Q. I have about $4000 (+/- some) and was looking to improve the quality of videos I make as well as starting a small business. I'm 16 and was wondering what cameras pack in the most professional features at this price range, and if there is anything I should save up more $ for, or pull the trigger immediately on. I've done quite a bit of research, but what i really need is advice from a seasoned professional as my consumer hdd sony wont cut it any longer. The three cameras I've been looking at are the Canon XH-A1s, the JVC GY-HM100U, and the yet to be released RED Scarlet. My concerns however
-Is tape dead, solid state the way to go?
-can i expect updates to the canon line anytime soon
-how is the compression of shooting to sd cards
-is the red worth the wait even if it kills my budget
-is dslr the way to go right now
-any other recommendations??
thanks
-Is tape dead, solid state the way to go?
-can i expect updates to the canon line anytime soon
-how is the compression of shooting to sd cards
-is the red worth the wait even if it kills my budget
-is dslr the way to go right now
-any other recommendations??
thanks
A. The Red Scarlet - and the various attachments - is out of your price range.
If you don't care about archiving the video for long term, or, if you can afford to buy and maintain a good RAID1 or better NAS or other highly redundant storage system for long term video storage, then I suppose miniDV tape is unnecessary. Personally, I don't trust the cloud security or stability, yet, and NAS units are only just now coming to small business/home use... and I prefer keeping the digital tape masters in an environmentally controlled cool, dry, secure, place for long term storage.
The last update to the Canon line was the introduction of the XLH series a couple of years ago. The XHA1 has been doing well for a while. Whether they will update soon is a good question - pro grade cameras are not subject to the consumer elasticity we are used to with their annual updates.
Speaking of which - the video compression applied to the digital stream is what the camcorder manufacturers want to make it. At the poor video side of the scale are the Panasonic anemic AVCHD camcorders they try to pass off as "pro". But the Panasonic AG-HVX200 is a good one. Then there are those that use DV/HDV (just like miniDV tape) - check the HVR-Z7, and you already know the XHA1 is a miniDV tape based HDV system... then there is less compression - in the JVC GY-HM100.
If you plan to capture all your audio onboard the camcorder, I would stay away from the DSLRs. Their video looks good, but at the moment, their audio options are not so good. If you plan to capture all your audio offboard (like onto a Fostex or other manufacturer) audio field recorder, then the onboard audio does not matter.
Others suggestions:
Sony HVR Z1U (recently discontinued, but a long-time workhorse).
Sony HVR-Z5U (miniDV tape based)
You already know the others (Panny HVX200, Canon XLH, JVC GY-HM series...)
Don't spend your entire budget on the camera.
Tripod, SteadyCam/GlideCam vest system, camera crane - or some other steadying systems.
Mics - shotgun, wireless lavs, stereo, etc...
Lights, mounts, cases... You can easily spend as much on the accessories as you did on the camcorder. I have also found multi-camera shoots to be fun... (I use a Sony HDV-FX1 - the Z1U's consumer sibling and a HDR-HC1 - the A1U's consumer sibling - may times, simultaneously)...
If you don't care about archiving the video for long term, or, if you can afford to buy and maintain a good RAID1 or better NAS or other highly redundant storage system for long term video storage, then I suppose miniDV tape is unnecessary. Personally, I don't trust the cloud security or stability, yet, and NAS units are only just now coming to small business/home use... and I prefer keeping the digital tape masters in an environmentally controlled cool, dry, secure, place for long term storage.
The last update to the Canon line was the introduction of the XLH series a couple of years ago. The XHA1 has been doing well for a while. Whether they will update soon is a good question - pro grade cameras are not subject to the consumer elasticity we are used to with their annual updates.
Speaking of which - the video compression applied to the digital stream is what the camcorder manufacturers want to make it. At the poor video side of the scale are the Panasonic anemic AVCHD camcorders they try to pass off as "pro". But the Panasonic AG-HVX200 is a good one. Then there are those that use DV/HDV (just like miniDV tape) - check the HVR-Z7, and you already know the XHA1 is a miniDV tape based HDV system... then there is less compression - in the JVC GY-HM100.
If you plan to capture all your audio onboard the camcorder, I would stay away from the DSLRs. Their video looks good, but at the moment, their audio options are not so good. If you plan to capture all your audio offboard (like onto a Fostex or other manufacturer) audio field recorder, then the onboard audio does not matter.
Others suggestions:
Sony HVR Z1U (recently discontinued, but a long-time workhorse).
Sony HVR-Z5U (miniDV tape based)
You already know the others (Panny HVX200, Canon XLH, JVC GY-HM series...)
Don't spend your entire budget on the camera.
Tripod, SteadyCam/GlideCam vest system, camera crane - or some other steadying systems.
Mics - shotgun, wireless lavs, stereo, etc...
Lights, mounts, cases... You can easily spend as much on the accessories as you did on the camcorder. I have also found multi-camera shoots to be fun... (I use a Sony HDV-FX1 - the Z1U's consumer sibling and a HDR-HC1 - the A1U's consumer sibling - may times, simultaneously)...
Is buying a $4000 video camera worth it?
Q. I have always owned a simple Sony Handycam DV Camcorder:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665335432
I was annoyed with the poor fixed audio quality and video options, so I decided to upgrade to the JVC GY-DV500U DV Camcorder
http://www.avsupply.com/details/gydv500u.shtml
The MSRP is $4000, but since it was manufactured in 2000, I got it on eBay for $1500.
I read the manual for the DV500U and did some test shots with it. Then, I compared it to my other camera and I noticed no difference in quality. I was on full manual mode and doing everything correctly. Did I waste my money buying this new camera?
If you read the description, you'd know that:
a) I already bought it
b) I got it for $1500, not $4000
Also, I am not using this for home movies. I'm not that stupid. ;) I looked for a better camera because I needed one.
IF YOU WANT BEST ANSWER:
I am looking for someone who will read my question's details, click on the links I provided, and tell me from experience or from what you read if I should keep the camera or return it.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665335432
I was annoyed with the poor fixed audio quality and video options, so I decided to upgrade to the JVC GY-DV500U DV Camcorder
http://www.avsupply.com/details/gydv500u.shtml
The MSRP is $4000, but since it was manufactured in 2000, I got it on eBay for $1500.
I read the manual for the DV500U and did some test shots with it. Then, I compared it to my other camera and I noticed no difference in quality. I was on full manual mode and doing everything correctly. Did I waste my money buying this new camera?
If you read the description, you'd know that:
a) I already bought it
b) I got it for $1500, not $4000
Also, I am not using this for home movies. I'm not that stupid. ;) I looked for a better camera because I needed one.
IF YOU WANT BEST ANSWER:
I am looking for someone who will read my question's details, click on the links I provided, and tell me from experience or from what you read if I should keep the camera or return it.
A. Both are miniDV tape based, standard definition, camcorders. But keep in mind you are comparing consumer-grade to pro-grade.
In this case, where you will see the biggest immediate difference will most likely be in the way the two camcorders behave in low-light conditions. The small lens and imaging chip on the Sony will provide grainy video capture in low light (minimum illumination 11 lux). The much larger lens and imaging chips on the JVC should provide much less graininess in the same amount of light (minimum illumination @ 0.75 lux).
Other observations:
The shoulder mount will provide a much more stable view than a handheld video capture and the interchangable lens will be MUCH more flexible than the fixed lens on any consumer camcorder. (Tripod or camera crane or GlideCam/SteadiCam device should be used, but shoulder mount run 'n' gun 'n' shoot will be a lot easier.)
The easy to get to manual controls on the JVC are *MUCH* more useful than the manual controls that force you to go through the LCD menu on the HC52...
The JVC has a mic jack (HC52 does not), an audio monitor jack (the HC52 does not), BUT, I don't think I would have gone for a JVC... Canon (GL2) or Sony (DCR-VX1000), maybe... but this JVC certainly looks a whole lot more impressive.
Did you waste your money? For $1,500, no, I don't think so. If everything works, I think you got a pretty good deal. And - if you can't notice the differences in the video from the two camcorders, I hope you kept (or can keep) the HC52. Doing a two (or more) camera shoot is WAY more fun and productive than a single camera shoot. You can do multiple angles without necessarily having to re-shoot.
In this case, where you will see the biggest immediate difference will most likely be in the way the two camcorders behave in low-light conditions. The small lens and imaging chip on the Sony will provide grainy video capture in low light (minimum illumination 11 lux). The much larger lens and imaging chips on the JVC should provide much less graininess in the same amount of light (minimum illumination @ 0.75 lux).
Other observations:
The shoulder mount will provide a much more stable view than a handheld video capture and the interchangable lens will be MUCH more flexible than the fixed lens on any consumer camcorder. (Tripod or camera crane or GlideCam/SteadiCam device should be used, but shoulder mount run 'n' gun 'n' shoot will be a lot easier.)
The easy to get to manual controls on the JVC are *MUCH* more useful than the manual controls that force you to go through the LCD menu on the HC52...
The JVC has a mic jack (HC52 does not), an audio monitor jack (the HC52 does not), BUT, I don't think I would have gone for a JVC... Canon (GL2) or Sony (DCR-VX1000), maybe... but this JVC certainly looks a whole lot more impressive.
Did you waste your money? For $1,500, no, I don't think so. If everything works, I think you got a pretty good deal. And - if you can't notice the differences in the video from the two camcorders, I hope you kept (or can keep) the HC52. Doing a two (or more) camera shoot is WAY more fun and productive than a single camera shoot. You can do multiple angles without necessarily having to re-shoot.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar