Canon-Sony comparative test, diff. lenses at DVinfo.net

Matteo Ricchetti · January 4th, 2006, 11:55 AM

To everybody interested in a Sony-Canon comparative test...

http://www.eidomedia.com/test

Matteo

Tony Davies-Patrick · January 4th, 2006, 01:38 PM

It is hard to compare the images shown on my 17" TFT screen, but it is still interesting how well the old 14X lens and XL2 lens compares to the new HD 20X.

It makes me want even more to buy a H1 body and use my 16X Manual Servo lens and Nikkor lenses instead of the new lens!

Petr Marusek · January 4th, 2006, 02:28 PM

Canon H1 is so much sharper than Sony Z1, one can hardly believe it. The old Canon manual 14x lens is excellent.

Shannon Rawls · January 4th, 2006, 02:57 PM

Amazing isn't it?

Sharp & filmlike. It's amazing to look at. Like I'm looking at 35mm dailies or something.
Beleive me, if you give a good DP this weapon he would be a KILLER! We'd have to restrain him in chains like a wild mad dog gone crazy.

- ShannonRawls.com

Alexander Nikishin · January 4th, 2006, 07:01 PM

In the "Test ottiche canon HD, 14X Manual, XL" the pic using the H1's lens definitely shows some abberation on the upper right corner house's roof. 35mm like? No way jose. But still looks good. I actually like the look of the old 14x manual lens better than the H1's lens.

Tony Davies-Patrick · January 5th, 2006, 01:26 AM

I prefer the 14X lens as well. I expect that my 16X Manual servo lens would produce similar results.

Robert Mann Z. · January 5th, 2006, 01:59 AM

so much for the theory that you need a special HD lens to shoot HD...that manual lens is a thing of beauty...

i'm not shocked by the increase in rez on the h1, it costs twice of that sony cam...

Michael Pappas · January 5th, 2006, 04:15 AM

1/3 lenses have to be good in the first place because of the 1/3 target size. A 1/3 target requires critical lens specs..So those lenses are made very good in the first place. When a 1/3 lens is made bad, it's quite ugly...

Pappas

Pete Bauer · January 5th, 2006, 07:09 AM

Yeah, the official Canon position is that you need an HD lens to shoot HD, but the reality is that the existing XL lenses do pretty well. I did a crude rez test and even the allegedly "soft" 3x lens looked so good that I quickly decided I would NOT be selling it when my XL2 finds a new home. It wasn't quite as sharp as the new HD lens, of course, but if I really need a WIDE shot, the 3x will do just fine.

Mike Marriage · January 5th, 2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

Yeah, the official Canon position is that you need an HD lens to really shoot HD, but the reality is that the existing XL lenses do really pretty well. I did a crude rez test and even the allegedly "soft" 3x lens looked so good that I quickly decided I would NOT be selling it when my XL2 finds a new home. It wasn't quite as sharp as the new HD lens, of course, but if I really need a WIDE shot, the 3x will do just fine.

Peter,

What sort of results did the different lens produce? 3x/20xSD/20xHD?

Pete Bauer · January 5th, 2006, 08:22 AM

http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm

Shannon Rawls · January 5th, 2006, 10:41 AM

Sorry if I'm the odd guy out.

But those Canon XL-H1 photos look like utter Sh****t to me!
So do the Sony ones.

I know it's not an "IMAGE" test and it's more of a comparative resolution test between sony & canon. But still, I gotta say, those snapshots look like crap.

- ShannonRawls.com

Martin Doppelbauer · January 5th, 2006, 10:51 AM

Thanks a lot for the comparison. Very interesting, indeed.
The quality difference comes as no surprise to me. Here in Europe street prices of the Canon are actually more than three times as much as the FX1. You can expect a better quality for that, couldn't you ?
However I would like to compare moving images. Perhaps we could get some original clips of both cameras ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Mann Z.

so much for the theory that you need a special HD lens to shoot HD

This is a mystery I could never understand myself as well. Compared to digital still image photography even true 1080p is no high resolution.
Why would one need a "special" lens to fully resolve just 2 megapixels ? Come on.
A high quality "SD" lens should do the trick just as well - and these photos prove just that.

Tony Davies-Patrick · January 5th, 2006, 11:10 AM

I would agree that non of the actual images look that great and definitely wouldn't make me rush out and buy the H1, but as a comparison to the HD lens, the 14X shines...well at least copes far better than Canon was saying at the launch.

I'd like to see some more comparisons with the different lenses - both zoom and primes, HD & non-HD, in a variety of situations and light conditions.

As far as the H1 goes, I'd like to see how it copes with low light and harsh natural sunlight outdoors at dusk, midday and dawn.

January 4th, 2006, 11:55 AM	#1
Matteo Ricchetti Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Italy Posts: 39	Canon-Sony comparative test, diff. lenses To everybody interested in a Sony-Canon comparative test... http://www.eidomedia.com/test Matteo

January 4th, 2006, 01:38 PM	#2
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	It is hard to compare the images shown on my 17" TFT screen, but it is still interesting how well the old 14X lens and XL2 lens compares to the new HD 20X. It makes me want even more to buy a H1 body and use my 16X Manual Servo lens and Nikkor lenses instead of the new lens! __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

January 4th, 2006, 02:57 PM	#4
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Amazing isn't it? Sharp & filmlike. It's amazing to look at. Like I'm looking at 35mm dailies or something. Beleive me, if you give a good DP this weapon he would be a KILLER! We'd have to restrain him in chains like a wild mad dog gone crazy. - ShannonRawls.com __________________ Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

January 5th, 2006, 01:26 AM	#6
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	I prefer the 14X lens as well. I expect that my 16X Manual servo lens would produce similar results. __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

January 5th, 2006, 07:09 AM	#9
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Yeah, the official Canon position is that you need an HD lens to shoot HD, but the reality is that the existing XL lenses do pretty well. I did a crude rez test and even the allegedly "soft" 3x lens looked so good that I quickly decided I would NOT be selling it when my XL2 finds a new home. It wasn't quite as sharp as the new HD lens, of course, but if I really need a WIDE shot, the 3x will do just fine. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 4th, 2006, 02:28 PM	#3
Petr Marusek Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 155	Canon H1 is so much sharper than Sony Z1, one can hardly believe it. The old Canon manual 14x lens is excellent.

January 4th, 2006, 07:01 PM	#5
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	In the "Test ottiche canon HD, 14X Manual, XL" the pic using the H1's lens definitely shows some abberation on the upper right corner house's roof. 35mm like? No way jose. But still looks good. I actually like the look of the old 14x manual lens better than the H1's lens.

January 5th, 2006, 01:59 AM	#7
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	so much for the theory that you need a special HD lens to shoot HD...that manual lens is a thing of beauty... i'm not shocked by the increase in rez on the h1, it costs twice of that sony cam...

January 5th, 2006, 04:15 AM	#8
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	1/3 lenses have to be good in the first place because of the 1/3 target size. A 1/3 target requires critical lens specs..So those lenses are made very good in the first place. When a 1/3 lens is made bad, it's quite ugly... Pappas

January 5th, 2006, 08:22 AM	#11
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 5th, 2006, 10:41 AM	#12
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Sorry if I'm the odd guy out. But those Canon XL-H1 photos look like utter Sh**t to me! So do the Sony ones. I know it's not an "IMAGE" test and it's more of a comparative resolution test between sony & canon. But still, I gotta say, those snapshots look like crap. - ShannonRawls.com __________________ Shannon W. Rawls** ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

January 5th, 2006, 11:10 AM	#14
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	I would agree that non of the actual images look that great and definitely wouldn't make me rush out and buy the H1, but as a comparison to the HD lens, the 14X shines...well at least copes far better than Canon was saying at the launch. I'd like to see some more comparisons with the different lenses - both zoom and primes, HD & non-HD, in a variety of situations and light conditions. As far as the H1 goes, I'd like to see how it copes with low light and harsh natural sunlight outdoors at dusk, midday and dawn. __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk