Can anyone post V1 vs Canon A1 comparison shots? at DVinfo.net

Rick Hensley · December 16th, 2006, 10:39 PM

Need to make a final buy decision Monday...

Would LOVE to see some comparison shots of same scene with each camera optimized (saw the German stillshots). But I realize how much work such things are, just dreaming I guess.

Barring that, can anyone who now has the production V1 and REALLY knows the A1 compare the two images in text?

I already know ALL the features and numbers - I am looking for a subjective opinion on how the two images compare in quality (ignoring the 25p problem).

Douglas Spotted Eagle · December 16th, 2006, 11:06 PM

Knowing them both, I think anyone of objective nature would have a very difficult time saying one is "better" than the other. There are features that both of them have over the other, so at the end on a bullet list or Franklin chart, they probably wash. I love the battery life of the V1, I like the preview screen on the V1, I like the DR60 option of the V1. I like the form factor of the A1. Although the A1 has a better low light rating, you'd be hard pressed to say it's got a better picture than the V1 in low light with gain, as the Sony cams handle noise better than anything. In SuperQuick focus mode, the Canon A1 is easily the fastest auto-focus camera in the HDV realm. Not every scene can use that feature, however, as it's somewhat jarring if you're not ready for it. The A1 has a slightly better overall audio package, which is important, has more exposure and preset modes. The image console is pretty cool, of course. The stabilizer is allegedy better, but I can tell/show you it's not. In fact, it's significantly worse when subjected to high vibration such as ATVs, motorcycles, or in my case, skydiving.
Both cams are very sexy, both offer a superb image, and all things considered, it's only the very small points on each of them that will likely make the difference for most any user.

Wolfgang Winne · December 21st, 2006, 03:14 AM

<Although the A1 has a better low light rating, you'd be hard pressed to say it's got a better picture than the V1 in low light with gain, as the Sony cams handle noise better than anything.>

????

http://www.fxsupport.de/15.html 21.12.2006 08:41 In the night with A1+FX7

Tony Tremble · December 21st, 2006, 04:03 AM

A feature that seems to be missed and could be quite important to people using the cameras in a chroma studio environment is the ability to capture via the HDMI port as full raster HD in 4:2:2. To have a similar feature on a Canon one has to purchase the much more expensive Canon XH-G1.

It is not going to be important to everyone but to it will be to some e.g. a cost concious indie could put the money they are saving by purchasing the Sony V1 over the XH-G1 into a 35mm adaptor.

TT

Tony Tremble · December 21st, 2006, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfgang Winne

<Although the A1 has a better low light rating, you'd be hard pressed to say it's got a better picture than the V1 in low light with gain, as the Sony cams handle noise better than anything.>

????

http://www.fxsupport.de/15.html 21.12.2006 08:41 In the night with A1+FX7

Wolfgang

I can get much better low light images out of the V1 than I see in your clips from the FX7.

By turning down the colour saturation the noise becomes much less noticable even at 18dB and combined with black compress and/or cinegamma curves. I can support DSE's claims regarding noise performance.

TT

Wolfgang Winne · December 21st, 2006, 05:41 AM

<I can get much better low light images out of the V1 than I see in your clips from the FX7.>

o.k.
the fx7 has not black compress.....

Ken Ross · December 21st, 2006, 12:51 PM

Keep in mind the FX7 does have the tools to minimize grain in very low light. There may not be as many, but there are enough to do the job.

Jerome Marot · December 21st, 2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfgang Winne

http://www.fxsupport.de/15.html 21.12.2006 08:41 In the night with A1+FX7

Und jetzt mit m2t Dateien! Super Webseite, danke vielmals!

Zsolt Gordos · December 21st, 2006, 02:10 PM

Just took a very interesting footage last night.

It contains everything that would give a HD cam hard times: intense colors, fire and the entire thing was shot in low light.

The result on my 50" plasma is breathtaking... (used settings advised by Tony), no noise, pitch black blacks, skin tones and details even in low light, kicking colors. Who said this cam had low light issues?? Gain was never above 6dB but sometimes it was even too much.

I will try to put together some short clip this week and post. The image quality knocks socks :)

Vlad Manning · December 21st, 2006, 02:15 PM

Wolfgang's comparisons are useful, even though I can't get the videos to play on my mac... the jpgs look carefully matched in exposure, taken at nearly the same time, etc. And from the gross characteristics you can see in those (and that's all you can really compare on the web), it appears true that in good light, image quality alone is nearly a toss-up between the two.

The A1 may hold onto a Little more fine detail (except in the middle grays, where the Sony wins, --but again, these stills cannot be used to judge the fine points), but it may also be blurring/exaggerating the colors in some areas of fine detail more than the Sony -see the trees to the L in still of the wide shot of the industrial setting w/smokestacks.
His Canon lens shows a little more CA on the small lamppost on the far L of that shot, but it is positioned further to the L edge of the frame than the Sony, too.
I see nearly no difference in DR.

It looks as if the Sony gives up little if anything in the way of image quality w/its smaller chips, except in sensitivity. I think it's reasonable to declare them generally equals.

Tony Tremble · December 21st, 2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zsolt Gordos

Just took a very interesting footage last night.

It contains everything that would give a HD cam hard times: intense colors, fire and the entire thing was shot in low light.

The result on my 50" plasma is breathtaking... (used settings advised by Tony), no noise, pitch black blacks, skin tones and details even in low light, kicking colors. Who said this cam had low light issues?? Gain was never above 6dB but sometimes it was even too much.

I will try to put together some short clip this week and post. The image quality knocks socks :)

Good for you Zsolt!

Yeah, proo positive not to believe the measurbators on the numbers. Skillful use of ALL of the relevant functions of the camera separate men from boys! :)

OT: Zsolt, I guess you are aware that the 25P issue is being sorted under Silver Support?

ATB
TT

Thomas Smet · December 21st, 2006, 02:57 PM

I would say they are pretty close to equals. One camera does "A" better but maybe not so good with "B" and so forth. Overall they are both great values for your money and totally blow away what we had with the 1st generation of HDV cameras.

What I found interesting about these shots is that some of them had the SONY with more detail and then other shots had The Canon with more detail. Then in some shots one camera had more detail when zoomed in but then lost detail when it zoomed back out.

Overall I like both cameras and if somebody shot a movie with one I doubt any of us could sit in a theater and tell which camera was used to shoot the movie.

Ken Ross · December 21st, 2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

What I found interesting about these shots is that some of them had the SONY with more detail and then other shots had The Canon with more detail. Then in some shots one camera had more detail when zoomed in but then lost detail when it zoomed back out.

Tom, I'd be willing to bet the shot from the Sony that started at full zoom was a misfocus. I've never seen the Sony so soft when zoomed....it had to be a misfocus that corrected when he pulled back wide.

Thomas Smet · December 22nd, 2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Tom, I'd be willing to bet the shot from the Sony that started at full zoom was a misfocus. I've never seen the Sony so soft when zoomed....it had to be a misfocus that corrected when he pulled back wide.

Yes one specific shot was focused on the wooden post and not the main subject but I am talking about more of a subtle detail level that I notice.

Anthony Leong · December 22nd, 2006, 01:10 AM

I don't think you can go wrong with either the Sony V1U or Canon XH-A1. I have the Canon XH-A1 and I'm very happy with it, but if I had bought the Sony V1U then I would be just as happy. Both the Sony V1U and Canon XH-A1 are very nice camcorders.

December 16th, 2006, 10:39 PM	#1
Rick Hensley Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 52	Can anyone post V1 vs Canon A1 comparison shots? Need to make a final buy decision Monday... Would LOVE to see some comparison shots of same scene with each camera optimized (saw the German stillshots). But I realize how much work such things are, just dreaming I guess. Barring that, can anyone who now has the production V1 and REALLY knows the A1 compare the two images in text? I already know ALL the features and numbers - I am looking for a subjective opinion on how the two images compare in quality (ignoring the 25p problem).

December 16th, 2006, 11:06 PM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Knowing them both, I think anyone of objective nature would have a very difficult time saying one is "better" than the other. There are features that both of them have over the other, so at the end on a bullet list or Franklin chart, they probably wash. I love the battery life of the V1, I like the preview screen on the V1, I like the DR60 option of the V1. I like the form factor of the A1. Although the A1 has a better low light rating, you'd be hard pressed to say it's got a better picture than the V1 in low light with gain, as the Sony cams handle noise better than anything. In SuperQuick focus mode, the Canon A1 is easily the fastest auto-focus camera in the HDV realm. Not every scene can use that feature, however, as it's somewhat jarring if you're not ready for it. The A1 has a slightly better overall audio package, which is important, has more exposure and preset modes. The image console is pretty cool, of course. The stabilizer is allegedy better, but I can tell/show you it's not. In fact, it's significantly worse when subjected to high vibration such as ATVs, motorcycles, or in my case, skydiving. Both cams are very sexy, both offer a superb image, and all things considered, it's only the very small points on each of them that will likely make the difference for most any user. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

December 21st, 2006, 03:14 AM	#3
Wolfgang Winne Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bremen, Germany Posts: 176	<Although the A1 has a better low light rating, you'd be hard pressed to say it's got a better picture than the V1 in low light with gain, as the Sony cams handle noise better than anything.> ???? http://www.fxsupport.de/15.html 21.12.2006 08:41 In the night with A1+FX7 __________________ Wolfgang Winne www.ohrwurmaudio.de www.fxsupport.de

December 21st, 2006, 05:41 AM	#6
Wolfgang Winne Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bremen, Germany Posts: 176	<I can get much better low light images out of the V1 than I see in your clips from the FX7.> o.k. the fx7 has not black compress..... __________________ Wolfgang Winne www.ohrwurmaudio.de www.fxsupport.de

December 21st, 2006, 04:03 AM	#4
Tony Tremble Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 451	A feature that seems to be missed and could be quite important to people using the cameras in a chroma studio environment is the ability to capture via the HDMI port as full raster HD in 4:2:2. To have a similar feature on a Canon one has to purchase the much more expensive Canon XH-G1. It is not going to be important to everyone but to it will be to some e.g. a cost concious indie could put the money they are saving by purchasing the Sony V1 over the XH-G1 into a 35mm adaptor. TT

December 21st, 2006, 12:51 PM	#7
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Keep in mind the FX7 does have the tools to minimize grain in very low light. There may not be as many, but there are enough to do the job.

December 21st, 2006, 02:10 PM	#9
Zsolt Gordos Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 414	Just took a very interesting footage last night. It contains everything that would give a HD cam hard times: intense colors, fire and the entire thing was shot in low light. The result on my 50" plasma is breathtaking... (used settings advised by Tony), no noise, pitch black blacks, skin tones and details even in low light, kicking colors. Who said this cam had low light issues?? Gain was never above 6dB but sometimes it was even too much. I will try to put together some short clip this week and post. The image quality knocks socks :)

December 21st, 2006, 02:15 PM	#10
Vlad Manning New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: US Posts: 19	Wolfgang's comparisons are useful, even though I can't get the videos to play on my mac... the jpgs look carefully matched in exposure, taken at nearly the same time, etc. And from the gross characteristics you can see in those (and that's all you can really compare on the web), it appears true that in good light, image quality alone is nearly a toss-up between the two. The A1 may hold onto a Little more fine detail (except in the middle grays, where the Sony wins, --but again, these stills cannot be used to judge the fine points), but it may also be blurring/exaggerating the colors in some areas of fine detail more than the Sony -see the trees to the L in still of the wide shot of the industrial setting w/smokestacks. His Canon lens shows a little more CA on the small lamppost on the far L of that shot, but it is positioned further to the L edge of the frame than the Sony, too. I see nearly no difference in DR. It looks as if the Sony gives up little if anything in the way of image quality w/its smaller chips, except in sensitivity. I think it's reasonable to declare them generally equals.

December 21st, 2006, 02:57 PM	#12
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I would say they are pretty close to equals. One camera does "A" better but maybe not so good with "B" and so forth. Overall they are both great values for your money and totally blow away what we had with the 1st generation of HDV cameras. What I found interesting about these shots is that some of them had the SONY with more detail and then other shots had The Canon with more detail. Then in some shots one camera had more detail when zoomed in but then lost detail when it zoomed back out. Overall I like both cameras and if somebody shot a movie with one I doubt any of us could sit in a theater and tell which camera was used to shoot the movie.

December 22nd, 2006, 01:10 AM	#15
Anthony Leong Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: United States Posts: 93	I don't think you can go wrong with either the Sony V1U or Canon XH-A1. I have the Canon XH-A1 and I'm very happy with it, but if I had bought the Sony V1U then I would be just as happy. Both the Sony V1U and Canon XH-A1 are very nice camcorders.