Premium Member Peter J DeCrescenzo Posted February 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2005 Just an FYI: On creativeCOW.net Steve Mullen says Sony recently confirmed they will ship a new optical disk, shoulder-mounted, three 1/2" CCD HD camcorder with a removable lens this year for $32K US. The description of the camcorder seems identical to the HDC-X300K POV camera head & lens ($22K US) announced last year, but with the addition of an optical transport, 50 mbit/s MPEG-2 encoder/decoder, fairly hires viewfinder/LCD and 4-chan. 16-bit 48K audio support. Although this camera obviously won't match the results obtainable by camcorders with 2/3" & larger imagers & higher bitrate recording systems, it will be interesting to see how it compares to the just-shipped Sony XF1 & Z1 1/3" 25 mbit/sec HDV camcorders. Here's a link to the thread: http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post...672&forumid=162 All the best, - Peter DeCrescenzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2005 Unlike their HDV camera, from looking at the specs, this one will shoot 23.98PsF, although it records it to 60i with a 3:2 pulldown. Does that make it the cheapest 24P HD camcorder on the market at $32,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nchopp Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Unlike their HDV camera, from looking at the specs, this one will shoot 23.98PsF, although it records it to 60i with a 3:2 pulldown. Does that make it the cheapest 24P HD camcorder on the market at $32,000? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure looks that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Peter J DeCrescenzo Posted February 15, 2005 Author Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2005 Unlike their HDV camera, from looking at the specs, this one will shoot 23.98PsF, although it records it to 60i with a 3:2 pulldown. Does that make it the cheapest 24P HD camcorder on the market at $32,000? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In cases anyone hadn't already seen this, another FYI: Panasonic has all but announced one or more variations on an approx. $10K US HD-something camcorder which uses their "P2" solid-state memory cards. It's very likely this cam will record 24 FPS in some form. Has been discussed recently on creativeCOW.net & elsewhere, for example: http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post...972&forumid=162 http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post...870&forumid=162 All the best, - Peter DeCrescenzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 (edited) So more new cameras to render the new ones we all just got obselete. JUST PERFECT! :angry: Just great! What we do now? --GAME OVER MAN! PS :) We should all just shoot film till Sony, Canon, JVC, and Pansonic Decide to stick to pulling out a video camera every five-ten years. Edited February 15, 2005 by Rik Andino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted February 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2005 This camera doesnt make any other camera out there obsolete. A camera is only obsolete once people stop using it. The F900's have been out since 1998 and they are still in use, and they will still be used for another 10 years at the least. How long has Betacam SP been around? 15 years? And there are still alot of people still shooting with it. Just because the camera you baught 5 years ago isn't the best camera out there doesnt mean that the camera is now obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2005 Hi, Don't buy video cameras. Video cameras have a rather high cost of ownership, so rent them. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted February 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 16, 2005 Something someone once told me was, "If you can't afford working in Television, try sock puppets." Maintenance on any camera, wether it's Film or Video (I'm talking about real cameras, not Krasnagorks and DVX-100's) is very very expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 16, 2005 Hi, I wasn't thinking of maintenance - I've owned a professional video camera for several years and it's never required anything beyond occasional head cleaning - it's just the way they devalue 30% when you walk out of the showroom then continue to decrease in worth like a lemming in suicide season. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy O'Neil Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) "...Professional video camera...continue to decrease in worth like a lemming in suicide season." Very imaginative. I must say. Edited February 16, 2005 by Andy O'Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Warning, Sony does not confirm any specs a year in advance! Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 Phil, I agree with you on that a video cameras worth does decrease MUCH MUCH faster than a film camera. But a video camera is also a very wise investment if you already have some connections, theres always someone out there looking for something better than mini-DV and cheaper than Film for their student film, music video, commercial, etc... who will rent it from you for a little less than what most rental houses are charging. I know some people still renting out their Beta SP cameras for a few hundred dollars a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cummings Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi, Don't buy video cameras. Video cameras have a rather high cost of ownership, so rent them. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This may be OT and a topic for a new thread, but I guess I disagree with Phil about renting. I own three cameras (1 HD) and can easily cover the payments with just 2-3 shooting days a month. The remaining several days of monthly revenue goes into my pocket. Cameras generate a tremendous amount of cash flow that would otherwise go to the rental company. Add in the tax advantages--and they're significant--along with the residual value of the equipment when you sell, and the hassle of picking up and dropping off rental gear, I think that one can make a strong case for buying. As far as maintainance and repairs, they're really minimal because you're really dealing with low hour usage when you only use the gear yourself. And because you take better care of your own equipment, it lasts much longer. When it comes time for head replacement (it took me six years to get there with my betacam) what's a few thousand bucks compared to the 3-4 hundred thousand dollars or more that the camera will generate over it's lifetime? Just another point of view. cheers- John Cummings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 Owning only makes sense if you already know your business model -- i.e. I rent "x" number of camers "x" number of times per year, so even with a heavy investment in capital, I will be in profit before the cameras become obsolete. What makes no sense is buying equipment and then hoping the work shows up. Also, unless you have a lot of money, generally you can't afford to buy as high quality a piece of equipment as you can afford to rent. I could rent Sony F900's and 35mm cameras all the time but I've never been able to afford to buy one of those. I could probably afford a used Super-16 camera now or some low-end video camera, but I'd rather be shooting in pro HD or 35mm, so what's the point? Owning tends to make sense for people shooting a lot of corporate spots, industrials, EPK's, etc. all the time, or doing their own off and on work like documentaries. Makes less sense for people shooting features unless they know how many features they will be making per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 ...they devalue 30% when you walk out of the showroom then continue to decrease in worth like a lemming in suicide season. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just had to take a moment to congratulate Phil on his colorful use of the language. Brilliant Phil, keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cummings Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 All good points, David. I wouldn't suggest that buying is right for everyone, but my point was that there is more than one business model and no absolutes in this industry. I would imagine that many of the people that read these posts, like me, spend 80 percent of their time making money doing the more mundane work that allows them to support their more artistic endeavors. My business model skews toward broadcast entertainment and corporate, but it does allow me to have the house, the kids, the gear and the freedom to play in your backyard if I so desire. So, for some people that might be on the fence, buying may make sense for them. Not only can they rent their cameras to trusted associates for an addtional revenue stream, they also get the opportunity to try to master their equipment, experiment, grow and perhaps take a flyer on something that might help take them to the next level of their craft. Finally, at age 40, I did hock everything and bought equipment hoping work would show up. It did. John Cummings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi, > This may be OT and a topic for a new thread, but I guess I disagree with > Phil about renting. I own three cameras (1 HD) and can easily cover the > payments with just 2-3 shooting days a month. Congratulations, you have a lot of work. Seriously though: yes, when I bought my camera I knew I could cover the payments with a single day a month, and actually start making money out of it with three. Even I can generally scrape up that much work. > Add in the tax advantages--and they're significant Yeah, so long as you're making enough money to have any serious amount of tax liability in the first place! > the hassle of picking up and dropping off rental gear, Yes, that's the rotten bit. Arri are in Uxbridge. Uxbridge is on the other side of London, over an hour away. I shall avoid using them again just because of that. > As far as maintainance and repairs, they're really minimal because you're > really dealing with low hour usage when you only use the gear yourself. This is certainly true. Also I do a lot of stuff where I'm not rolling tape, so it isn't a mechanical wear issue. On the other hand I wish it was a DSR-570; if I'd known then what I know now, I'd certainly have stretched the extra few thousand. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi, John, d'you mind letting us know where you're based? Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cummings Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi, John, d'you mind letting us know where you're based? Phil Sure. I'm based in Milwaukee, WI. but work mostly in Chicago. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now