Hey guys, I have a question about what camera I should get. I was planning on getting a Canon XL 2 but I'm not sure if that is the best camera for it's price range. I have used one once and I really liked it but I don't have any experience with any other cameras. I plan on making my own indie films and want to get the best "film" look I can achieve with a DV camera. The price range I am working with is around the XL 2 price give or take a few hundred. Thanks for any input.
Camera Advice Please
- Thread starter Jones23
- Start date
Here's a comparison for you, the products competing with that camera run about twice the price @ $9k (canon XLH1), the step up from that starts at about 50k and up (talking full packages - a red can technically be had for $17,500 but that's only the body).
$5k really isn't that much when you consider what the next steps up look like...it's alot if you can't afford it, but everything is a matter of scale and is relative to the shopper. You can always rent if you can't afford to purchase, that's a perfectly viable option, I like to own due to the scheduling flexibility it gives me.
I haven't used all of these cameras, but they review well and the pictures I've seen from them look really good.
In terms of getting the film look, shoot with an SD camera and spend that extra money on all of the stuff outside that camera that tends to get ignored/left out by us microbudget cinema makers; makeup, hair, costuming, set design, lighting, practical effects, larger casts, camera motion (dolly and crane shots). These are the things that really make the "film look", not the camera...that's just the icing on the cake.
The more I watch hollywood films with a technical eye, the more I'm convinced that the only thing the 35mm cameras offer (if delivering for sd-dvd or lower resolutions) is the shallower Depth of Field. Everything else gets equalized once it gets displayed on the television. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link which is NTSC in US and Japan and PAL in the UK. Generally, HD cameras will create a beautiful image that you'll absolutely see the difference in up front...and it'll handle more coloring/filtering work than SD footage. But my footage from my XL1s looked just as good on my 32" SD-TV as footage I shot on an XHA1...the handling of whites was slightly better on the HD camera, but just by a bit...and I'm careful to protect my whites anyway.
I was going to suggest the DVX as well if you're shooting SD. Throw that camera into 24p mode and you've got some pretty impressive pictures for a camera of its size and price.
Also, have you considered renting for your project? I know you can get an adapter for the DVX that will actually let it use 35mm lenses, which might be more feasible if you were renting instead of buying.
Last edited:
I am seriously considering getting a wide angle lens for my DVX. Have you seen what it looks like with the 35mm? How much would it set me back?
-- spinner
I am seriously considering getting a wide angle lens for my DVX. Have you seen what it looks like with the 35mm? How much would it set me back?
-- spinner
Hey, I'll be honest and say that I've only seen what it looks like through a 35mm lens (w/ spinner attached) once in a rental shop. It looked pretty good quality-wise from what I saw -- I didn't have much time to play with it. I will say, though, that the adapter plus the lens starts to look a bit comical on a camera body of the DVX's size. I'm not really sure of prices, though -- I'm sure if you called up a local shop they could tell you.
I'd second what Knightly said. You should be able to find an almost new (used) DVX-100 or XL2 and save enough money that you can focus on the 250 other gadgets that can really add up to some $$$. If you're buying new, the JVCs (HD-110u, etc.) are nice, but they are power hungry. You'll need to spend $750+ on a battery configuration if you're shooting in the field. That is what drove me down to the Canon XH-A1 which is serving me well, but it has it's pros and cons. I'd prefer a 720p over a 1080i, but the most important thing is still learning how to make the best use of your camera, knowing it's capabilities and limitations, and providing it with good lighting, steady support, etc., etc. Everyone asks about "the best camera", but there is really no such thing. To use and analogy, a sniper once told me that any decent weapon was probably more accurate than the person holding it, so acquiring the most accurate rifle was not likely to make you a world class marksman.
These modern cameras are all pretty amazing. Some are better suited to certain types of shooting. Also, if you want to shoot 16x9 (widescreen), you may want to buy a camera that does native 16x9; many of the SD cameras do not.
These modern cameras are all pretty amazing. Some are better suited to certain types of shooting. Also, if you want to shoot 16x9 (widescreen), you may want to buy a camera that does native 16x9; many of the SD cameras do not.
To avoid creating another topic about this, I would also like some camera advice please! lol...I really don't know what to look for in a camera, I've been looking on the internet for a couple days whenever I gets a chance to get on the computer but I honestly don't know anything about cameras at all. lol Can someone help me?
A good quality lens that opens to f1.8 or something close to it (smaller numbers are better) and a focusing ring (preferably a true, manual focus, but that is hard to find).
Connection for external microphone(s), unless you want to record audio using another device and sync the audio with the video in post.
Any number of 3000 other features that you may or may not use. This could go on for days. I recommend you either buy something cheap that you can afford to replace when you have some background for making the big purchase, or work with someone who has a camera and learn enough to know what features you really want in your camera. The more experience and knowledge you have, the more you can take advantage of advanced features. I've met people with great cameras that have no clue how to use them. Buy what works for you, and remember that next year, there will be new models that cost less and offer more features. If you really don't know much, you shouldn't be spending $10,000 on a camera that will largely go to waste while you're figuring out things like basic lighting and audio. Remember; if you don't know what an F-stop is, it doesn't do much good to be able to change it.
When I started bicycling, I bought a simple, $100 10-speed and rode it for a year before I sprung for the $1200 bike. I hope that makes sense.
Connection for external microphone(s), unless you want to record audio using another device and sync the audio with the video in post.
Any number of 3000 other features that you may or may not use. This could go on for days. I recommend you either buy something cheap that you can afford to replace when you have some background for making the big purchase, or work with someone who has a camera and learn enough to know what features you really want in your camera. The more experience and knowledge you have, the more you can take advantage of advanced features. I've met people with great cameras that have no clue how to use them. Buy what works for you, and remember that next year, there will be new models that cost less and offer more features. If you really don't know much, you shouldn't be spending $10,000 on a camera that will largely go to waste while you're figuring out things like basic lighting and audio. Remember; if you don't know what an F-stop is, it doesn't do much good to be able to change it.
When I started bicycling, I bought a simple, $100 10-speed and rode it for a year before I sprung for the $1200 bike. I hope that makes sense.
Thanks everyone for the advice. I have decided to go with the Canon XL 2. I am also going to look into getting a wide angle lens for it. I see the 3x wide angle lens aren't too expensive.
I am going to buy the camera instead of renting it because I want to be able to shoot whenever I want on my own schedule. I was also looking into renting the attachement that allows the Canon XL 2 body to use a 35mm lens since the adapter alone is around eight grand. This is something that I don't need to own because I am just starting out but I would like to try on a project to get experience using it. I am trying to start my own small indie production company and owning the camera is essential to me. I am also looking into buying a glidecam smooth shooter.
I am going to be using a custom built pc to edit on. I don't want to make the jump to Mac because you can custom build a pc with twice the specs of a mac for half the price. This leads me to my next question. I'm not sure what software to use for editing. Vegas, Pinnacle, Adobe. I am going to be getting Effects lab Pro, Composite lab Pro.
Thanks for any input or advice you can give.
I am going to buy the camera instead of renting it because I want to be able to shoot whenever I want on my own schedule. I was also looking into renting the attachement that allows the Canon XL 2 body to use a 35mm lens since the adapter alone is around eight grand. This is something that I don't need to own because I am just starting out but I would like to try on a project to get experience using it. I am trying to start my own small indie production company and owning the camera is essential to me. I am also looking into buying a glidecam smooth shooter.
I am going to be using a custom built pc to edit on. I don't want to make the jump to Mac because you can custom build a pc with twice the specs of a mac for half the price. This leads me to my next question. I'm not sure what software to use for editing. Vegas, Pinnacle, Adobe. I am going to be getting Effects lab Pro, Composite lab Pro.
Thanks for any input or advice you can give.
In 1980, I built my own, computer controlled light board that I drove from a Commodore VIC 20. I bought my first IBM PC in 1984. I've built more custom built computers in the past 20 years than I care to count; everything from high end servers with expensive SCSI systems to inexpensive Linux workstations, and I completely disagree that an Intel Mac is more expensive than a home built PC with "twice the specs". A $2000 Mac Pro has excellent engineering with a high quality main board that supports 16GB of ram and sports 4 processing cores and a high quality video card. So, you're going to tell me you can build a computer with 8 cores, 32GB max RAM, and 8 hard drive bays for $2000?
As a professional editor who writes computer software for a living and knows more about computers than any 10 computer techs put together, my advice is to buy the hardware that lets you run the best software, because hardware is cheap and easy to upgrade, but substandard software will leave you frustrated and waste your time. Also, your investment in software will probably exceed the cost of the hardware by a large margin.
Finally, I've written over a million lines of production code, and more than half of that was written for or ported to Windows. I have enough experience with Windows internals to give me nightmares. Although I'll develop and test Windows software, I wouldn't actually use Windows the OS on my workstation unless I was stuck with DOS v6 and someone handed me a Windows CD as my only upgrade option. This choice is not out of ignorance. I could easily right a book on the Windows programming API and I'm a more savvy Windows user (and maintainer) than most of the Windows lovers out there. The truth is that I can get more work done on a Mac or Linux machine than I could ever get done using the Windows OS.
I'd love to see the Bill of materials for your cheap custom PC. You may have something there, and I'd be happy to offer insights on motherboards, bus technologies, video drivers, etc. I don't keep up with component prices, so you may be able to save a few hundred bucks. You do pay a price for that warranty, but since I rely on my machines every day, all day, the warranty does have value and I'm willing to pay money to save myself time.
I probably sound heavy handed. In another life, I'd apologize, but my job is to fix problems and build solutions on a wide range of systems. I don't know how many times someone has started out with a plan to save a few hundred dollars on the initial purchase price and they've paid for it several times over in the first year. If you factor in lost productivity, the cost can be huge. It sounds like you know something about PC hardware, so my advice is to proceed with caution and question your assumptions.
This is the big benefit to ownership for me!
The two types of adapters are completely different. The $8k adapter allows a lens to resolve to a 35mm (diagonal measurement like a tv) frame giving the same DoF to spatial relationship ratios (I just made that term up
. The cheaper adapter allows you to attach a 35mm lens which still resolves at the chip size of your camera. This means that the DoF will not change. Often, you'll be able to get a better looking image from the 35mm lens, but it depends on how good the lens is.
I second what oakstreetvideo said. I've also been working in this (computer) industry for a long time and have built countless PCs over the years starting with a TurboXT. My gaming system is hand-built because I upgrade it constantly, but my workhorse is a name-brand workstation PC. Warranty and stability is a good thing on this kind of investment.
An example of what a PC will bring you, I use Adobe Studio Premium and lost several hours of editing because it kept crashing. Turned out that Premiere Pro 2.0 has a problem with some of the resident Creative Labs utilities (XFi). Took a few passes with WinDbg and selective startup, but eventually found the culprit and disabled it. Not fun. Now imagine if this were someone without the know-how to troubleshoot a problem like this. Your productivity is shot to hell.
I haven't touched a Mac since OS7, though, so no advice available there.
An example of what a PC will bring you, I use Adobe Studio Premium and lost several hours of editing because it kept crashing. Turned out that Premiere Pro 2.0 has a problem with some of the resident Creative Labs utilities (XFi). Took a few passes with WinDbg and selective startup, but eventually found the culprit and disabled it. Not fun. Now imagine if this were someone without the know-how to troubleshoot a problem like this. Your productivity is shot to hell.
I haven't touched a Mac since OS7, though, so no advice available there.
What? No drag and drop? No Appletalk? I used to setup Appletalk --> Novell --> Microsoft networks in my younger days. That was mostly with the IIe generation. Did some programming on the IIc (adventure games) as a teenager. The biggest changes I knew of aside from OSX were changing from NuBus to PCI and the addition of the MacIntels. I would think they'd be up to PCI Express by now. I have collegues supporting Apple, so I need to check in with them. I have heard it over and over again, though, that if you want to learn how to use computers, get a PC. If you want to get anything accomplished with your computer, get a Mac.
Those Mac vs. PC commercials are hysterical because they are so true.Back to topic, I have an XL1s wishing it had native 16:9, but I'll live with it as-is for now. Too bad I can't find an inexpensive anamporphic adapter for it. I looked everywhere. If you know of a source, please let me know.
The XL1s still produces a great picture even when MPEG2 encoded (7Mb VBR), so the XL2 should do just as well if not better. I mentioned in another thread that I had the opportunity to watch one of my creations upconverted through a Toshiba HD-DVD player to 1080p on a 73" DLP HDTV. It looked fantastic. This was 4:3 full-frame, though. I need to experiment with 16:9 cropping. I reframed some of the 4:3 footage in post, and I could definitely see the quality difference. Reframing involved zooming. It was still okay, just not near as crisp as the native footage.
Last edited:
drag and drop yes, appletalk has mostly gone away replaced by linux's zeroconf now known in the apple world as bonjour. PCIExpress yes, have been for a while... SATA in towers.
Topic. I've tested an anamorphic adapter of Oakstreet's when he visited MN a while back...wonderful doohicky, pretty pictures.
You can get almost HD looking pictures if you light very carefully with older higher end cameras like the panny dvx100 and the Canon XL1s.
Topic. I've tested an anamorphic adapter of Oakstreet's when he visited MN a while back...wonderful doohicky, pretty pictures.
You can get almost HD looking pictures if you light very carefully with older higher end cameras like the panny dvx100 and the Canon XL1s.
Now that I have my Canon XH-A1, my Panasonic and anamorphic adapter are not getting much use. I've got so many hours on that camera, it's like deserting an old friend. 
I can't see selling it, because it's not worth as much in cash as it is as a backup camera. I will say that the anamorphic adapter extended it's life. Being able to shoot "native" 16x9 gave it a whole new look.
What they need to do is to make a camera with interchangeable CCD's and electronics so you can upgrade your camera like you do a computer! I hate putting perfectly good equipment on the shelf and letting it die a slow death.
I have considered putting the anamorphic adapter on the 16x9 Canon to get a really wide field of view. I really need to try that sometime. It would have been great for the marching band competition I shot last year. I would have done it, but I'd have had to letterbox the footage for a 16x9 DVD and I was afraid to take a chance on it for such a large project. The ratio would end up being about 2:1 with 1440 pixels horizontally and 1080 vertically ... kind of awkward, but worth some test shots.
I can't see selling it, because it's not worth as much in cash as it is as a backup camera. I will say that the anamorphic adapter extended it's life. Being able to shoot "native" 16x9 gave it a whole new look.What they need to do is to make a camera with interchangeable CCD's and electronics so you can upgrade your camera like you do a computer! I hate putting perfectly good equipment on the shelf and letting it die a slow death.
I have considered putting the anamorphic adapter on the 16x9 Canon to get a really wide field of view. I really need to try that sometime. It would have been great for the marching band competition I shot last year. I would have done it, but I'd have had to letterbox the footage for a 16x9 DVD and I was afraid to take a chance on it for such a large project. The ratio would end up being about 2:1 with 1440 pixels horizontally and 1080 vertically ... kind of awkward, but worth some test shots.