HV10 - On field feedback

[Lou Bruno]

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

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

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.

[George Ellis]

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

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

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.

[Enrico Sasso]

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

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Enrico Sasso

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!

[Tomas Chinchilla]

Any footage you want to share?

[Enrico Sasso]

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

[Jonathan Phillips]

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?

[Luis A. Diaz]

Originally Posted by Enrico Sasso

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

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by George Ellis

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.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Enrico Sasso

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.

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

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.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Enrico Sasso

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.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Lee Wilson

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.

[Serge Victorovich]

Originally Posted by Lee Wilson

sensor on the HC3 is 960*1440

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