I realize how annoying it must be to answer "what camera should I get" questions over and over again so I apologize for this post in advance. However, I just came across an ad that seems to be a good deal for a Panasonic ag-dvx100b, so I want to ask the people I trust most when it comes to film and video (FXhome ppl obviously!!)

I found one that is going for $1200 USD. It has 107 hours on it and comes with 2 batteries, pelican case, uv filter and battery charger. There may be another one available for around $1400 with less than 50 hours on it. These are both second hand, and I'm not sure how fast video camera prices depreciate... So it seems to me like an awesome deal.. but I'm just not sure.

I haven't been too happy with my Sony HDR-FX1, so I'm considering selling it in order to buy either the ag-dvx100b, a canon HV40, or save up and get an XL2 or XH-A1.

Which of these options do you think would be worth it for short dramatic film productions? Is the AG-DVX100b for $1200 a steal? Should I just forget about getting a new camera and just be happy with my FX1?

Let me know guys, Thanks!

I'd seriously consider it, although it isn't a 'steal', it's certainly worth considering with the bag and extras etc. See if you can knock some $$ off by offering maybe a grand, if you have cash, and he needs cash, you may get a bargain. Fwiw secondhand private sale dvx100's go for about £650 in the UK

PDRG said it. It's not "steal" but definitely a great deal for a camera that has been used so little. I'd take it above the HV40...

One thing that is making me hesitant is the fact that I can't find a single video online (youtube or vimeo) that has decent footage from the ag-dvx100b, except for Max Swinton's Mr.Fox and Mr.Pike (which are both amazing btw, check them out if you haven't already). The other drawback is no 16:9 aspect ratio. If only my FX1 was PAL. I hate to say it but I think I'm considering this mostly for the 24p. I know a good story, dialogue, and cinematography are essential in making a great film, but I'm very particular with technical stuff. I guess if I wanted it all I would have to save up for an XL2. Even that has drawbacks though...

Okay, DO NOT get a DVX if you already have an FX1. That's a proverbial step backwards.

How can I make this camera work out for me though? Cineframe24 mode is not true 24p and is very jerky... Should I be shooting in 60i and then converting to 24p? or should I shoot in Cineframe24 mode and use a program like CineForm for capture into 24p?

Shoot in 60i, convert post-haste. It's easier.

Alright, Thanks Ben. I probably should have been asking these questions instead lol. Do you know much about CineForm? Is that a good program to use? I have Cinema Tools and Compressor as well. Would they get the job done? I've never converted anything to 24p before...

I agree with Ben - an FX1 is a *great* camera, and down-grading to a DVX is a little bit silly. If anything, sell the FX1 and put in a little more money to upgrade to a Z1, Z7 or EX1.

But I don't understand why you're hung up on 24p. It WILL NOT make your films look any more filmic than lighting it properly, grading it properly, and shooting it properly.

I just don't understand why people get so stuck on the idea that 24p is necessary. Unless you're going to TK your footage to film, then it's really not an issue, imho.

Cheers,
Arktic.

Totally with Arktic here - 24p is overstated, it should not be your prime decider when choosing a camera!! In fact, unless you're finishing onto film for the cinema, it's just unnecessary - if you play back on the web or a DVD/TV, you'll need to convert framerate to something else anyway. Rather, you may wish to pay more attention to lighting, SOUND (very important), mis-en-scene, acting, everything. The technical side of framerates contributes dramatically little to getting a better overall look!

For sure, I've seen this discussion many times before. I completely agree with both of you. 24p has to count for something though. When I watch my work done on 60i, there is a considerable difference in comparison with something shot in 24p in my opinion. So say I make a good film with great lighting, sound, acting, etc, but after I shoot it, it will look like the news or a soap opera. Theres no way around that except to get a camera that offers 24p right?

I completely agree. It is nowhere near as severe a measure as people make it, but there is markedly a difference and more 'filmic' feel and look to footage in 24p as opposed to 60i. There just is, for the better.

Forget the whole 'well that depends if filmic is what you're going for....' Come on, of course it is! It's what everyone wants, let's not dance around that.

lol, well if I could just ask one more quesetion then, considering I probably will stick with the FX1. Should I be shooting in 60i or cineframe 24? For those who are unfamiliar with CF24, it is a fake 24p scanning, and a lot of people hate it. I hear you can use a program called CineForm Aspect HD, or HDconnect to get CF24 to be decent. I just want to use my FX1 to it's full potential. I'd rather shoot material with the optimal framerate rather than regret it later. This thread is turning into something completely different, I apologize for this.

I'm not sure I would take this over an HV40 at this point. I shot MOTOR LODGE with the DVX (Premieres Dec. 3rd at the Cowtown Film Festival). It looks fantastic and has it's own "look" and color palette and it is a more pro featured camera to be sure than the HV40...but It's standard definition, and IMO the HV40 would be a better option for now (HDV), especially if you can buy some accessories with the $$$ you save...and that price for the DVX is just okay. Also, if the XHA1 is on your radar- I'd probably go for that if you have the cash- I've used it to shoot some corporate stuff and it's a great camera.

I also agree that 24p is just one of many things to consider- I personally prefer the look of 30p myself for most things....less "strobey"

Nothing wrong with shooting progressively, nothing at all, a wise choice in fact. But 24p...

I think there's a misconception that because 35mm film is shot at 24fps that it is a magical number, but even your local cinema does not project 24 frames per second, it'll be 48 or 72 (same frame 2-3 times) in a dim (not completely dark) room in order to best trick the brain with smooth enough movement but without the flicker! It is a pure bodge! 25p, 30p, yes, great, but all the stressing over 24p because it's "what cinemas use" just is unnecessary - that or you need to strobe the shutter at 48fps for playback too!

Just sayin', isn't it funny that we spend so much time and effort trying to reproduce the inadequecies of a nearly extinct format - shooting framerate, narrow depth of field, 'film' colouring, etc - these are all limitations of the format, they were all bodges!