That's really the key, isn't it? Nobody has one of these cameras - nobody has even seen a real one, have they? I understand that everyone is really excited by the prospects, but the fact is that nobody really knows exactly what the issues are going to be. The proof will be in the pudding and once there's a real shipping product we'll see what it's like to work with the cards, hard drives, etc.

Until then, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread and Steve echoed more recently, Sony doesn't have to "overtake" anybody. They have a whole collection of very successful shipping products.

Jaime: the HVX200 will not be practical for long-form event work any time soon. By my calculations I'd need at least four 80GB Firestore drives (per camera) to record a single typical wedding in HD, at a current proposed cost of almost $2000 per drive. This means the storage alone for a single event is going to cost more than the camera itself, which is obviously a problem. Plus then as soon as you finish a shoot you have to make a point of off-loading your master data to some other storage solution so you can free up your expensive on-camera memory for the next shoot, meaning you'd better have the permanent storage ready to go and the time available to do those transfers.

To back up four 80GB Firestores you'd need a 320GB hard drive, which currently sell for $132 and up on Pricewatch. But since hard drives are notoriously unreliable you'd better make two copies if you want to ensure the integrity of your source video, so now we're up to $264 per event just to store the data. Shoot 30 wedddings per year and your permanent storage costs are again more than the price of the camera, so in the first year alone you'd be spending at least $20,000 to do one-camera weddings with the HVX200. Compare that to under $3000 for a Sony FX1 and roughly $50 per wedding for HDV tapes, and it's easy to see that HDV is going to be the preferred solution for this particular task.

Plus the best way to deliver HD video in the future is going to be on blue-laser DVDs using MPEG2 compression at bit rates of around 25-30 Mbps -- which is basically HDV. So after spending $20K to shoot weddings on an HVX200 you'll be delivering final output similar to that from HDV cameras, although the footage will hopefully be a little better due to the higher bandwidth of the source. But so far it's all most of us can do to convince event customers to pay a little extra for HDV quality, let alone paying significantly more for something else.

I like the HVX200 from a technical perspective, but not from a practical one. Maybe in another five years...

LOL. You'll trust your master copy of your footage to... 'a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive'? Not even making a tape backup?

Have fun when that drive fails and you lose hours of footage. At least with tape you'll potentially still be able to recover 99% of the footage even if the tape snaps.

very good post IMHO.
I think that people can get too obsessed/wrapped-up in pursuing the ultimate specification equipment but without considering too carefully the practical consequences of that. In this case, storage and distribution - points which i think you made very well above.

Hi-Def in it's various flavors is all about two or 3 things really: Compression, Storage, Distribution.

And Broadcast. Why does broadcast always seem to be left out of the equation? Is it because everyone knows that the best quality HD that's going to be broadcast for at least 10 years is approx. 19Mbit, with MPEG2 compression for the majority of material?

And so you get a camera that can record 50/100Mbit 1080i/p... What you gonna watch it on? Isn't likely to be your consumer model WS HDTV - unless you degrade the quality, as has already been mentioned.

Do P2 cards have a battery backup? Wouldn't that be a problem? Lithium only lasts 7-10 years.

P2 cards are flash memory, aren't they? So they shouldn't need a battery.

Overtake? I don't think there's a need to just yet. Probably not even the first year of HVX200's debut. Real "low budget" independant filmmakers, well most won't even appear on the big screen or even be transferred to film. Why? Costs, and realistically knowing your target audience will be on DVD or other format. At least for now, until there is a cheaper alternative for us on a lower budget. I know I won't. I would rather pay for great actors, who can help make my picture more effective. For equipment to produce a more professional look, and special effects. Not to mention, production for distributing my work and marketing, lawyers, etc. So when it comes down to it, the camera is only a small part of what makes up a good picture.

I think most people will stick with their DVX/FX1/Z1/GL2/XL2 or whatever camera has been out and proven in the field to work. The reason? At least for the next year or so, as I have read about everywhere, most people don't have hdtv, DVD players don't play HD, and when it does become available, I'm going to have to sell my DVD production equipment and fork out tons of $$$(since it is new and going to be expensive) for new equipment? No, think this is unfeasable for us "low budget filmmakers".

For myself on a budget, I looked at the XL2, the DVX, the Z1. And for me, I chose the FX1(second hand). Why? Because the image was good enough, better than my GL2. The price was cheap enough, that I could buy a pro tripod and head, pro mike, fig rig for portability, beachtek for audio, a high end laptop for editing, etc in the field. All of which I can use in the future. Or, I could have bought 2 cameras(wish I could have) for the productions. All for the price of just one of those other cameras. To me, that's a smart budget. If I had more $$$, sure I would LOVE to buy another camera. But most of us don't. And that's why Sony is in a good place right now. Now I have plenty for the truck rentals, to pay the crew, and most of all the cast. I don't have to wait until I have more $$ to begin shooting. I think the majority are like me. We'll work with what we can afford, and when the 2nd generation cameras come out, then we might upgrade. So, regardless of whether the panasonic, jvc, or xlh hd1, is a better camera. The price is what's going to keep most of us on a budget away from them for a little while. After all, this whole business comes down to $$$ making, right?

And Sony, whether you love,like,or hate them. Provided us with a good choice to upgrade our SD cameras with(for those of us who wanted to).

This isn't meant as a "bashing" post, or an "I love Sony" post. I would love to have 1 or 2 of those "sexy" cameras. It's just the hard reality for most of us. We want the most out of our budget, and the Sony helps us achieve that at this price range. Sure you can rent the other cameras. But I can't afford the rates for a 30 day shoot or more. And as I hear a lot on here, if you want it to "look like film, shoot it on film". I and everyone I know who has worked with these cams are happy and like the end product. Looks amazing on my 48" HDTV, even if it is sd dvd.

Flame me if you must, lol!

Sean