If you were shooting with a A1 as your primary camera in 24F, would you be able to manipulate the images from the HV10 to match well enough to use with the primary footage? Not necessarily the same scene, but when you need a smaller cam, to avoid notice or damage.

I know it is still early to really tell, but best guess...

Thanks,
Jay

In that situation, it sounds like an ideal camera. However, if you've only got one camera, the HV10 isn't quite good enough, which is such a shame. Why spoil the ship for a ha'p'worth of tar?
That would be sensible. Let's hope so. It won't hurt me to wait a few months...

Hello everybody from Italy,

I was quite ready to buy an HV10 last weekend but I taken it a little bit on standby.

I compared it to Sony HC3. From operation point of view and ergonomics Sony is much, much better. Only working on the HV10's zoom control you can move cam, that means you have to handle it always with both hands for a stable recording.
What I liked on HV10 was the LCD panel, brighter and accurate than Sony.
I don't want to go inside the technical features now ( 16/9 sensor, optical stabilizer, manual operation as pro for Canon, while low light performance are better for Sony ), but I'd like to know if someone of you made a test of same recording with both camcorder and playbacked it on HD panel using the component and HDMI connection.
My opinion and experience watching HD, is HDMI improve a lot image sharpening because of no conversion and higher signal transfer rate, so
p.se comment if Canon components can give same result.

Generally speaking my feeling is the best hasn't yet been made in compact HD camcorders. May be Panasonic will out a new model with 16/9 sensor and optical stabilizer like HV10, but in a body and with HDMI like HC3 ?

Funny, I was all gun-ho about getting an HV10 too- especially considering the fantastic image quality people are touting it to have.....but I just can't get over the mic input omission. Although 90% of my videos don't feature the recorded audio (replaced with music) I'm now finding the need to have a mic a necessary and vital option.
It's ashame as it seems to rival the FX1 in terms of image quality with a tiny form factor- but the mic omission is the deal killer for me.....

....I'm looking at the XH A1 or HVX200....I know it's quite a bit more money but my mind plays all kinds of games with me and I want the best I can afford to get....but if Canon had put a mic input on the HV10, I'd be using it NOW instead of typing about it!

I am in much the same position, probably 95% of my work does not require audio as it is usually incorporated into motion graphics and replaced with music - the issue of the lack of mic inputs means little to me but I can see how this would be useful (or necessary to others).

Why did they not drop the useless (to me at least) viewfinder and use the cost and space saved to implement a decent earphones/mic section ? Who would miss the viewfinder when the high resolution LCD screen is so sharp, bright and clear ? I suppose they probably must know their market and the average consumer won't mind the occasional sound of the operator of the camera breathing or eating his lunch (!?) - If I find myself in the position where I need better than decent sound I will drag along a dedicated audio recorder and a mic.

I suppose the real problem with this little camera is we have all seen the gorgeous, noiseless, colorful video quality and want to squeeze professional results out of something you can literally drop in your (coat) pocket. If the audio on this machine matched the picture quality it would have to be a £1500 digital recorder with a £800 pro microphone !

If the video quality on the HV10 was average or poor (more in line with its audio side) the only thing we would be complaining about is the price.

But I still think it is worth the trade off for the fantastic picture quality, that is why I went out yesterday on my bicycle and came home 30 minutes later with a red shiny box with a Canon log on it. :)

I can see the main problem most of you complain about HV10, is about bad audio and no possibility to connect any other alternative external source
( that really isn't so good ).

But noone speaks so much about miss of HDMI out.

I can guess that final quality result on HDTV playback through component out
from HV10 isn't so downgrade compared to Sony HC3 with HDMI.
Is it really so ?

Regards
ES

This is a consumer camera and has limited features to make sure pros will buy the pro cameras. Canon and Sony want you to spend $3k, $5k, and $9k to get pro features instead of giving you a solution for $1.2k (all USD).

If you want to use if for 'film', audio is captured on a different device anyway. Otherwise, they would include a clapper board in the package :P

Hi George,
yes I know Canon and Sony have models more expensive to meet pros expectation, so more complete features.
But I'm focusing on the point between difference of component and HDMI out.
Sony HC3 is cheaper than Canon HV10, but have HDMI.
Only I need to know if someone can tell me if movie quality of HV10 is at the same/worst/better level with component connection than HC3 with HDMI connection.

May be that better resolution in good light of HV10 gives a sharper image on HDTV than same recording with HC3 ?

Regards
ES