Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Two words - no comparison
The VX is over 10 years old. Yes, its a three chip cam, but they're three smaller chips and they're ten years old. You'd have to buy used. It's not HD. Sony doesn't make parts for them anymore.
Positives? You can haz a defflens.
The HV20 is basically the opposite of all the bad stuff I wrote up there, except I believe it uses a CMOS chip.
If these are your two options that are the result of weeks of research, than get the HV20. If you just made this thread out of the blue to get an easy answer, DO YOUR RESEARCH YA BUM. If you did (which I expect you didn't) you'd have found that the VX is no more than a box with a handle (zomg!).
That's fine - I've made my fair share of threads. But, not trying to rank on him here, this is an outrageous comparison - the first thing he should've seen if he did research was that one was HD and one wasn't - then he could've looked at specs and reviews and realized one was ancient.
Test footage from YouTube is helpful too.
I say this everytime I post about this stuff - research! You won't be able to buy a camera from what you read here on NS - you should find one that will work for you and not people who post in your thread.
[/semi rant]
if it were me id go with a vx. the hv20 is a good camera, you wont be dissapointed, but honestly i think the vx will get a better image in the end. and when you consider that pretty much all your footage ends up being SD anyway if you put it on dvd's or put it online.
the VX is old, and most likely will have problems, but it does get a great image, i think its much better for skating than skiing footage thougjh.
plus ive just never really been a fan of most HD footage, its just all way overly sharp, and ends up looking EXTREMELY digital. i was just watching 28 days later a couple weeks ago (filmed on an xl1) and i was trying to imagine what it would be like in HD, and it just wouldnt work, it would have a totally different and less effective effect.
IMO if your going to go with HD, you need to spend more money for it to be worth it, something like a xh-a1 gets a great picture, while most cheapo HD cameras just give you video game footage.
i think its better for sure, most the super8 people see is shot from a shitty camera, bad film stock, filmed on an auto camera, transfered bad, or transfered by using a projector and filming that. i dont have a problem with that, i think "shitty" looking super 8 looks awesome, and makes for really cool looking footage.
but when people know how to film with it, use a good film stock, and send it to a really good place to get the transfer done, it can look like 16mm, but still wtih a little hint of that super8 look so it looks amazing.
even mediocre 8mm looks better imo, id much rather watch any film footage over another overly sharp oversaturated, video game looking, staring at the sun its so bright look that seems to be so popular right now (such is life).
