Hello everybody HV10 owners,

after few weeks operation on field, I think you could give me some real feedback that can influence me and other new potential buyers.

Here my summary feeling, reading threads on this forum:

PRO
-very good performance in normal or bright light
-very good optical image stabilizer
-very good focusing
-very good panel display (for instance, brighter and accurate than Sony HC3)

CONS
-very bad audio, also no ext. mic in ( but this could have more influence
for professional users )
-bad low light performance in low light ( is it really possible to compensate it
recording at lower speed , 1/30 ? )
-bad handling/ergonomics (at least comparing to Sony HC3, my feeling
is the HV10 optical stabilizer benefits balance the bad handling )
-no HDMI out (someone can tell me about component out result on HDTV ? )
Better resolution of HV10 vs. HC3 can compensate the difference, if any ?

In few words, generally speaking, is it better to buy HV10 or HC3 ?
Waiting your welcome comments !

ES

I have read and seen footage of 'low light' on this forum and I would say it's far better than other low light footage I have seen before. My Canon MVX35i is really bad indoors or low light and very grainy footage, but from what I have seen of the HV10 so far is in low light the grainy picture is not so apparent.

As for the Mic, most professionals would not rely on the onboard microphone to record sound so I don't know how much of a problem that is. The design looks the same as the MVX35i and for holiday / home videos the microphone has been good so unless Canon have changed the components I would have thought the mic in the HV10 would be just as good.

Handling. Once again same as the MVX35i I have never had a problem and love how portable my camcorder is. Also I think the design makes it less obvious that it's a camcorder. I do think people with large hands / fingers may have problems with the design.

Personally I can't wait to get my hands on a HV10 and hopefully if stocks in Europe haven't dried up I will have one for Christmas day :)

Thanks Jonathan for your reply.
Any other comments from people that already have it on their hands?

On two points really I'd like to hear some feedback:

1)low light performance: someone say looking footages result are very nice, while camcorderinfo review say the opposite. Who is on the right side ?

2)No HDMI out: is so good the component out connection or so unpercettible the difference, that noone claim about its lack ? ehm..now we are in a digital world ?

ES

Thanks Jonathan for your reply.
Any other comments from people that already have it on their hands?

On two points really I'd like to hear some feedback:

1)low light performance: someone say looking footages result are very nice, while camcorderinfo review say the opposite. Who is on the right side ?

ES
Personal taste I suppose, but any improvement on my MVX35i is cool :)

Thanks Jonathan for your reply.
Any other comments from people that already have it on their hands?

On two points really I'd like to hear some feedback:

1)low light performance: someone say looking footages result are very nice, while camcorderinfo review say the opposite. Who is on the right side ?

2)No HDMI out: is so good the component out connection or so unpercettible the difference, that noone claim about its lack ? ehm..now we are in a digital world ?

ES


I've used the HV10 with the component out to a projector (1280x720 res) and it looked fine ( sharp and good color reproduction). The lack of HDMI out doesn't bother me as I can just dump the video to my PC and run HDMI from the PC. Unfortunately, I don't have a large flat panel TV yet...

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I have a 37 inch full HD LCD panel (Philips) and I can tell you I can see the difference when I switch same signal from HDMI to Component connection.
HDMI is a little bit sharper.
It's real a miss, my opinion, don't have the possibility to watch directly your
recording to HDTV at its best.

What about the low light performance? Did you take some?
Really I wonder tests on review say so bad while a lot of users don't mention it.

Hi Jonathan,

Reading you, I see you are satisfied about Canon ( myself with digital cameras ).
As SD camcorder owner, I could say the same about Sony.
But I wish to spend at best my money not depending the brand, only because performance products have.
No any doubts of better choice to buy Sony HC3 at a lower price?

ES

Hi Tony,

I have a 37 inch full HD LCD panel (Philips) and I can tell you I can see the difference when I switch same signal from HDMI to Component connection.
HDMI is a little bit sharper.
It's real a miss, my opinion, don't have the possibility to watch directly your
recording to HDTV at its best.

What about the low light performance? Did you take some?
Really I wonder tests on review say so bad while a lot of users don't mention it.

Hi Jonathan,

Reading you, I see you are satisfied about Canon ( myself with digital cameras ).
As SD camcorder owner, I could say the same about Sony.
But I wish to spend at best my money not depending the brand, only because performance products have.
No any doubts of better choice to buy Sony HC3 at a lower price?

ES

I have always prefered Canon Camera's be it Still or Camcorder as you say it's personal taste. The only thing that puts me off Sony is that normally you pay a premium for any add ons as Sony often make it hard for you to use anything but Sony accessories. (speaking in general here, not about any specific camera).
I have looked at the Sony, but know Canon cameras and also some comparisions of footage claim that the HV10 picture overall is better than the HC3.
I would do a google search from both and decide what you like the look of the best.

Hi Tony,

I have a 37 inch full HD LCD panel (Philips) and I can tell you I can see the difference when I switch same signal from HDMI to Component connection.
HDMI is a little bit sharper.
It's real a miss, my opinion, don't have the possibility to watch directly your
recording to HDTV at its best.

What about the low light performance? Did you take some?
Really I wonder tests on review say so bad while a lot of users don't mention it.


ES

Hi,
Hmm, that's a good point.. I should try comparing the same footage between component out from the HV10 and HDMI from the PC. If I had a better display, the difference is probably a lot more obvious.
As far as low light performance, I'd say it's decent. It's not as bad as the reviews put it. You have some options to prevent grainy footage (for ex. by reducing the shutter speed down to 1/15). It's also subjective. I've taken some indoor video at night with only a 25Watt flourescent where colors a little washed out, but it's still a lot better than my old Elura 40MC which was horrible. How can I post picture?
Tony

It's real a miss, my opinion, don't have the possibility to watch directly your
recording to HDTV at its best.


You can watch your HV10 footage on your HDTV using a HDMI output from your computer.

Hi Tony ,

I don't know how you can post the pictures, may be you can post on Canon Image Gateway website.
Someone readers have other ideas ?

Hi Lee ,

yes that's a nice possibility.
Unfortunately I should change my computer's graphic card, mine now haven't
HDMI output.

ES

Hi Lee ,

yes that's a nice possibility.
Unfortunately I should change my computer's graphic card, mine now haven't
HDMI output.

ES

£130 ($249) for a small HDMI input / output card.

No need to replace your current video card.

click>> http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/index.asp

How can I post picture?


Free image hosting > http://imageshack.us/

If it's any help the small review in the T3 magazine gave the Cam 4 out of 5 stars and said the image quality even in low light is better that the Sony HC3.
They said the only thing that lets it down is the HDMI connection and the lack of a accessory shoe

Oops, I made a mistake, ignore my comment.

I am always amazed seeing this camera rated poorly in low-light. I've got the unit and am just amazed at the professional picture quality it produces. In low-light (defined here as normal room lighting at night), this camera is absolutley the equal, if not better, than the FX1 which I owned for some time. It certainly is superior to the Sony HC1/HC3 which I also owned.

Why this camera was knocked for low-light just escapes me. Not only is it almost noise free in the conditions I mentioned, but the picture retains all of its sharpness. This is something the Sonys simply don't do. Anyone that owns one of the Sony HDV cameras knows how they get quite soft in typical room lighting.

This camera is the biggest winner in the HDV field IMO.

I have the same opinion as Ken as I own the same cameras.

I am always amazed seeing this camera rated poorly in low-light. I've got the unit and am just amazed at the professional picture quality it produces. In low-light (defined here as normal room lighting at night), this camera is absolutley the equal, if not better, than the FX1 which I owned for some time. It certainly is superior to the Sony HC1/HC3 which I also owned.

Why this camera was knocked for low-light just escapes me. Not only is it almost noise free in the conditions I mentioned, but the picture retains all of its sharpness. This is something the Sonys simply don't do. Anyone that owns one of the Sony HDV cameras knows how they get quite soft in typical room lighting.

This camera is the biggest winner in the HDV field IMO.

Add this to the Cons list. DSE reported that the HV10 has bad element shake when used as a POV sports camera.

Why this camera was knocked for low-light just escapes me. Not only is it almost noise free in the conditions I mentioned, but the picture retains all of its sharpness. This is something the Sony's simply don't do. Anyone that owns one of the Sony HDV cameras knows how they get quite soft in typical room lighting.

This camera is the biggest winner in the HDV field IMO.

I think the problem is that different batch of manufacture can produce a lot of difference in results. If somebody is reviewing a pre-release version of a product it could be substantially worse in noise then after they sort out manufacture related performance problems. In the computer community, it even has been known for manufacturers to rig systems for extra review performance. This noise also adversely effects codec performance.

The problem is that nobody produces followup reviews to compare results over time. As an example, I suspect (from recent low light shot I have seen) that the low light performance (and probably latitude) of the old JVC GY-HD10 has improved substantially over manufacturing revisions. Pity JVC never put the effort into redoing the HD10's weaknesses (particularly an PAL version) it would have been a great camera.

I like the HV10, but it needs an progressive HDMI output at least.

Reading feedbacks, I'm arriving to conclusion that low light performance isn,t really so bad like camcorderinfo instead considered in their review ( may be Canon introduced during HV10 production a modification on the software to improve performance ? ).

For sure 3 points still remain critical on HV10:
-no mic input
-no so stable handling because of vertical construction/pistol grip ( I had
HV10 in my hands and really if you want a better stability you have to use
it with right hand to control the zoom lever and left hand on the LCD panel
to balance shake)
-no HDMI output

In particular I'd like to know your point of view about HDMI lack and your opinion on the reason why a company like Canon haven't installed it ( that's a big advantage for Sony HC3 ).
Yes, there is the alternative to have the digital signal through a computer, but this means to spend some more money.

ES

Reading feedbacks, I'm arriving to conclusion that low light performance isn,t really so bad like camcorderinfo instead considered in their review ( may be Canon introduced during HV10 production a modification on the software to improve performance ? ).

For sure 3 points still remain critical on HV10:
-no mic input
-no so stable handling because of vertical construction/pistol grip ( I had
HV10 in my hands and really if you want a better stability you have to use
it with right hand to control the zoom lever and left hand on the LCD panel
to balance shake)
-no HDMI output

In particular I'd like to know your point of view about HDMI lack and your opinion on the reason why a company like Canon haven't installed it ( that's a big advantage for Sony HC3 ).
Yes, there is the alternative to have the digital signal through a computer, but this means to spend some more money.

ES

Enrico, my feeling about HDMI is this: Initially I was disappointed by the lack of it, but doing a direct A/B comparison of both the HC3 connected via HDMI and the HV10 connected via component, the HV10 was still distinctly better than the HC3. In some instances HDMI is overrated and in other situations it brings about marginal improvements as opposed to dramatic. But keep this in mind, any recording made with the HV10 will always be "HDMI ready", if that makes any sense. In other words, all your HV10 recordings can always be played back later on an HDMI playback deck....even something like the HC3.

Many people don't like using the camcorder as a playback deck due to wear on the mechanism. Going with a seperate deck such as an HC3 for playback only, can solve that issue. Not a cheap solution and frankly not a necessary solution IMO. The HV10 picture is just so stellar, so clean, so color accurate...all via component, I find myself caring less about the lack of HDMI.

One other thing that's often forgotten about the HV10 is the onboard video light. Yes, it's certainly not powerful, but it sure better than carrying an outboard light and separate battery for that light. As for the mike input, since I use this as a strictly 'fun camera', I would never use an outboard mike. If I'm using a camera professionally, that's a different story. But this is me and you may well have different needs.

One final thought that also doesn't get mentioned enough, the HV10 autofocus. Canon's autofocus system is simply superior to any Sony I've used. It is exceedingly quick and exceedingly accurate. I've actually never used a camcorder with such fast & accurate autofocusing!

Any footage you want to share?

Hi Ken,

thanks for your prompt reply.
Nice to hear from you that better video resolution of HV10 with component out gives still better result than same footage recorded on HC3 with HDMI
when you playback on HDTV.
It was exactly what I was waiting to listen as on field feedback !

A thing I don't like on HC3, for instance, is the touch screen LCD operation, and also as my direct comparison, HV10 have a brighter LCD than HC3.
Autofocus is also my feeling it is faster and accurate on HV10.

What about HV10 handling ? Did you started from the beginning with the right feeling with it?
About this aspect, I'm sure you can't tell me that HV10 is better than HC3.

ES

I have never had a problem with handling on my MVX35i which is the same form factor as the HV10 (in fact I suspect the HV10 is based on it).
If anything I found that I could get steadier shots as I was able to balance the camera easily with my other hand. I think the only time the design would be a problem is if your left handed. But I think most camcorders are designed for right handed people?

Reading feedbacks, I'm arriving to conclusion that low light performance isn,t really so bad like camcorderinfo instead considered in their review ( may be Canon introduced during HV10 production a modification on the software to improve performance ? ).

For sure 3 points still remain critical on HV10:
-no mic input
-no so stable handling because of vertical construction/pistol grip ( I had
HV10 in my hands and really if you want a better stability you have to use
it with right hand to control the zoom lever and left hand on the LCD panel
to balance shake)
-no HDMI output

In particular I'd like to know your point of view about HDMI lack and your opinion on the reason why a company like Canon haven't installed it ( that's a big advantage for Sony HC3 ).
Yes, there is the alternative to have the digital signal through a computer, but this means to spend some more money.

ES

I have to agree with Ken on the observations about HDMI.

My DLP set accepts Firewire input, supposedly any feeds to thru those inputs is as unaltered as video can get with no loss of quality.

I did a comparison between Firewire feeds and component feeds from the HV-10 and saw no difference at all, in fact the component feed was a tad softer, rendering a more pleasing image and still very sharp with very little edge enhancement.

Thanks
Luis

Add this to the Cons list. DSE reported that the HV10 has bad element shake when used as a POV sports camera.


Yes, there have been a few mentions of this, but I have yet to reproduce it in my camera, perhaps it is a bad batch with a fault, all the reports to far have been early purchases and all NTSC models, I have not seen any PAL users report the shaky lens thing.

In particular I'd like to know your point of view about HDMI lack and your opinion on the reason why a company like Canon haven't installed it ( that's a big advantage for Sony HC3 ).
ES

I can use an cheaper Intensity HDMI capture card on it. There is some advantage to using component, if larger bit depth and custom sensor signal is evident, but otherwise HDMI should deliver better signal to play with. You may also get true 1920 on both, compared to tape.

Component and HDMI are uncompressed (firewire should not be). To really see an difference, you will need a very big screen, or be very close. You should see bigger difference with uncompressed to compressed.

But once again, HDMI is just convenience of low cost Intensity that can convert to better codec. Everything else on HV10 can be more easily overcome.

You may also get true 1920 on both, compared to tape.

It is worth noting that the sensor on the HC3 is 960*1440 and the sensor on the HV10 is 1920*1440 - of course both of these are squeezed to 1440*1080 prior to being sent down the firewire cable.

What about HV10 handling ? Did you started from the beginning with the right feeling with it?
About this aspect, I'm sure you can't tell me that HV10 is better than HC3.

ES

Yes, you are 100% correct. That is the one area that the Sony cams have it over the HV10. I've never been crazy about these upright designs, despite their very compact size. However you do get used to it after awhile, but if I had my choice I'd still like the HV10 total package in the form factor of an HC3. In the end however, after having used the HC1, HC3, FX1 and now the HV10 extensively, I'll still take the total package the HV10 offers over any of the other cams in a heartbeat.

It is worth noting that the sensor on the HC3 is 960*1440 and the sensor on the HV10 is 1920*1440 - of course both of these are squeezed to 1440*1080 prior to being sent down the firewire cable.

I should have clarified, the format on a camera with a true 1080 image, like the Canon, through both HDMI and component can be that, through firewire (like tape) it should be 1440.

sensor on the HC3 is 960*1440

Wrong. ClearVid CMOS sensor used in HC-3 have resolution 1920x1200.

Just thought I'd mention to you HV10 guys that I went to Sony Style today here in N.Y. I was able to play with their FX7 and got to shoot in their Home Theater area with the camera as well as the well lit main area of the store. In the Home Theater area I was able to turn the lights quite low and test low light. My overall impression of the camera is it really is quite good, but still in very low light, you're going to have to expect a fair amount of grain. The camera was in full auto mode. I had with me my Canon HV10, but Sony didn't allow me to shoot with my camera in their store, only the FX7.

Once I left the store I took out my HV10 and shot some footage in the mall which was not lit too differently than the main selling floor area in Sony. I have to tell you, I think the HV10 has a lower noise floor than the FX7....I really do. Yesterday I shot with both the FX7 and my HV10 in a local high-end camera store. Although there was no area to test low light, the HV10 looked a bit cleaner than the FX7. Obviously the FX7 is intended for an entirely different purpose, but somehow the HV10 looked a bit more professional because of its apparently lower noise floor.