Question:

HDR-FX1 or Canon XL2?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

I want to make independent short films and I 'm having trouble deciding on a camcorder. Which is better in Layman's terms?

Also, does the 24fps setting allow recordings to have the more "hollywood" looking quality?

 Tags:

   Report

1 ANSWERS


  1. Great question. That is a hard decision. The Sony FX1 is a great prosumer camera that shoots in HD, while the XL2 shoots only in standard def. So, the FX1 will have sharper images that then XL2. However, HD isn't everything. It's harder to edit, playback on a TV, and it takes up a lot more memory.

    From a filmmaker's perspective, I would totally go with the XL2 for 3 reasons:

        1) 24p mode for a cinematic look

         2) XLR mic inputs for pro mic connections

         3) Interchangeable lenses for more options in zoom length and depth of field

    If you plan to do more formal shooting for documentaries, weddings, news broadcasting, or even family vacations, go with the FX1. If your aim is to make artistic, film style short films, or even feature length indie films, go with the XL2. The XL2, though an SD camera, has been used on several feature length indie films. The biggest reason is that the XL2 has a 24p mode. 24p, or 24 progressive scan gives you the option to record in a film-style progressive 24 frames per second, rather than simply 30 frames per second interlaced (30i), which gives you a harsher look, distinctly that of digital video.

      With 24p, no your footage will not look exactly like film, but it comes close. 24p replicates the softness of 35mm film footage, while simulating film's tendencies such as graininess and strobing. However, it does not replicate the narrow depth of field you get on film. With 1/3" CCDs, the depth of field is pretty wide, meaning much of your picture is in focus. To simulate a narrow depth of field, larger CCDs would help. However, you can only find larger image sensors on the pro ENG broadcast cameras or the less expensive Sony EX1, which is still $6,000.

       Another, more practical option is to get a 35mm adapter like that of Letus Extreme or Redrockmicro. These devices go for around $1,000 and attach to your camera. The adapters allow you to mount a variety of 35mm photo lenses (which are pretty cheap now) onto your camera, giving you a much narrower depth of field. I have used Redrock, and Redrock is probably the most famous but it has 2 problems:

      1) Your picture loses considerable light.

       2) Your picture is inverted. You may however, restore it right-side up in post production (or film with the camera up-side down, but that's kinda silly) http://redrockmicro.com/

        I don't know about Letus as much, but supposedly, the Letus adapters do not lose as much light, and the picture is re-inverted so its right-side up. It does cost a bit more http://www.letusdirect.com/

    Secondly, there's XLR mics. Sometimes audio quality is considered more important than picture quality, and XLR mic imputs allow for much better mics than the flimsy mini-stereo imputs like that on the FX1. One way to get around this if you still want the FX1 is to buy an XLR adapter, like that made by beachtek, which go for about $180. Not all mini-stereo mics are that bad, however. The Rode VideoMic is decent.

    Here are some XLR adapters:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53...

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33...

    If you want to bypass all of this confusion, you could always go with the RED Scarlet 3K camera, coming out in early 2009. It's around the same price too, supposedly under $3,000 when it is released, and may be the best camera under $10,000. For one thing, it does not shoot in HD, it shoots in Higher than high definition. Its hard to explain, but there's a nice little chart comparing 3K to 1080i HD (like on the FX1) here: http://red.cachefly.net/nab/nab2008.pdf

    I don't know how the Scarlet will compare to film, nor do I know if it'll have XLR mic inputs, but its totally worth looking into as more info comes out. I DO know that it has far more pixels than many cameras worth tens of thousands of dollars!

    http://www.red.com/

    Well, that's about it. I hope that helps and I apologize if I made it more confusing. Well, whatever your decision, best of luck, and have fun!!!

You're reading: HDR-FX1 or Canon XL2?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 1 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Unanswered Questions