ONE chance to but an "indie" HD camera

Panasonic info:

http://tinyurl.com/4tba4f

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-HDC-HS100-Camcorder-Review-35387.htm

HDC-HS300 review:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...-First-Impressions-Camcorder-Review-36059.htm

Just get a loan and get a better camera... I personally would not shoot with that camera. But if you like... To each his own.

Actually it’s considerably easier than you think.

What makes it difficult is when you take into consideration the
personal preferences of other camera owners. For example, I
really dislike Canon cameras. So I might warn you away from them.
But the fact is, Canon makes excellent cameras, so my personal
opinion is kind of useless.

You seem to prefer Panasonic. They make excellent cameras.

I'm a JVC user. I really like their cameras.

The reality is there isn’t one camera that is right for shorts, TV
shows, documentaries and features. The cameras used for HBO shows
and for theatrical distribution cost much more the $1,000. The
good news is, which ever camera you choose is going to be great
to learn with.

So I suggest you settle down to the realities of a camera in your
price range. Get the one you can afford and start making movies.
Make one a month for a year without thinking you’re going to end
up at Sundance or HBO or in a theater near you. Just get experience
and get better and better.

If in a year (or even six months) you have a script and cast that
is good enough for HBO or to be distributed by an actual film
company you can probably find a DP who owns a better camera.

The Panasonic HDC-HS300 is a fine camera. I got to use it in
January for a little test run shooting some behind the scenes
footage for a model shoot in Las Vegas. I likes the focus ring -
a great improvement over similar cameras. But I didn’t like the
touch screen controls. On the plus side it has the essentials -
headphone and mic jacks and manual control over all the basics. I
like that it uses the AVCHD format. There is a nice toggle switch
at the front of the lens for switching between the zoom and the
focus. It took just a few tries for me to master it.

So that’s a fine camera. When you add a good mic, excellent
lighting, a great script, skilled actors and a hard working crew
you should be able to make some good movies with it.

Directorik's post was obviously way better than mine! Well said! Anyway it basically does come down to personal preference. you could certainly with the right ingredients make something good with that camera!

I get where the poster is coming from. Do you want to spend money on this camera and realize it doesn't have all the whopla you wished you had experienced before you bought it..when you already sunk so much money into it.

I guess you can make something great from something small and cheap (in the world of cameras, 1000 is cheap).

On that note, what are some of the downsides to that camera? Not the greatest picture? Sound (but I assume you can plug a mic into it anyway)?


I know that this is slightly different but maybe not...I like to take still photos. I own many still cameras and some are priced near a grand and some are under 200. Either way I take a great picture. Why? I focus on what I want, I use the higher quality print and color, I edit the picture down to eliminate all the background clutter. So does the same rule apply for a movie camera? You have the same script, the same cast, the same studio and the only difference is the type camera. In one corner you have the Panasonic as mentioned by the original poster and in the other corner a more expensive three grand camera. What would the higher priced camera do for a simple film that the cheaper one couldn't?

Directorik and anyone else that wants to chime in,

You've been recommending HD cameras (and being extremely helpful) in the numerous 'what camera should I get' threads.

Would it be appropriate to say that HD cameras have reached the level (image-wise) of miniDV in its peak (I'd say 2004-5ish?) at the prosumer level ($500-1000)?

I've been comparing the Panasonic HDC-HS300 and PV-GS400 (miniDV released in 04), and the resolution/min. lux aren't too far apart, maybe a 200K difference for the 3MOS sensors and 2 lux minimum. This isn't really too noticeable, is it?

Sorry, pb8, but you lost me.

I've used both the Panasonic HDC-HS300 and PV-GS400. I couldn't
tell you anything about the resolution/min. lux or how far apart
they are. I'm not tech savvy. I can see a difference under the same
lighting between a 1CCD camera and a 3CCD camera and the CMOS
have taken a mighty leap in the last two years. I can see the difference
when using a good lens and a not so good lens, but can't tell you the
numbers that prove my reading.

The current use of the term "HD" usually means the consumer format
recorded to miniDV tape known as "HDV". So HDV recorded to miniDV
has a better image quality than SD recorded to miniDV. I think it's the
HDV format that's recorded to all consumer HDD cameras.

Okay you tech heads - jump in and start with the numbers. I just don't
know what the heck I'm talking about.

I meant, is there a reason you recommend HDD (not HD, sorry!) cameras over miniDV cameras in those "newbie camera" threads?

I understand the ease of not having to carry tapes around, but is there a noticeable difference between HDD and miniDV in terms of picture quality? There is a numbers (resolution and minimum light required) difference between these two cameras, which are in a similar price range and have similar functions, with different formats.

However, I think I am splitting hairs between the HS300 and GS400.

What I’m recommending are cameras that have the three essentials.
Current cameras are all going towards HDD and solid state media.
Personally I prefer miniDV. The MPEG-2 compression makes
transferring to your computer more difficult and time consuming -
not easier. And I prefer to have a tape back up.

But all the major manufacturers are moving away from tape so
most of the cameras available in the under $1,500 price range
use HDD.

Ah, I see. Thank you!