mkII or XL2
 

This is probably a very strange question. Should I be looking at a mkII or an XL2? I know nearly nothing at this point. I intend this to be a sole camera, specifically for the purpose of learning (and shooting shorts/features as a side effect). I have a nearly zero experience (at the moment I just point and shoot (it's not mine, and my friend wouldn't be happy with tinkering around in the menu to get manual controls) with a consumer HD camera, and I want something that I can use to learn about shooting. Workflow is insignificant to me at the moment since I'd have to adapt to either one. What i can see so far is:

mkII:
sexy DOF
no 24p, no full manual
stills would only be a bonus to me, so maybe this is a waste of resources?
I can borrow good SLR lenses for this.
I don't intend to do documentary or guerilla work so the discreteness doesn't yet seem to be an advantage to me.

XL2:
SD
I don't see myself getting a 35mm adapter for this anytime soon
more manual controls (I think)
Potentially cheaper because I can get it used, though I haven't seen any recently around here and they still go for 3K retail.
XLR
Looks big like a camera -> better impression on people I have to work with.

I'm not really sure about the big drawbacks to either system, though, and how easy it would be to deal with. Obviously for the sake of image quality and DOF the mkII wins but I'm not sure how great it would be as my only camera, given the limitations. The potential to get the XL2 used is appealing too.

I think the most important thing is that at this point I know nothing, and intend to begin my quest for knowledge with one of these cameras (technically I'm open to other suggestions too).

Many thanks.

I haven't shot an XL2, but I've been shooting similar Canon video cameras (e.g. XH-A1) for years, and I've been shooting video with the Canon 5D2 as soon as it came out.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

Imagine a video camera where the manufacturer came up with every possible thing they could to design it wrong:

• Reads only one third of the sensor and ignores the rest.
• Worst ergonomics known to man
• No manual controls
• Applies heavy noise reduction if when NR is "disabled".
• Compression engine adds many artifacts despite a high bitrate.
• Worst aliasing artifacts (including moire) ever known to mankind.
• Moderately bad skew
• No control over the audio gain (noise pumping up and down).
• Shutter speed that changes when you zoom even if exposure is locked.
• Recording stops at 12 minutes for no good reason.
• Zero live video outputs (instead of the normal 2 or 3 simultaneous).
• Available lenses have poor focus ring throw, breathing, zoom rings, etc.
• No useful information during shooting (zebra, histogram, you name it).
• What little information is provided is false (indicated shutter is a lie).

Now, imagine that they did only *one* thing right: a large sensor.

Now, imagine another camera that is the exact opposite: all the mistakes that were made above are instead done correctly, but it has one flaw: a small sensor. That describes almost any other video camera, including the XL2.

That's what it comes down to. If you're willing to sacrifice *everything*, and I mean everything, for the big sensor, then the 5D2 is a good choice.

But if you care at all about the entire universe of other features (some would call them requirements), then the XL2 is better.

Sticking a beginner with the 5D2 would be cruel and unusual punishment, IMHO.

Talk about chalk and cheese Daniel - you might as well ask us if you should buy a deTomaso Pantera or a Landrover Discovery. They'll both 'get you there' but in wildly different styles.

Daniel seals the coffin on the 5D2 for any aspiring filmmaker (though I thought the 5D2 only jettisons ¼ of the sensor area) mainly because of the fact that most of us here would say that the audio side makes up far more than half of the finished film.

Now if you'd said XL2 or XH-A1 we might be able to contrast and compare.

tom.

So I suppose that seals it. But Tom, since you raised the question of the XL2 versus the XH-A1, I'm interested.

I've just thought of another nail for the 5D2's coffin - you can't get a 20x f/1.6 zoom for it. Finding a 6x zoom is hard enough.

XL2 versus the XH-A1 Ian? Can I change that to XH-A1s vs the Sony Z5?

Sure, but I'm actually on a budget, which is why I arrived at the XL2 in the first place. Obviously, if you can convince me, that would be a good thing.

Okay, actually I'm not really poor, but I would like to establish a maximum cost because of various other reasons.

Camera SOS
 

I need a camera (under $5,000) for a self-financed documentary I'm producing now and others I hope to follow it with. I'm hoping to hit the festival circuit and then hopefully get into a broadcast arrangement.

I need: HD and 24p (preferably native). Run & gun friendly, and no expensive storage devices.

The leading contender right now is the Sony Z7u. I like the HVX200, but I refuse to pay $900 for P2 cards and I hear workflow is a nightmare.

Any and all suggestions welcome. Thanks!

The current HD camcorder selection is so broad right now that there's no such thing as a wrong decision. If you like the Sony Z7, then that's definitely what you should go for. Be sure to budget for a decent tripod, extra batteries, etc.

Hello all

While searching the internet for information on video cameras I came across this site. What a wonderful site this is...tons of information.
I have a couple questions I hope some of you experts could answer for me regarding which video camera to buy.

First of all,...let me say,...I'm just an amateur with a video camera doing a little videoing for the radio control airplane flying club I belong to, and I really don't know much about the 'technical' ins and outs of a video camera.

First question is: What camera is best suited for the conditions I video in? I'm here in the desert area of southern California, where the sun shines about 350 days a year,..so lighting conditions will almost always be bright and sunny. Great sound quality isn't a real issue,...as long as it can pick up the sound of an airplane flying by. A shoulder mounted camera is a MUST,...as I need the stability it provides. I'm currently using a hand held Panasonic PV-GS250,....and of course,video of a fast flying-by airplane is quite shaky. I have a 20 year old full size VHS video camera that I can get much smoother video with,....so the shoulder mount is a must. I've tried using a tripod,...but when a jet flies by at close to 200 mph 30 feet away from me, it just doesn't allow the movement I need.
I'm leaning toward AVCHD and tapeless,...but mini DV is not out of the question. As far as focus goes,...I've found that the Auto Focus on this PV-GS250 can not keep focused on a fast flying airplane, ....and manual focus is even worse, ( I'm slower than the camera at focusing)...and the EIS makes little difference on or off..so,..I'm wondering if some of the new cameras are better than others with the Auto Focus and the OIS. If so,..which brands are better than others? At times I've found it best to set to manual focus and focus on something far away, and leave it that way, planes stay in focus that way.

Also,...the LCD is worthless to me,..as the sun is always behind me and shining right on the screen, so a good viewfinder is a plus also.

I've been looking at the Panasonic AG-HMC70,..and wondering if it would handle the conditions I've described. Do I need a higher bitrate than the 13 Mbps this camera has? (Admittedly, I don't even know what a 'bitrate' is,..like I said...amateur).
Are there other cameras in somewhat the same price range (or higher) that are more suited for this kind of videoing?

These videos I make are just for fun,...for posting on our club website......and burning DVD's for the guys....nothing professional,..so not looking for perfection here...just want an improvement over what I have now.

Here is an example video,.....you can see what I'm talking about concerning the focusing and the shaky video. http://cvrcclubvideos.us/BITW2009/BITW_2009_34.wmv

Thanks to anyone who can help me with suggestions

George

Can You Recommend Me a New HD Camera?
 

Hello

I am after a new smallish consumer camcorder i already have the Sony FX1 and want something to go along side this that can produce the same high quality pictures this camera does, the FX1 is great but i want something much smaller and lighter

I know the Canon HV40 is coming out but from what i have read the HV20 HV30 and soon to be HV40 are all good cameras but are rather on the flimsy side.

So if anyone can recommend anything else i would be grateful

The only requirement i have is that it records onto Mini DV Tape and 24p would be nice if possible as i wont be doing to much editing and do like the film kind of style to my footage

Budget no more then $1500 – around £1,000

Thanks

If you need a shoulder-mount then the only reasonably priced choices are the Panny you mentioned or, at about $500 less, Sony HD1000U. Other shoulder-cams are four to five times the price. The Sony is only one CMOS vs. 3-CCD, but for your purposes that shouldn't make much difference. And the Sony shoots MiniDV tape.

Looking to buy a small handy cam?
 

Hi Folks:

I own a canon XL2. I usually do media coverages using my camera. But as you all know XL2 is sort of an attention grabber. And it is a big camera and heavy as well. I want to buy smaller a camcorder type camera inorder to do some raw coverages. With the condition that it should have a 3CCD lens type. Can some one recommend such type of camera. One more thing, i dont want to buy a very expensive camera. Sort of cheap but can do the job.

like i always say you guys are the experts....

Thanks.........

Be advised that the former advantage of 3CCD (color accuracy) is now equaled by single-chip CCD or CMOS with an RGB color filter. Single-chip RGB will usually meet or exceed 3CCD color these days. That said, if you want 3CCD then you might want to look at JVC's Everio line.

Yup I also need the best HD video camera possible for around or under 2,000 AUS/ 1,000 EUR/ 1,600 CAD/ 1,300 USD/ 120, 000 YEN/ 2,000 SGD/ 2,500 NZD/ 13, 000 ZAR ?

Thanks..

Hi George -
Fellow desert rat here... having shot some airshow footage (full size airplanes), you definitely want a Viewfinder... a necessity in bright blue skies... That's going to restrict your choices somewhat if you want to stay with a small camera. Offhand I'd say look at the Sony SR11/SR12, and the Canon and Panasonic equivalents. I use the SR11 myself, pretty happy with it.

For focus you might consider setting on infinity (IIRC most of the small cameras will consider
30-45 feet "infinity", my Sony seems to go to infinity at around 15m in manual mode). The cam sees the featureless blue sky and starts hunting in AF, manual should help.

OIS is always problematic when trying to track a fast moving object. I've got a Sunpak monopod that has a belt clip, had decent results with that, but even better is some sort of shoulder mount add on for the small cam - I've been fiddling with that for a while. PM me if you want to see pix of my current shoulder mount with waist support... getting close to perfection for event work!

Sony's new cameras (XR500/XR520) are supposed to have a "super" OIS that looks quite impressive in samples I've seen - not sure how well they will do tracking a small object on a featureless background, but might be worth waiting to see when they come out. Frankly the side by side samples of the Sony and Canon OIS were night and day - Canon was useless... Sony was pretty good IMO. Panasonic has always had a good reputation for their OIS implementation, so also might be worth the wait for their new models.

You didn't mention a budget, and that could be the kicker, as the small handhelds are at one price point, and most of the "big guns"/shoulder mount type stuff jump significantly in price! As I shoot multicam, I can rig a shoulder mount/stabilization for my "handheld", and have a couple more cameras on tripod or whatever for the same $ as one "big" cam...

Then again, the Panasonic HMC150 looks pretty sweet... AVCHD, decent bitrate, pretty good low light and image quality, getting good reviews.

3-chip systems use a prism to split light. Prisms do not split light in a way that matches the human eye, and there is no way to modify them to get closer. The result is generally close enough for non-color-critical work.

A color filter, on the other hand, can be tuned to match the human visual system much better. If a certain color is percieved by humans a very precise mix of sensitivities over a certain range of the visual spectrum so that red and green end up with certain values, then the CFA can be tuned to match. Prisms, on the other hand, split color a certain way over the spectrum and there is no way to tune them to adjust the "levels" for certain frequencies and mixing between color channels.

Im a newbie to the videography world, I currently have a consumer grade handycam that I love to make videos with.
Im looking to upgrade, I have a budget of about $1500 give or take. I shoot a lot of low light situations and night time stuff so low light capability is very important to me. I also shoot a lot of bright outdoor stuff like Atv XC racing.

I have been doing some researching the past couple days but im pretty lost on what camera would fit my needs the best. Not sure if I should go Sd or Hd either. Im not brand loyal to any particular name. I have been looking a an hv40 with a bunch of accessories though.

What do you guys suggest for a camera? Thanks in advance

Mark - the Canon HV40 (and it's forefathers before it) have generated a brand loyality not seen since the TRV900 days in the 1990s. Cameras don't get this adoration simply because they look nice, and the little Canon has proved itself out there in the big wide world.

It's startlingly cheap for the performance, can be manually controlled, is light, compact and able to be taken where its bigger brother the XH-A1 couldn't. It has a big CMOS chip, you can shoot in SD or HD and owners sure love it.

I wouldn't go SD if I were you - simply for the fact that SD is only 4:3 (though cameras like the PDX10 went some way towards filling a 16:9 screen properly).

The only catch is the low light performance, but you've got to spend $$$ to gain just a stop or two. If $1500 is your limit I'd go for the HV30 and a wide-converter and spend carefully on a decent mic and tripod, a little LED light for the interviews and a bag to keep it all safe.

tom.

Thank you for reassuring my thoughts! Hv30 with some goodies it is!

Sony FX-1
 

Well I have a Sony FX-1 and it's capable of recording a nice image, but you have to adjust the presets.

I shot my last feature with it so here's the link:
YouTube - g2barmen's Channel

You realize this is a tape based camera, right? And that you'll be spending an hour at least importing for every hour you spend shooting, right? This gets old fast.

And don't buy the "canons are great because so many people recommend them." These cameras are not particularly better than comparable cameras from other manufacturers. They just have a lot of people advocating them that, in my experience, aren't that familiar with other cameras. This line suffers from being difficult to get manual control over. The main purpose that they developed a cult like following is that they shoot a pseudo 24p. Great if you want to make a film and you like the impact of 24p photography-- but a lot of other features on other cameras are sacrificed by these people to get the 24p holy grail. Just because a cult is large, doesn't mean their leader is god.

I strongly recommend you get a camera that shoots to flash, preferably SDHC cards. This is much more convenient for editing than any other format, and more robust than HDs (though hard disks may not be a problem for you, you implied action photography.)

Also, seriously consider looking at the new cameras announced in the last couple of months-- it may be worth waiting a month or two for the spring cameras.

Figure out your priorities-- 24p? Full Manual Control? 1080p or 720p? Image Stabilization? and then pick the camera. You're not likely to get a bad camera, but by focusing on these features you'll get the one that works best for you.

Generally they all put out great video quality, but the feature set, and controllability are very different.

For instance, two cameras you might consider: the Xacti HD2000 which shoots 1080p to SDHC cards in MP4 format which is really easy to edit (compared to AVCHD) ... or the Panasonic Lumix G1 HD which has been announced but isn't shipping yet. The latter looks like it will be the premier camera for capturing filmlike footage in your budget. The former is the most portable, quality camera out there, and is fairly cheap leaving you a lot of money for other things.

Neither of those may be appropriate for you, but until you build the list of features you need you won't know.

Don't take this message personally-- main point is for everyone whose not sure what camera to buy-- this methodology works. There is no "Best" camera-- figure out your shooting style and the needs of what you're capturing, and go from there.

You've named the one and only advantage of a non-tape cam. And note that tapeless file transfer is about 1/3 real time, so rather than "a couple of seconds" it's about 20 minutes. For many of us, that slight advantage isn't worth the other hassles that often accompany other formats.

Tape is simply more reliable and easier to work with in nearly every case. If you're a tape-phobe, that's fine, but don't denigrate others for being able to deal with it.

On the strength of this shaft of wisdom I'm going to check out :

"the Xacti HD2000 which shoots 1080p to SDHC cards in MP4 format which is really easy to edit (compared to AVCHD) ... or the Panasonic Lumix G1 HD which has been announced but isn't shipping yet."

Is tape now a four letter word? How could I not have noticed? I must be getting senile!

Tape, Flash, HDD, whatever - each has it's advantages - and disadvantages.

Do you want to keep your flash/SD cards forever as your archive? Pretty expensive compared to tape even at current low prices for memory. If not, do you want to deal with a more complex process to manage the archive?

How inportant is capture time vs some of the other trade-offs?

Etc etc etc etc

Really? 20MBps video is about 9GB for 60 minutes, and at 30MB/s will transfer in about 5 minutes. And that's assuming you're using USB. It is too bad they don't have FW800 flash adapters, though.

Hey, maybe these days tape is reliable. But its not "more reliable". Its absolutely not easier to work with, as a general statement. Its not random access, thus working with it is essentially a PITA. I figure most people either immediately move their footage onto a format that is random access (eliminating the hassle of tape) or they are constantly inserting tapes and winding to get the footage they need.

Neither of which are cult cameras, obviously. Of course, I never said I haven't recommended a camera.

But I think people would be better helped by getting them to focus on what features are relevant to them.

Some have more advantages than others, while others the converse is true! The main point, though, is to talk about these tradeoffs and the features of various cameras.

I suspect that if one wanted to keep cards as an archive format the price would be about the same as tape of archival quality. And that's this year. Next year, it will be half the price. But I don't, I copy the footage to a drive, and I back up the drive regularly. I keep three copies- the online one and two backups. The backups are physically disconnected and thus the only situation that would wipe out all three copies would be a fire. Offsite storage can be done for tapes and harddrives about as easily. (keep a backup locally and a backup offsite and then swap them once a week or whatever frequency you take tapes offsite.)

The thing is, there aren't really any tradeoffs for giving up tape. What exactly do you give up?

I think there are a lot of tradeoffs. I really think it's much easier to just keep the tapes than to make numerous back-ups to hard disk - which by the way is hardly an archival medium, particularly when stored on a shelf. Disk drives are designed to spin, not sit on shelves.

I think, to be more precise, that memory based acquisition is a good thing, but I also think that we need much easier to use and much more sophisticated and standardized/automated ways of dealing with capture and long term archive and that we need products in this space that are cost effective for the average videographer.

If I thought those products and processes were here today, I would probably never use another tape for acquisition (at least after I replace my current cameras!), although I really do think that other types of tape such as LTO do have a place in a well architected archival solution.

Really? You haven't spent much time reading the AVCHD forums, or the editing forums, where nearly everyone crying about being unable to edit/capture/archive/view/share their footage is using tapeless. What else do you give up, besides nearly universal functionality? Try batch capturing many small clips from an AVCHD cam with large files, of which you only need a small part. You can't without re-rendering.

You also give up, as Jim pointed out, a cheap, nearly permanent and nearly indestructible archive and backup system.

It's fine if you like your workflow, and no one will talk you out of it. But you really should know a little about what you're talking about before you make sweeping statements. The thing is, if you'd just said something sensible like "You should consider going tapeless because there are some advantages over tape," no one here would be disagreeing with you. But to come in after being a member here for five minutes and chide people for recommending a very good cam to a newcomer is just silly and irresponsible.

Hey Liza - I edit all week, Monday to Friday. On Saturday I go out and shoot a wedding all day long. I come home with maybe 5 one-hour Mini DV tapes and know what? I love the fact that it takes me 5 hours to feed them into the computer - it gives me a breather, a chance to read the Sunday paper.

And when done the tapes all sit up there on the shelf as a cheap, compact, reliable archive.

I'm pretty sure my next camera won't be tape fed simply because they're fading away pretty fast and because computers are arriving with enough grunt to handle AVCHD.

The one issue which is proving most contentious is the quality versus
editablity of AVCHD. I have already had one club member with editing problems and of course asking 'why did you not check with me/anyone else first' is not helpful except to make him feel bad.

This is shameful on the manufacturers' part in my view. AVCHD was
introduced at the end of 2007 on a lot of diddy picnic-cams and must
have been so easy to sell. I can hear the salesman: 'No tapes, no noise, no moving parts, no crinkle, no dropouts, no hassle', that sort of thing. You want to edit the footage? Whoooh!

And till the 151 arrived the 'better encoding quality of MPEG4' was a
purely theoretical thing. If you couldn't effectively edit it, you might just as well be shooting VHS. And diddy-cams never had front ends capable of pushing AVCHD - they simply wanted to get away from
tape. Poor public.

A swimmer friend of mine has just had her first baby and what
camcorder should she buy? I told her straight - an HC9 or an HV30.
Tape driven, and her old Windows XP machine could edit it and make
DVDs in moments (Prem Elements for £60). What did she do? Got an SD card diddy-cam because the man in the shop told her tape was dead.

It's certainly dying, but that's more a marketing strategy than a fimmaking one.

tom.

Tom, you are once again my hero, simply because I agree with everything you just said. I'm even willing to forget our disagreement about whether lens ramping is real or theoretical.

But I think the bottom line here -- Liza's well-deserved smackdown notwithstanding -- is that it really depends upon what kind of stuff you are shooting. Obviously I'm a tape kind of guy, but I have considered going tapeless (via a bunch of MRC1s) from time to time.

I mostly shoot two kinds of things: Sports and stage productions. Both are shot with multiple cameras. For baseball, I'll have cams set up on second and third base closeups to catch slides. These cams run uninterrupted for the whole game (save for tape changes -- here's one time a 2 or 3 hour card would be nice). Out of each hour of tape, there might be two slides -- it's like nature photography. So I scroll thorough the tape, mark the in and out points, and capture the ten seconds I need. You can't do that with a straight file transfer of a 13GB file. (Actually, I think it's 2GB because all these recorders are FAT32 and can't take anything bigger -- you stitch them together in post.) To my knowledge you'd have to transfer the whole file, mark the in and out points in your NLE, and make a new file, introducing the possibility of quality loss. I don't think you can just transfer a small part of a file.

On the other hand, when doing multicam stage shows, quick transfer of the entire show would be really helpful. As nothing will be cut out in the capture/transfer stage, here's where we could really benefit from a tapeless workflow, even if it is "only" a 66% time savings. And that's not counting time lost to flaky FW captures that abort midway through (I'm using Premiere, so I'm used to this), necessitating multiple captures of a single tape, at an hour a shot. But then you still have to stitch the files together to make a seamless whole, and I have no idea how good the SW is to do that.

So I can see both sides.

The only problem now is how to afford four to six MRCs or Firestores....

Which camera should I buy a very small one?
 

Hi everyone,

I own a Canon XL2. I use it to do coverages for a community channel. I was interested in buying another very small video camera for my coverage's. The reason i need to get a very small camera is because most of the time people especially kids get confused when i take out my XL2 in front of them. You know what impression an XL2 gives out to people especially kids. I don't know anything about smaller version cameras. Please let me know of a camera small enough that it does the job and the quality should be good enough and in such a medium that it can be used for a TV channel.

Looking forward for your feedback.

Thanks

All depends on your feature expectations... almost any of the small HD cameras can be decked out with a few small accessories and be more than adequate for what you'd like to do. There was a guy who was using a kitted out CX7 for this purpose that posted a while back somewhere here... had a small light and the little Sony bluetooth wireless and a small cam support of some sort for stable shots. I'm set up with a similar rig, works good without being so noticeable!

Main challenge can be low light, but a small on cam light (the sima LX20 for instance) can help there.

Great thread! Hope you can help
 

Hi guys,

I have saved up just under £3k to get a broadcast quality camcorder which can be used for my personal documentary and filmmaking projects as well as any small freelance projects I sometimes get.

I currently work freelance in TV in the UK and want to spend more time on my own things and would like a camera for that purpose.

I am currently double minded between a Sony V1E and the shiny new JVC solid state HM100.

I understand the arguments of why solid state may be the future but I do not think that tape will become obsolete. Although the idea of not having to Log and Capture is quite nice and I'm not adverse to storing all my footage on a separate hard drive. However I do not want to be losing picture quality for the sake of a solid state machine.

I do edit on FCP on my Mac. I don't know if I'm being a luddite by thinking the Sony may be better...

So I guess I would like product reviews that compare the two cameras in terms of picture quality and how they shoot in low light conditions.

I am unfortunately not at all a tech-head and hence was hoping for input which would reveal more of the pros and cons of these two cameras in terms of footage quality and usability. I have approached a few shops and they don't seem to be giving me very knowledgeable advice but give me mixed answers. One which is quite knowledgeable has recommended the JVC but only because "solid state is the future".

Currently I can get a hold of the Sony for a few hundred pounds cheaper than the JVC but I was wondering if this would be superficial as I wouldn't need to buy tapes on the JVC, which might be quite nice.

I look forward to all your opinions and hope you guys can help me out! Thanks in advance for all your feedback and help! Cheers! Sorry if I sound confused. £3k is a lot of money!
:)

Solid state is indeed the future in the same way that hydrogen cars are. There's nothing much wrong with the petrol engine right this very minute.

You wouldn't need to buy tapes for the JVC? You wouldn't need to buy SDHC cards for the V1 more like it. 13 gb of tape is £1, 13 gb of card is £16.

The Panasonic employs much bigger (70% bigger) CCDs, so from a photographic perspective that tops tiny ¼" CMOS in my book. It also has a decent wide-angle right out of the box - the V1 needs a wide-converter practically all the time. But then again its telephoto reach is double that of the 13x Panasonic zoom.

If your Mac can handle the AVCHD files I'd take the HMC151. It's not as well built as the Sony but it's a lot newer and will be loads better in the gloom.

tom.

Thanks for this Tom! :)

I think I probably would prefer to go with a great wide angle than a telephoto anyway, although, not doubt, at some point I will regret saying that! heh heh.

I have FCP version 6 and that apparently supports AVCHD files. I have a 2.6GHz processor and 4gig memory. I assume this is enough? What is your opinion?

Just some questions in regards to your post:

First, you've suggested that tape is cheaper but in the long run, after the first investment, surely cards will work out cheaper if you use your camera often enough?

Also, by "in the gloom" you are referring to low light conditions right?

And what did you mean when you said the HMC151 is not as "well built" as the Sony?

Lastly, are the panasonic CCDs on the HMC151 better than the V1's?

Thanks again for all your expertise and I apologise for my ignorance!

Cards work out cheap if you don't keep your raw footage up there on the shelf. A MiniDV tape is a cheap, reliable, compact archive. If you shoot SDHC you'll maybe buy tape or HDDs as well for backup? And I'm a believer in reusing tapes many times - just as you will with cards.

In the gloom - yes, when light levels drop.

Put a Z5 and a 151 side-by side and take a good close-up look at the fit and finish, the switches and overall design concept. Then do this: open the LCD screens. The wibbly-wobbly 151's screen doesn't inspire confidence (in me) the same way Sony's does. And the Sony's screen is in the right place - atop the camera.

The 151 uses CCDs with a far greater surface area than the V1's CMOS. The latter may be all the rage in Sony products, but until they sort the rolling shutter problems (as I'm sure they will) I for one will be standing back. I've written much on this subject.

tom.

OOF! No matter what the budget for no matter what item why is it always impossible to have it all? *stamps foot*

Thanks again for your speedy response. I am now off to do a whole load more research and will be back armed with many more questions in the next few days.

:)

Hello guys!

I am an owner of a 5d II and after shooting and making a wedding reception video i'm hooked!!!!!!!!!

I'm looking for a camera that has what my 5d II is lacking and thats control!

I want 1080p, 24p, good low light also in it.

My budget is 4k but if possible I would like to spend around $3500 since there are a few accessories I will still need to get (So far have a rode video mic, video head, video tripod).

I was very close to buying the XH 1A since I saw a lot of people using it at fashion week when i was shooting there. After talking to some people though they mentioned that DV isn't the best format (less colorspace????) and other things I didn't understand.

I will be using this camera for wedding work + taking it along with me to fashion week for the runway (my 5d II will be regulated to stills and backstage shooting)

Thanks!!

I guess you mean the XH A1. The only other "competitor" for that camera is the HVX200, but I doubt you will find one in your price range without purchasing from Japan. Panny also released a new tapless version of this camera, don't recall the model #.

JS

Well i'm willing to buy used so it seems a few more camera possibly drop to my 3.5-4k range. I really want to get an ex1 but I can't justify dropping 6 grand on it yet since my main thing is stills and need to buy more equipment for that too.

(not to mention accessories for video too)