCAM with lens for less than a prosumer HDV camera.

Remember that your final product is DVD, and while it could be argued all day long the merits of shooting HD and downconverting, the workflow of SD for SD delivery is easy and proven in all current NLE's.

Yet another question on which camera
 

I like Jaron’s thinking about staying SD. I’m planning to make straight to video movies. As I prepare to purchase a camera (I’ve been in love the XL2 for years), I keep asking myself why shoot HD? Yeah, it sounds cool, looks great and sounds impressive to announce at parties but do I really need to be shooting HD?

My current Mac (with FCP) is geared for SD. It can handle SD with no problems. With HD I’ll probably have to upgrade my computer even further (more RAM, bigger hard drives, maybe even a new graphics card). If I stay with SD, I can use all that extra money to buy more lights, a better tripod and a better boom mic and so on. And while everyone is rushing to HD, keep in mind, many impressive projects have been shot in SD. Most of the time, it’s not the tool but the talent. I can have the world’s most high tech camera and Steven Spielberg will take an 8mm camera and still make a better movie than me.

So again, as I prepare to buy my first camera, I keep asking myself why shoot HD or even bother with an HD camera? Lord knows my target audience (urban America) don’t have HD televisions or HD players and won't for years to come.

So why should I shoot HD?????

I think you have things in the right perspective. Good lighting will make a far better picture than resolution alone. A good tripod will make smoother moves than a cheap tripod with a lot of resolution. And you remembered something I totally blanked on - the upgrade to HD computing ain't exactly cheap, esp. with HDV.

Right now, on broadcast TV there isn't a ton of true HD programming. There's a lot of uprezzed digibeta, etc... and fewer HD channels than content. And even still - content rules. And HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray? I enjoy my gadgets as much as the next guy, but even I'm sitting on the sidelines of this. I'll keep buying my SD DVD's until I know that the machine I buy won't be totally mothballed before I can get discs for it.

Get a second hand SD camera and milk everything you can out of it. It'll probably last you 2-3 years, at which point the camera will probably die, and HD cameras will be in a generation where the kinks are worked out. If you've always loved the XL-2, there are a few for sale on the classifieds here, a couple with the manual lenses. Excellent tools, some of the best bang for your buck available in SD, especially at the prices people are trying to get rid of em!

Thanks to everyone that responded.

What I am getting from all of this is that it is probably more important to surround my camera with good gear (lights, microphone, tripod, etc.) than the exact camcorder model.

I definitely will not need HD and will avoid that route.

Thanks again. If anyone still wants to weigh in on a certain camera model, I'd love to hear it but my budget will definitely be under $2500.

Best HD handheld camera can you recommend
 

Hello

I have the FX1 but want a small handheld for carrying around as most know the FX1 is pretty big for everyday use

Want another HD camera that is cheaper then the FX1 and will give the same sharp HD pictures as the FX1 does so I can match them in when editing

Make doesn’t really matter as long as it’s top quality HD pictures and can be mixed in with my FX1 footage on the timeline

Something that also records onto tape rather then built in hard drive

Thank you for the help

Hi Jim.......
 

Guess that would be the Canon HV20 then. Ticks all the boxes, has the cutest little "ding" when you power it up and seconds as a dinky paperweight when not in use to boot.

Cheers,


Chris

I have FX1, and agree that the Hv20 is a great companion camera for it. Actually will be able to match up with FX1 if you handle things right, and shoot both in 60i. Be forewarned, you will find yourself picking the HV20 up more and more, and the FX1 less.... It really has stunning image capability.

£2000 ($4000) to spend on camera - appreciate your ideas
 

I have about £2000 ($4000) to spend on a new/used camera and would really appreciate some input from forum members.

I currently have a Canon XM2 (GL2) which is excellent and will be kept as a backup/second camera, however I do need something a little more professional.

My main requirements are:

- Will be used mainly for interview/documentary work
- Prefer interchangeable lenses
- Need progressive option as most work is to be used on the web
- Shoulder mounted option is required
- HD is not essential at this stage

I was really aiming to get a JVC GY-HD110 but this is currently out of my price range. I have been considering second hand including...

Panasonic AG-DVC200E - http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/publi...nic_ag-dvc200e

JVC DV500 - http://www.bblist.co.uk/database/ind...tail=;daysnew=

Panasonic AJ-D400E - http://www.bblist.co.uk/database/ind...tail=;daysnew=

Sony DSR-300PK - http://www.proav.co.uk/product_info....aaa3b6aa813d5e

I would appreciate any feedback on my suggestions and maybe some other alternatives if you can. If anybody knows any other good UK used equipment web sites please post them.

Failing that I will keep saving for the 110...

Many thanks

A few more second hand options
 

Sony DSR-250P - http://www.mandy.com/1/class3.cfm?v=22279753

Panasonic AG DVC-200 - http://www.mandy.com/1/class3.cfm?v=22140625

Sorry I guess I have posted a much asked question.

Anyway I think I have now narrowed it down to either the Panasonic AG-DVC200E or the JVC DV500. I believe the 1/2" chips have to be worth it for a little extra DOF.

I realise that neither of these cameras are progressive. Does anyone have any comments on de-interlacing vs progressive for the web?

Of course if anyone has any alternative cameras that I might consider I am very interested.

Alex

There are some smart deinterlacers out there, that project movement and compensate for that. You say you will be working for the web, so I assume you will resize your video to something like 360x240 - at that resolution you will be perfectly fine no matter what you used for filming. So concentrate on your main format and make sure the camera suits your needs for that.

Hi Ervin,

Thanks for your response.

I am now down to choosing between:


New @ £3K - JVC GYHD110 (which I don't actually have the money for)

Pro's - New, full warranty, extra features, has battery

Con's - 1/3" chip, more expensive, will lose value quicker?, no tripod plate


Used @ £2k - Panasonic AGDVC200 (which I can afford - considering http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/publi...nic_ag-dvc200e)

Pro's - 1/2" chips, comes with bag , rain cover, tripod plate, should hold value better than new item?

Con's - doesn't come with batteries, only get 90 day warranty, not as upto date as JVC, second hand

now I am not sure which way to go...

Alex

advice on camera for in aircraft cockpit shots
 

Hi,
I wonder if anyone can help with advice on a camera that I can use to mount on the dash of a small aircraft to take vision of passengers reaction while taking a joy flight. I have recently bought a triple chip Panasonic which records on DVD but it keeps stopping. The only thing I can think of is because of the vibration. Any ideas? It is great except for the stopping. As a budget i didnt want to spend much more than $1000.

You might consider the Sony DCR-HC96. It is a MiniDV and has a 1/3 inch chip so the low light performance is not bad. It also had a RGB primary colour filter so in decent light the picture is pretty good. It is reasonably compact as well. You can also purchase a Sony highgrade wideangle lens for it.

It also takes 3.3 megapixel images.

It is not HD though and with your budget that is probably something you could consider.

Thanks Curt,
I need the camera to take 16.9 and SD is fine as it has to match other SD footage for cutaways etc. Have you had any experience with cameras recording on disc. It keeps shutting itself off and i feel the vibration must be doing it. Also the $1000 I mention is A$ not US.

The only experience I have had with cameras that record on mini DVDs is editing which was a pain both in getting the footage onto my machine and editing as well (I edit on Sony Vegas).

I have a DCR90 and it has a wide screen option with the press of a button. I assume the newer DCR96 has the same feature. Whether it is 'true 16:9' I will leave for others to answer.

Used pro SD camera or new prosumer HD camera?
 

Hey Guys,

Just after some opinions. A whole bunch of old broadcast cameras (betacam SP, DVcam) have popped up on ebay (Australian version) recently, at very competitive prices to the new prosumer HDV cameras.

I've also notice that on the program for a local film festival (St. Kilda Film Festival) the majority of the films have been shot on Betacam SP - and from what I can see they look considerably more professional and film-like than most of what I've seen from HDV cameras. Is that simply the result of larger 1/2" and 2/3" sensors regardless of the resolution?

I understand the old-tech/new-tech argument. It's just that to my eye, the old pro cameras seem to produce more professional looking images than the new prosumer cameras (please correct me if I'm wrong on this, the best camera I've been able to work with thus far is a Canon XL1s).

Which choice is going to allow me to produce the most professional looking short films? (that's pretty much what I'm after)

Hi Mark...........
 

The reason for the wealth of s/h SD ex - studio/ broadcast cameras is the governments push to get the networks to ramp up to HD (not that the networks are happy about it).

And some cracking deals no doubt are available. And some cracking cameras to boot. In addition there is probably a warehouse full of ancillary stuff to actually deal with the footage also going spare.

If I was in your shoes, I would buy the best s/h 16:9 SD cam you can and gear to run it and go do. There is no way on the planet that Aus is going to go HD in the near future (by which I mean 100% HD widescreen). You could have a ball for the next 3 - 4 years shooting stuff on gear that originally cost 10 - 15 - 20 times what you're going to pay for it, and some of that footage will be magic!

If you go the HD route now, there is no delivery system, the editing is somewhat chaotic and HDV IS NOT the best HD solution on the planet. HD still has a great deal of growing to do and there is still a lot of life in the 'ol SD system yet.

HOWEVER - take note that that equipment has/ is used by guys who have been shooting with the same/ similar gear for 10 - 15 years and are absolute experts at getting the best video out of them, no matter what.

The people who are shooting HDV are, by definition, newbies to the HDV game and as such you cannot compare the O/P from one medium to the other quite so easily.

If you are a complete newbie, SD is easier, in that it is far more forgiving, but will still show up total amateurism. HD makes it stand out like a sore thumb and smacks you over the head for your troubles.

As for your final question - forget the medium, think about your dedication to making them look profesional. Nothing in a box will ever replace the dedication of a good camerman/ director etc etc etc.

In short - if you're good, the film will be good. If you're crap - well, do the math!

Cheers,


Chris

The reason the Betacam stuff generally looks better will be because of the crew and expertise behind it. Also, Betacam has never been a consumer format, so anyone working with it generally has had money behind the project, meaning both experience, equipment and crew beyond just the camera - something a lot of prosumer shooters are lacking (having spent all their money on just buying a camera and editing system and not having the mindset to just hire the gear they need each shoot.).

Quality image s about the shooter and lighting way more than it is about the camera. Good ancillaries (matteboxes/filters), good lenses, good support gear, a good workflow is all more important than the pixel count 99% of the time (especially with the internet becoming a viable and major distribution platform - where you are not limited to a single broadcast standard).

Those were both great responses and I wanted to add that a used Beta SP camcorder will be pretty rugged and will also have a nice industrial-grade lens. In combination with the larger CCDs this can get you shallower DOF and a bigger-looking, more cinematic image than a small prosumer camera (provided of course you use it skillfully).

Yeah, terrific answers. Thanks guys. I'm definitely going to take a look at a few of these used broadcast cameras.

Hi again......
 

One caveat I would add to what's been said above, on reflection, is that you would be wise to get the help of someone seriously "in the know" about this gear and the workflow required to use it before parting with any cash.

As with anything s/h, if you don't know what to look for, you aren't going to see it till it's too late. Additionally, again as with anything declared commercially "redundant", it will be the most heavilly used, possibly damaged kit that makes the hit list first. Repairs costs on this sort of stuff can be astronomical (which can possibly explain some of that "great deal").

Don't get me wrong, I still think it's the way to go in your circumstance, but "Caveat Emptor" (?) rules OK!

Cheers,


Chris

Help - I can't decide which camera to use
 

I have been asked to tape, edit and produce a DVD for a motorcycle drag racing series this summer. This would be my first paying job. Not a lot of money, but enough to take it serious. They were not happy with the pro who did last years, so I know I need to do a better job than he did.

But I have a camera decision problem...

History:
I was asked to do this by the series promoters because they, and the racers, like the personal video I shot last year. Video I edited and placed on my web site for family, friends and fellow racers to view. In fact I compiled a nice DVD of the season and sold every copy I made (30+) at the season's end banquet. (Made a little cash)

Problem:
I shot everything last year on a little Panasonic GS250, which has very nice resolution and decent 16:9, which I prefer.
But, over the winter I bought a Canon GL2 which I love, I have more control over the picture, etc., etc. I also have the Century 16:9 adapter.
I think I can get a nicer picture with the GL2, but I know the resolution of the GL2 isn't quite as good as the GS250.

I need to decide which camera will be better for this job.
I want to use the more profesional camera, but I don't want complaints that the picture wasn't as clear as last year.

I'm going to talk to the client and try to feel out what he is looking for, but beyond that I'm not sure which way to go.

(I don't have a lot of time to try both cameras as I also race the series)

Sorry for the long post and thanks for any thoughts,
Bob T.

Use 'em both!
 

I'd use both cameras. Use the 16x9 adapter on the GL2, and give the GS250 to another racer to get some different shots. Give him simple instructions: avoid zooming, hold steady for at least five seconds, don't talk, get as close as you can. The footage from the GS250 could make for real useful B-roll...sometimes you get surprisingly good footage from someone who knows nothing about videography.

As far as the picture quality goes, my guess is that many of the people will not be able to tell the difference between the footage from the two cams - especially once it's converted to DVD format. You sold them on your previous presentation due to your camera angles and editing, not the pixel-by-pixel technicalities of the picture.

Just make sure you get the Panny back from the fellow racer. ;)

I'd go with the GL2. The image is just as good or better than the 250 IMO, and it has twice the zoom. Which means you can get better shots from behind the wall, where with the 250 you might need to jump out in the water box with them.

Use them both, even if one sits on a tripod, unattended (find a good spot for it). Other qualities (full manual control) of the GL2 will make up for the difference!

All good answers, thanks....
I'll bring both cameras and rely on the GL2. My wife knows how to operate the 250, so I'll let her get some shots with that.
I'm interested to see how well the two cameras can be matched anyway.

I think I'm just nervous about shooting for money and not fun....

Thanks,
BT