I need expert help PLEASE!!! Most Versatile Camera
 

I am in an undergound Hip Hop group who has recently signed a record deal and is in the process of recording our new CD. I plan on filming a DVD called "A Year in the Life Of Potluck" I want to film... recording in the studio, touring (behind the scenes and the actual performances), mettings at the record label, interviews, home life, etc... basically every situation imaginable.

The biggest problem I have is that it will take me a year to film, several months to edit it, and 3-5 months to properly market the release. So I am looking at a minimum of 2 years before this thing hits the store shelves.

Technology changes so fast. What type of camera should I get now that can film all the things I need it to film now and still keep up with what will be on the shelves 2 years from now.

I am a newbe to cameras this will be my first one ever. I have looked on alot of forums and searched google for info. This is what i have learned i should get.

AVCHD
3ccd's
mpeg 4 technology
1080i
front facing mic
2.7 wide screen LCD
record onto minidv tapes

I have a budget of $500 but.... the give my very last dollar for my struggling career budget is $1000

I know all of you on here know more about cameras then me and some should feel my indie struggle. Can anyone PLEASE give me some advice?

Is this a joke? $500? It will cost you more than that for tapes>

Help Please!!! Dont be Mean
 

I am very green when it comes to cameras but I am not an idiot. The budget is for the camera only. Sorry if I was confusing in the original post.

You weren't confusing- its just that your project is probably very much more difficult than you think it is, and frankly I don't think you can do it... yet.

You are off by an order of magnitude on the camera alone for a project like this.

I recommend either a Panasonic HVX200 or a Sony XDCAM EX1.

In your case I lean towards the HVX200. It is an older camera, but a good one. It has a more mature "ecosystem."

The HVX200 is about $5500

The EX1 is about $6500

I'd skip recording to MiniDV cassettes. You want to archive your footage onto hard drives.

Now, that's just what I think about the camera.

If you want my real advice, scale this project back A LOT.

For starters try producing a "road" video.

Get a cheap camera, shoot your own behind the scenes footage. Hire a decent lighting cameraman (Or a DP or a videographer) to shoot live footage of one of your more popular songs. Let them bring their own camera or hire one for the day.

As far as the bits you shoot yourself- I advise you to take at least a day course in camera operation. If you are near a major city you should be able to find one nearby. If nothing else you should be able to hire a pro camera operator to show you the ropes for a day or two.

If you are a student, try and get permission to "shadow" a local news camera operator. I did this early on and I learned a TON. Stupid simple stuff and tricks you might otherwise spend years figuring out and collecting.

Then get an editor to edit it together. I don't mean your uncle who's always tinkering with "that stuff" I mean a professional editor. At least a senior film student. They'll put together your behind the scenes stuff with the stuff from the "real" camera operator.

See how that turns out, then revisit this idea.

Seriously. At this point its very clear that you don't know what you don't know. Take a little time, and tackle some smaller stuff first. You'll learn a lot and your big project will turn out much better as a result.

Good luck

Sorry James. I wasn't trying to be mean but $500 for a camera!! A decent still digital camera costs that. I am afraid I don't understand. The cheapest 3ccc tape camera in Australia would have to be over $1000 and that would be only good enough for family holidays.

Two of your requirements puts things significantly over your budget:

3CCD
1080i

Hi-def 3CCD camcorders are $3000 and up.

To record to miniDV tape, your single option is HDV. AVCHD/MPEG4 camcorders record to an internal hard disk or mini DVD-Rs.

Some of Sony's HDV camcorders use CMOS imaging sensors instead of CCD and even their higher end ones use a single CMOS sensor - they are highly rated and don't suffer from some the problems the CCDs do. i.e., reviewers report that 1 x CMOS = 3 x CCD. Whether that's exactly true is another matter but they certainly perform well.

But even at this level, you are looking at at least $1500 to get something new that has a decent level of manual control.

That brings you into the realm of used equipment. Just recently, I got a barely used Sony HDR HC-1 off eBay for $1100.

$500 will limit you to the lower end of consumer units that offer little manual control.

Something will have to give. Some of the options you have listed are good, but push the camera way out of your price range. Given your financial situation, the best solution that comes to mind in the Canon HV20 with an external mic. It is a consumer HDV camcorder, can be found for $699. Despite being almost a year old, it still beats anything else in its class, and is a favorite of indie filmmakers.

I'll back Tom's advice and point you at the Canon HV20. This is the one camera that appeared last year that raised everybody's eyebrows, and the performance for the dollar is just unbelievable. It's just been replaced by the black face-lifted 30 version (really no different) so the 20 is the one to aim for at your budget point James.

The good thing is that it's HDV and records onto super-cheap and super-available and super-reliable MiniDV tapes. You'll need a wide-angle converter on day two and a little mic (Sennheiser MKE300?) and away you go.

At first reading your post I'd have aimed you at a second hand Sony FX1, something like that. And I'd still not discount it because of its good low light capability (you're going to need that by the sound of things), its toughness (same build as the war-zone Z1) and the great balance of features.

Whatever you buy, get out there and shoot lots. And I mean lots. Watch back home and be critical of what you see. Learn to use the manual controls for sure, but shoot, shoot, shoot. There's no other way of gaining experience other than growing old.

tom.

I'll echo the other comments: can't be done for that price. I have the Canon HV 20. It's more than $500. Although it's a wonderful camera, I wouldn't want to shoot your project with it. It's a little lacking in professional capabilities and, of course, it is not 3 CCD.

I'd add that you will need way more than $500 just for audio. The built in mics on almost all cameras are pretty lousy if you want good results. A wireless lav and or proper boom mic, alone, will be more than $500. Audio is often overlooked but it's the quickest way to turn a good project into a home movie.

Cheers

Rather than set a budget, then attempting to find something that might work, ask yourself what you want it to look and sound like.

What's the final product going to be? Where is it going to be presented? What are the expectations of your intended audience?

First determine what you want for a final product. Then figure out what you will need to achieve that goal. Then find the best price for that set of equipment. And if you don't have the cash to pull it off, find a way to finance it.

Trying to do it the other way around -- get cheap equipment, then struggle to get something for IMax screens -- will lead only to frustration and disappointment.

Of course, if this is just a hobby then it doesn't matter. But if you want to launch a career, then you have to think in terms of investment and a return on that investment. It's a business and has to be dealt with on those terms.

Most of all, if it matters, don't be sloppy about it. For every "Blair Witch" success, there's a vast plain of failures. Don't use films like that as a standard to measure your own efforts. Audiences have become very savvy in recent years. And when it comes to HD programming, their expectations are high. With a hundred channels of TV shows at their fingertips, it doesn't take much to lose an audience.

I'll go along with everyone else re the advice so far. I also agree that you need to consider audio and good mics are not cheap, nor are they all that easy to use well. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising for the audio gear to cost substantially more than the camera.

It's been said dozens of times, and it's true, that you can get away with crappy video a lot more easily than with crappy audio. The ear is vastly more discerning than the eye, and the point of any kind of musical performance be it symphonic or rap is the sound. The visual stuff is the accompaniment! Think about it - a lot of people buy music with no video. How many do you think would buy video with no music?

How long do you think you'd watch your group jump around if they were silent?

One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned yet is what you will need to support the camera. Hand held cameras, particularly small cameras, seem to amplify the normally shaky motion of your hands and after a few minutes will turn most viewers off pretty completely. You'll also soon discover that tripods etc intended for still cameras do a prety poor job of supporting video cameras. Nothing to do with the weight, mind you, just the fact that video is about capturing motion and still camera supports flex and wiggle alarmingly when used with video cameras.

You'll also need some kind of software editing suite to cut out about 90 or 95% of what you shoot and pare it down into the the 5% or so that people would want to watch/hear.

Video technology has advanced by light years and you can buy surprisingl good technology for surprisingly little. The dirty little secret is that it isn't anywhere near as easy to use well as the advertising would have you think. Just look at any advertisement and you'll see smooth shots of smiling people. If they used REAL hand held shots that looked remotely like what most users get, the customers would disappear faster than beer at a frat party. And the on camera sound would be even worse.

I don't think anyone here is trying to dissuade you and all of us would love for you to go out and shoot a super video and prove us all wrong. But we also don't want to see you invest money and time without a good appreciation of the magnitude of the task in front of you.

Yet for 50 years or so amateur movies were silent and much more popular than amateur tape recordings, so pictures are still king.

But know what you mean Jim, and yours is a very good post.

tom.

Tom,

Great point!

There's something I think really interesting in what you said re amateur movies. Namely, they were MOVIES on FILM. In other words, the "recorders", if you were to call them that, were quite portable and rather sophisticated. Sound recording in the same period would have entailed carrying a massive amount of equipment about with you. I had an open reel recorder in the late 50's that was supposed to be "portable" because it had a carrying handle. I think TRANSportable would have been more accurate. It weighed around 25 pounds. (I still have it by the way) And the "technical" term for the results was "Sucko". Bad sound to the nth power.

I also remember some of the early "portable" video camera setups - a tape recorder that you slung over one shoulder and a camera attached by umbilical cord to the recorder. I think the total setup weighed more than 25 pounds - and you got a grainy black and white (or maybe washed out gray) image for your pains.

The contrast between the magnetic and film recording technologies was staggering.

The situation today is so different - people have become so used to high quality professional sound and video that home movie level video wouldn't be tolerated by anyone except the proud parents of the little tyke taking his or her first steps.

If I had to guess, I'd suspect that 80% or more of the consumer video gear sold today winds up in a dresser drawer after the novelty wears off- which I think is also where most of the amateur movie cameras wound up. Editing was (and is!) such a chore that most normal people won't do it.

Regardless of the technology, pointing the camera and pushing the button is a vanishingly small part of the effort required to produce anything people would want to look at or listen to.

I'll agree that its not the best for the job, but his is one post that tells me that stretching the budget is not going to be an option. If it comes down to shooting the video with the HV20 or not at all, definitely shoot it with the HV20 (with an external mic). In good hands it could handle this project, but its going to take some practice with it to make it good.

Thanx to ALL Update #1
 

I appreciate all of the people who came on here to give me advice. I am real rookie at this stuff as one person put it, "I don't even know what I don't know". I have spent 10 years in a recording studio environment so I know how dealing with a person like that can be. This makes me even more great full for all of your help.

Thanks to your advice this is where I am at right now and I left out a very important piece of info the first time.

1. The footage will be edited by a professional who edits music videos and DVD's for the bigger groups on our label.

2. Also when we tour with bigger acts and do bigger venues I have access to professional crews who shot for the bigger acts. These guys in the past have
been able to shoot a show or two for me per tour with all of their pro gear.

So this camera would be for mostly behind the scenes stuff, impromto interviews, and some of the show footage. I can record audio directly from the sound board at live shows in most venues and some venues even have crowd mics set up already and they can give me a submix that includes crowd noise.

Overall I want this thing to have a raw feeling. Our story told through our eyes. To some way capture the feeling of 10+ years of hard work paying off in the biggest year of our career (Hopefully) maybe the disappointment of thinking it was going to be the biggest and not be. Regardless of my skills with a camera this year is going to happen and it is going to be a story. I wanna try my best to do it justice on a DVD.

I want me and my partner to be able to operate it solo. It seems a major suggestion is to get an external mic. Can this mic be mounted on the camera? Which mic would you recommend?

I have a separate budget for a tripod ($50)? any recommendations?

In addition to the cameras recomended how do the following cameras compare they appear to have alot of the features I need.

Panasonic HDC-SD9 (No mini DV tapes)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1198888991200

Panasonic PV-GS320 (Not HD)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1166236106283

Thanks again for everyone's advice

Your point 1) says immediately that you should talk to the editor before taking another breath. If he can't access AVCHD files or doesn't want 4:3 footage or insists on HDV, you should know this up front.

You talk of impromptu interviews, so a tie-clip mic is probably the best idea. Of course a radio mic (the Samson AM1 would probably suit the budget you're talking of) is ideal - letting you move and not having trailing wires.

A short shotgun on camera mic (Sennheiser MKE300D) is next best, but the in-built mics on cameras are really only good for buzz tracks. As a recording studio man, you know that a cheap mic up close beats an exppensive mic further away every time.

A tripod - any tripod will be good. Bean bags are good, anything that adds stability is good. There's a place for run 'n' gun, but do have some rock steady shots for the editor as well.

And don't forget the wide-angle converter. I don't want you hose-piping the groupies inside that Transit van.

tom.

I knew you were having a lend of us.

the best camera for the price
 

Hi

This is my first post, im hoping if someone can tell me witch is the better carmea for the price, im using it for a greenscreen moves, i think the Panasonic AG-DVX100B uses dvd disks and the sony uses a chip, im i right?
i use after effects for my editing.


Panasonic AG-DVX100B
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...del=AG-DVX100B

thank you for any help..



Sony HVR-A1U

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.a...U&sku=SNHVRA1U


thank you for any help..

Tom,
Well, actually they both record to miniDV tapes. But an important difference is that the DVX100 is STANDARD DEFINITION while the A1U is HIGH DEFINITION.

The DVX100 is know for having very good natural-looking color, versatile video adjustments, and the ability to record in progressive mode. Also, it's probably better in low-light conditions.

The A1U is one of the least expensive "pro" high definition camcorders. (In this context, I'm using "pro" to mean having XLR mic inputs, and more video adjustments than a "consumer" camcorder.)

If you're doing stuff for the internet, I'd go with the DVX100. If you're doing ultra low-budget features (or shorter movies) to enter in film festivals, I'd say go with the A1U. (Although, in the past, the DVX100 has been very popular for ultra low-budget features; but now high definition seems to be the way to go.)

Hope this helped.
Ken

Also take a look at the Canon Hv20/HV30 and the Sony V1U.

"I'm using it for a greenscreen moves"
 

It is my understanding the Sony A1U has a 4:2:0 chroma subsampling which supposedly does not lend itself that well for chromakey. I don't do this, so not that versed on the details, but you can find threads here and a wikipedia.org topic on chroma subsampling to help you understand if this is going to be an issue for you.

I also believe it is discussed in Douglas Spotted Eagle's book, HDV: What you need to Know - an excellent reference IMO. Found at www.vasst.com

This is true for all the DV cameras, whether HDV or not. You can get good chroma keys if you take the time and make the effort to light it properly, and then use decent keying software. But if you're doing mostly chroma key work it is best to get out of the DV/HDV world, I think. And the cheapest thing in that realm would be the HVX200, and while it would be better for chroma key work, it would not be better for some other things. If you're editing with FCP, then chroma keying DV/HDV is a bit of a hassle; I've got better keys with Avid's keying but with FCP bought DVGarage (I can't recall the exact name, something like that) and its keying was better. Still, you have to put forth more effort to get decent keys, and the wider your shot the more problematic it becomes.

Another person lost in a thread
 

This thread is overwhelming and frankly after sifting though pages I am still a bit lost. Possibly can someone direct me to where i need to be looking?
Or answer these Questions

1) Where can I find a trusting source to purchase used cameras online?
2) Where can I find a local place to rent camera and equipment?
3) What the lowest price pro camera for shooting weddings? with good low light capabilities, haven’t decided if I want to invest in HD.


My background:
I am really into editing and have specialized in special events. I want/need to learn camera techniques to expand business opportunities. I want a camera that is reasonably priced, the lower the better (but who doesn’t?). Beginner friendly, but also have room to grow. Also room to be flexible like sporting events and possible underwater capabilities.
I understand there is no one perfect camera

1. Our trusted sponsor B&H has a used video gear section on their website www.bhphotovideo.com

3. Pro means different things for different people. Event videographers love the high end prosumer/low end professional Sony PD150/170 for its excellent low light capability and B&H occasionally has a used one for sale. When you decide to go HD, you have a host of options, again some Sony cameras are good in low light.

2. Google

when you purchase your XH A1 :) call up Canon and get a list of official dealers

Are there any camera, mic rental places in Orlando that you know of?

HD/HDV camera shopping
 

Hey folks, i am about to step into the HD/HDV world with a camera purchase. I have been shooting with a PD-170 and a JVC DV500.
I will be shooting interviews(some green screen), documentary field productions. I also will be renting out my services for day shoots (so compatibility with other productions companies equipment is of some concern).

I have been looking at the staples...Pan HVX200, Sony V7U, JVC HD200. I have just recently began to look at Canon, such as the A1 and the G1, although i am not sure what the G1 does that the A1 doesn't.

The idea of flash storage appeals to me, but also does the idea of the ability to downconvert to SD 16:9(which, sadly, seems to discount the Pan HVX200). Most of my current stuff will be mastered to SD but would like to at least show it in 16:9. IO would, however, like to acquire footage in HD and have the option to master in HD or SD.

I want to pull the trigger on the Panasonic but am apprehensive due to the previous issue and the issue with older CCDs, although the picture quality says more than any specs can say.

So, with that, let me know what you guys think. I probably could add more info here, but i have to go for now. I will try to check back later and add more if needed.


thanks

I encourage you to do the down-conversion in the computer (which works for any camera) instead of in the camera. You can use better algorithms (sinc, lanzcos) and codecs.

You probably didn't mention the EX-1 because you need long-form recording at a low price; but if you can make it work with just a few extra 8 GB cards, I would encourage you to justify the expense.

David...

If you're used to shooting with a PD-170 then you might want to look at the EX1 and not the HVX. I work with both and the EX1's ability to capture images under low light is far better than the HVX.

The EX1 also provides 3 times more recording time per gigabyte then the HVX.

David, the G1 is the same but has what they call the Jack Pack, giving you some cool outputs and genlock capability. For most of us it's not worth the extra money, unless you do lots of multi camaera shoots.

I have done the in-camera downconvert directly to DVCAM tape and it looked the same as when I've downconverted in the computer, so that's a good feature.

The HVX200 will cost you a lot more by the time you buy enough P2 cards to shoot for a day. If you're doing documentary work, I would not recommend it unless you can afford plenty of cards, and then have the time to load all your footage and make backups on hard drives or DLT or something.

As far as compatibility with others...if they have an HDV deck, and if you shoot in the 60i mode, you'll be fine. But Canon's 24 frames per second mode won't play in a Sony deck (and neither will JVC's for that matter). But at least you can give someone a tape. With the HVX you would have to take the camera and load the footage and then make a tape using a deck.

You might also want to look at the new Sony Z7, which is HDV but also will record to a flash memory device that attaches to the back. These cards are relatively cheap, compared to P2. However, before getting too far into tapeless recording, give some serious thought to the workflow. I have a documentary going now that's into close to 30 tapes. That would be a lot of hours of capturing footage, making backups, then making DLT or BluRay backups because I wouldn't want all my original footage living only on a hard drive. The irony of using DLT (tape) to archive a tapeless format is definitely there, but that's what lots of folks do. Sony has a small, cheap (relatively--it's about $2500) burner that you can use to make XDCAM HD discs of your EX1 footage, which is nice. But you still have to capture the footage and then make the discs. If you're out of town on a documentary shoot, this would be problematic unless you could afford enough cards to get you through the shoot. Same holds true for P2. With the EX, however, you get more footage per card, so it's not quite as much of a problem.

Well... I think you should wait until after the news at NAB. This is a bad time to buy a camera. a week or two from now you might need to make a totally different decision.

I don't normally advocate waiting like that- but NAB is just a week or so away now. (April 11-17)

If I were buying right now then I'd look seriously at the Sony PMW-EX1, The Panasonic HPX500 and the Panasoninc HVX 200. That's it.

So you have my actual advice to wait, and a few choices if you have to buy right now.

As far as the difference between the Canon XH-G1 and XH-A1... as someone else alluded its the "Jack Pack." The most important feature there is HD/SDI output, which effectively can turn that camera into a 1920x1080 4:2:2 camera recording any codec you choose. That and the ability noted elsewhere to do genlock for multicamera productions. Its something you may never use- but you definitely should look into it... because if you do need it is worth far more than the price difference.

Confused
 

well guys sorry for interrupting but i read so many threads in so many places but still didn't get the difference between 24p and 25p or 50i/60i it seems so complicated which i don't even want to know anymore.... anyway Im a wedding videographer usually and sometimes Events like concerts, and now trying to move from DV to HD, i just want to know what is the best frame rate when filming a wedding movie i think concerts and weddings are the same except the lighting part, quality matters a lot
Thank You guys and sorry if I'm asking in wrong place

All you need to know is that 60i mode is the best except maybe in low light. ;)

If you're not sure and you've no time to shoot and critically evaluate some A / B test footage, I'd say stick to capturing clean, unfiltered, default shutter speed, interlaced footage. You can then muck about with it in post to give you all sorts of clever arty effects, but your client base (beautiful brides) may not want to have it looking thus up front and irreversible.

tom.

For weddings the only advantage to 24fps would be that you might gain a half stop or so under low light because you'd be shooting 24 frames per second at a 1/48 shutter speed, over 30 frames per second at a 1/60 shutter speed.

As far as 50i/60i, 50i/25fps is for PAL countries. In NTSCland we have 60i/30fps.

All you need to know is that 60i mode is the best except maybe in low light. ;)

so guys ur saying that interlace is better than progressive in my work anyway i wanted to add that im in a pal country but once i heard that NTSC works on Pal but PAL wont work on NTSC, if thats true i can work NTSC because now Camcorders usually shoot in both modes. but guys isnt 25p less art effects than 50i ? or i got that wrong too ?

Stay with 50i/PAL
 

24p is the "film look" - unless you're after that, just shoot interlaced. The main difference is that 24p has an almost jerky look - depends on the viewer's eye (and how you train your eye), but most of us can see that you have a series of still images; with interlaced, the picture is so smooth, you can't tell it's a series of stills.

While NTSC camcorders are less expensive (if bought in the USA), don't get fooled by the idea that "NTSC works on Pal but PAL wont work on NTSC" - it's not that simple. Not sure exactly what are you referring to here, but if you are talking about DVD players and TV sets, the affirmation is only half true. While *some* DVD players will play both standards, some won't - and the same is true over here in the States, I have 3 DVD players, all play PAL (output NTSC) but not all players will do that.

I think it's safe to advise you to keep shooting 50i/PAL at least until you get a deeper understanding of the different modes/frame rates; then decide what to do. In any case, shooting 60i won't do much good to you, the two modes you might think about are 50i and 24p.

I hope this helps.

P.S. You have a very nice website!

Thanks Ervin it was helpfull

ok for now i will stick with 50i and 24p but why not 25p ?
now on my weddings i use different kind of camcorders like usually my wedding are 4 cameras the one on Jimmy jib is Dsr-400 with 4.8 wide angle on steadycam also
on tripod is dsr-250 and on the floor small camera Dsr-170 thats why im thinking now because its hard to decide which camera to buy i was thinking of buying One EX1 and two Z7's or instead two Z7's one z7 and one S270.
like this i can use the s270 on the jimmy jib with a wide lense and ex1 on the floor and the other on the tripod and when i need one for steady i rent one s270 i think all of these cameras can shoot 50i or 24p
what do u think ?
and one another thing guys i was today one of sony dealer shops he told me that if i wanna put 2/3 lens on z7 it needs converter which wont give us the true quality of 2/3 is that true ?

thanks about the website Ervin in 2 days it will be finalized u can check again

Brand New to DV
 

OK so I am brand new to DV and pretty much have no idea what I'm doing but am finally in a position to start learning (the hard way or course). I'm looking to complete at least one short film this year and then hopefully get to work on an (ultra) low budget feature. Anyway, in the market for a camera and after reading several pages of this thread got dizzy and decided to just throw myself on the mercy of the experts. Here are the things that characterize my possible projects

edited on Final Cut Pro 5

some will be shot in Black and White

Looking to get as close to a "film look" as possible (just like everyone, I know)

Low light performance is a big plus

different aspect ratios (depending on project)

intend to do some post production tinkering with the image (don't know if that matters)


I took a long hard look at the GL2 but was unimpressed by a lot of the reviews, recently I've looked at the Panasonic AG-DVX100B and it looked a lot better suited to my needs. I've also taken a glance at the Sony HVR-A1U but since I really don't know exactly what I'm doing I'd like to get some opinions before I drop any cash. I'd love to stay in the $2000 range. Thanks

I would go with an HDV camera-- in this case the A1U --because of a number of issues:

-compositing/special effects/post-processing always works better at higher resolution
-but you can film in HDV and import as DV if you don't need the higher resolution
-the light sensors on those Sony HDV cameras really do excellently in low light. I've shot a lot of footage with a Z1U, which I think has the same basic optical/processing hardware, and it's done excellently in low light. Better than Panasonic, in my humble opinion (though not by much)
-any camera will let you shoot interlaced (60i), but if you deinterlace in Final Cut/After Effects, to emulate a progressive scan image, it looks more film-like. 30p and 24p don't look that different. I personally think that the "film look" is more in progressive, whole frames than it is in framerate. That's my personal belief.
-the Panasonic HVX-200 (now HVX-200a, or the upcoming HPX-170) really wins the versatility battle, allowing you to shoot overcranked, fluid slo-mo footage, DV/HD, 16:9/4:3, etc..., but for over double what you're looking to spend. Plus, P2 cards aren't everyone's favorite. (I work with them just fine, and absolutely love the HVX-200.)
-the Sony A1U, V1U, Z1U cameras will let you shoot in 16:9 or 4:3, but the Panasonic DVX-100/a/b only shoots in 4:3 unless you use an expensive optical matte box, which you may not want to bother with. If you get the A1U and shoot everything in HD 16:9 you can crop and down-compress to DV at any point. And the whole thing is shot on cheaper, easier to archive tapes--less hassle than P2 cards.

A1U is probably your winner, combining a beautiful picture, plenty of options (though not as many as a Pana P2 camera), and a really affordable price. That's my recommendation, though you'll get made fun of in some circles for shooting on HDV-- it's not "true" HD. It'll look great, though. Just deinterlace in post-production.