You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Camera suggestions for purchase?

Posted: Wed, 4th Feb 2004, 1:54pm

Post 1 of 30

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

hey guys, i just received quite the amount of money and im looking to buy a new camera..doesnt matter what make, i just want friendly opinions on cameras instead of going to the site of the camera and reading the specs and false reviews by the company just because its their camera..but yeah!! LETS HEAR THEM!! biggrin

EDIT: im a little interested in this one:
http://www.panasonic.com/pbds/subcat/products/cams_ccorders/f_ag-dvx100a.html
Posted: Wed, 4th Feb 2004, 8:50pm

Post 2 of 30

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12219
Posted: Wed, 4th Feb 2004, 10:02pm

Post 3 of 30

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Element, a guy who went to school with me bought one of those cameras and shot on it for his final. It was a bad idea. I don't know if he was just using it wrong or something, but it didn't look good at all. A GL2 or XL1s would get you much better picture quality, if that's what you're going for.
Posted: Wed, 4th Feb 2004, 10:12pm

Post 4 of 30

streetsk8erdc

Force: 50 | Joined: 10th Jun 2003 | Posts: 163

Member

aculag..do your research before stating false information to someone...the dvx-100a is far superior to the OUTDATED xl1 and the gl2.....it has better picture quality, 24 progressive frame mode which looks exactly like film, and alot more things...its alot newer than the xl1s and the gl2 and has better features...that person that made the video you saw must of either had bad compression on it or he is just plain dumb at using cameras and doesnt deserve the camera..ive used it before and it seems like whatever footage i shot looked incredible even when i didnt properly light the scene or anything..its just really good..i HIGHLY suggest it...im not saying the gl2 and xl1s are bad...they are fine..but if you have enough for dvx-100a ...go for that.....and i hate how you just :recieved quite the amount of money" and u can just go buy it without working for it and all sad i like dream about getting that camera like all day and night and i cant afford one ...at one time i did afford it after saving for about a year and i bought it online but it turned out the company was scamming people and i was one of them..life sucks
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 7:07am

Post 5 of 30

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Just compare the sony vx2100 to all the others, and you'll notice theres no competition. Also, 24p is great and all, except for when you realize that the low light capabilities are quite crappy on the dvx100a, you suddenly remember that the sony goes to 1 lux, and all is well with the world
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 11:46am

Post 6 of 30

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

streetsk8erdc wrote:

aculag..do your research before stating false information to someone
First of all, do not accuse me of "stating false information". When did I ever say, "This is fact: That camera has blah blah blah". That was based on the experience I had from LOOKING at footage. That is clearly stated. I have never used said camera, only seen footage someone else shot. So if what you're saying about it being perfect on all these levels, then I apologise for saying something that I noticed about someone's footage.

And if you're saying that when I said that I had seen his footage and it looked like crap was false information, then you are mad. That's just the experience I had with the camera, and with GL2 and XL1s, I have used and seen the picture quality for myself. Therefore, what I said was not false in the least. Simply my own opinion.
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 2:07pm

Post 7 of 30

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

hmmm
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 2:14pm

Post 8 of 30

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

streetsk8erdc wrote:

aculag..do your research before stating false information to someone

...they are fine..but if you have enough for dvx-100a ...go for that.....and i hate how you just :recieved quite the amount of money" and u can just go buy it without working for it and all sad i like dream about getting that camera like all day and night and i cant afford one ...at one time i did afford it after saving for about a year and i bought it online but it turned out the company was scamming people and i was one of them..life sucks
alright..skater, wow i cant believe you said that to aculag..do you even know who he is?

and why would you hate it that i have just "received quite the amount of money", because im sorry but i worked HARD for it. trust me. it doesnt just come out of my ass. and im sorry you were one of those ppl but it doesnt help your opinion about the camera you are suggesting seeing how you dont own one and use one for yourself other than the one time you seen footage. that doesnt work..especially when you are saying that it is better than the xl1 and gl2. have you ever tried the xl1 or gl2, or have you just looked at the specs? because sure the specs mean something but not everything. it all depends on what the filmmaker wants out of the camera.. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 8:50pm

Post 9 of 30

Tobbger

Force: 20 | Joined: 21st Jul 2003 | Posts: 84

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Is the Sony DSR-PD170 worth buying? My dad is maybe getting it through the job, so I wan't to know if its good. The VX2100 looks pretty well for making movies..

Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 9:05pm

Post 10 of 30

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hmm... DVCAM, eh? I can't say I've ever heard of that specific camera before.. It'd be interesting to check out though.
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 9:09pm

Post 11 of 30

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

too bad its in some asian language..i would like to know the specs. and hopefully find some reviews on it..looks cool
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 10:07pm

Post 12 of 30

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

The PD-170 is pretty dated.

It was THE Indy camera before the XL/1.

The DVCAM transport is nice 'cause it gives you a lot of recording time (several hours + )

They're still pretty nice cameras. Image quality is not GL2 or DVX100, though. Much truer color compared to the XL/1s though.
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 10:37pm

Post 13 of 30

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

On the last professional gig I did, I used a Canon GL-2 and a Panasonic DVX-100. They both have very good picture quality, but the DVX-100 is better. Not only is the picture quality better, but the camera itself is better in every way I can think of. It is much, much, more sturdily built (the GL-2 feels wimpy in your hands), manual focus is much easier to control, it has stereo XLR audio inputs (!!!), the 24p totally rocks, you also have to option to use 30p or 60i, (if you shoot a project in 24p and have slow-mo shots, shoot those particular shots in 30p for additional frames, then slow them down, for the smoothest slow-mo available in the miniDV world), etc.

The light sensitivity might not be as high as some other cameras, but if you are looking for really good picture quality, you will be lighting your scenes anyway, in which case it doesn't matter.

Unless you want to step up to a $100,000 HD camera, I would definitely go with the DVX-100.
Posted: Thu, 5th Feb 2004, 10:50pm

Post 14 of 30

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

I like the optics on the GL2 (a LOT) - but I agree on the DVX100. One of my neighbors is pretty in love with his, and I've borrowed it for a few shots. When my GL2 pixels start dying, I'll be getting one for a B-Roll camera.

Anyway - You know, I've only ever used digital gain for light on a camera once. Filming for a strip club. (And that was +24dB gain on an ENG cam) - I've used progressive countless times. I'd really have to give the nod to a good 24p native over a few luma of resolving.

My latest love is the GS70. 3CCD, fits in my purse. No where near the cameras being bandied about here, but it's sooo cute! A 3CCD camera always with you. How many money shots have you missed not having your camera on and about your person? [blush]
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 5:46am

Post 15 of 30

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Apparently someone was mistaken..the sony pd-170 IS the sony vx2100, except its the "pro" version, which only means it has xlr inputs and records in DVcam. other than that, its the exact same camera. dated? try 2004. The image quality is waaaaay sharper and has much nicer color controls and handling then the dated, bulky, and awkward xl1s. Not to mention, the viewscreen is VERY accurate and so clear you can do precise manual focus. Of course, the xl1s doesnt even have a viewscreen, so i guess that point was worthless...I do wonder though.


Why does everyone think the xl1s is so unbelieveably great? because it was used for a couple shots (which went through a filmlook process) for the movie "full frontal"? david fincher used the sony p150 (vx2000) for his playstation 2 ads! so why isnt everyone all crazy about the sony?
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 6:18am

Post 16 of 30

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

Sorry 'bout that - I was thinking PD-150. Sure would be nice if they designated a bit better.

The PD-150 is the somewhat aging but long-time fav of Indy producers.

http://www.sony.jp/products/Professional/AV/DSR-PD150/

>> Of course, the xl1s doesnt even have a viewscreen, so i guess that point was worthless

I'm really not sure why I'd want a viewscreen. None of my ENG cameras have them. I've never even opened one on a prosumer cam... Why would I need one?
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 6:39am

Post 17 of 30

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Pretty much the only time I've used the viewscreens on the cameras I've had is when I was doing crane shots, and I didn't have a remote monitor yet. Once we set up the shot and set the focus and everything through the eyepiece, we would open the LCD screen to be able to see our framing, at least somewhat. But even then, while you are craning the angle of the screen is constantly changing, so your view is limited. A nice little 5" LCD monitor took care of that problem, though. There are a few other cases where I've found one useful, but mostly they just kill off your batteries.
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 7:09am

Post 18 of 30

KimPossible

Force: 450 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2004 | Posts: 125

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

I picked-up a bunch of these surplused but new - they work great for NTSC/PAL remote monitors. They were only a couple hundred dollars each. Even have two input PIP and switcher.

Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 8:31am

Post 19 of 30

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

This has been quite the helpful topic. I now know that the guy who shot on the DVX-100 was doing something wrong. Maybe bad lighting or something... Good stuff. I've been thinking about the future and about buying a new camera, so this helps a lot.
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 1:38pm

Post 20 of 30

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

So the PD-170 actually records on a DVCam tape? Am I missing something?
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 3:55pm

Post 21 of 30

Tobbger

Force: 20 | Joined: 21st Jul 2003 | Posts: 84

Windows User MacOS User

Member

orion0340 wrote:

So the PD-170 actually records on a DVCam tape? Am I missing something?
You can also use MiniDV-tape if you wan't..
Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 4:07pm

Post 22 of 30

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I wouldn't buy a DVX-100, 24FPS is not needed, if you are filming so you can print to video you would be better off with a 25FPS PAL progressive camera which would have greater resolution than a NTSC DVX-100.

If you are not planning on printing to film then the DVX-100 is utterly pointless. Its not the fact that it can do 24FPS that gives it "film look" so much as that its progressive and the Canon XM2/GL2/XL1S can do progressive 25/30FPS.

The new Sony VX2100 camera apparently has the best image quality of the lot.

Last edited Tue, 8th Jun 2004, 9:02am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 9:08pm

Post 23 of 30

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I agree completely with shwar. Its good to see that someone knows the reality and not the 24p hype. Shwars da man!

Last edited Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 9:09pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 6th Feb 2004, 9:09pm

Post 24 of 30

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Uh oh! Contrast of opinion!
Posted: Sat, 7th Feb 2004, 5:03pm

Post 25 of 30

TheLimey

Force: 50 | Joined: 18th Dec 2001 | Posts: 32

Member

http://products.sony.co.uk/productdetail.asp?id=11_61_2395 and find a review here: http://www.camuser.co.uk/cgi-bin/displayreview.php?reviewid=3468

That would be my choice. Because;

a) I'm on a budget and

b) I have to stick to it.

I know it's not one of the used-by-cool-person's-name bridage but it does have three things in it's favour:

i) It has true 16:9 widescreen mode,

ii) it has a progressive scan mode and

iii) a manual focus ring.

And I would kill for a manual focus ring on any camera. Plus, the price. I've seen it listed at £770 inc VAT: http://www.letsgodigital.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Sony_5.html and scroll to the bottom.

Last edited Sat, 7th Feb 2004, 8:14pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 7th Feb 2004, 5:39pm

Post 26 of 30

streetsk8erdc

Force: 50 | Joined: 10th Jun 2003 | Posts: 163

Member

well i would highly recomend the dvx-100a to people on this forum or are filmmakers and want to have their movies to look as good as real productions look...why wouldnt you want 24p? most likely if you are considering buying this expensive camera..you are a filmmaker...and 24p is exactly what a filmmaker needs....plus all the other great features of the dvx-100a....ive seen good stuff from the vx2100....but i can always tell its just a video camera....when i see the dvx-100a in action..i cant tell its not film most of the time
Posted: Sat, 7th Feb 2004, 8:49pm

Post 27 of 30

FiveIronFrenzy

Force: 464 | Joined: 25th Dec 2003 | Posts: 438

Windows User

Gold Member

Looks can be decieving...
Posted: Sat, 7th Feb 2004, 9:47pm

Post 28 of 30

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Just because it shoots 24P doesn't mean that your footage will look more film like. You have to convert the 24 fps into 29.97 or 25 anyway (unless your final format is film), and this adds an extra step to the production process. Many professionals have trouble distinguishing between 24P converted to 30 fps, and 30P (which is what the vx2100 shoots).

If all the footage you see of the dvx-100a looks like film, and vx2100 footage doesn't, it just means that the 24P footage was shot with higher production values.
Posted: Sun, 8th Feb 2004, 8:20am

Post 29 of 30

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

That Dcr-trv60 is certainly one of the better 1 ccd cameras out there for sure..
Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2004, 5:27am

Post 30 of 30

anonymous

I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread:
The AG-DVX100/a are the only two cameras that shoot TRUE progressive scan picture.
Aside from that, the gamma and shutter have been adjusted to shoot film-like 24P.

Moving away from the Panasonic camera, the PD-170 is a very robust camera. DVCAM is Sony's Pro/Broadcast line variant on the DV25 recording format (it auto-syncs audio data w/ video unlike MiniDV and is "arguably" more robust; however, the camera works w/ standard MiniDV tape as well). And the high end Sony cams do tend to perform better in low light conditions and are known to produce sharper images.

Having said that, if you're getting this as a "movie/indie film" cam, you'll most likely be bringing in lighting rigs and what not (so "low light conditions" shouldn't be an issue). Also, some upper-end editing apps now allow native editing in 24P (Avid Pro/DV, FCP, Premiere, and I believe Vegas does...).

As for the GL/XL Frame Mode 30P recording, there is approximately a 25% resolution loss because of the pseudo progressive system coupled with Canon's Pixel Shift (problem is in the green color phasing).

Hope this helps - I use a GL1 and I'm happy; I really don't think any of the above choices will leave you dissatisfied.