What New camcorders are better than the EX1r right now under $5k?

"better" in what way?

There are no 1/2" cameras under $5k, if that's what you're looking for.

The BMC is a lot less than $5k and does things the EX1R can't, but obviously there are tons of things the EX1R can do that the BMC can't, so again, the question is "better for what purpose"?

The AC130 will provide an image comparably sharp, with a lot more zoom, for a lot less than the EX1R. The AC160 will do all that and add variable frame rates and 1080/60P, which the EX1R can't do. The HPX250 will go two better by adding 10-bit and 4:2:2 recording, which the EX1R can't do; all of those are under $5K. But they're all 1/3" chipsets, not 1/2", so -- does that qualify as better? That's a question only you can answer.

It really comes down to "better for what purpose"?
 
Barry_Green said:
"better" in what way?

There are no 1/2" cameras under $5k, if that's what you're looking for.

The BMC is a lot less than $5k and does things the EX1R can't, but obviously there are tons of things the EX1R can do that the BMC can't, so again, the question is "better for what purpose"?

The AC130 will provide an image comparably sharp, with a lot more zoom, for a lot less than the EX1R. The AC160 will do all that and add variable frame rates and 1080/60P, which the EX1R can't do. The HPX250 will go two better by adding 10-bit and 4:2:2 recording, which the EX1R can't do; all of those are under $5K. But they're all 1/3" chipsets, not 1/2", so -- does that qualify as better? That's a question only you can answer.

It really comes down to "better for what purpose"?
Click to expand...
Thank you Barry for your answer.
I am looking to find something that is an all around camera that will work well with my 5D Mark II's as well. I do all kinds of events here in Las Vegas and we primarily do weddings and seminar gigs but The lowlight of my Brand New XF100 is not doing what I thought it could do and might just send it back to B&H. I know that I see in the wanted ads on CL "EX1 or EX3 camerman needed" So that is why I have been debating on that camera.
 
Hi

I am putting 2 XF105 in my budget for purchase. Can you elaborate on your low light complaint. Compared to what? Can you quantify it?
I haven't heard that as an issue with the XF100 /XF105.

I don't want to make a mistake. These cameras will be used for Interviews, Events, and micro-docs by a historical society. Can anyone say that the XF305 would be much better? I was thinking getting the Canon look right out of the camera with a C100, XF105 (2) 5D MKIII (mostly stills), and Vixia HF M500 (stealth and for high school volunteers to break).

Please forgive me if this is hijacking or bordering on high jacking this thread -> if so just ignore. But I had hoped to shoot lots of stuff with the XF105 and not a lot of lights.
 
JoeJITSU said:
The lowlight of my Brand New XF100 is not doing what I thought it could do and might just send it back to B&H.
Click to expand...

I consider the EX1 to be garbage in lowlight (Can't push the gain much without massive noise). Is the XF100 that much worse or have you compared them?
 
Blit said:
Hi

I am putting 2 XF105 in my budget for purchase. Can you elaborate on your low light complaint. Compared to what? Can you quantify it?
I haven't heard that as an issue with the XF100 /XF105.

I don't want to make a mistake. These cameras will be used for Interviews, Events, and micro-docs by a historical society. Can anyone say that the XF305 would be much better? I was thinking getting the Canon look right out of the camera with a C100, XF105 (2) 5D MKIII (mostly stills), and Vixia HF M500 (stealth and for high school volunteers to break).

Please forgive me if this is hijacking or bordering on high jacking this thread -> if so just ignore. But I had hoped to shoot lots of stuff with the XF105 and not a lot of lights.
Click to expand...
Hijacking? Of course not. How else are you going to learn. I don't thinks its that bad but when you hit that gain from 6.0 on up, The noise is pretty bad. I am shooting a seminar right now with poor lighting. I was considering the XF100 to be my A Cam for this gig but I ended up shooting with the 5D Mark II with the 70-200mm f4.0 IS with a shutter of 50 and ISO of 1250 at f4.0. I had the ISO up to 1600 but the noise was bad mostly because the speaker had the video screen to his back which was pretty bright and no good lighting on the speaker at all.
 
RatLabProductions said:
I consider the EX1 to be garbage in lowlight (Can't push the gain much without massive noise). Is the XF100 that much worse or have you compared them?
Click to expand...
Never had an Ex1 or Ex1r but before buying the XF100, I did consider buying one. Are you sure that the Ex1/Ex1r is that bad in lowlight? 3CCD though. My HMC150 did better than this, unless im doing something wrong. Most people are just saying to use Neat Video.
 
Hi

I guess Gain <6dB then. I have had the same issue with speaker in darkened room speaking and PowerPoint screen lit behind them. I have gone after it three ways. First; see if I can get the house lights up a bit. Two; see if I can move my camera to not have the screen behind the speaker. Third; and the one I use most is to get either a little book light LED that you clamp to a book for reading or a cheap LED small flashlight and light the speaker. Put the light on the podium if I can stand low, up the nose lighting scary effect or tape it or clamp it to either a mic stand or C-stand to get a proper angel. Still only one light. But light versus no light - no contest.

On the Sony side the new PMW-200 looks great but I went all Canon for two reasons. Skin looks the best without correction and I like the C100 and 5DMKII (for stills especially) better than the Sony equivalents. The small size of the XF105 is also great for what we do. We currently use an HMC 150 (GREAT camera), 7D, and GL1.

On the Panasonic side the lack of love for the autofocus on the ac130/160 has scared me off. I also like the canon aps-c sensor size better than micro4/3 by a little. But it is close. Really the Autofocus thing where lots of volunteers will be leaving it on auto-focus. I probably should stop reading about it and go test one, what a concept now that I think about it. Though maybe auto-focus on the AF100 is better than the C100. I have no idea -> off to go look that one up. I know the C100 has one shot auto-focus but the AF100 I don't know about. However the AF100 has time code??? and the C100 I know doesn't. So many factors deciding between what are all variations of great cameras.
 
Hi
Both great cameras. For me Canon is smaller, lighter, less expensive. I think a fairer comparison is the XF305 against the Sony PMW-EX1R.
I think I am okay with the Canons except I will miss timecode on the C100(C300 not in the budget). Also will try to hang on and see when the 7D replacement will be out and what it offers.
 
JoeJITSU said:
Are you sure that the Ex1/Ex1r is that bad in lowlight?
Click to expand...

My experience is all relative to what I have used and have access to. Out of the stable of PMW700, C300, AF100, GH2, GH3, 5DII and EX1 the EX1 is by far the worst in low light. When you have to apply gain it falls apart quickly. I was shooting some backstage stuff for a behind the scenes look at a big awards show and found that I had to jack the gain to get a picture I could use but the noise was out of control. I personally try to avoid going over 6bd of gain on the EX1.

Don't get me wrong I love that little camera for everything it does well but low light use isn't its strong point. If you find you are only getting great results on a DSLR the EX1 won't be anywhere close in low light ability. I have very limited experience with small chip camcorder (coming from a PD150 to EX1) so maybe its a common thing on the low end small chip camcorders. I'm sure someone smarter Like Barry Green could pop in to explain my ignorance.
 
The XF100 is a compact pro camera and to me seems perfectly adequate for what it is. The codec actually lets you add a lot of light in post, and if you have to go to 24dB Neat Video fixes it pretty well. I've put up a one-minute clip on Vimeo with a couple of examples. An XF100 is half the price of an EX1R/PM 160/C100 so naturally you would expect to get a bit more for twice the money, but its a matter of diminishing returns.
 
Hi
GREAT! one minute video that helps me a lot. Thanks for the link Rainer. So I am pretty confident on choosing a package with C100, XF105 (2), Vixia HF M500, 5DMKIII. 5DMKIII and C100 can share lenses. I will add a copy of Neat to budget. C100 suffers form no time code and no continous auto-focus. Otherwise a great package. Sony and Panasonic would be great too, just a matter of which flavor to choose today. I have owned and been happy with cameras from all three.
 
Rainer said:
The XF100 is a compact pro camera and to me seems perfectly adequate for what it is. The codec actually lets you add a lot of light in post, and if you have to go to 24dB Neat Video fixes it pretty well. I've put up a one-minute clip on Vimeo with a couple of examples. An XF100 is half the price of an EX1R/PM 160/C100 so naturally you would expect to get a bit more for twice the money, but its a matter of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...
I have Neat Video and will give it a shot this weekend. Thank you so much
 
Just to add to the discussion...a bit.

I shoot alot on my personal EX3. The low light capabilities have always been a little disappointing to me compared to some of the higher end cameras I've shot with in the past.

That said...I too purchased the Neat plug-in and it has helped me when I've been forced to gain up the video. What used to be a very noisy picture was improved considerably with the Neat plug-in.

http://www.neatvideo.com/

But...there is a slight trade off. The HD higher level gain image "fixed" by the Neat plug in is not as good as what I consider a "pure" HD image from a camera with better low light capabilities.

To me it's just a bit softer. That is the trade-off to get rid of the noise. The picture DOES look much smoother, better, to the eye. But it's not the truly perfect, crisp HD image I would prefer.

A lot of average viewers will probably not notice the difference, but I do. However the Neat plug-in is worth every cent to me when I'm stuck having to gain up the video due to circumstances beyond my control.

It's a great tool to have available in your toolbox.
 
RatLabProductions said:
I consider the EX1 to be garbage in lowlight (Can't push the gain much without massive noise). Is the XF100 that much worse or have you compared them?
Click to expand...

Say what? I have found the exact opposite to be true. I've shot multiple episodes for MTV's MADE and they exclusively use the EX1 for all the shows. One of the reasons because of it's low light performance. Total documentary run and gun...NO lighting. I've shot late at night in parking lots, high school dances with strobe lights, restaurants with only pendant lighting. Never have an issue. Just put a small on camera light on the hot shoe mount and you're golden. The EX1 is an amazing camera. If you expose properly...use the right shutter speed, and shoot making the most of the light provided it def. wont let you down. Still worth the money IMO.
 
Last edited:
JoeJITSU said:
Never had an Ex1 or Ex1r but before buying the XF100, I did consider buying one. Are you sure that the Ex1/Ex1r is that bad in lowlight? 3CCD though. My HMC150 did better than this, unless im doing something wrong. Most people are just saying to use Neat Video.
Click to expand...

an EX1 is clearly better in low might than an HMC150. i own both and there is a significant difference.

the thing about a 5DmkII or III is that even though its better in low light what you loose is deep DOF if your shooting with anything but pretty wide. so by the time you stop down on a tele lens on a DSLR you need to get to f11 or f16 to come close to the deep DOF with the EX1 for instance you loose the benefit of better low light camera because you have to raise to much higher ISO's in order to get deeper focus. if you can live with a more shallow DOF then large sensor cameras will obviously always beat an EX1 or any 1/2 chip cameras.

for me +12 on the EX1 is the max ill go. still if the project is supposed to be a polished look then even +12 is not where you want to be just like 3200 on a 5DmkII would be too much.

if your shooting in darker scenarios most of the time and cant add light then a DSLR or C100 type of camera shooting with fast apertures would be my choice but knowing i wont have the natural deep DOF in those low light situations.

ive got a 5DmkII, 5DmkIII, T2i, EX1, HMC150 & C100. the EX1 for me is still my most valuable (overall) camera i own because of great IQ and versatility.

in the end no matter what camera you buy Neat Video will be your friend. it does and excellent job.

david
 
mb72378 said:
Say what? I have found the exact opposite to be true. I've shot multiple episodes for MTV's MADE and they exclusively use the EX1 for all the shows. One of the reasons because of it's low light performance. Total documentary run and gun...NO lighting. I've shot late at night in parking lots, high school dances with strobe lights, restaurants with only pendant lighting. Never have an issue. Just put a small on camera light on the hot shoe mount and you're golden. The EX1 is an amazing camera. If you expose properly...use the right shutter speed, and shoot making the most of the light provided it def. wont let you down. Still worth the money IMO.
Click to expand...

This is why I also listed the cameras I was comparing it to (post top of page). And yes out of the list of cameras I have access to the Ex1 is the worst in low light. I don't consider any small chip camera 'Great in low light'. That is why I was asking what the OP was comparing it to. Each of us is comparing it to the cameras we use regularly and when I need low light the EX1 isn't the camera I reach for. anything above 9db gain didn't look great to me. That doesn't diminish it is a great camera and a valuable one in the arsenal but lets keep perspective as to where it shines. I've had quite a few backstage award show shots ruined due to lack of low light sensativity. When you can't light you have to pick a cam with better sensitivity.
 
Lensmith said:
But...there is a slight trade off. The HD higher level gain image "fixed" by the Neat plug in is not as good as what I consider a "pure" HD image from a camera with better low light capabilities.

To me it's just a bit softer. That is the trade-off to get rid of the noise. The picture DOES look much smoother, better, to the eye. But it's not the truly perfect, crisp HD image I would prefer.
Click to expand...

I find that neat video works a heck of a lot better when you leave in a majority of the Y noise and filter out the Cr and Cb noise entirely. The chroma noise is the really distracting stuff. A little luminance noise is bearable and kind of looks like a grain rather than a noise. Sorry for the tangential input, here. lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top