Sanjin, I told you to talk about something else. Come back in a week.
4-cam comparison -- initial response
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
Danilo Del Tufo
Well-known member
Sanjin it's not native english language people, I believe.
So don't ban him, I'm italian and it's hard write in english so I think if Sanjin don't speak english as me, we must love sanjin and his patience to write to us!
*Sanjin has also a very cute nickname don't you think?:embarasse *
Evr'ybody is precious here, we must fight racism, ban the racism, don't ban Sanjin:thumbsup:
Cheers
I've seen the 4 cameras comparisons and I've found it very helpful.
Good job Sanjin
So don't ban him, I'm italian and it's hard write in english so I think if Sanjin don't speak english as me, we must love sanjin and his patience to write to us!
*Sanjin has also a very cute nickname don't you think?:embarasse *
Evr'ybody is precious here, we must fight racism, ban the racism, don't ban Sanjin:thumbsup:
Cheers
I've seen the 4 cameras comparisons and I've found it very helpful.
Good job Sanjin
Hi Barry & Etal: Great job. Like others, I'm looking forward to see (and hearing) about what the finished footage looks like, rather than just cameras looking at charts. As all of you know, the real proof of the quality will be the finished product. My personal feeling right now is that this is where the 200 will shine, but that's just a subjective guess.
. . . from a fellow Mac user:
Can you try to test the workflow problems comparing dvcprohd and HDV on an out of the box Powermac g5? Something on the line of realtime tracks and render times for both formats? And how do both survive color correction and keying? (probably am asking too specific and subjective questions...[/QUOTE]
SPZ,I'd like the same info too, so if you discover a good source or link, please send it along.
I just bought a G5 dual 2.3 in Sep of this year, before the newer G5's came out. Whichever new camera I get, the important thing is how the workflow will be with my current edit station. To the cost of the camera I'd need to factor in any additional hardware I'd need in order to capture and edit at the same speed I get now with dv.
Also, which of these cameras might give me the best dv image? I'd like the option of still shooting and editing in dv mode but have a good cross-over camera which I could also use in hd/hdv mode for projects where the budget can support the cost of the added hardware, accessories, etc. How does the JVC HD100 get along with the mac and dv type of workflow option?
Can you try to test the workflow problems comparing dvcprohd and HDV on an out of the box Powermac g5? Something on the line of realtime tracks and render times for both formats? And how do both survive color correction and keying? (probably am asking too specific and subjective questions...
[/QUOTE]SPZ,I'd like the same info too, so if you discover a good source or link, please send it along.
I just bought a G5 dual 2.3 in Sep of this year, before the newer G5's came out. Whichever new camera I get, the important thing is how the workflow will be with my current edit station. To the cost of the camera I'd need to factor in any additional hardware I'd need in order to capture and edit at the same speed I get now with dv.
Also, which of these cameras might give me the best dv image? I'd like the option of still shooting and editing in dv mode but have a good cross-over camera which I could also use in hd/hdv mode for projects where the budget can support the cost of the added hardware, accessories, etc. How does the JVC HD100 get along with the mac and dv type of workflow option?
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Danilo is right! C'mon my fellow dvxuser.com members! Peace to all for once!Danilo Del Tufo said:
These war of words here and there isn't it enough?! We are here to what? The purpose is to fight cowardly behind a computer screen?...
Or to exchange ideas*, knowledge*, experiences*, POVs*?!
I'm sorry Sanjin Jukic
that you are out but David Jimerson warned you before and you promised a better behaviour! And of course, I know that the attacks carry on but you are so provocative and here is the result! Last but not least, it's nice hear David to say to you that you can come back soon! So, I'll be waiting for your enthusiastic inputs here again. No hard feelings! :thumbsup: You are a special contributor to this community, you are very useful when you don't fight. You're welcome! For sure, now I just can speak for myself but probably also in the name of many others, silent or not...
...but please, take it easy...and just focus the topics. We must respect the reading spirit and all the readers, as well, when we already know that this way is not welcome not for sole one but a lot more than one. And it starts the war against Don Quijote. As in your own words, you said that it's not the best way to do it...so?!
I know that with you, with a sensitive european kind (so different...isn't Sanjin a Fellini's 8 1/2 quoter?) and your academic background - Philosophy :huh: - there is the attempt to cross the frontiers and sometimes to divagate behind the borders. Very different than technology one, indeed! And - as Danilo said - specially to a non-native english like him, you or me. But if we dislike to receive insults, we must don't insult before. So, please, I ask you to return but come in peace. And, please, guys
, be gentle with him. That's the way he is. The world is not so black & white and we must respect all the differences. We can sell our ideas without war and we have here@this_community some solid examples. It's the best way to give some credit to our ideas, our POVs or even our purposes. That is, ourselves.Cheers to all! :kiss:
* Of course, there are a lot of different levels, comparing each dvxuser.com member. And separate levels of tolerance, too!
chris2 said:
I still don't have much info in comparison therms, but i do have a discussion going on dvinfo.net that answers some workflow questions for the H1. I would really like for someone who has been working with both to state the good and the bad side of both, tough.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58086
Please note that this link is mainly conserning the H1 and h1 workflow.
Although I hate to see anyone get banned, I think this thread has shifted in the wrong direction.
My perspective as an owner of the Z1U and HD100.
Both very nice cams vs any 1/3 inch SD. Remember SD guys? Remember we were and or are using these cams currently for paid work or outstanding dramatic work?
Now we bash the Z1U or HVX for not being the Cinealta. Give me a break. These all are revolutionary cams and bury any SD 1/3 inch cam into the dirt and MANY people have made and are still making LOTS of money with SD tech. Now people trash the Z1U because of latitude or because of no 24P. They shoot down the JVC because of it's lens. Sheesh!
SJUSER, you don't have to defend your FX1E like a child. It's awesome.
RODRIGO, I am sure you will be more than happy with your HVX. But by bashing the Z1U by saying "I wouldn't use it to save my life", or something to that effect is just ignorant. You've used SD cameras before, right? Probably a DVX? Can I do a search on your name claiming it was the holy grail? Probably. NEWS FLASH -- The Z1U (you're supposed "unusuable cam") looks a hell of a lot better than any 1/3 inch SD cam when blown up to film and I challenge any sane DP to say otherwise.
Everyone needs to just stop splitting hairs and start writing something or directing something that joe public would like, regardless of what it was shot on. People just don't care about the cam and that's reality.
My perspective as an owner of the Z1U and HD100.
Both very nice cams vs any 1/3 inch SD. Remember SD guys? Remember we were and or are using these cams currently for paid work or outstanding dramatic work?
Now we bash the Z1U or HVX for not being the Cinealta. Give me a break. These all are revolutionary cams and bury any SD 1/3 inch cam into the dirt and MANY people have made and are still making LOTS of money with SD tech. Now people trash the Z1U because of latitude or because of no 24P. They shoot down the JVC because of it's lens. Sheesh!
SJUSER, you don't have to defend your FX1E like a child. It's awesome.
RODRIGO, I am sure you will be more than happy with your HVX. But by bashing the Z1U by saying "I wouldn't use it to save my life", or something to that effect is just ignorant. You've used SD cameras before, right? Probably a DVX? Can I do a search on your name claiming it was the holy grail? Probably. NEWS FLASH -- The Z1U (you're supposed "unusuable cam") looks a hell of a lot better than any 1/3 inch SD cam when blown up to film and I challenge any sane DP to say otherwise.
Everyone needs to just stop splitting hairs and start writing something or directing something that joe public would like, regardless of what it was shot on. People just don't care about the cam and that's reality.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
:thumbsup:Sunstream said:
Excellent & Congrats! You can be useful if possible. Thanks in advance!dvaddict said:
That's precisely my two hypothesis by now for 35mm film-out purposes.
1) What do you prefer: the JVC filmic look or the cleanest more synthetic look of the Z1U?
2) 1280x720 fits but will it be enough to big screen?
3) Specially @2.35:1 widescreen ratio? If croped, of course, but recently it was possible to follow here [ LINK ] some interesting stuff about a lens adapter possibility.
4) The HD100's noise-like-film-grain will it be more 16mm blown-up?
5) Than a cleanest HD source like Z1U or even HVX footage that all are saying it seems to be between Super16 and 35mm, despite the noise PROBLEM, specially @low_light?
6) Not too soft with less detail & less sharpness (mainly if compared with HVX or - apples to apples - with XL-H1) when all are saying about Z1U where there is less definition according the charts & (numbers :undecided) tests, even bluring?
Z1U - I have seen it digitally projected in an AMC theater and on 35MM print. Both look VERY good. I like less noise in my signals and if it's going to film print, the stock itself will give you the grain. Digitally projected 60i is sharp and you better add some post process to get the film look
HD100 - Never seen it projected digitally or on film.
What do I like better?
HD100 produces some very nice film look out of the box. I like to think I can get my Z1U dialed in pretty close but that takes time in post.
Pros and Cons to ME:
HD100:
PROS:
24P Film look ready to cut in Vegas
Shoulder Mount
Manual Lens
CONS:
The Lens as a whole (lack of W/A, CA and it's breathing. I really like pulling focus and this lens makes it difficult unless you mask the breathing with a camera move)
Split screen - it's a recent firmware rev and still shows up once in awhile.
Weight - although I like the shoulder mount, it doesn't allow me to use my beloved Steadicam Merlin. I REALLY like moving shots in my work and I just don't like dollies (bulky to carry and unless you have a really good one, they don't look good imo)
Overally the picture is beautifull for the film look, but you HAVE to know this cameras weaknesses or you work will suffer.
Z1U
PROS:
I like the size and weight (did I mention the Merlin RULES)
60i for that reality look I need sometimes (POST time for 24P is not an issue for me)
LCD Screen (VERY NICE!)
SHOT TRANSITION - Best feature ever on any cam I have used
Battery Life without spending another grand
Very clean picture
CONS:
60i if you don't have the time to do 24P in post (DVFILM does a wonderfull job on a budget)
Blows out quicker than the HD100U, but not that drastically to me. I don't find the latitude that bad.
Would I like to use a native 24P progessive cam for a film project. Of course, but given the shooting freedom I get with my Z1U, I just find myself using it more.
As far as film transfer goes, Emanuel, I can't really comment on the HD100U or HVX for that matter. Never seen it. I am sure they are stupendous, because the Z1U footage I saw sure was. I doubt any of the current 1/3 inch HD cams can come even remotely close to a median between Super 16 and 35MM simply because of their lenses, but of course there is always the Mini35. For me though such a bulky device would be sacrilege.
HD100 - Never seen it projected digitally or on film.
What do I like better?
HD100 produces some very nice film look out of the box. I like to think I can get my Z1U dialed in pretty close but that takes time in post.
Pros and Cons to ME:
HD100:
PROS:
24P Film look ready to cut in Vegas
Shoulder Mount
Manual Lens
CONS:
The Lens as a whole (lack of W/A, CA and it's breathing. I really like pulling focus and this lens makes it difficult unless you mask the breathing with a camera move)
Split screen - it's a recent firmware rev and still shows up once in awhile.
Weight - although I like the shoulder mount, it doesn't allow me to use my beloved Steadicam Merlin. I REALLY like moving shots in my work and I just don't like dollies (bulky to carry and unless you have a really good one, they don't look good imo)
Overally the picture is beautifull for the film look, but you HAVE to know this cameras weaknesses or you work will suffer.
Z1U
PROS:
I like the size and weight (did I mention the Merlin RULES)
60i for that reality look I need sometimes (POST time for 24P is not an issue for me)
LCD Screen (VERY NICE!)
SHOT TRANSITION - Best feature ever on any cam I have used
Battery Life without spending another grand
Very clean picture
CONS:
60i if you don't have the time to do 24P in post (DVFILM does a wonderfull job on a budget)
Blows out quicker than the HD100U, but not that drastically to me. I don't find the latitude that bad.
Would I like to use a native 24P progessive cam for a film project. Of course, but given the shooting freedom I get with my Z1U, I just find myself using it more.
As far as film transfer goes, Emanuel, I can't really comment on the HD100U or HVX for that matter. Never seen it. I am sure they are stupendous, because the Z1U footage I saw sure was. I doubt any of the current 1/3 inch HD cams can come even remotely close to a median between Super 16 and 35MM simply because of their lenses, but of course there is always the Mini35. For me though such a bulky device would be sacrilege.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
WOW Great user review! (Thanks!) I'm tired of theoretical words and yours are rocking as alive ones.
Because sometimes better than to say this cam is so or that, with this spec or not, it's the result that counts. Like Pana said to us before HVX release and now it's just silence! Or something like my cam is better than yours... :grin:
On the other hand, what it's good to me it cannot the same to you. Even that assessment considering HVX's chroma noise equal XL-H1's luma noise is not fair. Or Z1U is merely the cleanest but at same time the worst of all. How? Precisely for that, it would be already difficult to be the worst. It's someting like to say some similar regarding a pretty woman among three other ones not so gorgeous. Well, it's subjective, at least. I can figure out that there are other specs to evaluate but the prettiest NEVER can be the worst. Unless, there are some terrible specs around. In Z1U/FX1E (not FX1 so 50i not 60i) which are they? Objectively speaking into a brand agnostic POV...
To me to be clean, it can produce the best image. That one that I'm looking for. The same regarding the low light properties. If I have a project where 51% is night footage, maybe I can't shoot with a noisy device. And so on...
And considering the Sony's 15-frame GOP vs. the JVC HD100's shorter 6-frame GOP? Did you note any substantial difference?
Because sometimes better than to say this cam is so or that, with this spec or not, it's the result that counts. Like Pana said to us before HVX release and now it's just silence! Or something like my cam is better than yours... :grin:
On the other hand, what it's good to me it cannot the same to you. Even that assessment considering HVX's chroma noise equal XL-H1's luma noise is not fair. Or Z1U is merely the cleanest but at same time the worst of all. How? Precisely for that, it would be already difficult to be the worst. It's someting like to say some similar regarding a pretty woman among three other ones not so gorgeous. Well, it's subjective, at least. I can figure out that there are other specs to evaluate but the prettiest NEVER can be the worst. Unless, there are some terrible specs around. In Z1U/FX1E (not FX1 so 50i not 60i) which are they? Objectively speaking into a brand agnostic POV...
To me to be clean, it can produce the best image. That one that I'm looking for. The same regarding the low light properties. If I have a project where 51% is night footage, maybe I can't shoot with a noisy device. And so on...
What kind of footage? Yours? Feature ones? Is it possible to you to give other details more? Like movie's title for imdb looking, please?dvaddict said:
Good! We speak the same language.
Yeah!...my problem, too! 1280x720 concern, specially to 2.35 aspect ratio.
More run & gun?
And considering the Sony's 15-frame GOP vs. the JVC HD100's shorter 6-frame GOP? Did you note any substantial difference?
The same look after 50i -> 25p -> 24p after the post conversion? You are saying that the «POST time for 24P is not an issue for me», it's also my case but regarding the same film look, does it confer?...or isn't it the same thing?
Yet? Didn't solve?
For example, this type of things: sometimes I shoot the city streets undercover behind the viewfinder and a good auto focus can be the warranty for the shot that a non-handycam with manual lens doesn't provide. So, little spec details that can make all the difference. For instance, a friend of mine, it reminds me the DVX/HVX zoom vs. XL electronic zoom [ in this case I don't know which is the case regarding these two JVC or Sony cams (?) ]LCD Screen (VERY NICE!)
SHOT TRANSITION - Best feature ever on any cam I have used
But with definition losses - I think - or am I wrong?
Well, you already answered my doubt but this is an important point (that's why I'm out from the XL-H1, the second reason regarding HVX and one of my favourite HD100's pros, indeed!)
Well...here is one of the most delicate points to me. My HD dream is to have shooting specs handycam freedom but, at same time, a cinematic look and not a videoish one that we quickly associate to an interlaced stream.
Well, regarding HD100, Barry has been warned about ghosty effects like this one here (2nd page#13 but read it if possible all the thread: what do you think?) But you have cinemek's G35 where I add this question directly to Jonathan, see it please here: http://www.cinemek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250I doubt any of the current 1/3 inch HD cams can come even remotely close to a median between Super 16 and 35MM simply because of their lenses, but of course there is always the Mini35. For me though such a bulky device would be sacrilege.
Emanuel,
The majority of my stuff is for personal dramatic work with paying jobs being corporate.
Coverting 60i or 50i to 24P in post looks fine to ME. Others don't agree, but to each his own. Does the HD100 look more filmlike. Probably. It will definitely have more resolution so if were are spliting "technical" hairs, then I would tell you to go that route. Again, I could care less if it's 10% better resolution or whatnot. For the average viewer, that's a mute point imo. But for most people on this forum, I can see it being a MAJOR issue...Interlace to Progressive conversion most definitely will degrade vertical resolution for you.
Splitscreen on the HD100 is a byproduct of JVC's design. I hardly see it because I am aware of what causes it, but sometimes it shows up even after I have covered all my bases to eliminate it. Perhaps I am just seeing things, because the only time I do see it is if I am consciously looking for it. I don't like the fact that it's just another thing to worry about while shooting.
Although I do mostly dramatic work and I have the luxury of setting up lights and planning shots, I still like to be streamlined as far as equipment goes. I don't like having a lot of bulky equipment, but that's just me. Others are of course different.
The majority of my stuff is for personal dramatic work with paying jobs being corporate.
Coverting 60i or 50i to 24P in post looks fine to ME. Others don't agree, but to each his own. Does the HD100 look more filmlike. Probably. It will definitely have more resolution so if were are spliting "technical" hairs, then I would tell you to go that route. Again, I could care less if it's 10% better resolution or whatnot. For the average viewer, that's a mute point imo. But for most people on this forum, I can see it being a MAJOR issue...Interlace to Progressive conversion most definitely will degrade vertical resolution for you.
Splitscreen on the HD100 is a byproduct of JVC's design. I hardly see it because I am aware of what causes it, but sometimes it shows up even after I have covered all my bases to eliminate it. Perhaps I am just seeing things, because the only time I do see it is if I am consciously looking for it. I don't like the fact that it's just another thing to worry about while shooting.
Although I do mostly dramatic work and I have the luxury of setting up lights and planning shots, I still like to be streamlined as far as equipment goes. I don't like having a lot of bulky equipment, but that's just me. Others are of course different.
Stevet
Veteran
dvaddict said:
The HD100 does have a decent picture. I am surprised how much it does "resemble" film.
My concern with both the HVX200 and HD100 are how well the image holds up in lower light.
My understanding from Barry's camera comparison post was the HVX does have lower noise levels over the HD100.
I'm concerned about HDV in lower light where there's movement. It appears low light noise levels seem to work the HDV codec harder and causes images to have more than normal image smear. Things look too soft during motion and it appears not to be just moton blur due to shutter and frame rate.
HDV images seems to fall apart in low light. I'm hoping the HVX holds up better, but I have yet to see many raw lowlight MXF files. Granted some of this is due to only owning a PC. The Kung fu footage looked OK, but I was looking at a WMV file that showed a lot of compression artifacts. I did see one wmv clip of a street sidewalk at night that showed a lot of noise at 0dB gain, but we don't know how the other settings, gama, detail, ect..
I know this subject has been brought up a lot, but it goes to show some of my concerns. Yes, maybe I'm expecting to much from a 1/3" CCD, but since some cameras exhibit lower noise than others, I'm sure there are ways to improve signal to noise levels.
Steve
joe 1008
Veteran
I´m glad to get that much information out of this forum. I spent hours here and every minute was worth reading all these posts. The last and ultimate point I still can´t find is how well the codecs held up in Barry´s comparision. There might be some clear information in this thread but there are already too many posts to work through, sorry. So if anybody can tell if there already is some information or when it might be postet I - and I suppose I won´t be the only one - would be very regardful.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hi David,davidas said:
Well, what you're asking for is completely and 100% subjective. The report I issued above was not in any way subjective, it was an attempt to be objective and represent the general consensus of the group. We did disagree on a few points, usually not significantly though, so I listed the general consensus.
But now you're asking for subjective. And that means personal opinion. And it means that others will be entitled to offer their opinions, and I will let them speak for themselves. But it also means I get to take the shackles off, right? This is all subjective, and this is all my opinion.
Opinions are biased, inherently; an opinion cannot be otherwise. And I am very biased in my opinion towards a particular product: *not* because of its manufacturer, *not* because of any under-the-table payola or whatever other goofy claim may be made, but simply because I use it every day and it is far and away the best tool for the type of work I do, and works in a way that I greatly prefer. So let's be clear on that -- I was fair and unbiased in reporting test results, but you're not asking for test results, you're asking for a subjective opinion on which is best. With that said, let's begin.
In my opinion, as far as the one to buy and the one to use in general use: the HVX spanks the other cameras like they've been very bad boys. Not necessarily in terms of test charts, because the test charts all came out basically six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other... I'm talking about living with it day to day. Here are the main issues for me:
1) the lens. The Canon lens is intolerable to use. I cannot fathom how any professional can use that "manual zoom" and "manual focus" on that camera; trying to focus and zoom with it is like watching a challenge on "Survivor" where someone's blindfolded and someone else is shouting out directions to them: "left, left, left, no, too far, back, wait -- back, back, okay, now stop. No, stop! Stop!" That's what it's like using that lens. The servo controls are awful. Even the Sony's servo controls were way better than the Canon's. Yes, someday you'll be able to buy a body-only Canon and replace that servo lens with a manual lens, but right now you can't, so you're stuck buying the servo lens and then buying another lens for it, thus driving up its cost even more. It's already 50% to 60% more expensive than the other cameras in the comparison. I find the long telephoto very nice, but the lens controls are a dealbreaker for me. You get autofocus and OIS, but lousy lousy lousy controls. And if you go for manual you lose the option of autofocus and OIS. Not that you may need them, but they're nice to have in case you do need them, and if you don't need to give them up, why do it?
The JVC's lens is the worst, as far as I'm concerned. It's sharp in the center, but loses edge-to-edge sharpness as you zoom in, it breathes like Darth Vader, and its chromatic aberration can be abhorrent. None of the other cameras fringe like the JVC does. On the plus side, the zoom is very nice and smooth, even if the servo speed is too slow for my taste. The focus is smooth and fully manual and nice, but the breathing makes it look like you're zooming rather than focusing. It is, unquestionably, the worst lens ever issued on a professional camera; I doubt even JVC would argue against that. It is interchangeable -- but interchange it with what? There is only one other high-def lens in the world that will fit it, and that lens carries a retail price of $11,995. Sorry, that's not a practical option for a $6,295 camera. Sure the street price will be lower, but even at $9,000 it'd be 80% more expensive than the camera+stock lens combo! And while people will say "rent", I'll say "okay, maybe if you're in L.A. or NY or maybe Chicago, but if you don't live in proximity to one of the few rental stores that carry that lens, how are you supposed to rent it as a practical matter?" This is supposed to be a low-cost camera, so renting and shipping and insurance just don't necessarily support the business model. No, if you use the JVC, it means you're going to be using that particular lens, and you better like purple and green because you'll be seeing it. And you'll never have autofocus nor OIS.
The Sony lens is a hybrid. It has servo controls that are not bad at all; not true manual, but usable. I prefer a true manual zoom and precise manual focus, but the Sony doesn't fall too far from there. And at least it provides the options of autofocus and OIS. Distance readings in the viewfinder mean you don't have to look away from the lens to know where you're focusing, although you do have to be able to judge distance in meters.
The Panasonic lens just works. Try it. You'll see. Perfect manual zoom, and tack-sharp precise repeatable just-as-good-as-any-manual-only manual focus. It's great glass, very sharp, minimal fringing and even then only at full telephoto. But the key thing is: you can WORK with this lens. Perfect manual zoom, every bit as manual and precise as the JVC. And the focus is perfect perfect perfect. It's absolutely repeatable, absolutely precise. You get distance readouts on the viewfinder/LCD instead of on the barrel, yes -- but that just means it's more usable, because you can see far more precise distance readouts, and they're in front of you at all times rather than as with on-the-barrel cameras where you have to take your eye away from the viewfinder in order to see what the distance markings are. The viewfinder method is, quite simply, better. No the lens doesn't have hard stops at MOD and INF -- so? In three years of using the DVX and now HVX, I have never ever had my focus affected by whether or not the lens stopped moving at the end of travel. Granted, veteran shooters have traditionally hated spinning servo rings because they've acted and responded like the Sony VX1000/VX2000 and Canon XLH1 rings do. But the HVX doesn't. Its focus ring acts and responds like a true manual ring should. No it doesn't stop at the end of travel -- but the internal lens elements quit moving, so what's the beef? The focusing on the HVX is hands down the winner, hands down. None of the others compares. The HD100 would be a strong competitor if it wasn't for the breathing. The power zoom on the other cameras is smoother with more speeds and smoother ramping between the speeds, that's true, so it doesn't win for power zoom. But, the HVX gives you the choice of using OIS and autofocus, which the JVC won't ever do and the Canon can't do when using a manual lens.
Form Factor: hard to argue here, it's a clear case of which do you prefer and for what. Some have simply got to have the shoulder-mount form factor, some prefer the smaller handycam handheld size. The HD100 looks and acts the part of a shoulder-mount; adding an IDX or A/B battery gives it better balance and really lets it play the role. The XLH1 looks the part, but doesn't balance nearly as well, it's extremely front-heavy. The Z1 and HVX are smaller handheld cameras. There's a place for each. For some people this will be a deciding factor, for others it's not even a consideration. For my taste, I wish the HVX had a shoulder-mount version, but I'm perfectly content with the existing form factor. The camera is on a tripod or jib for 80% of what I do, so the form factor isn't much of a consideration to me.
Audio: hands down, no question, hand the trophy to the HVX and don't let the others even get on the podium. Four channels of uncompressed audio beats the daylights out of two channels of 4:1 compressed audio. No comparison. And four channels of uncompressed audio beats the living snot out of four channels of 8:1 compressed audio. No doubt, no question, no argument. It would be more usable if the four channels could come from four XLRs though; hopefully there will be a modification soon so we can use additional XLRs instead of the onboard mic for channels 3 & 4.
Usability/flexibility: here's where the HVX is in such a class unto itself that it's silly to compare. It's like a word processor vs. a pack of typewriters. The HVX is so flexible it's like an olympic gymnast among a roomful of guys in bodycasts. The HVX shoots 115 different frame rates and modes. The best the others can do is maybe five to 10 once you add up SD, HD, and PAL/NTSC switchable (I haven't counted). The HVX shoots in all six ATSC HDTV modes. The others support only one (except the JVC which does two, both 720/30p and 720/24p). The Canon offers a simulated way to get two more, so if you gave full credibility to 24f and 30f, that brings the Canon up to three ATSC modes, vs. the Panasonic at all six.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Part II (continued):
The JVC can't shoot "reality" footage. It can't deliver the "video" look in high-def. I know a lot of people are looking for film simulation only, so the restriction on frame rates may be okay for them, and for a film-looking camera the JVC does fine -- but for event shooting, for convention work, for news and sports and other things that are traditionally shot "live", the JVC is limited. All the other cameras provide for a way to get the "live" look; the HVX offers two ways to get it (720/60p and 1080/60i). For film-style, the JVC and HVX both offer genuine 24p, but the HVX offers it in two HD formats vs. just one for the JVC. The Canon simulates it, and the Sony has a horrid CF24 mode. You can juggle around and shoot PAL 50Hz CF25 and convert it in post, but -- why do that when you don't have to? We're talking workability here, right? Just flip the switch and go, vs. having to screw around in post to try to simulate something that should have been there in the first place.
The HVX offers 4:2:2 color, and vastly superior chroma keying. "People are going to be blown away by the keying capabilites of this camera." And that's not even my quote, that's the quote from one of the VFX wizards on this board who I sent some pre-release DV50 footage to, to experiment with keying.
The HVX offers DV50 mode. None of the other cameras offers anything like that. Super-mild compression and twice the color of DV. Unparalleled.
Recording Format: here's the big one. This is the night-and-day one that separates the HVX from the others and, depending on your viewpoint, either results in ultimate triumph or makes you look elsewhere. All the others record to tape, and they record something that's all outwardly named "HDV", even though fundamentally all 3 are almost completely incompatible with each other. JVC equipment cannot play Sony or Canon tapes, Canon equipment cannot play JVC tapes, Sony equipment cannot play Canon 24F or 30F, and Sony gear cannot be used to digitize JVC footage. It is basically 3 incompatible formats; the only concession to compatibility is that the Canon can play Sony footage, and the Sony can play 1080/60i (and only 1080/60i) from the Canon. And there's not a device in the world that can play Canon 24F or 30F footage other than a Canon XLH1. There's no deck that can handle it, and Canon's never made a deck before, so there may never be a deck that can handle it unless Canon builds one. Will Sony build one? And if so, why? Why would they go out of their way to support a competitor's product? Doesn't seem very Sony-like. I would wager that if Sony does add 24F/30F support, they'll do so in the same limited fashion that they support JVC 30P: playback only, but not allowing it to be digitized. Which means it would be fundamentally useless in the edit suite.
The HVX, on the other hand, records on interchangeable reusable memory cards. It records a wide variety of formats (DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO-HD 720p, and DVCPRO-HD 1080) at various frame rates, on cards of various and increasing capacity. The cards are instantly pre-digitized and are ready to edit the second they're shot. It can control a hard drive to offload the files to, which can then be plugged into any Macintosh or PC-compatible. The cards are truly random-access devices, and give the camera capabilities that the others can't even put on their wish-lists: pre-buffer recording (where the camera's recording even before you press the "record" button so you'll never miss the start of a shot again); true intervalometer for time lapse functions; "loop record" which basically lets you pre-record to almost the entire capacity of both cards, and endless record where you can continue hot-swapping cards and get a single continuous take that could theoretically be far longer than the longest tape ever could (provided, of course, that you have enough cards and/or a way to offload those cards). None of the others can do any of those functions. You can shoot on a card, plug the card into an Avid or Canopus editor, and edit the footage immediately. No searching, rewinding, logging, and capturing -- that step can be completely eliminated. None of the other cameras have that capability. You'll never accidentally tape over footage on the HVX -- you can play back any clip at any time from any point of the recording day, without having to hunt and search through a tape (and having to remember to fast-forward the tape or you just might tape over your HDV footage!) You will *never* see a dropout on an HVX. On the HDV cameras, occasionally a fleck of dust or a tape error can cause a dropout to scrag a half-second of footage completely -- your image will just "seize up" for half a second on the Sony; on the JVC you'll see ugly scrag artifacts throughout your footage for at least 1/5 second. Don't know whether the Canon employs the "seize-up" or "scrag" method of dropout compensation, but either way it'll be on your screen for an entire half-second. That's never a worry with the Panasonic; it's impossible -- it just can't happen.
Which brings me to the last issue: trusting the footage. With the Panasonic you know exactly what you're going to get, each and every time. No dropouts. No motion artifacts. No weird double-image ghosting. No softness on pans or in high-motion shots. HDV suffers from all those things. HDV's long-GOP compression method exposes it to the danger that it may encounter circumstances that cause it to "run out of bits" -- and when it runs out of bits, your entire picture suffers in quality for the duration of at least that full GOP. That can mean 1/4 to 1/2 second of lower quality footage; potentially significantly lower quality. And on the JVC there's a further complication, which is the issue of split-screen. It happens. It will always be there lurking in the background, threatening to pop up and ruin a shot. You cannot always see it in the viewfinder/LCD, but you can see it when you play the footage back. There's never been an image artifact like it. It's a dealbreaker for many of us. It doesn't happen often, but when it does happen, it's nasty.
HDV usually looks very good, in spite of all the potential issues that can occur; Adam Wilt's quote is "it looks better than it has any right to." But it doesn't always look great, it'll never look better than DVCPRO-HD, and you can't always predict when it will crap on your footage. I prefer to not take the chance. I prefer a format that will always look great no matter what I throw at it; a format that will always look better because it has twice the color, and a format that lets me do things the other formats can't even begin to put on their wish list. But that's just me. (well, me and Canon; when Canon shot their high-budget "Watchmaker" demo footage, they didn't even record on their own HDV deck, they chose to go rent or buy a $25,000 DVCPRO-HD deck to trust their footage to -- what does that tell you?) Others won't care what HDV does to their footage, as long as they can record an hour on a $4 tape. And I see their point. And their point is valid -- there are some circumstances where an hour's recording on a $4 tape is a deciding factor. But for dramatic narrative work, feature filmmaking, TV commercial production, indie films, short films, corporate films, anything that could previously have been shot on film -- the HVX is just the better, safer, more flexible choice. In my opinion.
Oh, and one more: Post considerations. Lots of talk about post. There are post situations with both formats. FCP doesn't support 24P from the JVC, and I don't think any editing system natively supports the 24F or 30F modes from the Canon. You have to use workarounds and plug-ins to get any of that to work, something like Lumiere or Cineform or XDVHDV or whatever. Everyone recommends using an HDV intermediate codec -- you can't (or shouldn't) edit in the native HDV codec, it's slow and any sort of transition or re-render causes a significant drop in quality (see Adam's article on editing HDV in DV magazine a few issues ago for more on that). And while editing itself may finally have worked itself out now (over two years after the first HDV-compatible camera appeared on the market) there's still the whole "conform" process -- if you want to render back out to HDV tape, an Apple FCP system takes a massive amount of time to render back out. Massive. I've heard of 20 minutes of rendering for a 30-second spot (others can confirm that or rebuke it, I don't have a Mac yet so can't verify). And you'll never have any sort of firewire preview with HDV, it just cannot ever be, because of the GOP nature of HDV footage.
With the HVX, it has its own set of issues -- currently no native support in Vegas or Premiere, for example. But it does have native realtime fullscreen multiple-stream support in Avid and Canopus and FCP5. You can edit in the original codec, there's no need for any transcoding process, no need for plug-ins, no need for any of those workarounds. No need to screw around in post. No goofy workarounds, although it would be nice if Avid would release 1080/24p support soon. You can do a firewire preview to the HD1200A deck if you happen to have one; it would be very nice if you could do the same to the HVX itself but apparently you can't. But at least it can happen for companies who have the 1200 deck; it'll never happen for HDV. There are workarounds for the Premiere and Vegas too; if you're willing to transcode to CineForm to use HDV, surely you'd be willing to transcode to Raylight to use DVCPRO-HD, right? And let's keep in mind the HVX's only been on the market two weeks. It took almost two YEARS for Avid and Apple to support JVC 30p, and nearly a year for them to support Sony 1080i, and Apple still doesn't support JVC 24p.
The JVC can't shoot "reality" footage. It can't deliver the "video" look in high-def. I know a lot of people are looking for film simulation only, so the restriction on frame rates may be okay for them, and for a film-looking camera the JVC does fine -- but for event shooting, for convention work, for news and sports and other things that are traditionally shot "live", the JVC is limited. All the other cameras provide for a way to get the "live" look; the HVX offers two ways to get it (720/60p and 1080/60i). For film-style, the JVC and HVX both offer genuine 24p, but the HVX offers it in two HD formats vs. just one for the JVC. The Canon simulates it, and the Sony has a horrid CF24 mode. You can juggle around and shoot PAL 50Hz CF25 and convert it in post, but -- why do that when you don't have to? We're talking workability here, right? Just flip the switch and go, vs. having to screw around in post to try to simulate something that should have been there in the first place.
The HVX offers 4:2:2 color, and vastly superior chroma keying. "People are going to be blown away by the keying capabilites of this camera." And that's not even my quote, that's the quote from one of the VFX wizards on this board who I sent some pre-release DV50 footage to, to experiment with keying.
The HVX offers DV50 mode. None of the other cameras offers anything like that. Super-mild compression and twice the color of DV. Unparalleled.
Recording Format: here's the big one. This is the night-and-day one that separates the HVX from the others and, depending on your viewpoint, either results in ultimate triumph or makes you look elsewhere. All the others record to tape, and they record something that's all outwardly named "HDV", even though fundamentally all 3 are almost completely incompatible with each other. JVC equipment cannot play Sony or Canon tapes, Canon equipment cannot play JVC tapes, Sony equipment cannot play Canon 24F or 30F, and Sony gear cannot be used to digitize JVC footage. It is basically 3 incompatible formats; the only concession to compatibility is that the Canon can play Sony footage, and the Sony can play 1080/60i (and only 1080/60i) from the Canon. And there's not a device in the world that can play Canon 24F or 30F footage other than a Canon XLH1. There's no deck that can handle it, and Canon's never made a deck before, so there may never be a deck that can handle it unless Canon builds one. Will Sony build one? And if so, why? Why would they go out of their way to support a competitor's product? Doesn't seem very Sony-like. I would wager that if Sony does add 24F/30F support, they'll do so in the same limited fashion that they support JVC 30P: playback only, but not allowing it to be digitized. Which means it would be fundamentally useless in the edit suite.
The HVX, on the other hand, records on interchangeable reusable memory cards. It records a wide variety of formats (DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO-HD 720p, and DVCPRO-HD 1080) at various frame rates, on cards of various and increasing capacity. The cards are instantly pre-digitized and are ready to edit the second they're shot. It can control a hard drive to offload the files to, which can then be plugged into any Macintosh or PC-compatible. The cards are truly random-access devices, and give the camera capabilities that the others can't even put on their wish-lists: pre-buffer recording (where the camera's recording even before you press the "record" button so you'll never miss the start of a shot again); true intervalometer for time lapse functions; "loop record" which basically lets you pre-record to almost the entire capacity of both cards, and endless record where you can continue hot-swapping cards and get a single continuous take that could theoretically be far longer than the longest tape ever could (provided, of course, that you have enough cards and/or a way to offload those cards). None of the others can do any of those functions. You can shoot on a card, plug the card into an Avid or Canopus editor, and edit the footage immediately. No searching, rewinding, logging, and capturing -- that step can be completely eliminated. None of the other cameras have that capability. You'll never accidentally tape over footage on the HVX -- you can play back any clip at any time from any point of the recording day, without having to hunt and search through a tape (and having to remember to fast-forward the tape or you just might tape over your HDV footage!) You will *never* see a dropout on an HVX. On the HDV cameras, occasionally a fleck of dust or a tape error can cause a dropout to scrag a half-second of footage completely -- your image will just "seize up" for half a second on the Sony; on the JVC you'll see ugly scrag artifacts throughout your footage for at least 1/5 second. Don't know whether the Canon employs the "seize-up" or "scrag" method of dropout compensation, but either way it'll be on your screen for an entire half-second. That's never a worry with the Panasonic; it's impossible -- it just can't happen.
Which brings me to the last issue: trusting the footage. With the Panasonic you know exactly what you're going to get, each and every time. No dropouts. No motion artifacts. No weird double-image ghosting. No softness on pans or in high-motion shots. HDV suffers from all those things. HDV's long-GOP compression method exposes it to the danger that it may encounter circumstances that cause it to "run out of bits" -- and when it runs out of bits, your entire picture suffers in quality for the duration of at least that full GOP. That can mean 1/4 to 1/2 second of lower quality footage; potentially significantly lower quality. And on the JVC there's a further complication, which is the issue of split-screen. It happens. It will always be there lurking in the background, threatening to pop up and ruin a shot. You cannot always see it in the viewfinder/LCD, but you can see it when you play the footage back. There's never been an image artifact like it. It's a dealbreaker for many of us. It doesn't happen often, but when it does happen, it's nasty.
HDV usually looks very good, in spite of all the potential issues that can occur; Adam Wilt's quote is "it looks better than it has any right to." But it doesn't always look great, it'll never look better than DVCPRO-HD, and you can't always predict when it will crap on your footage. I prefer to not take the chance. I prefer a format that will always look great no matter what I throw at it; a format that will always look better because it has twice the color, and a format that lets me do things the other formats can't even begin to put on their wish list. But that's just me. (well, me and Canon; when Canon shot their high-budget "Watchmaker" demo footage, they didn't even record on their own HDV deck, they chose to go rent or buy a $25,000 DVCPRO-HD deck to trust their footage to -- what does that tell you?) Others won't care what HDV does to their footage, as long as they can record an hour on a $4 tape. And I see their point. And their point is valid -- there are some circumstances where an hour's recording on a $4 tape is a deciding factor. But for dramatic narrative work, feature filmmaking, TV commercial production, indie films, short films, corporate films, anything that could previously have been shot on film -- the HVX is just the better, safer, more flexible choice. In my opinion.
Oh, and one more: Post considerations. Lots of talk about post. There are post situations with both formats. FCP doesn't support 24P from the JVC, and I don't think any editing system natively supports the 24F or 30F modes from the Canon. You have to use workarounds and plug-ins to get any of that to work, something like Lumiere or Cineform or XDVHDV or whatever. Everyone recommends using an HDV intermediate codec -- you can't (or shouldn't) edit in the native HDV codec, it's slow and any sort of transition or re-render causes a significant drop in quality (see Adam's article on editing HDV in DV magazine a few issues ago for more on that). And while editing itself may finally have worked itself out now (over two years after the first HDV-compatible camera appeared on the market) there's still the whole "conform" process -- if you want to render back out to HDV tape, an Apple FCP system takes a massive amount of time to render back out. Massive. I've heard of 20 minutes of rendering for a 30-second spot (others can confirm that or rebuke it, I don't have a Mac yet so can't verify). And you'll never have any sort of firewire preview with HDV, it just cannot ever be, because of the GOP nature of HDV footage.
With the HVX, it has its own set of issues -- currently no native support in Vegas or Premiere, for example. But it does have native realtime fullscreen multiple-stream support in Avid and Canopus and FCP5. You can edit in the original codec, there's no need for any transcoding process, no need for plug-ins, no need for any of those workarounds. No need to screw around in post. No goofy workarounds, although it would be nice if Avid would release 1080/24p support soon. You can do a firewire preview to the HD1200A deck if you happen to have one; it would be very nice if you could do the same to the HVX itself but apparently you can't. But at least it can happen for companies who have the 1200 deck; it'll never happen for HDV. There are workarounds for the Premiere and Vegas too; if you're willing to transcode to CineForm to use HDV, surely you'd be willing to transcode to Raylight to use DVCPRO-HD, right? And let's keep in mind the HVX's only been on the market two weeks. It took almost two YEARS for Avid and Apple to support JVC 30p, and nearly a year for them to support Sony 1080i, and Apple still doesn't support JVC 24p.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Part III (continued):
So. To sum it up -- I think the HVX is the far more flexible tool, better for any circumstance where the limitations of the recording format can be made to work (and a FireStore, CinePorter, and upcoming larger cards will all dramatically extend those circumstances). I think the other cameras are much more limited. Much. I think the imaging overall is probably the most similar element to them; I think the differences between them OTHER than image are what people should be deciding based on. And for any circumstance other than needing to record multiple hours of footage per day, I think the HVX's advantages are compelling.
I do not like the HD100's lens. I despise the lens controls on the Canon. And I don't like the interlaced look of the Sony, I'm mainly a 24P shooter and CF24 mode doesn't "work", and I don't really want to hassle with post converting lower-res HDV footage. And I don't have to -- there's a better choice. For filmlike workflow and filmlike footage and flexibility and the best lens and the best lens controls and the best overall package that kicks the snot out of some of the competitors, and the poopoo out of the others, the HVX is it. It's the one you've been waiting for. For a live-only shooter, the FX1 makes a good case for itself because of its low price.
For a dedicated studio multicam setting where you're going to be using timecode in/out with other types of cameras, and genlocking, and using HD-SDI routing and switching, the Canon offers a unique featureset that clearly sets it apart. If you need those features, the Canon offers them. The question is, do you need those features? If not, why pay 50% to 60% more for the camera just to get them?
For interlaced-only "live" footage, the Sony is a strong performer. I was reminded again how good it can look when I saw some of Jay Nemeth's home movies he shot at the Macy's parade. And it's low-noise champ. But it's not a filmmaker's tool. You can work around in post and shoehorn something together, but frankly I don't see why to bother. If I was shooting something that required long record times and the "live" look, and could live with the potential of HDV motion artifacts and dropouts, then the Sony would be a decent choice for that.
If the HVX didn't exist, the JVC would make a compelling case for itself. It can make some beautiful footage, it has true filmlike 24P, and a nice shoulder-mount form factor. Unfortunately for the JVC, the HVX does exist. The HVX does what the JVC can (minus the form factor) and adds so much more it's like Christmas and your birthday back to back. And the JVC has a chromatic-aberrational lens, edge-to-edge sharpness issues, breathing, the potential for SSE, and cannot shoot "live" footage in HD -- those are going to prove to be dealbreakers for some people (just like the interchangeability of the lens and the shoulder-mount form factor will be dealmakers for other people, but not me).
They're different tools, aimed at different markets. Each has unique capabilities. But the HVX is the far more flexible tool, and for the kinds of things people on this board do, I think it's far and away (yes, far and away) the best choice. Test chart performance aside. We do not make our livings based on test charts, we make them based on footage and on the things we do with the cameras. The HVX is far and away the most flexible and most powerful tool in the bunch. The only knock against it would be the current state of record times; if you simply cannot live without multiple hours of footage on $4 tapes, then accept the compromises inherent in HDV and go for that. But if you can wrap your head around the HVX workflow you will be richly rewarded for doing so. I've been working with it for over 7 weeks now and it is a magnificent beast.
I don't think these opinions are any news to any of you. But they are honest, they are what I think, and I believe they are firmly grounded in factual evidence. The other cameras are evolutions of prior designs; the XLH1 is like a high-def XL2 aimed at news stations wanting to build high-def infrastructure; the Z1 is a high-def PD170, the HD100 is a high-def crossbreed between a DV500 and an HD10. But the HVX is something new -- it's a mini-VariCam and a high-def DVX all at once, but the tapeless workflow pushes it up a whole rung on the evolutionary ladder.
The others are like variations on the typewriter. The HVX is a word processor. The others are based around the slow, tedious, error-prone (but familiar) tape workflow. The HVX is based around the instant, nonlinear, flexible tapeless workflow. And like it or not, tape's days are over. Tapeless is all the rage, whether it's XDCAM, XDCAM HD, EditCam, Red, Infinity, DVD camcorders, CompactFlash camcorders, hard disk camcorders, SD-card cameras or P2, tapeless is here now and it's better. I've said before, once you've worked with P2 for five minutes, you'll never want to see a tape again. And you've seen the reviews from others (Luis Caffesse, Spinflight, and others) who have said the same thing. Evin's doing it right now, shooting tapeless and handing a hard disk to the producer. I'm doing it next month, a series of 14 regional commercials all shot tapeless and delivering a hard disk to the editor. You can bet that those editors will be dreading the next tape they see, once they've worked with tapeless (providing, of course, that their systems can handle the format).
So there's my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think they're all surprisingly good products, especially at the given price point. Each is well suited to a particular use, and if you were renting, there'd be a good case to rent one vs. another for any given job. But if you're buying, I have no doubt -- the HVX is the far more flexible tool. If you can only buy one, I have no qualms recommending the HVX highly. Panasonic has hit an out-of-the-park home run with this gem.
So. To sum it up -- I think the HVX is the far more flexible tool, better for any circumstance where the limitations of the recording format can be made to work (and a FireStore, CinePorter, and upcoming larger cards will all dramatically extend those circumstances). I think the other cameras are much more limited. Much. I think the imaging overall is probably the most similar element to them; I think the differences between them OTHER than image are what people should be deciding based on. And for any circumstance other than needing to record multiple hours of footage per day, I think the HVX's advantages are compelling.
I do not like the HD100's lens. I despise the lens controls on the Canon. And I don't like the interlaced look of the Sony, I'm mainly a 24P shooter and CF24 mode doesn't "work", and I don't really want to hassle with post converting lower-res HDV footage. And I don't have to -- there's a better choice. For filmlike workflow and filmlike footage and flexibility and the best lens and the best lens controls and the best overall package that kicks the snot out of some of the competitors, and the poopoo out of the others, the HVX is it. It's the one you've been waiting for. For a live-only shooter, the FX1 makes a good case for itself because of its low price.
For a dedicated studio multicam setting where you're going to be using timecode in/out with other types of cameras, and genlocking, and using HD-SDI routing and switching, the Canon offers a unique featureset that clearly sets it apart. If you need those features, the Canon offers them. The question is, do you need those features? If not, why pay 50% to 60% more for the camera just to get them?
For interlaced-only "live" footage, the Sony is a strong performer. I was reminded again how good it can look when I saw some of Jay Nemeth's home movies he shot at the Macy's parade. And it's low-noise champ. But it's not a filmmaker's tool. You can work around in post and shoehorn something together, but frankly I don't see why to bother. If I was shooting something that required long record times and the "live" look, and could live with the potential of HDV motion artifacts and dropouts, then the Sony would be a decent choice for that.
If the HVX didn't exist, the JVC would make a compelling case for itself. It can make some beautiful footage, it has true filmlike 24P, and a nice shoulder-mount form factor. Unfortunately for the JVC, the HVX does exist. The HVX does what the JVC can (minus the form factor) and adds so much more it's like Christmas and your birthday back to back. And the JVC has a chromatic-aberrational lens, edge-to-edge sharpness issues, breathing, the potential for SSE, and cannot shoot "live" footage in HD -- those are going to prove to be dealbreakers for some people (just like the interchangeability of the lens and the shoulder-mount form factor will be dealmakers for other people, but not me).
They're different tools, aimed at different markets. Each has unique capabilities. But the HVX is the far more flexible tool, and for the kinds of things people on this board do, I think it's far and away (yes, far and away) the best choice. Test chart performance aside. We do not make our livings based on test charts, we make them based on footage and on the things we do with the cameras. The HVX is far and away the most flexible and most powerful tool in the bunch. The only knock against it would be the current state of record times; if you simply cannot live without multiple hours of footage on $4 tapes, then accept the compromises inherent in HDV and go for that. But if you can wrap your head around the HVX workflow you will be richly rewarded for doing so. I've been working with it for over 7 weeks now and it is a magnificent beast.
I don't think these opinions are any news to any of you. But they are honest, they are what I think, and I believe they are firmly grounded in factual evidence. The other cameras are evolutions of prior designs; the XLH1 is like a high-def XL2 aimed at news stations wanting to build high-def infrastructure; the Z1 is a high-def PD170, the HD100 is a high-def crossbreed between a DV500 and an HD10. But the HVX is something new -- it's a mini-VariCam and a high-def DVX all at once, but the tapeless workflow pushes it up a whole rung on the evolutionary ladder.
The others are like variations on the typewriter. The HVX is a word processor. The others are based around the slow, tedious, error-prone (but familiar) tape workflow. The HVX is based around the instant, nonlinear, flexible tapeless workflow. And like it or not, tape's days are over. Tapeless is all the rage, whether it's XDCAM, XDCAM HD, EditCam, Red, Infinity, DVD camcorders, CompactFlash camcorders, hard disk camcorders, SD-card cameras or P2, tapeless is here now and it's better. I've said before, once you've worked with P2 for five minutes, you'll never want to see a tape again. And you've seen the reviews from others (Luis Caffesse, Spinflight, and others) who have said the same thing. Evin's doing it right now, shooting tapeless and handing a hard disk to the producer. I'm doing it next month, a series of 14 regional commercials all shot tapeless and delivering a hard disk to the editor. You can bet that those editors will be dreading the next tape they see, once they've worked with tapeless (providing, of course, that their systems can handle the format).
So there's my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think they're all surprisingly good products, especially at the given price point. Each is well suited to a particular use, and if you were renting, there'd be a good case to rent one vs. another for any given job. But if you're buying, I have no doubt -- the HVX is the far more flexible tool. If you can only buy one, I have no qualms recommending the HVX highly. Panasonic has hit an out-of-the-park home run with this gem.