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

What is the best video camera you own?

What's the best Video Camera You Own?

VHS or VHS-C0%[ 0 ]
8mm or Hi815%[ 7 ]
Digital815%[ 7 ]
Mini DV($400-$1000)17%[ 8 ]
Mini DV($1000 ond up)52%[ 24 ]

Total Votes : 46

Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:19pm

Post 1 of 59

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I just thought it would be intertesting to do a poll like this. Thanx for your participation biggrin .
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:22pm

Post 2 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

minidv 400-1000.... you should add dvcams to the list. I want a gl2 though, because I have the money now smile
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:26pm

Post 3 of 59

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DV Cams always use Mini DV, whick I gave plenty of options for compared with the analog models evil .
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:32pm

Post 4 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

DVCams take DVCAM cassettes
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:33pm

Post 5 of 59

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ryan wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DV Cams always use Mini DV, whick I gave plenty of options for compared with the analog models evil .
Nope. You have DV and miniDV. Standard DV tapes are bigger than the more common miniDV. This is not to be confused with Sony's DVCAM tapes, which are still miniDV.

By the way I now own 2 XM2's (GL2 in the states). They cost me £1540 each (about $2,780 US each).

Cheers,
NoClue biggrin
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:36pm

Post 6 of 59

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Ok, so is there anyway I can add thet to the list?








Or not?
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:36pm

Post 7 of 59

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

By the way I now own 2 XM2's (GL2 in the states). They cost me £1540 each (about $2,780 US each).
I hate you biggrin
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:49pm

Post 8 of 59

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

rcamuk wrote:

By the way I now own 2 XM2's (GL2 in the states). They cost me £1540 each (about $2,780 US each).
I hate you biggrin
confused very strange. I get that comment a lot and I have no idea why.

razz razz razz razz razz

biggrin
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 9:59pm

Post 9 of 59

Gibs

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

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Personally, I'd rather have two XL-1s', or even one, rather than two GL2s. Well, maybe, but XL-1s' are better pretty much in every category, and I can't get over that awesome shoulder mount! biggrin
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 10:10pm

Post 10 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Actually gl2s are better in almost everything than xl1s but it has no interchangable lens system. Only thing really. And no xlr inputs i think but you can get the adapter and stil be spending a lot less than the xl1. Gl2s are betr quality have a screen..

Is there a website that compares feautre by feature the gl2, xl1, dvx 2100, etc?
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 10:19pm

Post 11 of 59

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

And the Xl1s has no LCD screen!!!! How can you live without that?!?
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 10:34pm

Post 12 of 59

Gravy

Force: 200 | Joined: 11th Sep 2003 | Posts: 7

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, I've got an XM1, which I love. And I got it for about £500 from an industrial auctioneer! Which was nice.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 11:30pm

Post 13 of 59

Gibs

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

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky and Brettsta: That's what I thought, too, until I used an XL-1s. I don't mind the lack of an LCD screen because the design of the camera makes it less needed. Mounting it on your shoulder puts the eyepiece right up to your eye, so you don't have to hold it awkward to look through the viewfinder, like you have to do with smaller mini-dv cams.

Also, the lens is bigger, so you get much better low light performance, plus less depth of field. I guess the only other thing the XL-1s has over the GL2 is weight. The GL2 weighs about 2.5 lbs, whereas the XL-1s weighs 6.5! I personally prefer a heavier cam because you get slower, more controlled movements, like you would with a film camera. So a GL2 is better if all you want is a prosumer camera, but there are some really nice features on the XL-1s. Although they don't really merit spending an extra $1000. smile
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2004, 11:32pm

Post 14 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

XL1s are more money than gl2s.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 12:08am

Post 15 of 59

anonymous

The GL2 has more pixels on each of its CCDS.

GL2:
410K gross pixels; 380K effective pixels

XL1s:
270K gross pixels; 250K effective pixels

That being said the XL1s has 1/3" CCDs vs. the GL2's 1/4" size (as such, the XL1s has a shallower depth of field which some people like).

Anyways, maybe the DVCPro and DVCam options should be added to the poll.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 12:26am

Post 16 of 59

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

First, It's really nice that some people have been adding some facts to this discussion biggrin (I'm not sure how many are true confused ) instead of oppinions (this video camera is better because it costs less mad ).

Secondly, I tried to add 3CCD DVC camerasand DVC cameras, but I don't think I can sad . But if anyone can tell me how to, I would be grateful.

For now, howbout the MiniDV $1000 and up cameras can be for the types listed above wink . Thanx,

-Ryan
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 1:04am

Post 17 of 59

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My XL1 hasn't ever treated me wrong. I'll be sticking with it until the XL2 comes out.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 1:08am

Post 18 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Has any news been released about a gl3? Is it planned at all or anyone have an idea when this might be released based on the time it took for the gl2 to come out after the gl1? I wanna know if it would be a bad idea to get a gl2 now, or if I should wait.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 2:30am

Post 19 of 59

Gibs

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

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, the GL1 came out in 2002 (I'm pretty sure), and the GL2 came out sometime last year. So I'd wait, but I'd also look into the VX2100, about same price, and it seems to have a lot of good features too. smile
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 2:37am

Post 20 of 59

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Still, for some $1500 is to expensive. What would be the best camera for like $700-$1000?
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 2:46am

Post 21 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Searching google I found rumors about a gl3 HD cam. If this is for real, would it be able to work it premiere pro or not?
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 4:03am

Post 22 of 59

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Can Premiere handle HD?
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 10:28am

Post 23 of 59

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I really debated getting XL1's instead of XM2's, but just felt that the extra cost was too much for very little gain.

As for steadyness. Well, I use a Varizoom VZ-LSP shoulder brace ( http://www.varizoom.com/pages/lsp.php ) with stealth controller. These are more than good enough for the weddings, etc, I film and still means the total cost is less than the XL1's.

By the way, the XM2 has 470,000 pixels PER CCD (440,000 effective), not 410,000 gross. The green CCD is also "Pixel Shifted" which allegedly gives a much better quality - but I have no idea what it means razz and the L series Florite lens is really nice. You can't change it, but I do have a couple of wide angle lenses that screw onto the front (which is great for indoor work).

As for audio, I just use an MA-300 adaptor. This has XLR inputs and works great with my EW-112p Sennhieser radio mics. This is great for weddings - just stick a ME2 omni tie pin mic on the Groom (which picks up the Bride and Vicar perfectly as well) and you don't have to worry about shotgun mics (which I also have) or background noises (like babies screaming all the way through the ceremony twisted )

I may go for a more professional shoulder mounted camera one day, but for now my XM2's do me proud and I'm happy to stick with them.

I know it's been said before but, at the end of the day, it's really not your camera that makes the difference, it's what you do with it, your lighting, editing, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.................... biggrin

I'm sure most people on this site will agree with me, there is some really excellent work coming out of this site and it's not because of the cameras being used. Cameras can only take you so far. After that it's down to skill and technical know how. Some of the best films on this site are made by young kids with cheap, handheld, home video cameras - but they have the skill and the determination to make good films.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm glad to be a member of this group and feel proud to know you all (I just wish I had half the talent of some of you biggrin ).

Ok, enough soppy talk twisted I've got two XM2's, so there biggrin

NoClue
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2004, 11:00pm

Post 24 of 59

anonymous

No, the GL2 has 410,000 GROSS PIXELS per CCD. Unless there's a difference between the NTSC and PAL versions, here's the proof straight from Canon's site:

http://www.canondv.com/gl2/s.html
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 1:35am

Post 25 of 59

Coureur de Bois

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

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I own a GL2. It's my baby and we are extremely intimate(you might be able to find me sleeping with it on occasion........naked.)
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 1:36am

Post 26 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

orion0340 wrote:

I own a GL2. It's my baby and we are extremely intimate(you might be able to find me sleeping with it on occasion........naked.)
crazy
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 1:46am

Post 27 of 59

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

orion0340 wrote:

I own a GL2. It's my baby and we are extremely intimate(you might be able to find me sleeping with it on occasion........naked.)
Using the words 'own' and 'intimate' in such a closely related fashion is usually a bad thing, I think...
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 1:49am

Post 28 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

heh, true
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 1:50am

Post 29 of 59

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

And Lloyd, you seem to love that shoulder piece. If you have enough money to afford a GL2, you can easily buy a used shoulder rest on ebay for pretty cheap. I got one, plus a steadicam JR from my uncle for free (he's a producer.) wink
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 2:01am

Post 30 of 59

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

orion0340 wrote:

you might be able to find me sleeping with it on occasion........naked.
I don't know but I don't think anyone here wants to find out.
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 9:18am

Post 31 of 59

anonymous

Jambalaya! wrote:

No, the GL2 has 410,000 GROSS PIXELS per CCD. Unless there's a difference between the NTSC and PAL versions, here's the proof straight from Canon's site:

http://www.canondv.com/gl2/s.html
Obviously there's a difference with the PAL version

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/Digital/XM2/index.asp?specs=1
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 9:22am

Post 32 of 59

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

That was me, but I forgot to log in tard
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 3:40pm

Post 33 of 59

anonymous

well that explains it. i guess PAL IS higher res than NTSC.
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 3:43pm

Post 34 of 59

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

That's because PAL is your friend

PAL - friend - get it biggrin
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 7:04pm

Post 35 of 59

jstow222

Force: 970 | Joined: 28th Oct 2002 | Posts: 1146

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I found this: http://www.dvwizards.com/TSS/charts/CanonCamcorder.htm
kind of a cool site, but i didnt see any other brands being compared other than canon.
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 9:15pm

Post 36 of 59

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

jstow222 wrote:

I found this: http://www.dvwizards.com/TSS/charts/CanonCamcorder.htm
kind of a cool site, but i didnt see any other brands being compared other than canon.
Hmm, says here that the GL2 only goes down to a minimum of 6 lux. But the XM2 works down as far as 0.37 lux. And I'm sure the XL1s can work lower than 2 lux.

Aculag, you've got an XL1 haven't you? What's the minimum illumination that will work under?

NoClue
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2004, 9:50pm

Post 37 of 59

jstow222

Force: 970 | Joined: 28th Oct 2002 | Posts: 1146

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Optura 20, got great deal on it and its perfect for what im doing with it, the only thing I reall miss is an rca input.
Posted: Thu, 22nd Apr 2004, 12:55am

Post 38 of 59

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

Aculag, you've got an XL1 haven't you? What's the minimum illumination that will work under?
I haven't even checked, but once it gets down to really low light, the image gets pretty grainy. You can mess around with it and brighten it up, but I hate it. I prefer well lit stuff. Even if it's dark.
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 3:26am

Post 39 of 59

anonymous

if your talking low light, the sony vx2100 is undoubtedly the king. minimum rated at 1 lux, and its actually true for once. the xl1s looks not so good in anything over +4 gain, making the lux level seem to be around 10.
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 10:50am

Post 40 of 59

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Just recently bought a Sony VX2100.

The claims of it being the best low light performer on the market really are true, I've compared it with my old 1 chip Sony and its unbelievable how you can point it at near darkness and not get those horrible grainy, dark shots.
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 11:42am

Post 41 of 59

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Brettsta wrote:

XL1s are more money than gl2s.
But XM2's are just better. (own opinion)

smile
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 6:34pm

Post 42 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

er-no wrote:

Brettsta wrote:

XL1s are more money than gl2s.
But XM2's are just better. (own opinion)

smile
Definately. You cant live without a lcd screen and its better quality too smile
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 7:07pm

Post 43 of 59

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I think (if I had the money) I would get the GL2. It has more pixels per CCD and it costs less smile
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 9:23pm

Post 44 of 59

anonymous

Actually, if you were to look side by side at the vx2100 and the gl2 (xm2), you can see which one looks the best....(apparently sony)

Congrats solidus, i have had one for about 5 months now and still cant believe how much kickass sony was able to inject into its camera.
Posted: Fri, 23rd Apr 2004, 9:36pm

Post 45 of 59

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Strange, i looked at a comparison from a link posted on this forum and the sony looked worse.
Posted: Sat, 24th Apr 2004, 2:48am

Post 46 of 59

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm happy and very satified with my Canon GL-2 I bought in the New Year. smile
Posted: Sat, 24th Apr 2004, 6:32am

Post 47 of 59

anonymous

Personally, i prefer the "quasar" brand vhs cameras. i picked one up from walmart today, and couldnt be more satisfied. AMAZING picture quality! stunning sound fidelity! and, to make it even cooler, the battery weighs 10 pounds, and last for almost half an hour!
Posted: Sat, 24th Apr 2004, 6:40am

Post 48 of 59

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Man too bad you weren't logged in or your stunning wit would have earned you a +1

Canta unsure
Posted: Sat, 24th Apr 2004, 12:31pm

Post 49 of 59

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

sad My sony Hi-8 camera doesn't quite stand up to any of these cameras.

Time for an upgrade!!!
Posted: Thu, 6th May 2004, 12:03am

Post 50 of 59

sculptingman

Force: 0 | Joined: 6th May 2004 | Posts: 1

Member

I am trying to determine if a GL2 works well on the Steadicam Jr platform.
You say you have one of each, so, have you put them together and if so, howz it work?

I know they make a mounting adapter for use with certain side monitored cameras, and need to know if I need one of these to mount the GL2 on the steadicam jr.
thanks
christopher




Serpent wrote:

And Lloyd, you seem to love that shoulder piece. If you have enough money to afford a GL2, you can easily buy a used shoulder rest on ebay for pretty cheap. I got one, plus a steadicam JR from my uncle for free (he's a producer.) ;)
Posted: Thu, 6th May 2004, 1:04am

Post 51 of 59

Xel

Force: 350 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 152

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm happy with my camera, though I do occasionally drool at those GL2's and X-whatevers.

Mines a JVC GR-DV3000U... "Suggested Retail Value" of 2k, but I got for 1k..

I managed to outwit the guys at one of those scammy online shops. They called me and told me that I absolutely *had* to buy a certain set of filters in order for the camera to work correctly... I told them I already had them, and they stopped hassling me. (I heard *after* I bought my cam that they often did things like try to sell crummy accessories for exorbitant prices.)

So I got my cam for $1000 less than I might've, and then bought the appropriate lens filters for $300 less than they tried to scam me for them.

Side note: What is the relation between f# and lux? I know they are both measures of how good the camera can see in low light, but.. Are they equivalent, or is there a conversion, or totally separate? My cam is f1.2, but I don't know if that means it's a lux of 1.2 or whatever.

-Xel
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 11:02am

Post 52 of 59

polemarch

Force: 510 | Joined: 4th Mar 2002 | Posts: 135

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I love my Sony DSR390 even though it cost £7,000 to buy the thing. You need to add a $10,000+ option I think to your poll:-)
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 12:25pm

Post 53 of 59

pboniface

Force: 2335 | Joined: 3rd Sep 2003 | Posts: 366

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I think that speaks volumes for ALAMDV and the guys at CSB...

You have a Ten Thousand Dollar Camera and use ALAMDV when you can probably afford After Effect Pro, with all the Boris FX plugins, all the Digital Anarchy Plugins and all of the Digilook plugins, and a full copy of Particle Illusion 3 and you still choose to use ALAMDV..

I think Schwar and the boys can be justifiably proud of themselves smile
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 2:51pm

Post 54 of 59

polemarch

Force: 510 | Joined: 4th Mar 2002 | Posts: 135

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I use Adobe After Effects and much more but AlamDV is quicky, simple to use and best of all, has massive community support. For example, I want a simple dust puff, Alam has loads to choose from. I probably have around £5K worth of NLE and effects apps (at least) and they never have exactly what I want smile Of course, AlamDV 3 would make me much happier. I'm fed up using the PC version now!!! I want an OS X variant!

Its a damn good piece of software for the money.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 3:26pm

Post 55 of 59

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The Sony's still have better low light performance as well, despite the XL having a bigger lense, it's all down to the chips.

I think the XL is the camera to have if you have the money.... and by that I mean you could affoard to go with it:

- An external monitor - much better than any LCD screen.
- Different interchangable lenses for the camera, its main feature.
- A decent quality XLR based microphone and mixer.


Otherwise, you are kind of not doing the camera justice and could affoard a just as good, but cheaper option.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 12:09am

Post 56 of 59

jetaimaster

Force: 200 | Joined: 1st Feb 2004 | Posts: 107

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Solidus wrote:

The Sony's still have better low light performance as well, despite the XL having a bigger lense, it's all down to the chips.
sonys vx2000 has better low light than xl1
but gl2 beats their DCR-TRV80 and 950
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 8:20am

Post 57 of 59

pboniface

Force: 2335 | Joined: 3rd Sep 2003 | Posts: 366

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

But then again, all of this "Which is the best camera" stuff is absolute rubbish...

Give a hollywod class director of photography a 12 year old VHS-C camcorder and he will still come up with something head and shoulders above what a 12 year old ked with a hollywood class digibeta cam would do...

It's not what tools you have, its how you use them.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 12:35pm

Post 58 of 59

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

pboniface wrote:

Give a hollywod class director of photography a 12 year old VHS-C camcorder and he will still come up with something head and shoulders above what a 12 year old ked with a hollywood class digibeta cam would do...
No... Give a hollywood class director a 12 year old VHS camcorder and he'll be like "What the f--- do you want me to do with this?".
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 1:33pm

Post 59 of 59

polemarch

Force: 510 | Joined: 4th Mar 2002 | Posts: 135

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

smile I think you might get a few insults rather than help with that kind of cam.. smile Of course you are correct though and it has been proven time and time again. A pro photographer can take fantastic quality images with a $10 camera and then you get Mr Clever with a $5k Bronica medium format camera arse up the exposure and crop everybodies heads in frame! smile

It is definitely a case of the man and not the machine here.