sony vs. panasonic

[GODFATHER]

which camera is better..the SONY HDR-FX1 OR PANASONIC DVX100A
and does the sony shoot 24 frames? because i heared in the description it does but some people who used it said it really doesnt have the 24 fps look like the panasonic

 

[InvisionProductions]

I would recommend the Panasonic DVX100A. Simply because it has outstanding image quality, and it is superior to the Sony IF:

A) You have tons of money to blow on an HD NLE.

B) You have tons of money to blow on storage space (since HD takes up about 3 times the storage as DV)

I would really only choose the HDR-FX1 if you were going to be using it in a situation where you could bring back some of the money your blew setting up an HD station. Dont get me wrong, the HDR-FX1 has great image quality, and the HD functions are outstanding, its just not worth the price right now, unless your making money from it. Besides, the DVX puts out amazing images, and im sure can handle all your needs.

 

[InvisionProductions]

oops that "IF" is supposed to be an "UNLESS"

my bad.

 

[GODFATHER]

thanks for replying..
does the sony shoot in 24 frames though? like it produces film like quality picture like the panasonic or not?

 

[insomniac]

steer clear of the Sony. this is a very misleading camera. people think that high-def means professional. in reality, this is meant as a high-def consumer camera.

it does not shoot 24fps natively. it is a big waste of money if your intentions are to make films. it lacks native 24fps abilities, manual settings, cine-like gamma.... and above all, since HD can't yet be written to a DVD, the only way you'll be able to view it in HD on a television is if you were to physically plug the camera into it.

don't buy it. don't even look at it again.

just as a matter of interest, in november Panasonic is releasing a 24fps true high-def camera called the HVX200. it's going to be $7000, but that's still a bargain for what it will have. this is a lot higher than your budget, but still something to consider, as HD is going more and more mainstream.

i also urge you to look at the XL-2, since it has what the DVX has and more. i sometimes regret not waiting for the XL-2 when i bought my DVX.

 

[GODFATHER]

hi insomniac
my friend has an xl2, it doesnt have 24 frame..i want to get a camera that can shoot in 24 frame, that has a film klook..most of the other cameras have common features except this feature...

 

[insomniac]

GODFATHER, you are greatly mistaken.

not only does the XL2 have 24 frame progressive, but it is also the best camera in that price range that has it.

perhaps you are thinking of an XL-1S? if not, your friend just doesn't know how to use it... no offense, haha. i've already shot 2 films in 24p using this camera. check out Canon's site yuorself if you do not believe me.

think of the XL2 as the DVX100 on steroids, because that's exactly what it is. it has EVERY FEATURE the DVX has, and then a few great additions, such as native 16:9 widescreen and interchangable lenses. the XL2 is a little more expensive, but is unparalleled.

 

[Evan Kubota]

B) You have tons of money to blow on storage space (since HD takes up about 3 times the storage as DV)

This is untrue. The long-GOP MPEG codec employed in all the HDV cameras so far will result in file sizes of around 9 GB/hr for 720p and 13 GB/hr for 1080p. Standard def miniDV is 13 GB/hr, so HDV will be either the same or slightly less.

As far as editors, the current version of FCP handles HD out of the box, as does iMovie HD (hence the name). There's no additional cost involved there.

The XL2 definitely does have 24p recording. However, it is a standard defintion camera, not HD like the sony. As insomniac stated, your friend may have the older XL-1S. The XL2 has recently hit the market and not very many people have one yet.

 

[insomniac]

while it's true from a storage standpoint that HDV makes sense, i still don't believe there's a use for it yet. there's no distribution method for HD get. blu-ray and hd-dvd will battle it out for some number of months. it'll be months/years before one wins and the average person has a player in their home. so basically, the gigantic bump is resolutoin really doesn't mean much unless you're upconverting to film... which most of us arent.

as Evan has backed up, the XL2 has 24p and is a fabulous camera. if you plan to make films to distribute on DVD and online, i recommend you get one, or the XL2, as an HDV camera does not help you at all when it comes to this. so get an SD camera, since DVD's are all SD anyway.

and, as i said on another post... in the event that you actually DO want to upconvert to film to project, i STILL wouldn't get this camera. if you have the money to upconvert to film, you have the money to buy a better camera. but otherwise, if you're just aiming for regular ole DVD, don't even bother with HDV... yet. wait for a format to be adopted, wait for consumers to buy the hardware, and wait for manufacturers to produce even better HD/HDV cameras for cheaper prices.

 

[Evan Kubota]

"so get an SD camera, since DVD's are all SD anyway."

I don't necessarily agree with this. The quality of a DVD is *much* better when downsampled from HD than just slapping some standard-def DV on there. The Lord of the Rings DVDs look fantastic because the source was high-quality. Just because a DVD offers standard definition (for now) doesn't mean there are no benefits to a HD camera.

Personally, I wouldn't buy anything now. The market is in a transitional phase. It's late to adopt SD, since pros are already switching to HD. The HD cameras will become much cheaper and more plentiful in a year or so. I would wait and see what unfolds before dumping a few grand into a camera.

Or get an absolutely high-end Super 8 camera for $250 and spend the rest on film