So, what are cameras like nowdays?

I haven't been on the Fanfilms board in quite a while. I used to have a Sony Handycam that sadly broke down and we couldn't afford to get it fixed, nevermind get a new one, so the whole filmmmaking thing sadly got put to a side.

A friend of mine has to shoot a music video for her media course and the college gave her a GL2 to use. I said I'd help her out and when I saw the camera I was quite shocked seeing as they were like the mother of all cameras back in the day. It made me realise that I'm quite out of the loop on the latest and greatest cameras so I thought i'd turn to you guys and ask bluntly!

I take it MiniDV is still the main format?
Are 3CCD's still highly sought after?
I've seen advertisements for HD camcorders, what are they like?
Whats the current mother-of-all cameras?

I'm in my second year of film studies, hoping to start a course in media production next year which as given me a case of the filmmaking bug! Wish my old Handycam was still working...or I could steal that GL2...

 

Well. Now we have semi-modular cameras that can shoot 4K RAW files to CF, hard drive, or RAM (Your choice) for cheaper then cheap.
Welcome back to filmmaking. We saved you a seat.

 

Mini-DV is still a widely used format, but they are almost purely the mark of a Pro-User camera now.

Your "home handycam" for shooting the kids and your family vacation only spits out straight to DVD or hard-drive these days, but in highly compressed MPEG2 format.

Of course Pro-User cameras also record to hard drives as well as Flash-Drive/Memory-Stick cards to boot and are very reliable and easy to use.

Most modern cameras run on an equivalent to the old "3CCD" mark of quality, however there is still a notable range of difference in color output, sharpness, saturation and density.
You still have to try before you buy anything.

HD Camcorders - same deal as DV camcorders of the past. Cheap ones are garbage and record to ungainly and compressed media formats which don't look great and can be a pain in the butt to edit while the expensive ones are wonderful, give great picture quality and are very easy to use and edit footage.

Beware of HD "home handycams" - they're actually more frustrating than your old DV versions since most of them have LESS features, LESS image control and are basically cheap-lenses attached to a hard drive with a start/stop button.

The MOTHER of all cameras?

THE Mother = THE RED CAMERA (www.red.com) - cheap enough that any serious power user with a spare $50K lying around can invest in. With the right lenses and a good understanding of post-workflow, this can go toe-to-toe with most 35mm feature film cameras. Hundreds of commercials and short films have been done with it. Peter Jackson shot with it. Steven Soderburgh shoots with it. Several feature films are already underway with it. You can shoot Stereoscopic 3D with it! Even amateurs are shooting with it (http://www.backwoodsmovies.com/). Current model shoots 4K and there's higher end ones coming out soon including one that shoots a comparative resolution to IMAX.

The PRO-USER'S Mother = Panasonic HVX/HPX range, but don't take my word for it, go to this forum (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/)and see what people are doing with it. Sure there may be better cameras out there than this, but when it comes to features, support, wide user-knowledge base, reliability, robustness (shoots on solid-state CF cards! No tapes!) and is compatibility with most industry-standard accessories, this is the winner by a long-shot.

The HANDYCAM'S Mother = ugh, if you have to go here (but please for the love of Jebus don't) then look up the Panasonic HDC Range which is 3CCD, full-1080 and has SOME image control features. But honestly, if you want to make your own short films and such, just don't even bother going here. Save up your cash, wait an extra few months, get a Pro-User camera.

 

Hm. I disagree a little with the above post. Basically, miniDV is a thing of the past, and DVD camcorders are a joke. Also, there is no longer any point differentiating 3CCD with single sensor cameras, as there are trade-offs for each design.

For less than $1000 you can get an HDV or AVC-HD camera from Canon that shoots 1920x1080 at 24p with picture quality that kicks the snot out of stuff like the GL2, and rivals the image quality you will get on everything that costs less than $6000. You can easily edit this footage on any computer purchased within the last 2 years or so. While the compression of HDV and AVC-HD prevents the footage from being pushed too far in post production, with good production values that reduce the need for post production and re-compression, the results are fantastic.

Between about $1000 and $6000 you're paying for ergonomics that allow you to get a better picture: larger cameras, more connectors, better controls, etc. However, the CODECs are still HDV and AVC-HD, and there are few (if any) improvements in sensors to be had.

Starting around $3000 and moving up to the $50000 bracket you can start to find less compressed formats, larger sensors, and better lenses.

With the introduction of the Nikon D90 and Canon 5DS MkII, My feeling is we're moving towards a convergence between DSLRs and video cameras. I won't be buying a camera until it's full 1920x1080p or higher, with compressed RAW video to solid state. This is similar to what the S35 SCARLET from RED will be, but I'm expecting a more mainstream, lower-priced option to appear within the next 2 or 3 years.

-Spiff

 

I think that HDV is here for a while.

In 2 or 3 years you'll have enough money to buy a better one anyways.

SB

 

'MiniDV' as a recording medium is still pretty common, although as soon as manufacturers can get their acts together, the tapes will probably be replaced with flash memory.

The standard definition compression/storage scheme, referred to as 'MiniDV' (which has something in common with Sony's DVCAM25) is rapidly falling out of style.

Everyone is shooting at HD resolutions now. Up until about 3 years ago, this was a sort of 'fad' for people with piles of money. However, Sony and Canon have both released superb HD cameras (at least compared to what similar money used to buy) in the last few years.

AVCHD, and HDV are the leading compression formats and when it comes down to it, they look pretty much the same. Depending on the camera and the bitrate and the resolution, AVCHD can look better than HDV. AVCHD can vary in quality a whole lot more than HDV.

The RED camera has taken the digital cinema world by storm (they had to have bouncers outside the tent at the NABShow). That said, it costs $17,000 without lenses (which run upwards of 5 grand each). Granted, that's a few hundred thousand dollars less that anything that can come close to matching it for quality, but it's more than I have in my pocket at the moment.

All of the major manufacturers (Canon, Sony, Panasonic) each have highly viable models for under $10,000 that are so completely different they're almost impossible to compare. They all produce an excellent image, or people wouldn't buy them.

For under $1,000 it's hard to beat Canon's HV series. I have a HV20 which produces an excellent picture. The HV30 came out a little while back, and the HV40 is forthcoming. The HV series does lack some of the finer details of manual control, but it is possible to control the exposure if you know what you're doing.

For under $500...

I'd save your money. It's not worth buying a camera that cheap unless you only plan to use it for home videos.

If you're making a movie, just rent a camera, or borrow someone else's.