Camera ideas?
- Thread starter theone711
- Start date
A used 3 chip from any of the big brands (canon,pana, sony - no particular order).
Check the pawn shops, sometimes you get lucky.
Check the pawn shops, sometimes you get lucky.
I would advise against buying used. It's risky, to say the least, and with this kind of money, not a good gamble. In your price range, take a look at the Panasonic PV-GS250 (due out this month) and the Canon Optura 40. Both decent cams, the Panasonic is 3CCD, but the Canon has a good RGB colour filter.
Also take into account accessories and budget for them: video tripod, case, extra batteries, lights... this can quickly drive up the price of your production. There's more than just a camera involved.
Also take into account accessories and budget for them: video tripod, case, extra batteries, lights... this can quickly drive up the price of your production. There's more than just a camera involved.
screw the DV, get an old shoulder mounted 8mm or VHS and use a dv converter. be creative... im still waiting for someone to do great things with old gear
You can buy a more expensive camera from someone who spent far more than you have on it if you buy used. Sure, you could end up with something someones dog peed on, but you'd notice if it was beat up.
MiniDV is a crap format to begin with. The tape mechanisms in any of these cameras are pathetically weak, and unless you're going to buy a PD-150 (well over a grand used right now), you're still in the same boat as having a potentially dead deck outside of warranty when buying new.
The cameras that end up in pawn shops (around here anyway) are either hardly touched, or beat to hell. You can get lucky in that regard and find an unmolested camera for well under what it would cost new.
MiniDV is a crap format to begin with. The tape mechanisms in any of these cameras are pathetically weak, and unless you're going to buy a PD-150 (well over a grand used right now), you're still in the same boat as having a potentially dead deck outside of warranty when buying new.
The cameras that end up in pawn shops (around here anyway) are either hardly touched, or beat to hell. You can get lucky in that regard and find an unmolested camera for well under what it would cost new.
I just spent $300 USD repairing the tape mechanism on my GL2, which had been mine since I broke the seal on the box. Owned it for 15mos.
So if you think the cheaper cameras are going to be any more immune to regular wear and tear, you're greatly mistaken. You'd be far better off buying a good camera another pro has outgrown than buying a consumer cam and hoping for the best. At least buy something worth fixing. That's what I'm saying anyway.
So if you think the cheaper cameras are going to be any more immune to regular wear and tear, you're greatly mistaken. You'd be far better off buying a good camera another pro has outgrown than buying a consumer cam and hoping for the best. At least buy something worth fixing. That's what I'm saying anyway.
well i have heard a lot about the GL2s tape deck. is it really as widespread as the problem seems?
all the reveiws ive read that mention a tape deck prob actually happen around 15 mo. i want to get a GL2, but it seems likie its almost not worth it.
as for camera durability, i have a Sont TRV-140 digi-8. thing is a friggin tank. I use it for a lot of skating and skiing cinematography, and it gets thrown around, put in backpacks without cases, ive climbed trees with it, fallen with it, and other things youd probably be horrified to read about. only problem ive ever had is someone tripped, and it skipped, and showed the footage i had previously recorded, but its completly fine. so im not sure about all this cheaper cameras are less immune" thing. id still be super careful, but i think that not all cameras are as delicate as the expensive ones. my guess is that the family cameras are designed to be more shockproof, theyre getting handles by dimwits, little kids, and being thrown around because a lot of people with video cameras have no clue as to what theyre doing. just my thought though, i could be completly wrong, who knows?
as for a cheap digital camera, i got my digi-8 for $400 out of box at circut city
all the reveiws ive read that mention a tape deck prob actually happen around 15 mo. i want to get a GL2, but it seems likie its almost not worth it.
as for camera durability, i have a Sont TRV-140 digi-8. thing is a friggin tank. I use it for a lot of skating and skiing cinematography, and it gets thrown around, put in backpacks without cases, ive climbed trees with it, fallen with it, and other things youd probably be horrified to read about. only problem ive ever had is someone tripped, and it skipped, and showed the footage i had previously recorded, but its completly fine. so im not sure about all this cheaper cameras are less immune" thing. id still be super careful, but i think that not all cameras are as delicate as the expensive ones. my guess is that the family cameras are designed to be more shockproof, theyre getting handles by dimwits, little kids, and being thrown around because a lot of people with video cameras have no clue as to what theyre doing. just my thought though, i could be completly wrong, who knows?
as for a cheap digital camera, i got my digi-8 for $400 out of box at circut city
I think we just have different perspectives.
A $400 camera to me is one I would climb trees with, attach to cars driving over 110mph, go skiiing with, and generally not think twice about putting in harms way - as long as I get a tape back out of it when it gives up the ghost.
That list is exactly what I've done with cheap cams. I wouldn't do that to my GL2, not because of the shocks (the image stabilizer is killer when being jostled), but because I don't want to explain that $2300 claim on my ins.
I also have an extended warranty on the GL2, the $300 is what was billed to them. So right now I'm even with the cost of the plan. The next repair will be money in my pocket.
Members of the Avid.com forums all agree that cheap cams are considered disposable and to be expected to die under normal "deck" service. The digital8 is a wider tape format, and could very well be more robust than crappy minidv because of the 30% increase in surface area. This is similar to the DVCAM distinction between regular 6mm tape stocks. DVCAM is the exact same datastream as minidv, but uses more of the tape to contain that data. Thus the tape is used up faster, but there is more oxide on the substrate containing the vital info. You can actually have the oxide flake off and potentially not lose anything in the process.
A $400 camera to me is one I would climb trees with, attach to cars driving over 110mph, go skiiing with, and generally not think twice about putting in harms way - as long as I get a tape back out of it when it gives up the ghost.
That list is exactly what I've done with cheap cams. I wouldn't do that to my GL2, not because of the shocks (the image stabilizer is killer when being jostled), but because I don't want to explain that $2300 claim on my ins.
I also have an extended warranty on the GL2, the $300 is what was billed to them. So right now I'm even with the cost of the plan. The next repair will be money in my pocket.
Members of the Avid.com forums all agree that cheap cams are considered disposable and to be expected to die under normal "deck" service. The digital8 is a wider tape format, and could very well be more robust than crappy minidv because of the 30% increase in surface area. This is similar to the DVCAM distinction between regular 6mm tape stocks. DVCAM is the exact same datastream as minidv, but uses more of the tape to contain that data. Thus the tape is used up faster, but there is more oxide on the substrate containing the vital info. You can actually have the oxide flake off and potentially not lose anything in the process.
well, the guy IS looking for a cheapo camera. i deff understand what youre sating about using a cheap one instead of a gl2 or even more expensive camera under certain circumstances. i was commenting on the durabilty of icheaper cameras...
im not making any sense right now probably, i gotta go to class, peace, ill be back
oh, how much are extended warrenties?
im not making any sense right now probably, i gotta go to class, peace, ill be back
oh, how much are extended warrenties?
Well, I got the GL2 because I couldn't think of spending 4K on a dvx100 for personal use. Anything I shoot with a budget gets a better cam rented. The whole HD flux has me scetchy on all of these cameras that only shoot dv25. NAB will be a very interesting place this year because of the push for HD in production on the low budget side.
The problem with the really cheap cams is that their color can really suck on some of them, and their glass is rather limited. "Digital zoom" is not in my vocabulary for shooting, so don't even mention it here. You typically end up with a pretty narrow range of zoom on the cheaper cams (even the industrious sony pd-150 only had a 12x) and their controllers are difficult if not impossible to work smoothly. While I also hate zooming while shooting, there are times when a dolly/jib move is not possible - so this does become important. Back to the color issue, you end up doing a digital filtering "assessed" color split to tape rather than three native channels of info - since the CDV (DV25) standard is actually recorded in component, you're losing much of the color sepparation before the signal ever makes it to the tape.
I'll also admit to having achieved good results with the ZR single chip cameras. I actually placed in a festival with a movie shot on one. There's just some colors the processing in these cameras can't handle well - for example, purple is a big issue for some of them.
My warranty was $299 on a $2600 camera (they hadn't come down yet - since it was still under a year of release). This is the heavy use warranty for businesses from Ultimate Electronics. I think the regular consumer one was $199. I bought in at the level I expected to be my minimum standard for the next 3 years (at that point). So far, it has proven to be a good investment. Even with the deck problem, this camera shoots an amazing pic for the money. 30p (frames mode) from it is gorgeous when put out to dvd. It's also shorter than the sony's and narrower than the dvx - and considering how crappy the dvx handles low light in 24P, I wouldn't spend the money on that for uncontrolled shoots (verite would be a bitch considering the lighting needs of that mode).
The problem with the really cheap cams is that their color can really suck on some of them, and their glass is rather limited. "Digital zoom" is not in my vocabulary for shooting, so don't even mention it here. You typically end up with a pretty narrow range of zoom on the cheaper cams (even the industrious sony pd-150 only had a 12x) and their controllers are difficult if not impossible to work smoothly. While I also hate zooming while shooting, there are times when a dolly/jib move is not possible - so this does become important. Back to the color issue, you end up doing a digital filtering "assessed" color split to tape rather than three native channels of info - since the CDV (DV25) standard is actually recorded in component, you're losing much of the color sepparation before the signal ever makes it to the tape.
I'll also admit to having achieved good results with the ZR single chip cameras. I actually placed in a festival with a movie shot on one. There's just some colors the processing in these cameras can't handle well - for example, purple is a big issue for some of them.
My warranty was $299 on a $2600 camera (they hadn't come down yet - since it was still under a year of release). This is the heavy use warranty for businesses from Ultimate Electronics. I think the regular consumer one was $199. I bought in at the level I expected to be my minimum standard for the next 3 years (at that point). So far, it has proven to be a good investment. Even with the deck problem, this camera shoots an amazing pic for the money. 30p (frames mode) from it is gorgeous when put out to dvd. It's also shorter than the sony's and narrower than the dvx - and considering how crappy the dvx handles low light in 24P, I wouldn't spend the money on that for uncontrolled shoots (verite would be a bitch considering the lighting needs of that mode).
Panasonic makes 3 chip camera in your price range, but remember to you should save back some money for a tripod, case and extra battery. The batteries that come with these units only last about and hour of shooting, so get a good 4 plus hour battery. It's well worth the investment.
Read this article: Buying your 1st DV Camera
Scott
Read this article: Buying your 1st DV Camera
Scott
Scott, I'm surprized you discount manual white balance as being less than necessary.
Being able to shoot it in the color you see it is, IMO, more valuble than all the secondary color correction you could dream up in post. Mixed lighting is especially difficult to fix (HMI's with some FL, and some Sunlight is a real chore). Being able to force the camera to lock into a specific color temp offset could mean the difference in usable footage or a reshoot.
You wouldn't let someone run 4 rolls of daylight film indoors without at least using the appropriate filter on the lens would you?
Being able to shoot it in the color you see it is, IMO, more valuble than all the secondary color correction you could dream up in post. Mixed lighting is especially difficult to fix (HMI's with some FL, and some Sunlight is a real chore). Being able to force the camera to lock into a specific color temp offset could mean the difference in usable footage or a reshoot.
You wouldn't let someone run 4 rolls of daylight film indoors without at least using the appropriate filter on the lens would you?
Anamorphic said:
ok, the guy's looking for a cheap camera, and no matter what he buys the color wont be as good as a higher end camera. its one of those things hes just gonna have to settle for. unless he can find the moeny for a more expensive camera, hes going to be stuck with a camera that doesnt have the quality to handle the color that a better camera could.
also, you just have to get used to the zooms on cheap cameras, sure the slightly more expensive ones are easier to use right off the back, and there are probably cheap cameras that wont zoom smoothly enough not matter what the circumstance, ive found that on most, its just a matter of spending time to work with it and learn to use it correctly, sure the GL1 ive used is easy right off the back, but with a little extra effort, my TRV-140 can do just as well.
also, whats this new HD i've been hearing about? anyone got a internet page i can check out? sounds interesting, but i havent heard of it before a week ago.
New HD? HDV has been around for over a year in the jvc line. Sony just came out with a pair of camera's that shoot it, and the rest of the industry is probably going to respond in kind at NAB in mid April.
HDV is a 25Mbps mp2 stream like a high definition dvd would be (only at a much higher datarate). It's massively compressed and doesn't hold up well to post right now. It's also a relatively new format and thus will be improving as time goes on. Sony's website has some good info about the format and their cams so you should check that out. Compared to real HD (DVCPro HD, HDCAM) it's pretty shitty, but it's also about 80K less to buy into.
HDV is a 25Mbps mp2 stream like a high definition dvd would be (only at a much higher datarate). It's massively compressed and doesn't hold up well to post right now. It's also a relatively new format and thus will be improving as time goes on. Sony's website has some good info about the format and their cams so you should check that out. Compared to real HD (DVCPro HD, HDCAM) it's pretty shitty, but it's also about 80K less to buy into.
i just read another post on here and had to smack myslef in the head for not putting together that HD=HDV. yeah, i was reading an article about the FX1 and its HD, and how its suppossed the "new cheap hd for indie film makers" when according to the reality it looks like its not the best idea for indie film makers, heres the article: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/
it was pretty interesting. anyway, from what i got out of that article is that HD is not going to catch on quickly enough to justify buying a HD camera right now. and how the minidv cameras like the DVX-100 are a much better camera anyways. oh well, just what i got from the article.
i got class so ill let you read and i want to hear what you guys thought of this article
it was pretty interesting. anyway, from what i got out of that article is that HD is not going to catch on quickly enough to justify buying a HD camera right now. and how the minidv cameras like the DVX-100 are a much better camera anyways. oh well, just what i got from the article.
i got class so ill let you read and i want to hear what you guys thought of this article
I've been aware of that article for some time. I haven't gotten my hands on an XL2 or either of the sony's yet, but I have a feeling that the canon and the panasonic are better cameras for SD. Word in my circles is that the DV performance of the sony hdv offerings is subpar to that of lesser SD only cameras.
True HD isn't catching on because you can shoot super16 and blow it up to 1080i and achieve a better picture at lower cost than you can rent a varicam, all the HD monitors, and all the post equipment (DV100 decks are still over 20 grand). It just doesn't make financial sense to be shooting HD on the low budget stuff. I've worked with guys who shoot network shows in HD, and they both prefer film for its look. Kodak's vision2 stocks are pretty amazing and Kodak will even cut you a deal on low budget projects just to bait you to want to keep using it when you start hitting the money.
Film isn't going away anytime soon. HD just doesn't have the quality (at any cost), or look yet.
True HD isn't catching on because you can shoot super16 and blow it up to 1080i and achieve a better picture at lower cost than you can rent a varicam, all the HD monitors, and all the post equipment (DV100 decks are still over 20 grand). It just doesn't make financial sense to be shooting HD on the low budget stuff. I've worked with guys who shoot network shows in HD, and they both prefer film for its look. Kodak's vision2 stocks are pretty amazing and Kodak will even cut you a deal on low budget projects just to bait you to want to keep using it when you start hitting the money.
Film isn't going away anytime soon. HD just doesn't have the quality (at any cost), or look yet.
id say go with a panasonic gs120. its got 3 ccd chips and looks pretty nice. i havent heard about that gs250 yet but that may be a nice buy if around 700. just to let you know, from what i hear, the gs200 isnt any better than the 120, except for taking still pictures, which probly wont be useful for making movies. id say get a gs120 and either a light (its not great in low light situations) or a new mic or accessories like tripod, bag, batterys etc...
I agree with Adam regarding the Panasonic GS series of 3-CCD cameras. The GS-120 has a lot of great features and about the best price for a 3-CCD. You do want a spare battery with it, but I'd pass on the camera light; they don't work very well and they use a lot of battery power (or require an AC cord which is clumsy and dangerous). Use a separate light for low light situations because as Adam said, the GS cameras aren't very good in dim situations.
Anamorphic said:
Hey Anmorphic,
I don't discount manual white balance out of hand, I just think if you had to choice between manual exposure and manual white balance, exposure control wins. You can correct most color problem, but if you have over or under exposure with no video information left to work with them you're screwed. If you can get manul white balance, I say go for it. I just did a shoot with my DVX100 where I wanted a super green looks so I threw a purple (minus green gel) on my light and then white balanced and viola! sick green look.
Regarding the filter on film, I have shot without the right filter a few times because either I wanted a look or because I didn't want to lose 2/3 of stop. I know some DP's who never use an 85 or any kind of filter like that and just do their color correction in post. So to answer you question, yes, but rarely.
Scott