For handheld birdflight shooting, apart from XM2 (GL2) is there any camcorder with x20 that is lighter than XL2?

What about the XHA1/G1, XHA1/G1s?

Or from Sony the Z5 or FX1000

I am checking out those suggestions, Jonathan, thank you. There must be lots of threads on these for me to look up.

I was also wondering if technology has or is about to move on to reduce the weights of medium-sized cams, before investing in something which is too heavy to pan up and down with.

Any more suggestions please, (including interchangeable lens facility)?

The Sony V1E, or its consumer sibling the FX7, are the nearest modern cameras to the good old Canon XM2.

They both have 20x lenses, and due to the small sensors, long effective focal length, but they are heavier than the Canon.

I use a V1 with a Century 2X converter much of the time, and this is a seriously heavy combination - the Century lens has a mass of 1 kg!

Both cameras are HDV, but you can record in DV, or record in HDV and down-convert either in camera as you capture, or for better quality results using either your NLE or Procoder 3

Alan & Jonathan, if you're still there, a question about weight and image quality on another thread has narrowed the options in both of your directions and it's coming down to a comparison between ... Sony Z7 and Canon XHA1s.

Can you or anybody offer any insights about the picture quality from these two, please?

Do not forget that the 20x figure is merely the ratio of the longest and shortest focal lengths of the lens. The effective focal length (which generally is quoted as the 35mm camera equivalent, measured by horizontal field of view) is determined by the actual focal length of the lens and the size of the chip.

The Sony V1/FX7 has a 3.9 to 78mm lens and a ¼” chip, giving an effective focal length range of 37.4 to 748mm in 16:9 mode.

The Sony Z7 is supplied with a 12X lens of actual focal length 4.4 to 52.8 mm, and a 1/3” chip, giving an effective focal length range of 32.0 to 384 mm in 16:9 mode.

The V1 focal length is thus broadly comparable to your trusty XM2 – slightly longer in fact if one allows for the difference between the 4:3 Canon and the 16:9 Sony. Thus your vulture image would actually be marginally larger with the Sony at max zoom than with your Canon XM2, if all other factors were the same.

The Z7 is about half the Canon focal length at max zoom, so your vulture image would be a lot smaller in the same circumstances as above. To get the same size image you would need to be a lot closer, or you would have to buy an expensive additional lens.

I don’t have data for the Canon you mention to hand, but whilst it has a broadly similar lens to the Sony V1, in terms of actual focal length, it has a much larger chip, thus its effective maximum focal length is similar to the Z1 rather than the V1. That is why I bought the Sony rather than the Canon.

I mentioned the very heavy/expensive 2x Century converter for the Sony – there is also a much lighter/cheaper 1.6x converter available.

The Sony V1 is a vastly superior camera in every way to the XM2 – it has a number of extremely useful features for the bird videographer, particularly for ensuring a correctly focussed image. The FX7 has the same lens/chip etc. but lacks some of the bells and whistles of the V1. The Z7 is in a different league - you could buy 2 V1s for the price!

Sorry – I have got on my hobby horse here, and gone on a bit! Just shows that you can’t keep a physicist down.

The Canon XHA1 is better than I recall - actual focal length 4.5 to 90 mm (20X), with a 1/3" chip, leading to an effective focal length of 32.5 to 650 mm.

The Canon XHA1 is better than I recall - actual focal length 4.5 to 90 mm (20X), with a 1/3" chip, leading to an effective focal length of 32.5 to 650 mm.

In the middle of info from many threads in several forums I've tried to research the XHA1 in particular and, having last year learned a lot of positives about the XLH1, I am reaching the conclusion that the XHA1 has all the image quality advantages of the XLH1, except the interchangeable lens facility. I only use a few settings and I only film wildlife and outdoor.

So, how does the XHA1 compare with the V1 for image quality ?

.........So, how does the XHA1 compare with the V1 for image quality ?

My own experience of image quality is limited to the V1E, and this is way ahead of my old Canon XM2.

You can see what the BBC think of the image quality of the two cameras here:

BBC - R&D - Publications - WHP034 - Addendum 22 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034-add25.shtml)

and here:

BBC - R&D - Publications - WHP034 - Addendum 22 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034-add23.shtml)

Thank you for digging up those BBC comments, Alan. I hesitate to call them reviews.

I have tried to detect BBC opinions on XHA1 & V1 but they make no value judgments about XHA1, good bad or indifferent. Why not? BBC opinions about V1 are few but favourable in general, but "favourable by comparison with what?"

So I stacked the data side by side but apart from the obvious (1/3" v. 1/4" chips; zebra v.peaking) it is not simple to compare the two at all. Nuts & bolts labelled, remain to be observed for what they're worth in use.

BBC recommendations for basic settings are helpful but not at this stage. I guess it's the ol' Beeb breaking its ass to describe rather than evaluate. But as they point out that their comments are not meant to replace "reading the manual" why do they cling to regurgitating the manuals?

I'm still searching for objective comparisons of image quality.

Have you followed the link to the "Addendum" for the camera on each of the pages to which my links take you?

It is in those pdfs that you will find the objective testing, admittedly it is only the last couple of pages, and given the broadcast brief not too encouraging - to me they read rather like a surveyor's report on a Georgian house one is thinking of buying!

These tests have been done by an external consultant (admittedly he is ex-BBC) whose brief is to evaluate the cameras as potential cameras for HD acquisition for the BBC.

Like you, I shoot only wildlife, principally birds, and I have been using my V1E for a year now, and I am still very pleased with it. The image quality is way ahead of my XM2. I always shoot in HDV, edit in HDV, and then use Procoder 3 to down-convert to produce an SD DVD.

I have recently acquired a /canon HV30 to use in situations where I am not able to carry the larger camera, and this is a good complement to the Sony.

I think the problem is that there really is so little in it between the XHA1 and V1. I went through agony when trying to chose between them - just try finding a direct comparison from someone who has seriously used both cameras!

In the end, the slightly better reach in the zoom swung it for the Sony for me. Additional minor factors where: apparently slightly better LCD display, slightly smaller size and the re-use of my Sony batteries - plus the similarity to my old VX2100E.

Outside of weddings, where you need to shoot inside a cathederal lit by a single birthday cake candle, the smaller CMOS sensors aren't really a problem. As per another post, I've added an extra ND filter to make shooting in bright sunlight a lot better.

If the extra "pro" features of the V1E aren't essential, the FX7 is probably a good saving over the Canon as well.

And one of these days I'm going to get that Century lens that Alan loves so dearly!

Alan, When you say your experience is happy with V1E and that image quality is way ahead of XM2 I understand you and I am influenced.

Mike, When you say there is little between the 2, I am hoping you have some experience of both and I am influenced accordingly.

Neither of you offer evidence of image quality but I must allow that you both enjoy many and various appetites and pleasures in preference to serving me with a menu of images ... so do I.
The Beeb, carefully disowning image quality of these pictures I snatched from their "reviews" do offer, for my kind attention and yours' please ... Sorry about the mismatch in sizes; big= XHA1; small= V1

Brendan - just as a caveat, my comparisons were done on paper (well, in a spreadsheet) listing the features one by one, it wasn't a physical comparison: I have never used a Canon XHA1!

From anecdotal evidence on this forum and others, and looking at sample clips posted here, I feel they're both very good cameras. If you search, you'll find a lot of V1 versus A1 questions posted and very little concrete evidence to say one is better or worse.

Picture quality is hard to compare (at least for me). It has been said that the Sony has a "cooler" image and the Canon is "warmer", but even that can be tweaked with picture profiles or in your editing software, and in the end I chose based on physical aspects rather than image quality.

As a warning, the V1 does offer some additional controls over the FX7. Black stretch and similar features may not be available on the FX7 -there's a comparison table in the V1/FX7 forum here.

I think the problem is that there really is so little in it between the XHA1 and V1. I went through agony when trying to chose between them - just try finding a direct comparison from someone who has seriously used both cameras!

In the end, the slightly better reach in the zoom swung it for the Sony for me. Additional minor factors where: apparently slightly better LCD display, slightly smaller size and the re-use of my Sony batteries - plus the similarity to my old VX2100E.

Outside of weddings, where you need to shoot inside a cathederal lit by a single birthday cake candle, the smaller CMOS sensors aren't really a problem. As per another post, I've added an extra ND filter to make shooting in bright sunlight a lot better.

If the extra "pro" features of the V1E aren't essential, the FX7 is probably a good saving over the Canon as well.

And one of these days I'm going to get that Century lens that Alan loves so dearly!

Mike's comments here mirror my own thinking (with the exception of the batteries), when I decided to move up from the Canon XM2. A major advantage for me of the Sony cameras over the Canons, is the vastly superior qulity of the LCD monitor - the Sony is in a different league, and can actually be used in daylight, especially with the purpose designed hood in place

The presently available range of "pro-sumer" HDV cameras all provide superlative image quality, and very expensive erquipment is need to distinguish any minute differences. I recall reading a statement to the effect that you needed a Grade A Sony broadcast monitor for this, and that these tend to be the size of a three-bedroomed semi-detached house in Bolton, and cost pretty well as much!

In the end, the slightly better reach in the zoom swung it for the Sony for me. .......

And one of these days I'm going to get that Century lens that Alan loves so dearly!

Please elaborate on the Sony zoom reach, Mike? If this is what's involved, how much does it cost both in cash and in quality image @ x30...... "the HVR-V1E has a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Lens with a 20x optical zoom lens, rated at F2.8 in full-telephoto. The HVR-V1E also features Sony’s Digital Extender feature, a prosumer-level digital zoom that adds 1.5 x magnification to the optical zoom power for a maximum of approximately 30x."

Alan, Please explain how the Century lens effects image quality and is it strictly for tripod use?

And how much sharper would this clip be if it had been shot with V1E instead of XM2?

An adult soaring close to the videographer | the Internet Bird Collection (http://ibc.lynxeds.com/video/eurasian-griffon-gyps-fulvus/adult-soaring-close-videographer)

Brendan,

Even though the XHA1 and V1E both have 20x zooms the Canon starts wider and therefore cannot zoom in quite so far. It's not vastly different, but a little bit extra can help.

Sony: 37 to 748mm
Canon: 32 to 600mm

I'll have a rummage round and see if I can find any frame grabs that may help you see the image quality. (Bearing in mind I'm not quite at the level of the BBC Life on Earth team!)

I can't comment about the Century lens, Alan is lucky enough to have one though. You'll need a good tripod for it though - I find it hard enough using the Sony at 20x or 30x without doubling the reach.

That's a fab clip - I can't comment on how much better than the clip would be the V1 or A1 though, not having tried it!

This is the only direct comparison I have to hand showing the 20x and extender. It's a cliff in shadow, and it's just from a fragment of footage as I was framing and focusing:

20x-1 - just a test shot showing 20x zoom

20x-1 and 30x - exactly the same shot, before and after 1.5x extender was applied.

As I said above, this isn't necessarily the best shot the camera can give, but it's all I have to hand.

By "reach", Mike means that the effective focal length of the V1E at its maximum zoom is greater than that of the Canon at maximum zoom. The performance of the V1 lens at maximum zoom shows virtually no deterioration compared with using less zoom, unlike many cameras which show significant chromatic aberration at maximum zoom.

The "digital extender" is what is generally called digital zoom. The effects of using this on the V1 as less dire than they are on the XM2, but they are there. Also the effect applies throughout the optical zoom range on the V1, rather than appearing as an extension to the available zoom as it does on the Canon. As you can apply digital zoom using the editing software, it is a feature to avoid when shooting - recording in HDV, even though your finished video will be DV also helps here during editing.

As for tripod use, I always try to use a tripod with the V1, the images obtained are so much better than when hand-held, even though the optical image stabilisation of the V1 is very good. I have never tried to use the V1 with the Century 2x converter fitted hand held - the combination weights around 3kg, and is very front heavy. I have bought a shoulder pod (see H Preston's website) to try with it but I have not had opportunity to use it yet.

The Century lens fits onto the bayonet connector intended for the lens-hood of the V1, rather than the screw filter thread. This makes it easy to fit and remove, but its weight means that it must risk distorting the camera body, which is simply not designed for this load. The lens comes with a front support to use with the standard 6cm apart rail system. I have made my own purpose-built support from aluminium. This incorporates a Manfrotto sliding plate system, with the long plate, to facilitate balancing the camera with the Century on or off.

I don't feel that comparing image quality using sharpness as the criterion is really valid here; quality depends on so much more, and requires full resolution video and a large monitor screen to assess. This is why people like the BBC's tester use specially designed test charts and hideously expensive monitor equipment.

I think that one can state with confidence that the image quality of the V1 far outstrips that of the XM2 in every respect; but then so it should. It is a three year old design, rather than a ten year old design, and records images that are 1440x1080, rather than 720x576.

There is a forum dedicated to the V1 on this web-board, and this features samples of footage shot with the V1, but I do not really think that viewing would tell you much.

I'm sorry if this appears less than helpful, but I think that if I attempted to supply the assurances that you are asking for, I would be being less than honest. To me, the image quality of the V1 is a given. The features that led me to purchase it were principally the long focal length which it offers, the excellent OIS, the various focus assistance features (peaking is excellent for ensuring your focus is on the bird, rather than the background), and the good control of exposure that it offers.

The sole weakness for me is that the microphone provided gives very low level audio, but then I normally use a Sennheiser K6/ME67 microphone with the camera, and this is far more sensitive.

I'm afraid I have gone on a bit here again.

Later - Mike put up his two posts whilst I was composing my epic!

Agreed with everything you say, Alan. Especially on the point that we can't guarantee that the camera will suit.

And your post was just a little more involved than mine!

Right, back to trying to pull together this UWOL video...

Thank you for sharing the kittiwake (or fulmar?) grabs Mike and I'll be looking out for your V1E on UWOL.

Alan, it's me that's stringing things out here. Please bear with me changing the question again, for the last time, I promise. I am fairly satisfied that the V1E is way ahead of XM2, and marginally more capable than XHA1. Final question: How does the V1E @ x20 compare with the XL2 @ x20 (which has 3 x 1/3" CCDs) specifically on image quality? {Please ignore interchangeable lens and extender factors and the difference in weights.}

You may have answered my question already but I do need it to be spelt out ... Is the difference in image quality between 3 x 1/4" CCDs and 3 x 1/3" CCDs only discernible on super-standard monitors, if at all?

I do appreciate your patience and thoughtful observations.

The difference between the V1 and the XM2 is clearly discernible to my eye at all stages of the process - and so it should be. The newer camera is HDV, so there are 4 times as many pixels as the XM2, and the sensors are of a different type (CMOS), which are less prone to vertical smear. As for comparison with the XL2, I cannot say, as I have no personal experience of that camera. I have seen footage on this forum, but that is inevitably low data rate and/or low resolution.

The one problem with the smaller sensor is reduced low light performance, but then as Mike observed, we are not 1 candlepower wedding photographers! We might not always have good weather, but if the light is that poor, the images will likely be poor too.

I did wonder about trying the XL2 at the time I made the changeto the V1, but its greater bulk and mass deterred me - I migrate to New Zealand each winter, and I am not in my first youth!

My reading of the test reports on the V1 and the A1 suggest that the Canon gives a warmer image with a little more image noise than the Sony. Alan Roberts notes that the V1 performance does not deteriorate on zooming in, and that the 25p progressive performance is good, but that sharpness setting needs to be no more than 3 (the default is 7). For the A1 he mentions visible interlace twitter and a reduced vertical resolution for 25p.

Clearly he saw this using his exotic test charts, and his grade 1 broadcast monitor, but in real life. with domestic television I would not expect to see any of these differences other than the slightly warmer image of the Canon.

Neither camera works well as an SD camera, and the in-camera down-conversion is not good either - at least for the standards required for BBC broadcast TV. I have read of people using them professionally recording in SD, and also down-converting in the camera. I have done all my shooting in HDV, captured and edited in HDV and used Procoder 3 to down-convert to DVD compatible mpg files. As far as I am concerned, the results are far better than I was getting with my XM2.

This is very difficult, I know. There are precious few places where one can see these cameras side by side, let alone play with them. I hope my ramblings have helped you along the way.

I have used the A1, V1 and Z7 a fair amount and a brief summary is below:

A1: Better in low light than the V1 (only slightly) great cam, you can tweak the hell out of it, small size and great lens. Absolutely shocking LCD it's crap!

V1: Very similar to the A1, not quite as good in low light, I don't reckon the lens is quite as good. LCD is heaps better.

Z7: By far the best out of the three in low light (in fact reasonably close to the EX1), great cam, great lens however it doesn't have a large zoom..... But you can but an attachment that allows you attach other 35mm lenses so you can really get the exact image you want with various lenses. Also you can record to HD as well.

I have used the A1, V1 and Z7 a fair amount and a brief summary is below:

A1: Better in low light than the V1 (only slightly) great cam, you can tweak the hell out of it, small size and great lens. Absolutely shocking LCD it's crap!

V1: Very similar to the A1, not quite as good in low light, I don't reckon the lens is quite as good. LCD is heaps better.

Z7: By far the best out of the three in low light (in fact reasonably close to the EX1), great cam, great lens however it doesn't have a large zoom..... But you can but an attachment that allows you attach other 35mm lenses so you can really get the exact image you want with various lenses. Also you can record to HD as well.

There is great potential for further insights tucked away in those paragraphs, Jonathan. It's bedtime for old folk here now but I am looking forward to checking out what the attachment for Z7 is and framing a few more questions in the morning. Don't go away; I still have this childish anxiety that you lower hemi-people may fall off the spinning sphere; that's the last thing I need!

To clarify RE the Z7, the Sony adapter allows you to use Sony Alpha 35mm lenses. But I also believe you can get a letus/ red rock etc which fits.

Looking forward to your Q's

Jon

I'm not surprised that the Z7 with all its adapters and lenses is better than the V1 or FX7.

Look at the current (approx) UK prices, including VAT:

FX7E: £2000
V1E: £3000
Z7E: £4800

Add on Letus adapter (£1000+) and lenses, and the Z7 option probably hits £7000.

I would hope it is better than the "bare" V1 for that! :)

I've found Douglas Spotted Eagle's listing of features which V1U has and FX7 has not.

To whittle down the scope of my question I would be delighted to learn which of these V1U features (assuming they are also on V1E) I need to improve my image quality for outdoor birdflight video. Please ignore XLR's ... I don't intend to fine-tune the audio of passing trucks or farting cows.

This should be the original link .... and thank you kindly Douglas.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-v1-hdr-fx7/79118-v1u-vs-fx7.html?highlight=V1U+FX7

FX7 doesn't shot 25p if your not interested in that the go the FX7, it was on special at B&H a couple of months ago. I think it was $1999 US

Jon

That's a point. 25p probably isn't great for fast moving shots of brids in the air.

The only thing I would miss from the FX7 versus V1 list is the peaking feature (to help you focus).

That's a point. 25p probably isn't great for fast moving shots of brids in the air.

The only thing I would miss from the FX7 versus V1 list is the peaking feature (to help you focus).

I second that!

I would also miss the manual audio level controls - the less delving into menus the better while shooting under pressure. The microphone supplied with the V1 is not very sensitive.

I fancy this slo-mo feature to lengthen the rare brief good quality clips of fast bird-flight. The output may not be up to native HDV (whatever that is) but it should be better than time-stretching it in post. Does this mean I should go for the V1 because the FX7 can't handle 25p?

Is "peaking" on V1 able to respond instantly or does it take 2 or 3 seconds like zebra lines?

You are being thoughtful and useful, gentlemen, please keep at it.

I haven't heard great things about the slo mo setting on the V1, why not put a post in the V1 section and ask.

A consideration for me would also be the fact that the V1 is now outdated by the Z5 / FX1000, I haven't looked but what is the price difference? The Z5/FX1000 would very very similar performance to the Z7 but cheaper and you could use additional screw on lenses if needs be.

Jon

The Z5/FX1000 is a bit like the Canon XHA1 - it starts much wider and therefore the 20x zoom doesn't zoom as far. It seems to be designed with the event videographer in mind.

I'm learning that video image quality from XHA1, V1 or Z1 are pretty similar, but I suspect that everyone's talking about video filmed using a tripod. Tell me I'm wrong, please?

And has anyone tried Live View handheld using Canon 5D Mark II?

Brendan,

I have just noticed that there is a contributor to the 5D Mark 2 forum on this website who is also from Dublin. Maybe give him a PM and see if he can help or give you a demo.

Bob

I've tried to contact my fellow citizen, Bob, but without success. Anyway my continued scratching around has brought me no evidence that 5DMk II can handle video requiring active panning. There is no hope of videoing birdflight ... like this gull, for example ...

Tomorrow I'm trying out the V1.