View Full Version : JVC GY-HD251E vs JVC GY-HD101E

02-28-2008, 01:51 PM
What are the main differences between the JVC GY-HD251E vs JVC GY-HD101E?

Which one produces a better picture?

Both are true 25P aren't they?

02-28-2008, 04:17 PM
251 does everything the 101 does. 101 only shoots 720@24p/25p/30p, 251 adds 50p and 60p. 251 also has studio connections for HD-SDI and timecode in/out and all that stuff.

All the JVC HD100-hd251 products are true progressive scan at 24p/25p/30p.

03-18-2008, 10:14 PM
I hear that the 251 will produce slightly better pictures, but hardly even noticable to the eye. I have a 101E and a 111E and they are amazing cameras. I would only purchase the 251 if I was keen on studio work and SDI compatible stuff. Save your money, get the 111E a set of long life batteries (Antons or something..stay away from V Lock) and get a 60GB firestore to sit on the back of the camera. That's our setup, and it's brilliant.

03-20-2008, 12:47 PM
The 720p60 temporal resolution of the 251 is double that of the 101 which can only shoot at the most 720p30. Therefore the 251 will produce the vastly sharper picture because motion blurring will be almost eliminated. If there is a lot of motion the 251 will produce a sharper picture than even the 1080p format becuase 1080p is limited to only 30 frames per second. Of course if you are shooting for film out the 101 may be good enough because you are limited to 24p. But the 251 will still be an excellent choice if you shoot 60p slow motion played back at 24p.

Hunter Hampton
03-20-2008, 02:00 PM
For what its worth, the 200/1 and 250/1 also have additional gamma curves, matrix settings, and a 14-bit a/d converter. The footage looks about the same though.

03-20-2008, 02:40 PM
I've got an hd100 and hd200. All things in the scene being equal, the hd200 will have a lot less noise in the blue channel, less noise in the other channels, less color tint, more sensitivity (i.e. brighter), and slightly fewer compression artifacts. I upgraded to get 60p but the images overall do look better. $3000 better, I'm not so sure. That money would be better spent on the 17x lens. The 16x stock lens pales in comparison

03-20-2008, 03:11 PM
and no SSE

03-24-2008, 09:34 PM
I agree. The 3k can be better spent elsewhere. The 100 series and the 200 series have differences. Basically the 200 series gives slightly better quality overall. But we use the 100 series for feature productions, corporate films...even on the side short films. The footage is still sensational for the price.

I did read up in one mag that they put the 101E against the new canon HD camera. The canon went for around 4-5k dearer than the JVC, but the JVC absolutely creamed it in every section of the tests. And, after being someone who bought a 101E, I had a grin on my face from ear to ear. The JVC's really are something special and bringing alot of opportunities to us lower budget film makers.

04-01-2008, 05:01 PM
Basically the 200 series gives slightly better quality overall.

Hey Tangles don't forget the biggest difference between the 100 & 200 being "50P/60P" which is a BIG deal!! Although it's not a Varicam; JVC's 60P does record sound as well as vision which looks absolutely phenomenal. And not only that, but when you slow the footage down to ridiculous levels on the timeline, the footage is crystal smooth without the annoying judder inherent in slowed 24P.

B&H now sells the 200U for only $1,000 more than the 110U and they are also including a free Anton Bauer on camera charger & Trimpac battery.