XH A1 or t2i or something else???

[filmmagician]

Hey hey. So, I'm about to purchase a prosumer HD camcorder. I''ve had my mind set on the Canon HX A1. A lot of my filmmaking friends have been telling me a lot of films/shorts are being shot on Canon rebel t2i. I've been watching footage from both and the t2i seems a lot close to a film look.

I've found out some cons that i dont like about the Rebel as opposed to a real HD camcorder. I'm wanting to start shooting some indie films, (1-2 hours) skits, shorts etc... If i spend good money on the xh a1 I want something that is very close to a Film look. I know lighting, shooting and lenses help. But i was just wondering what all you guys thought on buying a new/used XH A1 to start seriously shooting films.

Any other cameras you think are better? or is the XH A1 THE way to go? Thanks a ton guys.!

 

[Huy Vu]

I know lighting, shooting and lenses help.

Not just "help," they're everything. Believe it or not, a camera only contributes about 10-20% to the overall image, the rest being lighting, framing and production design. Buying a camera for its "looks" is the wrong way to go because practically any camera will give great results when used properly. This for example was shot on a RED, but you wouldn't know it because of how poorly lit it is. When picking a camera the emphasis should be on what features the camera offers and doesn't offer. For instance the T2i will do interchangeable lense and shallow DOF, the A1 will not. But the A1 have a real audio input, proper form factor and no aliasing issues. The A1 is $3300, the T2i is $800; can that extra bit of cash be used for something else? Decide which is more important to you, or else you may be disappointed when you pick a camera, expect it to give a certain "look" and then it fails to deliver.

BTW, I've shot extensively on both the A1 and the T2i, 5D, 7D etc. (most of my reels are A1 footage). I can say that there's not much that the T2i can do that the A1 can't do, provided that it's used properly. The T2i however doesn't have the form factor and the ease of use that the A1 has and so personally that wouldn't be my first choice.

 

[pulpfiction007]

The T2i will get you the shallow dof similar to 35mm film, but other aspects of the image suffer just so you are aware of that. Amongs those aspects are the tendency for the DLSRs to suffer from moire and aliasing on certain patterns, compression artifacts, and CMOS skew. Also you will need to purchase fast lenses to take advantage of the strengths of the t2i, an audio recorder, some sort of viewfinder (the optical vf in video mode isn't functional) a rig of some sort for stable shooting and mounting accessories, a follow focus, possibly a monitor to check focus, etc. etc.
A Panasonic GH2 (they're hard to find in stock) has the viewfinder, keeps the aliasing under control, and is higher resolution than the Canon, but still, a dedicated camcorder has a lot more out of the box to make things easier. The t2i can sometimes overheat as well (the t3i and 60d IMO are better Canon options for video, because of the articulating screen - for shooting and it seems to ventilate the camera better.
As far as camcorders go - The HMC150 and the Canon XHA1s image can be manipulated infinitely to help achieve a film like feel (of course it won't look like film) The HMC150 is going for less brand new- $2669 at B and H vs $2799 for the Canon A1s. the HMC is tapeless though if that's important at all, but might take more computer horsepower to edit.
What I've been suggesting people do all along is this - Buy the Dedicated Camcorder that fits your budget for the main camera, running audio through, master shots, etc. Then get the DLSR to fill the void - low light shots/shallow dof/close ups. Because if you have a dedicated camera for the majority of the heavy lifting, you don't need all those expensive gadgets for the DLSR - all you need is the camera and a decent fast lens to do special shots (and carefully work with the LCD and a baseball cap for shade if you need it...maybe some NDs, but that's it) There are very inexpensive options for this type of fill in cam - T2is prices are falling to the floor and the GH1 can be purchased for next to nothing as well.
Sorry for the long reply - it's the best advice I can give. Other opinions will certainly vary.

Huy Vu beat me to this...I agree as well with what he said- buy the A1 or similar first, then later fill in with whatever DLSR is the best deal at the moment.

 

[filmmagician]

Not just "help," they're everything. Believe it or not, a camera only contributes about 10-20% to the overall image, the rest being lighting, framing and production design. Buying a camera for its "looks" is the wrong way to go because practically any camera will give great results when used properly. This for example was shot on a RED, but you wouldn't know it because of how poorly lit it is.

That youtube clip actually looked like it would be something you'd see on TV (resolution wise) I've seen a lot of a1 videos that look like home movies.... shot well, no light kits, but it didn't seem like film quality.

I like how everything is manual on the a1. more control. But thanks for the post, I could feel you're pro A1 and really dug what you said about it.

 

[filmmagician]

Does canon have a lot or any lenses for the A1 to get a better film look? like the letus. What kind of prices do they run around?