The XL H1 and the XH A1 are equipped with the same type of ccd's and with slightly different lenses. Has anyone compared the picture of H1 with that of the A1 ? Is the image quality (colours, crispness etc..) the same for both cameras or does one surpass the other ?

Adrian Paul Spiteri

They are in all respects identical. The XHA1 has a little better custom settings for fine tuning color and settings.

They do have different lenses but that accounts for negligable amount of difference in picture quality.

So, when it comes to comparing the picture of the A1 to that of the Z1 which is the best at grainless lowlight and vibrant colours ? (Which one has the best picture overall)

It is all subjective. People will argue both sides until they are blue in the face. For all respects consider them identical, and look for features that are relevant for your production.

Do you want a longer zoom, and 24f? What about lcd screen size?

What are you willing to spend?

I would choose the A1 any day, over the z1, but my opinion is biased.

Why would you choose the A1 and why are you biased?

I prefer the lcd of the z1 but I would like to have the 24f and longer zoom too.

Do you know of a place where I can find a comparison of the z1 and a1 ?

The z1 lowest lux is 2, what is the A1?

I don't have a side-by-side comparison, but I've used the Z1 and edited footage from it. I was all set to buy one when the A1 was announced, and I waited and bought the A1 because I wanted 24p and I like the lens better.

Each camera has strengths and weaknesses over the other. In 60i, I'm confident you could tweak them to match very closely. In my initial checking-it-out shooting with the A1, it seems to me it is maybe just a little better under low light than the Z1, in terms of gain needed. That's just a subjective judgement because when shooting with the Z1 I didn't have an A1, and when shooting with the A1 I didn't have a Z1 handy. I think for all practical purposes they are the same. Basically, where I shot at a +6 with the A1, I think I would have been at a +12 with the Z1. On the other had, the +12 gain on the Z1 is excellent. I didn't look at +12 on the A1 yet; I have my presets at -3db, zerodb, and +6db. I don't shoot in the dark a lot, so it doesn't bother me to go into the menu for the rare higher gain positions. I do go between -3 and zero quite a bit when I want to use an ND and keep the aperture open for shallower depth of field.

While the LCD of the A1 is smaller, it's also very clean and sharp and I have no problem with it.

The main things I like better on the Z1 include the position of the LCD on top, the more adjustable shot transition, and I think it may be just a little better balanced in that the hand grip feels a little better...not really much at all, but there is a difference in the way it feels.

The reasons I bought the A1 over the Z1 include the lens and the 24/30F modes. The Z1 is maybe half a pound heavier, but the A1 feels more solid and compact, probably because it is a little bit smaller. Actually, the main thing I liked about the A1's lens is the wide angle, but I went out last week and shot some exterior gargoyles on old buildings and I came to really appreciate that 20:1 range. I think if the A1 did not have the 24F mode, I still would buy it over the Z1 based on the lens alone. However, I'd be very happy with either one. Both cameras give you a better looking image than deserved for the price. Remember when the VX1000 first came out, it was more expensive than the A1 and not even in the same ballpark as today's HDV cameras.

I agree with Bill on all of the points. Go to a camcorder distributor and test them out for yourself.

Thanks, just what I needed Bill. Holly, easier said than done, in my country I can't see them along side each other as each dealer sells 1 brand only in my country (Malta) + they are only available on order. This is why I have to rely on forums.

I don't have a side-by-side comparison, but I've used the Z1 and edited footage from it. I was all set to buy one when the A1 was announced, and I waited and bought the A1 because I wanted 24p and I like the lens better.

Same here Bill. Almost had my hands on a rental Z1 when the schedule changed. Would have made an influence, but reading the facts and experiences here alone sold me. Both those cameras will earn a paycheck. It's just personal preference.

Holly why do you say that the lens has a negligible impact on picture quality?

That's not what Holly said. The exact words were "they do have different lenses but that accounts for negligable amount of difference in picture quality." And I agree withe that statement completely. These two particular lenses have more things in common with each other than they have differences. In fact that's hardly any difference at all between them. Therefore no significant impact on picture quality. Hope this helps,

Chris so you can confirm that there is essentially no difference in picture quality between an A1 and an H1? Does that apply across the board at different focal lengths and in different lighting conditions?

The lenses for XH-A1 and XL-H1 actually start at different focal lengths. So they aren't "equal, in fact the are very different lenses. However the quality production standards will be very similiar.

Even two XHA1's that came off the production line one after the other will have differences in their lenses. Not a noticeable difference. But if you want to get out the microscope and do incessant testing you will find that they are different, and while your at if, if you take a gander at the ccd's they might have a miniscule amount more sensitivity than the other one.

Basically, they pair up very well together and you shouldn't be worried about negligable deviation.

However the quality production standards will be very similiar.Fully agreed. In fact, so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable in most cases.

Fully agreed. In fact, so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable in most cases.

From the clips I've seen it looks like the XH-A1 has much less CA ( to the point it's negligable) than the H1, certainly much less than the H1s I received. The XH-A1 has a much wider lens too which is very attractive.

The more I see of the XH-A1 the more the choice between the XH-A1 and the Sony V1 becomes a real difficulty. A nice problem to have though...

TT

The two big differences between the A1 and the Sony V1, to me, are first the 1/4" chips of the V1, and second the lens. A wide angle adapter for the Z1 would be necessary for most people. The wide angle of the A1's lens was one of the selling features for me, but on my first exterior shoot I came to appreciate the 20:1 zoom too. The Sony looks nice except for the lens and the smaller chips. The smaller chips put it in a different category in my book--more competitive with the GL2; and if you compare it to other 1/4" chip cameras, it is great.

From the clips I've seen it looks like the XH-A1 has much less CA ( to the point it's negligable) than the H1, certainly much less than the H1s I received. The XH-A1 has a much wider lens too which is very attractive.

The more I see of the XH-A1 the more the choice between the XH-A1 and the Sony V1 becomes a real difficulty. A nice problem to have though...

TT

I wish I could agree Tony. CA is a dirty word around here because it infers it originates from the lens rather than another explanation for the phenomena so I'll just call it "fringing." My hope was that the XH-A1 was going to be an improvement in this regard on the XL-H1, for which I always thought the red/green fringing was it's worst feature. From what I can see from clips posted with the XL-H1 and my own XH-A1, the newer cam continues the unfortunate tradition with equal aplomb.

My HV10 and former Z1U also have significant fringing, but of the yellow/blue hue.

But my overall judgment about the XH-A1 lens is that it is a very good one in spite of this anomaly, witness that it remains sharp across the full zoom range and full range of aperture openings, whereas the Z1 got soft at the long end.

Even though Steve Mullen noted he could not observe any fringing in the V1U video, I saw it easily observable in the corners of the stills he posted from inside the Starbucks Cafe, from memory it was fairly strong blue fringing on the chrome legs of a stool in the lower right, and elsewhere.

Chris, I know that your style of shooting means that low light performance is not a big issue for you. But for many of us it is a huge issue. To the extent that, right or wrong, it becomes the deciding factor in which camera we buy.
Does the negligible difference between the cameras in good light become a noticeable difference in low-light?

I wish I could agree Tony. CA is a dirty word around here because it infers it originates from the lens rather than another explanation for the phenomena so I'll just call it "fringing." My hope was that the XH-A1 was going to be an improvement in this regard on the XL-H1, for which I always thought the red/green fringing was it's worst feature. From what I can see from clips posted with the XL-H1 and my own XH-A1, the newer cam continues the unfortunate tradition with equal aplomb.


Hi Tom,

From the clips I've seen from the XH-A1 from Kaku Ito the fringing seemed much reduced over the H1. Especially good given how much wider the XH_A1 lens is than the H1. In these lenses the CA seems worst in wider angles.

I've also seen it in V1 clips and stills but to be honest it's at a level I don't find objectionable. If you take a look at some of the XDCAM HD footage CA is still present in lenses costing double what a XH-A1 costs. XH-A1 or V1 we got ourselves a bargain!! :)

Will be purchasing one or the other next week. Can't wait...

TT

<snip>
XH-A1 or V1 we got ourselves a bargain!! :)

Will be purchasing one or the other next week. Can't wait...

TT

Indeed, I think both cams are going to perform at a level where you can't go wrong. I'm with Bill on one area that really pushed me towards the Canon, the wide angle. But I do have to give the Sony a big nod on the smearless CMOS sensors. I've always preferred Canon over Sony when comparing similar camcorders, but I really think the A1 and V1 have reached a point where its apples to apples. Some differences, but overall both capable of delivering superb content in the right hands. Best of all, both are an excellent value.

For those who need extremely good lowlight footage there is an anomaly with the A1 lens that is less present in the H1. At a wide open aperture and zoomed out both are at 1.6. At the most telephoto range both are at 3.2 or 3.4...I can't remember off hand. However the A1 is extremely linear in how it gets there. Let me explain.

I tested with my "new" used H1 after having an A1 and I can confirm this. I was able to zoom past 50 and the aperture had not dropped beyond F1.8 yet. I then continued to 80 and it was still at F1.8-2.0. From 80 to 100 it stopped down fast to 3.2. So the exposure stays consistent through most of the zoom and then changes mainly at the most tele part of the lens.

The A1 (I cannot perform test as I sent it back btu I do remember the behavior) was very linear in that the iris began to close immediately in the zoom range. If I recall right at 50 zoom the iris was already stopped down to the F2.6 range. It continues very linearly all the way to 100 and F3.2. I know this isn' a big deal to some but I do still shoot weddings and receptions where I need all the light the camera can gather. And at least for me I found the A1 to not perform as well as the H1 in low light.....maybe at the widest end of the zoom they are the same, but zoom a little and the A1 stops down very fast. The fact that is a wider lens meant I needed to zoom more than normal to frame subjects which meant, less light still.

So in my opinion, the A1 is not as good at lowlight shooting because of a lens limitation....not because of a CCD limitation. In well lit scenes the cameras would be hard to differentiate as Chris stated.

Anyone else seeing this?

For those who need extremely good lowlight footage there is an anomaly with the A1 lens that is less present in the H1. At a wide open aperture and zoomed out both are at 1.6. At the most telephoto range both are at 3.2 or 3.4...I can't remember off hand. However the A1 is extremely linear in how it gets there. Let me explain.

I tested with my "new" used H1 after having an A1 and I can confirm this. I was able to zoom past 50 and the aperture had not dropped beyond F1.8 yet. I then continued to 80 and it was still at F1.8-2.0. From 80 to 100 it stopped down fast to 3.2. So the exposure stays consistent through most of the zoom and then changes mainly at the most tele part of the lens.

The A1 (I cannot perform test as I sent it back btu I do remember the behavior) was very linear in that the iris began to close immediately in the zoom range. If I recall right at 50 zoom the iris was already stopped down to the F2.6 range. It continues very linearly all the way to 100 and F3.2. I know this isn' a big deal to some but I do still shoot weddings and receptions where I need all the light the camera can gather. And at least for me I found the A1 to not perform as well as the H1 in low light.....maybe at the widest end of the zoom they are the same, but zoom a little and the A1 stops down very fast. The fact that is a wider lens meant I needed to zoom more than normal to frame subjects which meant, less light still.

So in my opinion, the A1 is not as good at lowlight shooting because of a lens limitation....not because of a CCD limitation. In well lit scenes the cameras would be hard to differentiate as Chris stated.

Anyone else seeing this?

Here's my observation of the XH-A1:

< Z20 = F1.6
> Z20 = F1.8
> Z41 = F2.0
> Z55 = F2.2
> Z64 = F2.4
> Z73 = F2.6
> Z80 = F2.8
> Z92 = F3.2
> Z97 = F3.4

This is only 1 f-stop difference from Z00 to Z99. Unless the H1 shows a stark improvement on the A1 low light, it would be possible to model the gain profile to achieve the same end with the A1. It would seem logical to me that a lens with very even performance across the full zoom range would have a more linear response in relation to aperture opening than one with a sudden jump in light loss toward the end.

Here's my observation of the XL-H1:

F1.6 and these numbers indicate when the changes take place.

Z38 = F1.8
Z66 = F2.0
Z81 = F2.2
Z87 = F2.4
Z90 = F2.6
Z93 = F2.8
Z95 = F3.2
Z97 = F3.4

I know it isn't much difference on paper but in actual use at a dark wedding reception the difference between the 2 cameras is significant...if you plan on zooming much to frame your shots that is. At full wide it is a wash.

. Unless the H1 shows a stark improvement on the A1 low light, it would be possible to model the gain profile to achieve the same end with the A1.

Can you explain what you mean? Using gain to make up for a loss of light due to telephot is fine, but keep in mind that the H1 can do that too. I don't see that as an advatange for the A1 unless the H1 couldn't do this also, and therfore still keep a small low light advvantage over the new kid on the block.

Can you clarify what you meant?

Thanks!

Using gain to make up for a loss of light due to telephot is fine, but keep in mind that the H1 can do that too. I don't see that as an advatange for the A1 unless the H1 couldn't do this also, and therfore still keep a small low light advvantage over the new kid on the block.

I agree. And I agree with you that on paper it isn't much. But if you think you can see it, that's what matters.

Can anyone film the same scene using both cameras (A1 and H1) and post the clips please? This way we could see the diffrence between the two in low light conditions.

Can anyone film the same scene using both cameras (A1 and H1) and post the clips please? This way we could see the diffrence between the two in low light conditions.

Sorry. I would love to but I only have the H1 for now. Wish I could have both though. Each one has benefits over the other but I think overall they will produce similar images. But for the ultimate in control and flexibility the H1 is still tops.