Canon XH A1 vs HVX200

D

drdimento

Well-known member
Anyone out there with an HVX200 or who uses one and also happens to have or gets to use a Canon XH A1? How does the image compare?

We are getting ready to sell off two of our DVX100B's and get another HVX200 but will be short to get two and really will get an HPX if we can afford it and thus will have limited cash to get the third HD camera and wanted to know how the image looks. The camera looks small enough to be a DVX100B lookalike physically and that we like and just wondered how it is in low light, image quality, and if it drops frames bad?
 
A couple years ago there was a good shootout done by Adam Wilt and friends that compared the HVX, the XL H1 (same image as the XH), the Sony Z1 and one of the JVCs. He concludes the test by saying, "Just choose one that works best for you and start shooting: remember, talent trumps technology every time." They were all rather comparable with each camera having a little edge in some image areas and some definicies in others.
Personally, I think what it comes down to is work flow.
For me, I have been working on a job that involves shooting at least 4 hours of tape a day. A p2 workflow just didn't make sense. If I was doing a lot of narrative stuff, hands down, I would be on an HVX.
I haven't had too much trouble with dropped frames. A couple here or there but nothing bad (about 2 or 3 that I have noticed for 100+ hours of tape.)

The only thing that drives me a little batty about it is the audio menu. Coming from a DVX where everything is external, it's rather annoying to go into a menu to switch the mic to XLR.

Oh, and having the iris on a ring makes life a lot easier.
 
I've never used an HVX200 myself (but I do own an XH-A1), so I can't give you a comparison based on firsthand knowledge, but I can point you to this:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?category=Archive&articleId=177103305

and this:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=192501232

Those are both parts of a two part, in-depth, side-by-side comparison of HD cameras that include the HVX200 and the XL-H1 (which is essentially identical, in performance, to the XH-A1).

I'll just add that, from first hand experience owning an XH-A1 (for a few weeks now), I can say the A1 is certainly a well built, very capable HD camera.


Edit: The articles I posted the above links to, are for the same articles Fourth Line refers to in his post just before mine.
 
Last edited:
Fourth Line said:
Oh, and having the iris on a ring makes life a lot easier.
Click to expand...

Co-signed. That is the number one thing that comes to mind if you were to ask me the shortcomings of the HVX. That little plastic wheel is a joke. To put out a camera of this caliber and then skimp on that doesn't make sense to me.

This is just my opinion as an A1 owner and an occasional HVX user (We have one at work) I just don't like the HVX, comparatively speaking. HUGE fan of the DVX series, but there's something about the HVX that rubs me the wrong way. And that's not to say that the camera doesn't deliver phenomenal results, just not from me. :Drogar-Sick(DBG): DVXuser.com is obviously living testimonial that you can produce some great content with the HVX. I just have a more enjoyable time working with the A1. In regards to image comparison, I'm happy with the A1. I use the Vividrgb setting for like 90% of the material I shoot.

The A1's audio settings are admittedly wack, I also like having the option to change things on the fly and not have to dip into a menu. It takes forever.
 
We got our hands on a couple Sony HDV cameras and ran some tests and in low light the HDV looks worse than the P2 materials and even in nice outdoor lighting the HDV has movement issues when panning or moving the camera around at all. Thus we may not go HDV after all and just stick with the HVX200 P2 solution.

Thanks to those who posted :o)
 
Not all HDV codecs are created equal. That needs to be said. The HVX is a fine camera, I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.
 
drdimento said:
I was told that the HDV codec on the cameras for all pratical purposes is exactly the same . . that it had to be . . or the cameras could not be crossed from one to another ??
Click to expand...

Different companies have different HDV implementation. The codec standard is the same (Long GOP 25mbps), but how that bandwidth is allocated varies wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer. Older Sony and JVC HDV cameras are vulnerable to artifacts like you noticed, but Canon's XH-A1 and XL-H1 are generally noted for the robustness of its HDV implementation. It's still limited by the bandwidth itself, but only in the most extreme of conditions will the A1's footage breaks down.
 
HDV video is MPEG2 compliant. When the footage is compressed, it is compressed by an algorithm that produces a video data stream that conforms to MPEG2 specs. Those algorithms can be very different. For example, motion vector search could be much more robust in one camera's encoder, and not in another, and the difference be quite noticeable in scenes with motion.
 
Robert M Wright said:
HDV video is MPEG2 compliant. When the footage is compressed, it is compressed by an algorithm that produces a video data stream that conforms to MPEG2 specs. Those algorithms can be very different. For example, motion vector search could be much more robust in one camera's encoder, and not in another, and the difference be quite noticeable in scenes with motion.
Click to expand...

So, does this mean that it would serve my best interest to look at say the A1 also and that I might expect its' result to be different than the Sony?
 
I think you would do well to give the XH-A1 a thorough tryout. It's a versatile camera. The A1 is certainly a better camera for acquiring 24 frame progressive footage than the Sony HVR-Z1U (or the HDR-FX1)! I don't know that anyone could really evaluate an XH-A1 in just a few hours, or even a day or two, especially because it is so customizable. If you find the color isn't to your liking, straight out of the box with one of built in presets, you can adjust it almost infinitely with custom presets, and get almost any look you want (with enough work - then save the setting).

One thing to keep in mind when comparing cameras for using in professional productions, is that when finished products will often be delivered in SD, it's very important to compare what the images look like after down sizing in post (not just comparing the full resolution output of the cameras). Downsizing can minimize (or eliminate) a lot of of the differences that you can easily see between HD cameras at full recorded resolutions. For example, when shooting in HD on an HVX recording 4:2:2 color and on another HD camera that records 4:2:0 color, while the resulting differences might be quite apparent at recorded resolutions, those differences can essentially evaporate upon downsizing to NTSC 720x480 4:2:0 for delivery. Downsizing can also dramatically reduce (or effectively eliminate) the impact of compression artifacts and image noise.
 
AI guess other than the little bit of money I might save myself, in the long run what would I gain from even thinking HDV other than archiving and total file size? Is the picture the same? Is there as much color control on the HDV as on the P2? And, which will be out there in the long haul down the road? Which format will be most recognized 2 years from now? Or, even 5 years? Thoughts?
 
There's basically three things that affect image quality: lens, imaging systems (image sensors and signal processing) and compression. Compression is third in the chain (with all being of vital importance to overall quality).

I don't know for sure, but I would guess the lens on the XH-A1 is probably a little better than the lens on the HVX200. Canon is known for quality lenses in their cameras.

Signal (image) processing is very customizable on the A1 (and the Digic image processor is recognized as being an excellent one). I haven't used an HVX200, so I don't know how customizable it is.

The compression formats are different (HDV and DVCPRO HD), each having strengths and weaknesses. Canon's codec appears to be a good HDV codec implementation. Panasonic is the only company that puts a DVCPRO HD codec in their cameras, so there's nothing to really compare that to. The A1 records 4:2:0 color, while the HVX200 records 4:2:2 color (obviously, 4:2:2 is more desirable than 4:2:0). The A1 records more luminance information (resolution).

The pictures are not the same. Which is better? There's no real yes/no answer to that. Both have different strengths and weaknesses.

HDV and P2 (DVCPRO HD) will both probably be being used significantly in a couple years, and even 5 years from now. DVCPRO HD is and probably will be considered the "more professional" of the two (although both are and probably will be used for professional purposes). My guess is that AVCHD, AVC INTRA and possibly a new compression format, based on wavelet compression, will start to see big gains in professional usage in the not-to-distant future.

My advice is not to choose cameras based solely on compression format used, but instead choose cameras based on overall quality, and suitability to particular purposes. Beyond overall quality, there are factors like, for example, how easily a camera can be focused properly. It doesn't matter if the camera has utterly fantastic lens, imagers and compression codecs, if you can't get focus.
 
Robert M Wright said:
I don't know for sure, but I would guess the lens on the XH-A1 is probably a little better than the lens on the HVX200. Canon is known for quality lenses in their cameras.
Click to expand...
So's Leica... :thumbsup:

The XHA1 has a lot of chromatic aberration issues. It's not the best glass Canon's ever produced.

Signal (image) processing is very customizable on the A1 (and the Digic image processor is recognized as being an excellent one). I haven't used an HVX200, so I don't know how customizable it is.
Click to expand...
XHA1 has many more options than the HVX does. HVX can achieve color saturation levels that the XHA1 can't.

The pictures are not the same. Which is better? There's no real yes/no answer to that. Both have different strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...
And there's a substantial price difference too.

but instead choose cameras based on overall quality, and suitability to particular purposes.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Beyond overall quality, there are factors like, for example, how easily a camera can be focused properly. It doesn't matter if the camera has utterly fantastic lens, imagers and compression codecs, if you can't get focus.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Post workflow, interoperability with other users, there are lots and lots of things that should go into the decision.
 
The reason I recently didn't buy an HVX and I bought an EX1 is because I was looking for a camera that would be able to top my Canon XH-A1.

I love my A1, it's a very versatile and no-nonsense camera.
If you are doing a lot of point and shoot field work, I'd go for the Canon (or the EX1) hands down.
If you are going to film in more controlled environments. I.e. sets or studios with the proper light, grab an HVX on the way out.

The HVX has much deeper colors, a nice way of storing video and very powerfull video engine.
The Canon is easier to shoot with thanks to HDV (just put 10 tapes in your back pack and you're good to go for a long time). It also has a bigger zoom, better auto functions and is much more sensitive in low light.

The reasons for me to buy the EX1 was light sensitivity. Manual zoom (instead of servo) and very crips pictures. Also the cheaper media, SxS, was a reason to go for the EX1 over the HVX.
 
I've just been noticing how much better the autofocus on my XH-A1 is (hadn't even tried it until a couple days ago), compared to my HDR-FX1. I would think it would actually be quite useful sometimes, when shooting live events (whereas I consider the FX1 autofocus pretty useless). I don't know how well the HVX autofocus works.
 
I shot four shorts for a friend with his Canon A1, and I own an HVX. That said I really was not impressed with the A1. It shows grain like crazy, and the ND's don't seem to work that well.

Shooting outside in the park with the ND's on full, and the lens closed down as far as it could go and it was still blown out.

Also not very impressed with the glass on the A1.
 
robmneilson said:
. . . Shooting outside in the park with the ND's on full, and the lens closed down as far as it could go and it was still blown out. . . .
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is especially apparent on the HDV codec because the two Sony tests we ran did "exactly" the same thing AND one was on a slightly overcast day. Hmmmmmm.
 
I have no clue...but I was shocked! It wasn't an overtly bright day. And we were shooting in the shade of a huge tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top