OT: What camera should I buy?

CVM wrote on 10/17/2007, 8:41 AM
I'm ready for the on-slaught of recommendations!

I have $2,000 to $3,000 to spend on a camera and have no idea which one to buy... Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc. I am going to be using this for general purpose, infrequent shooting in the northeast, mostly indoor, in an institution setting. Here are my parameters:

- HD or no HD (I am using this in a hospital setting with final output on 4:3 SD tube TVs and the web... not a lot of HD needs).
- 3:4 and 16:9 switchable (if it's possible)
- XLR or mini-plug for microphone
- 3CCDs
- 24p or not... don't care

Not a lot to go on.. but what do you all think? THANKS!

Comments

richard-courtney wrote on 10/17/2007, 9:42 AM
I'd really look at HD but.....

The Sony PD170 has been a really good workhorse for many.

Great low light. XLR mic inputs. Will do 16:9 (not true 16:9). 3CCDs.

Watch indoor ballast type florescent lights with high shutter speeds
(color shifting) but at 60fps no problem.

Will record in DV and DVCAM on mini DV tapes.
CorTed wrote on 10/17/2007, 10:16 AM
I use a DCR-VX2100, it works real well for indoor use with very low light.
Has 3ccd's, (not HD) and records on mini DV tape.
Great picture quality, but a bit heavy. sells for around $2000

Ted
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/17/2007, 10:56 AM
I would think ahead. When is the next time you are going to buy a $3000 camera because that is how long THIS purchase is going to have to last you!

I agree with others that you can get by today with a Sony PD170 or VX2100 for SD work, but you can also buy a Sony HDR-FX1 or HDR-FX7 for about $2500 and be set for tomorrow. Just because you don't need HD now doesn't mean that next year the institution is not going to ask you to shoot something in HD. All HDV cameras also shoot 4:3 SD so no worries.

Personally I would not buy anything SD with a budget like yours. Not when you can get Sony HDR-FX7 at B&H for $2495.

~jr
craftech wrote on 10/17/2007, 11:45 AM
I agree with others that you can get by today with a Sony PD170 or VX2100 for SD work, but you can also buy a Sony HDR-FX1 or HDR-FX7 for about $2500 and be set for tomorrow. Just because you don't need HD now doesn't mean that next year the institution is not going to ask you to shoot something in HD. All HDV cameras also shoot 4:3 SD so no worries.

Personally I would not buy anything SD with a budget like yours. Not when you can get Sony HDR-FX7 at B&H for $2495.

===============
The Sony HDR-FX7 is not a fair comparison to the VX2100 or PD170. The HDR-FX1 is.

Again it gets back to the ever shrinking CCD size phenomenon that I have posted about many times. Cameras with smaller CCD sizes are NOT an improvement. For serious shooting accept no less than three 1/3 CCDs. The FX7 has three 1/4 CCDs. The FX1 has three 1/3 CCDs.

John
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/17/2007, 12:40 PM
> The FX7 has three 1/4 CCDs.

The HDR-FX7 doesn't have ANY CCD's at all. It has 3 CMOS which is a whole other technology entirely. I was not try to compare technology but rather "future-proof" the purchase. But I do appreciate your points however. Bigger imagers are better, but you can't compare across technologies.

~jr
craftech wrote on 10/17/2007, 1:05 PM
> The FX7 has three 1/4 CCDs.

The HDR-FX7 doesn't have ANY CCD's at all. It has 3 CMOS which is a whole other technology entirely. I was not try to compare technology but rather "future-proof" the purchase. But I do appreciate your points however. Bigger imagers are better, but you can't compare across technologies.
==========
The FX7 does have CMOS sensors, but the difference for the purposes of this discussion is moot. Bigger is better. The insignificance between CMOS sensors and CCDs is explained .

John
MH_Stevens wrote on 10/18/2007, 7:41 AM
PLEASE: If you don't buy HDV you will regret it. Even with SD projects you have about four times the pixels to work with! And with your budget there is no need or reason not to. The FX1 for $2500 is a great way to go.

CVM wrote on 10/21/2007, 8:35 PM
MH_Stevens... what do you mean, "...you'll have four times the pixels to work with..."?

If I am creating video to be shown via DVD on 4:3 SD televisions and via the web as MPGs or WMVs, I don't understand how more pixels during capture will benefit viewing.

How are there more pixels and how will that help me with my output needs?

Thanks!