Hd110 / Hd200

[Brian Ladue]

I have a question for those of you who own the new HD110. Would you say that JVC has gone through most of its growing pains with their new HD100 cameras with the new HD110s? I mean is there continued problems with the camera? or have they adressed all the issues?

Here's where i'm at, I own a Canon XL1s and I do documentary film work (mostly 60i stuff, but would be into trying 24p/24f). I am looking to upgrade to HD (as is alot of people) but i have my eye on two cameras..... the Canon XH A1 and the HD200. Which apparently are going to be released in the same month. I am just wondering if JVC has had long enough to correct technical issues, and will release a camera that would be problem free from the get go!

Both cams look awesome, and have different strengths/weaknesses, but all in all i think i am attracted to the HD200 because of its ergonomics, and also being a shoulder cam. but the price tag is a bit steeper. I am wondering if the extra cost is worth it!

Any comments? feedback ? help? thanks

[Daniel Weber]

The big advantage of the HD100 is the interchangeable lenses.

No one has seen the A1 yet. There are lots of good experineces with the HD100/110. The thinking would be that the HD200 would have most of the bugs worked out, but you are working with a different codec that does the 720p60. The 720p60 would also be an advantage if you shoot high action stuff.

I love my HD100 and the only advantage I could see with the A1 is the size in certain situations.

Good luck with your decision,

Dan Weber

[Jack Walker]

Here's a good link about the Canon cameras (XH A1 & XH G1):
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/index.php

It seems size might be a big consideration in choosing. Also, exact planned used and type of video shot.

Some other considerations might be SDI out, embedded timecode (G1).

For documentary shooting the new "instant" autofocus might be a big consideration, assuming it works very well.

I think it would be best if you bought the HD200 and the XH G1 -- and I would suggest throwing in the wide angle lens with the HD200.

[Luis Ventura]

Hi there, i also have a HD100 and am happy with it, cosidering the price vs quality, so for me the real option is the XLH1 but for the price i prefer JVC, in HD100 the only bad issue is the audio quality, very bad mic. i don't know if cames better with HD200, but anyway you can change the mic. so i supose is a good choise.

Luis ventura

[Robert Castiglione]

I have the HD111 (could not wait for the 200) and could not be happier. I also had one of the early release cameras. The HD111 has proven totally reliable (crossing fingers here) and is just an outstanding camera which is great for both documentary and drama.The support offered by this discussion group is also invaluable and will help you get the best out of the camera. I used to have the Canon Xl1s and of course there is just no comarison at all - Canon Xl1 and Xl1s was always deficient in resolution in my view.

Rob

[Stephan Ahonen]

I really think the biggest decision to make between Canon and JVC's HDV cameras is interlaced vs. progressive. Now I'm going to go off on a bit of a rant here and say if you choose an interlaced standard over a progressive one, you're an idiot. Interlacing was invented to get around the limitations of 1920s technology. It's something we've been carrying around for 80 years even well after we outgrew its necessity. We have the opportunity with modern technology to completely rid ourselves of interlaced video and the resulting artifacts and complexity of video processing equipment and software. I have no idea why Canon chose 1080i, but it was a bad idea.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

I have no idea why Canon chose 1080i, but it was a bad idea.

Just so they could boost their camera is 1080 lines even though 1080i has basically the same resolution as 720p and when they have their 24f gimmick turned on even less resolution than true 720p. If not for that I have no idea why go with interlaced when the world is advancing towards progressive capture and distribution as fast as we can say 24p.
You know, it's all in the marketing hype:
"Dude, just got myself a 1080p camera. God, that’s what Lucas and Rodriguez use. Yeay!
Well, yeah, it's not really 1080p, but 1080f. It's uh, the same thing, but different, uh, yeah. But hey, it's 1080".

[Michael Maier]

Brian, the HD200 and the A1 are in totally different categories. For me there’s no comparison between them. One is a pro style shoulder camera with a gamma of pro lens options and adapters, shoots real progressive at 720 lines and variable frame rates like 24p, 25p, 50p, 60p. The other is a palmcam style camera shooting interlaced video through a fixed auto lens.
Unless you need the smaller size, the HD200 is a no brainer. If you need the smaller size I wouldn’t think you need SDI out since it’s really a studio feature and small cameras are only a need on the field, but if you need both, go A1 or better, wait and pay some more and get the HD250 which will be even better than the A1 big brother’s XL-H1 in my opinion.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Brian, the HD200 and the A1 are in totally different categories. For me there’s no comparison between them. One is a pro style shoulder camera with a gamma of pro lens options and adapters, shoots real progressive at 720 lines and variable frame rates like 24p, 25p, 50p, 60p. The other is a palmcam style camera shooting interlaced video through a fixed auto lens.
Unless you need the smaller size, the HD200 is a no brainer. If you need the smaller size I wouldn’t think you need SDI out since it’s really a studio feature and small cameras are only a need on the field, but if you need both, go A1 or better, wait and pay some more and get the HD250 which will be even better than the A1 big brother’s XL-H1 in my opinion.

There is more than one way to look at it. The fact that the JVC is "pro style" doesn't make it better for many situations.

Having to carry a camera on the shoulder is very limiting. The smaller camera can be used a lot more freely with more interesting results. This style also presupposes everyone is the same height and everything should be shot at eye level. The end result is that short people get looked down on, tall people get looked up at, and people in the middle get blocked.

The JVC lens options doesn't mean anything unless one is going to buy the lenses... and if the budget for the camera $4000 to $5000, there won't be any better lenses bought. When comparing the standard lens to the fixed lens on the other cameras, I'm not sure the JVC lens will come out best.

If travelling low profile, the JVC camera can cause a lot of problems. The other cameras (including the Z1) can be traveled a lot more conveniently and discretely.

Small stabilizer options are out of the question for the JVC.

Lens accessories are more readily available and easier to use on the 72mm lenses as opposed to JVC's 82mm lens.

Stabilization and autofocus are very, very useful much of the time and make the smaller cameras much easier to get good pictures. The new Canon instant audtofocus on the A1 may be amazing.

I personally don't think handheld, unstabilized video is very watchable, only annoying... and this is on the news, in documentaries, in travelogue video show (ala Huell Howser), in concert videos, etc. I don't know why professional cameras not used on a pedestal don't have stabilization and autofocus. I think both would make a lot more shots usable and a lot less shots annoying and hard to watch. Canon has autofocus and stabilization in all their professional still lenses (and some of them are huge)... so I don't know why it's not possible to put these in a professional ENG video lens. A little stabilization and push-button autofocus would be very valuable.

When choosing a camera, I think it's best to write down exactly how it will be used and what the final output will be, write down the addtional accessories that will be needed to achieve this, then match this list to the cameras, equipment and budget.

[Brian Ladue]

Thanks alot guys, you are a great help.... These websites are a great asset to people trying to make the right purchase.

I have another question though..... what will the total cost to get set up be? With say the HD200...ok here's my breakdown correct me if i am wrong

HD200

1. Camera 8,000.00 US (9,000.00 I am Canadian)
2. A/B Battery Solution approx. 1,500US ( I would need atleast 3 AB Batteries)
3. 13X Wide Lens 12,000.00 US (13,500.00)

Approx total 25,000.00 Canadian w/extra lens
11,500.00 w/o lens
Vs.

XH A1

1. Camera 4,000.00 US (A1) (5,000.00 Can)
2. Batteries Canon 970s 200.00 ea X3 (750.00 Can)
3. .8X Wide converter couldnt be more than 1000.00 Can
4. Flowpod/Monopod (600.00 Can )

Approx total 7,500.00 Canadian


hmmmmm....

or else, 25,000.00 for an XDCam HD.....

Choices, choices choices????

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

.

or else, 25,000.00 for an XDCam HD.....

Choices, choices choices????

Exactly what are you going to be shooting? (movie short for film transfer, run and gun documentary, events)

What kind of crew will you have? (1 person, you plus sound, etc.)

What style of shooting will you do? (always on tripod, always on shoulder, cramming in and out of groups handheld, etc.)

What is the final output for the video? (broadcast, DVD, DVD SD now and DVD HD in future, transfer to film etc.)

What kind of subjects/motion will you be shooting? (interviews, sports, run-and gun documentary of hyper-type people, etc.)

Where will you be using the camera? (close to homebase, always traveling by air, inside Canada, internationally, in countries where big cameras attract too much attention, etc.)

What is your editing platform and its power -- can you edit 1080i efficiently, or is 720p most manageable? (Final Cut, Edius, etc.)

Optional equipment for the camera depends on some of the above questions.

[Stephan Ahonen]

Posts like the above make me question how much video you've actually shot on a truly professional level.

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

The fact that the JVC is "pro style" doesn't make it better for many situations.

It does make it better for the vast majority of them, though, which is why all professional cameras are designed with that form factor.

Having to carry a camera on the shoulder is very limiting.

Which is why it can be mounted to a tripod, dolly, jib, or held over your head or held by the handle near the ground. Everything a palmcorder can do, except that unlike a palmcorder you can shoot from the shoulder for no-fatigue handheld shooting (ever shoot handheld with a palmcorder for 3 hours straight?).

The JVC lens options doesn't mean anything unless one is going to buy the lenses

You do have a point there, but I have a feeling this problem will go away when more people release a greater variety of inexpensive lenses for the camera. The JVC actually created the market for inexpensive 1/3" ENG lenses, and an HD lens takes an incredible amount of engineering, so don't be suprised that it's taken this long.

Lens accessories are more readily available and easier to use on the 72mm lenses as opposed to JVC's 82mm lens.

You're just looking in the wrong place. While 72mm is a standard size for 35mm photography, you will be hard pressed to find a broadcast ENG lens with a 72mm filter thread. Try looking through broadcast dealers.

Stabilization and autofocus are very, very useful much of the time

Only if you're a bad shooter. For a professional shooter stabilization is more of a hindrance than a boon, since it tries to follow your intentional movements as well, making all your camerawork lag. Given the option, I and most other professionals I know, turn it off. Canon's 87x and 100x EFP lenses have image stabilization in them and I don't know anybody who actually uses it. As for focus, anyone who's been shooting for any amount of time at all can do that better than every single autofocus system I've ever seen except the distance measurement on still cameras.

I don't know why professional cameras not used on a pedestal don't have stabilization and autofocus.

See above. Nobody would use them because they don't work very well.

I should also point out that handhelds on the shoulder don't need stabilization as much as a palmcorder because they're more stable on your shoulder than a palmcorder in your hand. Put a palmcorder in the same situations you're claiming "unwatchable video" and I don't think you would see it perform nearly as well.

[Stephan Ahonen]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

or else, 25,000.00 for an XDCam HD.....

Don't forget the lens. XDCam doesn't come with a lens, and as far as I can tell only comes in interlace standards.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

Don't forget the lens. XDCam doesn't come with a lens, and as far as I can tell only comes in interlace standards.

Not to nitpick you, Stephan, but I just bought a new F350 with a VERY good SD lens that is passing 800+ lines for much less than $25k.

XDCAM HD chips are interlaced, but output true progressive frames to disc. You lose a little bit vertically in progressive modes, but not half. Similar to the Xl-H1.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

Posts like the above make me question how much video you've actually shot on a truly professional level.

You have the opportunity to give the other side, as you do.

As an example of my point of view, the PD150 had been used extensively for professional broadcast applications. It may have been replaced now, but go back to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel... and many more.

I still say it goes to use of the camera and the final output and all the surrounding factors.

The Z1U is 72mm, not 82mm. Check another nearby thread for traveling with the HD100... very difficult compared to traveling with the Z1U just because of size and form factor.

Yes, the HD100 doesn't have to be put on the shoulder. However, it's close to impossible to manage if you're trying to handhold eye level all day with a bunch of 5 year olds. Throw in the lack of autofocus and the lack of stabilization, this scenario makes the HD100 the wrong camera to my mind.

The HD100 also needs heavy batteries to balance the camera on the should, making it that much harder to hold out at arms length, to hold around corners, etc. The heavy batteries (which are required because of the lackluster performance of the stock battery) are required, but removing them to quickly put on the light battery for a quick shot is not that quick or easy since you have to take out screws to remove the adapter, etc.

The wideangle lens throws the camera that much more out of balance for shoulder carrying, requiring more weight at the back (a second battery, a wireless rig).

And so forth...

However, since I bought and own the HD110 and the wideangle lens and an AB battery and not the Z1U, I do recognize the value of the camera.

However, a friend recently bought the Z1U and it is perfect for him, and the HD100, in his situation, would be close to useless.

When it comes to professional cameras, I think they are best used for what they are intended for. Of course and ENG shoulder mount camera is best for ENG work, darting about town in a van, running down D.C. streets chasing politicians, storming into someone's private home and disrupting their lives with loud noises, bright lights and dumb questios: How do you feel about the death of your son?

If your making a documentary, traveling out of a backpack, in a place where a big shoulder mount camera is ridiculously out of place, there are some outstanding alternatives -- with more coming -- that will produce excellent video.