Hello. I need some advice. I hope I'm posting this in the right place. I have saved for close to two years to buy a new camera to start making indie short films. I have a budget of $5000. After extensive reasearch and word of mouth, the Canon xf100 was, or at least I thought it was, my final choice. Now, after reading news in HDVideo Pro magazine and hearing things from other rumor mills, the Panasonic AG-AC130 looks like an interesting possibility. I need to make a decision by the middle of next month and I feel as if I am back at square one. Any and all advice would be much appriciated. Even if it it is different than these two cameras. Oh, I'm not really interested in DSLR. Thanks so much. This is such a tough decision.
Someone Please Help. I'd greatly appriciate it.
- Thread starter ZombieApocalypse
- Start date
IMO You're spending too much time on tech issues when you ought to be focused on your story. Any popular HD camera will turn your great story into a masterpiece, but NO amount of research and $$$ spent on cameras will save a neglected story.
Buy a decently priced camera that YOU like and just ignore techies and their hair splitting and just make your film.
Good luck!
Buy a decently priced camera that YOU like and just ignore techies and their hair splitting and just make your film.
Good luck!
If you don't mind spending the $5,000 on the camera, I'd go with the Panasonic AG-AF100
Link here:
Panasonic AG-AF100
Link here:
Panasonic AG-AF100
Your camera budget is $5k - or - the budget for camera lenses tripod external audio lights stands bounce boards blankets cables extension cords and more cables and container boxes if not a small trailer to haul all this sh!t around (plus tow hitch!) is $5k?
Don't forget the duct tape!
And you've already a screaming computer with assorted editing software and storage for this project, right?
Tech Head question...
From the available specs page at B&H regarding the the XLR input:
"Audio is recorded in 16-bit PCM format at 48kHz for amazing quality and fidelity. And both the built-in microphone and XLR inputs have the option for automatic or full manual gain control. To prevent variations in the recorded audio level, the dial can also be locked."
Now, I know everyone dog-talks the audio recording capabilities of these field cameras compared to a separate audio gathering set-up, which more than likely isn't going to be much better than a NTG2/3 + pole kit hooked up to a H4n.
God forbid if the OP gets mixed up with field mixers.
But is the Canon xf100's 48kHz decent enough - or - screwit, just get the separate equipment and pretty much ignore whatever is on board?
I couldn't find any useful specs data on either the Panasonic AG-AC130 or Panasonic AG-AF100 at B&H.
Don't forget the duct tape!
And you've already a screaming computer with assorted editing software and storage for this project, right?
Tech Head question...
From the available specs page at B&H regarding the the XLR input:
"Audio is recorded in 16-bit PCM format at 48kHz for amazing quality and fidelity. And both the built-in microphone and XLR inputs have the option for automatic or full manual gain control. To prevent variations in the recorded audio level, the dial can also be locked."
Now, I know everyone dog-talks the audio recording capabilities of these field cameras compared to a separate audio gathering set-up, which more than likely isn't going to be much better than a NTG2/3 + pole kit hooked up to a H4n.
God forbid if the OP gets mixed up with field mixers.
But is the Canon xf100's 48kHz decent enough - or - screwit, just get the separate equipment and pretty much ignore whatever is on board?
I couldn't find any useful specs data on either the Panasonic AG-AC130 or Panasonic AG-AF100 at B&H.
Last edited:
That was my question.
Audio, lights, grip gear, etc... Is $5000 the TOTAL budget or the camera budget.
Audio, lights, grip gear, etc... Is $5000 the TOTAL budget or the camera budget.
Hello,
You will always be back at square one. When you buy a camera
in the middle of next month there will be another, better, cheaper
camera available within a few months. In the $5,000 range I like
the Sony HXR-NX5U and on the less expensive end the JVC GY-HM100U.
I own the JVC.
The camera DeJager mentions is excellent as is the Sony NEX-FS100U,
but the nearly five large price is without lens - something to consider.
I recently gave the Sony a test drive. It's my new favorite camera.
5000$ is the camera budget. Other equipment, (Audio, Lights) is taking care of. I appriciate your guy's time. Does anyone know if the ac-ag130 is going to be a winner? Thanks again for your thoughts and opinions.
It's a fine camera. Not my choice of that type of camera in that
price range, but is is just fine for making indie short films.
price range, but is is just fine for making indie short films.
Sorry that I haven't looked up the two cameras that you mentioned. Maybe I'll still try to do so. But I found a few nice video reviews and samples of the cameras Dejager and Rik recommended. Here are a couple of them below. The NEX-FS100U video looks fairly gorgeous. But then, they all produce images that are fairly gorgeous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdqeYYO_Ic&feature=related
Edit: There is also a Part One to that video above that's worth checking out too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEhwVQt0FRw&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdqeYYO_Ic&feature=related
Edit: There is also a Part One to that video above that's worth checking out too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEhwVQt0FRw&feature=related
Last edited:
Let's tangent those two thoughts together:
Why does every up-and-coming writer/director these days think that they have to be the cameraman as well? In most (not all, but most) cases a narrative (again specific) film maker is better served spending their cash on their film, not a camera purchase. There are literally droves of fledgling shooters out there who have already spent their time in research and their money on a camera, aks, and a light kit. Find one.
Or don't. It's just a thought that I don't see discussed much here.
It depends upon what size of operation people have in mind and/or what stage they are in their filmmaking evolution/development.
I'm a guy with anti-grandiose ideas.
I don't need to "rent-a-guy" for camerawork and "rent-another-guy" for audio when I'm just kinda putzin' around with me and my friends at very random times and am totally not in the need for "scheduling" a shoot with semi-pros looking to make a nube's vision come true.
I'm just not quite that big just yet.
And I extend that same understanding to other guys and gals.
The other fledglings.
The rooks.
The nubes.
Cameraman?
Cameraman?
We doan need no stinking cameraman and audio guy with a boom pole!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
Are there?
I see droves of composers here in indietalk looking to score a movie
for free. I cannot find a single camera owner offering to shoot a project
for free. Or for pay. Where are the shooters with a good camera and
light kit trying to find a director to work with?
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with wearing multiple hats, especially when starting out. If you've got the budget for a camera, you have options, and like others have said they're all good choices. Just get one. A while ago, I was in the market for a camera as well (a DSLR at a lower budget, however), and I haven't regretted my decision to just go out and buy one. I couldn't have gone wrong with any choice, and I realized that I should make sure the gear would be sufficient, but it shouldn't be my focus.
Any more agonizing over the specs is totally pointless and counterproductive to getting something done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx6TBrfCW54
Any more agonizing over the specs is totally pointless and counterproductive to getting something done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx6TBrfCW54
There's certainly nothing wrong with multi-hatting, not what I meant to imply. It definitely benefits anyone in this business to spend some time working the whole process through start to finish.
But there's also a place for specialization, it does work and it doesn't necessarily have to mean large amounts of cash. Early on I crewed on plenty of things where people were exchanging favors or donating a camera. It's just an alternate suggestion in case anyone rolls through here and decides they'd rather be a production mixer, or a gaffer, or a DoP, or what have you than a writer/director.
The other side of that is the investment question. When numbers start approaching the 5 digit mark (to be fair, recent threads have been 5K or less) I'm left wondering if the person asking wants to start a production company (one that does corporate/commercial/etc work) with that money - or make a film, distribute it and begin the next one. Not that those processes have to be separate by any means, just that I rarely see it brought up.
Really? Is it that hard to find shooters for all those ~$50/day ads I see on LA craigslist (or here for that matter, though not nearly in the same volume) looking for a DSLR package? Or the low/no ones on Mandy? Media-match? Etc? I mean that in all earnestness even though it sounds terribly snarky.
No seriously, is there a dearth of shooters down there right now or something?
Cause I got to tell ya, finding the side work here hasn't exactly been the most fruitful. Maybe that's the problem, I'm just frustrated at my erroneous perception of being locked into ACing. Again, no malice intended, just one of those "know thyself" admissions.
But there's also a place for specialization, it does work and it doesn't necessarily have to mean large amounts of cash. Early on I crewed on plenty of things where people were exchanging favors or donating a camera. It's just an alternate suggestion in case anyone rolls through here and decides they'd rather be a production mixer, or a gaffer, or a DoP, or what have you than a writer/director.
The other side of that is the investment question. When numbers start approaching the 5 digit mark (to be fair, recent threads have been 5K or less) I'm left wondering if the person asking wants to start a production company (one that does corporate/commercial/etc work) with that money - or make a film, distribute it and begin the next one. Not that those processes have to be separate by any means, just that I rarely see it brought up.
Really? Is it that hard to find shooters for all those ~$50/day ads I see on LA craigslist (or here for that matter, though not nearly in the same volume) looking for a DSLR package? Or the low/no ones on Mandy? Media-match? Etc? I mean that in all earnestness even though it sounds terribly snarky.
No seriously, is there a dearth of shooters down there right now or something?
Cause I got to tell ya, finding the side work here hasn't exactly been the most fruitful. Maybe that's the problem, I'm just frustrated at my erroneous perception of being locked into ACing.
Again, no malice intended, just one of those "know thyself" admissions.I shoot my low paid whore work myself (to save money) but I hire a DP for my "real" work, even if we're shooting on my camera. He's been operating for 20 years, I am NEVER gonna pan as smooth as him. He has 20 years lighting sets, I am never gonna be as fast at determining "350 over there with a snoot, stick that 1K outside the window, put a scrim in that 650 and rig it over by that door", I mean like BAM takes him 30 seconds. That expertise in a particular craft is worth paying for.
Really? Is it that hard to find shooters for all those ~$50/day ads I see on LA craigslist (or here for that matter, though not nearly in the same volume) looking for a DSLR package? Or the low/no ones on Mandy? Media-match? Etc? I mean that in all earnestness even though it sounds terribly snarky.
No seriously, is there a dearth of shooters down there right now or something?
Perhaps we’re talking about different things.
A director can find a DP with equipment if they are willing to
pay. I’m thinking that most directors posting their camera
questions here do not have the funds to pay a DP for their shoot.
That they are planning on shooting only occasionally. They they
are just starting out.
A director looking to make one short on one weekend should hire a
DP rather then buy a camera. A director who will be making that
movie over many weekends might find it difficult to pay a DP. Or
even find one willing to give up several weekends over several
months to work for free.
I wasn’t commenting on Los Angeles or any big city. I was thinking
about someone like Zombie who is in Marietta. I suspect there are
not droves of DP’s in that area with their own equipment trying to
find a director to work with.
I’m thinking that the reason every up-and-coming writer/director
thinks they need to be the DP as well is because there aren’t
droves of up-and-coming DP’s in most smaller cities. They just
don’t have the access to people who have already spent their time
in research and their money on equipment. You're thinking that
they are out there?
Zombie here is the rare case - most up-and-coming directors ask
about a camera in the under $1,000 range. But even using the
$5,000 figure I’m not sure hiring a DP would be the best method.
Of course that depends on Zombie’s long term needs. Spending 5
large on a camera to shoot two short films is not the best way to
spend the money. Hiring a fledgling shooter at $50 a day for 6
days would be much better.
I’m all for teaming up. All of my early days making short films I
had a DP. It was a great collaboration. So we are not at odds here,
David. My thoughts are based on not seeing very many fledgling DP’s
offering their services on messageboards. I don’t look at craigslist in
smaller cities and towns so I’m making an assumption that there
are very few notices for DP’s. I might be wrong.
Wow. Alot of replies haha. To be clear, I was involved with the whole group planning thing. Working with other peoples equipment etc with scripts/ideas I had written. It became clear(Long story short) They we'ren't taking things seriously enough, and people didn't know their place. (Not following director/late to shoots etc.) I decided to steer clear and get my own stuff and only work with a couple of dedicated people that I trust to get the job done.
I am just getting opinions as to what is a good quality camera thats out. Truthfully, I'm tempted to wait for Canon's so called "Big Annoucement" or whatever, but I really want to get to work haha. I know the camera is just a tool and the story is most important. I was just seeing what my options were from veterans whos been in the game longer than I have. It's just a tough decision when I keep immersing my self in this whole large chip vs 1/3 chip war and second guessing things or wether I should wait and blah blah. The XF100 was my first choice. I'm just not so sure its the right one. Anyway, thanks for your time and patience.
I am just getting opinions as to what is a good quality camera thats out. Truthfully, I'm tempted to wait for Canon's so called "Big Annoucement" or whatever, but I really want to get to work haha. I know the camera is just a tool and the story is most important. I was just seeing what my options were from veterans whos been in the game longer than I have. It's just a tough decision when I keep immersing my self in this whole large chip vs 1/3 chip war and second guessing things or wether I should wait and blah blah. The XF100 was my first choice. I'm just not so sure its the right one. Anyway, thanks for your time and patience.
Oh, just to clarify. Our last shoot (which was a complete debacle) was with the AF100. The reason why I was interested in the XF100 was because we had a lot of problems with shooting in small rooms and what not with the AF100. Though I know the AF100 has a larger sensor which makes it easier to get that whole shallow DOF. Just wanted to point that out.
Let's tangent those two thoughts together:
Why does every up-and-coming writer/director these days think that they have to be the cameraman as well? In most (not all, but most) cases a narrative (again specific) film maker is better served spending their cash on their film, not a camera purchase. There are literally droves of fledgling shooters out there who have already spent their time in research and their money on a camera, aks, and a light kit. Find one.
Or don't. It's just a thought that I don't see discussed much here.
...well,...
It's a matter of whether or not you - the writer/director - actually want to run your own camera and be a videographer. If you don't, don't get an expensive camera. (btw: by the time you rent a camera for the amount of time you will probably need it for, you could have purchased the camera, which is why I bought a DVX, but I am a videographer...)
Also, if you have the camera, then you can get started on your film. Because NOBODY is going to let you put your inexperienced, sweaty paws on my $3000 dollar camera if you don't know what you are doing.
It's hard to just find a group of people who will willingly shoot your film. There may be droves of fledglings out there, but how good are they? How willing are they to shoot your story? It has taken me three years to get with the right people at the right time. We are all trying to work together on our respective scripts and stories.
Finally, at the level of prosumer camera the OP is looking at, the cameras are all comparable, pretty good cameras. You now have to figure out what you want to do. Some cameras are good hand held like your Canon and Panasonics and Sony's what have you. The 7D need ALOT of extras. One thing about the Canons, if 5 years agi you had purchased one of the cameras with a replaceable lens, the only thing you would need to bring the look of your footage up to date would be to get a fancy-schmancy new lens which could arguably cost less than getting a new camera.
Lots of stuff to think about. I like my camera, but it needs to be updated (sigh)
-- spinner
Last edited: