What Camera

Matt · July 30, 2004

Hi, I am new to filming and I want a cheap (under $3000) camera. I still dont know whether I want a 8mm, 16mm, or digital. I am filming weddings, school programs, and graduations. Quality is an issue, but not too important. So I have a few questions.

1. Should I use film or digital?

If I use film: 8mm, or 16mm?

If I use film: What are the possible ways of editting?

2. What camera? (Under $3000 would be best)

Thank you!

Edit: I really want a digital now. I have turned away from Film.

John Pytlak RIP · July 30, 2004

I'd really like to suggest the use of film, but your application is usually best served by a video camera, digital editing, and output to DVD or tape for the client.

If Super-16 ECN-2 processing and telecine are conveniently available locally, film would offer better quality. I've heard of some wedding photographers offering this option for clients wanting higher quality.

Josh Hill · July 30, 2004

Yeah, if you've only got 3000 to spend a film camera would probably not be the way to go. To do weddings, graduations, and such on film would have a huge overhead and I don't think you could actually make any money like that (unless you were already well established and offered it as a bonus package or something).

You can pick up an DVX-100a for around 3k on eBay if you wanted. Its a good solid camera with 24p capabilities. Probably the best camera you can get in the price range.

Now if you were going to just be shooting personal projects, I would tell you to get a film camera (16mm). But the cost of film, processing, and transfer would put you in the hole unless you just love doing it, or unless you just have the money laying around.

Two (basic) ways of editing film:

Digitally: Trasnferring your film to video, editing the video, and cutting your negative from your EDL (Edit Decision List)

Manually: Setting up splicer, flatbed editor, etc., and just going to town on the negative yourself.

Matt · July 30, 2004

I don't mind spending $3000 on the DVX100a, but what about Pans lower models, like the AG-DVC30 or the DVC60? These are a bit more in my price range. What advantages would the DVX100a give me that these others don't?

I am tending to lead more towards digital the more that I read. So any advice on a good (Under $3000) camera? I have a few cameras that I have found and I am wondering if anybody has used them and can compair them to eachother. Thank you.

Pan DVX100a (For me, this is the most money I can spend.. almost a little too much)

Pan DVC7 (I don't like this one because it is 1-CCD)

Pan DVC30 \

>I like these two

Pan DVC60 /

July 30, 2004

I'd probably go for the Canon XL1s myself.

Nathan Milford · July 31, 2004

If you show up with a consumer camera you probably won't look all that serious. I see people with higher end kit hitting weddings and the like. You'll be unlikely to impress the guests (read: future clients) with a little palm corder).

DVX100 is the starting point. Otherwise find an Older Betacam and make it look heavy!

I hope to capture my wedding on Cinarama or Todd-AO! I'll intercut it with my Super8 B-camera.

Nathan "You're in the wedding with Todd-AO!" Milford

Nate Downes · July 31, 2004

You could opt for 16mm or Super8 instead of digital, as a way to go film if you so wish. A good quality Bolex, Filmo, or Scoopic can be picked up for pretty cheap, and if you have a local lab, can be actually as cost effective as digital in the mid-to-long term, while making you look more "pro". Shoot, with Super8, I look more pro than guys with 100's of times more expensive Digital gear, which I find funny.

You could, for example, get a top-end remanufactured Beaulieu 4008 for a little under $2000, for shooting Super8.

Alvin Pingol · August 1, 2004

Pan DVX100a (For me, this is the most money I can spend.. almost a little too much)

I would recommend this camera.

However, if 24P is something you don't think is that important (which I assume, as you showed interest in less expensive, non-24P-capable cameras), I would highly recommend the JVC DV300. It is around 500-1000 dollars less than the Panasonic, and has extremely similar image quality (partly because they use the same CCDs). Both cameras have 12-bit DSP.

I have used both cameras and own the JVC. I am extremely pleased with the image sharpness and lens quality (image is extremely sharp at full telephoto and wide open aperture), but find the camera handles overexposed skin tones oddly. Of course, the simple solution would be not to overexpose, but it is a bit hard to tell when looking through the VF or LCD. Also, rating skintone highlights at 70IRE is too high on this camera (they're more like 60, but that's not one of the options on the menu). That's the only thing I don't like about it, which says a lot. ;)

(Note, I do not work for nor am associated in any way with JVC Co.)

If you go the film route, you can get a starting package with the money you have, but you'll soon find you will be spending double that just in order to be able to keep shooting with it (film stock/transfer costs and so forth).

Just my two cents. :)

Landon D. Parks · August 2, 2004

16mm film is fine... but for yout use, I would say Digital is better.

If you can, make it over to www.saferseas.com . They have some pretty good complete packages for your needs.

Personally, I suggest the DVX-100A. And if you can afford it, DVCPRO-50 SDX-900... Which is the closest to HD you will come @ around $25,000.00 w/o lense and accessories. :huh:

What ever works for you. Try different cameras, take test's... see what works better. only you can judge whats right for you. Whats right for you, may be wronge for me.

Needa Deeveyex · August 16, 2004

GO DVX!!!!!!!! Check www.dvxuser.com. The dvx is absolutely amazing, and if u have a decent editing program u can go 24 fps.

later,

sam l.java script:emoticon('B)')

August 18, 2004

Nobody seems to endorse the Canon XL1s here...

It's a great camera! Shoots in progressive and has a good pixel count. Plus it looks classy so for weddings it would go down well.

You could probably pick it up now for about £2000 so it's in your price range, so you could afford to buy some more lenses. Wide angle or something.

And if you really feel like splashing out get the Canon XL2. (When it comes out that is...)

Although that's heading more in the direction of feature film, XL1s would do great for what you need.

Needa Deeveyex · August 19, 2004

Uh, buddy, the Canon XL-2 is out, but the AG-DVX-100A is still a better camera. Plus the XL-2 is 5 grand.

JONATHANEDWARDS · August 20, 2004

One thing to take in to account is that the dvx100a is a hand held camera, I find that style vary hard to hold steady after a few hours as the weight is never resting on your body, your holding it up. Plus 24p has some vary distracting motion trailing problem that is accentuated wean people are moving around a lot like dancing and recently I have seen skateboard videos using it and the trailing is beyond acceptable. Please don’t get me wrong I like 24p but it’s more of a dramatic film wannabe not a video camera, I always suggest turning off 24p in a more live action EFP ENG situation. The older canon xl1 original is going for next to nothing ($1000 used) and it rests on your shoulder vs. holding the camera up. The only problem is that the xl1 is vary front heavy because of the lens. I would recommend that you look in to this camera as its in your price range and would be a good wedding video camera. The other suggestions other then the xl1 is the canon GL2 witch I have seen go for like $2500cnd on ebay. I would try to stay away from more consumer cameras as there video is vary unstable and sometimes not broadcast safe.

Jon Allen · August 27, 2004

If you're serious about "filming" things that will end up on video I would seriously consider shooting on the medium that it will end up on. If it's going to be regular NTSC 29.97 fps, then shoot it at NTSC 29.97 fps! This way you don't have to play around with any silly 3:2 pulldown and it will be the smoothest motion possible (minus 60i). If your product will end up on tvs: shoot dv, it's good enough to be played on most; if your product will end up on the big screen, shoot 24p. Simple as that.

David Mullen ASC · August 27, 2004

Trouble is when you shoot for both PAL and NTSC TV, in which case 29.97P is a bad choice. In that case 24P or 25P would be better, especially considering that NTSC audiences are used to seeing 24 fps material with a 3:2 pulldown.