new camera
 

What you would buy for weddings If you would have around $2500.

Sony VX2100. Great for low light situations.

thanks,VX2100 is better than say GL2??
Still better to buy SD camera than HD??

Would be 701RC2 head enough for VX2100??

For $2500 I agree, the VX2100.... if you have $4000 I would say go for the A1 :) The VX2100 has much better low light from what I've seen. I used to own a VX2100, but I've never used a GL2

Although I haven't used the 701 head, I have the 503 head with sticks from B&H, cost about $450 and it works pretty well with the VX2100. The camera's a little light for the head, but it still works OK

Sorry, I wish I could give you better info, but it's my .02 for what its worth

Consider a used VX2000 instead. Use the remaining dough for some decent audio equipment. (Or buy 2 if all you need are the cams).

I have both, a used 2000 & new 2100 and regret buying the newer 2100.

Really? I was under the impression the 2100 had better low light and crisper image than the 2000?

The colors are just a "tad" more vibrant in the 2100 and I see no difference in low light performance. As long as I white balance both cams (which one should do with any cam anyway), I do zero color correction in post to match the footage. The images are practcially identical. A new 2100 is not worth the extra $1000-$1200 IMO especially if you'll be going to HD or something with native 16:9 in a couple of years.

Given the choice between running this biz with "one" new 2100 or "two" used 2000's... it's a no-brainer. A second cam simply adds a new dimension with many more possibilities.

I agree completely Rick. Thanks for the info on the cams

Thanks guys.So VX2000?Good.
I'm kind of glad that no one is trying to convince me into the HD.
Just cant afford it right now.
For me is tough.I have been living in USA for a couple of years but I am going to move back to my country(Czech republic).
Problem is I want to start doing the videography over there but it's risky,it's been so long I've been there.Right now I have Pana GS400 and here are all the cameras really cheaper than in Europe.
So for me risky,either buy camera here ,go back home and see what happens or just wait ,take my little GS400 and If I'll have a chance in the bussiness I'll buy it for more money in Europe.

Get a used FX1. (or a new FX7)

The VXs are great cams but why by anything SD now???

The low is better on the but not by much. I have been shooting weddings with the fXs for 1 year now after shooting with VXs for 5 years and I dont miss them at all.

Hey Daniel,

How much is not much in reality? What lighting do you use for the fx1 now as to what you used for the vx's? Is a 10/20 sony enough for fx1?
what do you use at receptions when the lights go down. I'm in a dillemma regarding pd's/vx's/fx1?
thanks in advance

Manny.

I use they exact same lighting that i did with my VXs: the 10/20.

The FX, even at 18db, has a VERY clean image which can be easily Color Corrected to compensate.

Don't get a VX. You will NOT be disappointed with the FX.

I may have 1 or 2 to sell real soon. :)

but doesn't the fx1 wait up to 5 seconds to actually start recording after you hit that rec. button?

manny.

Yeah.

You can find knitpicks with every camera.

Is that a legitimate concern for you? I have never missed a single moment because of it.

Not entirely a concern for me, however it only took Tyson 3 seconds to bite off Hollyfield's ear, I suppose it would be a disaster to miss that. :)

Anyway I'm still not sure which cam as yet. I'm in no hurry. I'm still re-searching.

Manny.

Yes... the record delay for the FX1 is a PITA for some, for others it's not. Plus, SD footage from an FX1 looks a little better too. And one day more people will actually be able to play HD footage too. :)

But I gaurantee a VX will outshoot an FX1 at a candle-light venue without burning the bride's eyebrows using high wattage lights.

I stand by what I say... In wedding video 2 low light cams for the same price are better than one. And I don't have any VX's to sell you :)

Don't know what your true intentions are though. If you only have $2500 to start this biz from scratch then any new cam is out of the question anyway IMO.

Thanks for sharing that wisdom rick. :)
I'm actually leaning towards the pd's due to inbuild xlr's and slightly better manual controls. I'm sorry, I wasnt the one who said I was only looking at spending $2500 only, I believe it was Richard. Either way the more I read on here the more I'm leaning toward the pd's with low light rather than hd (for now anyway).

Manny.

PD-170. There is a $300 rebate right now. Still the #1 wedding work-horse camera for many including myself.

I do dance videos and the FX can't begin to compete with the low light capabilities of the VX or PD's. When you can't add your own light you really appreciate what great low light cams the VX and PD are. And since my clients have no interest in HD, I don't see myself "upgrading" to an HDV cam for a long time.

B&H actually has a used PD170 right now with wide angle adapter for $2400

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

The iris adjustments on the PD cameras are closer together and have more steps, so the changes aren't as noticeable as the VX, plus you get the XLR. Same optics/sensors as the VX

Even better and I think with the rebate the PD is the same price as a new VX2100(Haven't checked though)

Pretty much the same innards as the VX and the XLR adapter is a big plus. You also won't have that annoying automatic standby mode on the PD line as we VX owners have to deal with.

great I'm sold....pd170 it is:)

thanks for the feedback, Glen, Jeff, Nick and Rick.

manny.

You speak from experience Jeff?

Have you used an FX in low light?

Absolutely. And in situations where you cannot add light the FX can't compete with the VX or PD. If you can add lighting that's a different matter. I do a lot of high school dance and the dancers are often in silhouette (often very poor stage lighting) and the VX's and PD's are the only cams I have found in this price range that give a decent picture.

Just curious..do you own one? Did you rent one? If you did, what for?

I have used both, and while nothing beats the VX/PDs in low light, the FX is not far behind and is MUCH more easily color corrected because even at 18db the picture is very clean and the grain is tight.

And besides, why is it that low light is the barometer that HD cameras are always held up to to dismiss them? I shot over 100 weddings in all different enviornments with these cams now with absolutely NO issues with low light (paltry zoom yes..but low light no). I just flip on my 10/20 when needed at the reception. Big whoop.

Why not compare the imagery of the two and use that as a barometer? Or flexibility as far as being able to shoot native 16:9 and 4:3. HD and SD.

In both those categories its not even close. Even downrezzed HD material is significantly better than SD acquired material.

With the viable delivery options for HD already here I don't think its smart for anyone to be still purchasing SD cameras IMHO.

I guess I haven't have made it clear, Daniel, that I'm not dismissing the HDV cams. If I was doing weddings I think it's a good possibility that I would have gone with one of the Sony HDV cams. I think an individual has to decide what their needs are and proceed from there. I had a friend that had an FX and I needed to add a third cam, and before I bought anything I wanted to try the FX. So he let me borrow it for a month and It just didn't suit my needs. I'm talking about very low-light and poorly lighted stages (lighting is done by high school students in collaboration with the dancers, and they look at what they think is "cool", not at what will produce the best video). I ended up adding a PD170 because it suited my needs much better. I also have an XL1s but it couldn't capture the darkest scenes without grain. Color correction has never been an issue because the cams match up so well. Most of my clientelle is high schools, because I teach high school television and video production (Emmy award winning, I just have to add! =) and this is a side business for me. And because high school students are my clients I have had no demand for HD. I haven't even been able to get them all to switch from VHS to DVD! If there was financial incentive I obviously would be making a change. For now these SD cams meet my needs. I'm sure the day will come that I will move on to some form of HD, and when I do maybe they will have improved in the area of low light (or I can convince the dance teachers that they need to take a more active role in deciding lighting schemes!). In the mean time I'm milking every dollar I can from my paid for SD cams.

Thats great for you Jeff. I am not asking you to go out and dump your cams and get FXs. You have very specific needs. Most shooters are not that specific in their shooting. The thread was started as to what a good cam would be to buy now for someone looking to get a new one.

My points are:

- The supposed poor low light performance of the FX/Zs have been GROSSLY exagerrated. Mostly by people who have just read about them and have never actually used them.

- I just don't think it is smart to buy an SD camera right now given that you have MUCH more options with an HD camera right now in terms of shooting and delivery. Regardless of whether clients want HD or not.

I can shoot in HD, SD, native 16:9, 4:3 and have superior quality delivery in all of those formats.

The same cannot be said for a PD user.

I don't disagree with you about the attributes of the FX. But the original poster was asking for a quality cam under $2500. That fits the VX2100 but leaves the FX out since it is $1000 more than the VX.

I said a used FX1 or a new FX7. Both you can find in that range. :)

Granted, no XLRs though. But I use the RODE with mine and the sound quality is great.

Not exactly a good analogy because anyone who was filming that would be rolling the whole time. ;)

Just curious, Daniel. Where can you get a new FX7 for that price? They are listed for around $3200 at the online vendors I checked out.

This is where I saw the FX7 new for that price (actually $2800)

http://dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-78974.html

Apparently it has gone up. Besides I think the FX1's are a better buy at $2500 for a good used one.

Another huge plus for shooting HD right now are samples..this is 20 mb file

http://homepage.mac.com/epiphany2002/hdgallery.html

You can't do something like that at that size with SD cams.

I shoot with all PD an VX series cams. I purchased the FX1 several months back while considering switching everything over to HD. After a mnoth of tweaking the settings and getting used to the camera, I really wasn't happy and sold it in favor of sticking with the PD and VXs. In the end, I think it is more what you do with the cam as opposed to what resolution it is and, for now, I'll take the low light ability over the extra features on the FX1 and for what it worth, the couples I won't pay for HD but do appreciate that we can get by without lights most of the time. If I were buying another cam for weddings, and I will be soon, it would not be the FX1 or FX7.

Sorry, I know this is off the topic, but could you show me a link to this RODE mic. I want to know what it looks like. From B&H Photo website is fine.

Regards....

Thank You.

It has a Stereo mini Jack (3.5mm) which feeds sound to the Left and Right channel. That's perfect.

Regards...

Even if this topic is a bit old and tired, it's still a good discussion for someone faced with that big first decision.

I chose the FX1 not because of HD, but because of native 16:9. The quality hit with letterboxing the PD/VX is immediately apparent to me. Since I think 4:3 is a dying format and I prefer to frame everything in 16:9, this was an easy choice.

Now, if they updated the VX/PD series with native 16:9 imagers and kept the same price and sensitivity, that would make the decision a little more interesting. I don't have any clients who have asked for HD delivery yet, and I don't expect a significant market penetration of Blu-ray and HD-DVD anytime soon.

Shot a reception last night in a VERY dimly lit room. I bounced a 500 watt light off the ceiling and got some pretty decent images. The trick is, we setup the light beforehand, and I don't think anybody even noticed it when they arrived - they just thought it was part of the decor. I guess it didn't affect the ambience too much since nobody ever mentioned it.

I can't say I'd agree with this statement. There may be a small difference, but I would not describe it as "significantly better". I would say 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference between downrezzed HD vs. native SD.

We are talking semantics here. What exactly is "significantly better?" if there is no way to quantify it?

I will ask you though; have you actually captured something in HD, edited in HD, and then downconverted before going to web or DVD?

The difference is very noticiable to even the untrained eye. I have had countless brides tell me that my demos "look different" or "look better" than others they've seen without having a clue that it was because I captured it in HD. (I do not even advertise it on my site.) They are not talking about the content because they use words like "more vivid, more colorful...clearer".

Did you see my demo I linked earlier? That is SD that was downconverted from HD. You cannot tell me for a second that you can put an SD sample at that size up against mine and have 9 out of 10 not be able to tell the difference.

Its the same logic behind the reason that VHS movies made from film look significantly better than DV--> VHS. They are both in the same format but the acquisition formats were much different and thus there is a major difference in quality.

I would insist on getting something that's HD. If you can double the amount, the Sony Z1 is a great choice. If not, consider the Sony V1, or even the FX7 or FX1. Although the FX1 design is about two years old, you can probably get one for what you have budgeted, and there many using them for weddings.

If you buy something that is not HD, you will eventually have to upgrade and learn the new technology. So I say go HD now and avoid the catch up later.

Hi Daniel,

When I first got my FX1, I did do some tests to compare downconverted HD versus native SD. For projects to be delivered in SD, I was trying to weigh the pros and cons of the two options. As we know, when shooting HDV, you have to deal with long GOP MPEG2 and its associated disadvantages. Although my tests weren't scientific or even that extensive, I can honestly say that I did not see a significant difference even when the final SD footage is projected onto a 100" screen.

I did watch your sample footage. It looks awesome. Great shots, nice editing. But how much of that is attributed to the source being HDV-originated? I can't tell because it's not fair to compare other people's work to yours!

Here's an easy test that anyone can do: setup your HDV cam on a tripod, shoot a scene in HDV. Switch to SD mode and shoot the same thing. Compare the two after the HDV is downrezzed. No fancy editing, no color correction. This is where I say 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference. I think it is very subtle.

One more thing of note - your sample's resolution seems to be about 996x560. That's higher resolution than normal SD (720pixel width). I'm not sure how you got to that final movie size, but nonetheless, it looks great and it's a very impressive sample.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing or trying to denounce HDV in any way (I shoot HDV probably 90% of the time). I think I'm more interested in whether my assumptions are completely off-based, or if others can chime in with their own findings.

Best Regards,

Eric