would anyone recommend a sony dcr-vx2100? or has anybody ever worked with them? is it firewire capable?

Firewire capable, yes. But you can probably find a better camera in that price range. Consider the Sony HDR-FX1 or the Panasonic AG-DVX100.

I bought the Sony DCR-VX2000 but in the summer of 2001, and I love it. But know its out dated. What harris said is true but if you are looking at the DCR-VX2100 it's a good camera. No HD or 24f

don't go for HD. there's really no use for it right now.

i, too, strongly suggest the DVX-100 over the VX2100 any day. there's absolutely no reason to choose the VX2100 over ANY other camera in its range. unless you really want to be outdated very very quickly, buy something like a DVX100, even if it costs you a little more.

I second those opinions of harris and insomnica. Go w/ the DVX100a

You ever consider the Canon GL2? I've had it for a good 6-7 months now and it's a really damn good camera. Very versitile and cheaper too.

no.

the GL2 is nice, yes, but so is EVERY OTHER CAMERA in that category.

the difference? the GL2 is the oldest, the most outdated, and has the least features. yes, it's a good camera, but nowhere near the best, so... don't get it.

yep. go DVX. Best in the price range hands down.

That was quite the harsh response to goodwill, hes just giving his opinion! Although i do agree that the DVX is definitely worth the extra cash over the GL2.

insomniac:

quote:

don't go for HD. there's really no use for it right now.

HD televisions are being pushed harder than ever. In a couple of years, that will likely be the standard.

I know the HD offered by the low-end Sony does not measure up to the HD we see in Sin City and Star Wars; compared to standard miniDV recordings, however, the HD gives a noticeably sharper image.

May I ask exactly what you mean by there being "no use" for HD? And why do you think this?

I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm only curious.

because unless you're upconverting to film, or broadcasting it over cable/satellite television that supports HD, there isn't a way to view or distribute it.

you cannot put HD on a DVD yet. you must downconvert it to SD. with QuickTime 7 and H.264, you MIGHT be able to put it online, but available only to Mac users with G5 processors and QuickTime 7. kind of limits your audience.

HD is great if you want to upconvert to film, but the process of doing that is so expensive, you might as well buy a better HD camera.

don't get me wrong, HD is the indie filmmaker's dream come true in many ways. i plan to shoot in HD soon because i have hopes for a film conversion. but for someone who just wants to edit in their NLE and burn it to DVD and distribute, it doesn't make sense, as the DVD will have to downconvert the HD/HDV into SD DV anyway. and again, if you have the $25,000 to upconvert HD to film where it can actually be used, then you can afford to buy or rent a camera that will produce better quality. the only other way to view the HD is to physically connect the camera to a high-def tv tuner.

the average person on these boards is looking to shoot with whatever camera they can afford, edit using FCP or Premiere or something, and throw it back on a DVD. in that situation, HD doesn't add a single pixel more to your final product than an XL2.

I think Sony has just released (or maybe is preparing to release) their 50 gig blue-laser DVD, and a 200 gig is supposed to follow shortly.

It just seems like the digital world is moving in a direction which favors HD over standard, and it makes sense to me to prepare. I think, if faced with the choice of cameras now, I would go with HD (although you're right that a better option would be buying a more capable HD camera). We'll see. Perhaps in a couple of years, that fantastic $100,000 Lucas/Rodriguez HD favorite will be marked down to pocket change. And then I will rule the world.

i agree that HD is taking off rapidly. but there's still problems. for example, although Sony is preparing to release blu-ray, the HD-DVD standard has still been picked up by companies such as Apple. it's going to be another format war, and there's no clear winner yet.

plus, keep in mind that this is all early adopter stuff. the average person is not going to have a blu-ray or HD-DVD player in their home for some time.

i agree it's good to prepare, however, the youth of HD is one reason why you WOULDN'T want to by an HD camera right now. HD and HDV cameras are becoming so cheap and so much better now that buying the low-end Sony HDV cam now doesn't make a lot of sense. in november, you will be able to spend $7000 on the HVX200 that shoots in 24p at full, uncompressed HD in 720p or 1080i directly to disk. JVC just released their "ProHD" HDV system with interchangable lenses. it makes perfect sense to prepare for HD, but i don't think that buying a very consumerish HDV camera is a smart move, given how quickly we're seeing some truly professional cameras being released at low prices. the $7000 HVX rivals the $60,000 Varicam on most features. the Sony will soon find itself outdated, as well. just like when the JVC HD-1 came out. people were ****ting themselves over a 1CCD camera that was HD. it sucked. now Sony has done a lot better than that, but it's still far from a professoinal camera... and since HD distribution is still at least several months away, it makes more sense to wait a little while for not only the format war to end, but for the manufacturers to keep pumping out cheap HD and HDV cameras. within a year, that sony will be out of sight, out of mind, for someone planning on making actual movies.

.......okay. I don't know where this is going now, but its all good. Didn't ever consider HD...But yea, HD is prolly going to be the standard soon. But I don't think I want to invest in a HD camera just yet.

yeah, sorry about that, haha.

basically, don't get the vx-2100. get a dvx100 or an xl2 if you can afford it. that's about what this boils down to.

I recently purchased the Sony HDR-FX1. It doesn't matter what you think about HD. The beauty of this camera is that it shoots in both HDV and DV. The images on this camera are truely stunning. I've been nothing but pleased with it. The ONLY drawback, is that it is lacking 24p. But it does do a fake "CINEFRAME 24" effect that works just as well. Just thought that I'd let you know how I feel about this since i actually own this camera. I also got it about 600 dollars cheaper than B&H's price. This is because it was a refurbished model from the sony store at my local mall, however, i know the manager there and he assures me that it is brand-spanking new.