HV20 vs. XH A1 Article

jenningsp

jenningsp

Well-known member
this is a basic rundown of the differences between the HV20 and the A1.

HV20 - $1100
A1 - $3250 after rebate

they both shoot HDV 1080p24 and have cine gamma


CCD -
1/2.7" CMOS vs 3x 1/3" CCd
you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart.

LENS
43mm 10x vs 72mm 20x
you can buy tele converts for longer zoom. both cams have aprox the same low light sensitivity - aprox. 5 lux at 50 shutter full gain

VIEWFINDER
HV20's viewfinder is crap
their LCD's are virtually the same

SIZE and WEIGHT
88 x 80 x 138 mm 535g vs. 163mm x 189mm x 350mm 2030g
the HV20 with rails and 35mm adapter is about the same size and weight as the stock A1

ZOOMING
no zoom ring on HV20
You can set the zoom speed but nothing compares to a nice ring. With a 35mm adapter this is a non issue.

FOCUS
no focus ring and no focus meter display, also focus assist does not work during recording on HV20
the instant AF is great but if you're using a 35mm adapter this is a none issue. you should ideally be using an external display of some sort with 35mm work.

ND FILTER
no manual ND filer on HV20
you can buy these cheaply

AUDIO
no XLR ports on HV20
you can buy an XLR balance box to get the same level of control

MANUAL MODE
you can't set he aperture and the shutter speed at the same time in the HV20
I don't know why they do this. But you can set the shutter speed and then lock/set the aperture and gain using the exposure button trick. you do not get a numerical display but i am going to create a comprehensive chart of values when i get my HV20.

IMAGE CONTROL
the A1 offers a lot more image control over the HV20. Like coring, master ped, knee point etc. and does custom presets. the HV20 offers the basic control. Brightness, Contrast, Sharpness, Color Depth and a Cine Gamma. The rest of the adjustments can be done in post.

CONCLUSION

If you're going to be using a 35mm adapter and don't need to look like a professional, the HV20 is a good cheaper solution. you will need to invest in an XLR balance box and an external monitor of some sort to get the same functionality. if you've got the money buy an A1, if you don't the HV20 is a great compromise.


OTHER
there are a few little other things that the A1 does but are trivial in my eyes. I recommend reading through both of the manuals to see for your self just incase I forgot something that is crucial for your work.

you need to disable the block popups thingy in your browser to view the manuals

A1 manual -
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=DownloadDetailAct&fcategoryid=326&modelid=14061

HV20 manual -
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=DownloadDetailAct&fcategoryid=326&modelid=14869
 
Last edited:
Sweet and to the point! Something else you might want to mention is the hdmi port on the hv20. That can make it a killer camera for folks shooting green screen or needing more color information for grading.
 
Where is the article? Can't find it. But your finding "if you've got the money buy an A1, if you don't the HV20 is a great compromise." is understandable if you can live with a great compromise.
 
jenningsp said:
CCD -
1/2.7" CMOS vs 3x 1/3" CCd
you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart.
Click to expand...


This is the only statement i have an issue with as there is a night and day difference. The Sony V1 has 3 CMOS sensors and when you get to post its night and day compared to the A1.
 
xray - this is the article. i wrote article on the end so people would know that i'm doing a comparison, not asking other people too.

ncje - what i meant by that was; they both have roughly the same depth of field and after tweeking in the camera settings and some post colour grading, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. well atleast most people wouldn't :)

Canon's DIGIC DV II chip is great. it's not a 3ccd camera but it comes ever so close.
 
What do you mean by "The Sony V1 has 3 CMOS sensors and when you get to post its night and day compared to the A1." Could you expand on this?

I am assuming that the Sony doesn't hold up to the Canon, and you think it is because of the CMOS vs. CCD. But I wonder if it's the use of the HDV codes Sony vs. Canon. Or even the DSP in the Sony vs. Canon.

Thanks,
 
jenningsp said:
CONCLUSION

If you're going to be using a 35mm adapter and don't need to look like a professional, the HV20 is a good cheaper solution. you will need to invest in an XLR balance box and an external monitor of some sort to get the same functionality.
Click to expand...

jenningsp: Can you please explain to me what do you mean by "look like a professional"? For me looks like the HV20 with a 35mm adapter at 24p will outperform the expensive professional XH A1 with its stock lens.

ncje: No ofense but the 3ccds issue is becoming an oudated myth with the next generation of cmos and HD technology. Even if the colors are a little more vivid with the XH A1 you can do some color correction on post. I mean an indie filmaker can create a masterpiece with this baby an a 35mm adapter.

Does anybody knows if is there a way to connect an external monitor to the HV20?
 
im confused were did the v1u come into this thread it about a1 and hv20 , but since it been brought in i am to assume the v1u`s 3cmos should give better picture quality then the a1 3ccd`s and the hv20 1/ 2.7 cmos , if i am wrong file in and correct me , inconclusion hv20 look pretty good for a 1,000 bucks, also im ask this im sure some have seen the hv10 footage they showed on the canon site they put it on the site in 1080p image instead of a interlaced im thinking is this possiably what the hv20 footage will look like in 24p ?????????????


peace n luv

Mark Dog
 
the comparisons between images between the v1 and a1 have not shown that the v1 was better. In fact it is not as good at 24. or in low light. with enought light who can say.
 
Mark Dog said:
im confused were did the v1u come into this thread it about a1 and hv20 , but since it been brought in i am to assume the v1u`s 3cmos should give better picture quality then the a1 3ccd`s and the hv20 1/ 2.7 cmos , if i am wrong file in and correct me , inconclusion hv20 look pretty good for a 1,000 bucks, also im ask this im sure some have seen the hv10 footage they showed on the canon site they put it on the site in 1080p image instead of a interlaced im thinking is this possiably what the hv20 footage will look like in 24p ?????????????


peace n luv

Mark Dog
Click to expand...
Mark: there is a review, unfortunately, in japanese with 24p footage of the HV20. It looks amazing. i downloaded those videos a few days ago.
 
Last edited:
prisma said:
jenningsp: Can you please explain to me what do you mean by "look like a professional"? For me looks like the HV20 with a 35mm adapter at 24p will outperform the expensive professional XH A1 with its stock lens.
Click to expand...
He means that for a client, the HV20 looks like a consumer camera no matter what accessories you put on it. Appearances counts especially when you're dealing with people who aren't video experts; it's very unlikely that they'll hire you if you use something that looks like a Handicam to film their all important project.

Sometimes I think people are placing way too much expectation on the HV20 and trying to make it into something it's not. It's a great camera at $1000 but why are we spending several times its price in accessories? By the time you factor in the cost of a decent monitor, lenses, follow focus system you're going to be wishing that you have a better camera to start with.

prisma said:
ncje: No ofense but the 3ccds issue is becoming an oudated myth with the next generation of cmos and HD technology. Even if the colors are a little more vivid with the XH A1 you can do some color correction on post. I mean an indie filmaker can create a masterpiece with this baby an a 35mm adapter.
Click to expand...

Of course, even without an adapter I expect this camera to do great work, but the extra cash for the A1 isn't for the images it produces; it's about the functionality on the camera that lets you control what you shoot when you shoot it. Some things can are best done in camera.

And I think the ccd vs. cmos debate is hardly over. CMOS is going to perform worse in low light with comparable CCD because the limitation is inherent in the way CMOS works. We talk about CMOS as if it's a groundbreaking technology that's going to sweeps the film industry but to date only the V1U was a serious effort to utilize it, and it's only a midrange prosumer camera! We certainly don't see the CineAlta or the Varicam being replaced with CMOS variants anytime soon. What has happened is that CMOS is becoming a more viable alternative (not as a replacement) to CCD but I would expect the two technologies to coexist rather than phase each other out.
 
I wonder how many people would buy a 16:9 DVX over a Canon A!? But like Barry says,,,,we are not going to see another standard def DVX. Maybe they will come out with one with tape and a hard drive or their HD. You would think they would do something!! Drop the HVX price. Something.
 
Jenningsp: I do not like your article - and there are serval
reasons why - but I am not going to go into them because it is quite obvious.

The A1 outshine the HV-20 in many ways because your arguments points to "ifs" (ex. 35mm adaptor, cheap ND, post color correction, etc..." to make the argument.

for the price of an HV-20 with 35mm adaptor, ND's, ex. monitor, rails, lenes, etc... why not one want to buy a A1 instead? for just the 35mm DOF? I think that is ridiculous.

I had not seen any consumer footage from the HV-20 to say the images are on par or better but I own an A1 - and the image and colors are terrific. I do not think that the HV-20 will outshine the A1 because that is not what the HV-20 was made for, as a A1 replacement

sorry if I sound mean

P
 
You don't sound mean. You sound like someone that wants to protect their 3800 dollar investment.

Please, see the H1 owners being angry because Canon dropped an A1 with the same image capabilities.

Canon's pretty much out for blood. I would be surprised if the image of the HV20 is even near 80% of what the A1 produces as far as clarity, color reproduction, sharpness, and cadence... but then again, given Canon's current running record-- I shouldn't be.
 
phally - you're absolutely right. I even say that the A1 is the better camera. What I tried to do with the article is explain the main differences between the two cameras and then give a way around those differences.

My theory is; if you only want to do 35mm adapter work - there are a few, like film students, hobbyist, delusional people - and don't need a "pro" camera per say, why pay the extra money for some features that you don't need? Like a giant zoom lens?

If you do professional work and need those features, then buy the A1.



yes buying the HV20 plus rails, adapter, followfocus, lenses, monitor etc. will cost you more than the stock A1, but if you don't need the A1's features you've saved $2000.
 
i'm going away for 5 days on a camp, so i'll be away from a computer. if there are any more questions, you'll have to wait for my answers unless some one else wants to chip in.

catch ya later.
 
How many people out there actually work with 35 adapters? Now how many actually would use one on something like an HV20? After Scott Billups test showing the results of them, the only reason I see going to 35 adapter is for shallow DOF, and if you're so precise and skilled that you know this is what you need a lot of in your shoot, I can't see you picking up an HV20, it just doesn't make any sense.
 
OK First off I am sorry I mentioned the V1 in this thread as thats not what it was about. It was talking about the A1 and the HV20. My statement was referring to the only CMOS camera I have used that gave not so great results. The reality is this could be the HDV codec employed, not the CMOS. So as there is doubt over why I guess I shouldnt have mentioned it in the vain that the cmos sensor is the issue. Which partly goes toward answering prisma below.

prisma said:
ncje: No ofense but the 3ccds issue is becoming an oudated myth with the next generation of cmos and HD technology. Even if the colors are a little more vivid with the XH A1 you can do some color correction on post. I mean an indie filmaker can create a masterpiece with this baby an a 35mm adapter.
Click to expand...

The other part of the answer. When I cc footage from the V1 it falls apart, especially in the mids. The footage to start with shows a lot of blockiness in this area, not blockiness that can be seen on a reduced size web video, not blockiness even readily noticeable at full res, but when you crank the image to 200% and add cc to mids, those blocks just become more noticable. There are ways to combat this by shooting your final look in camera and not doing cc, that doesnt eliminate the issue, just alleviates it.

Please keep in mind that this is my experience. I think also if this is to be discussed further, make another thread so people can get back to topic here.
 
Thanks ncje,

I don't think you were hijacking the thread with the V1 mention, you were just questioning CMOS ability with an example from your experience, which is perfectly valid in this thread. I am curious as to how good the Canon HV20's single CMOS chip is going to be with 24P.

According to DV.Com's, Adam Wilt's review, the HV10 doesn't resolve as much detail as the Xl-H1. Being that the HV-20 uses the same CMOS as the HV-10, and the XH-A1 uses the same 3 CCD's as the XL-H1, I imagine that the A1 will resolve more detail than the HV-20, and that it's 3 chip design will reproduce more accurate colours, and have better low light imaging that the single chip HV-20. But how much better? That's the question I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top