PDA

View Full Version : Best 16:9 native progressive SD camera for documentary



majvdl
08-31-2005, 02:26 PM
After reading many of the excellent posts in this forum, I am still stuck with an question I cannot find an answer to. Probably, I have not searched well enough or there is simply no answer to my question. To be sure, I would like to seek your advice.

What is in your opinion the best camera with a 16:9 native 3 CCD system using Standard Definition in Progressive (24/25p) mode? I will be using this camera for a documentary.

Which camera would you recommend? Sony's PBX-10, Z1 or FX1, JVC HD100U or wait for the HDX200?

I will be shooting in churches, so low light is an issue and for that reason I do not like the smaller chips in the PBX-10. Neither do I like the Sony's because - AFAIK - they do not have a progressive shooting mode. With regard to the Z1 or FX1, I am also concerned about the compression method as I will be filming a lot of clouded skies and even some white water, but probably this concern is not justified. Finally, I will not use HD, so I am not sure if the JVC HD100U and the forthcoming HDX200 will justify their price tag by outperforming other camera's in the area (16:9 3 CCD SD 24/25p) I am interested in.

I would be grateful if someone could get me going again because I prefer shooting over bothering you and myself with questions about hardware.

Thanks.

Marc

SergejIvanovits
08-31-2005, 03:11 PM
If you are not using HD and you are making documentary... and you don't have too much money? Buy a used Sony PDX-10 cheap. It has a very nice "real" 16:9 even the CCD's is only 1/4 or something. You just get a few filters and you are in business. The PDX isn't progressive but a very good DVCam camcorder. If you don't use the XLR adapter and the bigger sunshader, maybe you use it without any sunshader, than nobody will stop you and ask you what you are doing. You don't have much to choose from if you want native 16:9 and progressive. XL2 only , but it is gigant and cost you more.

skart82
08-31-2005, 03:24 PM
I definitely agree with the last post. But it always depend which kind of doc you are going to shoot. Do you need to be uninstrusive ? or need to get attention ?(i.e. "seriousness"). I also agree...there s not much too choose...the XL2 only if you say yes to the 2nd question.

You might want to get an fx1 though. I would be surprise if shooting skies and cloud will really be such a problem with the camera. I mean, there s seem to be some compression artifact but,...it s also the case for basically all digital cam of this price range. Even if you don t need HD now you can still be interest by it eventually... again it depend if you need a camera for just a project. If that s not the case,...FX1 would be a good choice on a longer term basis.

I would suggest rent the cam and try it out... it s still the best way to know if it will do the job(maybe to film some skies and clouds !)

Good luck

Barry_Green
08-31-2005, 04:07 PM
the best camera with a 16:9 native 3 CCD system using Standard Definition in Progressive (24/25p) mode?
If those are your requirements, you can rule out every camera on your list and narrow it down to these two: Canon XL2 and JVC HD100. Those are the only progressive, native-16:9 CCD cameras on the market at the under-$15,000 price point. If you want to talk about $15,000 and above there are more choices. But under $15,000 those are the only two that exist.

skart82
08-31-2005, 04:17 PM
Why you absolutely need the progressive scan ?...Is it just a personal taste or there s some other reasons ?... I'm curious

leofish
09-01-2005, 10:13 AM
If those are your requirements, you can rule out every camera on your list and narrow it down to these two: Canon XL2 and JVC HD100. Those are the only progressive, native-16:9 CCD cameras on the market at the under-$15,000 price point. If you want to talk about $15,000 and above there are more choices. But under $15,000 those are the only two that exist.

Barry,
Why wouldn't the HVX200 be included if one shot in SD mode using native 16:9 CCD
and progressive scan? thx

discs of tron
09-01-2005, 10:49 AM
because it doesn't exist yet. barry said "on the market," which means you can go somewhere and buy it.

Barry_Green
09-01-2005, 10:52 AM
Because it's not available yet. It's still almost three months away. The other cameras are on the market now.

Barry_Green
09-01-2005, 10:53 AM
Rats -- too slow again! :)

majvdl
09-01-2005, 02:47 PM
Thanks everyone! This is a helpful and active board indeed. Just some answers to questions which have been asked above and another question to conclude with.

1. [...] and you don't have too much money?

My limit is US$ 6000.

2. Do you need to be uninstrusive ? or need to get attention ?(i.e. "seriousness").

Neither. I welcome a compact camera though because I have to travel light as some climbing is involved.

3. Why you absolutely need the progressive scan ?...Is it just a personal taste or there s some other reasons ?

It is the Film Look, I am afraid.

In your opinion, which of the above mentioned camera's will come the closest to this look, without doing concessions in the field of low light? PBX 10, Z1, XL2, JVC 100 or HVX200?

Thanks again.

Marc

BTW - I am not an expert but I am pretty sure the XL2 is using modified 1/3 CCD's with a 4:3 form factor.

Barry_Green
09-01-2005, 03:18 PM
If you want progressive, cross the PDX10 and Z1 off your list. They're not progressive.

The XL2 is standard-def only, and far cheaper than the HD100 or HVX200. Any of them will do well for delivering a filmlike look. If you want the best standard-def quality, the HVX200 will probably have it, because you can use the superb DVCPRO50 recording system.