Caleb, thanks for the kind words regarding my reel. And yes, I've had a lot of differing opinions about the rain shots. When I can get a better wildlife sequence together, that's definitely the first thing to go.

For the pans I used a combination of an 8-foot jib and a DIY mini dolly setup I created using HO scale model train tracks and a slightly modified flatbed car.

Yes, I agree with Caleb that the smooth low-level slides in the opening sequence were the most powerful sections of the showreel. Nice work, Johnathan.

Thanks for telling me how you got those pans Jonathan.

Thanks! Just to specify: pan1 = handheld, pan2 = DIY dolly, pan3=jib

Pan 1 is my favorite, but I really didn't notice difference.

I would not buy anything that just do SD. Today you pay more for a new SD camera than for a new HD. SD is gone and HD is here - you can always produce SD from HD material - not the other way. If you make stunning pictures in HD - you could use them for - lets say 5 - 10 years. If you do the oposite - you would have half the market and the pictures will be worth nothing, in one or two years. Thats my opinion - someone probably means sometihing else - and thats OK.

Jonathan,

I would go the HD route. Each passing day sees HD eqpt being the choice of camera operators throughout the world and if you get a SD camera now, you may actually have a very hard time selling it off at a price that you want.

If you foresee yourself doing jobs with this camera, then go for HD. I would have to say that (as superficial as it sounds) clients are more impressed and confident when you show up with a HD camera. Add to the fact that HD downgraded to SD will give you better image quality than pure SD alone, I dun see SD cameras as a choice now.

Cheers

Weehan

The problem is, the decision to go HD is not quite as simple as it may seem. True there are inexpensive HD camcorders on the market, but 95% of these do not seem suited for wildlife film, if only due to their limited zooms and lack of interchangeable lenses.

So the real question becomes, for a filmmaker just starting out, is it worth it to buy an SD camcorder suitable for wildlife work (like the XL2) so as to gain more experience filming in the field NOW, or would it be a better idea to WAIT for a while in order to save up the money to buy a more expensive HD camcorder with equivalent (and necessary) features.

From what I know (which is limited due to lack of experience but not lack of research into the workings of the wildlife film industry), filming in the wild requires two important things: fieldwork and equipment. You cannot be a truly great wildlife filmmaker without both, and while it is true that great field technique will allow a filmmaker to get closer to the subject, there is a limit to this just as there is a limit to the quality of footage that can be obtained by a filmmaker with little field experience who simply shoots wildlife safely from great distances using long lenses and a nice camera. As I understand it, the inexpensive HD camcorders like the XHA1 might be great for independent features and documentary work, but are largely inadequate in a wildlife environment. I am sure there are those who will disagree with me on this, but the fact remains that in order to film close-ups with an XHA1 or equivalent camera, a filmmaker needs to get to within 10 or 15 feet of the subject, and this just isn't possible with most wildlife, especially when the goal is to sell footage of unique animals and interesting behavior.

In order to film wildlife from a distance of 30, 50, or 100 feet away, you need interchangeable lenses. So again, the question is not just HD or SD, but whether to get experience with filming and fieldcraft on SD now, or to wait a year or more to save up for the HD *equivalent*. This is obviously a very difficult industry to break into, and for this reason I can see the benefits of both approaches, improve fieldcraft and general film experiece as soon as possible (knowing that it may be difficult to sell the SD equipment later, and that this route may severely delay a future HD purchase) vs save up for the camera that will produce salable video first while delaying the experience of getting out into the field with a camcorder.

Would be my choice. :)

Jonathan, one thing you certainly could try to do would be buy accessories that would work now with an SD camera and later if/when you upgraded to HD.
For example if you bought a Nikon 50-300 lens and attached it to an XL-2, when you upgrade to an XL-H1 or EX3 for instance you could still use it. The same would go for tripods, and maybe things like batteries, matte boxes etc. Just keep it in mind, as often the price of the camera body is only a small-medium part of all the kit needed.
One other possibility if you are going SD would be to get a full-size camera like a DSR500. These are going really cheap now and if you were hoping to work professionally in the future will proper full size cameras, having experience with full size cameras will be a big help. A DSR500 is very much the same in operation to an HDW900 for instance or a Varicam, whereas moving upto one from an XL-2 would be a much bigger transisition.
Steve

Well explained, Johnathan.
The answer is always experience, but ideally we want you to have that in HD :)
How much time can you realistically spend in the field during the next year?

I like this idea Steve, and I will definitely keep this in mind as I continue to search for cameras. After a little searching online I was unable to find any of these currently for sale, but I'll keep looking. At least it's another option to consider.

Obviously this is a concern, and of course without a camera I can continue to spend as much time outdoors as possible, observing nature without filming and practicing skills like tracking, but a year is a long time (assuming I can even save up for a camera within a year). I love being outside and get out of the house as often as I can, and as I am sure is the case with most of us pursuing wildlife film in some degree, I also have a love for cameras and forming images of the places I enjoy. Given this, I don't see working on my fieldcraft as something that will fall to the bottom of my list of priorities once I do acquire a camera. So I expect to be able to spend long hours in the field pretty much every weekend, plus additional hours when I can during the week. Again, it's easier said than done, but all I can do is try my best.

Try BB List and ebay of course. And here's one froma dealer Mitcorp > Sony Specialist Dealers > USED EQUIPMENT BARGAINS > Camcorders > Used Sony DSR-500WSPL DVCAM Camcorder body, approx 1300 drum hours, good condition Used Sony DSR-500WSPL DVCAM Camcorder body, approx 1300 drum hours, good condition
One thing to be careful of though is not to buy a camera that you'll need a separate tape player/recorder for. This is one of the good things about the solid state cameras, that you can just hook them up to your computer and drag in the files. A lot of the later tape cameras do have firewire outputs though, but things like Digibetas don't.
Steve

And here's another Mitcorp > Panasonic Broadcast Dealers > USED EQUIPMENT BARGAINS > Camcorders > USED Panasonic AJ-D410AE DVCPRO Camcorder (PAL) c/w Fujinon 14x lens + raincover + 3 batteries USED Panasonic AJ-D410AE DVCPRO Camcorder (PAL) c/w Fujinon 14x lens + rai

Just might be worth thinking outside the box a bit, especially if it's to be used as a learning tool.
Steve

Jonathan,

I definitely agree with you that fieldcraft is something that every good wildlife filmmaker should have. Coming from a nature photography background, I was pretty much at ease when the transition came along.

If you are not that familiar with wildlife filmmaking yet, perhaps a good choice will be to get into nature stills and learn your fieldcraft while saving up for a H1? I would really hate the fact that if you have got some superb footage coming along, only for it to be shot on SD. HD will basically future-proof that footage and going the still photography way will allow you to learn the fieldcraft and yet save the hassle of getting the SD camera and selling it off later. It will also definitely be cheaper to get than the XL2. The lenses you get for the stills will still be usable later on.

Cheers

Weehan

Thanks for the links Steve, much appreciated. And Weehan, I will definitely continue to consider purchasing a still camera. You make a good point that I could learn a lot (and potentially make some money) taking still pictures alone. And these days the added bonus is that with a DSLR you often also get HD video functionality, even if it is somewhat limited.

I'm of the the mind that for all the work serious wildlife filming takes, that you want to record in HD. That being said, The nano flash or Flash XDR from Convergent Design offers a great companion to the XLH1. As some others are moving to DSLR, you can probably pick up a good used H1 for a decent price. You can then pick up an EOS adapter and throw on a 70-200 L-series or bigger lens. The crop factor is huge (7.2x) so a 200mm lens stretches out to over 1400mm. Of course the challeng becomes locating the subject in the viewfinder (even at the wide end, a 70-200 is over 500mm). The Flash recorder via the HD-SDI port allows for a by-pass of HDV. Though IMHO HDV is still pretty good, but the bypass to the XDR or Nano Flash will be far better.

You should also consider that if you choose to buy SD equipment - it would be worth nothing in a couple of years - just like 4:3 is it now. HD equipment will fall in price as it is used - only.

I am wondering what the possibilities are for full-size HD cameras, and whether any of these would be recommended for wildlife work. I saw a used JVC GY HD101 with few hours of usage online for about $5000. Are there others that I should consider that might be available used at an affordable price (something around $4000 or $5000)?

Johnathan

I shoot with the JVC HD110 (very similar) - Its not a 'full sized' camera. Only XL/EX3 sized. I think its a great camera for wildlife. Works very well with Nikon stills, is true progressive CCD based and produces can produce very filmic images. Layout is also very nice IMO. It also shoots 50p/60p at SD which is a useful feature. - Its not a great low light performer and power can be a pain....but its a good peice of kit that I've used for 18months now.

Mat

Thanks Mat. I'll definitely keep these camcorders in mind.

Are there any HD camcorders that record 60fps at 1080p? I know they are probably quite expensive, but this seems like it would be so useful for wildlife work.

The JVC HD200 series will run 720p at 60fps + the EX3 of course. If you get into full size Sonys and the Varicams you'll get 1080p60 but everything starts to get very expensive!

I am surprised that no-one has mentiond the Sony V1 (or the cheaper consumer version, the FX7, in all this.

The V1 comes with a 20x zoom lens (focal length 37.4 - 748 mm in 35 mm equivalence), shoots 140x1080 including progressive, and has a built in (very limited) slow motion capability. There are excellent tele-converters available from Century at 1.6x, and 2.0x. The latter is a magificent lens, but is very heavy (1 kg+) and requires a rail system to support it. Both these converters use the bayonet mount for the lens-hood for attachment, so they are easily connected/removed.

You're into very different quality leagues with the V1 though. It's HDV for a start, and putting teleconverters on the front of the lens is always disastrous. OK for home movies but for serious work they're out of the question.
Steve

Hardly disasterous! The superb Optex 0.7 X wide adapter and Red Eye FX 0.7X HD are both superb quality for the price and well up to professional standards. Original wide lenses such as the incredible Canon HD 6x Zoom XL 3.4-20.4mm L are in a different league of course, but so is the price.

I guess everyone has different ideas about "superb quality". You're using a cheap converter, on the front of what's already a cheap lens and you're expecting to get top quality results? Never in a million years. But again, it depends on what you define as acceptable I suppose.
I was really referring to teleconverters though, which is what Alan mentioned.
Steve

Yes, I missed the fact that Alan was referring to the Century telephoto converter instead of wide converter, and in that respect, I would have to partially agree with you Steve.

A Century 2X telephoto converter would degrade image quality far too much for my liking. Even Canon's own 1.6X converter isn't good enough for my work.

Although for stills shots or hybrid DSLR work, I would certainly use the Nikon 1.4X matched with ED Nikkors, but still steer clear of the Nikon 2X converter due to image degradation.

But even Tony, you're talking about teleconverters that go between camera and lens, which can work fine. Screwing chunks of glass to the front of a lens is another matter entirely as I'm sure you know.
Steve

Steve, and Tony, we have come a long way from the original post!

My suggestion is entirely relevant to that post. I am not sure that all the posts on the five pages are relevant.

Alan, I know these posts can often diverge to unacceptable degrees! But I think this one is still on track. Johnathan was asking about the XL-2, and it's a quality camera for shooting wildlife, and the suggestion of the V1, while interesting, is really a very different beast, especially when talking about sticking front of lens teleconverters on it. This is why the XL-2 was popular for wildlife, the fact that you didn't need to do such an undesirable thing as you had interchangeable lenses and so access to the finest 35mm stills optics ever made.
Steve

I just went through all the posts and everything is still on track for this thread!!

I have a century 2x teleconverter and for what it is it is a good piece of glass. these always soften an image, the further out the more it does so. Unhappy with that I went to the xl2 with lens selection available.

I have sense gone to an xlh1, an amazing camera in its own ways.

Considering you can get a used xl2 for slightly over a couple thousand dollars you would be learning piles of skills that would make the transition to an xlh1 later very easy.

An xha1 used is not much more than an xl2. while it does not allow for lens change, you would be learning even more important skills, field Craft!! All footage then you could move forward with if you get subjects of high value.

Long lenses are great, but quite often are highly over rated compared to getting close up shots!!!

Of course if you are dead serious you could take out a Loan and get your required kit, then start doing some work (non wildlife) to actually pay for it.

One could bash this around forever.

It may or may not be relevant, but can anyone tell me what the contestants were using in the BBC series "Wildest Dreams" (I think that's what it was called)? I didn't see all of the episodes, but I think it was a Sony camera, and it definitely had interchangeable lenses.

The 'Wildest Dreams' series received a lot of bad press. A good idea, but not very well done.

Camaras used for this and other series were I think mainly Panasonic Varicam and Sony. The Sony HD750 and even Z1s have been used on some BBC series. The Sony HDC-1500 and HDC-950 were used on quite a lot of BBC work, including the aerial IS filming using the HD Cineflex V14. I think almost all the six-part 'Natures Great Events' was filmed using mainly the HDC-1500.
Other cameras have been used for filming BBC wildlife programmes, including the Sony HD 730, 900r Cini Alta, 2700 P2 and H-series Varicams, Iconix HD-RH1F, Digibeta 790, beta SX90, Canon XL-H1 and a lot of others.

David Spears did a test of various film and digital cameras for the BSC (British Society of Cinematographers), including Arri, 16mm, Red, and even the Canon DSLR for review. Here are his thoughts on some of the cameras:

The International Association of Wildlife Film-Makers

As a small footnote, I notice that a few BBC wildlife filmmakers are now carrying DSLRs with them. Mark Macewen even uses the Canon 7D for some work:
http://www.iawf.org.uk/members_detai...membersid=1071

I was particularly interested in what the contestants were using because it looked a similar size to my Canon AH1, and I have been asked about it - one of those things where people assume that because you know something about a subject, you must know the answer to their questions too! In fact, they assumed the people on the series were using the same model as I had because it looked similar - ie something they were unfamiliar with - something between big broadcast cameras, and small consumer cameras.

Hi Annie,

The contestents were shown useing Sony z7 with compact flash readers. When watching the editing sequences it was shown they were recording in DVcam mode.

Regards

Mick.

PS Annie is it possilble for you to e-mail me a contact number for you as I would like to discuss with you your experiences with the HVR- MRC1K card reader with a canon.

Thanks Mick. I've just looked that up, and can see that it wasn't available at the time I bought the Canon A1 or it would have been given serious consideration (if I could have afforded it).

I did note the Sony Z7s... mounted on, er, Manfrotto 503 tripods. There's a good combination.

And yes... "The Apprentice in the Wilderness" theme didn't really work in my opinion. I never knew Nick Knowles was a wildlife expert. A man of many talents, it seems.

Almost all of Nature;s Great Events was shot on tape Varicam. This is the case for most BBC nature output for the last few years. Last major thing on not on Varicam was "Nature of Britain" which we did on Super 16 (ah, those were the days!)

Steve

As I mentioned earlier, the main cameras used by the ACS camermen in Nature’s Great Events were the HDC-1500 and HDC-950 HD cameras.

Here is a short review of equipment used:

Sony : HDC-1500 captures Nature?s Great Events : United Kingdom

With reference to the Sony z7 and the BBC you might find the following interesting.
Note the lens used.
Sony : Simon King films with HVR-Z7E : United Kingdom

Regards

Mick