Okay, looking for a real techincal justification as to why this camera is twice the money of a Z1. Is the picture quality twice as good? Now, I know some have enough money that they have to have the latest toy. But, I tend to buy my equipment based on quality. I had the xv1000, then xv2000 since I felt they were the best for the money. I now have the z1 for the same reason. But, I am always willing to look for something new if its better. I never replaced my Sonys in the past since I never could find something better. Since I do not have unlimited funds, for the folks who have purchased the H1, how does it put out a better quality product that justifies twice the cost?

Dave

The Z1 has what I'd term a 'useful' range of focal lengths, nothing more, The wide-angle doesn't look wide and isn't going to get Krubrick fans salivating. The telephoto reach is feeble against cams such as your VX2000 or cameras such as the really cheap GL2.

So that's the clincher. If you want dramatic, frightening wide angles and powerful safari-eating telephotos, the Canon is for you. For all other reasons the Z1 is hard to beat in my view, and the difference in price will buy lenses, tripods, filters, cases.

tom.

Thanks Tom. I do not need the extremes you talked about, so for now, the Z1 may be the unit to keep. But, am always looking for something that puts out a better picture that is a "fair" price, and something small enough to take to Disneyland.

Dave

Don't let the moderaters catch you double posting Dave...

Sounds like the Sony A1 (HDV) is the cxamera for your Disneyland trips. The reviews are GLOWING regarding the picture quality this camera gives.

I can't talk about picture quality as I don't have any of the two cams (Shannon Rawls does, and he says the picture quality of the Canon is much better, but I'll let him go into detail for that) but it isn't only image quality that justifies the cost...

Better lens
Interchangible lens system
Better audio features
Ability to send out uncompressed HD signal

From what I've heard, the lens is a big reason of the cost.

The wide-angle doesn't look wide and isn't going to get Krubrick fans salivating.

But this might do the trick, as long as you don't need full zoom-through it gives you the 35mm equivalent of a 19.5mm lens. Seems like a good deal at $350

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/6x_wa/6x_wa.htm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=361297&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

The telephoto part is harder to deal with though. This will only get you the equivalent of a 585mm lens for $850:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/16x_tc/16x_tc.htm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=361301&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

I have a Z1 and really like it. But the Canon certainly does look nice to me (now that they finally made it black :-) I haven't seen it in person yet, but based on the XL-2 I'm sure it's considerably larger and heavier than the Z1. Whether the price difference is justified is something each person needs to weigh against their own needs.

Please don't cross-post, it's against DVinfo policy:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/announcement.php?f=101&a=23

Please direct your replies to the following duplicate thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56829

Cross-posts merged. Moved thread to general HD. forum.

PLEASE DO NOT CROSS POST. Thanks,

Seems strange to me that a $350 single element lens has so little given away in Century's specification sheet. There's no mention of its coating or whether it a spherical or an aspherical lens. If the former I wouldn't even consider it at that price as the Z1's Zeiss lens barrel distorts quite noticeably at the wide end of the zoom, and the Century isn't going to help that one little bit. Most un-Kubrick like.

tom.

I have both the HC1 and Z1. When I took some side by side pictures with the two, the Z1 had a much nicer picture. Better colors, better low light. So, I always use the Z1 if I have a choice. Now, I use the HC1 as a deck and it works GREAT. Plus, there will be times where the smaller camera will be nice.

So far, it seems like the HDV cameras are like the DV cameras. Sony was always, IMO, the best DV camera with the vx1000, vx2000 stuff. (I never liked the XLR junk that was hung on the 150 and 170 camera. Do not like it on the A1 either. )

I keep reading the reviews on all the other HDV cameras and it seems they all have gone for a nitch market, which is great if you need it.

Now, the only thing I do not like with HDV so far is when you pan the camera, it softens up, which I did not see with DV. So, is this just the spec of HDV, or the parts one can get at this cost? If I can get a camera around the same price that eliminates this, I would upgrade again. Any of the technologies not have this issue for a 5K price?

Dave

Dave, don't you think it's a bit ignorant to say Sony has the best DV cameras?
I think everybody should see for him- or herself.
Sony's cams are very good for events and weddings, but if you want to shoot narrative work on DV, don't you think a CANON XL2 or a PANASONIC DVX100 would do better?

Saying Sony just has the best cams, sound a little bit biased to me.
For some goals, they have the best cams.
For other goals, you would be better off with a JVC, or a Panasonic or a Canon.
But such a general statement isn't correct.

Just my opinion, and have yet to read a person who says any other camera beats sony in low light in DV. I also stated I did not like the looks of the sony a1 or 150. I also do not like the size and looks of the cannon cameras.

Again, just my opinion.

I keep reading over the years how this camera that is not out yet will be the best there ever is. When most of them come out, then this issue comes up, etc. (Sonys too!!)

So, now we are in HDV land and I have been reading the same type of stuff.
So, I continue to try to find the best camera for the buck. And, I could care less who makes the camera.

But, just as I saw on the cannon DV camera, I read the same stuff on the cannon HDV camera. So, I asked Shannon why he changed, but no answer.
So, I have no emotion other than I smile everytime I read the next new camera is better than all the others.

So, I just asked the simple question to Shannon, since he had the first Z1. Shannon made a big point about quality. So, I just ask Shannon, what quality improvement are you getting for twice the money? Are you getting jobs now with the H1 that you were turned down with the Z1.

So, just looking for non emotional facts.

And as I have said, the Sony is not perfect, and maybe this means HDV is not perfect. I know it was a total pain to edit with it!! I thought I had left all the s/w bugs with DV. Little did I know I was back on the bleeding edge.

Now, who ever makes the first full size HDV deck gets my money!!

Dave

Indeed, in low light, Sony can't be beaten.
And indeed, they offer the cheapest HDV camcorders, with the FX1 giving very much bang for the buck.
But your argument sounded very biased.
Just wanted to respond to that.
Because (and it comes with a bigger price) I think for narrative filmmakers, a Sony would be not such a good choice, unless they are on a very thight budget.

Dave, you say: ''Now, the only thing I do not like with HDV so far is when you pan the camera, it softens up, which I did not see with DV."

Now I find this hard to believe as I assume that like the vast majority of us you're viewing the HD and SD footage on an interlaced display. And any interlaced display will show movement (camera or subject, it matters not which) as half horizontal and half vertical definition.

This is a limitation of the field vs frame technology, and is something we've all lived with for 70 years now.

tom.

Tom, I am no expert, it is just what I and my family have seen.

Now, I no longer shot DV, so, am willing to live with the positives that HDV give. (Like, trying to convince the boss I need a faster computer.)

Now, if I could just find a DVD player that will lay WMV discs made with MS's java disc I got. I/O Data's player did not cut it and I had to return it.

Dave

"The wide-angle doesn't look wide and isn't going to get Krubrick fans salivating."

I don't think so. :) I own both the VX2000 and FX1.

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/VXPD/fx1second.jpg
http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/VXPD/vx2000.jpg

The Z1 has what I'd term a 'useful' range of focal lengths, nothing more, The wide-angle doesn't look wide and isn't going to get Krubrick fans salivating. The telephoto reach is feeble against cams such as your VX2000 or cameras such as the really cheap GL2.

So that's the clincher. If you want dramatic, frightening wide angles and powerful safari-eating telephotos, the Canon is for you. For all other reasons the Z1 is hard to beat in my view, and the difference in price will buy lenses, tripods, filters, cases.

tom.

Owning both GL2 and VX, the Z1 at wide angle is much wider than either of them. The FX1 has the same wide angle as the Z1.

In 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 is 32.5mm and the VX-2000 is 49mm. 32.5 / 49 = 0.663, so you would have to add a .66x wide adaptor to the VX-2000 to get the same field of view, as Young's photos graphically indicate.

So far in all the footage posted on this forum I am not seeing any stunning improvement of the H1 image over the Z1. I wish there was more footage posted and a thorough review and/or comparison. Based on the better lense and the possibility of better footage I am considering the H1, but at 9k, I need to see a little more!

Shannon has a good write up as to why he changed under the Cannon thread.

But, his reason goes back to the same issues we had with the DV cameras.
I believe Sony has gone after the 90% market. This means higher volume, and lower prices. So, in HDV, just like DV, if you want an interchangeable lens, get something else and pay more money. If you want "true" 24p, go somewhere else.

For me, I do not have the need for either of the above, and sure am not willing to spend more money when, for me, their is no improvement in quality.

So, if one had bought a Cannon DV camera, I can see why they would want the H1. But, in both cases, they cost you more money, and had a much larger footprint.

So, so far, just like in DV times, I see nothing shipping or coming that wants me to change from my Z1. But, am always looking.

Dave

Dave, yes, the more I shoot with the z1 the more I like it. Similarly I found that the pd150, despite all the hype of about the xl and dvx cameras, put out a better image, was easier to use, and transferred to film better in all of our tests (at least the PAL version.) But like you I am always looking for the very best image in a low profile and affordable camera. The more I use HDV the more I like it. Its not HDCAM but its way way better than DV.

Boyd, you said: ''In 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 is 2.5mm and the VX-2000 is 49mm.''

In fact the 1/3" chips and 6 mm focal length of the VX2000 equate to 43.2 mm in 35 mm still camera terms. Your 49 mm equivalent relates to the TRV950. So you'd need a pretty mild 0.75x wide converter to match the VX with the FX.

But if we use a 0.5x wide-angle on each camera the VX looks so-so wide at 21.6 mm, whereas the FX/Z1 takes on The Shining look with its 16.2 mm focal length.

This looks wonderful to my eyes, but only as long as barrel distortion is kept at bay. And the front elements need to be kept absolutely-bloomin' spotless, because the depth of field when working at focal lengths of 2.25 mm can quite easily encompas both surfaces of the front element.

tom.

IIRC the Shining used 10mm lenses, which given the Academy gate would give a ~16mm-ish, (SLR FOV) but with 10mm embedded perspective

Boyd, you said: ''In 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 is 2.5mm and the VX-2000 is 49mm.''

In fact the 1/3" chips and 6 mm focal length of the VX2000 equate to 43.2 mm in 35 mm still camera terms. Your 49 mm equivalent relates to the TRV950.

Ah you are so right Tom - mea culpa! Problem is, I have the PDX-10, VX-2000 and Z1 manuals all handy here.... but they look exactly the same (Sony's plain paper "digital video camera" booklet). So as you figured, I was looking at the specs in the PDX-10 manual!