Adam R Davis

At the XL2's price, I'd just as soon go with the XH-A1 and get the option of HD. It's unlikely that I'd ever use anything beyond the stock lens anyway. Plus I really think the XL2 is an ugly camera. If I had to look at a camera for a long period of time, I'd prefer the A1. Depending on the finances I have to work with, I'll either got with the XH A1 or the DVX100B.

I've actually considered Canon as well. Seeing how often the XL1s has turned up on ebay for well under $2000, and that some movies that made it to Hollywood (not really my goal) were shot with the XL1 has made me think seriously about picking one up. I think if I were REALLY trying to get noticed, I'd be renting 35mm equipment for projects. I'll save that for when I can acquire significant funding. For now, I'm just starting out and looking to experiment with some ideas without losing a great deal of money in the process. The reason I ask if DV would be acceptable is that if I were to come up with something that actually worked well, if festivals and such would take it, and it appears the answer is yes. Thank you.

Greetings everyone. I've been puzzling over something for a while. I have the opportunity to purchase either a really good DV camera or a moderate HDV camera (DXV100b/HDR-FX7 price range). Since I'm one who prefers image control over resolution, I'm perfectly fine with DV. What I want to know is whether it's possible to be taken seriously with DV or if HD is just 'the way it's done now'. I guess an example would be film festivals and such events. Is DV originated material still widely accepted? This isn't a question about perceived superiority, just about client/audience/festival/etc acceptance. Thanks.

Earlier this year I shot video for a local sci-fi convention, and they had rented old Panasonic SVHS Proline camcorders. It was quirky and fun and I want to do it again. :D