Sell my DVX for a Canon Hf100?

English Madman

English Madman

Active member
Hi guys.

Sorry to post a similar post to another poster but I really need Dvx User's help.

I want to go HD but I am a poor man lol. I was thinking of selling my DVX before, I actually listed it on ebay but pulled out.

But I really want to go HD and not worry about recording onto tape.

The canon hf100 looks pretty good and would cost about $1000 NZ dollars here. Obviously if i had alot more money I'd be getting something like a HVX.

Should I go for it? thanks.
 
I have the HFS 200...it goes for only about $650 U.S. and it's an excellent camera. If you can swing it I'd say go for it instead of the HFS100 - The HFS 200 screen is high resolution, it has native 24P, gain limit can be set by 1db increments, the OIS is great, the touch screen focus can actually be used to great advantage, and the image is pretty great as well.
That being said you might miss the physical controls, picture adjustments, low light ability, and audio of the DVX.
All I can vouch for is that the HFS 200 can put out a great image esp. if you limit gain properly and try not to shoot in overly dark conditions. I don't think you'll be disappointed in the choice as long as you don't mind the cons listed above.
Good Luck!
 
I have an HFS100 and I can attest that under good lighting conditions that the camera does a fantastic job. I prefer to use my GH2, but the HFS100 is a lot easier for run and gun situtations. I have found that instead of shooting in 24P (since it's still in a 60i wrapper...) that I shoot in the 60i normal mode and then use Cineform Neoscene to convert to 24P. It actually looks a lot better than the "native 24p" and works better for CC in post.

The HDMI out works very well with an external monitor and the manual audio levels are great if you're using an external mic. Low light is about the only difficulty for this camera, but as long as you have good existing light, or even using something like a cheap z96 LED light on camera, you can shoot really nice HD.

Hope that helps.

Tony
 
just my personal opinion but I would keep the dvx.
simpley because there's many cameras that can shoot like the hf100 but there aren't many cameras that can shoot like the dvx.
there's that special look the dvx gives so I can never get rid of it.
unless you're only planing to shoot youtube/infomercial videos, I would keep the dvx.
 
ryvac said:
just my personal opinion but I would keep the dvx.
simpley because there's many cameras that can shoot like the hf100 but there aren't many cameras that can shoot like the dvx.
there's that special look the dvx gives so I can never get rid of it.
unless you're only planing to shoot youtube/infomercial videos, I would keep the dvx.
Click to expand...

While I do agree that there's nothing quite like the DVX... if you want HD, tapeless and a good 24P implementation, there aren't very many cosumer cams that offer this-
The Canon prosumer models starting with the HV series have been the only ones for a while now. The new Sony's prosumer models have 24P, but cost a lot more. The Panasonics have a 24P in a 60i wrapper, but shoot at a lesser quality in this mode than the Canons. And that's it....no other Prosumer camcorders have 24P.
I don't know if 24p is important...but coming from the DVX, I assume it would be. So that leaves you with -
A. Keep the DVX, get a tapeless recorder for it and uprezz the footage to HD
B. Sell the DVX and get one of the prosumer Canons like you mentioned HFS100, 200, etc.
C. Sell the DVX, save a bit more, and buy something like the HMC40- (which is like a smaller HD DVX, without the low light sensitivity - IMO)
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I have the HFS 200...it goes for only about $650 U.S. and it's an excellent camera. If you can swing it I'd say go for it instead of the HFS100 - The HFS 200 screen is high resolution, it has native 24P, gain limit can be set by 1db increments, the OIS is great, the touch screen focus can actually be used to great advantage, and the image is pretty great as well.
That being said you might miss the physical controls, picture adjustments, low light ability, and audio of the DVX.
All I can vouch for is that the HFS 200 can put out a great image esp. if you limit gain properly and try not to shoot in overly dark conditions. I don't think you'll be disappointed in the choice as long as you don't mind the cons listed above.
Good Luck!
Click to expand...

Hey man thanks for your advice. So you reckon the HFS200 is a bit better then?
Yeh I love the DVX look, and I love using it for its manual controls etc but I'm fed up of having to uprezz the picture and work from tape, it's a hassle. I'd love a camera like the Hmc40 but it would take me a while to save for it and I got so much on my plate to pay for, visa's being one of them lol.
 
ryvac said:
just my personal opinion but I would keep the dvx.
simpley because there's many cameras that can shoot like the hf100 but there aren't many cameras that can shoot like the dvx.
there's that special look the dvx gives so I can never get rid of it.
unless you're only planing to shoot youtube/infomercial videos, I would keep the dvx.
Click to expand...

Yeh you're right the DVX has a unique filmic look which I love. mmmmmm.....I just dunno what to do.
 
tcarretti said:
I have an HFS100 and I can attest that under good lighting conditions that the camera does a fantastic job. I prefer to use my GH2, but the HFS100 is a lot easier for run and gun situtations. I have found that instead of shooting in 24P (since it's still in a 60i wrapper...) that I shoot in the 60i normal mode and then use Cineform Neoscene to convert to 24P. It actually looks a lot better than the "native 24p" and works better for CC in post.

The HDMI out works very well with an external monitor and the manual audio levels are great if you're using an external mic. Low light is about the only difficulty for this camera, but as long as you have good existing light, or even using something like a cheap z96 LED light on camera, you can shoot really nice HD.

Hope that helps.

Tony
Click to expand...

Hey thanks for your advice. Can you tell me what you mean by the Hf100 being in a '60i wrapper?'. CAn you buy decent microphones for the camera? sound is paramount as well as picture quality for me. I found out you can get a pretty good 35 mm Adapter for the Hf100 from here http://www.vid-atlantic.com/EnCinema35.html

I have never used HD anything before. will I be fine using a HD PC monitor to edit the footage? I'm sooo behind lol.
 
You will be fine using the HD PC monitor...a lot of people do just that. Another thing to consider though is AVCHD. Make sure you have the horsepower/software to handle it before you jump in. Many people will give different answers as to how powerful the computer needs to be, but it should at least run with fairly modern processors. Mine struggles with it....so that's my next purchase. For now I've just been shooting HD, and downconverting in camera to SD.....another cool feature of the HFS 200.
The 24p of the HFS 100 is contained in a 60i "wrapper" so an extra step needs to be done to extract the progressive video, which is not all that uncommon.

BTW, I think the Native 24P on the HFS 200 looks great, as does the 30P. I haven't even shot in standard 60i yet.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
You will be fine using the HD PC monitor...a lot of people do just that. Another thing to consider though is AVCHD. Make sure you have the horsepower/software to handle it before you jump in. Many people will give different answers as to how powerful the computer needs to be, but it should at least run with fairly modern processors. Mine struggles with it....so that's my next purchase. For now I've just been shooting HD, and downconverting in camera to SD.....another cool feature of the HFS 200.
The 24p of the HFS 100 is contained in a 60i "wrapper" so an extra step needs to be done to extract the progressive video, which is not all that uncommon.

BTW, I think the Native 24P on the HFS 200 looks great, as does the 30P. I haven't even shot in standard 60i yet.
Click to expand...

Whats the extra step then to get the progressive video? do you mean in-camera or in post?

I have an AMD Athlon II quad core (2.60 ghz)
4gb DDR3 Ram
nvidia Gforce 240 1GB card

Would I need to upgrade it to run AVCHD smoothly in Vegas Pro 10? Cheers.
 
never used the HFS cameras but your computer is more then an average computer for sure. so I image you'll be alright.

btw, what are you using the camera for? you've never mentioned that.
just my little tip,
If you're shooting movies, keep the DVX100
If you're shooting documentary, get the HF100
 
ryvac said:
never used the HFS cameras but your computer is more then an average computer for sure. so I image you'll be alright.

btw, what are you using the camera for? you've never mentioned that.
just my little tip,
If you're shooting movies, keep the DVX100
If you're shooting documentary, get the HF100
Click to expand...

I would say the opposite, because when you shoot doc style you want a rugged camera with real xlr inputs. ("Iraq in Fragments" is an insane dvx feature doc, and it might still be on netflix instant play.)
I would go hdslr if you just want to shoot movies where you record audio separately.
 
renegadewill said:
I would say the opposite, because when you shoot doc style you want a rugged camera with real xlr inputs. ("Iraq in Fragments" is an insane dvx feature doc, and it might still be on netflix instant play.)
I would go hdslr if you just want to shoot movies where you record audio separately.
Click to expand...

ture,
it's just my opinion but I think the DVX gives more of a filmik look then the HF100. plus it's way bigger in size and it records on tape so I thought it would be better for film shooting purposes.
On the other hand, the HF100 would be good for docs bacause of the advantage of long recording and the light weight.

...about the audio.....well that's something important but...........
......sorry I work in the morning so I have to go to sleep. later..........zzzzzzzz
 
The DVX is a nice camera but for doing a film, I'd have to say that the Gh2 is going to deliver some stunning images and you can jump off the Tape bandwagon. I can't stand tape anymore and have been shooting without tape for 5 years. The workflow is just so much better and faster than tape, with the added caveat of not having the tape as backup.... But harddrives are cheap and the end results with a DSLR are going to be more cinematic than you could get out of a DVX. I also am a strong believer in split sound for features....and short films..
 
Hi, if you've already got a DVX then why bother. I shot a feature with the dvx over the course of a year, premiered it in February at a theatre with a very big screen, didn't invite any friends because I wanted honest feedback. I advertised it well, the place was 90% full. I sat back biting this inside of my cheek the whole way through. Nothing prepared me for the response. I've posted the public response on my website www.containsnutsfilm.co.uk They were bowled over by it and the amount of people that asked how I captured such stunning images was unbelievable. I was approached by someone after the screening who hired me then and there to shoot his project. I told him it was S.D and he said he didn't care as long as the filmic images looked like what he'd just seen. I'm now being paid by him. Since then I shot a short for myself as well and it was selected for competion at The Minghella Film Festival. I spoke to another filmmaker there. He spent £5000 and hired a Red camera for his short and it had been turned down by every festival. I told him my short had cost the price of two Pecan pies for the actors and it had been accepted to the first two I'd submitted to. They're interested in the STORY not what you shot it on. If you want to spend thousands of pounds because you can't be bothered to upload from tapes, if you think a DSLR will help you tell a better story then spend away!
 
David Jimerson said:
The DVX is excellent for exactly this. Pure resolution isn't everything.
Click to expand...

I agree, the DVX produces a great filmic look. Just unsure about the tapes...I was worried no one would take me seriously because I have a SD camera, but from what Redhighway said (and you), picture/HD isnt everything. As long as someone out there is willing to give me a chance and have a look at my films once they are completed that will make my day.
 
redhighway said:
Hi, if you've already got a DVX then why bother. I shot a feature with the dvx over the course of a year, premiered it in February at a theatre with a very big screen, didn't invite any friends because I wanted honest feedback. I advertised it well, the place was 90% full. I sat back biting this inside of my cheek the whole way through. Nothing prepared me for the response. I've posted the public response on my website www.containsnutsfilm.co.uk They were bowled over by it and the amount of people that asked how I captured such stunning images was unbelievable. I was approached by someone after the screening who hired me then and there to shoot his project. I told him it was S.D and he said he didn't care as long as the filmic images looked like what he'd just seen. I'm now being paid by him. Since then I shot a short for myself as well and it was selected for competion at The Minghella Film Festival. I spoke to another filmmaker there. He spent £5000 and hired a Red camera for his short and it had been turned down by every festival. I told him my short had cost the price of two Pecan pies for the actors and it had been accepted to the first two I'd submitted to. They're interested in the STORY not what you shot it on. If you want to spend thousands of pounds because you can't be bothered to upload from tapes, if you think a DSLR will help you tell a better story then spend away!
Click to expand...

a Hf100 isnt a DSLR tho is it? I agree with you that the DVX still has the power to outshine Hd but I was just dwelling on the fact that everyone is obsessed with HD at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top