DSR-PD170 or XH-A1 for weddings?

[stateofmind]

The DSR-PD170 is a great low light camera from what I have read, and the XH-A1 utilizes HD tech which might be advantageous for the future...but you guys have much more insight than random reviews and some are actually in the field.

Should I go with the 170 or the XH-A1, if the Sony, will I miss out on much greater quality video?

[inazioz]

As no one says anything, if I were u and had the money, i'd go for the xh-a1. People are going to ask you for HD if they don't already.
If i didn't have the money i'd go for a second hand 170p or the new HD1000 from sony with lights mounted, but i'd definetively go HD.

[voodeux]

I own the XH-A1 and the full size Sony DSR-390 (which kicks ASS, but is only SD). Shooting about 20 weddings a year, it has been about 70% high-def in the past year. The only reason for still shooting in SD is because the XH-A1 has terrible low-light performance, and in certain venues that I'm familiar with, I know that every lux counts.
I always consult with a couple and tell them the pros and cons, as well as offer them the chance to choose.

For my money, the XH-A1 will be a better investment, but plan to spend more on supplemental lighting (as well as post-production). You might also look into Sony's tapeless EX1, which is much more light sensitive (but costs more than double).

[stateofmind]

I own the XH-A1 and the full size Sony DSR-390 (which kicks ASS, but is only SD). Shooting about 20 weddings a year, it has been about 70% high-def in the past year. The only reason for still shooting in SD is because the XH-A1 has terrible low-light performance, and in certain venues that I'm familiar with, I know that every lux counts.
I always consult with a couple and tell them the pros and cons, as well as offer them the chance to choose.

For my money, the XH-A1 will be a better investment, but plan to spend more on supplemental lighting (as well as post-production). You might also look into Sony's tapeless EX1, which is much more light sensitive (but costs more than double).


I hear very contrasting opinions on the XH-A1's low light performance, no one says its great, but it varies from decent to terrible in your case, but I think I will go with the XH-A1 regardless

[voodeux]

I'm a spoiled cameraman, having used the Sony DSR-300 and DSR-390 for years. The image quality is superb for SD, and its about 4 stops more sensitive than the XH-A1. I do my best to avoid anything over 6dB gain on the Canon, cause the noise is so objectionable. On the Sony, I can easly hit 9dB for those otherwise impossible-to-see shots.

Bigger chips (and a more mature SD CCD technology) make the DVCAM cameras hard to beat for light sensitivity. CMOS and the smaller chips can't compete (just yet). Sony has made a step in the right direction with the EX-1, but I'm not a fan of overpriced 'proprietary' recording formats that they're fostering on the consumer (the SxS card). Back in the day, I was working with Panasonics MII format, which never fully caught on. Sure it looked beautiful, but who wants to invest tens of THOUSANDS in equipment that will be worthless in a short time.