HD100 vs Z1

[Eric Wotila]

Hey,

Still looking into HD cameras. I was just about set to pick up an FX1, but then I thought about maybe saving up for a Z1... and when I get up to the $5000 price range, why not go up to the HD100? My concern is 720p. I know there's a whole thread going on 720p vs 1080i, but I don't know if someone can point me in the right direction. Between the HD100 and Z1, which do you all think is the better option? Thanks in advance for any advice!

[Barry Green]

Those cameras are night-and-day different. Every aspect of them is different. Z1=handycam-style, HD100=shoulder-mount. Z1=1080i, HD100=720p. Z1=fixed lens, HD100=interchangeable lens. Z1=$4900 street, JVC=probably $6000 street (to start). And, of course, Z1=available now, HD100=maybe July.

They have practically nothing in common -- you should be able to take one look at them and determine which one you want.

Decide what you want to use the camera for, and the choice between these two should be quite easy.

[Eric Wotila]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Those cameras are night-and-day different. Every aspect of them is different. Z1=handycam-style, HD100=shoulder-mount. Z1=1080i, HD100=720p. Z1=fixed lens, HD100=interchangeable lens. Z1=$4900 street, JVC=probably $6000 street (to start). And, of course, Z1=available now, HD100=maybe July.

They have practically nothing in common -- you should be able to take one look at them and determine which one you want.

Decide what you want to use the camera for, and the choice between these two should be quite easy.

Just an FYI--B&H has the HD100 listed as $5499.99 with lens.

I plan to use the camera for ENG, industrial video, broadcast, and indie filmmaking. I much prefer a shoulder mount form factor, and although I don't see any immediate need for them, interchangable lenses are a plus.

So, sounds like the HD100 is the camera for me, right? My only concern is the fact that the FX1 has more resolution.... any comments?

[Mike Tiffee]

Originally Posted by Eric Wotila

So, sounds like the HD100 is the camera for me, right? My only concern is the fact that the FX1 has more resolution.... any comments?

Both are HD cameras and both will produce great looking pictures, don't choose a camera based on resolution alone - you already said the HD100 better suits your needs. IMO, 1080i and 720p are pretty close to equal in quality.

[Eric Wotila]

Originally Posted by Mike Tiffee

Both are HD cameras and both will produce great looking pictures, don't choose a camera based on resolution alone - you already said the HD100 better suits your needs. IMO, 1080i and 720p are pretty close to equal in quality.

The HD100 certainly does seem to be the way to go. My only concern was that 1080i would have a much better quality than 720p, but since that doesn't seem to be the case, I'll probably go with the HD100. Thanks for the advice!

[Tommy James]

Of course Sony will always come up with the argument that 720p could be considered high definition but real high definition starts with 1080i etc.
One must remember that 1080i only produces about 810 lines of vertical resolution because of the Kell factor. So you may find that 1080i is a lot closer to 720p than you would have thought. I think the real test will be after comparing the footage obtained from both cameras.

[Graeme Nattress]

Surely it's the interlace filtering to stop twitter that drops you down from 1080 to 800 or so, and both the 720p (of a 720p camera) and the 800 or so will be effected by the Kell factor as that's mostly accounting for the resolution of a sampled system, whether it be interlaced or progressive??

Either way, 720p is very comparably to 1080i, and it's also worth noting, that in a small 1/3" ccd camera, you're much more likely to be recording more of that 720p resolution than 1080i resolution due to the relative lack of sharpness of the lenses due to the small CCD size.

Graeme

Eric,

Glad you asked the question, as I've been wondering the same. If it's OK, I'd like to add to the question-

Do JVC and Sony have equal reliability and product support?

I've had a Canon GL2 for almost 3 years and it's been great. No problems, works every time when shooting and when using it with my Mac.

So I'm hoping to continue that "just works great" factor with my next camera (Z1 or HD100). Does anyone have any comments on reliablity and product support from these two manufacturers?

From what I've read in this forum over the past week or so, everyone loves their FX1's and Z1's. But I thought it was too hard to judge what could be expected of the future HD100 based on HD1 or HD10 comments. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not asking anyone what they think of the HD100 (since it's not available yet), just thoughts on if JVC produces a quality product like Canon and/or Sony?

My own experience with Sony products (most recently a cybershot F828 and Vaio laptop) has been great. Is JVC an equal quality product? If this is too off-topic from Eric's original question, please feel free to delete or move this post. Thank you.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I think they are both okay, other there would be less people buying JVC.
Of course, with electronics, the chances of something that one time stops working is always there, even if you handle your material carefully.
I know that Sony has a good reputation of the speed at which they repair thing, and I don't know if that's the case with JVC, so I couldn't tell you that, but I think there is not so much to worry about that.
Good luck!

[Dominic Jones]

Well, JVC don't have the best name in the business, a fact that's been pointed out many times on many forums in many debates.

That said, it doesn't mean they can't make a quality product. I've shot a hell of a lot of hours on GY-DV500's and 700's and they're both fine cameras. Although, the be fair, I prefer Sony's DSR range! (now I'm going to be flagellated as a Sony lover ;).

Ultimately you're going to need to see the camera to make an educated decision. It sounds a lot like you're not in a hurry to buy and assuming that's the case I'd wait for the HD-100 to come out and then decide from there what is the best option. I certainly wish I could!...

[Dylan Pank]

The biggest difference between the cameras image wise (lenses and form factor notwithstanding) is that the sony shoots at 60iand therefore can get the "live" video look that is very important for ENG/event videography.

The HD100 shoots at 30p, It does have true 24p, very important for Indie filmmaking, which the Sonys don't have.

However you CAN get 24 fps footage from the Sonys by post processing the footage.

[Tommy James]

The JVC camera does output the full 60 frames per secound in its analog uncompressed output. All that is required is an HD-SDI converter so that this camera can be used for ENG and live sports broadcasting.

[Tommy James]

What do you mean JVC does not have the best name in the business? JVC introduced the worlds first consumer high definition video camera. If this was not enough the same year JVC introduced its line of super high definition 1500i televisions that upconverts 720p not just to 1080i but all the way up to 1500i. So for the same price of a Sony video camera that does not come with a television JVC buyers got a video camera plus the super high definition display 2560 by 1440.

[Ken Hodson]

I don't think anyone should get into the mind set that the Sony has higher resolution. It may be higher on tape, but it is the recorded resolution that matters. The Sony's use 960x1080 chips which they pixel shift to 1440x1080, then record to tape at 1920x1080.
For example, it has been stated many times that the older hd10 is a little sharper in head to head comparisons with the Sony FX/Z1. Now consider that the HD100 uses 3 chips unlike its little brother, so it will not suffer the resolution drop inherent of 1ccd. Also consider the resolution drop that all interlaced cams suffer. One other huge point to consider is compression. Compression eats resolution, at least visually. The HD100 or HD10 offers much more data per pixel captured, based on 720p into 19Mbps than FX/Z1 at 1080i into 25Mbps. The JVC's also use a 6 frame GOP while Sony a 12 frame GOP. All of this math is compounded more when you consider the HD100 has the ability to shoot 24p, thus saving 1/6th more bandwidth. Even less compression means the JVC data per pixel climbs even higher.
This said, I still think most amature cam users would find the Sony's preferable. Progressive must be shot like film. Slow movements, tripods, ect. Interlace better suits hand held, and fast motion (although the 12 frame GOP may disagree). As well shooting progressive will always have lower light capability than shooting interlaced. This matters to consummers who are shooting without lighting setups.
Sony is obviously targeting the eager HD consummer who is attracted by the big number "1080i" while JVC is targeting the indie filmaker. Sony's market is about 100 times bigger, but JVC must find its niche somewhere or die.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

I don't think anyone should get into the mind set that the Sony has higher resolution. It may be higher on tape, but it is the recorded resolution that matters. The Sony's use 960x1080 chips which they pixel shift to 1440x1080, then record to tape at 1920x1080.

Not quite....
Sony records the image to tape at 1440 x 1080. The NLE then uses a pixel aspect ratio stretch of 1.333 to accomodate the 1440 to 1920 image. This is similar to DV, except it's a horizontal vs vertical pixel aspect ratio.