PDA

View Full Version : New Dmn Interview With Lotsa Pix



soarprod
04-08-2005, 04:56 PM
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=31724

Pretty sweet.

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2005/Week_15/mbxdqi3w/story/hd100_rear34_500x333.jpg

thisiswells
04-08-2005, 05:05 PM
That lens says f/1.4 ???????????????????

Mediacre
04-08-2005, 05:05 PM
Say what you want about the JVC, but it looks way more professional than the HVX. Can't wait to see the footage. It won't be DVCPRO-HD but if it cost less plus the lower operational price, the nice lens and the cool form factor, and looks better than the Z1 footage, it will still be a though competitor to the HVX.

Mediacre
04-08-2005, 05:23 PM
From the article:

"The 7000 as a full-sized, shoulder mount camera with 2/3 CMOS chips, each with a native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels"

The 2/3" ProHDV will have CMOS chips. It will sell for $27,950 with lens. Interesting.

Mediacre
04-08-2005, 05:24 PM
That lens says f/1.4 ???????????????????

Yep. Not as slow as some were painting it. :laugh:

Mediacre
04-08-2005, 05:37 PM
Dude, this camera looks so cool. Looks like a real production machine, doesn't it?

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2005/Week_15/mbxdqi3w/story/hd100_matte_500x298.jpg

soarprod
04-08-2005, 05:46 PM
It sure does!

Nick Adams
04-08-2005, 06:20 PM
it's looks are kinda weird... is that an headphone next to the viewfinder?

Shaw
04-08-2005, 06:34 PM
Well in all fairness we haven't really seen the HVX Mediacre ;). That said I know exactly what you mean. It's just a completely different style form factor.

I think it would be really cool if cameras gave us the option of changing out bodies and/or parts. One day you have a shoulder mount, the next a "handycam"! Not practical really but I fun idea :D

Barry_Green
04-08-2005, 06:53 PM
Those are some nice pix. I'm still trying to grasp what it'll look like considering how small it is -- I mean, you can see how big a six-pin firewire connector is on that thing, so it's obvious the camera is tiny. But it looks great! I expect that there will be thousands of customers who won't even debate whether 720 is better than 1080, or HDV vs. DVCPRO-HD, there's going to be thousands of non-tech guys who take one look at that thing at the WEVA expo and say "that's it -- that's the one I want."

thisiswells
04-08-2005, 07:21 PM
Never underestimate the power of wedding videographers.

My first editor was a Casablanca Avio--a favorite at the WEVA show. A quick visit to Macrosystems website mentioned future HDV support on the newer Cassie systems.

Yup, There are a ton of people who will dig this camera because it is HD.

OPHERBA
04-09-2005, 02:45 AM
Those are some nice pix. I'm still trying to grasp what it'll look like considering how small it is ."

Remember the Sony DSR 200? (and the VX 9000 that was introdused only for the PAL market) http://dirckhalstead.org/issue9711/sonydsr200review.htm

That was my first DV camera 10 years ago. (mini shoulder mounted camera type)
The size of the JVC HD100 just looks similar.

Johnnie

Robert_Niemann
04-09-2005, 04:40 AM
Barry, if the HVX200 with its 1080p will make better pictures than the 720p JVC, that remains to be seen.

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 04:50 AM
Well in all fairness we haven't really seen the HVX Mediacre ;). That said I know exactly what you mean. It's just a completely different style form factor.


Yeah, exactly, different form factor. But even without seeing the HVX, everybody knows it will look 99% like the DVX. :grin:

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 04:51 AM
it's looks are kinda weird... is that an headphone next to the viewfinder?


Weird? That thing looks beautiful!

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 05:08 AM
Those are some nice pix. I'm still trying to grasp what it'll look like considering how small it is -- I mean, you can see how big a six-pin firewire connector is on that thing, so it's obvious the camera is tiny.

Keep in mind that a 6 pin, as you know, is much bigger than a 4 pin firewire. If you puta 6 pin on a XL2, it would look huge there too, but the XL2 is not tiny. I think this camera will be roughly the XL2 size. Doesn't make sense to think it will be roughly DVX size when you look at lens and finder. ON a side note, you see how Pro JVC wants i to be when they give it a 6 pin. Not even the DV5000 or DVC200 had a 6 pin. I think the DSR570 does, but it's a 2/3" camera. Not a big deal though. It's still only firewire.


But it looks great! I expect that there will be thousands of customers who won't even debate whether 720 is better than 1080, or HDV vs. DVCPRO-HD, there's going to be thousands of non-tech guys who take one look at that thing at the WEVA expo and say "that's it -- that's the one I want."

Yep. That's what I'm saying. If it's cheaper than the HVX, which I think it might be, even with the manual lens, which would knock Panasonic's excuse of not putting a exchangeable lens because of cost and show the truth, which is they don't do it to protect their higher end cameras. I mean if JVC can have it and offer it for cheaper than a fixed lens Panasonic camera, cost is sure not a factor. Anyways, if it's cheaper and looking this much cooler than the HVX, it will probably out seel it.
As you said, many will just look at it and buy it. Also, how many out there are really in need of 1080 24p at thi moment? I mean, really need it? Yes, it's great to have it, but how many realy need it? Specially knowing how expensive and impractical P2 is now? Wedding guys sure don't and I don't see them paying a premium for something they don't need, instead of getting an exchangeable lens camera which will make their job better and look much more professional for their clients. Wedding is a huge market out there. I would say the majority of videographers on the low end, which is the bigger end in video, is doing weddings and the like. Yes, the indie filmmaker would ran for the 1080 24p, but honestly, most of them are broken guys. If this camera doesn't cost close to 5k, the majority of them won't be able to affoard it anyway. So, something is telling me that JVC has huge chances of over selling Panasonic here. Unless the HVX is about 5k, which is a top mark for many when it comes to budget. But I don't think it will, or it would start to dig on DVX territory.

Anders Holck
04-09-2005, 06:42 AM
Yep. Not as slow as some were painting it. :laugh:

If you look closely that is the optional 13x3.5mm F1.4 wide angle, NOT the 16x7.5mm F1.9 that is supplied with the body. :thumbsup:

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 07:45 AM
If you look closely that is the optional 13x3.5mm F1.4 wide angle, NOT the 16x7.5mm F1.9 that is supplied with the body. :thumbsup:


Really? Funny, the zoom seems to end at 88. 13x3.5 is 45.5 Hmmmmmmm.
As I told you on the other thread, nobody knows how wide will the stock 16x go. It wasn't announced anywhere yet. So how do you know the stock lens is a 16x7.5? It's not 7.5mm even in the first pictures. Where did you get this information from?
What I see on the first pictures is actually a 16x7.3, not 16x7.5. The zoom ends on 117mm. Do the math. Fuji has a S16x7.3 lens for 1/2" cameras. I think they used a 1/2" lens for that first promo shots, because the 1/3" Fuji wasn't ready. Or maybe even the camera was just a mock up. Now they might be using the 1/3" 16x which will come with the body in this second bash of pictures. Since they are new and never posted before anywhere else, it makes sense. They might be the real thing now. Also, as I said, the zoom in the new pics ends at 88mm, so it could not be a 13x3.5mm lens. But if you divide 88 by 16, you get 5.5mm, which makes much more sense for a 1/3" lens than 7.3mm which is way too narrow for a 1/3" CCD. So it seems the stock lens will be a 16x5.5mm at f1.4. Not bad at all. I would like to see Panasonic beat that with their fixed lens.
Another proof that the first pictures might have been of a mock up camera is that in the new released pics, when you look at the picture of the right side of the camera(the tape deck/zoom grip side), you see the camera looks different in the back, close to the battery. It looks a little longer and has switches and connectors that were not in the first bash of pics.
It's pretty easy when you actually want to see the details and not just pick on things to put the camera down becuase you might be biased towards the Panasonic. :thumbsup:

Nate Weaver
04-09-2005, 10:25 AM
I posted on CC about this, but given the new high-res right side pic that showed up the other day, I figured out the camera to be about 17.25" long, from back of battery to front of lens hood.

I did this by zooming the photo in Photoshop in .1% increments until the XLR connector I had on my desk "fit" with the connector on the screen. I could further make it more accurate by then tilting the connector in my hand until the pins _perfectly_ lined up with the holes on screen.

At that point, the cam went off both side edges of my 17" powerbook LCD...but then calibrating the rulers in Photoshop to 1:1, I could make a measurement. It came to 17.25"

My wife thought I was nuts.

Anyway, since I've shot Beta and dealt with those lenses before, the size was not a surprise at all...it was just about where I thought it was.

reservoir
04-09-2005, 10:45 AM
...looks like there's a new kid on the block.

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2005/Week_15/mbxdqi3w/story/hd100_matte_500x298.jpg


I think he means *BUSINESS*!! ~reservoir~

scharky
04-09-2005, 11:16 AM
Yep. That's what I'm saying. If it's cheaper than the HVX, which I think it might be, even with the manual lens, which would knock Panasonic's excuse of not putting a exchangeable lens because of cost and show the truth, which is they don't do it to protect their higher end cameras. I mean if JVC can have it and offer it for cheaper than a fixed lens Panasonic camera, cost is sure not a factor.

I think that is a wrong misconception. I don't think it has anything to do with cost, I think it has to do with form factor and the target market. I know so many people that own an XL1, and have never taken the lens off, except to try and impress me with the fact that they could take it off. I don't want an interchangeable lens camera at this size and form factor. I don't want to work with a bunch of lenses that are crippled in some way becasue they are interchangeable, and have to constantly switch lenses. HD lenses aren't going to be cheap, especially if you want a "good" HD lens. If the HVX has a lens that is as wide or wider than the DVX, + a 12+ zoom, I will be happy. I love the feel of the DVX lens alreay, as do most that have the camera, it offers great control in manual plus a readout in the viewfinder. I am not about to allow form factor to decide which format I use, HDV vs DVCPRO HD is not a contest. I'm sure both will be great, but I think people need to understand that even though other lenses may be available, 75of the people that will work with this camera will never change lenses, even though you can.

Nate Weaver
04-09-2005, 11:44 AM
I know what you're saying about the silliness of interchangable lens at the XL-1 level, but it's a different deal with this camera.

The biggest difference is that this a honest-to-god manual lens. Focusing doesn't get much better than this. Same for zooming. I'd take this lens over what's in the DVX or XL2, even if it was tiny bit WORSE looking because I know I won't miss shots with it. I also know I'll probably never buy another lens for it, but there's a small chance I'd rent things like swing and tilts, etc. There's a lot that comes in the B4 mount.

In fact, it's all going to come down to this for me...do I want a super high-res consumer style camcorder (the HVX), or something that won't frustrate me when things get hairy (the HD100). I'm truly undecided, but I'm leaning towards the HD100.

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 11:55 AM
...looks like there's a new kid on the block.

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2005/Week_15/mbxdqi3w/story/hd100_matte_500x298.jpg


I think he means *BUSINESS*!! ~reservoir~

You bet!!!! :laugh:

Anders Holck
04-09-2005, 11:57 AM
So it seems the stock lens will be a 16x5.5mm at f1.4. Not bad at all. I would like to see Panasonic beat that with their fixed lens.


Yep, 16x5.5mm at f1.4 sounds nice.

Also the big sales loser here must be the Sony Z1 right? :happy:

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 11:59 AM
I think that is a wrong misconception. I don't think it has anything to do with cost, I think it has to do with form factor and the target market. I know so many people that own an XL1, and have never taken the lens off,.

Oh man, this again. This argument is getting a little long in the teeth. It' so old. I guess all the people that buy exchangeable lens cameras just do it to show off. :thumbdown

Mediacre
04-09-2005, 12:05 PM
I posted on CC about this, but given the new high-res right side pic that showed up the other day, I figured out the camera to be about 17.25" long, from back of battery to front of lens hood.

I did this by zooming the photo in Photoshop in .1% increments until the XLR connector I had on my desk "fit" with the connector on the screen. I could further make it more accurate by then tilting the connector in my hand until the pins _perfectly_ lined up with the holes on screen.

At that point, the cam went off both side edges of my 17" powerbook LCD...but then calibrating the rulers in Photoshop to 1:1, I could make a measurement. It came to 17.25"

My wife thought I was nuts.

Anyway, since I've shot Beta and dealt with those lenses before, the size was not a surprise at all...it was just about where I thought it was.

That's what I thought since the beginnig. About XL2's size. The XL2 is just 2" longer.

geo
04-09-2005, 01:43 PM
I think that is a wrong misconception. I don't think it has anything to do with cost, I think it has to do with form factor and the target market. I know so many people that own an XL1, and have never taken the lens off, except to try and impress me with the fact that they could take it off. I don't want an interchangeable lens camera at this size and form factor. I don't want to work with a bunch of lenses that are crippled in some way becasue they are interchangeable, and have to constantly switch lenses.

Crippled because they are interchangeable? You have it backwards.

Its not just that the lens is interchangeable.... the most important feature by far is that it is a "real" lens (manual.) I recently shot a concert with my DVX and forgot how crippling the interface is on it..... or any other miniDV camera (minus the XL1 with manual lens). I was onstage doing whip pans from audience to performer and had to rack the iris about 4 and a half stops.... nearly impossible to do smoothly on the little dial on my DVX. If I were shooting beta, both the zoom, rack focus, and severe iris adjustment would be made simultaniously and transparently in the pan. Focus on a manual lens is so much easier as well.... Just by feeling the close-focus stop on the barrel (or the infinity-stop), after a while you get focus near perfect by seeing the distance from you to the subject and twisiting the focus barrel the appropriate ammount. Just by feel. Then you fine-tune by paying attention to the peaking in the viewfinder.... (I won't get started on lacking a hi-rez b/w viewfinder on these cameras....) Give me a manual lens any day of the week over a infinitely-spinning focus barrel. It makes SUCH a difference.

Point being.... I love my DVX for what it is. It is NOT an SDX900 or DSR570 or MPEG-IMX. It is amazing quality for $3400. However, in the new mini-HD arena, for day-to-day ease of getting the shot..... I'll take a great user-interface (manual lens/ b&w high-rez viewfinder) anyday. Which is a hell of a dilemma.... I would love 1080p and 720p60fps..... but if the focus and iris interface on the HDX is the same as the DVX..... the JVC would look REAL tempting....

-geo

Mr_Floppy
04-09-2005, 06:53 PM
I've just got a press brochure from this camera and it looks terrific. It is in fact a bit smaller than the XL2, even closer to the z1 (got some pics ready, a man holding it, but I have no idea how to post them here).

Apart from the interchangeable lens, progressive sd and hd, uncompressed 2d output, it has a professional CRT viewfinder, with brigtness, peakng and focus aid controls!. It is what the XL2 / z1 should have been.

I've been told by a JVC representative, this beauty will be available late may in Europe... Can't wait...

Jose

scharky
04-09-2005, 07:21 PM
I completely agree that the camera is great looking, and I would love the fully manual lens. The comment about the Xl lenses being crippled is the real deal. I have used the XL1 and XL2 and seriously cannot stand the lenses on those cameras. The thing I meant about them being crippled is that in order to get the full use out of the camera, you need at least three lenses, the 20x, the 3x and the 16 or 14x manual. Each of those lenses are crippled in one way, hence the need for all of them. The point I was trying to make is that both the JVC and the Panasonic could have a high expense, the JVC in getting the appropriate lenses, and the Panasonic in media. The Panasonic will most likely have many available medias to choose from. The JVC will have various lenses to choose from. But by the end of the day you are down to the footage, and this is where there is a serious advantage of the Panasonic. If using cameras for event work, I would choose the JVC any day, with the specs released. However, if using the camera for Narritive work, the PAnasonic wins hands down in my book, (if it lives up to the specs). I'm not a big fan of HDV, and feel that is the biggest crippling that Sony and JVC have int their cameras. I don't care about hours and hours of footage, I want a camera that can give me a professional compression at a good price, with 24p 30P 60P and the possibility of 1080P is just an added bonus.
Again, neither of these cameras are out yet, so only time will tell, but I think these cameras will have two entirely different user bases.

MattC
04-09-2005, 07:34 PM
Sharky,

I agree with you about the format, but disagree regarding the interchangeable lenses. I've been using interchangeable canon lenses since the L-1 (which seriously had the best lens of ANY prosumer camera I've seen so far - control wise, not glass wise. But canon obviously wanted to sell an add on manual lens and didn't make the stock lens as good as the stock lens of the L-1) and I love using them. I have used the 16X lens and the only reason I haven't bought it so far (I did buy the 3X) is because I'm waiting to see if I'm going to stay with this camera till after NAB. I know you don't like the form factor of the Canon and that's cool, I don't like the form factor of the DVX - at all.

But you say that each of the lenses is crippled, necessitating the need for all of them. Well yeah, that's the point isn't it? I'm not saying canon did it perfectly, but they didn't do it bad - you purchase various lenses to use for different purposes. It's the whole premise behind buying a camera that is a system and not just a camera. So that you can pick a component that best suits your needs at any given time. You don't like the stock viewfinder? Fine, buy a high-res B&W one and put it on. Want a truly manual lens? Buy it and put it on. Want a long lens with GREAT OIS, it's there. Want a razor sharp wide angle? You put THAT on. Are these lenses "crippled" because they are not interchangeable in function? No, that is their design.

I grant you, I like the way the DVX handles how the lens information is shown on the camera MUCH better. But, I love having the option of selecting the lens for my purpose. And beyond that, I just hate the feel of a plasticy lens.

I doubt if I would uprgrade the XL2 at this point, but I have to say if I did, and the Pany had the same lens set up as the DVX - I would really consider the JVC, but the HDV aspect would probably keep me away.

Matt

scharky
04-09-2005, 07:47 PM
Again, it all depends on how you use the camera. 4.5 to 45mm is a great range for a camera, never had a need for a wide angle or a telephoto. IF the HVX has a slightly longer zoom, that's cool too. Since I am a film maker, and have mainly a film background, I find the DVX lens and readout to be supurb. If the XL2 or the JVC had a lens that was 4.5mm to 50 or 60mm, would there be a need for another lens? I just have met so many people that have their XL2 with the 20x lens and then slap on a wide angle adapter to save money. What is the point of that? Sure options are great, but you really have to look at if you are buying the camera because you will actually use the options granted you, or becasue you just want a camera with options that you will never use.
Matt, you yourself said that canon has crippled the lens. Have you ever asked yoursefel "why doesn't canon just release a good 4.5mm to 60mm lens with good manual control and image stabalization"? If they did, the majority of people would never have the need for another lens.

MattC
04-09-2005, 08:04 PM
Yes, and I answered - so they could sell a better manual one. Actually I've asked Canon and there response is that vast majority of consurmers (ie, everyone accept the few "film types") do not want a manual lens. They felt that the customer would be better served if they were offered a really good auto lens and a really good manual lens instead of a good compromise lens (which the L-1 had). I can see their point - although I did think the L-1's lens was a very good compromise.

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people have no use for a real manual lens, and of those that do, most are using truly professional cameras.

Justin_Kirch
04-09-2005, 09:12 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it looks ugly.

MattC
04-09-2005, 09:14 PM
Well, I think it looks great.

soarprod
04-09-2005, 11:26 PM
Looks of a camera are not important so long as it does the job! and 24p of course :)

Mediacre
04-10-2005, 12:45 AM
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it looks ugly.


Not uglier than a DVX100a or PD170, that's for sure. At least it looks like a camera, rather than a hair dryer.

scharky
04-10-2005, 12:47 AM
Now this is just childish.:)
My camera looks better than your camera.:undecided

soarprod
04-10-2005, 02:31 PM
You wish

icicle22
04-11-2005, 12:21 PM
I have to agree with MattC on this one. While I loved the DVX when I had it, I am now addicted to using the manual lens on the XL2. And while I don't intend on upgrading to any form of HD camera until all of the wrinkles are worked out by the rest of you and the prices drop, I am seriously worried about the Panasonic for my needs. Once you are used to a real manual lens with hardstops and ...well....real manaul control the endlessly spinning servos are hard to live with. Even the XL2's.

I think the technical specs are very important to the new Pana but I think a large group of professional videographers who use ENG lenses will be tuirned off by it. I know...I know....it is aimed at filmakers. But most PRO manual lenses feel similar or about the same and you can go from camera to camera and have the same basic feel. The new Pana (if it keeps the DVX style controls on the lens) is kind of proprietary and can make it difficult to shoot with any other camera once you have mastered the feel of it.

With manual ENG style lenses there is a consistent feel that you get from lens to lens (IMHO). Yes they react slightly different but in a similar fashion.

When I first got my manual lens for the XL2 I hated it. It felt strange to me as I was used to the servo lens and prior to that the DVX. I have fallen in love with it and love the control.

I was recently asked to fill in a on shoot using a higher end Sony DVCAM.(shooting b-roll of an easter program at this really upscale modern church) I don't know the exact specs of the lens but it felt like home to me. Very much like the manual lens of the XL2. MY point is that had I been using the DVX style controls and been put in this predicament I would have had problems. But because I was used to a more "standardized" lens layout it was no problem.

And for me honestly I want to learn to use a set of tools that is commom across many platforms, cameras, formats and price ranges. Kinda like software. It's good to learn on a commom program so that when the time comes you can work on someone elses system as easily as your own.

So I will seriously consider the JVC, even with it being HDVPRO, simply because the lens feel is uber important to me personally. I am actually relieved a little because as I fell in love with the 16x manual of the Canon I thought "crap......now when I go to HD solution (sub $10000) I'll have to go back to a servo again!" JVC proved that one wrong. And maybe...just maybe Panny will give us a real manual control too! I can dream can't I?!

IMHO

Barry_Green
04-11-2005, 01:25 PM
Looks of a camera are not important so long as it does the job! and 24p of course :)
Depends on what the job is. There are definitely some jobs where the looks of the camera are important; on some jobs, the looks of the camera may be what gets you the job at all, regardless of how the footage looks.

JVC did a smart thing by making it look like it does. Canon has just got to be kicking themselves... a red and white XL3 is going to look silly next to a same-size-but-black-and-basically-pro-looking camera.

But again, without 60p, the JVC would be quite limited for certain types of work (specifically, the type of work that one would get based on the camera's look). I certainly hope they add 60p recording to it.

redindian
04-11-2005, 02:08 PM
JVC did a smart thing by making it look like it does. Canon has just got to be kicking themselves... a red and white XL3 is going to look silly next to a same-size-but-black-and-basically-pro-looking camera.

I donno where Canon gets its designers...
Nikon D70 looks and handles so much better than the shiny toy plastic Canon Rebel 300D... and those white lenses...ugh!


ram

Aaron Koolen
04-11-2005, 03:29 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for someone else to do an interchangeable lens system in this price range. Canon have fallen so far behind the game, they need a good kicking to get their act together.

Aaron

JoeFowler
04-11-2005, 03:32 PM
That camera looks SICK! I'm sorry I know how loyal we all are, but come on, if the images are the same and the price is close, who will settle for the new Panny? Blasphemy, I know but that JVC is ... man I can't even type anymore...

Barry_Green
04-11-2005, 04:01 PM
The images are one thing, but the formats aren't going to be even comparable: the Panasonic shoots 1080/24p, 1080/30p, and 1080/60i, 720/24p, 720/30p, and 720/60p, all with 4:2:2 color. The JVC shoots only 720/24p and 720/30p. So we have to wait to see how the images hold up, but even if the 720/24p images were identical, the Panasonic's got some major advantages in frame size. And P2 recording is something to behold... so, I think JVC will sell a ton of these to people who don't pay attention to the spec's. For those who pay attention to the spec's, I think there will be a lot of people who "settle" for the Panasonic! :D

JoeFowler
04-11-2005, 04:12 PM
Of course we would all want to know everything before we make our decisions, but JVC has "leaked" more then Panasonic has it seems, so it's hard to get too excited. I hate getting my hopes up either way. It just seems like the chances of the new Panny having removable lens is slim, and it's a bit disappointing. I guess when all is said and done we'll have to compare both heavily once they are released, not just announced. Sucks to have to wait though!

Joe

Barry_Green
04-11-2005, 04:59 PM
The waiting should be over less than 7 days from now...

(and then the REAL wait begins, as in, how long will it be before they're both on the market and available to buy?)

JoshuaNitschke
04-11-2005, 05:16 PM
The images are one thing, but the formats aren't going to be even comparable: the Panasonic shoots 1080/24p, 1080/30p, and 1080/60i, 720/24p, 720/30p, and 720/60p, all with 4:2:2 color. The JVC shoots only 720/24p and 720/30p. So we have to wait to see how the images hold up, but even if the 720/24p images were identical, the Panasonic's got some major advantages in frame size. And P2 recording is something to behold... so, I think JVC will sell a ton of these to people who don't pay attention to the spec's. For those who pay attention to the spec's, I think there will be a lot of people who "settle" for the Panasonic! :D

The JVC looks a lot nicer than the panny, but with the lower resolution I don't know that I would buy it. I'd really like interchangeable lenses, but I don't think that it's important enough to sacrifice the higher quality (this of course assumes that the 1080/24p mode for the panny has great quality, it may not).

Maybe we can have a mini-35 HD adapter for the camera. Maybe the new Panasonic lens is completely manual (doubt it though).

We'll have to see at NAB I guess.

I wish someone would make the camera. I love the look of the JVC, but if it's not filming at 1080/24p that's a drawback for me. Maybe I'll have to "settle" for the Panny.

MattC
04-11-2005, 07:06 PM
JVC did a smart thing by making it look like it does. Canon has just got to be kicking themselves... a red and white XL3 is going to look silly next to a same-size-but-black-and-basically-pro-looking camera.

Agreed.

comet48
04-11-2005, 10:43 PM
I donno where Canon gets its designers...
Nikon D70 looks and handles so much better than the shiny toy plastic Canon Rebel 300D... and those white lenses...ugh!


ram
Yes - that's why Canon is dominating the market. Anyone who thinks Nikon has a better product than Canon at the moment is smoking dope.

tnle2
04-12-2005, 01:17 AM
Yes - that's why Canon is dominating the market. Anyone who thinks Nikon has a better product than Canon at the moment is smoking dope.

He was referring to ergonomics and human interface and I tend to agree. I've been a still photographer for many years and have used both Nikon and Canon gear and IMO, Nikon cameras have always handled better. Canon may have better semiconductor expertise and much more R&D money, but they still can't put the ISO in the viewfinder.

xray
04-12-2005, 06:47 AM
And P2 recording is something to behold... so, I think JVC will sell a ton of these to people who don't pay attention to the spec's. For those who pay attention to the spec's, I think there will be a lot of people who "settle" for the Panasonic! :D Don't think so Barry, No one buys a Euro 6.000 camera without looking specs. And the specs for the new JVC are good: the resolution is all you need. For handling, a [real] interchangeable lens, cheap long shooting tape, and a better viewfinder it is a promising working tool. You are the progressive promoter remember?

Barry_Green
04-12-2005, 10:56 AM
I am indeed the progressive promoter, progressive all the way, baby! I despise interlaced video.

What I was saying is, have you ever been to the WEVA convention? It's a trade show for wedding & event videographers, but it's also one of the best video exhibition shows, way way bigger than DV Expo. And it's here (Vegas) so I go and check out the toys. And there are tens of thousands of... how should I put this... CLUELESS videographers there. Guys who barely know the difference between gaffer's tape and DV tape. And they are in business, they are one-man bands, and they're buying thousands and thousands and thousands of cameras and tripods and wireless mics every year. I know I'm a bit of a know-it-all, but I am amazed when I see what's going on out there. I mean, there's guys out there who volunteer to shoot weddings FOR FREE, and if you like the tape, buy it. Their idea of shooting is one of those old-school shoulder-mount VHS cameras. They show up, wave the camera around, and hand over a VHS tape at the end of the gig. $200. That's what they ask. But they're "in business", and there's a million of 'em across the country.

How do these guys function? Yet they do. These are guys who are running small businesses, making their living off of video, and don't really have a clue what's out there. And they don't care. If they like the look of the camera, and if the picture looks good on the monitor, they'll buy it. And these are the guys who are going to take one look at that JVC, see that it says "HD" on the side, and buy it. And they won't know or care that they can't shoot 60p. They'll look at the specs, sure, and they'll see that it shoots "HD". And that's all they'll need to know to justify the purchase.


No one buys a Euro 6.000 camera without looking specs
I disagree, I think many of them will, although I can't fathom how. But hey, it's the same thing with televisions. Walk into Best Buy or Circuit City, see how many $6,000 TVs there are for sale. And how many people pick one, not even knowing whether it's 1080-native or 720-native, and not really caring either. They like the size, they like the picture that they see, so they buy it.


And the specs for the new JVC are good
I'm not saying the specs of the JVC are bad, heck, I was very, very interested in it until we heard a bit more about the Panasonic. I'm not saying it's bad, but I am saying that from what we know, the specs can't hold a candle to the specs of the Panasonic. Let's take a brief look:

JVC: 4:2:0
Panasonic: 4:2:2

JVC: 720/30p and 720/24p only
Panasonic: 720/24p, 720/30p, 720/60p, 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/60i

JVC: miniDV and HDV
Panasonic: miniDV, DVCPRO50, and DVCPRO-HD

But then again, anyone who buys solely on specs is being foolish too. There's a lot more to life, and to gear, than specs. You gotta look at the pictures that are produced. If the JVC's 720p blows away the Panasonic's, then that's all that matters. Could it? Maybe. I don't really see how, but I'll say this: when JVC introduced the HD1, they had it on display next to a CMOS-chip box HD camera, and the picture difference was stunning -- the CMOS camera looked SOOOOOOOOOOOO much better, that it made the HD1 look awful. So different technology can have a big impact on picture quality.

On paper, on specs, the Panasonic stomps the JVC. But we don't know yet if the images will keep the promises the specs are making (for either camera).