Would you buy an SD camera these days?
 

I am considering adding video services to our Wedding Photography Business as we often get requests from brides. Currently we refer to colleagues, but the market seems to lend itself to us testing the waters.

I realize the VX2100 (and XLR equipped PD170) are considered the kings of low light (especially in the wedding court) so I'm torn if the limitations of current mid priced HD cameras can compete.

I think it would be advantageous to offer HD (no one in our area really does), as everyone is headed that way (although Blu-Ray players are pricey - $500).

These are my options as I see it:

A - Get a pair of PD170s (I like the XLR and DVCAM options, and B&W viewfinder too) to produce excellent SD content videos with the best low light capability

-or-

B - Get a pair of FX1s and produce even better HD content (packaged with a Blu-Ray player if need be it). Also offering SD to those who don't want to spend the extra money. And of course, struggle with the low lighting shots and critical focus issue.

I have spent a few weeks on the forums and review sites, so I feel pretty versed in the equipment and how it will perform. My question to those that are out there shooting: Would you invest in SD and shoot for a year or two, and then re-invest in all new gear in the future?

I think there is a lot to be said for shooting HD exclusively, and more importantly first to offer it.

Thanks to all - this is my first post here!

If one is a budget producer I think it depends on the outlay - i.e. I wouldn't spend on 2x new PD-170s at this stage, but a 2nd hand kit with mics & perhaps 16:9 anamorphic adaptor are still fine kit to service what I imagine is still mainstream for weddings - SD.

Then again I took one look at the output of Canon HV20 and promptly sold off one of PD-170Ps last year. (I'd bought a 46" 1080P LCD and suddenly SD just didn't cut it).
I've shot weddings since 2002 and barely received interest in 16:9, started to change since last year though, with my last three job all shot with an anamorphic.

Mark

I don't think it will be a good investment buying 2 sd cams now, sure they will last you another 2 years before HD really will start to kick in, but you can bet you hardly will get anything in return for it.

The price diff between a vx and a pd (at least here in Europe) on the second had market is considerably, eventhough both have the same quality they only differ in a few option, like the xlr. but for me it's not worth the extra cost.

The fx1 on the other hand is aging as well and will struggle big time in dark areas. I know videographers buying a fx1 here and having use a vx2100 before and they regretted it afterwards, they have to use a much bigger light to get decent images in candlelight rooms and the guests don't appreciate it.

Like mark said, sd doesn't look good on most big screen lcd screens. I've seen my vx2100 footage on some lcd screens which looked OK, not like HD does but OK. But I also had some screens were it looked like an old vhs tape.

If I would invest know, I would buy a canon XH A1 and a second HV20 with an adaptor for a wide angle/fish eye lens and one to get that nice small D.O.F., reading all the user experiences about both cams they seem to deliver good overall quality. Ofcourse it's not tapeless but that is another price category if you want quality. The hv20 is easy to carry and best for those creative shots if you combine it f.i. with a glidecam.

Also watch out with adaptors on vx2100 alike cameras, they do give you extra possibilities but all the weight comes on front, try holding the camera more then 10 minutes in that way... I just have extra wide angle adapter and hardly use it because it's virtually impossible to hold it too long in my hands, only works if on a tripod.
That's also one of the biggest disadvantages of the vx and probably the pd and that is limited wide angle, it difficult filming in narrow places, especially if you switch to 16/9.

There's little point in buying SD cameras for wedding video work these days, and with HD you have the advantage of getting usable still-frames you can use as backups for the photography side of the business. (Not as good as full-quality still photos, but acceptable for basic prints.)

As far as the FX1 is concerned, it is usable in dim light once you learn a few tricks and remains a decent choice 3 1/2 years after it first started shipping. However, there's a growing list of competing options in this price range including the Canon XH-A1 and the new Panasonic AG-HMC150. Wait until after NAB to see what all is available.

P.S. Thanks for the reminder that videographers may want to consider adding photography services to their offerings before all the photographers start doing video! :-)

Yeah I know. That is the most discomforting feeling. The couple I shoot with mentioned, "I would hate to know the video people are adding photography."

To be honest the main reason to add it, is not to generate video-based revenue, but to not lose a potential photography client that wants a complete package with one company. That seems to be requested a bit more now.

I find it strange that the same companies that make still cameras release new video models every year almost, but the video cameras can go 5+ (look at the PD150 ->PD170 series).

I think we will likely wait for the HD replacement to the FX1 (or competitor that is similar). From what I have read the SD product looks pretty bad on a big LCD (which is household common).

Lastly, I have read that shooting in HD and then mastering to SD actually looks worse in most cases than just shooting in SD in the first place, is this true?

Thanks for the replies and opinions - greatly appreciated...

SD footage from HD footage quality may be a function of the editing program you use. You might want to experiment with this before committing to an all-HD camera inventory.

Large screen's (meaning HD) are not yet the most common television found in homes. It is getting there but not yet. Most people don't replace their televisions until the old one dies.

The biggest problem with HD is that the number of Blu-Ray players isn't nearly as great as the number of HD televisions. One can purchase an up-converting DVD player for less than one-tenth of the cheapest Blu-Ray player.

And have you taken a good look at the cost of a Blu-Ray blank disk? Ouch!

So you may move to HD but find that you still have to deliver SD video so your customers can play it.

Maybe you should go out an buy up an inventory of HD-DVD players and deliver footage in that format. :-)

A HD-DVD player is $99 at Costco along with 2 movies. Those players do a very good job of up-converting SD to HD so you would be giving your customers HD plus a nice bonus. Sort of.

In other words, stay flexible.

Competition and an evolving technology is the reason the still cameras exhibit model churning. My 3 year old Nikon D70 does a great job but the newer models have a lot of nice features. But they don't appreciably take a better picture for my needs.

Video camera technology is relatively mature with HD being the 'big' recent change. Storage technology plays in there as well.

I'd guess that when SLR digital still cameras start using multiple full-frame sensors as do video cameras, then they will start to stabilize a bit on the high end. But high-end SLR film cameras were introduced at a fairly high rate as all-manual models were replaced by newer models that took advantage of increasing electronic suites to provide better functions.

Consumer cameras, still or video will continue to churn as it is primarily a marketing game.

Ya, it's the same for me to think about photographers adding video. I'm pretty sure i can do video better than they can, just as they can do stills better than me. I've had couples ask me why their friend's wedding video was so bad compared to my demos.....and then they told me it was a photographer who 'set up a little cam on a tripod and hit record while he took pictures with his still cam'. That kind of explained it right there....video kind of takes the backseat for many still photogs who are trying to do both. Most brides I've had have come to me with 'what money they had left' after everything else for video. Some I've had to turn down because they didn't have enough left.....others I've been able to do something for. And WITHOUT FAIL, they have told me that after they saw the video it should have been one of the FIRST things they put money toward. Anyways, all ranting aside, when I get people asking for photography with my video services....I have a photographer friend that I hire....at her NORMAL rate for weddings so they can get everything from one company, but they pay for it. I don't ADD anything to her price, but I make sure she gets her normal rate as if she had booked them herself. She does the same thing for me when couples ask for video.

As for which cameras....I still use PD-150's....I have had absolutely NO interest in HD production from anyone. I offer Blu-ray discs of the wedding if they want it, but it is a more expensive package. I haven't had a single couple take me up on it yet. Of course, that is just my area, so it may be much different in other places. I get more interest in iPod versions and YouTube versions and such, that's what I'm seeing here.

I think we will wait for now
 

I don't want to invest in the SD market, get a system all working and then have to start over with new gear etc. in 1-2 years. Also we shoot 40+ weddings a year on the photo side and that keeps us busy for sure. We will continue to provide referrals to the video folks we like the best.

I'll be lurking around here...

If the HD stuff gets close in low light performance to the VX2100 (PD170) then we will likely rent a few and see where that takes us.

Thanks to all who participated and helped. The video shooters are safe from another photo crossover, for now :)

The new sony Z7 does HD in low light the way the pd 170 does SD in low light. So low light is no longer something to hinder one from going HD. So does the Ex1.

The question to be asked is am I offering HD, but still charging SD prices?
Of course when the VX1000 came out it was a 5K camera.

Thanks Jeremy
 

The Z7U looks very impressive and with the ability to dual write to miniDV and CF cards is very nice. Looks like the low light performance is within 1 lux of the PD170, but for wedding work that 1 lux is still quite a bit.

Will be interesting to see what Canon offers after the show...

Then it's pretty close to the PD150 and my 6 year old 150 (new heads and transport but still the old electronics) still does a great job in low/no light receptions. No really noticable difference betweenthat and my 170. At least ot enought to make a difference to anyone.

Don

IIRC, there is only 1 lux difference between the 150 and 170 and that is rarely apparent.

I have the Sony Z1 and the PD170.
All of my work is going out SD on DVD and most of the camera work i do for others is being recorded in SD both 16.9 and 4.3.
I'm keeping the 170 as it kills the Z1 for SD 4.3 looks.
The Z1 is ready for HD when it happens.
Both cameras work well for 4.3 but the 170 needs an anamoprhic adapter to keep up with the Z1.
I have been looking at the Cannon HV20 and the images outa that thing looks really good.

Cool
Simon

For me personally, once I've worked a couple of times in HD, it's hard to go back to SD. Even if you're ultimate delivery method is dvd.
The image is just so much more sharp and detailed in HD (as it should, of course).
I've shot with the Sony Z1 a couple of times, and I have an Canon XL1s at the moment (next week to be replaced by an Sony EX1).
After shooting with the Z1, I always find the image of the Canon lacking when editing, although I like shooting with the Canon a lot more, because of it's ergonomics. The XL1s has served me well, the last 3, 4 years... but it's time to update. So:

I wouldn't buy a SD camera at this point anymore, but of course I don't know what your budget is. If you buy an HD or HDV camera now, you can *still* shoot and deliver in SD. You only have extra options for the future, and a better image quality.
You could look at the Sony FX1 or the Canon XH A1....

PS: I don't even have an HD television set. It's the detail of the SD image on my computer monitor that disturbs me often.

AHH....You shouldn't judge video by how it looks on a computer monitor. My PD-150 video still looks absolutely GREAT on my 750 line JVC NTSC monitor. For me, the deal is, if clients want me to shoot HD, I will, but I am going to charge more than I charge for my SD stuff. And guess what.....in my area most clients can't watch and don't care about HD, they just want regular DVD's. It's a business thing for me....sure it's fun to play around and use the HD stuff, and of course it's sharper than SD. BUT to me this is A BUSINESS. If a client wants HD, they can pay for it. There's plenty of people who do this 'on the side' or 'for fun and what money they can pick up'. That's all fine and dandy for them. But for me, this is how I make a living. When you do this as a business, you have to look at differently....so for me, I'll start shooting HD when my clients will pay for it, and not until then. I already have SD gear that I will use......I'll rent HD gear for the very very rare cases I need it, and will buy HD gear when my clients start actually asking for it more than once a year......it's not very smart for me to spend a bunch of money on a new camera and editing system and such and then charge the same prices.....not good business sense at all. Now if your clients are asking for it and will pay, that's when you GO FOR IT!

David - first thing to ask yourself is this: Will the couple that can afford your wedding video services come back from their expensive honeymoon and switch on an old 4:3 CRT? If yes, then the VX2100 and PD170 have much to commend them. If not, accept the passing of that era and go get HDV equipment and shoot widescreen. You can always shoot in DV mode of course, as I often do on the Z1

tom.

Would I still purchase a SD camera?
No.

Thanks Everyone - I've decided to wait a few months
 

Since this is a test the waters kind of thing, we are not in any hurry. I will keep an eye out and check back soon.

Thanks again...

This is the thread I was looking for
 

Thanks for asking this question.

My background: I'm not in the business of shooting video for a client. I have not owned video equipment in the past. I do digital photography for fun (although I'm picky on quality and shoot RAW to be able to edit parameters like white balance, curves adjustments, and have less jpeg artifacts).

I've read a lot on this forum to help me choose between the different camera models. Being new to video, I was wondering if the HD was the right choice instead of SD, especially when filming fast moving kids.

My uneducated eye never really saw any major problem when I looked at footage of friends shooting with their mini-dv camera. Of course, that was displayed on a standard definition tv. But when I look at some HD videos of the newer cameras like the HF10, I can really see a lot of compression artifacts when a lot of things are moving in the frame. Of course, I know the debate around AVCHD and HDV, and this might have someting to do with it.

Reading this thread, I have the feeling that HDV (for example coming out of the HV30) is better than what's coming out of an SD camera. I can understand it is the case in general, HDV having better resolution. But what about fast moving action? Is HDV (or even AVCHD) the right choice?

Carl

Keep in mind that the HF10 is an entry-level product which isn't representative of more advanced video cameras -- kind of like trying to compare a Canon PowerShot digital camera to an EOS-1D Mark III. There are compromises involved in trying to pack HD video into a low-bandwidth data stream and some cameras do this better than others, plus higher bandwidth HD cameras are available (for a price).

Try viewing your friends' DV footage on a good HDTV and then playing footage from a $3K+ HD camera on the same display. If the HDTV is any good the HD footage should look noticeably clearer, and will also fill the screen properly while most DV footage is still 4:3 aspect ratio. You wouldn't buy a 640x480 photo camera to make poster-sized prints; why buy an SD video camera when more and more people are watching their videos on HDTVs?

Buy SD? Nope..

The next question would be how much you plan to invest in capital equipment for the video side of the business?

If you can swing it I would highly recommend the Sony EX1. Excellent low light and at 35mb you don't see the artifacts that can occur when shooting moving subjects in HDV or in low light.

If you need 2 cameras be prepared to spend about $20k total for cameras, memory, and batteries. Not a trivial investment for sure.

SD versus 1k$ cameras?
 

Of course, I wouldn't buy a 640x480 ;-) But to stay on the photography analogy, I would choose a DSLR with less megapixels than a point and shoot camera. That's more on the lines of what I was asking. I just want to make sure that HD doesn't just add resolution, but that the compression that's used to fit into the available bandwith isn't negating the benefits of higher resolution. I have no doubt that for mostly static scenes HD is better. My question was more about fast moving action. SD is much less bandwidth hungry, so capturing motion "should" be easier than in HD.

Thanks for your answer. I'm not sure I'm going to spend 3k$ for my first video camera. There's also the form factor... 3k$ cameras are a lot bigger than 1k$ ones. But that's not the right thread to discuss that and there's many threads that answers those concerns.

Just a quick question, since you specified a 3k$ camera in your answer. Would you say that the encoding is of better quality than the HDV of 1k$ cameras? If so, then what about SD versus HDV on 1k$ cameras?

Carl

Carl,

I hope you don't mind an extra opinion here...

I can't speak for all cameras but I can offer that the picture of my V1 is better than my HC3. Not just in sharpness but in dynamic range and color as well.

I don't think this is due to the difference in encoders from each camera (I have no idea of the differences in this part of the cameras). MPEG2 encoding is quite mature at this point.

The features that you do get with the higher prices are better lenses, multiple imagers, and better pre-compression image processing.

This doesn't mean you MUST spend $3k to get a good HD picture. The Canon HV20 and HV30 are great examples of low price cameras with a great picture.

If you could find a used HV20 cheap it would be a good opportunity to experiment with HD without a significant investment. I'll warn you though, its hard to go back to SD afterwards.. :)

Not at all, of course! Thanks for your input, much appreciated! :-)

The level of quality you can buy in the under $1K market is simply astounding. The HV20/30 or the HC9 are great little cameras with SOME manual control, and quite good picture quality. The SR11/12, CX7, and HF10/100 are excellent alternatives if you want tapeless/AVCHD.

Yes, if you're extremely anal you will find some minor quibbles with the smaller cam picture quality vs. the larger ones under SOME conditions (low light you can squeeze more out of the bigger cams with manual controls).

I've been very impressed with the image quality from the SR11, lot of bang for the buck. Uses the same tech that the EX1 does, only in a pocket size package.

I think part of what you're asking is "image" related - and a "big" cam comes with a certain perception of "professionalism"... from a purely practical standpoint, in most cases you can get better results from a small HD cam than a "big" SD cam...

Motion is a "problem" with HD, period - camera control and stability becomes vital, most compare it with proper "film" shooting technique... proper shooting technique = NO PROBLEM. Sloppy shooting is sloppy shooting, HD just makes it REALLY obvious.

I know two top area wedding videographers who sold off some of their PD170s and VX2100 replacing them with FX1's, V1 and Z1s etc and who ended up buying PD170's and VX2100s again.

They went back to 4:3??

Yep. What good is 16:9 if you can't see it? The cams sucked in low light. They still have them, but they sit on a shelf. If you're doing weddings they just aren't effective much of the time.

I have one I only use as rear cam for the 20x zoom, but it runs right next to a PD150 simultaneously. I don't see spending money on cams that will be run in SD mode most of the time anyway.

I currently still use a vx2100 and all my weddings are viewed on widescreen tv's, not in 4:3 but in 16:9 mode. It's not because the camera doesn't have a real 16:9 lens that it can't deliver in this way.

The lens doesn't have anything to do with the aspect ratio of the film you produce, Noa - unless you mean adding a 1.33:1 anamorphic to feed your 4:3 chips. So your VX films are viewed on a 16:9 TV and you film with your VX2100 in its 16:9 mode and accept the resolution hit?

Jeff - I'm intrigued. You say 'What good is 16:9 if you can't see it?' and I don't understand. You mean couples that can afford your/their wedding filming skills come home from honeymoon and switch on an old 4:3 CRT?

Or maybe you mean that they've gone back to shooting and delivering in 4:3 and the customer simply toggles through the remote options to arrive at the best compromise of distortion and image loss to fill his widescreen set?

tom.

I film in the 16:9 mode, the resolution hit is hardly noticeable on most older type widescreens. Even if i compare my older footage which was filmed in 4:3 I almost don't see any difference.

I have also seen fx1 footage on my tv and compared to my vx2100 it was no better to be honest since it was downconverted to fit on a regular dvd.

On big screen lcd screens the lack of resolution shows more but on these screens regular digital tv also looks like crap. I have not seen any big lcd capable of displaying a digital signal in something that looks better then my 10 year old tv can produce.

Only when viewed on a blu-ray disk/player or when you look at a hd channel from National Geographic you see where these hd ready or full hd tv's are made for but as long as you view it on a regular dvd the qualitydifference is hardly noticeable no matter is you use a hd or sd cam.

Tom, what I said was perfectly clear. We full-time wedding videographers who shoot with the PD and VX series cameras in my area are not finding viable, affordable LOW-LIGHT cams to upgrade to in this period of transition. If I shot with the XL2 series of cams, etc, I woudn't notice the difference much, but unfortunately I do. I know one man who has gone to using the EX1, but he isn't full time. Who can afford to replace 4 camera kits $9000 each to shoot weddings? Not me.

I see you're shooting PAL Noa, so that's a tick in your box. But I've just done a wedding shoot with my Z1 down-converting from chips to tape (i.e. shooting in the DV mode, the worst way to use an HDV camera) while the other cameraman shot using his PD170 (PAL) in the 16:9 mode.

Whoooh! Intercutting between the cameras on the edit was a real eye-opener on any 16:9 TV we cared to show the footage on - the PD170 just looked so soft. But then again when used on it's own shooting 16:9 it can look fine - as I've proved with my VX2k in that mode.

It's the dreaded, unforgiving and ruthless A /B test that shows who's boss.

tom.

Yes, that bit's clear and I'm right with you on that one Jeff - after all you can't cram 4x as many pixels onto the same size chip and expect they to work as well in the gloom. But the bit I'm not clear on is your customer base - and specifically how they view your 4:3 footage.

Many view on HD tvs, but so? I hate it. I'm aware of it. I can't afford to do anything about it. Like I said I don't have $36K to spend. I'm still getting a second HD cam, and will start sliding into it that way, but even last night I had a photographer literally yelling at me to turn off my lights. I can't imagine shooting a reception with anything else yet.

What about widescreen DV camcorders?

Actually, now that you mention it, what is comparable is low-light to the PD and VS series that is widescreen? I might take a look. Of course in a year I'll have to get rid of it because by then I trust there will be better affordable low HD cams, and I guess in about a year the demand for HD wedding videos will be taking off.

What is comparable is low-light to the PD and VX series that is widescreen? The EX1 - but that's 4x the price.

Apart from the EX1, the best low light HDV cam is probably the XH-A1.
Won't a noisy HDV image be less noisy after downsampling to DV?

Maybe if you ran the HD video through a noise filter, it might be less noisy when you down-convert. Otherwise, the signal to noise ratio should stay about the same.