XH A1 or something else?
 

I want to upgrade from my HV30 to a larger and "more pro" camera and was thinking of getting an XH A1 (mostly because it's also a Canon and it's within my budget), but just stopped to think if I should get an HVX or something else along those lines? Is the XH A1 really the best bang for my buck or should I look into something else instead?

Just for my cents worth Jackie, I have just up-graded my HV-30 to an HF-S10, a totally different approach but for the following reasons :

1 - Records direct to its inbuilt 32g memory or to an SD card.

2 - Although to date I have been totally tape, I think this one with the latest AVCHD recording at 24MBts and not having to download (Capture) files, is the icing on the cake. No other camera at present, that I am aware of anywhere near this price, records AVCHD at 24MBts.

3 - Also, it has very good low light capability & has a larger lens and having no HDD is totally quiet in operation.

The main drawback is that it has no viewfinder but I was not impressed with the HV-30's VF either as it was mechanically fixed.
Also, the manual is in PDF only. - See my other post on this one as I was not impressed. However, over here in PAL land the Canon customer service people are excellent. - I used to be an almost exclusive Sony buyer but their help side of things has been most unimpressive over the last few years.

Hope this helps.

Ron C.

I had a Sony FX7 and sent it back to the store I bought it from. Not because it was a bad camera, far from it. However, it's 1080i only, and I couldn't find a way to get an acceptable film-like look in post-production.

So this Friday I went out and bought an HF-S100, which is the same camera as the HF-S10, the only difference being is that the 'S100 lacks the 32GB of onboard flash memory found on the 'S10.

The biggest reason why I bought the 'S100 is that it has most of the manual controls found on the FX7, and costs about $1000.00 less. Plus the sensor size is substantially larger than any of the individual sensors in the FX7.

I've yet to scratch the surface of its capabilities, but so far I like it. The images it produces are excellent for a camera of its size and cost.

Some test footage I shot on the weekend can be found here Canon HF-S100 Test on Vimeo if you're interested.

Thanks guys, but to clarify, I'm looking for a larger camera with a ton of customizable features.

Both HVX and XH A1 should give you tons of customizable features, but their intended usage are worlds apart...
Just to simplify, consider HVX an ENG camera, with limited recording time in HD (DVCProHD codec), and consider the XH A1 as an event style camera due to HDV on tape...

This is a gross simplification, but you get the gist...

To me your only options are the XHA1s and the HVX200. If you have extra $$ get an HVX. Otherwise get the Canon. Have you read through the "gigantic" thread?

What are you doing with the HV30. I've been considering getting one as a second cam, but might spring for another XH if business pics up.

JS

An HMC150 is worth a look. Personally, I'd sooner have an HMC150 than the HVX (even if the price of the cameras were the same).

This camera is simply stunning, I'm on the verge of buying one:
JVC | GY-HM100U ProHD Camcorder | GY-HM100U | B&H Photo Video

hey, don't let the price and size fool you, HF Sx series is an amazing camcorder,
take a look, and without reading comments guess where is A1 and where is HF S10
HF S10 vs XH A1 vs EX1 on Vimeo - pretty low light , and HF S10 is closer to the real colors too,
you can't create as many picture profiles with HF Sx as with A1, but other than that you'll have full manual control. I just want to say between A1 and HF Sx not a lot of difference in picture quality to justify a price gap :)
I still have some footage from my Z1, HF S10 beats it in day light no doubt.
but if you really want to go prosumer, do your reading, go with your budget, buy the latest.

best.

Full manual control with an HF-S series camera? You can manually control gain???

There is a limited form of gain control available in the HF-S100. It has an AGC limiter which can be set by the user and there is an 'Exposure' control which gives you a choice of -1, 0 and +1 adjustments, although sadly not any finer gradations.

What's an ENG camera?

XHA1s, not XHA1? What's the difference?

Also, why would you pick the HVX?

ENG=Electronic news gathering...

Picture being setup with a tripod on the corner of an accident scene, and you've got to get a report back to the station in time for broadcast...
You probably won't be recording for more than 5 minutes at a time, totalling perhaps 30 minutes...
Get the P2 cards back in time, and edit directly off the cards...


I believe the HVX only records HD to the P2 cards. DV can get recorded to tape (60min).
Whereas the XH A1 allows both DV and HDV to tape.
If you're taping wedding ceremonies where the speaches alone are sometimes 30 minutes, it's nice to know that the tape can run for another 30 minutes. Plus it's a great backup medium.
You can choose to go tapelesss also on the XH A1. There's a whole subforum dedicated to the subject.

You also need to understand, any post production issues with either cams.

The biggest difference on the XH A1/s model, is that audio issues were addressed..But there's more. Chris Hurd makes some points in the Canon XH Series HDV Camcorder forum.

Your clientelle is the biggest answer to the XH A1>HVX questions...

Good luck!!!

It's actually for making short films and practicing filmmaking in general. Still at a loss as to which based on what you said. But definitely plenty of recording. Can't you just get a bunch of these P2 cards (not a clue what they are) as you would tapes?

Hi Jackie,

Two years ago I started with a Canon HV20, then upgraded to a HG21 last year, and just this week I bought a Panasonic HMC150. I would strongly recommend that you check out the HMC150, it's a huge upgrade in image quality compared to any of the consumer cams. ( very film-like colour and contrast, and it's great in low light )

I shot a lens test comparing a Canon HV30 / Canon HG21 / Panasonic HMC150 yesterday, and will post some images in the next few days. The HMC150 was the clear standout for rich saturated colour, and no chromatic abberation over the full zoom range.

One thing that was quite interesting, was that the wide setting of the standard HMC150 zoom lens is equal to the Canon HG21 with the WD-H37C II 0.7x wide angle conversion lens attached. I was very surprised when I figured this out. I knew that the HMC150 had a wide zoom, but I never thought that it would equal the Canon + 0.7x conversion lens.

I bought my HMC150 from B&H in New York for $3400.

Welcome to the endless journey of finding the right gear. I can't speak to the countless options you have in front of you, but I can tell you that the XHA1 is capable of very good results, has very flexible set-ups, and extremely good optics. For filmaking practice, it can be very good. PM me and I'll send you some of my own footage. Here is a few resources you might find helpful:

Steven Dempsey does great work with the XHA1. Here is a starting point, just look around: Postcards from the Road on Vimeo

Here is a shootout of many of the cameras you may be considering. The XHA1 held up very good in my opinion to the much more expensive cameras in the group (although the panel didn't dwell on it very much; it's not very new or exciting having been out for 3 years): Zacuto's Great Camera Shootout '08 on Vimeo

If you shoot in 24F or 30F (Canon's process of getting progressive out of an interlaced chip) you will find the results quite stunning.

Pro's: Great optics, tried and true, tape (depending on your perspective), inexpensive, extremely customizable

Con's: small LCD makes focus harder than it could be. Servo controlled rings not as desirable as mechanical rings IMO (but much more flexible....). Can't Zoom and focus at same time (unless you get newer XHA1S). tape (depending on your perspective).

Having used the XHA1 quite a bit now, i think its an excellent camera especially if you are entering into serious work for the first time and your ability to find a good deal on one. Certainly the XHA1 isn't the most spectacular camera on the planet but it is still very capable and can be had for a bargain. Now that I've had it, I'm tempted by the EX3 and the EOS5D Mkii. The EX3 because it has a little less noise, has mechanical rings, and shoots full HD. EOS5D Mkii (actually I want its next generation with video camera controls if Canon will ever make it) because with careful handling it makes exceptional footage and is quite small and it can take DSLR lenses to create extremely shallow DOF. Lots of downsides and limitations, however in the current Mkii package.

I'm not sure why the HVX is considered an ENG camera, it is absolutely terrible in low light and the feature set is much more aimed at narrative work. Keep in mind that you can get a hard drive recorder for either camera, so the tape vs p2 is not really an issue anymore.

Look at the Sony EX1, but consider the Canon XH-A1. A lot of us are still doing quite well with that platform despite its drawbacks.

Yes the old Panasonic HVX200 camera was pretty bad in low light. The new HVX200A that replaced it, is much better.

Also, the HVX200/200A is considered an ENG camera because of Panasonic's support for the broadcast industry ( news crews
were the first early adopters for this camera ), and because the P2 card storage allows for a rapid shooting/editing cycle.
( i.e. Shoot the 5 minute news clip, whip the P2 card into a laptop, do a quick edit and upload )

To clarify: I won't be shooting anything other than test footage on this camera. My one and only reason for buying it is to learn the controls and get used to using a "real" camera. My friends have far more expensive cameras I can borrow for short films, etc, but I want something at home that I can use whenever and get tons of experience with. So I want something that's, in this specific order:

1. Extremely customizable and feature-rich.
2. Costs relatively little.
3. Produces a "good" image, because I know "very good" and "great" would conflict with #2.
4. Little things, like a larger LCD, would be a plus.

Does that narrow it done a bit, or not really? What would you guys suggest based on these criteria?

[QUOTE=Guy McLoughlin;1169952]Hi Jackie,

Two years ago I started with a Canon HV20, then upgraded to a HG21 last year, and just this week I bought a Panasonic HMC150. I would strongly recommend that you check out the HMC150, it's a huge upgrade in image quality compared to any of the consumer cams. ( very film-like colour and contrast, and it's great in low light )

I shot a lens test comparing a Canon HV30 / Canon HG21 / Panasonic HMC150 yesterday, and will post some images in the next few days. The HMC150 was the clear standout for rich saturated colour, and no chromatic abberation over the full zoom range.

One thing that was quite interesting, was that the wide setting of the standard HMC150 zoom lens is equal to the Canon HG21 with the WD-H37C II 0.7x wide angle conversion lens attached. I was very surprised when I figured this out. I knew that the HMC150 had a wide zoom, but I never thought that it would equal the Canon + 0.7x conversion lens.

The one thing i find with my hv 30 is the colour is a touch rich and saturated for me and i would certainly not want a cam with more colour, do same model cams vary possibly.

Jackie, from the above I'd say the XHA1s which covers 1-3 easily though not 4. The older XHA1 which I've got should be quite cheap now (I got it new for £2000 18 months ago). It does produce a lovely image but you have to know how to use it to achieve this - the learning curve is steeper than a consumer cam by some distance (when I first used it I panicked as the image was horrible but with a few adjustments things began to look really good). And this makes you learn what all the manual controls are for which is what you want. It is highly customizable. It is tape though which I like. You can by-pass this and record directly to disk if you get the right gear but what people rarely mention about this is it makes running and gunning so much more hassle (often impossible in fact if you want to capture life on the move) with extra bits of kit attached etc. I would not recommend it personally other than in pretty controlled environments, though others might contradict me!

Btw the reason it's not so simple to get loads of P2 cards is they are hugely expensive!

Having done a bit more research, it sounds like the HVX200 is far superior to the XHA1? Should I get that instead?

Jackie, you may find a post I made on another thread helpful in this context - http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1176610-post7.html

Briefly, in your shoes I wouldn't get an HVX200, the HMC151 offers 80-90% of what the HVX200 does much more cheaply - the front ends are fundamentally the same. That's really true when you look at the cost of the cameras with media - the HMC151 takes cheap SDHC cards, the HVX takes P2, and to get a workable amount of recording time can virtually double the initial cost.

If you are happy to pay that sort of money, I'd argue that either the Sony EX or JVC HM700 are then a far better buy - comparable in price to the HVX200 with P2 cards, but you're putting the money into far better cameras - not expensive memory.

The SONY and JVC are nice, but are out of my price range. I don't plan on buying a ton of memory if I go with the HVX200, since I'm only buying the camera to play around and teach myself how to use a "real" camera before making a serious investment into something much more high-end. The HMC151 looks tempting, but for some reason I can't find it for sale anywhere, and can't even find a price!

16GB P2 card = $400+

16GB SDHC card = $30

Panasonic AG-HMC150:
Panasonic | AG-HMC150 AVCCAM Camcorder | AG-HMC150PJU | B&H

(The HMC151 is the European model.)

In that case, what about buying second hand? One suggestion would be the JVC HD100 - it's a little old hat compared to more current models (HD mode is only 720p/25, not 720p/50, and it's tape only) but is shouldermount/true manual lens etc, and may be a good introduction to a "real" camera.

If you want "film-look" motion, it will still probably hold it's weight if you did end up having to use it for real (or as second camera). I suspect you may find a few for sale as owners trade up to newer JVC equivalents - the HD200 series and the HM700.

Oh yea, definitely buying it used. The JVC looks cool, and it's around $3k on eBay too. How customizable is it compared to HVX200 for example? Also, is there anything similar out there that does 1080p? Would be nice to get a slightly modern camera with a manual lens, perhaps in the $3.5-4k used price range?

I've used both the XH-A1 and the HVX200/HPX170

If I were to purchase a camera I would go with the A1. It produces a clean sharp image. When projected on a large screen it holds up well. I can't say the same for the very soft looking HVX/HPX cameras.

The only advantage I can see the HVX cameras have is slow motion. That being said I'd just go out and buy a small 60p camera (Sanyo Xacti maybe?) and confrom that footage to 24p for the purpose of slow motion.

Heck, I'd sooner buy a Panasonic TM300 with a Juicedlink box instead of an HVX/HPX camera, but that's my personal preference.

Uprezzing works yes, but it is soft. Too soft for my tastes.

People also rave about gamma curves in the pana cams, but I've always been able to match it with other cameras in post. Which is were you should refine your color anyway.

It depends what you mean by "customizable", but the styling (esp shouldermount, albeit quite small) helps a great deal. Much easier to add camera light, radio mic, matte box etc without ending up with a package that's difficult, if not impossible, to hand hold.
Here you have to extremely wary. Many cameras accurately claim to make a 1080p recording - but few for under $10,000 are able to come even close to doing it justice. The EX cameras do - they have 1920x1080 sensors - but every 1/3" camera (with the exception of the Panasonic HPX300) is not able to deliver equivalent resolution. If you equate 1080p recording with 35mm film, it's like blowing 8mm or 16mm originals up. The end result is a 35mm print, but it still looks like 8 or 16mm.

You get what you pay for - pay for a 1/3" camera and you're likely to get 1 megapixel resolution or less. That doesn't mean they are "bad", but don't be fooled that a 1080p recording mode will necessarily get you 2 megapixel resolution.

Pay a bit more and you may be able to move a little up the JVC range - the HD200 series offered "true" 720p frame rates - 50/60 fps - but if you want film-look motion anyway, that's irrelevant.

Now that I've invested in Neat Video noise suppression, footage from my A1 is even better than before. One of the nits of the A1 is it has a little more noise in lower lighting than some of the more expensive cameras. With Neat, I'm able to take that away and the well lit areas absolutely sparkle. It does slow down rendering a bit, but I've eliminated my need to reinvest in a camera by spending $99 on noise suppression software!

The MSU Denoiser Filter (free) can work very nicely too:

MSU Denoiser Filter

Are you a commercial? :)

So you can't think of anything like the JVC HD100 that does 1080p in a <$4k price range?

I think (at least part of) the point was that at that price range, even though a camcorder may record in a 1080 line format, actual image resolution isn't going to be a whale of a lot greater (if at all) than with something like a JVC HD100U, as a practical matter.

Oh is that a fact? So an HV30, or whatever other cheap camera can do 1080p, wouldn't produce noticably better-looking footage than the JVC with its 720p?

An HV30 and HD100U can resolve roughly the same level of detail (same general ballpark for actual resolution) - in good lighting. With anything significantly less than ideal lighting, an HD100U will absolutely smoke an HV30.

Yes, exactly.

With 1080p recording, each frame is capable of recording about 2 million separate pixels of luminance information. In the price range you're talking about, all the 1/3" chip cameras have chips with between 0.5 and 1 million pixels, so they are the limiting factor, not the recording resolution. Hence my analogy with blowing smaller film gauges up to a 35mm release print. 35mm film will be projected in the cinema, but the resolution will still be mainly determined by the gauge it was shot on.

There's a lot more to it than that, such as some cameras using pixel-shift to get luminance resolutions somewhat better (about 1.5x) better than the headline numbers would suggest. Most obvious examples are the HMC150/HVX200. Their chips only have 0.5 megapixels each, but the processing gives luminance resolutions equivalent to around 0.75 megapixels, or about 1200x650.

What this means is that for the HMC150, 720 recording captures all the information that's in the image, it looks no sharper in 1080 mode, and actually looks worse because the codec is struggling more to compress the image. I've confirmed that with practical comparisons, a nice example of when practice confirms theory!

Jackie,

Sorry, I know my post must sound like a commercial but you'll have to trust me that I'm not a paid spokesman. It's so infrequent that I get something that exceeds my expectations. I've bought way to much snake oil in my life!

Just to be fair and balanced; the program really drags your CPU down. It takes about 4x longer to render HD.

Actually, it's less than that even, for HDV and DVCPRO HD. 1080 line HDV can only record about one and a half megapixels of luminance information (1440x1080). DVCPRO HD only records 1280x1080 (4:2:2 though).