I love everything about the HVX200a EXCEPT that it does not shoot 1080p!

Also I am concerned with the camera because I shoot a lot of different stuff and it is EQUALLY important to me. I want the wider angle lens for normal shooting, and the 20x zoom for sports shooting (ie football).

I know you can get a telephoto lens, but I have heard that this creates a little distortion around the edges of the frame? Also, is it impossible to zoom out for close-up shots (ie in a huddle) using the telephoto lens, or can you still get good results for shots taken when the camera is physically close (zoomed all the way out)?

I am also very skeptical about HDV (see other post)... so this seems to limit my options. I love 60p @720 feature of the hvx200...

any advice for my situation & info about telephoto shooting?

I love everything about the HVX200a EXCEPT that it does not shoot 1080p!
Then you'll really love the HVX because it *does* shoot 1080p. It does full progressive scan at 24 and 30 fps.

I know you can get a telephoto lens, but I have heard that this creates a little distortion around the edges of the frame?
As long as you're zoomed in far enough to avoid the portholing that happens in the lower half of the zoom range (and you're using a quality teleconverter and not some "crystal optics" junk lens), you'll see razor sharp crytal clear edge-to-edge footage.

can you still get good results for shots taken when the camera is physically close (zoomed all the way out)?
Not with a teleconverter attached. You can only zoom out to about 17mm (with the 1.6x teleconverter) or 27mm (with the 2.0x teleconverter). You'd have to remove the teleconverter if you wanted to go to wide-angle shots. Which isn't as inconvenient as it sounds, because the good teleconverters (made by Schneider/Century Optics) use a "bayonet" lens mount system, so it only takes less than 5 seconds to put it on or take it off.

I am also very skeptical about HDV (see other post)... so this seems to limit my options. I love 60p @720 feature of the hvx200...
No other camera does what the HVX does, no other camera does both 1080 and 720, none does 4:2:2, none does in-camera overcranking and undercranking at anywhere near this price point. And all the others use HDV with its MPEG-2 issues.

However, for lens range, you might look at the Canon XHA1; it gives you comparable wide angle and 20x telephoto which would get you closer to the action. Not a tremendous amount closer, but definitely closer, about akin to the HVX with the 1.6x tele. Which might solve your zoom concerns, but you'd be giving up frame-discrete compression, uncompressed audio, 4:2:2, overcranking/undercranking, progressive scan, 4 channels of audio, 1080 & 720, peaking and zebras at the same time, all sorts of stuff.

any advice for my situation & info about telephoto shooting?
You can get exactly what you want, but you'd have to spend a lot more for it. The forthcoming HPX500 does everything the HVX does, plus it has 2/3" chips and interchangeable lenses, so you could put a huge broadcast zoom lens on there. But you'll be in the ballpark of $30,000 or more. So the question you'd have to ask yourself is: for the price difference, can you either a) live with the 13x zoom range of the stock HVX, or b) live with the zoom restrictions that the teleconverter imposes, or c) get used to popping the teleconverter on and off for times that you need to do that. It only takes about five seconds to put it on or take it off, but that could be inconvenient. Or it may be ideal, depends on what your priorities are.

Wow Barry, thanks for the great info. I really appreciate the time it took you to write that.

I must have misread something; I didn't realize the HVX did 1080p! Question: If I shoot an indie film in 1080p, but want a couple shots put into slowmotion using 60p @ 720, will I be able to mix that footage and the 720p footage will just look slightly lower quality? Or will I not be able to mix that footage properly? How noticeable would the difference be?

I think I could live with the idea of swapping the teleconverter lens on/off... it wouldn't be ideal but you are right, it is not worth $25,000 more for that convenience. Man I wish the HPX500 was a $5k camera, but oh well.

How noticeable is the difference in quality between having a lens adaptor attatched VS completely changing the lens with an interchangeable lens? Also, what happens to the image if you zoom out further than 17mm or 27mm? Do the edges just get distorted? If so, how far do those edges extend?

I must have misread something; I didn't realize the HVX did 1080p!
Common confusion, but yes -- 1080/24p and 1080/30p are both included.

Question: If I shoot an indie film in 1080p, but want a couple shots put into slowmotion using 60p @ 720, will I be able to mix that footage and the 720p footage will just look slightly lower quality? Or will I not be able to mix that footage properly? How noticeable would the difference be?
You can definitely mix & match them; the 1080 footage only holds about a 20% edge in detail over 720 so the difference isn't going to be *that* noticeable, certainly when you factor in that the 720/60 footage would be running at 40% speed I think people are more likely to notice the difference in frame rate than the comparatively small difference in image detail.

How noticeable is the difference in quality between having a lens adaptor attatched VS completely changing the lens with an interchangeable lens?
Well, there's no easy answer to that. I mean, interchange the lens with what? On the JVC you can either add a wide-angle adapter, or interchange the lens with an optional wide-angle lens. The optional wide-angle lens gives you definitely sharper imagery, but then again, that wide-angle lens costs something like $10,000. So there's no easy comparison. All I can say is that the teleconverter on the HVX doesn't degrade the image at all.

Also, what happens to the image if you zoom out further than 17mm or 27mm? Do the edges just get distorted? If so, how far do those edges extend?
You start getting black edges at those zoom settings, because the camera starts actually seeing the innards of the lens. The further you zoom out the more black you see, until at full wide-angle you're seeing a fully vignetted/portholed image, a circle of image within a field of black.

Daniel - I've had the HVX for about two months now, and have done the resolution tests in both 720p 60, 720p 30 and 1080 30p. To me, the differences were minimal. I love resolution, but on the basis of my tests, I'm shooting everything in 720p. The quality is phenomenal - it makes DV look like an amateur mode !

But Barry, isn't the 1080p uprezzed on the HVX or am I wrong about this?

-Nate

But Barry, isn't the 1080p uprezzed on the HVX or am I wrong about this?
There is no "digital uprezzing" going on. All 1/3" HD camcorders have lower-than-1920x1080 chips, and use some manner of pixel shifting technique (except the JVC HD100 series). The chips are spatially offset and the samples read digitized into a digial matrix. On the HVX, they are scanned in at 1920x1080. Any other format (such as 720p or SD) is created through downrezzing.

All the 1/3" HD camcorders have lower than 1920x1080 chips, and Canon and Panasonic do pixelshift, Panasonic pixelshifts Horizontal and Vertical, Canon only horizontal. JVC none.

The Canon chips are 1440x1080i pixels
The JVC100 chips are 1280x 720P pixels
The Panasonic chips are 960x540P pixels

All the 1/3" HD camcorders have lower than 1920x1080 chips, and Canon and Panasonic do pixelshift, Panasonic pixelshifts Horizontal and Vertical, Canon only horizontal. JVC none.

The Canon chips are 1440x1080i pixels
The JVC100 chips are 1280x 720P pixels
The Panasonic chips are 960x540P pixels

I'm not quite sure what the specifications you are referring to have to do with anything. The $100.000.00 plus 2/3" 3CCD Sony PDW F900 CineAlta camera has 1440x1080 resolution too.

What exactly are you saying in your statement? What is your conclusion...? that the Sony CineAlta camera isn't good enough for you because it isn't 1920x1080?

There is a lot more to an image than numbers. As a matter of fact, the most important of considerations is the lens. In low cost camcorders you can't change the lens. Yet the lens makes all the difference in the world. When you purchase a low cost camcorder, judging the footage is very important. You will never be able to change the lens so what you see is what you get. If you don't look at the footage before you buy the camcorder you will be stuck with the spec sheet, but the spec sheet doesn't help you. Looking at the footage does.

The camcorder is much more than just a sensor. The stock lens that comes with the JVC HD100 has problems with CA (red and green fringing on vertical edges). Change the stock JVC lens to a high-end lens and the problem goes away. The Canon XL-H1 20x lens has red and green fringing problems at the wide and long zooms at low fstops too. Change the Canon 20x lens to Canon's 6x lens and fringing is reduced to a minimum. Yet in both cases, the sensor didn't change at all. Only the lens changed.

You are judging the camera from the spec sheets rather than looking at the footage. The footage is the final product. The camera is not as important as your skill. All the cameras you referred to work great. You may have a preference (I do). But it is your skill that will make the camera sing, not the resolution of the sensor.

All of the camcorders available for under 10,000.00 have their problems, and none are perfect. Once you have decided on the camcorder that best meets your needs, start shooting and have fun rather than ripping your hair out over a camera that doesn't exist.

Just my humble opinion.

I'm not quite sure what the specifications you are referring to have to do with anything. The $100.000.00 plus 2/3" 3CCD Sony PDW F900 CineAlta camera has 1440x1080 resolution too.

What exactly are you saying in your statement? What is your conclusion...? that the Sony CineAlta camera isn't good enough for you because it isn't 1920x1080?

There is a lot more to an image than numbers. As a matter of fact, the most important of considerations is the lens. In low cost camcorders you can't change the lens. Yet the lens makes all the difference in the world. When you purchase a low cost camcorder, judging the footage is very important. You will never be able to change the lens so what you see is what you get. If you don't look at the footage before you buy the camcorder you will be stuck with the spec sheet, but the spec sheet doesn't help you. Looking at the footage does.

The camcorder is much more than just a sensor. The stock lens that comes with the JVC HD100 has problems with CA (red and green fringing on vertical edges). Change the stock JVC lens to a high-end lens and the problem goes away. The Canon XL-H1 20x lens has red and green fringing problems at the wide and long zooms at low fstops too. Change the Canon 20x lens to Canon's 6x lens and fringing is reduced to a minimum. Yet in both cases, the sensor didn't change at all. Only the lens changed.

You are judging the camera from the spec sheets rather than looking at the footage. The footage is the final product. The camera is not as important as your skill. All the cameras you referred to work great. You may have a preference (I do). But it is your skill that will make the camera sing, not the resolution of the sensor.

All of the camcorders available for under 10,000.00 have their problems, and none are perfect. Once you have decided on the camcorder that best meets your needs, start shooting and have fun rather than ripping your hair out over a camera that doesn't exist.

Just my humble opinion.

Dave, no need to go off on Raymond, he was simply putting up the specs to back up Barry's post right above his. He's not even the original poster.

Thanks, and sorry Raymond. I didn't realize that until after I posted the message.

"The $100.000.00 plus 2/3" 3CCD Sony PDW F900 CineAlta camera has 1440x1080 resolution too"

there seems to be 2 subjects being talked about as one ..
1)CCD pixels and 2)what is recorded to tape ...
i believe sony HDcam records 1440x1080 - but i believe the CCD's in the cineAlta might be 1920x1080 ... i think sony's HDcam SR does record full 1920x1080 to tape ...

so how does 960x560 CCD's compare to 1440x1080 or 1920x1080 CCD's ?
you might get some idea by looking at the shootouts ?
when Barry's mentions 1080P holds approx 20% more edge detail over 720p i assume that is HVX 720p vs. HVX 1080p ...