Canon miniDV or HD

[seroe]

hello...

im buying a new camera, for around the 2000 pounds mark (4000 dollars) - and for the last two years ive been set on the Canon XL2. I understand people prefer the Panasonic dvx100 to this camera, but having used one, i dont really like the look of the footage, and i have a canon slr, so after getting the adaptor, i can use my lenses on the canon xl2.
however, now, im confused whether i should get an HD camera instead - the XH A1 looks nice, although it has no interchangable lenses. BUT - i just dont know if i really want HD. this is partly due to never having a chance to use a prosumer HD camera, and partly due to the fact i hear it takes it further away from having a "film look".

try and answer this for me please - as i have a good deal that will only be available for a short time, which includes the EF adaptor, and extender for the lens.

thanks people...

 

[MRoytman]

There are certain tricks with Mini DV that can be used to cheat aspects of the film look, but having used both I have to say that overall the image I get out of an XH A1 looks more "like film" than the image from an XL2

 

[seroe]

cheers.

reading about hd in a book i have its basically saying if you want anyone to take u seriously shoot on film or hd. thing is, im not at that stage yet with my filmmaking.

but should i still go for hd just for the fact it will reward me with nicer images? or not, because it will take up so much hard disk space, and the fact that with the XL2 id be getting a top of the range miniDV for the same price as a mid range HD camera?

thanks people

 

[Lazlo]

HD is closer to the "film look" whatever that really means than miniDV. I have no idea what you mean when you say that you didn't like the footage of the DVX, since it's "look" is so incredibly customizeable... But that aside. Go HD if you can afford it. If you want the 100% film look, then great, go get a film camera like an Eclair ACL, or an Arri ST, or something, and then you'll have the film look.

 

[seroe]

well yes mate, thats obvious isnt it

unfortunatly i obviously dont have the money for a film camera, or i wouldnt be askin this question. and its not so much that i want it to look LIKE film, i just dont want it looking too much like typical home video recordings, im askin how i can get the better image, that looks more aesthetically pleasing

will this be achieved more through the mid range canon HD camera, or the xl2 where i can control more about the image, such as the black stretch and gamma.

im just trying to decide which is a better option to go with. people who say, just go with HD, are wrong i think. because it is not JUST HD that makes the difference, im more askin which of these specific cameras is the btter one, from peoples experience from use, or word of mouth

thanks

 

[Lazlo]

Camera choice is subjective. An HD camera (aside from the newn consumer line canon has out) is not just better because it's HD, but because of all the features that accompany such a camera. Now, "better", again is a personal preference. In the end, the better camera is the one you have more control over, and can achieve the images you want. I hate to unhelpful, but in the end, it's not so much the camera you use, but how you use it in conjunction with a good story and effective lighting... The XL2 and XHA1 are both really solid cameras, so whichever you choose, the quality of the images you get will be determined by your skill more than the camera. So go with the one you're more comfortable with then if you don't believe HD is better.

 

[MarkG]

Good advice. I agree, I've seen some really awful footage from low-end 'HD' camcorders, but both XL2 and XHA1 should give good pictures within the limits of the recording format.