What are some general opinions on this if any? Aside from the obvious no viewfinder on the Canon and memory vs hard drive, what are the thoughts on these two and their relative performance?

My reading seems to draw me to the conclusion that the Canon is slightly sharper, but the Sony has much better OIS. It would also seem the low light is better on the Sony (I've seen that already, but not side by side with the Canon), but the Canon might be brighter in some low light situations at the expense of noise.

Ken -
I've seen excellent samples of video from both (night video from the XR sold me up front), but I've also seen some strange sharpening artifacts in the Canon (I'd describe it as "ringing" between colors - almost like a black line where there should just be two colors butting against each other). I believe there were similar artifacts in the 5D MkII reported, so I'm a bit cautious. Artificial "sharpness" is not sharpness - it may fool the eye, but I'd rather have a cleaner image.

I'd still like to lay hands on one of the HF-S series, but there's no way it will beat the XR in low noise/low light, I've looked at enough samples to feel that's a safe statement - you switch that "lo lux" switch (basically going to 1/30 shutter) and it sees way better than I do in low light! Noise comes up a bit, but not much.

The Canon manual controls are certainly attractive, but the XR exceeds my expectations and I've already got the accessories so I've stuck to Sony.

The reviews of the HF-S were surprisingly mixed as well. Not that the reviewers could figure out what Sony was up to with the XR either, but I expected to see the Canon do better with all the specs...

I love having a viewfinder - retired my CX12's for that reason alone, the XR is smaller than the SR11 and not much larger than the CX... The VF in the XR isn't exactly the best (I've seen some funky color errors - viewfinders probably should be B&W <wink>), but if you need to frame the shot in bright conditions it's great, plus it also will fit the sport packs with the VF right against the rear panel, so you can use it that way!

Hard drives still scare me a bit (and heaven forbid I get that much video backed up and unedited!!), I'd prefer the SS memory of the Canon in that respect, but the XR can record to the MS Duo, and I presume it's possible to remove the HDD like in the SR, though I've not examined that as I'm not dealing with any extreme conditions!

And the OIS... darn close to having a steadicam! If you're careful, probably adequate for most conditions. With some of my rigs (shoulder mounts, fig rig style bracket rigs, and belt supported monopod), I'm pretty sure I could match a gimballed rig under a lot of conditions... and that's saying something, since the bane of shooting HD has been the need to stabilize the camera or have a mess. I never found the SR11 to be weak in that area, but side by side with the XR, it was another one of those "night and day" differences. I could walk down a long hall and keep the XR locked on a "target", not so with the SR, it was close, but not quite. I had such poor luck with the OIS in the HV20 that in my opinion Canon would have to really make a huge leap to be anywhere close to what Sony did with the XR.

I didn't expect the XR to be such a jump ahead of the SR, but once I got one in hand it was a fairly easy decision to upgrade. For all the reasons you've mentioned, I think the XR was a better choice overall... now if they'd just give a better manual control suite!

I have had the opportunity to use both cameras. The sony is a better out of the box point and shoot in my opinion. The Canon likes to run the AGC up and in certain situations not for the better. However if you are an experienced user you will get a better, cleaner, more saturated color from the Canon. They are both great cameras. I guess best summed up would be. If you use AUTO buy the Sony. If you are a manual experienced user definitely without a hint of hesitation pick up the Canon HFS 10/100, you will be glad you did. I ended up buying the Canon.

The sound on the Sony cams (in general) greatly outweigh the Canon cams in terms of sound quality with the on-board mics. I find the sound quality from the Canon line mediocre at best with no comparison to the Sony's. I'm guessing but it probably has something to do with the 5.1 surround sound ability. On the other hand they do seem to be a bit more sensitive to wind noise.

There are many that look upon the surround ability as sort of a gimmick, but it really does work. It's not the same stereo channel copied to the rear speakers. You can actually hear the cam operator for example louder on the rear speakers than on the front. I'm not sure how Sony is doing it because there is no mic separation at all, but I suppose if we can tell depth, front, back with only 2 ears then Sony can do it too.

I must say though that what I do find irritating in the Sony cams is that they spend WAY to much time hunting with the focus.... especially in lower light.

I agree with you however, anyone that is that serious about sound is going to use pro mic option. Let's face it these on board mics are cheap and are what they are. The sound on the HFs10 and XR500 is more than adequate (for home movie use), however I will say that most of the on board (on body) mics are susceptible to wicked wind noise. I either use a wireless lav or a shotgun. Really can't say that I would use the 5.1 as an option although It's not horrible. If I ever wanted 5.1 I would record 5 distinct channels. Other than for kicks I can't say that I have great demand for that. Again the OIS on the Sony is better than the HFs10. However I really don't use it. I'm 90% on tripod/ dolly/jib. For auto/ run and gun I would lean toward the Sony. For planned out semi controlled shoots I prefer the Hfs10. Having said that, they both are really nice cameras.

Some good points here. Dave, I was surprised at the CCI review giving the Canon 800 lines of horizontal resolution (Videomaker gave it 900!). Yet CCI seemed to feel that the Sony & Canon were pretty close in this area. It should be noted that CCI gave the Sony a higher vertical resolution than the Canon. It's interesting that Videomaker's numbers were different.

But yes, in low light I don't think there's a comparison. I've never seen such velvety blacks and absurdly low noise levels (with low lux off). Even the Z5 has higher noise levels, but a brighter picture.

Darrin, I only have an in-store test I did with the S-10 just yesterday with an SD card I brought to the store. It appeared just a bit sharper than the Sony, but not significantly so at all...at least indoors. I agree with Dave about the in-camera sharpening that Canon seems to do. I didn't notice any significant difference in color though. I have seen some Sony clips though where certain shades of green (grass) appeared to be a bit hyped.

Interestingly, even in a well-lit store like Best Buy, as I zoomed in with the Canon in a somewhat darker area of the store, I began to see a dimming of the image. The same scene on the Sony 500 showed no dimming at all when fully zoomed. Frankly I was surprised that the Canon began to dim in an environment like that. I believe one of the reviews I read indicated that the Canon's low light was actually worse this year than last year. That scene was the single biggest differentiator in my in-store tests.

Jack, I fully agree about the Sony sound. There is a remarkable 'fullness' to the sound when played through a surround sound system. Once you go back to the 2-channel sound of the Canon or any other 2-channel cam, the sound just becomes 'dead'. That's always been a disappointment with my Canon HG21.

I agree with you however, anyone that is that serious about sound is going to use pro mic option. Let's face it these on board mics are cheap and are what they are.

You have a valid point. But then on the other hand let's not forget that these are consumer level cams to begin with.... little point-and-shoot babes. Anybody serious would opt for something a tad more pro-ish in terms of an entire cam, and not just the mic.

Ken -
Good catch on the "lens ramping" or "aperture choke", or whatever you might call it - I know that in the SR you could see it just a tad at the high end of the zoom. As the lens reaches the tele end there's simply no aperature range left to open up, so the image darkened a bit. I didn't notice it in the brief time I played with the Canon at BB, but I was in a hurry, sounds like you had more tiome to observe it in action.

I know the XR seems to somehow manage to hang on and stay well exposed without a noticeable dropoff throughout its range - even the digital zoom at the 24x setting manages to hold it together until the very end of the tele range - you start to get more noise, but still a surprisingly clean image - the internal noise reduction starts to meet it's match, but it's still doing quite well! In a pinch, that ability to use "digital tele" could be useful - I know it was highly regarded in the FX7/V1U, and although I am no fan of using digital over optical, I might leave this pup in the "24x mode", there's a line to warn me if I want to stay outside the digital range.

This is the one HUGE pitfall in many "reviews", they just don't put the camera through it's paces and find all these little "real world" things! That's where to "trust" a review you have to learn what they do and don't test at that particular site... at least this round I felt like CCI got a bit closer, but it was obvious they didn't use the low lux setting and dinged the cam for bad low light... duh, use the functions the camera has before you ding it... they did on the other cams, but obviously didn't on the Sony?

There's another thread here where they mention a little fur wind muff for these small cameras (the SR11 was the main one in question if you run a search), I'm thinking of ordering a few so all my cams have a "soul patch", to avoid wind noise, it's a cheap add on, and if it doesn't cut the audio quality, it'd be worth it.


Darrin -
To say that you'd be using an external mic is no excuse for a camera in this price range having lousy mics/audio... sorry, but if you're paying around $1K, you should expect usable sound for general use or for ambient fill. It's like buying a car and the brakes are so-so - it's designed to go fast, so why would you need good brakes? I remember how disappointing the HV20 was for audio, and that was one of the reasons I moved past that camera rather quickly. Completely unusable with all the camera/body noise IMO. I'd expect better of the HF-S since it doesn't have a tape mech or door to add "special effects".

Yes if you're serious about audio, you'd have external mic capability, commensurate with the job, but I'm not lugging all that gear around all the time. I do pack a Sony HW1 (now they have an HW2) bluetooth wireless - it acts as the center channel in one mode, replacing the center on cam mic. Call it a gimmick if you will, but it seems to work for some situations - I'd really like to add an external mic input, and am looking at the "headphone" jack they put on the HW2... shouldn't be TOO hard to hack that into an "input" <wink>.

I LIKE having surround sound, I have my home theater setup for good surround, why shouldn't I want to have my videos give the feeling of "being there"? It's a small touch, but if your video is "high definition", why should your sound be stuck in '60's stereo??


As for the OIS, if I'm shooting out and about or at an event, the less gear I HAVE to lug the better, and a quality tripod or dolly is a BIG heavy piece of gear, expecially in relation to the camera! I can pack a belt clip and micro-monopod with a neck lanyard and I have a very stable shooting platform with the super OIS. Plus I can move around... Sure if you've got time to get all your settings right and do several "takes", the Canon might give you slightly better resolution, but for "run and gun" and live use, the Sony with that solid OIS wins without a doubt. Mounted on a shoulder or bracket (fig rig style handles) rig, it rivals a full steadicam IMO.



Jack - That's one thing the Canon has... that iAF with the sonar or whatever - snappy auto-focus, no doubt! I find with the Sony a quick crash zoom out and in seems to get it back on track, but yep it's a bit inconvenient. I've been shooting a hummingbird nest on our front porch, and was having some challenges with focusing - tele macro mode worked well, but I decided to try the spot focus, and voila! Worked great, and solved the hunting and challenges where the cam wasn't sure what to focus on - I just pointed to what I wanted, and it zapped right in... nice. It's a lot faster to press a couple buttons and point to what you want in focus than to manually focus... that's one place where the Sony menu works pretty well with easy access via touchscreen to things you might need quickly. It's a matter of learning how to get the most out of a camera and figuring what the engineers put in...

I'd sum it up by saying that Sony put out a pretty amazing camera with the XR, it's a definite step up from the prior generation. Take a little time to learn it, and you can get some impressive results.

I'm sure the same goes for the Canon, but it's a different beast for a different user... so it really depends on what you're looking for when you're camera shopping!

For me the Sony works and makes sense and I'm very happy with it. I want a "pocket cam" that gets excellent results under uncontrolled conditions, that I can accessorize to achive various purposes as well. I'd certainly like to have more control and all that, but I can work with what the camera has and achieve most of what I want, with a better image quality under more conditions than last years model, especially when light is low!



One last question for Ken - how do you feel the XR holds up against the Z5 for color in low light? I'm sure the Z5 is a bit brighter overall image with the big glass, but one thing that's always bugged me in other cameras is how color washes out in low light (you have an image, but it starts to drift off towards B&W) - I'm seeing the XR manage to pull "bright", relatively clean color out when all I can see with my eyes is muddy gray... that's been amazing to me.

Dave, the Z5 still bests the XR in overall low light image and color retention. It still is amazing to see the Z5 pop on in low light and retain such a high quality image. Yes, there is some noise, but not objectional noise. The XR has that velvety look and the color holds up pretty decently, but it still is not quite up to the Z5...but hey, look at that price difference!

To me the fact that the XR can do as well as it does against the Z5, is nothing short of miraculous.

Tonight I was looking at the Best Buy clips of the XR vs the HS-10, and the difference in in-camera sharpening was very clear (no pun intended). On my Pioneer Kuro I was able to up the sharpness to +8 with still no sign of ringing or edge enhancement. Yet with the Canon, an increase of about +3 began to show definite signs of edge enhancement. I'd still like to get my hands on an HS-10 to do more comprehensive A/B tests in a wider variety of shooting conditions.

So it's pretty clear to me that Sony was conservative in how they set up the XR. I'm not sure I agree with their philosophy, since I think there's plenty of room for them to have added a bit of extra in-camera sharpness without any ill-effects. This might have brought about more favorable comparisons from the media reviewers who don't take the time to look for such things or to determine how much 'headroom' a camera has.

When you bring up the sharpness on your display when viewing XR footage, you really can add some extra 'pop' without any ill-effects whatsoever. With many other cams you can't get away with that at all.

Going back to the CCI review, does anyone else find it incredible that they payed so little attention to the exceptional OIS on the XR??

Ken I have given up on the CCI review capabilities. They persist in saying Panasonic has gain control when in fact the controls are much the same on Sony, Panasonic and Canon consumer cams except Sony foolishly doesn't indicate when gain starts on the display. They all need to have iris full open before gain starts so there is no independent gain. This continuous error on their part either says they don't understand or are biased to Panasonic!!!
I always add a little sharpening to the SR11 and XR500 when going to the encoder for SD DVD and I would prefer it this way as I have some level of control over sharpening. The same with the FX1 which I usually boost colour and sharpen too to give some more punch. Staying in HD I have not found the need so far but usually try and match the three cams usually involving some level and colour controls for some of the cuts.

Ron Evans

Ken -
Yep, bang for the buck is pretty impressive! I'd take CCI reviews with a grain of salt - reading the comments on the 520 review you realize they really ignored the low lux for bizarre reasons... and I think you have to use the OIS in "real world", not lab conditions to appreciate it.

I'd still like to play a bit with the HF-S out of curiousity, and the TM300 looks interesting, but I can't say I've found anything I really dislike about the Sony, it delivers where it counts.

Neither XR nor the HS/TM come close in resolution to HF Sx series, I've had all three and still keeping Canon

Buba, I wish it were that simple. The Sony actually had a higher measured vertical resolution than the Canon and the Canon bested the Sony in horizontal resolution.

Further complicating the issue is that the low light of the Sony is much better than the Canon as is the OIS. So it boils down to which of these (or combination of these) picture parameters do you prefer.

Not an easy question for all to answer.

Ken, as you've noticed, I still think there's some sharpening noise in the HF-S... I'm glad to hear I wasn't halucinating it. I sometimes feel there are "cheats" to make a picture appear better at first glance, then when you really dig into it, there are flaws - it takes more than lab measurements, and it takes hands on time to decide what's really going on with a camera...

The Canon specs sure looked great, and I've seen some good samples, so I probably wouldn't have a problem shooting with it, but I'm comfortable with the XR, especially with the OIS and low light, but I'm very happy with the results so far in good light too. I'm seeing people "upgrading" another Canon for the HF-S and being disappointed, but the bump from even the SR to the XR is pretty substantial, and I've not been disappointed in the least.

I'm sure that if one feels the need for more manual control, the Sony isn't the first choice, but just on image quality and versatility/practical usability, I think the XR is a winning package.

Well I gotta say I would love to have some Samples from the XR500. The ones I have seen are nowhere near as impressive as the canon. Granted I didn't have the sony that long, but long enough to choose the Canon. If someone has some impressive XR500 footage please leave me a link. When I compared the two on my computer I could notice very little difference. When I output to my TV the Canon was noticeably better. But hey it could be me. I would love to have some samples that I could do further comparison's with.

I have owned the Canon HF S10 prior to its release. It is an excellent camera.
I am reading some errors in this thread.


.NEVER use any video camera set up in a store and make a determination on what is observed. Both Pro and Con.

.Keep in mind, in a store display, the cameras are placed in AUTO MODE giving a false perspective on the camera for such things as grain and low light.

.Monitor adjustments are important as the HF S10 needs the proper HDTV adjustments like any other camera. This goes for any camera...the monitor/HDTV must be set-up properly.
Connections are important as well....HDMI output displays a pristine picture. NEVER rely on what is observed in a small cameras tiny LCD screen and make a judgement.

.Keep in mind that customers, play with menus thus the observations by a potential user may not be what the cameras capabilities are

.LOWLIGHT.....YES, some cameras, compared to others shoot better in low light but be careful. Just because a camera is brighter than another does not mean the picture is clean........grain looks terrible when gain is set to auto

.This brings me to the Canon Camera......there are many settings in the menu that control color and noise. The camera has a gain limit and adjustable gain. This prevents GRAIN in the picture and a CLEAN picture to boot.

. I can POP the color with two types of VIVID settings in my Canon camera......probably not done in the initial store set-up plus new users may not even know of the second color menu.

.Never believe what is written in a review...rent, borrow or purchase (return policy) the camera and READ the MANUAL FIRST....then use the camera properly.

In closing, judgements of any brand camera can never be made at the store level. The videographer needs to have a hands-on approach and try a camera for several assignments before making a decision to own the camera and post erroneous evaluations that other, less experienced users, take as gospel.

I think you are 100% right on the money..

Dave, interestingly I found little difference between the SR10 and my HG21. There is no sense in 'upgrading' for what the SR-10 is offering. In fact, I thought color renditon took a step backward and is a bit too cool for my taste. I also found the low light of the 10 to be worse than my HG21. I will say this, Canon has finally solved the 'magenta skies issue' that I've always had with Canon cams. But it appears this comes at the price of a cooler overall color balance.

Darrin, there's a 'trick' in watching the XR footage on your TV as I discovered. Since the Canon is already using some "in-camera sharpening" or so it seems, you can raise the sharpness on your TV when watching the Sony to compensate.

I can raise the sharpness on my 60" Pioneer 9 notches without any signs of edge enhancement or ringing. You can't do that with the Canon footage since it will look far too 'edgy'. When you compare the Canon footage at a default sharpness and the Sony at a raised sharpness on the same display, you'll magically find the difference between the two largely gone.

However, as far as I'm concerned, you are left with a more natural looking image with the Sony. To my eyes the Sony looks more like how I saw the scene than the Canon.

That together with the great low light, better OIS, better sound and the presence of a viewfinder, makes this a pretty easy choice for me. But they are both great cams and I'd be happy with the Canon too if the Sony weren't available.

Lou, I was able to get my hands on the Canon HF-S10 for a day and did some shooting yesterday (both indoors & outdoors). I agree with what you said regarding in-store shooting, but I always check all settings when testing in a store. So I remove that potential for error off the bat. I will say this, even when adjusting the gain settings of the 10 in low light, you simply could not produce an image, anywhere near the quality of the XR. When you limitied the gain at the different settings, you were left with an image that was simply too dark and too desaturated. The Sony gave far better colors and a much brighter image. We could argue about daylight images & relative sharpness, but for low light and even regualar room lighting, the Sony was clearly superior. It also produced a significantly sharper image under these conditions. As I've said, I found the low light to be a step backward from my HG21.

I'll list my comparison thoughts in another post.

Well I had a great opportunity yesterday to test the XR500, HG21 and HF-S10. My tests were mostly outdoors, but I did a couple in low light.

Some observations on the HF-S10:
* Canon finally got rid of the purplish hue on skies! HOORAY!!!! Both of my Canons (HG21 & HV20) have that purplish hue on skies
* The HF-S10 has a cooler color palette than the HG21. Although I prefer the skies on the HF-S10, I prefer the overall color balance on the HG21, which is somewhat warmer.
* The HF-S10 is a bit sharper than the HG21 and that is undeniably its best quality.
* The HF-S10 is the first Canon I've seen where the IAF makes mistakes in good light. I was really surprised by this. I had two instances in very bright light where there was a good 2 second delay until the S10 focused properly. The HG21 never had this issue in the same scenes (nor did the Sony).
* Low light was not good. Quite a bit of noise together with reduced sharpness. I did not compare this aspect with the HG21, but I did with the Sony.

Comparisons of the HF-S10 & Sony XR500:
* The Canon is the sharpness king, but not by that much. In fact, it is only via an A/B that you'd really notice any difference at all. You never feel that you're 'missing' sharpness with the XR-500. But when the same scene pops on with the Canon, there is a bit more sharpness & detail in GOOD light.
* The OIS is significantly better on the XR, but that's not a surprise. During one shot I changed my position by walking over to a different spot. I kept each camera rolling and with both Canons it was very shaky. The Sony was considerably smoother.
* Surprisingly I found the autofocus of the Sony to be better than the new Canon, but not quite as good as the older HG21. In good light the Sony is quicker than any recent Sony I've had.
* I found the color on the XR500 to be more neutral and more natural...closer to what my eyes saw. The new Canon was definitely cooler (bluer) than both the XR500 and the Canon HG21. But hey, at least the magenta skies are gone in the S10.
* Low light was simply no contest, from both a noise and sharpness standpoint. Even looking at the live output on my 60" Pioneer Kuro, this aspect was a blowaway. The Sony was both sharper and more noise free. In my experience, prior Sonys traded sharpness for noise, but the new Sony retains its sharpness while exhibiting an almost total lack of noise. In fact, despite the offering of gain limiting in the Canon (a nice feature!), I could not produce an image that approached the Sony's. The image would become far too dim to be usable at the point that the grain cleared up.

My overall impression is that Sony has a real winner here. There are improvements in picture quality vs. the SR12 (that I've sold) that are substantial and welcome. Improved autofocus, color (more neutral), sharpness & detail, OIS and low light.

To my eyes the Sony presented an overall more natural image than the Canon. Depsite the edge the Canon had in sharpness (and again, it could only be appreciated in a direct A/B, not on its own since the Sony is already very sharp), the Sony won IMO in virtually every other category.

That's my opinion anyway.

Buba, I wish it were that simple...
Not an easy question for all to answer.

Yeah, mee too :)
and I AM a "Sony guy", but I did my own, sue not the best, but comparison, and to me HF S10/100 has the best price/value ratio, and I like the image better than XR or TM, it's just that canon has better image :)
take a look how it goes along in low light with XH A1, I was surprised

HF S10 vs XH A1 vs EX1 on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/4639992)

Buba, the only image I was impressed with in that video was the last part, the EX1. The other two were not impressive as both were soft. That's the kind of environment the Sony XR would shine in.

In my typical room lighting tests, the Sony was definitely sharper with truer colors. The Canon tends to desaturate (as many cams do) and soften. Interestingly the softening was a typical trademark of prior Sonys in this class, but I don't see it with the XR.

Well I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. I turn AGC right off, always have on every camera I've ever owned. So maybe we're comparing apples with oranges..Anyway I would like to see some Professional comparison's (say by Chris Hurd). He has a great eye. I would be very interested to hear what he thinks about this topic.

Darrin, it's a question of taste. If you want the sharpest possible video in good light, the Canon is the one to get. But I choose based on other picture parameters such as noise, color, dynamic range etc. Sharpness is certainly one criteria and it was what drew me to my Canon HV20 & HG21.

So I'm not married to any one particular manufacturer. But the XR500 series gave me the sharpness & detail I wanted plus the color, dynamic range, low light, OIS and sound quality that created to my eyes, the nicest picture I could find. In some prior Sony models, I didn't find enough of these qualities to pull me in. I find the XR to be a different animal entirely. I think the OIS is simply phenomenal and I've never seen anything quite like it short of a steadicam. Yes, the Canon is a bit sharper in good light, but I was looking for more. I'm tired of mediocre low light videos when on the run such as when on vacation. My Z5 showed me how good HD can look under those conditions. The XR500 is the closest I've seen in the consumer realm to come close to the Z5. In terms of noise, it actually beats the Z5...not an easy feat!

But hey, it's great that we have two fine units like this to choose from.

The thing that catches my eye is that the Canon just sort of turns everything below a certain threshold to "black mush", and there's a lot of detail that is just plain gone when the lights go low. That's where the XR will shine - lattitude/dynamic range, even pulling it off in low light.

I'd have to say the Canon definitely looks to have an edge in sharpness in better light, but it's subtle, and IMO there's no contest in low light. That coupled with the outstanding OIS and big LCD + viewfinder, and I think for the average user, the Sony makes a lot of sense. Not to say the Canon isn't nice, it looks quite good really, but if you're shooting in low light and handheld... which is a good portion of "real world" camera use, you start to see what market Sony is after, and they hit the nail on the head.

If low light filming is a perogative i would use a light but for me outdoor filming is all i am interested in,every year the manufactuars will upgrade their models but not many people are prepared to change cams every year but i know some do like they change cars, what i find is that i cant make a 1920x1080 completly edited all the bells rolling film,i have to convert my avchd footage to mpeg for that plus the fact my fx-7 and i suspect the hdv cam i have on order to replace one that gave up give as good a quality footage as my avchd cam,certainly the fx-7 does.

One thing i find strange is sony do not give the progressive option on their avchd cams.

Martyn, which AVCHD cam do you have on order?

Dave, I couldn't agree more about the Canon approach to video. Canon well knows that by increasing contrast you get a greater perceived sharpness. Panasonic had been doing that for years with almost all their consumer products. I even remember their VHS decks were 'contrastier' than others and gave an apparently sharper picture. I always preferred the JVC decks for their more natural look.

But even shooting outdoors, there's more than just sharpness to a good quality picture. I rank color right up there with sharpness. One thing I found with the S-10 was a rather 'cold' look relative to my HG21 and certainly to the XR500. The best way to describe it is a kind of 'sterile' look. Some may really like that look, but it was the first thing that struck me on the very first clip I shot.

The nice thing with the Sony is that it tolerates 'sharpening' very well since it seems to be doing less of that in-camera. I can up the sharpness on my Pioneer and get very nearly the same look in terms of sharpness as the Canon...not quite, but very close.

I have to agree with Dave that Sony have aimed the XR500/520 at the general use consumer who will shoot the family in all situations indoor and outside at events and holidays. For this I think it is way ahead of the competition. The 240G drive in the XR520 might last the life of the camera without filling up. My daughter has my old SR7 ( 60G hard drive) and in the last two years filming her two sons has only used about 40G. At that rate she would take 12 years to fill up the XR520!!! She will have a few more of my cast off cams by then!!!! They like to look at the picture straight from the camera HDMI as I expect most users would. She has no problem using the Sony Browser software to make a disc for other family members. The GPS feature would be good for her too to make sure the time and date are set correctly. IT is easier to switch that on for a moment and set the time rather than go through all the menus to do it!!!!
I now have the SR11 and XR500 and there is a difference though a lot of what I like are common. The best LCD, best OIS, lowest grain, LANC, viewfinder, batteries and I agree with Ken on the sharpness. It is easy to really increase sharpness to taste with the Sony in editing to match other cameras.
I am really pleased with the XR500 for the price just wished it had a bigger lens, full manual control.......

Ron Evans

Buba, the only image I was impressed with in that video was the last part, the EX1. The other two were not impressive as both were soft. That's the kind of environment the Sony XR would shine in.


EX1 impresses me every time i use it, but the point was to show how close HF S10 is to XH A1, daylight picture is even closer;
For sure Sony would have brighter picture in that shot, but it would have a lot of infrared noise and much less details; it's my personal opinion, but I don't want that kind of shine;
I know that HF has better, compare to XR, image, because of larger sensor, bigger lens and higher data rate, I knew that even before I bought one, specs don't lie (not very often:)
and i did put two side by side on 50" screen, I can tell, the difference is not minor;

Bubba, one of the biggest mistakes in buying electronic equipment is to buy by 'spec'. You're likely to fail more often than not. Specs are not standardized, manufacturers embellish, they use different methodologies and they don't tell you how the final picture would look.

The fact is that the Sony IS sharper than the Canon in dimmer light. That's been reported elsewhere too. I saw it clearly in my side by side tests. In fact, the disparity between the low light sharpness of the XR500 and the S-10 was greater (with the Sony being sharper)than the daylight sharpness advantage the Canon had over the Sony.

Add to that the Sony color that I thought was closer to what my eyes saw than what the Canon depicted, and you can see we will agree to disagree. My comparisons were viewed on a 60" Pioneer Kuro that's been ISF'd. So I know the image is accurate.

But trust me, don't ever buy soley on 'spec'.

Specs are sometimes one step to the left or right of "marketing". You can take all the "best" spec parts, put them together and not end up with a good result... a camera is a SYSTEM and that system has to be designed around a number of parameters, the constraints of physics and current manufacturing art come into play (and of course economics - you can make a "better" cam with unlimited "budget"...)

What I think those of us who are liking the XR500 are noticing is that it's a well "balanced" camera for want of a better description. At least for those who want a solid stable little camera for general use, that produces a good professional looking HD image.

Buba - not sure what you mean by "infrared noise and much less details" - I'm not seeing anything I'd describe as "noise" infrared or otherwise, and it's pretty amazing to me to see the cam pulling details out of fairly dark scenes, much like your EX... I prefer that over an approach that just takes everything it can't resolve and makes it "black". That's where the XR seems to manage a vey "silky" (good descriptive word, Ken!) image in the dark/low light - I'm very conscious of HOW an image degrades - does it do it gracefully, or fall into dancing macroblocks and mud? I can always adjust in post, but you can't put back what isn't there. There's more "there" there w/ the Sony - I can tweak contrast and sharpness in post.

The "R" sensor and tweaked and updated Bionz processing really manage to pull off quite a lot with substantially the "same" camera as the SR11/12 - so sensor SIZE isn't necessarily everything...

A larger filter ring doesn't necessarily make for a larger primary lens - yes, bigger should allow in more light, but the whole imaging SYSTEM must be designed around a larger lens - Canon is still putting a "bigger" piece of glass on a small form factor camera - there's only so much you can do before physics kicks in and you need a (slightly at least) larger camera to take advantage of the bigger glass.

As for data rate, Sony has stuck by 16Mbps - same as their "first" AVCHD offerings - yet the latest cameras are significantly better image quality as they have tweaked the system - the SR11/CX12 were significanlty smoother w/more lattitude than the 7 series, the XR's again improve upon that. I've seen strange motion artifacts in footage from practically every camera, and footage WITHOUT artifacts from those same cameras - so I strongly suspect it's NOT the camera, but the post processing where the problems are being introduced... although taking HDMI out of the camera should eliminate "most" of that, barring the HDTV needing adjustment...


Martyn - on that note, to work with AVCHD takes a fast computer, a lot faster than HDV, so sticking with HDV may be your best bet if you don't want to take that step to tapeless. As for your FX7 being "better" than the XR... it's a great camera, good manual control, but Sony should stick the "R" sensors and Bionz updates in that sucker (Pull the tape drive and put in a dual media slot while you're at it, shrink the form factor accordingly). With the XR standing up well to the current top end of Sony's pro line, I think the FX7, as nice a camera as it is, will not hold up to the XR in image quality... but to make the switch, you've got to change your entire workflow expectations!


Ken - I suspect sometimes the manufacturers are appealing to a specific "market", and Canon clearly sees the "indie filmmaker on a budget" as a big customer base (HV series). There's a certain "flat" look that seems to be desired for digital post work, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that that's what they were after - but it's not necessarily as pleasing to the eye. I noticed in Bubas' test videos a lot of variation in color balance too, and that can alter perceptions quite a lot... I've been pleased with the "intelligent" choices the XR seems to be able to make on the fly, and so far it somehow seems to manage to make choices that match well with what I'm actually seeing, as you've noted, with maybe just a hint of "enhancement".

For a "filmmaker", a camera that's "intelligent" and adjusting as needed would probably be a poor choice in the sense that you lose the ability to control your baseline settings and thus your control over the look of the "raw" material... makes the task in post more complicated, as you are chasing variables...

But for someone who shoots "on the fly" and one off events, a camera that thinks and reacts faster than the operator possibly could, so that in the end you get the best looking results makes quite a lot of sense. I've seen a lot of footage on TV (mostly "news" type footage) that could have benefitted from this sort of "intelligent" camera... shot some myself, looking forward to shooting LESS <wink>, anything that makes THAT possible is OK in my book!

The two cameras really appeal to two different markets - or operator mindsets if you will. I'd shoot either camera from what I've seen, but prefer the XR, though I'd love more control... I can't argue with the results in a wide range of tough shooting scenarios. If I were trying to shoot an indie film though, where I can "set" my scene, have secondary discrete audio, and re-take as needed, I think the Canon would be the better choice.

Ken i have a hv30 arrived today,i will probobly keep my sr12 as well as the fx7.
Dave my pc is as powerful as i could buy last year,regarding pq the FX7 is as sharp as the sr12,it also has nice color there are plenty of adjusments as you know, first test with the hv30 shows it has less noise than the fx but i will need further tests before i decide which cam i shall mostly use i doubt if the fx will get the majority its a bit big but i love the lens.

Martyn, I have no doubt the HV30 has less noise than the FX7. I owned the FX7 for awhile and although finding it sharper than my FX1, I found it had quite a bit more noise. The Canon HV series has always been very nice. I had the HV10 and still have the HV20. Color on both units were very nice and sharpness & detail were right up there.

Truth be told, I like the image that either of those cams produces better than the HS-10 I just tested. Yes, they're still tape, but I found their overall image more pleasing.

Dave, your post was spot-on! Very well put on all fronts. Every small cam I've ever owned, I shoot 'on the fly'. I don't want a camera where I need to tinker to get the best image when many shots I take are spur of the moment. When I need to tinker it's generally work related and I have a Z5 for that purpose. Now to be perfectly honest, I never really had to tinker with the HV10 or HV20 to get a really nice image...same with the HG21. But there was just something about the image of the HF-S10 that didn't do it for me. Of course the addition of the hugely refined OIS on the Sony together with the low light capability, made a combo that was hard to pass up.

For what I do with a small camera, the XR500 is as good as I've seen.

Martyn, I have no doubt the HV30 has less noise than the FX7. I owned the FX7 for awhile and although finding it sharper than my FX1, I found it had quite a bit more noise. The Canon HV series has always been very nice. I had the HV10 and still have the HV20. Color on both units were very nice and sharpness & detail were right up there.

Truth be told, I like the image that either of those cams produces better than the HS-10 I just tested. Yes, they're still tape, but I found their overall image more pleasing.

Dave, your post was spot-on! Very well put on all fronts. Every small cam I've ever owned, I shoot 'on the fly'. I don't want a camera where I need to tinker to get the best image when many shots I take are spur of the moment. When I need to tinker it's generally work related and I have a Z5 for that purpose. Now to be perfectly honest, I never really had to tinker with the HV10 or HV20 to get a really nice image...same with the HG21. But there was just something about the image of the HF-S10 that didn't do it for me. Of course the addition of the hugely refined OIS on the Sony together with the low light capability, made a combo that was hard to pass up.

For what I do with a small camera, the XR500 is as good as I've seen.

Ken your a friendly sort of chap[creep creep]i know this is a bit off topic by the way,there a few things i dont like about the HV30 ,1 build quality i knew this was not one of its strong points and the worse thing is the cassette door seems a bit on the loose side,i have heard others say the same thing, how is your HV20s.
2 I thought there was a color saturation adjustment on it like the sony HC cams but all i can find is the image effect which on the color section does not seem to alter the color to any noticable amount do you find the same.Not that i dont like normal setting.
3 We are 25 P here and after my first test with it i was not realy impressed,i did not do any panning by the way as i know any pans in P mode must be slow,i have not tried the cine mode yet so that may be better and i have seen some lovely looking films made with the
HVs in progressive mode.Lets leave it at that for now so any comments will be appreciated.Martyn

Martyn, yes, the build quality of the Canon HV series is not their strong point. ;)

My door is a bit loose too and the overall feel of the HV20 is somewhat on the flimsy side.

The good news is that it hasn't ever impacted the cam's ability to shoot nice video. Yes, the color adjustment (as well as brightness, sharpness & contrast) is in the custom setting of the image adjustments. Each of those settings doesn't have a dramatic effect, but the effect is certainly there if you go from one extreme to the other. To be honest I wish the Sony XR had these adjustments. The problem with altering the color level is that if you use AWB, you'll have a nice adjustment at one AWB setting, but then the next time the AWB adjusts, you might find that you either oversaturated or undersaturated the image. I wound up leaving it at the default level.

You also have to be careful with raising the sharpness too much since that can lead to edge enhancment and ringing in these units. Once that's in your image, you're kind of stuck with it.

As for the 'p' mode, I'm probably not the one to ask, I never ever liked them on any Canon I ever owned. I don't find it gives a 'film-like' appearence and I hate (no, DESPISE) the stuttering effect you get. No matter how careful I was with panning or fast motion in the scene, my eye could always detect that stuttering.

I also found the cine mode cut the sharpness too much and, at times, added too much color saturation. So I abandoned all those modes and shot in a normal 'i' mode. But that's me, some people love these modes.

I think it's clear who the Sony & Canon fanboys are. So why don't we leave it at that. I will say one last thing. Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.

Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.

I think that comment applies to all these camcorders from Sony , Canon and Panasonic. If you want a camera for professional film making these are not your choice. Get a Sony Z5, Canon XL or Panasonic HMC150 or better. The cameras we are talking about here are for consumer use and maybe as a backup( unattended "B" camera) to the more professional models.

Ron Evans

Darrin -
I think we've already covered that the XR isn't designed around a "Filmmaker" - I think we'd ALL agree on something from Canon (HF-S looks like a good choice for that!) or a higher end Sony (more $)... so it's not a matter of "fanboys", that's not appropriate here. You're talking to people who either have owned or have hands on experience with one or more of the cameras in question, not "fanboys" who spout specs as a reason to dis a camera over another. Image matters here, and if you stick around you'll realize we're equally critical of EVERY manufacturer, and we all share a general "vision" of the "ideal camera", and where the "real world cameras" either measure up or fall short.

What we have been discussing is the relative merits of each camera, which is the thread title, got it? Adding a sentence that adds no signal to the signal to noise ratio isn't really helpful. If you had specific likes or complaints about your XR when you owned it, or specific likes or dislikes about your HF-S, then feel free to put it out there.

For event and live shooting as well as just "regular use", the XR makes a lot of sense once you learn what it can do, if that's not what you do with your camera, and the Canon suits you better, that's fine too. They both have their plusses and minuses - until Sony or Canon hire some of the regular crew around here as consultants on their next-gen camera, that's probably how things will be!


Martyn -
There's a forum just for the HV20/30/40 here on DVi, you can probably find every answer known to mankind there with a little search! Lots of good stuff, and lots of guys using the cam with great results, so it should help you find how to get the most out of your new cam.

Havning owned the HV20 briefly (and the basic design remains in the 30/40), I would say it was one of the creaky-est things I've run across... I tried several of them in hopes build quality varied, to no avail. You'll find that an external mic is a necessity, and shooting handheld yields a lot of body noise on the tape if you don't. It's a shame that such a great imaging engine got stuck in a Yugo body...

I ended up with the HC9, though it was right when I was going tapeless, so that's basically around for a tape deck...

The image adjustments in the HV's are minute, but fairly effective, lots to play with - I wasn't able to get past the body noise, but in the time I spent with the cam, I could see it had lots of adjustability, so there's a learning curve there. I had certain specific concerns about the Canon image, but I've seen them in allmost every Canon - it's how they design them, and most people like the results, so you have to say it "works" - I've seen enough end footage to say you can adjust the cam enough to get what you want. You can't argue with the results people get from the HV's, I'd have to recommend it if one was sticking to tape.

Dave. I've actually stuck around here for 2 more years then you have. I've owned a professional video production company and I normally listen and don't post. I have had both cameras at the same time and I think your findings are inaccurate and Biased. I have never quoted 1 spec and I have not mentioned a thing about sharpness. In fact that is the least favorite thing about the HFS- for me (although you can correct that). Back to my comment a couple of pages ago. They are both great cameras. The Sony is more of an AUTO run and gun. While the Canon you have a bit more flexibility in image quality. The thing I liked about the Canon over the Sony was the color, better blacks and when the AGC is used correctly a very clean grain free image. I think both cameras appeal to a different type of user.. That's all.

The trouble is they are not all as friendly and helpful as ken,i always use externals and most of the time tripods and despite the fact i have used film and video for 35 years[hell i must be getting old]there is never a time when you dont need help with something,sorry if i invaded this thread a bit.Thanks for your HV help dave i still have the SR though as well.

Bubba, one of the biggest mistakes in buying electronic equipment is to buy by 'spec'. You're likely to fail more often than not.
But trust me, don't ever buy soley on 'spec'.

strange , I always do, it never failed, but not solely on specs though :-)
I read the specs ,but I also I do my own tests (that's why I have HF not XR)
so you're saying your test showing that XR has better resolution than HF,
can we see it, mine is here MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E3PCHMKC)
download and take a look, sony is approx. at 60% of a Canon's resolution; just like the specs say - 16mb/s vs 24mb/s, even if you don't trust them :)
Sony just can't be sharper, it has smaller imager, smaller lens and lower data rate, it's impossible for XR to be sharper than HF, brighter in low light - yes, but there is no details and lots of infrared noise,
I'm sorry, I don't believe in miracles, it can't be better camcorder just because it's Sony,
if it has lower specs - it can't have better image, so far this rule applies with no mistakes

:)

I think it's clear who the Sony & Canon fanboys are. So why don't we leave it at that. I will say one last thing. Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.


It's really not productive or accurate to label the contributors here "fanboys"...it sounds rather defensive. I've got 2 canons and two Sonys. I pick my units based on picture quality and overall performance. Sometimes that leads me to Canon and sometimes to Sony. Being "brand loyal" doesn't always get you the best product.

Bubba, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you as you seem intent on doing. But to be informative, you are confusing bitrate with resolution. They are two different things. Yes, you.can indeed have a lower bitrate and higher resolution, it all depends on the cameras.

I also never said the Sony had higher rez than the Canon, so please don't put words in my mouth. I DID say I found the Canon sharper in good light and the Sony sharper in low light. That's because the Canon softens the image as light decreases...not an unusual approach for cam manufacturers to take.

But if you really think the Canon has 40 or 60% more rez, you're mistaken. If you take CCI #s, the Sony had higher vertical rez and the Canon had higher horizontal rez. CCI themselves said the two were close in overall sharpness. Enjoy the Canon, it's a great cam and it works well for you, that's all that matters!

Maybe this is off-topic by now, but in the very recent past got a 520V and my dvinfo.net credentials verified.

My last camera was a (Sony) A1 which I sold while getting the 520V. I went thru a lot of the back and forth like this forum has on the HFS10 and the XR models and finally settled on the Sony. Half of its usage will come from my better half in full-auto. (Do they make half-auto? ha ha) For the time being the Sony makes a lot more sense for us. It seems like one can really go either way depending on your needs and wants.

Here are a couple links to some of my first few days of filming:

First Footages ~ Sony HDR-XR520V on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/4628273)

Sony HDR-XR520V ~ Smooth Slow Record Shots on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/4658775)


Thanks,
Michael

Nativ AVCHD streams from XR500 vs. HF100

19.05.2009 Wolfgangs VideoBlog - Mai 09 (http://www.fxsupport.de/blog/05_09.html)

in my german blog.

Well in looking at the comparisons on my 22" computer monitor, what strikes me is the following:

* Low light is no contest. Again the Sony is remarkably free of noise. Very nice and unprecedented in a consumer HD cam.
* The exposure on the Sony seems to me to be better in general. The indoor mall shots certainly showed this. The outdoor shot with the woman looking at flowers has the Canon too dark in shaded areas and obscuring detail.
* Some outdoor shots seem a bit sharper on the Canon and others a bit sharper on the Sony. There didn't seem to be a consistency with this.
* Colors also flip flopped, perhaps because of the way the AWB was behaving on both. At times the Canon colors were richer and at other times the Sony's colors were richer.

Thanks for the comparisons Wolfgang.

Just so I understand correctly, is the Canon in this comparison an HF100, i.e. not an HF-S100?

I procrastinated for ages over the HFS10 and the Sony Sr12 but waited too long as the Sony XR500/20 came out before i could make up my mind.

I am upgraded from the Sony201e that I bought some 5 years ago. Due to a little salt water issue it finally gave up it’s last legs. It was sad to see it go but now it was time to get updated and move on.

I have to say the video samples uploaded to vimeo of comparing HFS10 and XR500 is quite impressive. In fact it almost swayed me to purchase the canon simply because of the great clear image quality that I was seeing.

But once I took my rose coloured glasses off and thought about it more I remembered how all the critical negative reviews were around the Sony dvd201e and yet I found it to be a fantastic cam. I had none of the so called daylight issues that you see in all reviews about Sony cams.

In fact 99% of my video is outdoors and a lot on boats on the water where the sunlight is exceptional brighter with water reflections.

Perhaps I am just looking at things differently. As an end user who is interested in shooting from the hip but at the same time producing great quality video imaging I found Sony accommodating to this. With very good automated features It was easy for me to create content very quickly so that I spent more time filming rather than tweaking knobs and dials.

While the canon guy is still tweaking his knobs and dial settings the Sony guy has already shot 3 films and seeking out his 4th.(that was a joke:))

The other thing that appealed to me was the large hard drive. I tend to like to film in highest setting and then convert down for other application like YouTube ect... That way I always have one good copy to work from.

It is difficult to decide if the huge hard drive is of benefit or not since a lot of people are mobile with laptops and external drive like myself.

I guess the only advantage is you don’t have to hurry to get off the cam onto your PC/Laptop to make more room.

So at the end of the day I chose Sony XR520 which is due to arrive today :)

Good luck Russell, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Let us know how you like it!

Hi Ken, i will :). I forgot to add i am not a videophile type person (probably already guess that), and do not look too closely if there is a pixel missing at upper left corner or if there is a slight shading issue when viewed under a microscope. I still watch B&W movies because they lack special effects but have great content :)

So please only take my view point from a general end user perspective. I video anything any time :).

Hey Russell, you don't have to be a videophile to enjoy these cams! :)