Yes!!!

Download and examine the sample movies below, the HV10 is no doubt sharper and cleaner than the FX1. !!!!!

Wow!!!

I have enlarged a section from each camera to have a close look at the difference, the enlargement is exactly 200% done in photshop with no interpolation (interpolation set to 'nearest neighbour') so every pixel on the left hand side shot is enlarged to a 2x2 grid of identical pixels on the right hand side enlargement, so there are no aberrations introduced in the resizing process.

One thing I do notice is a little more noise in the HV10 image, but this is a good trade off for the improved clarity. :)

Also the FX1 wins over the HV10 in low light.


http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7766/closeupzz8.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/328/close2ev6.jpg

Movie samples HV10 v FX1

Let your eyes decide.

Click >>> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosan.web.fc2.com/HV10docs/hv10vsfx1.html


Other samples (without FX1 comparison files) >>> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosan.web.fc2.com/HV10docs/hv10vsfx1.html

You can play the m2t files with MPEGStreamclip for OS X or Windows - which is free from >> http://www.squared5.com/.com - when you open the movie files don't forget to hit the 'full screen' keyboard command - if your montor can handle 1920*1080.

I see that the FX1 interpolates from 960*1080 (which is its active pixel resolution on capture) up to 1440*1080 during the output/compression process, whilst the HV10 interpolates down from 1920*1080 (which is its active pixel resolution on capture) to 1440*1080 during its output/compression process, this may go some way to explain the better image quality. (?)

_________________________________________

The HC10 may even have more detail than the XL H1.

By the way even the Sony HC1 has more detail than the FX1. The FX1 is totally outdated now. I can't see how people would buy it anymore...

Of course in low light 3 CCDs still rule.

The HC10 may even have more detail than the XL H1.

By the way even the Sony HC1 has more detail than the FX1. The FX1 is totally outdated now. I can't see how people would buy it anymore...

Of course in low light 3 CCDs still rule.


Yes, its low light is very good.

It is a great pity that the HV10 is such a crap consumer form factor ! If only they made it vaguely camera shaped instead of looking like a bar of soap. :(

Still for a throw in your pocket HD recorder with a better image than a sony FX1 or HC1 its looking pretty good, although I will have to wait until they are out before passing final - judgement but on image quality alone it looks fantastic.

It is a great pity that the HV10 is such a crap consumer form factor ! If only they made it vaguely camera shaped instead of looking like a bar of soap. :(Couldn't disagree more -- if the picture is as good as portrayed, it is fantastic that it is available in a pocket cam. And those who think the form factor is "crap" can wait just a little longer for the XH cameras or get an XL H1.

Personally, though, I'll reserve judgment about the camera until DVinfo members start posting footage they've taken themselves with retail versions of the camera.

I knew Canon would make a killing when they entered the HDV realm.....looks like good things to come!

Couldn't disagree more -- if the picture is as good as portrayed, it is fantastic that it is available in a pocket cam. And those who think the form factor is "crap" can wait just a little longer for the XH cameras or get an XL H1.

I suppose what I mean is it may raise some eyebrows when trying to shoot something like a pop video, I did one with a tiny 3 CCD JVC MC500 and was literally laughed at when I mounted this tiny camera on a tripod.

But I do agree that results/quality is everything ! No good sitting in an edit and saying "I know the image is not great, but the camera looked really cool, it was the size of a house" I might have to make myself a cardboard and glue housing that looks like a Sony Z1 ;-)

Couldn't disagree more -- if the picture is as good as portrayed, it is fantastic that it is available in a pocket cam. And those who think the form factor is "crap" can wait just a little longer for the XH cameras or get an XL H1.

Personally, though, I'll reserve judgment about the camera until DVinfo members start posting footage they've taken themselves with retail versions of the camera.


Hmm.. Well, the XH cameras are going to use 3 CCDs like the XLH1, not a CMOS.

I too wish that Cannon would make a 'semi-pro' HV10 version which was slightly larger and would have more/better controls. Something like Sony's A1 but with this image quality. Could easily retail for $2k...

Just the addition of a proper mic input would be fine, then you could just plug in a Beachtek or some other XLR adapter to get good audio or even backup audio when needed.

But I've got no problems with it, the Sony HC1/HC3/A1U cameras have proven themselves as pretty good little troopers. However, if you want semi-pro then the XHA1 is probably better suited for you as I doubt Canon would give the HV10 the "A1U-esque" treatment with a mic input and F-modes.

One solution:
With the small cost of the camera, and all that great video quality, just buy yourself a HiMD recorder, build your self a rack to mount it with a microphone, then pull it all together in post. :)

One solution:
With the small cost of the camera, and all that great video quality, just buy yourself a HiMD recorder, build your self a rack to mount it with a microphone, then pull it all together in post. :)


yes I had the same thought !

Hang in there, folks. I figure that the HV10 is mainly a Beta model to test out their self-produced new CMOS and the whole system of image-processing that accompanies it. To suddenly start producing a single-sensor camcorder that can shoot as well or better than traditional 3-CCD models, is quite a gamble, when you're dealing with world markets. The huge financial repercussions of taking too big a step into what is a new area for them, is a risk that this usually cautious company isn't going to take, all at once. If the HV10 works out both in technical ways and in consumer acceptance, you could expect a larger CMOS camcorder from them by next year, that would have a larger and more professional form, but still be in the consumer or semipro realms.

One solution:
With the small cost of the camera, and all that great video quality, just buy yourself a HiMD recorder, build your self a rack to mount it with a microphone, then pull it all together in post. :)

Or throw a laptop in your back pack and record audio and video straight to the laptop.

those stills look nice. The colors look a little wierd, which seems like a 1 chip thing, but impressive detail for 1 CCD. It would be interesting to see an XL-H1 still vs an H10 still. Any XL-H1 owners out there brave enough to do this comparison?

those stills look nice. The colors look a little wierd, which seems like a 1 chip thing, but impressive detail for 1 CCD. It would be interesting to see an XL-H1 still vs an H10 still. Any XL-H1 owners out there brave enough to do this comparison?

I am not taking this thread too seriously. I went to the web page this came from, and found a lot of good side reporting regarding the FX1, that is ignored in this post. This thread is basing its whole theory on one or two captured frames of video. We don't know exactly how the captures were made, how the cameras were mounted or secured, whether there camera movement, and whether there was stabilization employed. The way the frame grabs were processed is another issue. Ultimately, while it is an interesting comparison, in certain circumstances you can make any camera look better than another.. The question is overall features and usability.

I am not taking this thread too seriously. I went to the web page this came from, and found a lot of good side reporting regarding the FX1, that is ignored in this post.

Translation: "I own a FX1" ;)

My post makes a single unambiguous claim, the quality of the HV10 samples look very good, certainly in comparison to the more expensive FX1.

This thread is basing its whole theory on one or two captured frames of video.

There is no 'theory'.

Looking at the 12 comparison files of video footage (6 HV10 and 6 FX1 ) the HV10 looks to have a better picture in many respects.

We don't know exactly how the captures were made, how the cameras were mounted or secured, whether there camera movement, and whether there was stabilization employed.

I am sure who ever did these tests took this into account, why would they not ? They are all shot from the same angle, with the same zoom ratio with very simlar exposures at the same time of day etc etc.

You can tell whether there is camera movement or not by looking at it.

The way the frame grabs were processed is another issue.

If you refer to my frame grabs, they were not processed in any way, the enlargements were made as I described above.

I have enlarged a section from each camera to have a close look at the difference, the enlargement is exactly 200% done in photshop with no interpolation (interpolation set to 'nearest neighbour') so every pixel on the left hand side shot is enlarged to a 2x2 grid of identical pixels on the right hand side enlargement, so there are no aberrations introduced in the resizing process.

Ultimately, while it is an interesting comparison, in certain circumstances you can make any camera look better than another..

This is true, but without further evidence we must consider all things equal.

The question is overall features and usability.

No, quality of footage is the question here.

We know the FX1 has superior features and usability, manual controls and so on, there is no debate on this subject.

Looking at the 12 comparison files of video footage (6 HV10 and 6 FX1 ) the HV10 looks to have a better picture in many respects.

Were the frames taken at keyframes or not? Keyframes look usually better than intermediate frames. That's one situation to deal with in hdv world. But it most likely won't cause that big a difference though.

Hc3 was reported to have way better low light than HC1 but all those video caps I've seen tend to not show that at all. I want video and straight from the camera. I tried downloading those clips, but didn't get any.

Translation: "I own a FX1" ;)

And you're a spokesperson for Canon ;)

3d tracking...tested on 3ds MAX

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/movie1/Untitledy6y6.wmv

Were the frames taken at keyframes or not? Keyframes look usually better than intermediate frames. That's one situation to deal with in hdv world. But it most likely won't cause that big a difference though.

Good point, worth considering. I suppose if we were to step through the frames and spot a noticably better rendered image every 15 frames it would be worth noting. I didn't spot this of any footage, but still an interesting point.

Hc3 was reported to have way better low light than HC1 but all those video caps I've seen tend to not show that at all. I want video and straight from the camera. I tried downloading those clips, but didn't get any.

And you're a spokesperson for Canon ;)

Everyone Buy Canon !!!!!!! :)

Fortunately for me I only own a lowly JVC MC500 (standard definition !!!!) so when viewing the various examples I hope I am not swayed by anything other than the quality I see in-front of me.

If you were to find a $400 dollar camera made by Sanyo that outshone a Sony Z1 and posted examples showing just that - you would find the thread besieged by Z1 owners telling you that this cannot be so, it must be the lighting or the set-up or post production or the recording settings or a mistake - it is impossible !!!

Spending large sums of money makes people inerrant about what they have bought.

But the truth is this years $400 products can outshine $2000 products from two or three years ago.

I still have read nothing in this thread to give me reason not to think the HV10 has the better image quality. I am torn between the HC1 for its manual control ring around the lens and its form factor and the HV10 for its sheer video quaity.

3d tracking...tested on 3ds MAX

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/movie1/Untitledy6y6.wmv


See!! a flaw in the HV10 !!!!

If you look closely there is a large purple lens aberration towards the right hand side, a little like a purple teapot.

That wasn't on the FX1 examples.

_______________________________________


:)


---

See!! a flaw in the HV10 !!!!

If you look closely there is a large purple lens aberration towards the right hand side, a little like a purple teapot.

That wasn't on the FX1 examples.

_______________________________________


:)


---Now that's what I call a real "bug" on the HV10!!! :)

The colors look a little wierd

Please elaborate.

We'll have to see how the 3CMOS FX7 (Sony) compares to the HV10. (I know different price points but worthy comparison as they represent the latest HDV offerings)

We'll have to see how the 3CMOS FX7 (Sony) compares to the HV10. (I know different price points but worthy comparison as they represent the latest HDV offerings)

Why not the HVR-V1e also ?

Why not the HVR-V1e also ?
Both the FX7 and the V1 should have identical video quality.

I will volunteer to post screen caps of the xl-h1 and the hv-10 when I get the hv-10 in. if it's better then the xl-h1 that's awesome I'll just bring it along and shoot all of my footage with the camera taped on to the XL on the side opposite of the client...

I will volunteer to post screen caps of the xl-h1 and the hv-10 when I get the hv-10 in. if it's better then the xl-h1 that's awesome I'll just bring it along and shoot all of my footage with the camera taped on to the XL on the side opposite of the client...


Great ! I am waiting ....

I will volunteer to post screen caps of the xl-h1 and the hv-10 when I get the hv-10 in. if it's better then the xl-h1 that's awesome I'll just bring it along and shoot all of my footage with the camera taped on to the XL on the side opposite of the client...

LOL. My vendor told me to order an HV-10 to use a deck for the H1. Well, the H1 will make an impressive deck for the HV-10 when editing with the clients.

Just something I want to add... (note: I own an FX1, but I'm not gonna argue here)

Most of these frames of comparisions are about the same as comparisions of the HC3/HC1/A1U to the FX1. In broad daylight there won't be much of a difference. The HV10 frames in some shots seemed marginally sharper, I think this probably has a lot to do with Canon's DSP. I expect in broad daylight the HV10 to look similar to even XLH1 footage, slightly softer, but comparable. The issue for the semi-pros/professionals who will be using the higher end gear is mic inputs, level of image control, depth of field, frame rate, and adjustability...all things that will be lacking in ANY consumer-oriented device like the HV10.

Who cares if the $1300 HV10 can get images near the same quality as the $3000 FX1 or $4000 XHA1...if I show up to a shoot with a camera that looks like an electric shaver, I'm gonna have a lot of explaining to do to justify the amount the client would be paying me...

"So why am I paying you $5000 when I could go to Best Buy or Circuit City and get that for $1300 and shoot it myself?" Granted I'm not someone who thinks we all need to carry around Sony F950's and a truck full of CCU's and Xserve RAIDs and monitors to shoot a wedding or something... I'm just saying its pointless trying to defend a 2-3 year old camera when a new one comes out that has approximately the same image quality at half the price. Also look at the last frame grab, the low-light capabilities of the FX1/Z1U/XLH1, ect are really where the higher priced cams shine.

Just something I want to add... (note: I own an FX1, but I'm not gonna argue here)

Most of these frames of comparisions are about the same as comparisions of the HC3/HC1/A1U to the FX1. In broad daylight there won't be much of a difference. The HV10 frames in some shots seemed marginally sharper, I think this probably has a lot to do with Canon's DSP. I expect in broad daylight the HV10 to look similar to even XLH1 footage, slightly softer, but comparable. The issue for the semi-pros/professionals who will be using the higher end gear is mic inputs, level of image control, depth of field, frame rate, and adjustability...all things that will be lacking in ANY consumer-oriented device like the HV10.

Who cares if the $1300 HV10 can get images near the same quality as the $3000 FX1 or $4000 XHA1...if I show up to a shoot with a camera that looks like an electric shaver, I'm gonna have a lot of explaining to do to justify the amount the client would be paying me...

"So why am I paying you $5000 when I could go to Best Buy or Circuit City and get that for $1300 and shoot it myself?" Granted I'm not someone who thinks we all need to carry around Sony F950's and a truck full of CCU's and Xserve RAIDs and monitors to shoot a wedding or something... I'm just saying its pointless trying to defend a 2-3 year old camera when a new one comes out that has approximately the same image quality at half the price. Also look at the last frame grab, the low-light capabilities of the FX1/Z1U/XLH1, ect are really where the higher priced cams shine.


Who cares if the $1300 HV10 can get images near the same quality as the $3000 FX1 or $4000 XHA1 ??

People like me !!! - who can not afford $4000 but would like similar image quality and are prepared to sacrifice the more professional features.

...Me !

Hse Kha (the second post in this long thread) says: ''The FX1 is totally outdated now. I can't see how people would buy it anymore...''

This is such a common statement made about *any* camera, and is just so much one-upmanship garbage. When you buy a photographer or cinematographer for a shoot you're buying in their experience first and foremost. Way down the line there's the equipment he uses.

Give me a seasoned pro with a 1976 film fed Nikon F4 over a newbie with his D-SLR. Give me someone with the nous to buy the FX1 over someone who accepts automatic internal ND filtration because he doesn't know what it's doing for him.

Camera - all camera - are cheap. The expensive and really valuable bit about filmmaking is the experience, and generally that only comes with time.

tom.

Wow. It is amazing that people will quibble over sections of screen grabs that are a tiny fraction of a full screen image. The difference will likely be imperceptible to viewers when shown at a normal viewing size and viewing distance (which zoomed in shots viewed on a computer monitor are not) and at a frame rate greater than 1 frame per post.

Direct comparisons of these screen shots are pretty much meaningless anyway. Why? Because there are so many possible variables to consider with regard to testing conditions that you just cannot rely on video and screen shots from someone with unknown qualifications using unknown testing procedures.

Other than the fact that these were on tripods and show the same scenes, what do we really know? Every lens will perform differently at different apertures --- what were these set at? Was each camera set to take advantage of its strengths and optimum settings? What was the sharpness setting on the FX1? Was it to 0 or 7 or all the way to 15? In the "Texas Shootout" the Z1 was set to 7 while other cameras were set to 0 because the Z1 gets too soft at 0. Different cameras may require different settings and may not give the same apparent quality (such as sharpness) with default or automatic settings.

All 1080i HDV camcorders produce images of the same resolution. Yes, some may have a cleaner image or are better in low light or show less alias, but the differences are not of an order of magnitude that you would see when, for example, the resolving power is doubled as it is between a 2 megapixel camera and an 8 megapixel camera.

If you like a camera and it offers the features you require at a price you are willing to pay, buy it. If it lacks too many features that you require or it is too awkward to hold or you just get a bad feeling about it, buy something else. It really comes down to whether the ergonomics and features allow you to produce the images you want. Who cares about a cropped image magnified to 200% (unless, perhaps, you are going out to film --- but at the expense of such an endeavor, it is highly unlikely that a tiny consumer camera will be used)?

But isn't that the part of the reason for HD? We want HD for a sharper and more detailed image. Looking at small screen grabs is important to me because it can show what we are dealing with. To say that most people wouldn't be able to tell is like saying most people cannot tell the difference between SD and HD. While you may not be able to tell how much sharper one HD camera is over another some people might. If the aim with HD is to have the most detailed and natural image that we can get then of course you want to look for more detail. Every little bit helps make the image seem just a tiny bit more natural.

Many people sitting 8 feet away from their HDTV think a 480p DVD looks like high definition and it can look good if you sit far enough away.

If people didn't care then why the heck are we using HD? Because the detail does help. It can be very small but so is the difference between good SD and HD for many people right now.

I agree- it's the nitpicking that causes the manufacturers to fine tune their next offerings.

I'd tend to agree with Thomas, although John's larger points are well taken.
If you as a videographer can't get the proper video you need w/ a certain camera, due to weaknesses, its strengths can't help you.

However, that said, and admitting that I have not seen any other HD cams yet to compare to except the uploaded videos, and my own shots:

From my own experience so far, and from all the uploaded video so far,
the HV10 does appear noticably sharper and clearer, in good light conditions, than other cameras posted here. This is likely due to the native 1920x1080 sensor (admittedly downsampled to 1440 HDV tape resolution), or CMOS vs CCD, whatever. The other sample HV10 videos so far match my personal experiences. I haven't had to make any special tweaks or settings, just "normal" basic use of the camera, so picture quality is that good out of the box. (Luckily so, since we don't have much manual controls to tweak with :) )

The video actually looks even better via component out to a 55" RP-CRT TV, much better than on viewed on the computer, so that's another thing to bear in mind.

I even thought the resolution and colors looked better than the XL-H1, from the VERY brief 2-scene shot inside the japanese store, but that's a very quick comparison :)
I don't have any resolution test cards to shoot though, so this is anecdotal rather than a measurable comparison.

For me, the primary reason to get an HD camcorder is the higher resolution and sharpness, plus full native (eg low-noise/artifacted) widescreen. I mostly only need a point and shoot.
The HV10 has delivered this for me, either in HDV or wide-DV.

I look forward to more direct-comparison sample videos between the two, especially the XL-H1 and upcoming XH-A1, to see how 3CCD canons compare as well!

1080i HDV provides more than double the resolving power of standard NTSC interlaced video. Anyone can see a difference between 0.3 megapixels and 1.5 megapixels. However, the difference between one 1080i HDV image and another 1080i HDV image is much smaller.

While I would agree that provided all other things are equal, a camera that can produce a cleaner, sharper image is preferable, there is more to consider than sharpness. My point is simply that the comparison of magnified sections of screen shots from uncontrolled conditions without regard to the features or optimal settings of the cameras only tells you which image looks better for those given settings, not if one camera is better than another.

But as I said before, if you like a camera and it offers the features you require at a price you are willing to pay, buy it.

Wow. It is amazing that people will quibble over sections of screen grabs that are a tiny fraction of a full screen image. The difference will likely be imperceptible to viewers when shown at a normal viewing size and viewing distance (which zoomed in shots viewed on a computer monitor are not) and at a frame rate greater than 1 frame per post.

The first linked picture > http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7766/closeupzz8.jpg < is normal sized (100%), it is only the zoomed in section of the tower that is 200%.

The second linked picture > http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/328/close2ev6.jpg < is not zoomed in at all, it is 100%

My original post includes 12 (6 x HV10 / 6 x FX-1) Full resolution, uncompressed, full frame rate (NTSC 29.97 fps) samples in varying environments (daylight/low light/indoor/outdoor etc etc).

I felt is was such a distinct difference in favour of the HV10 with regard to image quality that it was worth posting. You may be right and the enlarged section may not be of much use, but I was using it more as a tool to highlight the difference rather than any scientific proof.

Direct comparisons of these screen shots are pretty much meaningless anyway. Why? Because there are so many possible variables to consider with regard to testing conditions that you just cannot rely on video and screen shots from someone with unknown qualifications using unknown testing procedures.

Both cameras were on full default auto and stuck on a tripod, the only exception was an ND filter on the FX-1 to match the exposure to the HV10.

Some may think that the only way to evaluate a camera is to take it into a lab with approved colour charts and a 'qualified' user, but I rather lean towards putting both cameras in a real world situation with a competent user shooting off some footage and then taking a look.

If it lacks too many features that you require or it is too awkward to hold or you just get a bad feeling about it, buy something else.

My original post makes a single unambiguous point, that the picture quality of the HV10 is very good, perhaps better than the FX-1 from the numerous samples I have seen.

The “frame rate greater than 1 frame per post” was my poor attempt at a little humor --- it was another way of saying still frames in a post. So, there goes my dream to quit my day job to take up satirical writing. ;-)

I was actually responding to the entire thread, not you personally. I agree with testing cameras in real world situations and I agree that the HV10 did a great job. I just feel that testing on full default auto doesn’t show a camera at its best and only goes so far for the purposes of comparison.

Wouldn't the ND filter cause some softness? How is it a fair test if one cam uses a ND filter and the other one does not?

I'll often see single frame grabs and thing the image looks blah... and then see the full motion video and it blows my socks off. Having said that... the HV10 footage blows my socks off. :)

I can't see how an ND filter would ever make the image soft in any way.

Hse Kha (the second post in this long thread) says: ''The FX1 is totally outdated now. I can't see how people would buy it anymore...''

This is such a common statement made about *any* camera, and is just so much one-upmanship garbage. When you buy a photographer or cinematographer for a shoot you're buying in their experience first and foremost. Way down the line there's the equipment he uses.

Give me a seasoned pro with a 1976 film fed Nikon F4 over a newbie with his D-SLR. Give me someone with the nous to buy the FX1 over someone who accepts automatic internal ND filtration because he doesn't know what it's doing for him.

Camera - all camera - are cheap. The expensive and really valuable bit about filmmaking is the experience, and generally that only comes with time.

tom.Totally agree Tom.

No offence intended to Hsa Kha - but that "totally outdated" quote is a fairly ridiculous statement! (and no i dont own an FX1...!)

I nominate Tom's post for "Post of the Week".
- Too many people obsessed with having "The Latest Gear".

The biggest variable in how your footage looks and how quickly the audience falls asleep (or applauds) whilst watching your footage is............. you.

Isn't a ND filter another piece of glass added to the lens setup?

If so, added lens take away something even if it is a little. In this case it is sharpness and and a fair test.

Agreed. Tom Hardwick earns Post Of The Week. I should come up with some kind of affordable prize.

The “frame rate greater than 1 frame per post” was my poor attempt at a little humor --- it was another way of saying still frames in a post. So, there goes my dream to quit my day job to take up satirical writing. ;-)


:)

I was actually responding to the entire thread, not you personally. I agree with testing cameras in real world situations and I agree that the HV10 did a great job. I just feel that testing on full default auto doesn’t show a camera at its best and only goes so far for the purposes of comparison.

Yes I agree totally.

But having used an FX-1 and Z1 for various projects I am amazed at the image quality of the HV10 - that is as simple as I can make my point.

Why thank you, Chris Hurd.

Isn't a ND filter another piece of glass added to the lens setup?

If so, added lens take away something even if it is a little. In this case it is sharpness and and a fair test.

No, I believe the built in ND filters on the camera operate differently. Something about a small part that moves into the light path to reduce the incoming intensity.. of the.. err... I don't know man. But I think I once read a post from Barry Green on the matter (I guarantee he knows how it works).

In any event, I do not believe the built in ND filter should reduce the image sharpness.

www.philipwilliams.com

I always like to see the comparisons between the consumer grade cams and the pro level equipment. It gives people a good idea of just how good a picture quality they can get out of a consumer cam.

That being said, the pro equipment gives you something the majority of consumer cams doesn't. Control. Being a Pro this can be useful and shouldn't be overlooked. This is what it appears they are paying the big bucks for. I'd also suspect durability and equipment maintainablity would play a factor in the equation.

Finally, I think the biggest gap between the Pro and Consumer models that I would like to see filled is low light capability. The pro cams just kill the consumer stuff in this area. It's gotten better in recent years, but this is the capability I long for in a consumer cam.

What good is it if the camera produces gorgeous outdoor video if you're using it 60 to 90% indoors? I find it interesting that most video I take and watch is under these "low" light conditions.

I'd like to see comparisons between FX1 and HV10 under low light conditions.

Mike

I'd like to see comparisons between FX1 and HV10 under low light conditions.

Mike


Try the third link in my original post in this thread, the FX-1 wins in low light situations.

The same comparisons and observations are valid in the digital photography realm. Consumer cameras are just a hair under what the pro cameras are able to produce. Canon is arguably the leader in this arena as well and my consumer grade EOS Rebel XT ($799 w/lens) when used with the "RAW" format produces images that are indistinguishable from my Canon EOS Mark II N ($3999 NO lens) using it's "RAW" format! While it's true the "pro" camera shoots faster, faster AF etc.....the end results are virtually identical!

The line between "consumer" and professional" blurs exponentially with each model released. But there's no argument a consumer grade camera/camcorder in the right hands will/can produce "professional" results.

The first linked picture > [url]



Both cameras were on full default auto and stuck on a tripod, the only exception was an ND filter on the FX-1 to match the exposure to the HV10.

.


This is NOT a valid comparison, cause you used the ND filter on the Sony !

Please do it again without the ND filter !
Then we can decide.
ND filters are always bad for image quality,
cause it is another piece of glas, better use lower ISO setting then,
if the picture is too bright !

A ND filter isn't going to produce any noticable image softening due to its glass alone. If the ND filtration was so extreem as to drop the F-stop out of the sweet spot for the lens, it can result in a softer image.
Do the Sony cams have ISO settings?