randy brown

If all goes as planned, I expect to be making my first 3 CCD camera purchase
this spring. I know there are a lot of options out there, and without me
telling you what I'm planning to do with it, I realize you won't be able to
make an informed recommendation. Frankly, even I am not entirely certain
what I'll be doing with it. <g> Several options on the table. But suffice
it to say I know I'll never get the kind of work I want to be doing with my
little consumer-level Sony Handycam that I've been playing with since I
first got seriously interested in video editing and production about 18
months ago. I've focused this time on just learning the editing part. I'm
looking at trying to get some corporate video work and/or some local
(cable?) TV spot work. (Trust me, I can do this...I keep saying this, as
much to remind myself that I really can. But honestly, I'm not quite the
novice I let on. Well, maybe.)

Set aside for a moment your skepticism. I'm looking for some advice.

I can't afford the $10K+ plus cameras. That's out of the question. I'm
looking at the $3K-$4K level for now. The veritable "prosumer" line of
cameras. Not ready for prime time, but good enough to shoot local cable TV
spots and most any sort of non-broadcast marketing material. No weddings.
I've been to two of my own already, I don't care to go to anyone else's.

Over the past year, I've done a little "window shopping" and I've narrowed
down my choices to these three (in no particular order):

* Canon XL1S. Seems to be quite popular. I've heard it's front-heavy.
Dropping a bulky $3,000 camera would, for me, be a really bad career move.
Intechangable lenses are touted as a plus, but don't all cameras have that
capability? I've heard good things about the image it captures (softer,
more "film like," although I'm not going to be doing movies, so Mr.
Spielberg, you can rest easy). The biggest down side for me is that as a
career audio guy, I'm not thrilled with mini plugs for mics. (They're
amateurish, and for the life of me, I don't know why Canon doesn't get
smarter about that.) I know, I know, there's an adapter (shoulder brace)
that has XLR input jacks. But who wants to pay for "extras" to get what
SHOULD BE standard? Other than that, it seems like a very solid camera...IF
I don't drop it. :-)

* Sony PD150. This is the one I'm leaning toward, largely based on a
recommendation I got from a guy here in my hometown who (I think) is a
pretty successful videographer, and who admits even he is drooling over
them. (I guess that means he doesn't have one.) He tells me CNN equipped
their embedded reporters with these in Iraq. Don't know if that's true, or
if it's even a good way to judge whether it's viewed as an acceptable
"broadcast" camera. For a big operation like CNN, a $3K investment makes it
more or less "disposable," I would guess. "Wolf, I've gotta go, they've
just shot the cameraman and the camera has just exploded into a million
pieces!" But I've heard other good things about it. An all-around solid
investment, if my sources are correct. XLR all the way.

* Panasonic AG-DVX100. Saw this one side-by-side with the PD150. Both look
pretty similar, with the biggest difference being the lens, although by
looking through the little flip-out screen, I couldn't tell any difference
in picture quality (not the ideal way to judge, I know). The Panasonic lens
has the added feature of being able to do macro. Not that I intend to be
filming any do***entaries of insects ****ing, mind you, or shooting
corporate videos that include shots up the CEO's nostrils or looking inside
the pores of his skin. So I'm not sure what the value of this macro feature
would have for me. But you never know. Folks do rave about this camera,
and I have it on my short list. XLR mic plugs. But something deep down
inside me says Panasonic is not a PRO brand. But that's just me.

The down side, it seems to me, of the Sony and the Panasonic is that they
both use a proprietary tape format. Or maybe I've got that all mixed up
(help me sort that out, will ya?). I believe the Sony will play MiniDV &
the format it uses (I forget what that is), while the Panasonic will only
play its own format (DVCAM?). That's another strike against the Panasonic,
in my view.

I'd appreciate any reviews y'all might have of these three cameras, and in
general, your thoughts about the various DV tape formats
(advantages/disadvantages of each one).

Thanks in advance. This should be fun.

Randy

steve king

There have been a number of discussions of your exact question in the past 6
months or so. Go to Google and check out those discussions. Or, take my
advice. Buy the PD150. Get an accessory wide angle lens. Be happy. It
has great performance for its price-range. The BBC chose it over the
DVX-100 because they felt the Sony was more rugged and that the DVX-100 had
no compensating advantages that feature. The PD150 shoots DVCAM. It uses
MiniDV or full sized DVCAM tapes. So does the DVX-100. The XL1's
technology has been superceded in almost every way, unless interchangeable
lenses are really important to you. It is the only camera of the group that
has that capability. That's the very short story, IMO. There are folks on
this newsgroup who can tell you, can even show you frame grabs, and discuss
technical specs that will generally come to the conclusion that today's crop
of 3-CCD cameras... the PD150/170, the DVX100, and the GL2 are all very good
cameras. Each is different is small ways that may be a major concern for a
very few people. For instance, the PD150/170 has the reputation for best
performance in low light. Some sound guys feel that the DVX-100 has some
advantages over the others, plus it shoots in 25P if you are going to film
or just like that filmy look. The GL2 has a wider-angle zoom lens. But,
for the work you described, you will be very happy with the PD150. Now, go
Google so the nice guys here who know more than I about these things don't
once again have to enter the "Groundhog Day" thread.

Steve King

bulletedge

I will reply based on my very recent (December) experience shooting and editing
a 4 camera music video shoot. The cameras used were an XL-1, a DVX100, a PD150
and a JVC5000.

All 3 cameras you are considering are decent cameras although the XL-1 has
probably seen its day until it is updated. The XL-1 image quality doesn't
measure up to the Sony or Panasonic- at least in my subjective view having used
all 3 cameras- and more importantly having edited, composited and color
corrected footage shot with all 3 cams extensively.

The DVX100 will provide more versatility via its switchable 24p, 30p & 60i
feature but the desirability of this may not be important to you depending upon
your intended use of the camera. I will say that clients (and laymen) can
immediately spot non-interlaced 24p or 30p footage vs. regular 60i- the normal
comment is something on the order of "hmmm, that looks a little more like film
than video". (We used the 30p setting on the shoot mentioned above) The lense
on the Panasonic, while not interchangeable, offers a slightly wider angle than
the other 2 cams and provides very crisp images. Also, the color (with the
"cine gamma" setting) is more cinematic in quality than the other cams.

The PD150 is also an excellent camera which may provide slightly better
lowlight performance than the Panasonic. The DVCAM tape capability may be
important but only if you need the longer tape length which it offers-
otherwise the recorded signal is identical to miniDV.

Overall summary- I would personally rank the DVX100 #1, the PD150 #2 and the
XL-1 last. Excellent results can be obtained with all 3 cameras but when it
came to editing the aforementioned music vid- the client preferred using the
DVX100 shots whenever possible. My advice would be to shot some tests with all
3 cams if possible, compare the results and purchase the one which you feel
provides the image quality and features which you desire.

Have fun and good luck!

Bulletedge

PS- I have owned and shot with all three cams-you might have guessed that I
currently own a DVX100

david ruether

See "BulletEDGE's" post, above (though I hate 30p footage
instead of proper 30i footage for NTSC TV viewing, and for
this, the VX2000/PD150 is a tad sharper [they are CLOSE!]
than the DVX100) - he is right, the PD150 and DVX100a are
*the* compact 3-CCD cameras right now. They each have
advantages/disadvantages (for me, a WA nut, the wider range
of good WA lens converters available for the Sony is more
important than having the natively-moderately-wider lens
and slightly better audio of the Panasonic...). The XL-1 is
not in the same league. BTW, both can do macro, have XLRs,
and record/play common Mini-DV tape. These may be useful:
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/vid_pict_characts.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/diffraction.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/WA-converters.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/VX2000_odds.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au
http://www.bealecorner.com
http://www.adamwilt.com
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

brian a. henderson

: > CNN equipped their embedded reporters with these in Iraq. Don't know
: > if that's true, or if it's even a good way to judge whether it's
: > viewed as an acceptable "broadcast" camera.

I still have friends at CNN and yes this is true. I've heard that some
people tried the new Panasonic and that it died quickly in the dusty
conditions. I think the new PD-170 looks good. It has a bigger viewfinder
and some other new features that sound like it would be worth whatever
extra money to me.

I own the JVC GY DV-500. For some reason JVC chose to emulate the more
greenish Ikigami look rather than the warmer Sony look. The pictures look
great, but you will notice a difference when you intercut with other
cameras footage. The newer 5000 has a "warm look" setting which is
supposed to mimic the Sony look. Panasonic also has the AJDV-200 which I
haven't heard much about lately. Both these cameras are shaped like
regular broadcast cameras, so they'll sit on your shoulder, etc. They also
require heavier tripods, expensive batteries and chargers, etc. That's
definitely some thing to consider.

The interchangeable lenses on the XL-1 sounds great, until you realize how
much the lenses cost. The palmcorders all take add on adapters so I
wouldn't worry about it.

Just because these cameras are used for broadcast shoots, it doesn't mean
they're as good as the cameras that cost ten times as much. They are just
considered good ENOUGH.

-Brian

randy brown

And probably plenty good enough for ME. At least for the time being.

Thanks to all who responded. I did Google it and found lots of interesting
info. That, along with the responses here, pretty much confirms what I had
been inclined to do. Go with the 150. Although frankly, until this thread,
I wasn't aware of the PD170, and from what I can tell, it's the same price
as the 150, so unless there's some kind of reliability issue (it's probably
too new to know), I'd probably go that way.

Question: Being something of a neophyte when it comes to these cameras, can
anyone point me to any websites where there are screen shots showing
comparisons of different looks that are thought to be "warmer" (as described
above). Is this a reference to the color temperature, or is it a term used
to describe the "softness" or other "film-like" characteristics?

Randy

noname

Ike's are highly adjustable, though, in terms of overall color
balance. As are the Sony DXC and BVP lines.

I think I remember hearing JVC using what essentially was an Ikegami
chipset for this camera, BTW, and I have to say the menu structure
seems remarkably similar to, if somewhat simpler than, my Ike's.

And good enough for "Nightline" as well - a friend of mine did an
entire show on the cowboy life in Texas and New Mexico (ran last July) on a PD-150.

It's an updated model. New label, a few tweaks, proven innards. Your
choice at this point.


Warmer generally refers to color balance. This is adjustable on the
PD-150/170 and VX-2000/2100 in the "custom preset" menu. It's also
possible to use a "warm card" (a pale blue "white balance" card) to
warm up the look. As for hard or soft edges, the same models offer a
"sharpness" setting that raises/lowers the edge sharpening that takes
place in the camera's internal processing circuits. While not as
flexible as the detail adjustments on a broadcast camera, it can have
a noticeable effect on the image.

Good luck wiht your purchase. Enjoy.

david ruether

See my post, above - there are LOTS of comparison frame-grabs
in the referenced URLs...! ;-) Remember that these are frames
captured from motion-video, though, and often they will not show
some effects of motion that can be annoying (see the first and last
URLs for descriptions of some of these). Well, heck, here they are
again...;-)
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/vid_pict_characts.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/diffraction.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/WA-converters.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/VX2000_odds.htm
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au
http://www.bealecorner.com
http://www.adamwilt.com
As for "film-look", forget it - this is video, with its own characteristics
and advantages/disadvantages. Trying to make one medium mimic
a very different one generally results in a product inferior to either one,
and it isn't worth the effort...
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

brian a. henderson

Hi Dave,

I just wanted to say I've been seeing your posts for years but only
recently viewed your site. I have to say you've done a nice job of
collecting data on all these cameras and such.

-Brian

brian a. henderson

:>> I own the JVC GY DV-500. For some reason JVC chose to emulate the more
:>> greenish Ikigami look rather than the warmer Sony look.

: Ike's are highly adjustable, though, in terms of overall color
: balance. As are the Sony DXC and BVP lines.

: I think I remember hearing JVC using what essentially was an Ikegami
: chipset for this camera, BTW, and I have to say the menu structure
: seems remarkably similar to, if somewhat simpler than, my Ike's.

It looks (makes pictures) like an Ike', it may have the menu of an Ike',
but it's no Ike'. That's why you can't adjust it as well as an Ike'. You
might be able to "fix it in post," but why create work for your self if
you can start with a different tool that will give you the images you need
in the first place?

Warm cards are too imprecise for matching cameras of different brands. He
may end up having to use a lot of footage from other people's cameras that
he has no control over the shooting of. I have no idea. I'm just trying to
help a guy who's just starting out by giving him info he should consider.
It may save him some time tweaking footage. He may be shooting every thing
him self, or with people with other JVCs (or Ike's) so it may not even be
an issue at all.

I chose my 500 over the 150 because I wanted a camera that functioned like
a Betacam. I found the "pro-sumer" automatic lenses really annoying to
use.

: And good enough for "Nightline" as well - a friend of mine did an
: entire show on the cowboy life in Texas and New Mexico (ran last July)
: on a PD-150.

As I said, good enough for broadcast. Palmcorders are used by all the
networks in some capacity. I was just pointing out the common
misperception that they're as good as a high end cameras like your Ike' or
the other units you mentioned. I reckon there's a reason you bought your
Ike' and not a PD-150.

: It's [the PD-170] an updated model. New label, a few tweaks, proven
: innards. Your choice at this point.

I agree. I'd go with the newer model too. Enjoy your new camera! Let us
know how it works out for you.

-Brian