The Ultimate Camera Debate

Hey everyone,
To cut to the chase I have decided that I want to become an indie film maker without ever owning a camera before. I have never filmed anything before and for my first camera I want something good. As good as I can economically find at least.

For starters, I don't want to dive into the semipro cameras until I've had experience in filming in small projects. I do however want to start filming in HD.

For the first camera I was thinking Sony HDR-SR7. Then I checked out this forum and noticed that the Canon HV20 is favoured.

Secondly, I want to buy with an aim to upgrade to something closer to the $4,000-$5,000 mark, mostly for the features that will offer. The XH A1 interests me. For now though I want the features and versatility that I can learn from and a camera cheaper than $1500 so that when I'm finished with it I can hand it down to my parents.

As far as First camera goes I am looking at either:
Sony HDR-SR7
Canon HV20

As far as semipro:
XH A1
HDR-FX1

I'm mostly interested in what you guys recommend based on your experiences and what you actually use. If there are any samples on the net they might be helpful too.

Thanks :)
 
I have an HV20 and can definitely recommend it as a damn fine camera..

It won a bunch of awards this year too: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/CamInfo-Selects-2007-33545.htm

The internals are identical to the XH-A1, the only real difference being the physical size of the camera, and the manual control on the A1 is a bit more straightforward. That said, you can easily beat the HV20 into submission so you have essentially all the same control.

I personally have always preferred the image quality of Canon over Sony cameras.. The HV20 also pairs well with several of the 35mm adapter offerings.
 
Haha, , thanks Will. A few of your previous posts on this forum are kinda what got me interested in the HV20. From what you say, if it really does have the guts of an XH A1 then it'll be one beast of a little thing. I am interested in other people's opinions however.

Also, what do we know about filters for this camera. I don't know a lot about filming, but I definitely think that I'll invest in a good set of filters once I get hold of a camera. Is it possible to get filters suited to the HV20? I saw some on ebay but I'm not about to believe everything I see, especially when I'm looking at consumer camcorders.
 
I've not bought filters yet, but when I do I'm thinking of getting something like a cokin filter holder and using some stepping rings to get it to fit. Then I'll be able to use the nice high quality square filters. You certainly could get the 43mm filters that will just screw onto it, but I think you're more likely to find quality filters in larger sizes.
 
LoC: I think you misread what Dark is after..

"For now I want the features and versatility that I can learn from and a camera cheaper than $1500 so that when I'm finished with it I can hand it down to my parents."

"I want to buy with an aim to upgrade to something closer to the $4,000-$5,000 mark"
 
Haha, the debate begins.

I must ask, why do you consider the Panasonic HVX200 to be preferrable to something of the XH A1 standard? From what I hear the XH A1 has some pretty wicked picture. However I have based most of my info on the reviews at cnet.com.

Are there any solid reasons or is it more just preference? Bear in mind that I am still looking at something below $1500 for my starter camera. I'm very open to suggestions if they can be backed up with evidence/ lots of recommendations.
 
Last edited:
Unless there is anyone else who has a better idea it looks like I'll go for the Canon HV20. Are there any work-arounds that are particularly useful when using this camera? (to Will Vincent)

You say there's ways to beat the performance out of it, I'm interested as to how. I believe camcorderinfo.com said something about the HV20 having slightly more saturated colours, is that an issue?

Anyway guys. Unless someone else can suggest a better camera for under $1500 then I'm sure I'll be happy with the HV20. Any parting advice?
 
Here's a couple links regarding the HV20 and getting it to behave for you. ;)

Locking Exposure and Shutter Speed for best results while shooting (especially for 24p)

More info on the virtues (and vices) of the HV20

That outta get you started.. for what it's worth, using the cell phone trick (described in the first link) with my Samsung t-809 while shooting 24p.. I get full use of the exposure range -11 to +11, without any gain. F stop range from f7.8 to f2.6 and every setting is locked at 1/48 shutter speed -- ideal for shooting 24p to simulate film motion.
 
The HV20 has a very tiny lens. It has virtually an infinite depth of field and does NOT give you any of the cinema aesthetics that you'd expect to find in a good movie camera. For that price, I'd suggest perhaps a used DVX100a or XL1... even though I despise the XL1. DVX is currently running around the $1000-$1,500 range. XL1 is bidding $1,200ish right now. (ebay) But really, as nice as the HV20 is, it has crap glass... and unless you spend the cash on a lens adapter, it will always have crap glass. It also has a rolling shutter. You'll see some funny "sliding" effects in anything you shoot with a lot of motion unless you're shooting at high shutter speeds. Typically you'll want to be as close to 48 as possible though. I have to say, the exposure latitude on it is surprisingly good (for digital) around the 6 f-stop range. But really, if you're trying to get a "filmy" image, get a Panasonic DVX100a. The HV20 might be HD, but it won't create an image quite as filmic as the DVX (provided you know what you're doing with them both). Don't get me wrong, HV20 would be a good starter camera... but having shot with close to 50 different cameras including the DVX and HV20, I'd go with a DVX if it were me. :)
 
Hey everyone,
I do however want to start filming in HD.

I'm a huge fan of the dvx too, but it doesn't fit that primary criteria.

The HV20 produces beautiful images, and the rolling shutter is a minor issue that unless you're whipping the camera around like mad is really a non issue. Like you said, it's all provided you know what you're doing with the camera. Having recently read your post promoting always renting over buying it certainly stands to reason that you cannot possibly have used the HV20 long enough to master it. So yes, while the dvx offers a lot of great features it's not necessarily a better camera. At the end of the day, it's about what is done with the camera, not what the camera itself does, and you have to get something that does as much of what you're after within the budget you've got available. Since High Def is the primary criteria listed the DVX doesn't really apply here.

Also, if you look at the second important bit of criteria:
when I'm finished with it I can hand it down to my parents
I think it's a safe bet that the features on the dvx are much more than ma & pa will ever need (or likely be able to figure out)
 
Last edited:
Thats for your input Matt.

I must've phrased my first post poorly because you are the second person that assumes that I could afford a $3000AU camera up front.
Trust me, I wish I could.

I also forgot to mention that I'm Australian. Meaning any camera price in USA - double it. Australia has a very small market for digital cameras which therefore makes them extremely costly.

Essentially I am looking to buy a starter camera so thats why I think the HV20 will be good for me. Hopefully it will last me for long enough to wrap my head around the basics of filming.

My question was a two parter though and now that you mention the DVX100's, I'm interested in exploring another facet of this debate.

Which camera would you choose?
The somewhat underpopular XH A1 that I've had virtually no opinions on.

OR

The acclaimed and widely used DVX100b.

I understand that some films like Broken (which looks great for a low bud film) and Jackass 2 have used this camera.

Which one is better? Why?
 
Last edited:
you're comparing apples and oranges between the two really.. As far as manual controls they're pretty equal. But, the dvx100 is a 3cdd standard definition camera, and the A1 is a single CMOS sensor HD camera.

They will both shoot fantastic footage, but there's really no direct comparison as they're completely different formats.. the HVX that Robert mentioned earlier in the thread would probably be a better comparison with the A1, as it's more or less the HD version of the DVX, but again single chip cmos vs 3 chip ccd..

In theory you get more color information with a 3 chip, as each sensor is dedicated to Red, Green, or Blue, but on the other hand the cmos sensors are larger and capturing many more pixels.. Given the right lighting and color correction you could probably match the picture between all three (A1, HVX, and DVX) with the only major difference being the image from the DVX would be like 1/4th the size.

So.. there's really not an easy answer to which one is better, since they are so drastically different. That said though, if you have nothing against working in standard definition it's tough to get a better camera than a dvx. :)
 
Yay! I'm learning! As far as the DVX goes, it really does sound great but I have absolutely no intention of shooting in standard definition. There is no future in it no matter what anyone says. I foresee three years left all up for the camera market (selling not producing) - and thats pushing it. Five years left for indie films getting away with it. Thats the max.

I'm on the new-tech band wagon all the way. As for this cmos vs 3 chip debate I never realized that it was an issue.
 
I think your life estimates for standard def may be less than accurate.. at least for the indie film maker.. I mean if you think about it, 8mm and 16mm film have been out of mainstream fashion for quite some time, but they still work great, and are still used -- probably more frequently than most people think. A lot of music videos are shot on 16mm (and many too on 8mm).. many features utilize 8mm for some portions. I know there have been several sports films that used Super 8, presumably because it's easier to get in the middle of the action of a football game with a super8 camera than it would be with a big 35mm rig. ;)

But, as HD becomes more proliferated, I think you're right that standard def will see a falling off. Whether or not it ever completely dies is a question we don't know the answer to.
 
Haha, we will see. I think it will all depend on the speed at which high def televisions take off. With many new TV shows being turned to HD (and even plans for solely HD channels emerging in Australia soon) I really think that HD is going to hit harder and faster than any of us can imagine.

True enough that indie film makers will still use older equipment in three to five years time. But I would find it surprising if in the High Def age people will still consider buying DVX100a's. (Emphasis on the difference between buying new equipment and using old).

With the HD age upon us, no doubt the prosumer cameras that we see now will start advancing in leaps and bounds.

Undoubtedly though, older formats will still be commonplace, but I doubt they will be in demand.

As for the film comparison. I think film is always more versatile than digital format. At least for now. Simply because its analog. When you get into the digital formats it gets harder to upscale while keeping the quality. Though I'll admit, my actual knowledge of film is very poor. So who am I to talk? Nobody, that's who.
 
Let me put a slightly different spin on this.

Firstly, in terms of image quality... you might want to check out this film shot with two rigged DVX100's before you trash SD cameras.

Blind Spot


The next thing I'd like to throw into the mix is the idea that there is more than pixels and resolution to film making.

For one thing the DVX100 has XLR inputs for your audio... that's a robust professional audio input interface, and getting great sound for your movie is perhaps more important than having HD images.

There have also been some very good points made in this thread about the optics... the DVX's optics just about hit the minimum grade for broadcast... consumer cameras really don't... and you're really going to struggle to get nice depth of field.

The other thing I suggest is you read this book:

DV Rebel

Which is how to get cinema quality images out of the DVX100, through correct shooting techniques and a smart post production workflow.

Buying a camera is a big decision especially when you're skint... you really can't do too much reading before you bang your bucks on the table.
 
I don't mean to trash SD cameras, I only mean to say that I don't see much future in them. Undoubtedly, the DVX100a & b are great cameras, but from my perspective, I can't see too many people still seeking out SD cameras half a decade from now.

Also, I completely agree that there's more to film making than pixels and resolution. Without a doubt, sound is 70% or more of any visual effect.

I imagine that Stephen Speilberg could create a better film on a $500 camera than many could on a $5000 camera. Not that I love Stephen Speilberg or anything, but the point stands that a horrid camera in the right hands could make so much more than a brilliant camera in the wrong hands.
 
I paid ~$300 for my 32" SD Television, a small, low end HD television costs >$500. There are hundreds of SD channels to the dozens of HD, The not much future of SD can probably be measured in decades rather than years simply due to the cost of acquiring the viewing equipment.

On this end of the entertainment industry, we see all the new production stuff, but always ignore distribution (not all of us, but generally, we don't think about distro mediums until after post). I remember going into high end electronics botiques in the 80's and hearing the rhetoric about how the DAT tape was going to supercede the Casette and how the CD was the greatest thing since sliced bread and how the laser disk was going to supplant the VHS within 5 years.

The Laserdisk only took off when the cost of equipment came down and the format changed to DVDs, the Digital audio revolution was won by the CD due to the decrease in prices of equipment (10 years later).

I will posit that there is no future in the automobile because we will all transfer over to mass commuter systems...I just don't think it'll happen soon enough to for me to make up for the limited number of locations I can currently arrive at on commuter rails.

HD is the future, but the scope of that future is still on the horizon and we have much travelling to do. I'd rather travel with something that'll reach the widest audience and save my money for production costs now, and upgrade later when HD becomes a viable release platform. HD is currently too expensive to be a viable consumer option for the masses, especially with more concerning costs for the stability of the family, fuel and heating/cooling costs.

Entertainment is derived form disposable income. Less disposable income due to rising poverty levels and increasing unemployment means fewer people will be purchasing new shiny equipment until the price of acquisition comes down. SD will be here for a while. If you can afford to shoot HD, do so, but know that you'll end up dumbing it down to SD for release and the cost disparity between SD and HD cameras could have you making a micro-budgeted short film right now rather than a free one with so-so actors and excited but inexperienced crew.
 
Er... there are practically no cameras you can buy which will still be worth using five years from now.

The technology is moving too quickly to see anything as a five year investment.

I think it's a fair bet that SD will outlast HDV as a format... but it's anyone's guess how relevant this generation of cameras will be in the next two years, let alone five. My guess is in two years from now you'll be able to pick a HDV camera for a couple of hundred bucks US.

The only way you I think you could guarantee to still get service from a camera five years from now, would be to buy a Bolex! :lol:
 
Back
Top