Canon XH-A1s VERSUS Canon DSLR's (60D/7D...)

So 3 months have passed since I bought the XH-A1s and my final conclusion is - I'm selling it! The camcorder is great by itself but not for filmmakers who shoot short movies and prefer quality rather than 'camcordity'. I'm going to buy a Canon 60D and I believe I will be tons of times more satisfied with it. The camcorder is great for weddings, birthday parties, simply - it's good for home videos and celebrations... but I think it's not good for amateur filmmaking because its quality isn't stunning. Almost no bokeh, not 35mm sensor, EXTREMELY bad light performance (I was doing lots of test shots indoors and I had to pull up the Gain to get nicely illuminated environment.

I would say tons of cons of this camera, that create a huge firewall to the world of filmmaking. I know it's not the quality that makes the film good, but some unbiased person won't be thinking about the complexity of the shots, but will mainly look at the quality.

Thank you all for your help.

Merry Christmas :)
 
I suspect that's a mistake, but time will tell.

I've had an XH-A1 for a few years now, and having just recently added a hacked GH1 to my collection, I can tell there will be situations where I'd pick the XH A1 over the GH1 (or other DSLR) in a heartbeat. I think it does BETTER in low light, the motion feels smoother at speed, and the clarity of the images is great.

Having "Almost no bokeh" is great sometimes -- you don't always want a narrow DOF; that's a mistake. Nothing "magical" about a 35mm sensor, either. I think of the smaller sensor on the XH A1 as being one of its advantages for certain situations. Much easier to keep it in focus, for one thing...

As others have said, no matter what camera you use, YOU NEED TO LIGHT THE SCENE.

Also, the GH1 (and I'm sure this would be true of the GH2 and any other lightweight cam, even the 60D would be for video) WILL need some form of stabilization if you are shooting unsupported (w/o tripod). The XH-A1 is somewhat heavier and that helps to naturally stabilize the camera somewhat. Don't expect the DSLRs to do better -- they will be worse because they are in an inconvenient form factor and have less weight, making a steadicam/glidecam/shoulder-mount/whatever even more important.
 
tom1597530 said:
......it's good for home videos and celebrations... but I think it's not good for amateur filmmaking because its quality isn't stunning..........
Click to expand...


It's the talent behind the camera that makes the quality stunning. Everyone has their needs and opinions and often they get confused with wishes and excuses. The most important thing is to go out and make something. They're making "real" movies with just about every camera these days.
 
Well they were able to make it look good enough for a theatrical release on Crank 2. They used the xha1 for their a cam, at the theatre on a 40" screen it looked great. Can you post some of your work with the xha1? I would like to see what your getting out of the camera. Oh, and what are you using for a light kit?
 
For the stabilization I decided to buy a Flycam NANO DSLR..

I wasn't illuminating the scene with any light kit... I did some short videos but there was just too many cons that made me to decide - it's the gain that was most visible and also I don't like the 'old' look of the non-35mm sensor. I would like to start with DSLRs because I think that's what comes 'modern' these days. I know DSLRs have many cons too and the biggest are working with the camera but I think it will be still better than a camcorder.

I don't have any work done... I did lots of clips, short abstract videos, but I removed them from my PC right after I edited them. I just didn't like it. And it DOESN'T perform well in low-light situations. I have a shutter at 1/25 with aperture on f1.6 and I still have to put the gain to +6dB ... I don't want to invest my money to light kit because I just don't want to... I'm not satisfied with it... I'm upgrading to DSLRs ...
 
I would never use +6 gain unless it was mandatory. I shoot 99% of all my footage on the A1, with -3, or 0. If your not lighting your scenes, it's not going to look any better on the 60d. Lighting is 90% of a beautiful image. The other 10% is luck of getting ambient ligh thats naturally looks good. Like magic hr. Did you zoom in on the lens to get a shallow dof. You can get a very shallow depth of field by zooming in, and getting the subject closer to the camera, it will throw everything in the backround out of focus, and make it blurred? Believe me, if you can learn to use that cam, and produce good looking footage, then your going to be much more versatile shooter in the long run. I GUARANTEE THAT. Plus It's so important to make a low light preset on that cam, I have some great presets that enable me to shoot outside at night with zero grain or noise. You have to use the presets.
 
End of the dissatisfaction

End of the dissatisfaction

I got the Canon 60D, sold the XH-A1s, and I have to say I LOVE IT!!! Oh my god it's the best (photo)video-machine I ever held in my hands :) Although thank you all for your help :)
 
how much did you get out of your xha1s? Also i'm glad your happy with the 60d. Thats most important, you need to be happy with your camera:)
 
maranfilms said:
what price did you sale your xha1 for. or how much money did you get from the xha1 when you sold it?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I bought it for 3200 € and then the price came down to 2500 € so I sold it for 2000 € :/ I know, it's underpriced, but enough for DSLR with accesories
 
I am sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I do feel that it is better to come back here than create a new one.
Now, I realize that this debate is super biased, but I want to know what objective facts there are regarding this. How can you really recommend a DSLR over the XHA1--because of "better image quality," no less--when there are so many studies like the following:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20
http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/02/for-image-quality-buffs-dslr-video-is-off-the-table/

Please help me make some sense of this debate.
 
cutbackdropturn said:
How can you really recommend a DSLR over the XHA1--because of "better image quality," no less--when there are so many studies like the following:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20
http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/02/for-image-quality-buffs-dslr-video-is-off-the-table/

Please help me make some sense of this debate.
Click to expand...

It's all about the look. DSLRs have the professional 35mm look to them while video cameras like the XH-A1 look like... well, video cameras.

Those studies were done to inform people about the weaknesses to help them work around problems that might arise when using DSLRs for shoots where time=money. There not trying to condemn DSLRs out of productions. Although IMO, some of them kind of come off like this. But you have to remember DSLS upset business for allot of people. Quality 2/3" 720p cams use to cost $60,000 just a few years before the 7D/5D hit the market. Many people's investments instantly loss nearly all of their value. So you have to take everything with a grain of salt. The articles expose the technical flaws, which is helpful, don't get me wrong, but they are just TECHNICAL. I mean, seriously look at 5D footage and then look at XH-A1 footage... it's just obvious why so many people shoot on the 5D. It really is the first consumer cameras that makes an audience go "holly crap, did you shoot that on 35mm?"

Remember, filmmaking is all about the audiences perception. This is who you're making your projects for. I knew there were going to be some work-arounds when I sold my XH-A1 for a 7D... but in the end, I was doing narrative films, music videos, and visual-oriented pieces. So I needed a camera that took a professional looking image over anything else. And despite the XH-A1's "quality" on a pixel-pixel level... it just doesn't LOOK professional.

You just have to ask yourself whether you need a "video camera"... or a "motion camera". "video cameras" to me, are cams like the XH-A1 and the HVX's. These are "work" cams. They are made to capture content reliably and efficiently, aesthetics take a back seat. You can use them for narrative work, but the "look" just isn't there. But again, they weren't design for that. "Motion cameras" are for narrative films and "artistic" shoots. They're aren't workhorse cameras made for taking interviews and capturing "content" in any efficient way, they are made for achieving the most aesthetically pleasing motion possible. Film, Red, and DSLRs fall into this catagorey. They take longer to set-up and have their own unique workarounds and problems. Which brings up a funny point that people speak of DSLRs 12min recording time in a negative light... but when you actually work with film "the golden standard" reels are only around 4 minutes! It just goes to show you that people are picking and choosing the comparison battles. Some people just don't like the "play-field leveling" the DSLRs have done. :cheesy:
 
GH2user said:
It's all about the look. DSLRs have the professional 35mm look to them while video cameras like the XH-A1 look like... well, video cameras.

Those studies were done to inform people about the weaknesses to help them work around problems that might arise when using DSLRs for shoots where time=money. There not trying to condemn DSLRs out of productions. Although IMO, some of them kind of come off like this. But you have to remember DSLS upset business for allot of people. Quality 2/3" 720p cams use to cost $60,000 just a few years before the 7D/5D hit the market. Many people's investments instantly loss nearly all of their value. So you have to take everything with a grain of salt. The articles expose the technical flaws, which is helpful, don't get me wrong, but they are just TECHNICAL. I mean, seriously look at 5D footage and then look at XH-A1 footage... it's just obvious why so many people shoot on the 5D. It really is the first consumer cameras that makes an audience go "holly crap, did you shoot that on 35mm?"

Remember, filmmaking is all about the audiences perception. This is who you're making your projects for. I knew there were going to be some work-arounds when I sold my XH-A1 for a 7D... but in the end, I was doing narrative films, music videos, and visual-oriented pieces. So I needed a camera that took a professional looking image over anything else. And despite the XH-A1's "quality" on a pixel-pixel level... it just doesn't LOOK professional.

You just have to ask yourself whether you need a "video camera"... or a "motion camera". "video cameras" to me, are cams like the XH-A1 and the HVX's. These are "work" cams. They are made to capture content reliably and efficiently, aesthetics take a back seat. You can use them for narrative work, but the "look" just isn't there. But again, they weren't design for that. "Motion cameras" are for narrative films and "artistic" shoots. They're aren't workhorse cameras made for taking interviews and capturing "content" in any efficient way, they are made for achieving the most aesthetically pleasing motion possible. Film, Red, and DSLRs fall into this catagorey. They take longer to set-up and have their own unique workarounds and problems. Which brings up a funny point that people speak of DSLRs 12min recording time in a negative light... but when you actually work with film "the golden standard" reels are only around 4 minutes! It just goes to show you that people are picking and choosing the comparison battles. Some people just don't like the "play-field leveling" the DSLRs have done. :cheesy:
Click to expand...

I think I love you :grin:
 
I wasn't gonna bother commenting on this, but I find it absolutely silly that people think a filmic look comes down to the camera. If you cant get a filmic or cinematic image (whatever you want to call it) from any HD 24p cam, then do your self and everyone else a favor and hang it up. Find a new hobby.

It's more about lighting, shot composition, blocking, acting, and writing, oh forgot audio. than anything else. As long as these are your main focus, any 24p HD cam will look "filmic". As long as you have a dp that has any sort of clue about cinematography.
 
maranfilms said:
I wasn't gonna bother commenting on this, but I find it absolutely silly that people think a filmic look comes down to the camera. If you cant get a filmic or cinematic image (whatever you want to call it) from any HD 24p cam, then do your self and everyone else a favor and hang it up. Find a new hobby.

It's more about lighting, shot composition, blocking, acting, and writing, oh forgot audio. than anything else. As long as these are your main focus, any 24p HD cam will look "filmic". As long as you have a dp that has any sort of clue about cinematography.
Click to expand...

+1

Also note... Cameras are just tools. Pick the right tool for the job at hand. Sometimes the right tool could be a CCD camera like the XH-A1.
 
maranfilms said:
I wasn't gonna bother commenting on this, but I find it absolutely silly that people think a filmic look comes down to the camera.
Click to expand...

You will NEVER EVER get as filmic a look with an XH-A1 (with no dof adapter) as you can with a dslr. Filmic look absolutely boils down to the camera. Absolutely silly to claim otherwise.

Of course you do have know how to use them but when everything else is equal... You can't compare a s*%tty DOP with a DSLR against an excellent DOP with a 1/3" sensor. Everything has to be equal.
 
maranfilms said:
I wasn't gonna bother commenting on this, but I find it absolutely silly that people think a filmic look comes down to the camera. If you cant get a filmic or cinematic image (whatever you want to call it) from any HD 24p cam, then do your self and everyone else a favor and hang it up. Find a new hobby.

It's more about lighting, shot composition, blocking, acting, and writing, oh forgot audio. than anything else. As long as these are your main focus, any 24p HD cam will look "filmic". As long as you have a dp that has any sort of clue about cinematography.
Click to expand...


I agree... I think the shallow dof look has become synonymous with "filmic", which when you compare sensor sizes and that part is true. DSLRs mimic the 35mm dof characteristics. But if one is to really pay attention...plenty of docs and news shows actually have plenty of shallow dof shots, yet they still don't look like movies which is really what we're talking about here. So you can have shallow dof to beat the band, without those other elements that Maranfilms mentioned, forget about it- it will still look like a student video (I've seen a few of them here....DSLR "movies" that look like videos) Color grading also plays a VERY important role from what I have seen, in creating that "movie" look. Even Big budget films look way different before the grade, shallow dof or not.
Also many great movies use very little shallow dof shots....No Country For Old Men comes to mind. Also to add, I've seen graded DVX100 (standard def AND small chips...lol) footage look 1000 times more like a movie than some of the DSLR stuff that is all shallow shots and little else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top