DVX100 vs Canon HV30 / HF100

The HFs100 is a little easier to control than the HV series, a little sharper and gets you on a tapeless workflow.
 
I owned the HV30 till it was stolen, bought an HFs100, and still use a buddies HV30 with it occasionally. So you can disagree, but your having used both cameras doesn't make my thoughts 'balderdash'.
 
flinty said:
But they cant do better .
Click to expand...

How do you define "better"? Let's be clear: the HV/HF/HG line of cameras produces amazing images for the price, but there's a reason they cost so little. To get decent results with them you have to go through all kinds of methods to trick the camera, whereas with more expensive cameras you don't.
 
Last edited:
Huy Vu said:
How do you define "better"? Let's be clear: the HV/HF/HG line of cameras produces amazing images for the price, but there's a reason they cost so little. To get decent results with them you have to go through all kinds of methods to trick the camera, whereas with more expensive cameras you don't.
Click to expand...
Ermm, what kind of tricks would we have to go through?

I haven't owned an HD camera yet but I'm planning on getting one and it's either a HV30/20 HDV or a HF200/S10/11/12 the lack of viewfinders on the AVCHD one's is discouraging, but the tapeless is a bonus, that HV30 clip looked amazing to me, can the current AVCHD cams from canon do the same/better quietly of that?

I can get the HV30 - 750$
HF200 - 500$
S11/12 1200$ or something

Shouldn't the S11/12 have better image quietly due to their price? And how does the HF200 stand up to the HV30 because 500$ is a pretty sweet deal
 
MiyaDV said:
Ermm, what kind of tricks would we have to go through?
Click to expand...

No dedicated focus ring or iris ring, no way to independently control iris, shutterspeed, gain and ND filter, no XLR jack or phantom power, no way to disable the audio Automatic Gain Control. There are work around for all of this, but it's an unwieldy process that takes up valuable time on set. These camera can generate footage that are as good as their more expensive counterpart, but it's just way more work getting there. That's why it's misleading to judge a camera on image quality alone, there are so many other factors that go into it and at the end of the day you get what you pay for.
 
flinty said:
But they cant do better .
Click to expand...

You can't be serious? That's like saying a Super 35mm could do only as good as 16mm, but not any better. lol. Are you seriously saying an HMC150 couldn't do better? C'mon, man. lol. I love my HV20; It is capable of some great looking footage (at time even amazing or film like), but seriously. Cameras like the HMC150 are on another level and even more capable. That camera produces superior colors, less noise, WAY WAY better low light footage, superior dynamic range, has manual controls and a very clearly sharper image in Cinemode/Cinegamma than the HV series, which photos have proven the HV series loses resolution in cinemode, which is the best mode for the most latitude. The HMC150 would have done better....in the right hands, of course.

Now, will the HMC150 be worlds better? In some shots it may be only marginally better, but it will be better in pretty much every shot if the person knows how to use the camera well. In some shots the HMC150 will look a lot better.

Dollar for dollar the HV20/30/etc are great deals and amazing bang for your bucks that can be comparable to highend cameras. Heck, my best friend saw footage of mine on my HD DLP projector at 110" and said it looked like a movie. That's a huge compliment. However, I know the HMC150 footage would look even better. Sometimes only marginally so and sometimes dramatically so, depending on the scene.

Now, cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II are capable of destroying the HV20/HV30 in a lot of scenes and they cost anywhere from $1800-$3,500, which fits the price range of cameras you say couldn't do any better. Those two certainly would be able to produce superior images.
 
skital said:
You can't be serious? That's like saying a Super 35mm could do only as good as 16mm, but not any better. lol. Are you seriously saying an HMC150 couldn't do better? C'mon, man. lol. I love my HV20; It is capable of some great looking footage (at time even amazing or film like), but seriously. Cameras like the HMC150 are on another level and even more capable. That camera produces superior colors, less noise, WAY WAY better low light footage, superior dynamic range, has manual controls and a very clearly sharper image in Cinemode/Cinegamma than the HV series, which photos have proven the HV series loses resolution in cinemode, which is the best mode for the most latitude. The HMC150 would have done better....in the right hands, of course.

Now, will the HMC150 be worlds better? In some shots it may be only marginally better, but it will be better in pretty much every shot if the person knows how to use the camera well. In some shots the HMC150 will look a lot better.

Dollar for dollar the HV20/30/etc are great deals and amazing bang for your bucks that can be comparable to highend cameras. Heck, my best friend saw footage of mine on my HD DLP projector at 110" and said it looked like a movie. That's a huge compliment. However, I know the HMC150 footage would look even better. Sometimes only marginally so and sometimes dramatically so, depending on the scene.

Now, cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II are capable of destroying the HV20/HV30 in a lot of scenes and they cost anywhere from $1800-$3,500, which fits the price range of cameras you say couldn't do any better. Those two certainly would be able to produce superior images.
Click to expand...

Well i stand by what i said, often what i get from my HV30 looks as good if not better than whats on the hd channel over here.regarding the 7D Its a known fact the picture is less sharp then the HVs, i dont like cine mode it softens the picture and is too orangey for me i just use P mode 25P.
By the way i am only talking about shooting outdoors.
 
I'll sum it up this way: in the right condition the HV cameras (and other similar consumer cams) can produce images that are equally good as their more expensive brethren, although at considerably more efforts. But it's in the adverse conditions (low light, high dynamic range, fast moving productions on a limited time and budget) that those more expensive cameras going to shine through. That's why they cost more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top