DVX100A vs GL2 vs Sony HD

Brad DeCecco · February 5, 2005

I'm here to seek advice... I am a professional still photographer and I've been working on a personal project for a few years which has become very important to me and increasingly important to the general public and I feel that my stills need to be supplemented with a video diary/documentary type piece to tell the whole story. I've been doing extensive research and I'm a bit overwhelmed. Here's what I need:

I will be travelling most of the time by myself, and I know very little about video production (though i have a great respect for it) and even less about sound, so I would need something able to be operated by one person who is also concentrating on stills. I am a fanatic about image quality and I want all of my taping to be high enough quality that it could be printed on film should I ever want to submit it as a documentary film. I've been looking at the sony hd model and the canon gl2 and the panasonic dvx100a and that's about all i know. Obviously I'd like to not have a seperate sound deck and to not have to spend any more money than is necessary to have a solid basic set up. I don't know what is important for me (24P)? or HD? Obvioulsy I prefer the look of film, it seems like the panasonic is best for that, is this the case?

Any advice/suggestions as to how to outfit myself cheaply (relatively of course) and adequately so that I won't ever have to go back and re-shoot for lack of picture or sound quality would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Alvin Pingol · February 6, 2005

Hi Brad,

Not to cut down on Canon or anything, but I would at this point take the GL2 off of your list of potential cameras. There are better pro-sumer, large-handheld, 60i-only cameras out there by Sony (PD170) and JVC (DV300). I feel like I'm forgetting one. But, oh well.

You mention the intention of transferring to film; for this I would recommend the Panasonic, as its 24P option makes film transfer much easier and will give better results than if a 60i stream were interpolated through whatever method. Plus, the camera produces nice images - the transfers should look like, sort of, blurry 16mm, or really nice S8, with hotter highlights and less color information.

The Sony model does not have true 24P, but its increased resolution would most certainly show itself if projected from a transfer. I cannot say for sure how progressive works on the camera, or how it will look after transferred - all I know is that it is not true 24P. If I recall correctly, it has something to do with the camera dropping every fifth frame - not sure, so don't quote me on that. Personally, I would not use this camera for 24P work.

As for sound, get a medium shotgun mic and mount it atop the camera. I find the built-in mics always capture far too much unwanted noise. A cheap, useable shotgun mic you can look into is the Sennheiser ME-66, though there are many other, better, (more expensive) ones to choose from.

Of course, the mounted shotgun approach you probably wouldn't want to do if your documentaries deal with nature shooting, in which it is nice to capture the wide spectrum of all the surrounding sounds.

Hope this helps.

nchopp · February 8, 2005

Alvin,

I'm a still photographer as well (mostly digital, Canon10D, and a bit of 35mm B&W), and I'm the same way about image quality.

I've shot extensively with the GL2 and DVX-100 (and 100A). I agree, knock the GL2 off the list. The XL2 is closer in line price-wise with the Sony and 100, and actually features 24p.

If you're thinking of using this for videography of nature subjects, the XL2 may be an excellent option for you, if you're already bought into the Canon line of glass. You can get an adapter for the XL2 (and XL1, previous model, no 24p) that allows you to mount any Canon EOS line of lenses on it, even up to the 1200mm. (Put that together with the mag factor of the smaller sensor and it's something like a 1700mm, I think).

The Sony doesn't shoot true 24p - it has a "fake" 24 frame progressive "look" option. That won't help you with the transfer to film - but the enhanced resolution will.

The XL2 and DVX-100 both feature true 24p progressive scan. They can handle blowing up to 16mm fairly well, and if things are well-lit, CAN be blown up to 35mm - just doesn't usually turn out amazingly well.

If you've seen the documentary Supersize Me, that was shot on the Sony PD-150 PAL (25 frames per second, non-progressive). A lot depends on how much you spend in the transfer process from DV to film.

Lastly, contrary to popular belief, shotguns aren't as directional as people think. Even for nature documentary a decent shotgun will have quite a large pick-up pattern. Unless you put a dish on it, of course.

Feel free to drop me a line if you need more help.

Phil Rhodes · February 8, 2005

Hi,

Having seen a few stills, I think the current best possible bet in the consumer camera field for transfer to film is probably a PAL-rate HDV camera. Film rate, high resolution. They do look very, very much better with that lens mount mod the guy had at Video Forum - do a search. You could even use your stills lenses on one so modified if the mood took you, although they'd seem very telephoto.

Phil

Edited February 8, 2005 by Phil Rhodes

nchopp · February 8, 2005

Hi,

Having seen a few stills, I think the current best possible bet in the consumer camera field for transfer to film is probably a PAL-rate HDV camera. Film rate, high resolution. They do look very, very much better with that lens mount mod the guy had at Video Forum - do a search. You could even use your stills lenses on one so modified if the mood took you, although they'd seem very telephoto.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The P&S Technik, you mean?

Brad DeCecco · February 8, 2005

The P&S Technik, you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

when you guys say HD pal, do you mean the version of the hd camera european version (like only pal, no ntsc) of perhaps the new sony hdr-fx1? sorry, i'm still getting all the lingo down... Thanks!

nchopp · February 8, 2005

The P&S Technik is an adapter for several prosumer DV cameras that gives you much less depth of field; i.e. more similar to 35mm.

Phil Rhodes · February 8, 2005

Hi,

> The P&S Technik, you mean?

No. There was a guy at Video Forum who'd chopped the lens off of an FX1 and put a C-mount on it, which you can then adapt to more or less anything else.

www.ediomedia.com I think.

He'd put a B4 mount video lens on it at the show, with vastly better results than the inbuilt usually gets.

Phil

Simon Wyndham · February 17, 2005

Don't forget that the Z1 'pro' version of the FX1 is swithcable between PAL and NTSC.

There are quite a few people out there who have promised comparitive tests between the cameras when they have been transferred to film. Hopefully someone will release the results sometime soon.

February 18, 2005

Don't forget that the Z1 'pro' version of the FX1 is swithcable between PAL and NTSC.

There are quite a few people out there who have promised comparitive tests between the cameras when they have been transferred to film. Hopefully someone will release the results sometime soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This might help you a little...

I just went to DVFilm.com's 24p film school this last weekend in Austin. Marcus van Bavel did in fact show some FX1 footage transferred to 35mm film. It was a pretty long distance shot of surfers in the ocean and I gotta tell ya... It looked fantastic.

We also had a student bring in his new ZU1. According to DVFilm, never use the cinemode on the camera. Shoot at 50i (PAL) interlaced and then convert to 24p progressive with DV Filmmaker software for transfer to film. I've seen similar results with MiniDV cams (I have a DVX100A myself) and I've never seen any MiniDV cam be able to shoot at such a long distance with such clarity. I was impressed. Not enough to buy one since the footage from the DVX looked just as impressive to me.

So for what you're considering and being that you say you're a fanatic about image, and the possibility of transferring to film, the ZU1 just might be what you're looking for. Check out his site... He's a great guy and answers all questions...

Good luck!

filmy

Brad DeCecco · March 2, 2005

We also had a student bring in his new ZU1. According to DVFilm, never use the cinemode on the camera. Shoot at 50i (PAL) interlaced and then convert to 24p progressive with DV Filmmaker software for transfer to film. I've seen similar results with MiniDV cams (I have a DVX100A myself) and I've never seen any MiniDV cam be able to shoot at such a long distance with such clarity. I was impressed. Not enough to buy one since the footage from the DVX looked just as impressive to me.

So for what you're considering and being that you say you're a fanatic about image, and the possibility of transferring to film, the ZU1 just might be what you're looking for. Check out his site... He's a great guy and answers all questions...

Good luck!

filmy

Hey Filmy,

Are you saying that the dvx footage looked as impressive to you? i just looked at the ZU 1 in the store and it was amazing... but there was no dvx footage to compare it to! any further thoughts?

thanks!

brad

ryangallion · March 14, 2005

I'm in the same market, choosing between the DVX, the GL2, and the Sony DRC.

When it comes down to it, budget is more important to me. If I had 10 grand, I'd get the DVX100a all the way, however thats not the case. I read alot of boards, including this one, that dissed the GL2..."take that off your list..."

Well put it back on the list...I did a little researching and found mdfilms.net. ALL the films in his site are shot with a Canon GL2, no lenses, filters , advanced lighting, or any of that. I'm not saying that stuff doesn't help, but you can still achieve some awesome results without it.

Some people make it seem like in order to have good footage you have to have a million dollar setup and thats not the case.

Anyhow, go to http://www.mdfilms.net, and click on the Short films section. Then download the trailer (pops up on the right of the page) and prepare to put the GL2 at the top of your list. The only thing I will mention is that the footage has undergone alot of color-correcting, but thats only colors, not quality.

The point I'm trying to make is that you dont have to get a DVX100a to have excellent quality footage, that cam just makes it a bit easier. A GL2 can still produce film-like quality without all the lenses, lighting, filters, and other attachments.

Again check mdfilms.net..let me know what you think.

Edited March 14, 2005 by ryangallion