Advice on equipment??

Distorshun wrote on 6/14/2006, 3:06 PM
Videography is a hobby of mine that is quickly becoming an obsession. To make a long story short, I started out videoing a friend's wedding for them just so they had something to remember it by...and a year and a half later I've done a couple weddings and I'm fairly familiar with how to use Vegas.

I'm interested in upgrading equipment to a professional camera and possibly have a small videography business on the side. I wanted to get some advice on a few things from the pros.

1) Camera - I have a limited budget, but would like a professional camera that will make me look good. The models I have been looking at are the Panasonic AG-DVC30 and the Sony DCR VX2000 and 2100. Are there any other models with a pricepoint below $2,000 that are worth looking at?

2) Are there any good videography books/learning materials out there (Videography for dummys?). I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for a seminar. I saw the Video for Dummies 4th eddition book , but its description says it talks alot about how to use Adobe Premeire...don't really care for that.

3) Any other suggestions??

Thanks!

Comments

farss wrote on 6/14/2006, 3:44 PM
Suggestions?
With the right kind of abuse any video camera can take an acceptable image but good audio is a little but not that much trickier. It pays dividends to improve your audio skills and gear, unlike most things video good audio gear can appreciate in value or at least depreciate slower than video gear.

Anyway enough ranting!

The DVC30 is quite a good camera, tended to be overshadowed by the 100 which is a pity. The VX2100 will give you better low light capabilities, it's been a benchmark for many years. However none of these shoot 16:9 and that's certainly the way of the future. Because of that I'd give serious consideration to Sony's HVR-A1, looks small but it packs a punch. Low light isn't it's strength but you get balanced audio inputs (which you can remove).

Bob.
Distorshun wrote on 6/14/2006, 4:03 PM
Thanks Bob...do you know if the DVC30 performs as good in low light as the VX2000 or 2100? I know the sony's work well in low light, but I'm finding a better price on the Panasonic. I'm not sure if I can afford that HD model...is HD video really that much better?
jrazz wrote on 6/14/2006, 4:20 PM
Right now you can get the HVR-A1U at B&H for right at 1900 as it has a 500 dollar rebate as well as B&H's discount. It is a good camera but low light is not its strength.
As for HDV (which the A1u is) it is that much better. Even for downconverting. It is native widescreen as well. Great little camera.

j razz
farss wrote on 6/14/2006, 4:23 PM
Well I've never held or used a DVC30 so I'm only going on specs and hearsay but the VX2100 has been the camera that set the benchmark for low light performance, I'd guess it's 2 stops better than the DVC30. The critical thing to look at in low light performance is how much noise you're getting in the image. Then again noise is my personal bugbear, I hate the stuff! Once you start encoding to mpeg-2 for DVD noise turns very ugly, it gets worse also with color correction.

I think you will get better prices on the Panny, they might be about to discontinue that model. You really should also look at the PD170, that camera is coming down is price, don't just go off posted prices, try haggling, a lot. Just avoid most of the NY scumbags apart from B&H or you can get seriously ripped off.

Is HDV that much better?

It CAN be that much better, it can also be a lot worse if done wrong. Let's just say the range of results out of any HDV camera recording HDV is wider than out of a DV camera. But when you see how good it can get on a good monitor in 16:9 man, it's inspiring!

Beat in mind that all HDV cameras can record DV as well as HDV so don't think of them as just HDV cameras. I know that's a backwards approach but if HDV scares you at the moment you can buy a camera today to shoot wht you're comfortable with today and take your time to come to grips with HDV.

Bob.
Distorshun wrote on 6/14/2006, 4:32 PM
Thanks Bob...I probably just need to do some more research on HDV...I know Vegas is setup to edit HD, but apart from that I know very little. If someone does not have an HD TV, will they even be able to tell the difference between DV and HDV?
farss wrote on 6/14/2006, 6:40 PM
Even without a HDTV they can view HD video on a PC.
HDV can bring a number of benefits that I'm using right now. That extra resolution can come in handy for extracting and cropping stills!
In general HDV downconverted to SD looks better than native SD from cameras at the same price point. I stress the last point!
Certainly for SD a 2/3" camera will blow away a 1/3" HDV camera but then the lens on a 2/3" camera is worth WAY more than a HDV camera.
I don't think anyone can really tell you what to buy, IMHO asking experts is oftenly the start of the road to a nervous breakdown, be it cameras, cars, stereos or which woman to wed.

In general I spend months agonising over what to buy and end up buying something because the box was a nice color! Have I ever regretted my pruchases, no! No matter what you buy the effort put into getting the most out of it will outweigh any marginal differences you'll get from fretting over what to buy.

At the price point you're talking about ALL cameras are serious compromises, none are perfect, with all of them you'll need to learn to get the most out of them. In general the more control they give you the more they'll grow with you as you learn. The HDV cameras are pretty good in this respect, the Z1 and the A1 both give a goodly amount of manual image control and full auto will in general keep you out of trouble.

Outside of the Sony HDV camera though their consummer offerings are pretty dumbed down, look to Panasonic for cameras with more ability to control the image.

But all this depends on what you plan on shooting, for gun and run or event work you need to be pretty skilled to make use of full manual control of a camera.

And please don't forget to buy a GOOD tripod, in fact don't baulk at spending 50% of the cost of the camera on a tripod. A good tripod from Miller or Satchler will outlast 10 cameras, they're not an expense they're an investment.

Bob.
DJPadre wrote on 6/14/2006, 9:02 PM
"would like a professional camera that will make me look good"
A brush will not maketh an artiste

Distorshun wrote on 6/14/2006, 9:11 PM
We all have to start somewhere :)

I'm decent at post editting and I do fine with a camera...not going to be a pro overnight and at the moment this is a hobby, but obviously the equipment is a necessary step in the right direction.
teaktart wrote on 6/14/2006, 9:52 PM

HI,

I procrastinated for months about buying the Sony HDR A1U mentioned earlier. I hated to spend that kind of money without being able to hold the camera in my hands and see if its something I could hold for a period of time, etc. I was torn between that and the VX2100, PD 170, etc. What turned the decision for me (even though they are all in the same $2000 price range), was when B & H offered the $500 rebate on the A1 which brought it down to that $2000 mark.

Add to that comments by some of those deep into the business/field that it doesn't pay to hold still while the technology moves forward into HDV. When I received the camera in the mail I was thrilled it was very small yet full featured in many ways. Without the external mic set up I can fit the camera into a fanny pack, how convenient is that! If I travel its not a monsterously big item to schlepp in carry-on baggage, or so big I don't want to carry it everywhere.. For me, the smaller it is the more I'll use it.

Another consideration is that eventually you may want to do multi camera shoots, especially if you pursue weddings. Add another Sony HDV H3 in the near future for about $1300-1500 and you will have two HDV cameras for the cost of one big fancy SD camera. Times they are a changin' but I'd rather not go backwards at this point. Lets see, now when was the last time I used that first Hi-8 camera??? Its waiting for some action, been pretty much forgotten... but still available.

Lastly, as mentioned once you see your footage on a HD tv you may find yourself drooling, it can be absolutely gorgeous....

Even as a committed "hobbyista" I find I'm buying a camera a year but when the occassion arises for a multi camera shoot my annual investment comes into play and I'm glad I spent the bucks and have the cameras available. It sure beats spending money on gambling, bars, and fancy cars!

Teaktart
craftech wrote on 6/15/2006, 6:28 AM
First off, your budget is not anywhere in the ballpark for competing in Wedding Videography today. The instant video to be shown at the reception itself is becoming the norm. That will require a small fortune in capital outlay.
It is also virtually impossible to accomplish decent wedding videography alone. Even catching the last parts outside at the ceremony prevent you from getting to the reception ahead of the bridal party and setting up properly. I would avoid wedding videography at all costs if I were you.

For OTHER videography I would whole heartedly recommend the VX2000/VX2100.

John
Dach wrote on 6/15/2006, 6:46 AM
I agree with what everyone has said...I shoot a number of weddings every year and sometimes wish I didn't have to. If its about paying the bills... and growing the business at the same time it is hard to ignore that particular market.

Right, wrong or indifferent I use Canon cameras... they are not the best for low light application which is experienced at many receptions. Taking this into consideration invest in the Sony cameras mentioned and camera mounted light (used sparingly)

The comments made about a tri-pod and audio gear are right on, make the investment. You have to manage client expectations. A bride and groom will not really be aware of one brand of camera to another and the quality that it puts out, but they will know if he camera movements are shaky and the audio is horrible. Keep in mind that they are going to compare your work to Uncle Joe and his home video.

Above all else have fun in anything that you choose to record.

Chad