Ooops. Forgot I posted this -- actually thought I hadn't due to slow page loading at the time.

Yeah, the HV20 keeps being fav around here. I just want to open my options.

Any other folks here have actual first-hand info/experience and/or know of anyone that does on these new Sony HRs, perhaps in comparison with the venerable HV20?

Thanks.

I just sold my FX1 that had very little use, less than 12 hours for 2k with wide angle and all accessories. A much better deal than what you are looking at. I'm sure now some of us are going to the Ex1 there will be other Fx1/Z1's on the market. There is no comparison.

Well, that warms my heart - lol.

I do have this obsession withe the FX1/Z1 - and sure, would go for Z1 if I could find it for around the price you mentioned. I've seen F1s on local Craigslist with similar package and low use as you did (not scam posts, either).

Even saw a Z1 once for around $2500, but in both cases, I'm just not ready to buy due to other life circumstances. I do need to stay at or below $2000.

But in this case, time is on my side as you said. The F1/Z1 class is getting "older" by the day.
Those who can afford it, will naturally upgrade and want to sell.

Even saw a Z1 once for around $2500, but in both cases, I'm just not ready to buy due to other life circumstances. I do need to stay at or below $2000.
=========
As I said in your other post, move the imager size way up to the top of the list for what you are shooting. Lots of people buy "affordable" cameras only to be disappointed with the industry's habit of removing or cheapening the important parts to favor the gimmicks that entice the unknowing. Lots of "features" and no substance. If you can't afford a minimum of a three (1/3) chip camera now I think you should wait. You will be disappointed if you don't IMO. JUst by their nature the HD cams overall do worse in low light than equivalent SD cams. My Sony VX2000 SD camera will run circles around most of the "affordable" HD cameras of today. For me a step "up" from that camera would be the Sony EX1 with three (1/2) chips.

John

My Sony VX2000 SD camera will run circles around most of the "affordable" HD cameras of today.

Only in terms of low light, and with the post-processing abilities today, plus the fairly clean gain structures available in later generation cameras, even that is debatable. For SD output, there is no argument that the VX can capture *slightly* more clean video, but AVCHD or HDV downconverted and properly processed will still yield a more clean, color-saturated image than the VX can deliver in low light.

It seems more and more evident to me that having at least a 3 1/3 chip camera is the only way I'd be satisfied as a visual artist.

While the option of renting a good camera has also been suggested to me in more than one post since I've been here, I'm also a craftsman/hands-on type.

I like to master a tool and be able to take my time doing so.

But due to my disability and living on only a disability income and how it can drag out things, being able to afford a good camera without seriously denting savings puts limits on things.

So I'm re-considering the following which I also mentioned in a post last year or so.

------------------------------------------------------

The music video project I'm planning to do will be a sort of sketch of my long term goal -- a short film in part based at my site's perspective.

Once I have that done, it will be a sort of "OK, here is a pencil sketch of what I am capable of with very limited resources."

Then create a brief, well thought out project synopsis online with said sketch, and start looking for funding, equipment donation or whatever.

Maybe I could even weave in the offer of, "Look, I'm not even asking for an HD 1/2 chip camcorder 'of my dreams' hand out -- I'll pay you what I can, say $2000."

I have one advantage too: I live in Los Angeles, California. Film City.
And then there is also always contests to enter to get exposure.

________________________________

Silly, unrealistic, preposterous - perhaps. Perhaps not.

We all have our challenges but I have one bonus and that is the time to work at my pace on all of this.
Patience and thoroughness can pay off.

Each one of us has had moments of "grace." Serendipity happens.
Life isn't only about struggle.

So to return to the subject of this thread and as suggested, it does seem very much worth waiting for the right time and place to meet with the right camera. Hell, it may even turn out to be an EX1 or Z1.

In the mean time, I have a lot of other things to develop, learn, and integrate.

For what you shoot low light is irrelevant.
None of the old boilers that some like to talk about shoot 16:9 so the time is well past to send them off as landfill.
The HC7 can shoot remarkably good images for what it is and it shoots x.v.Colour. I'm just starting to plumb the depths of what that offers apart from major confusion but certainly having that option isn't a negative.
Also you probably don't need to worry about audio or the inconveniences of having everything pretty well being driven through the touchscreen.

Bob.

My Sony VX2000 SD camera will run circles around most of the "affordable" HD cameras of today.

Only in terms of low light, and with the post-processing abilities today, plus the fairly clean gain structures available in later generation cameras, even that is debatable. For SD output, there is no argument that the VX can capture *slightly* more clean video, but AVCHD or HDV downconverted and properly processed will still yield a more clean, color-saturated image than the VX can deliver in low light
=========
My delivery is still SD DVDs and I shoot primarily stage productions. I haven't seen a camera for around $2000 that can match the VX2000 for that purpose.
Now Bob's point about lack of 16:9 on my camera is a valid one. When HD catches on with the Walmart crowd, I'll be looking for a half inch three chipper.
I have read in more than one place that HD cams have poor ability in low light.

Here is a post on DVX User Forums from Nov 2007:

Not sure what the HV20 is like in low light, but recently I did a shoot of a band, before I had the DVX and I used my VX2000 and the PD170. I had the VX on a tripod stationary covering the stage and then wandered around with the PD170. There were two other cameras also that night, a HVap1 and an FX7 both HDV.

The HV20 is one of the better ones in low light apparently.

If I do a Google Search of "hd cams + low light performance" a lot of articles regarding the problem come up although the general consensus is that it is getting better than it was. But the notion that it is not a factor doesn't go along with what many are writing.

Now that EX1 sounds really interesting to me. A few more dance recitals and musicals and I'm there. (Smiles).

John

Well, Farss, actually as you put it last year some time, my "moody" shots are mostly low light situations. So I do have to consider that factor.

As to John's post on SD vs. HD performance on that, makes sense. Truth is, HD for prosumer/consumer is still in its infancy really.

As to the C7, granted it is far more affordable -- half the price of a mint/great condition FX1. But even this relative newbie knows that the oldie 3x1/3 chip FX1 has to be superior to the C7. Even in low-light.

Or at least it can't be worse.

Case in point: It still sells new for 3x more than the MSRP of a C7 after all of this time at B&H.
Must be good reasons for that, yes? :)

So I'm still going to take the tortoise vs. hare road on this. I'd prefer being patient and eventually find a wine with the right mature bouquet than settle for a lower (or new-and-latest hype marketed) vintage.

That said, if I'm still without HD camcorder in 2-3 years...

As John colorfully mused, the new-and-latest "Walmart crowd 3x1/2 chip" may just be a reality by then :)

I agree with what you're saying. I shoot a few stage performances and post a LOT of them. We shoot mostly with the 570WS, 1/2" chips and serious glass but that camera is in another league. Even then with some of the lighting setups these days the camera might cope but trying encode blue stobes, swirling fog and dancers dressed in satin can be nightmare.

However Soniclight as far as I know is shooting set pieces, he has control over the lighting. Sure an EX1 would be ideal for him but he doesn't have that kind of money. What he does have plenty of is time and as he's using 'found' talent he can throw lighting together to make up for what the camera may lack in latitude and sensitivity. What you can't makeup for is resolution. If he could stretch his budget a bit more he can get a camera with quite a range of image adjustments, something lacking in the VX2100.
To put it another way. Under the best 'studio' lighting a HC7 or HV20 will pull a better image than the VX2100. Under the worst possible lighting the VX2100 will leave the the HC7 or HV20 for dead, no question about it.

Bob.

Moody shots are not low light!

That's the trick to learning how to light. You can have a 100KW of light in a room and still make it look like a dark room at night. Light is relative. In your case you want enough light so the camera is not using gain and hence becoming noisy. You might need to control the highlights so they don't blow out too. But scrims and bounce boards can be made for next to nothing. The materials to make cutters can be found lying in the street. You might need to add a little fill in the shadows, again if you work at it, costs next to nothing.

Thing is great movie were made with film stock so slow that even broad daylight wasn't bright enough and they could still do moody shots.

Bob.

I've owned both a VX2000 and an FX1. Both are considered excellent in low light conditions. In my opinion, the FX1 combined with light use of Mike Crash's Dynamic Noise Reduction plugin yields far better results in low light than the VX2000. Even when downconverted to SD, I'd take the FX1 with DNR over the VX2000.

I've been thinking about selling my FX1 and accessories and downgrading to the Canon HV20 for its additional 24p capability, the HDMI output, and the small size. Not to mention the price. For most of what I do low the ight capability is nice but not usually required. If anyone's interested in my FX1 and accessories let me know...

Bob,
Soniclight was talking about the FX1 in the original post as a used camera, but considering other cameras with less of an imager. What I recommended was for him not to settle for less than a three 1/3 cip camera. The FX1 has three 1/3 chips. The EX1 I was talking about wasn't a suggestion for him. I was saying that for me it would be a real step up from my VX2000.

Soniclight,
Maybe you can ask Greg what he wants for his FX1. I remember when he was selling his VX2000 to get it. As I recall, someone on the forum bought it from him. Greg is a really honest guy so if the price is to your liking I wouldn't have second thoughts.

John

Don't have the VX2100, but I do have PD150 which is pro version of VX2100, and comparing PD150 with HV20, HV20 wins in just about every way.

PD150 is still the best low light camera, but HV20 is quite good too.

Unless we are talking about really, really low light conditions, HV20 won't have any problems handling it. That is the camera to go with if your budget is under $2000, and you'll have about $1300 left over.

What are you guys who own the HV20 doing with it to produce SD content? Deinterlacing first?

John

Soniclight,

I've had the chance to compare the FX1 to my friend's Sony HC7. In evenly lit outdoor situations, the HC7 equaled the FX1 in most regards. It may have even been a little better reolution wise. The FX1 seemed to have better latitude. The HC7 seemed to overexpose highlights and bright clouds more than the FX1, but it could have been something to do with the way it was adjusted.

In dimmer situations the FX1 was superior because of the better perceived latitude and ability to tweak manually. I believe the HC7 and HV20 are similar in this regard.

Another thing to consider is the overall look and feel of the camera. Ultimately, the final quality of video is the most important thing without a doubt. But I hate to say it, especially for newer less well established videographers, having a professional looking camera may be advantagous if you are doing event videography. Some people may be hesitant to shell out good money for a wedding video using cameras that look like the ones in their own closets.

If working with experienced actors and crews, a more professional looking camera may increase their confidence as well as yours. If you have an established reputation like several on this forum, it may be less important. I have read of people adding matte boxes to these smaller cameras only to make them look more impressive.

If you are going to be doing run and gun stuff, or remote location shooting, the smaller cameras are great for their smaller sizes or inconspicuous consumer appearance. If I were going hiking or on vacation, I'd rather carry the HC7 around than the FX1 due to size alone.

For me, video is a passion but ultimately a hobby. I have never made one red cent doing video but I have done many videos for my friends and several short films. I have had offers from many people to video events. I think I could make a living doing videography if I wanted. If I were doing this for a living I would keep my FX1. But for shooting little short films and fun projects I think the Canon HV20 might suit me a little better.

Greg,

Have you read the preview of the Canon HV30?

John

Yes, I have read a little about the HV30 and it looks great. I really like 30p and think its vastly undused. But for me, I don't think it is worth an additional $300 just for that feature. Using Mike Crash's Smart Deinterlacer, I have achieved very good results with the FX1 deinterlacing 60i to 30p, better than Vegas can do natively. That is what I do with most of my video. I would like to have true 24p because I don't feel converting 60i to 24p holds up quite as well as 60i to 30p. Just my opinion though.

Dead tired, can't reply now. Just swinging by to say thanks for posts. Will return to respond when neuronically coherent.