ALL: Would you choose an AC 130A or AC 160A for interview work or something else?

kenackr

kenackr

Well-known member
As a DVX100B user, I thought I might be able to use it to record video interviews for a website I'm developing. The site is focused on recording veteran's stories, hardships, pain & healing process from the ravages of war as a living memory history.

After further thought based on suggestions from another post, I'm beginning to think a camcorder upgrade might be prudent to record those interviews.

Is the Panasonic AC130A or AC160A a good choice for doing this type of interview work? Most of of it will be a controlled talking heads shoot indoors with various static muslin backgrounds (black, gray, white, blue, and the occasional green screen for a change of pace). There may be some run & gun depending on interview conditions desired by a vet. I realize the 160 has an advantage in audio quality with uncompressed audio out.

The footage from both camcorders I've seen on this forum has been luxurious.

Thanks for any suggestions and help,

Ken :embarasse
 
I have one of each. They're nice and fully capable of what you're asking. Doing it again, I would have purchased a used XF300 instead.

If you're just doing interviews, a used AF100 with a few Nikon prime lenses would look even better (with the PCM audio) for about half the money.
 
The 160a gives you 60p, so recording some b roll of these vets might b a nice addition to the project
 
Nate,

Half the money is a good thing since this is a self funded labor of love with no income from it. I'll start searching. I thought the AF100 was a lot more expensive. Any secret places to look where that price might materialize?

Ken
 
Ken, I have a 160A and it is a fab camera in all respects. Probably stating the obvious but the camera is not a problem, sound and ambient sound could be, so close miking is the best thing to do.I always use a lavalier mic for chatting heads, and would recommend one in your scenario. You will certainly not be disappointed with a set up like that.Cheers! Rod
 
kenackr said:
Nate,

Half the money is a good thing since this is a self funded labor of love with no income from it. I'll start searching. I thought the AF100 was a lot more expensive. Any secret places to look where that price might materialize?

Ken
Click to expand...


The AF100 is indeed a lot more expensive. Even finding one used, as was suggested, I doubt you will find any super affordable deals.

Many people these days are shooting interviews with DSLR's. Why not consider the Panasonic GH3? It has better video features than any other DSLR. It can record uncompressed LPCM audio, and its 50 Mbps H.264 MOV codec produces wonderful looking images, without gobbling up too much disk space.

The body is currently selling for $1,068 at B&H Photo. And just like the AF100, with a m4/3 adapter Nikon lenses can be easily used with it.

Even if you added the excellent Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Power O.I.S. lens for another $1,139 at B&H, that only would set you back a total of $2,207, much less than the cost of a AC-130a. It would be much smaller and compact, and easy to carry to interviews. You could even go more affordable, and choose the outstanding Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 which produces amazing images, and would be a great focal length for interviews. That would also bring your total cost down to $1,637

Or go even cheaper yet with the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. for $349, bringing your total cost to only $1,417.

Really, you should take the time to look at some GH3 footage, and I think that you will be super impressed. And you certainly don't need the super zoom range of the lens in the AC130a and AC160a for interviews. That lens would be totally wasted for just doing interviews.


Checkout these groups on Vimeo, and you will see that I mean:


https://vimeo.com/groups/lumix


https://vimeo.com/groups/gh3users


Anyway, I myself own both a AC-130 and a GH3. And for recording an interview, I would definitely bring my GH3.

.
 
One additional point that I should add is that with a m4/3 sensor camera, it will be easy for you to get a narrow depth of field to isolate your interview subjects from any background behind them. I think that is a real plus to have when shooting interviews.

Take a peek at this video down below from a missionary family, and you will see what I mean. There are several interview segments scattered throughout it. ( Note: turn the sound off if you find the missionary talk offensive or annoying ).

This video really shows off the excellent image quality of the GH3. Be sure to expand it to view full screen. And it also illustrates that the camera can be a most effective run and gun camera too.

It sure seems to me that a GH3 would be ideal for the usage that you have described.


.
 
Last edited:
I guess I shouldn't say "half" the price, but definitely cheaper! I've seen AF100s going for about $2100 here on the forum in the last couple of weeks.

That being said, I believe that the GH3 shoots a better picture than the AF100, but the GH3 does not have XLR inputs or built-in ND filters - things that matter to me quite a bit. They may be less important to your situation, or you can find an accessory solution for them.

With an adapter and prime lenses, either camera can shoot a killer looking interview. With a lens like the 12-35mm Lumix, they both become wonderful run-n-gun machines with stabilization and autofocus. I'd recommend either, but only if you're prepared to depart from the abilities of the fixed-lens 1/3" chip camcorder.
 
Lance,

The images are fantastic. The price is VERY tempting. However, when I consider integrated audio, I just can't get behind DSLRS yet. Maybe someday, but not just yet. Pro audio does not operate on 3.5 mm stereo connectors for a reason, plus what kind of audio processing happens in the camera body?

I'm by no means an expert but my gut tells me DSLRS are not yet the final answer for video.

Thanks!
 
kenackr said:
Lance,

The images are fantastic. The price is VERY tempting. However, when I consider integrated audio, I just can't get behind DSLRS yet. Maybe someday, but not just yet. Pro audio does not operate on 3.5 mm stereo connectors for a reason, plus what kind of audio processing happens in the camera body?
Click to expand...


Those concerns over audio quality are easily addressed by adding the $374 juicedLink RM333 Micro Low-Noise Preamp. Very small and compact, runs forever on a 9 volt battery, and gives you 3 XLR inputs with Phantom power. juicedLink has developed a thriving business by providing a solution to this very issue that you have raised:


http://www.juicedlink.com/audio-preamps-mixers-etc-c-66/rm333-riggy-micro


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/857043-REG/juicedLink_RM333_RM333_Riggy_Micro_Low_Noise.html


kenackr said:
I'm by no means an expert but my gut tells me DSLRS are not yet the final answer for video.
Click to expand...


I never claimed that they are the final answer for video. Only that they are becoming very popular for recording interviews.
.
 
Nate,

How do you feel about the ability of the AC 130A to pull depth of field with? In relation to that, do you feel it's solid for pulling green screen keys with?
 
I've had an AF100 since February. It was $2,900 with 45 hours on it. And I got an AC130A about a month ago. It was $2,600 with 35 hours on it. So both were pretty much brand new.

I think that the AF100 would be best for you. Just know that you have more expenses than the camera. You have to get at least one lens. The Tamron 17 - 50 mm F2.8 constant is great for interviews and b-roll. It's not cheap, but not super expensive. And then it's easy to find a good, inexpensive 50mm prime. And the 20mm Lumix lens is great. But just starting out, I recommend the Tamron in Nikon mount. You have to get the adapter that controls the aperture. Which is actually REALLY nice because it makes it a stepless aperture. So you can adjust it on the fly and still have usable video during that part. I got the adapter that was like $70 or so, not the $200+ one. I didn't see the point in the more expensive one.

The DSLR (or DSLM as Panny calls it-- I just stick with "DSLR" even though it's not truly accurate) route is definitely attractive because of price. I was shooting on the GH2 from early 2011 to this past February when I got the AF100. So I got some good mileage out of it. Lack of XLR means that you have to add a Juiced Link or a Zoom H4n. I did the H4n mounted on the shoe, and I plugged my XLR mics into it. One of them required phantom power, so that ATE batteries on the H4n. You also need a variable ND filter. That can add some unwanted light artifacts in the video sometimes. A non-variable ND filter should get rid of that, but that makes it an even bigger pain. You also have to consider that you different lenses will have different thread sizes on the front, so you'll need step up/ down rings. But going from like 72mm to 52mm thread would look kind of ridiculous.

I did read about an adapter than puts the ND in between the sensor and the lens. Did anything ever come from that? It was probably a Kickstarter project.

So short story, I recommend the AF100 if you can take the time to learn a somewhat new way of shooting (it takes a little more time to set up the shot, and you have to pay more attention to various aspects). And also if you have the extra expenses for lenses. If you want to stick with what you're used to, then get the AC130. It will still be great quality, just not with the ability to compress the shot like the larger sensor can. You can of course get far away from the subject and zoom way in and get some degree of compression, but it's not the same as using a large sensor camera.

You'll also want to buy a shotgun mic for either camera if you need audio that isn't from a lav mic at any point.

I bought my used cameras from Adorama's used dept. Great folks, and they've gone as far as to take a bit off of the prices for me (with a valid reason), as well as send me a part for free (the mic holder) when I asked about it-- and it was of course an "as is" purchase.

Whatever you do, you're absolutely right that you have to get away from your DVX100B. The quality is not up to par with what professional video is in 2013.
 
If you want another more affordable camcorder option than the AC130a, consider the brand new Canon XA20, which just started shipping 10 days ago here in the USA. You might have a little trouble finding one, since it is so very new. But dealers are now delivering them.

Street price is only $2,200, compared to $3,400 for the AC130a. Records 1080/24p in either 24 Mbps AVCHD or 35 Mbps H.264 MOV, and 1080/60p in either 28 Mbps AVCHD or 35 Mbps H.264 MOV.



Studiotech-ST70NAB2013CanonXA25FCPX_Blip720p2Mbps2PassVBRUpload997-593.jpg


http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders/xa20


Here is a video posted by a brand new Canon XA20 owner in Japan:


 
And last, but by certainly no means least, consider the Panasonic AC90 as well, as yet another more affordable option. It is very affordable at only $1,740, and is super sharp and has great image quality with decent lighting. Its main weakness compared to the AC130a is that it will not hold up as well in low light. And its optical zoom range is more limited at 12x. It records native 1080/24p, 1080/30p, and 1080/60p in AVCHD.

It certainly would be fully up to the job of recording interviews. And it would give you full manual controls, unlike the Canon XA20.

Here is a photo of the AC90:


Panasonic-AG-AC90-5.jpg


And here is an in-depth review of the Panasonic AC90:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?297200-AG-AC90-Review-in-the-Dominican-Republic
.
 
Ken,

Depth of field for the 130/160 would be similar to your DVX. In my opinion, unless you're quite a ways back and zoomed in, the background is still pretty distinct. I've never tried green screen with it, but I'm sure bit would be comparable with any if the other 8-bit AVCHD camcorders being discussed. Picture profiles play a pretty big part in the way the Panasonic cams look.

What are your thoughts on everything being discussed? Also, I assume you're shooting you're interviews with adequate lighting?
 
Used the Canon XA20 yesterday. Not even close compared to the Panny 130. I will probably get the Canon Hf G 30 (same camera minus the XLR connector) for travel. The 130 handles the contrast ratio better than the Canon.
 
Nate,

Lighting? We don't need no stinking lighting! Oh, sorry, wrong movie!

With the site still under construction, shooting interviews in earnest have not yet begun. I've been doing some tests with the DVX (thank goodness for a wireless remote) on myself in my "studio" which has 30% (area) windows on both north & south sides of the room. My concept being trying to pack as much natural light into the shots as possible and reducing the amount of artificial lighting to an absolute minimum.

The DVX works wonderfully with natural light (at least to my eyes) and I feel that the closer I can keep the shooting environment to "natural", the anxiety introduced into the vets will be minimized. The vets are by no means "talent" and the fewer distractions that are thrown their way, the better. In general, vets are reluctant to open up and speak from their heart to avoid reflections of guilt, shame, appearing weak or less manly, etc, etc.

As a vet diagnosed with PTSD (and many other things) myself, these are direct observations I've encountered in many "group" sessions. These are men & women who have been thrust into survival mode (kill or be killed), seen unspeakable horrors on the battlefield, did not have the time to grieve the loss of friends & teammates when they were being overrun by enemy combatants and then later didn't want to open the Pandora's box of emotions where they were compartmentalized during the slaughter and the trauma. In short, the only time I see they allow themselves (including me) to crack the lid on that box is when they feel someone has their back like they felt with their own squad under fire in the field, OR in rage at being put into the crucible. But I digress.

Unlike standard commercially motivated production, these interviews will not be governed by hit the marks on the floor or the clock. The tally lamp will never be lit. The camcorder will roll the for the duration until the vet gets comfortable enough to crack the lid open and tell his or her story. Time consuming? Absolutely. But then again, it is my time to use as I see fit and no one is holding a stopwatch over my shoulder.

Regarding what has been discussed here, I'll admit to being overwhelmed because I haven't been following video technology since I bought the DVX prior to the advent of HD. I'd just go off and shoot local Farmer's market's or other public events of interest as a volunteer "producer" for a local public TV cable access channel.

A wellspring of information has been provided that may take me some time to sort through, but I'm glad to have it and very grateful for the effort. It's a lot like trying to take a drink from a fire hose at a 3 alarm fire, except nothing in my world is on fire (except for my back).

Ken
 
A very valid reasoning there, Ken, and one that makes total sense for your project. It's awesome that you're committed to putting in the time necessary for the stories to be told in their honest entirety.

Here's what I would say to you:

1) Are you comfortable using manual controls on an interchangeable lens camera? Are you able/willing to change lenses when necessary and babysit the aperture, shutter, gain and focus? If so, a larger sensor, interchangeable lens camera (AF100/GH3/etc) will give the the highest quality pictures when using no additional lighting.

2) If you just want something that "just works" in most situations, has a range of capabilities, and looks good doing it – stay with the 1/3" camcorders you've been interested in. I think this is the best choice given the information you've provided.

3) Because you're not planning on using additional lighting, the AC90 may not be up to snuff with the other 1/3" chip cams. Wonderful images, and gain is fairly clean, but it needs more light, plain and simple.

4) Ok, so now you're down to AC130 vs. Vixia. I did a test last night with my Vixia HF G20 in "cinema mode" and just let me say, it's pretty darn close after you get the images into the computer and match the color. The AC130 is wider, has about one stop better sensitivity and the controls are far easier to use, but image-wise it's closer than I would have liked! :) See attached images of yours truly, evening interior scene was broad-lit by two 500W lights. First in each set is AC130, second is Vixia. Full-Quality links below via Dropbox.

Ken, if you'd like, I can set up a window-lit scene for you using each of the cameras. Perhaps my wife will oblige this afternoon...

AC130_Wide: https://www.dropbox.com/s/41zd5reb7haaolo/AC160_Wide.jpg
Vixia_Wide: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbz3wtmvxnuhumx/Vixia_CU.jpg

AC130_CU: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z9q88r9t9co396k/MzAla0jcvX/AC160_CU.jpg
Vixia_CU: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbz3wtmvxnuhumx/Vixia_CU.jpg

AC160_Wide.jpgVixia_Wide.jpgAC160_CU.jpgVixia_CU.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top