Awesome, Now What Pro-sumer Video Camera Should I Get?

[Brendan Goetz]

I’m also looking at Pro-sumer video cameras, specifically the Canon XL-2. what do you guys think in this price range. It’s for an independent film project as well as a series of mobisodes I will be shooting. Any experiences you would all like to share? I’m not looking for anything HD. Also, what accessories are a must when setting up for semi-pro digital filmmaking? Thanks again gang.

[DaleReeck]

If you are going non-HD, the XL-2 is the way to go. The ability to shoot 24p in 4:3 or native 16:9 widescreen is awesome. Especially since the CCD's on the XL-2 are native 16:9, not 4:3 trying to fake it. When you show up with an XL-2, you look like you are serious :)

Personally, I've gone HD (from an XL-1). I figure if I'm going to spend $4000 on a camera, it should last a while and HD will cover you now and 10 years from now. Plus, you can still shoot SD with it for now until HD is more accepted. I got a Sony FX-1 for $2700 and it's pretty nice. The XL-3 HD is sweet, but at $9000 I'll pass for now :)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I don't know much here, but I do know that a good external microphone is a darn good accessory to have if you're somewhat serious!

[adderx99]

In my experiance, I love the DVX100-b, its all around a great camera.
check out the forums at http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/ they have great info on the dvx100, hvx200, and the red camera.
heres a three-way shoot out:
http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

FYI: the camera I own and love is the hvx200, however, this is certainly not a 'pro-sumer' camera, at a street price of about 10k with p2 cards. Digital HD is awesome. :D

[Brendan Goetz]

If you are going non-HD, the XL-2 is the way to go. The ability to shoot 24p in 4:3 or native 16:9 widescreen is awesome. Especially since the CCD's on the XL-2 are native 16:9, not 4:3 trying to fake it. When you show up with an XL-2, you look like you are serious :)

Personally, I've gone HD (from an XL-1). I figure if I'm going to spend $4000 on a camera, it should last a while and HD will cover you now and 10 years from now. Plus, you can still shoot SD with it for now until HD is more accepted. I got a Sony FX-1 for $2700 and it's pretty nice. The XL-3 HD is sweet, but at $9000 I'll pass for now :)

If I go with the HD Sony, am I giving anything up over the XL-2? Is there a reason to pick the XL-2 over the HD Sony?

[Doug Johnson]

In my own experience, within this group of cameras (Canon, Panasonic, Sony) the Canon may not be the best choice. Its pictures (like the XL-1 an XL-1S before it) tend to be a bit soft compared to the other choices.

If you do not need 24p or true widescreen capability, the Sony VX2100 is your best choice because of its value. If you want 24p but do not require widescreen, go with the Panasonic DVX-100B. I would only get the Canon if you have to have widescreen. In fact, if you were considering the XL-2 for its widescreen capability and do not require 24p, go with the Sony HDR-FX1 instead, and you'll have widescreen in high definition.

If 24p or adjustable gamma is needed but true widescreen is not required, get the Panasonic DVX-100B. If widescreen is needed, but not 24p, go with the Sony HDR-FX1. If widescreen AND 24p are absolute musts, go ahead with the Canon XL-2. If you do no require 24p or widescreen, the Sony VX2100 is a great value with an excellent picture.

Canon XL- 2
Pro's: 24p, True 16x9, adjustable gamma (for a more cinematic look)
Cons: Soft image compared to other choices

Sony HDR-FX1
Pro's: High Definition, True 16x9
Cons: Funky 24-frame mode, limited gamma adjustment

Sony DCR-VX2100
Pro's: Excellent low light performance, excellent standard def picture, price
Cons: No 24p, no gamma adjustment, No 16x9

Panasonic DVX-100B
Pro's: 24p, adjustable gamma
Cons: No 16x9

Picture quality, best to worst: Sony HDR-FX1, Panasonic DVX-100B, Sony DCR-VX2100, Canon XL-2

Cinematic features, best to worst: Canon XL-2 (rated higher than DVX-100B because of 16x9 only), Panasonic DVX-100B, Sony HDR-FX1, Sony DCR-VX2100

If you are considering the High Definition route, the Canon XL-H1 is the current best choice in this class of camera, but at $9000 it is considerably more expensive than the other choices. The JVC offering (can't remember the model # off the top of my head) is good as well, but it only offers 720 lines compared to 1080 on the rest, and JVC has been known to have questionable build quality in this price range. The Sony HDR-FX1/HVR-Z1 are both excellent values, and have a better picture than the Panasonic AG-HVX200. The Panasonic AG-HVX200 has 24p support and adjustable gamma, which the Sonys do not, but require funky (and very expensive) P2 cards to operate in HD. I can't recommend the Panasonic offering at all because of this and its (relatively) low resolution compared to the others.

Personally I own two HDR-FX1s and a VX2000 (2100 predecessor). I do not normally need cinematic features like 24p, and in both cases these cameras were the best choices for me. On the rare occasions that I do need 24p, After Effects 7 Pro does an excellent job of conversion.

[Doug Johnson]

If I go with the HD Sony, am I giving anything up over the XL-2? Is there a reason to pick the XL-2 over the HD Sony?
24p frame rate and more flexible gamma adjustment.

But these features aren't for everyone. Unless these are requirements, go with the Sony.

[DaleReeck]

Doug said it best :) I would add that the Sony FX-1, like the XL-2, is sick with manual controls. Basically, not only does the FX-1 have full manual control for almost everything, but it has an external button for just about every function. No menu surfing to change a setting on the FX-1 and the buttons are placed very well. So you don't lose anything in manual control from the XL-2.

Plus, it is smaller than the XL-2. If you do any handheld work, that's huge. I loved the XL-1 but after about 15 minutes, my arm felt like rubber.

You might want to check out a popular FX-1 forum to see what others are saying:

http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2

If you do go with an HD camera, but plan on doing SD shooting for a while, you might want to find out more about the SD quality on the FX-1. It is excellent from what I've seen, but I can't say if it will compete in SD mode with an XL-2.

And of course, the other issue is editing. HD editing takes some heavy resources. Plan on a 3GHZ or better dual core or dual processor system (or whatever the Mac equal is) and a drive array for HD editing. While such a system is superb for handling SD (and a lesser system would still be great for editing SD), for HD the above system is almost a minimum requirement. A dedicated processor card would be ideal for HD editing.

[Jason Dunn]

Just my 2 cents, but I think based on what you want to do, HD is really not neccesary. Web deliver of HD content is still too slow, costly, and painful.

[DaleReeck]

Just my 2 cents, but I think based on what you want to do, HD is really not neccesary. Web deliver of HD content is still too slow, costly, and painful.

True, but a few things to note. One, web content may not be the only thing he uses it for (I think he mentioned an independent film project). Besides, for web stuff, an HD camera can still record in SD. And second, with the FCC requiring all digital TV by 2008, if you are going to spend a small fortune on a camera, it may as well be future-proof. Buying HD now means you don't have to buy it later.

[Jason Dunn]

Good point Dale - I guess I think in terms of HD staying HD and not down-sampling it, or that HD cameras can record in SD. I've never owned an HD camera, so I don't know all that much. ;-)