Right – firstly, I sympathise

#213971
Avatarpaulears
Participant

Right – firstly, I sympathise with your predicament.

Good news
The camera is reliable, decent quality, tough as boots and pretty well specified. It works rather well in low light and is fine for theatre use. DVCAM is a good solid format.
BAD
Lots more negative points. Not all of these actually have video inputs – UK ones, for example don’t! DVCAM has less running time than DV mode. The camera is 4:3 format, every TV now is wide screen. The lens is reasonable – it’s not swappable on this camera, and while being a nice camera, it’s a very elderly nice camera. Using it to record, then ingest into the editor doubles the run time, and at it’s age – you have a system with no future. If your record some nice stuff, what will you replay the tapes on next year when it has died and the repair cost is double what you paid?

It’s like buying an antique to use, not keep. They are going for silly money because they’re old fashioned. Tapes are drying up. It so much like buying an old car, just because it has a decent set of tyres.

It’s also heavy enough to need a decent tripod and head – which will probably cost more than the camera. Batteries cost quite a bit, and are big and short in running time.

I stil have my DVCAM recorder for my old format tapes, but HD is now the standard, whether you like it or not. I shoot everything in HD, yet 90% of my output is SD

My opinion is this is a flawed idea – the gear is too old, the reliability very poor and the lifespan before it’s scrap has almost gone. Lovely camera, but obsolete.

Best Products

homicide-bootstrap