Advice Needed!!!

N

nylee

New member
Hello everyone,

My church is looking to upgrade from a 6- year old home camcorder to a better one so that we can broadcast on the local Public Channel. The local channel doesn't require HD format for the next few years. But we still desire a much better picture quality for the broadcast.

Our budget is about $1500-$2000. That means we can't afford those big professional cameras. Here are my questions?

I recently learnt about the new technology like 3CCD or ClearVID CMOS sensor on consumer cameras. So, is there still a big difference between consumer ones and those expensive ones?

I also read some good reviews on Canon GL2. But is this much better than consumer ones?

All I need is great picture and color quality. Any advice from you all would be greatly appreciated.

LEE.
 
i dont know anything about the cmos only that its new tech. where it has the 3 chips all in one thing. i do know that a lot of churchs use the gl1&2.
 
Actually, I don't think that CMOS are "3 chips all in one thing," because don't some of the Sony's use a 3-CMOS chip arrangment? I think a CMOS is just an alternate technology to a CCD (and one, BTW, that seems to have some issues that CCD's don't, such as the now-infamous "rolling shutter syndrome").

For that matter, 3-CCD is hardly "new technology," I have some 3-chippers from the 80's laying around here somewhere that I'll sell ya real cheap... :grin: The big advantage of a 3-chip camera is better color reproduction; in a recent shoot where i was using a GL2 and my own Canon consumer cam, I found out that they were actually fairly close, but the GL2 is definitely better. Plus, you can get a VariZoom or other wired controller for something like the GL2, which is great for shoots on tripods.
 
Your going to need a much more expensive system to accompany HDV footage. I say go with the GL2 or get a Sony VX2100.
 
Another question...

Another question...

Why Canon GL2 is better than new consumer cameras with CMOS chip?

By the way, what do you all think about cameras with internal hard drive and those record with DVD? Is MiniDV still better?
 
It can be difficult to capture footage from DVD-based camcorders for editing on PC, but their biggest drawback is that they only record half an hour in the full quality mode (and I don't know many churches whose services are only half an hour :) ). Hard-drive based units don't have that problem, but they do have a "problem" (if you want to call it that, and the DVD cams share this) that the footage is already compressed to MPEG-2, which is slightly lower quality than the mini-DV format. (Of course, if your final deliverable is DVD, then it'll be MPEG-2 anyway, so it may not matter in the long run.)

As for why the GL2 is better... as I mentioned before, it's got the 3-chip thing going on, so your color reproduction is going to be better. It also uses CCD's, so you're immune to the "rolling shutter" issues that some (if not all) CMOS cams face (and just see the HV20 forum for everything you need to know about that :) ). (Not, from the sound of it, that your style of shooting is going to be terribly affected by that problem anyway.) You've also got, at least theoretically, a better lens on the GL2; and, as I also mentioned before, the capability for a wired controller such as the VariZoom, which is great if you're running the camera on a tripod (sure beats contorting around to try and hit the built-in zoom buttons :) ).

Now, the question only you can decide is if all those advantages are worth the price difference...
 
Captain Pierce said:
As for why the GL2 is better... as I mentioned before, it's got the 3-chip thing going on, so your color reproduction is going to be better. It also uses CCD's, so you're immune to the "rolling shutter" issues that some (if not all) CMOS cams face
Click to expand...

3 chip isn't necessarily better than 1 chip. It depends on the implementation. The GL2 is a 5 years old camera with older DSP (Digital signal processor) and less pixel on its CCD than say, the recent HV20. The HV20, even though it's 1 chip, has a larger CMOS chip of 1/2.7'' CCD vs. the 3 1/4'' CCD of the GL2. Does that automatically make it better? Maybe. The GL2 has much better manual control than the HV20 and that might be what you're paying for. Bottom line is that it's best to look at footages from both cameras (and there are plenty of footages floating around) rather than depending on the mantra that 3 chips are automatically better than 1 chip.

As another example to consider, the RED camera, which uses a single CMOS sensor, has a baseline price of $17,500 (body only). So don't be so quick to dismiss 1-chip technology!
 
What about Sony HDR-HC7 ?

What about Sony HDR-HC7 ?

What do you all think about Sony HDR-HC7?

Can you tell the difference between GL2 and HDR-HC7 in terms of Video Quality ?
 
There's more to consider here. How far away are you from your subject and how well are they lit? I have shot services before (in a large church setting where I was in the balcony pretty far away) with a GL1 and XL1 and the GL looked pretty poor because of the zoom range. When you zoom in, you are losing light so you need to have a very well lit area and have a zoom range that works for your distance. I think a 20x zoom would work.
 
I think the apature of the HV20 is very restrictive when zooming also. It boils down to, a GL2 is a fine camera, you have a nice array of controls over how the picture looks more so than the HV20. So if you want a 'put it on the tripod and shoot' camera get the HV20 for ease of use and picture quality but if you want to be able to have control over the image get a GL2 but bare in mind it's not HD like the HV20.

I think the CCD/CMOS arguement is quite irrelivant considering the ages of the cameras are so far apart. Light is captured nicely in both cameras but i would strongly suggest you scout for footage. There's a bomb load of 'wedding' footage out there.
 
I would suggest looking into getting a used dvx above the gl2 or the sony vx2100 if you are not needing the hd that the hv20 gives you, it fits into your budget & will produce higher quality images & much better audio (balanced xlr) than either of the other sd cameras imho. plus you have the option of using beautiful progressive images if you so wish
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top