Jump to content


Photo

2007 cameras?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 brian hendry

brian hendry
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Grip
  • NC/VA

Posted 06 January 2007 - 12:33 PM

im about to purchase an hvx200 and was wondering if i should just hold out for something else, but im not sure what that something else is. Are there some cameras that compare in price to the HVX200 that are going to be coming out fairly soon this year that i might want to look into by chance? thanks.
  • 0

#2 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 06 January 2007 - 12:41 PM

Personally I don't like the HVX. It has a much colder look compared to its predecessor the DVX, flesh tones look funky to me, and the fact that it doesn't have an interchangeable lens is a big poo poo.

If you've managed to save up enough dough to get one, I'd hold out and save up even more for Canon's XLH1 which has an interchangeable lens, so you'll be able to shoot with 35mm lenses.

Sony's XDCAM HD is pretty nice too, it's probably out of your price range but this year they're supposed to release a model with 1/2" CCD's...sweeeet

Edited by Jonathan Bowerbank, 06 January 2007 - 12:41 PM.

  • 0

#3 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3072 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 January 2007 - 12:53 PM

If you've managed to save up enough dough to get one, I'd hold out and save up even more for Canon's XLH1 which has an interchangeable lens, so you'll be able to shoot with 35mm lenses.


That's 35mm still lenses with an EOS mount, not 35mm movie lenses with PL. And you need an adaptor to do it. Nice camera all the same.
  • 0

#4 Troy Warr

Troy Warr
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX, USA

Posted 06 January 2007 - 02:25 PM

If you've managed to save up enough dough to get one, I'd hold out and save up even more for Canon's XLH1 which has an interchangeable lens, so you'll be able to shoot with 35mm lenses.


Even then, with EOS lenses and the Canon adapter, you're subject to some serious magnification due to the small size of the CCDs compared to a 35mm (SLR) film frame. I don't know about the XL-H1, but on the the XL-1 and its SD variants, it was more than 7x. That's great if you're doing a lot of telephoto work (your 50mm/1.4 EF becomes a 350mm, for example), but you would basically need to forget about any wide angle or even normal focal length work.

With a P+S 35mm adapter, of course, you can remove the Canon lens and shoot straight through a PL-mount cine lens without the magnification, but of course then you're talking $15K plus for a kit.

Brian, if I were you I'd at least wait until the end of the 2007 CES (http://www.cesweb.org/default.asp) because it's likely there will be some major announcements regarding cameras for the new year. It happens next week (January 8-11) so you won't have to wait too long.

Can you give us some details about your budget, shooting needs, etc.? Knowing that you're considering an HVX-200 helps somewhat, but there could be better recommendations if we know more about what you're going for.
  • 0

#5 brian hendry

brian hendry
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Grip
  • NC/VA

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:35 AM

as far as budget goes, looking to spend somewhere around 6,000. i think. haha....i dont need anything too wild and crazy, i like the hvx a bunch. used it on some shoots and i liked the work flow, other than loading p2 cards all day. but im really happy with the image, and down the line with the red rock adapter options, that is a darn good possibility if i wanted to shoot with some 35 lenses. its pretty much just for me to shoot stupid little things that i like. no features or anything, ha.
  • 0

#6 Troy Warr

Troy Warr
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX, USA

Posted 07 January 2007 - 02:11 PM

The HVX-200 seems pretty hardcore for casual shooting. Somewhere recently I read an article about the "true" cost of the HVX - I don't remember where, but the gist was that if you really want to take advantage of the camera's full feature set, you're going to need to invest a lot more than the camera's $5300 entry price. For starters, you'll need some P2 cards ($1130 a pop for 20 minutes of the lowest quality HD format, 10 minutes of the highest quality). If you don't have enough money for a few of those cards, you'll need to lug a laptop around and dump the footage (which takes a good while) frequently. Shooting to tape is a moot point because that defeats the whole purpose of the camera, in my opinion - buying a Ferrari to sit in rush hour. ;)

I'd recommend something like the Canon XH-A1 for what you're talking about. Still fantastic quality, and a workflow that's loads easier than the HVX, at least on the capture end. If you have a decent, modern computer, then editing with the HDV codec shouldn't present any major problems.

I've read nothing but good reviews on the XH-A1, and it seems to be about the best HDV quality that you can buy at that price today. Usability, like most Canon camcorders, should be top notch. Use the leftover $2300 from your budget for extra batteries, good quality tapes, a mic upgrade, tripod, adapter lenses, and maybe even that RedRock adapter down the road.

Hope that helps!

Edited by Troy Warr, 07 January 2007 - 02:13 PM.

  • 0

#7 Scott Fritzshall

Scott Fritzshall
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 January 2007 - 04:33 PM

Personally I could never recommend anything that records in HDV format, regardless of how good the lenses were. The Canon cameras would be cool if you were using the HD-SDI out and avoiding the compression, but then you'd have to lug around a really expensive computer all the time.

I guess it depends on what you're doing- if you're shooting docs or narratives that don't require any color-correction or effects, then HDV is probably ok if you're finishing on standard def. But no matter how much engineering they do on it, it's still MPEG2 compression, and it's simply not acceptable as a production format. That goes for XDCam as well, which is basically HDV with more bandwidth.

The HVX is a decent camera, but you've got to be aware of its limitations, namely the fixed lens, the CCD which actually samples at something like 960x540, and the complex post workflow. Maybe something better will come out soon.
  • 0

#8 Troy Warr

Troy Warr
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX, USA

Posted 07 January 2007 - 07:53 PM

Personally I could never recommend anything that records in HDV format, regardless of how good the lenses were. The Canon cameras would be cool if you were using the HD-SDI out and avoiding the compression, but then you'd have to lug around a really expensive computer all the time.


I completely agree with you there, Scott. I'm not much at all for the current crop of HD pro-sumer cameras - there are a *lot* of compromises being made if you need to stay out of the big leagues but still shoot HD. I actually have a couple of other threads going now, in search of some advice and feedback about getting the best (i.e. non-HDV) quality HD footage for about this same amount of money. It's undoubtedly going to involve lugging a PC around on set and capturing the camera's pre-processor stream via Andromeda or Intensity, and that's a compromise I'm ready to make - but Brian may or may not be willing to do that.

The thing is, we're handicapped by the fact that the industry hasn't provided a useful format for HD content yet. HDV is barely adequate for any high-definition work, and I agree, not really suitable at all for broadcast work. This is all understandable in that we're still in the early adopter phase with HDTV - this technology isn't going to be cheap for at least a few years yet. Think of how long SD TV was around until we could buy quality SD camcorders within this budget.

My point is, if we need a camera today, we just have to do the best that we can with the technology that's on the market. Brian, if you can stand to work in SD, your money will undoubtedly go a *lot* further in that arena. But, if you need HD and you're willing to accept that HDV is the most practical format out there at the moment, and that it comes with its shortcomings (which the Canon XH-A1 seems to minimize better than any other camera in its price range), I'd say go for it.
  • 0

#9 John Mastrogiacomo

John Mastrogiacomo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 210 posts
  • Other
  • Las Vegas, NV

Posted 07 January 2007 - 09:27 PM

Sony's XDCAM HD is pretty nice too, it's probably out of your price range but this year they're supposed to release a model with 1/2" CCD's...sweeeet

Don't you mean 2/3" CCD's? The 1/2" CCD's are already out.

:huh:
  • 0

#10 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 08 January 2007 - 12:29 AM

Don't you mean 2/3" CCD's? The 1/2" CCD's are already out.


Ah haa! Correct, I misremembered what the DP at the XDCAM seminar said

:)
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Opal

Abel Cine

Technodolly

The Slider

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Opal

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC