Pls help to decide: HV20 vs. HC7

Robert Ducon · April 20th, 2007, 02:42 PM

From a film-maker's perspective, LANC would be very nice on the HV20 - even my little old ZR20 has LANC! Why didn't Canon give the sweet little HV20 LANC?

I'll bet the HV30 will have LANC and the ability to flip the image internally - as if if the HV20 already isn't a dream, a future camera sure could be a stunner.

If HDV is still "in" by that time that is... ;)

Paulo Teixeira · April 20th, 2007, 07:02 PM

When you see camcorders such as the Panasonic DV953, GS400, Sony TRV950, HC1000, and the HC1 all having adequate features, it seams a little strange that except for the JVC HD7, we haven’t had a feature packed camcorder since 2005. It really is a shame that the JVC HD7 has a bad stabilizer because this makes all the new camcorders unacceptable.

This is why people such as me, Dan Peterson, George Anthonisen, Dennis Vogel and Robert Ducon are complaining. It’s not like we’re dreaming. Hopefully within the next few months we start seeing some good quality camcorders again.

Dennis Vogel · April 20th, 2007, 08:22 PM

Paulo,

Exactly. I have a DV953. All I want is the HDV equivalent of it and I'll be a happy man.

Good luck.

Dennis

Ken Ross · April 20th, 2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira

When you see camcorders such as the Panasonic DV953, GS400, Sony TRV950, HC1000, and the HC1 all having adequate features, it seams a little strange that except for the JVC HD7, we haven’t had a feature packed camcorder since 2005. It really is a shame that the JVC HD7 has a bad stabilizer because this makes all the new camcorders unacceptable.

This is why people such as me, Dan Peterson, George Anthonisen, Dennis Vogel and Robert Ducon are complaining. It’s not like we’re dreaming. Hopefully within the next few months we start seeing some good quality camcorders again.

People were clamoring for an inexpensive camcorder with 24p.....many said 'that's all I want'. Well they got it, but obviously many others have other needs. It's almost impossible for a manufacturer to please everyone in this or almost any price range within the range of even the well heeled consumer. I'll bet if the XYZ company designs a cam with every feature imaginable, you'll get some guy saying "yeah, but the damn thing isn't in red....when they come out with a red one, THEN I'll get it".

Every camcorder you mentioned above Paulo, I'm certain was criticized by many for not having this or that feature. I know for certain the HC1 was. So one person's 'adequate features' is another's 'inadequate features'.

It's simply impossible to please everyone.

Chris Hurd · April 20th, 2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Ducon

even my little old ZR20 has LANC! Why didn't Canon give the sweet little HV20 LANC?

The ZR20 is an antique... Canon has stopped putting LANC on single-chip camcorders several years ago. Presumably at that time they changed their minds about paying a licensing fee to Sony for LANC on anything except their three-chip camcorders. Hope this helps,

Bruno Donnet · April 21st, 2007, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

It's almost impossible for a manufacturer to please everyone in this or almost any price range within the range of even the well heeled consumer.

I thing that everybody agree that at its price, the HV20 is a very good deal!
But I understand 100% Paulo Teixeira: there's currently a gap in the market between camcorders like the Sony HC7 or the Canon HV20 and the 'more pro' cameras like the Sony FX7 or the Canon XH-A1.
This gap exists in terms of features and in terms of prices; between 1500$ and 2500$, they're nothing to buy except the new JVC GZ-HD7, a promising camera, but some recent user reviews have shown that this camcorder has some flaws (bad OIS, CA spite a Fujinon lens, lower final resolution that the actual less expensive competitors...etc).

In the past, that was the market segment of the Sony TRV950 or the Panasonic GS400 (in SD DV), and, more recently, of the Sony HC1 (in HDV).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Every camcorder you mentioned above Paulo, I'm certain was criticized by many for not having this or that feature. I know for certain the HC1 was. So one person's 'adequate features' is another's 'inadequate features'.

As an owner of a GS400 and of a HC1, I can confirm that these cams were not perfect. But I think that the people mentionned by Paulo are like me, they are not looking for a perfect camera, but only for a 'more featured' non pro HD camcorder...

George Anthonisen · April 21st, 2007, 05:19 AM

I'd be very happy with the picture of the Canon and a build quality similar to the HC7 or HD7.... and I don't think that's too much to ask for... I'd even pay an extra couple hundred for it.

Mike Horrigan · April 21st, 2007, 06:18 AM

The build quality is fine to me.

I'll happily spend the money I saved from not buying a more expensive, lower quality image, elsewhere. :)

Mike

Ken Ross · April 21st, 2007, 08:01 AM

I'm with you Mike, let them keep the build quality as it is and I'll pocket the difference. To me the word 'quality' implies image quality first and lasting quality second. No matter how a cam 'feels' if it doesn't last, if it dies an early death, then its 'feel' is totally irrelevant IMO.

The other thing some people lose sight of, is the fact that including all the features people want will necessitate making the camera far bigger than an HV20 or HC7. Just take a look at the Canon A1, how many of you guys that are clamoring for all these features would want a camera that big for a 'knock around' unit....even if it was priced at $2,000? If I'm shooting HD professionally, then an A1 sized camera is perfect, but purely for 'fun', no thanks. I've found over the years that I'm far more likely to take a camera along if it's small and has great image quality, even if it doesn't have every conceivable feature. I speak from experience having bought an FX1 for a 'fun cam'.....man, was that ever a mistake! Yeah, it had all the features, but, a) I felt like a fool taking this almost broadcast-sized cam to family events and b) It was simply too big and too heavy to enjoy myself where I went.

It is physically impossible to include the plethora of features in a cam like the A1 in to a box the size of an HV20 or HC7. Frankly there's no way I'd buy a cam the size of an A1 if it's strictly used as a 'fun cam'....been there, done that. But that's me.

George Anthonisen · April 21st, 2007, 08:08 AM

Well, I'm certainly NOT just imagining the build quality issue because LOTS of other people are saying the same thing.... don't have to go too far to see it either.

I don't think ANYONE expects to see an A1 crammed into an HC7 package... that's not what's being asked for or questioned here.

Peter Hatton · April 21st, 2007, 08:19 AM

ive used both the hc7 and ive just taken delivery of a UK PAL HV20. Everybody went on about the "inferior" build quality of the HV20 against the Sonys, in reality the build quality of the Canon is perfectly fine. The ability to set the zoom toggle to a preset speed for nice slow zooms is a nice addition and for me goes a little way to putting right the ommission of the LANC port. At the end of the day and has been previously stated, and having used both camcorders, the Canon gives the better picture quality, and the 25p footage ive taken so far is simply beautiful. I like Sony camcorders, dont get me wrong, but the Canon is the best buy right now. Any features it lacks is made up for by the wonderfully rendered images.

Mike Horrigan · April 21st, 2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Anthonisen

Well, I'm certainly NOT just imagining the build quality issue because LOTS of other people are saying the same thing.... don't have to go too far to see it either.

You see what you want to see.

There are no issues with this camera, other than the fact that it records the best possible image in its price range.

If you want to spend more money on a camera that does less, but feels better... feel free. I'll enjoy the HV20 and I won't worry about the build since it really isn't a problem for most people on this board. I mean, has it hindered anyone by falling apart or something?

Nope.

Chat with you guys later, I'm off to the park with my daughter, and the HV20.
Hopefully it won't fall apart on the way there... ;)

Cheers,

Mike

George Anthonisen · April 21st, 2007, 08:30 AM

I don't think anybody said anything about the cam falling apart??? Where are you getting this from? So many people want to take this out of context and I'm not sure why. We're not talking about fitting the A1 into a tiny package... we're not talking about cams falling apart. We're talking a slightly better quality exterior... things like this... not too hard to grasp is it?

That was the major complaint with the HV10 and they sure listened because it was completely changed in the HV20... of course this would not have happened if people did not state their dislike. If everybody swallows the HV20 asis, then there will be no change in the future will there??

Ken Ross · April 21st, 2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Anthonisen

I don't think ANYONE expects to see an A1 crammed into an HC7 package... that's not what's being asked for or questioned here.

Perhaps not, but the point I was making was to GET all those features in that many are asking, you WILL need a box the size of an A1. I think people miss that fact.

Ken Ross · April 21st, 2007, 08:45 AM

When you have consistently talked about 'poor build quality' it certainly gives the impression you are talking about a unit that seems to destined to fall apart in short order. As I've stated before, I agree that some Sonys 'feel' more substantial, but I've had those very same units fail mechanically. To me build quality implies LASTING mechanical quality and in the arena of camcorders that's simply not the case. Would you rather have a unit that 'feels' more solid or IS more solid as shown by its ability to go through time without mechanical failures? In other words 'feel' is superficial and nothing more....unless you can demonstrate a direct correlation between mechanical failure and 'feel'.

Second, nobody that I recall ever complained about the 'build quality' of the HV10. But yet you suggest that people did and then Canon listened and came out with the HV20. Am I to assume that you're saying the build quality is better in the HV20 then the HV10? Your reference to 'build quality' is very clear in your first paragraph which you then draw in when you mention that Canon changed this in the HV20.

April 20th, 2007, 02:42 PM	#31
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	From a film-maker's perspective, LANC would be very nice on the HV20 - even my little old ZR20 has LANC! Why didn't Canon give the sweet little HV20 LANC? I'll bet the HV30 will have LANC and the ability to flip the image internally - as if if the HV20 already isn't a dream, a future camera sure could be a stunner. If HDV is still "in" by that time that is... ;) __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

April 20th, 2007, 07:02 PM	#32
Paulo Teixeira Trustee Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,773	When you see camcorders such as the Panasonic DV953, GS400, Sony TRV950, HC1000, and the HC1 all having adequate features, it seams a little strange that except for the JVC HD7, we haven’t had a feature packed camcorder since 2005. It really is a shame that the JVC HD7 has a bad stabilizer because this makes all the new camcorders unacceptable. This is why people such as me, Dan Peterson, George Anthonisen, Dennis Vogel and Robert Ducon are complaining. It’s not like we’re dreaming. Hopefully within the next few months we start seeing some good quality camcorders again. __________________ https://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoVi...esEtc/featured https://www.pond5.com/artist/paulot

April 21st, 2007, 06:18 AM	#38
Mike Horrigan Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ottawa Canada Posts: 755	The build quality is fine to me. I'll happily spend the money I saved from not buying a more expensive, lower quality image, elsewhere. :) Mike __________________ My short films... The Interview & Calls From The Führerbunker

April 20th, 2007, 08:22 PM	#33
Dennis Vogel Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 409	Paulo, Exactly. I have a DV953. All I want is the HDV equivalent of it and I'll be a happy man. Good luck. Dennis

April 21st, 2007, 05:19 AM	#37
George Anthonisen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Winnipeg Canada Posts: 51	I'd be very happy with the picture of the Canon and a build quality similar to the HC7 or HD7.... and I don't think that's too much to ask for... I'd even pay an extra couple hundred for it.

April 21st, 2007, 08:01 AM	#39
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	I'm with you Mike, let them keep the build quality as it is and I'll pocket the difference. To me the word 'quality' implies image quality first and lasting quality second. No matter how a cam 'feels' if it doesn't last, if it dies an early death, then its 'feel' is totally irrelevant IMO. The other thing some people lose sight of, is the fact that including all the features people want will necessitate making the camera far bigger than an HV20 or HC7. Just take a look at the Canon A1, how many of you guys that are clamoring for all these features would want a camera that big for a 'knock around' unit....even if it was priced at $2,000? If I'm shooting HD professionally, then an A1 sized camera is perfect, but purely for 'fun', no thanks. I've found over the years that I'm far more likely to take a camera along if it's small and has great image quality, even if it doesn't have every conceivable feature. I speak from experience having bought an FX1 for a 'fun cam'.....man, was that ever a mistake! Yeah, it had all the features, but, a) I felt like a fool taking this almost broadcast-sized cam to family events and b) It was simply too big and too heavy to enjoy myself where I went. It is physically impossible to include the plethora of features in a cam like the A1 in to a box the size of an HV20 or HC7. Frankly there's no way I'd buy a cam the size of an A1 if it's strictly used as a 'fun cam'....been there, done that. But that's me.

April 21st, 2007, 08:08 AM	#40
George Anthonisen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Winnipeg Canada Posts: 51	Well, I'm certainly NOT just imagining the build quality issue because LOTS of other people are saying the same thing.... don't have to go too far to see it either. I don't think ANYONE expects to see an A1 crammed into an HC7 package... that's not what's being asked for or questioned here.

April 21st, 2007, 08:19 AM	#41
Peter Hatton New Boot Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: ENGLAND Posts: 11	ive used both the hc7 and ive just taken delivery of a UK PAL HV20. Everybody went on about the "inferior" build quality of the HV20 against the Sonys, in reality the build quality of the Canon is perfectly fine. The ability to set the zoom toggle to a preset speed for nice slow zooms is a nice addition and for me goes a little way to putting right the ommission of the LANC port. At the end of the day and has been previously stated, and having used both camcorders, the Canon gives the better picture quality, and the 25p footage ive taken so far is simply beautiful. I like Sony camcorders, dont get me wrong, but the Canon is the best buy right now. Any features it lacks is made up for by the wonderfully rendered images.

April 21st, 2007, 08:30 AM	#43
George Anthonisen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Winnipeg Canada Posts: 51	I don't think anybody said anything about the cam falling apart??? Where are you getting this from? So many people want to take this out of context and I'm not sure why. We're not talking about fitting the A1 into a tiny package... we're not talking about cams falling apart. We're talking a slightly better quality exterior... things like this... not too hard to grasp is it? That was the major complaint with the HV10 and they sure listened because it was completely changed in the HV20... of course this would not have happened if people did not state their dislike. If everybody swallows the HV20 asis, then there will be no change in the future will there??

April 21st, 2007, 08:45 AM	#45
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	When you have consistently talked about 'poor build quality' it certainly gives the impression you are talking about a unit that seems to destined to fall apart in short order. As I've stated before, I agree that some Sonys 'feel' more substantial, but I've had those very same units fail mechanically. To me build quality implies LASTING mechanical quality and in the arena of camcorders that's simply not the case. Would you rather have a unit that 'feels' more solid or IS more solid as shown by its ability to go through time without mechanical failures? In other words 'feel' is superficial and nothing more....unless you can demonstrate a direct correlation between mechanical failure and 'feel'. Second, nobody that I recall ever complained about the 'build quality' of the HV10. But yet you suggest that people did and then Canon listened and came out with the HV20. Am I to assume that you're saying the build quality is better in the HV20 then the HV10? Your reference to 'build quality' is very clear in your first paragraph which you then draw in when you mention that Canon changed this in the HV20.