Thinking of getting the XL H1… good/bad idea?

Barlow Elton · February 10th, 2006, 12:10 PM

Another good point. Looks do matter. It's certainly superficial, but it's true, people that aren't camera savvy will think a JVC HD100 or XL-H1 is more professional than a camera with a handycam form factor, no matter how beefy, ala FX-1 or even HVX200.

Neither the JVC or Canon is all that big, but it crosses a threshold towards the pro cam look.

If it were me doing this, I think I'd opt for the JVC.

Dennis Hingsberg · February 10th, 2006, 12:37 PM

Anyone know the main differences between the HD100 and XLH1 and why the dramatic price difference? I'd love to upgrade from my XL2 but I myself am stuck with which way to go. I use the mini35 so I definitely want a camera where the lens comes completely off. I also need to shoot 24p but read in the HD shootout on DVXuser that the H1 does some kind of weird field doubling in 24p mode... this does not sound that great to me. But as Barlow pointed out the JVC does not do live 60hz HD.

Barlow Elton · February 10th, 2006, 12:51 PM

take a look at a few 24F H1 clips. Do these look field-doubled to you?

I believe it's a good deinterlace of 48i to make a virtual 24p. Definitely works for me!

www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton (btw, the gun isn't real. It's a PSA about gun safety)

I think the price differential is partly Canon being Canon, (I think a fair amount of R&D went into the cam to be fair) and the Pro Jackpack options.

The JVC is a screamin' deal, but it's a little bit limited when you consider you don't get 60p from tape.

Larry Huntington · February 10th, 2006, 02:35 PM

Being an XL2 owner and using Sony, I have had the opportunity to shoot with Canon and Sony in wedding environments. Which one is better? Depends on the wedding. Anything outdoors with good light?-Canon. Having the flexibility with a long lense and or wide angle is nice. Canon loves light. Shallow depth of field is easier to achieve with the Cannon.

Now the last wedding I shot I used a Sony PD-170 and my XL2 (and a third cam rolling for establishing shots). This was an indoor wedding and I had to use lights because it was so dark. I still had to gain up the Canon and the image became soft....too soft. The sony loves low light conditions and it is easier to tote around getting interviews (smaller cams mean less intimidation from interviewees).

On a side note, even though I don't make my living shooting weddings, I feel 3 prosumer cameras are essential for wedding shoots over $2,000 (and 3 of the same cameras makes it way easier to match.) I spent many moons figuring out how to match the color of Sony and the Canon. So if you are serious about running a wedding video business, I would not worry about HD and I would really hone in on SD with 3 nice cameras. If it were me, I would probably go with Sony, because they work well in low light and are easier to move around. Turning on lights is a hasstle, and just seems too intusive for a wedding. Having the good "looks" with big camera is not important to me. If I have 3 PD-170's or FX1's, I will look professional- no doubt. Plus the proof is in the pudding- and your reputation as a shooter. Believe me, a third camera is a must. Live shooting can be stressful for some and it's nice to have a third cam grabbing the audience in case of a focus pull issue or in case you need to move your camera because the wedding party missed their marks on the alter. I don't know the demand for HD weddings right now, but I wouldn't worry about that. Go for a solid SD package that is seemless with edits and good imagery. Just my $.02. Hope this helps!

Vincent Rozenberg · February 10th, 2006, 02:59 PM

Just to throw in another angle.. ;-) :
I've shot with the XL1 since 1998 and still using it occasionally. But I'm aware that the camera is on it's end. So 8 years with that camera.

Now I'm shooting with my brand new XL H1, mostly in SD, but I think that with in 2 years from now most of it will be HD. So you can say 1 investment to handle both..

Mathieu Ghekiere · February 10th, 2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Rozenberg

Just to throw in another angle.. ;-) :
I've shot with the XL1 since 1998 and still using it occasionally. But I'm aware that the camera is on it's end. So 8 years with that camera.

Now I'm shooting with my brand new XL H1, mostly in SD, but I think that with in 2 years from now most of it will be HD. So you can say 1 investment to handle both..

Vincent, how much better is the SD picture from the XL H1 compared to that from your old XL1?
I know it of course be much better, but can you go into more detail? Just curious...

Vincent Rozenberg · February 10th, 2006, 06:02 PM

@ Mathieu: A world of difference I can tell you that! More detail, more resolution, richer colours, sharper, less noise.. All the things you can think of. Beside the picture there's the whole operating aspect which has been improved as well (viewfinder, shoulder pad, xlr, lens, settings etc.). No wonder, we're about 9 years further since the release of the XL1..

But I think this is bringing us slightly of topic don't you think? Maybe an idea for an other topic..? ;-)

Dennis Hingsberg · February 10th, 2006, 06:52 PM

So many angles, so many choices...

So Andrew - have you come to any conclusion yet? Will it be SD or HD, and if HD which one? Sony, JVC, Canon or Panasonic?

Andrew Goodman · February 11th, 2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

So many angles, so many choices...

So Andrew - have you come to any conclusion yet? Will it be SD or HD, and if HD which one? Sony, JVC, Canon or Panasonic?

Well Dennis… these are questions that I can’t wait to answer myself… although I now feel I am getting very close to these answers. I am not one to rush into something like this lightly… after all why make a quick decision and end up paying for it in the long run as I am sure you will all understand. Although I really cant wait to have it all ordered… also the hard drive of my editing computer packed in last night… ever feel like the world is against you sometimes? ;-)

So far my train of though has been this… I have wanted the Canon XL2 for some time, called it my dream camcorder but felt it was too expensive for just SD. I then looked at the JVC HD100 and was very impressed and really considered it but it hasn’t got image stabilizer and auto focus… a bit of a kick in the teeth as if it had these it could have been ordered and all. (for weddings… no second chance et these two things are needed IMO)

Then came looking at the XL H1… looking back I think it was too hash to look into this camcorder at this time, I just figured it was an XL2 with HV… I figured how could you go wrong? Although I got priced a very good deal with one with (package deal with all accessories etc) I took a step back and figured this is just too much money… you could get two XL2’s for this. So my mind went back to the XL2.

Then last night for no reason at all my mind was drawn to the Sony FX-1, as I could get three for one XL H1, shoot in HD and convert to SD with the option for bride and groom down the line etc to get a HD version, then just now I come onto this forum and people have been suggesting the Sony FX-1… funny how that happened… or maybe not.

So I am now seriously looking into the FX-1, I read reviews that the mic isn’t too hot on this camcorder so I will look into an external mic (any suggestions). A downside of this camcorder is it’s looks when you see a XL2 of HD100 because I feel this is a very valid point as its been said before but at the end of the day when the happy couple are sitting watching excellent footage will they say “pity the camcorder wasn’t bigger or didn’t look more professional” I’d doubt it very much! Also I could upgrade a year or two down the line or even keep this one for all the price of it.

If your still reading this thanks and any more comments on the stuff I have written will (as always) be very welcomed and thanks again guys for all and the continued input it’s a great site and community I have come across here, one which I will now very much be part of.

Dennis Robinson · February 11th, 2006, 09:43 AM

"A downside of this camcorder is it’s looks when you see a XL2 of HD100 because I feel this is a very valid point as its been said before but at the end of the day when the happy couple are sitting watching excellent footage will they say “pity the camcorder wasn’t bigger or didn’t look more professional” I’d doubt it very much! Also I could upgrade a year or two down the line or even keep this one for all the price of it."

I couldnt use a Sony because of this. It looks like a toy and I can charge a lot more for my work with the Canon. I do like the JVC but it worries me that it doesnt have image stabalisation. I use my camera for a living and it is important that the gear I use looks professional. I cant for the life of me see how anyone would think that the Sony was more then a camera that Uncle Bob would have at home.

Andrew Goodman · February 11th, 2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Robinson

I couldnt use a Sony because of this. It looks like a toy and I can charge a lot more for my work with the Canon. I do like the JVC but it worries me that it doesnt have image stabalisation. I use my camera for a living and it is important that the gear I use looks professional. I cant for the life of me see how anyone would think that the Sony was more then a camera that Uncle Bob would have at home.

Again good point… this is a reason I wanted the Canon XL2, you bring that out at a wedding and everyone will think professional!!!

Dennis Robinson · February 11th, 2006, 10:24 AM

Hi Andrew,
I have been reding the posts here for some time but that was my first post. How do you select a quote like you displayed mine?

Vincent Rozenberg · February 11th, 2006, 10:25 AM

Click on the quote button underneath each post. Then delete the text you do not want to quote..

Dennis Robinson · February 11th, 2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Rozenberg

Click on the quote button underneath each post. Then delete the text you do not want to quote..

Thanks Vincent,
I just have to try it.

Dennis Robinson · February 11th, 2006, 10:35 AM

I just recently saw the JVCHD100 camera but I understand that it doesnt have auto focus and image stabilisation. Does anyone have any thoughts on the lack of these features. I am currently using a Canon XL1s and want to move to either the Canon or new JVC HDV cameras

February 10th, 2006, 12:37 PM	#17
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	Anyone know the main differences between the HD100 and XLH1 and why the dramatic price difference? I'd love to upgrade from my XL2 but I myself am stuck with which way to go. I use the mini35 so I definitely want a camera where the lens comes completely off. I also need to shoot 24p but read in the HD shootout on DVXuser that the H1 does some kind of weird field doubling in 24p mode... this does not sound that great to me. But as Barlow pointed out the JVC does not do live 60hz HD. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

February 10th, 2006, 06:52 PM	#23
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	So many angles, so many choices... So Andrew - have you come to any conclusion yet? Will it be SD or HD, and if HD which one? Sony, JVC, Canon or Panasonic? __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

February 11th, 2006, 09:43 AM	#25
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	"A downside of this camcorder is it’s looks when you see a XL2 of HD100 because I feel this is a very valid point as its been said before but at the end of the day when the happy couple are sitting watching excellent footage will they say “pity the camcorder wasn’t bigger or didn’t look more professional” I’d doubt it very much! Also I could upgrade a year or two down the line or even keep this one for all the price of it." I couldnt use a Sony because of this. It looks like a toy and I can charge a lot more for my work with the Canon. I do like the JVC but it worries me that it doesnt have image stabalisation. I use my camera for a living and it is important that the gear I use looks professional. I cant for the life of me see how anyone would think that the Sony was more then a camera that Uncle Bob would have at home. __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

February 11th, 2006, 10:24 AM	#27
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	Hi Andrew, I have been reding the posts here for some time but that was my first post. How do you select a quote like you displayed mine? __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

February 11th, 2006, 10:35 AM	#30
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	I just recently saw the JVCHD100 camera but I understand that it doesnt have auto focus and image stabilisation. Does anyone have any thoughts on the lack of these features. I am currently using a Canon XL1s and want to move to either the Canon or new JVC HDV cameras __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

February 10th, 2006, 12:10 PM	#16
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	Another good point. Looks do matter. It's certainly superficial, but it's true, people that aren't camera savvy will think a JVC HD100 or XL-H1 is more professional than a camera with a handycam form factor, no matter how beefy, ala FX-1 or even HVX200. Neither the JVC or Canon is all that big, but it crosses a threshold towards the pro cam look. If it were me doing this, I think I'd opt for the JVC.

February 10th, 2006, 12:51 PM	#18
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	take a look at a few 24F H1 clips. Do these look field-doubled to you? I believe it's a good deinterlace of 48i to make a virtual 24p. Definitely works for me! www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton (btw, the gun isn't real. It's a PSA about gun safety) I think the price differential is partly Canon being Canon, (I think a fair amount of R&D went into the cam to be fair) and the Pro Jackpack options. The JVC is a screamin' deal, but it's a little bit limited when you consider you don't get 60p from tape.

February 10th, 2006, 02:35 PM	#19
Larry Huntington Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Grass Valley, California Posts: 350	Being an XL2 owner and using Sony, I have had the opportunity to shoot with Canon and Sony in wedding environments. Which one is better? Depends on the wedding. Anything outdoors with good light?-Canon. Having the flexibility with a long lense and or wide angle is nice. Canon loves light. Shallow depth of field is easier to achieve with the Cannon. Now the last wedding I shot I used a Sony PD-170 and my XL2 (and a third cam rolling for establishing shots). This was an indoor wedding and I had to use lights because it was so dark. I still had to gain up the Canon and the image became soft....too soft. The sony loves low light conditions and it is easier to tote around getting interviews (smaller cams mean less intimidation from interviewees). On a side note, even though I don't make my living shooting weddings, I feel 3 prosumer cameras are essential for wedding shoots over $2,000 (and 3 of the same cameras makes it way easier to match.) I spent many moons figuring out how to match the color of Sony and the Canon. So if you are serious about running a wedding video business, I would not worry about HD and I would really hone in on SD with 3 nice cameras. If it were me, I would probably go with Sony, because they work well in low light and are easier to move around. Turning on lights is a hasstle, and just seems too intusive for a wedding. Having the good "looks" with big camera is not important to me. If I have 3 PD-170's or FX1's, I will look professional- no doubt. Plus the proof is in the pudding- and your reputation as a shooter. Believe me, a third camera is a must. Live shooting can be stressful for some and it's nice to have a third cam grabbing the audience in case of a focus pull issue or in case you need to move your camera because the wedding party missed their marks on the alter. I don't know the demand for HD weddings right now, but I wouldn't worry about that. Go for a solid SD package that is seemless with edits and good imagery. Just my $.02. Hope this helps!

February 10th, 2006, 02:59 PM	#20
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	Just to throw in another angle.. ;-) : I've shot with the XL1 since 1998 and still using it occasionally. But I'm aware that the camera is on it's end. So 8 years with that camera. Now I'm shooting with my brand new XL H1, mostly in SD, but I think that with in 2 years from now most of it will be HD. So you can say 1 investment to handle both..

February 10th, 2006, 06:02 PM	#22
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	@ Mathieu: A world of difference I can tell you that! More detail, more resolution, richer colours, sharper, less noise.. All the things you can think of. Beside the picture there's the whole operating aspect which has been improved as well (viewfinder, shoulder pad, xlr, lens, settings etc.). No wonder, we're about 9 years further since the release of the XL1.. But I think this is bringing us slightly of topic don't you think? Maybe an idea for an other topic..? ;-)

February 11th, 2006, 10:25 AM	#28
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	Click on the quote button underneath each post. Then delete the text you do not want to quote..