The Xl1s will work great for you! I have one and love it, especially for outdoor (well-lit) scenes. Great Canon lens! Vegas and the XL1s is a good marriage. Tapes are less than 5 bucks now, eat your heart out Sony!

How does the XL1 do in lower light situations? I will also be getting footage of practice burns, watching the smoke bank down and flames roll the ceiling.

Thanks, lots of good info there.

I strongly recomend you look at a Sony PD150 with a screw on WA adapter, rather than the Canon XL1. Reasons:

1) XL1 records miniDV with its little heads; PD150 is DVCAM with wider heads and
faster tape speed = more robust

2) I think the PD150 may have larger CCDs.

2) The XL1 is not nearly as good as my little PC9 MiniDV pocket camera in low light.

3) The stock lens loses focus through its zoom travel, in and out.

4) CNN likes the PD150 enough to make it standard issue for its overseas
correspondents. As for the XL1....?

email me at psburn@shaw.ca or burn.peter@syncrude.com if you want more info. The XL1 was innovative when first released but really is not a great camera. I rent ours out to wedding videographers, never use it for serious production. Another dept. has a GL1 and a GL2; the latter is actually better than the XL1, picture-wise.

If you need low light performance, there is nothing now available which is better than a Sony PD150 or VX2000, unless you want to spend the whole $5k on just the camera, and get a much larger unit (that also needs expensive batteries, lens, viewfinder, etc.)

By the way, a friend of mine is a firefighter in San Jose. He said during training, a department videographer actually melted a camcorder during a practice burn. Don't know about the insurance issues.

I have heard of damaging cameras during training burns. I wouldn't want to get too deep into the burn. Just enought to get the feel of the environment during an active burn, and what the smoke does during different extinguishment phases. I will check out the Sony cameras you suggested.

Thanks
chumash

Also, DON'T wear gloves - If it is too warm for your hands, it's too warm for the camera as well. But DO protect the camera in some way from the smoke and floating debris. We used two XL-1 cameras to tape a training burn to create some commercials for a local fire department. If you'd like to see them, just let me know and I'll see if I can dig them out.

Your comparisons, CNN recommending the Sony---They have to because it uses
the DVcam tapes and basically none of them work worth a hoot in low light.
The pixelation creams the codec performance. But then again depends on what
you want.

JJK

Another good camera that is a little cheaper than the XL1 is the Canon GL2 or GL1, we just used one of the GL1's for a shoot and it looked really good.

Don't work worth a hoot in low light? The PD150 is amazing in low light producing stunning images with little or no noise. I have shot scenes with just firelight or less, looks great. The XL1 now is a different story, though I've never tried the XL1s, just the XL1.

J\

Both cameras use the same tapes, unless you want to use Sony DVCam tapes which you don't need to.

J\

For this you really should check out the PD150, or the VX2000. As mentioned in another post, you cannot get a better camera for the money for low light shooting. I used the XL1 a fair bit but when it came time to buy a camera, low light quality was a big factor since most cameras in the price range produce good images in bright light. I've shot material with my first gen Digital 8 that looks great in bright sunlight.

I have also had the opportinity to directly compare the PD150 to a Canon GL1 and the new GL2, wasn't impressed with either Gl models.

Now before I'm accused of an anti Canon bias, the WA adaptor I use is the Canon WD58 intended for the GL1. It's half the price of the Sony offering, lighter and looks great. As a former SLR camera repair person, I love Canon products, own several myself.

XL1 owners will tell you how great a removable lens is but the camera itself is egonomically just wrong, to me anyway, and most people I know with one just use the stock lens.

J\

I have spent countless days, hours researching the same thing. I will be taping
amateur hockey. The camera I chose was Sony's DSR-250 and 2 Sony PD-150. Why?

The image quality is great, LOTS of 3rd party vendors support these cams, AMAZING
in low light, they look great...especially the DSR-250 which is EXACTLY the same as
the pd-150 except $2,000.00 but I need it to "wow" clients. The 2 pd-150's are my
"B" cameras which will be filming at both ends of the arena.

From my understanding, the XL1S is a great camera for indie movies but the Sony's
are for run 'n gun, event videography and training videos.

I can't wait to get my camera's. I bought all of the toys, hardcase for all three cameras, Manfrotto zoom/focus pan handle, tripod for DSR-250, 2 12' tripods for pd-150's etc. They say it takes 3-4 weeks ....tic-toc-tic-toc...

A different view... don't take it personal.

Why blow so much money on a single camera when all you'll be making is ho hum training videos? You don't need anything near the model you're looking at especially if you're only going to use it for limited use.

I further assume you mean when you said you're buying for your fire department, you're buying as an agent for your local fire department, not making a gift meaning of course the TAXPAYERS are really paying for it.

If I was one of those taxpayers I'd be hopping mad if such an expense was authorized. Having the best equiptment for fighting fires and related stuff, fine. Buying an expense camera for a wannabe Steven Spielberg is something else. FOOLISH!

All you need is a mid range digital camera. Many models, including the Cannon ZR45 which will shoot excellent video (for your purposes) including low light and it costs less than $600 street.

Hard not to take that one personal.

First of all, the funds are from a special budget from the state,which all departments contribute to, that is earmarked for training only. This means that no firefighting equipment can be purchased with it. Therefore, the citizens we serve can rest assured that no taxpayer money is being squandered.

Second, as I explained, I'm pretty new to all this. I started on my own as a hobby, and have a ZR60. Viewing posts from others, on other forums etc... it seems that the quality of picture you get between the two different cameras is pretty big. For now, it will be mostly training, but there are plans in the future to possibly expand into other areas, such as PSA'a on the local cable access. And why not have the best possible quality training DVD's? They may be ho-hum to you, but we have to train with them repeatedly.

Lastly, I assure you I am no Spielberg wanna-be. I am taking this task on solely because I am the only one in the dept. who has any experience (albeit limited) in this area. As we do not have the funds to have this professionally done on an ongoing basis, I have become a reluctant volunteer. We are simply doing the best we can, with the limited resources we have. Training is the backbone of what we do in the fire service, and I want to make it as polished and effective as possible.

Thanks for your recommendation BillyBoy. You have a lot of knowledge and I will certainly take your suggestions into consideration.

I also enjoy your tutorials, thanks for those.

chumash

I have a Sony PC-1 and a Canon XL1s. The Canon produces much, much better images, the difference is very obvious. I'm just a hobbiest too, mostly videos of my children family events. I love the XL1s and would recommend it without hesitation.

Also, I don't know how dangerously close to the action this camera could get, but I'd be fearful of smoke/soot and, especially, water, geting onto and all over my camera. My local Fry's routinely advertises miniDV cameras for under $400. Might be a better choice for something that could end up melting ...

Stay safe!

Marc

I agree with Billyboy on this one. Why spend 5k on a camera that you probably would not get use out of the features that make it 5k? The quality of the training video when completed will be judged more on your shooting technique and editing skills than the actual sharpness of the picture. My suggestion, buy two minidv cameras that are sub 1k each. Buy one that's very small that will allow you to get "in the action" and buy one that's standard size for tripod shots and what not. With the 3k that's left, purchase the other needed items that will make your productions better, tripod, dolly, stedicam, basic light kit, good mics, quality cables. Also, I'm guessing here but it sounds as if you would be editing this yourself, at home. Why not use that extra $ and get an edit station at the fire hall where the other guys could learn to edit and actually help out. I understand your point about the money being from a specific fund and could not be used for other purposes but that does not mean that you still can't get more bang out of the buck.

I don't say this to be patronizing, in fact it's something that I had to realize myself not too long ago:

A great camera will not make a great video. A great videographer/editor will.

I'd be willing to guess that if you gave Spielberg a Video8 Sony made in 1987 he would be able to give you great looking shots from it.


And besides, if an accident did happen, wouldn't it be easier justifing a replacement for a sub $1000 camera than a $4000+ one??


My two cents. -Shon

Most people don't know it, but the mic on the Canon XL1s was designed and developed by Sennhieser. It's a stereo condenser short shot-gun - with very good sound. You will, no doubt, want to add a wireless for your training talks, but for picking up great sound from the camera, it's a wonderful mic that ships with the thing.

Have to agree with BillyBoy. You DON'T need a $5k camera. You don't even want a $5k camera.
1. Within two years, it won't be worth more than a thousand bucks.
2. Drop it, wet it, burn it, have it stolen... cry.
3. With your admittedly limited knowledge, you won't be able to "milk" the additional features that a more "professional" camera can deliver. You want a great "point and shoot".
4. Unlike cars, tools and other mechanical equipment, video cameras do not necessarily improve in end quality with the amount of money you spend. The technology is so sophisticated today, that a $400 Sony Digital 8 delivers WAY more image than a $65,000 BetaCam from 8 years ago. So virtually any Digital camera you buy is going to be more than satisfactory for your needs.
Therefore, I suggest that you buy the least expensive equipment necessary for the job, and augment it with the gear suggested above; tripod, michraphone, carrying case, some small lights, etc.
Moreover, if you are not limited in the timeframe to spend, ie, must spend all money before Jan 1, etc, then hold back a bunch of bucks. You will definitely want to buy more stuff that you haven't even considered right now. (Everyone reading this forum will agree with that!)
I would suggest starting out with the Sony Digital 8 250 - $400 at Circuit City. I just bought one for myself as a 5th camera (to supplement other much more expensive gear... we were shooting in a situation where the camera might have been destroyed). It is amazing! It even has an infra red "night shoot" feature, and a 20x zoom lens.
It will more than be enough for your first learning experience, and will still be usable as a second camera, if you need more expensive equipment, later. You will love that camera. You'll take it where you'd never risk a PD 150 (my other absolute choice for you). You'll be daring with it. AND... you'll produce great video!
Great video, today, is totally a function of talent, skill, energy, daring and EXPERIENCE. Equipment is WAY low on the totem pole.
Then, as you understand more, you'll be able to see what YOU need, and you'll still have the bucks left to do it.
Let me assure you, a bigger camera is not better. And you are going to need a lot of other stuff.
Good luck - by the way - where do you live? I'll bet there are a bunch of Vegas fans who would LOVE to help you out! Making fire training films... where do we sign up? :)

Thanks for all the input. I see that a less expensive camera makes a lot of sense. As these funds are time sensitive, what other equipment will I need? I know a tripod is a must, as well as a b etter mic, and some lights. Are there any other things I am missing? Any suggestions, let me know.

Thanks again for all the info and suggestions. It really helps a lot, and makes this a lot easier. It's nice to have a forum like this where people are willing to help.

BTW, I am in the SoCal area.

chumash

You'll need a Tripod, a nice hard case, lots and lots of batteries (you can never have too many) maybe a nice rapid charger, a bunch on Mini DV tapes,

I found Billy Boy's comments resonant since I'm about to sell my TRV50 and replace it with a Canon ZR60. Why? Because I can't afford a high-end camera like the PD150 at the moment and I've come to the opinion that whether you spend $1500 or $500 for a DV camera it doesn't really matter if all you're using it for is amateur video. Add good shooting techniques, good lighting and Vegas to the mix and even a cheap camera can give you great results. (I actually liked the video I got with a ZR45 a couple years ago). Once you go professional, yes you should get a PD150, a Canon XL2 etc. I've worked with a VX2000, someone else's and got paid for it, and there is a dramatic difference in quality, but I'm not really in the business yet, if ever, and I can better use my funds elsewhere for my hobby at the moment. If someone wants me to do a wedding or a church event they can either supply the camera or I can rent a good one.