I was determined to buy the DVX, then the XH-G1 came

P

Plecto

Member
Hi. I have a Canon DM-XM2 and have been planning to upgrade to DVX100A/B after reading alot about it and finding out that this is the camera for me ;) Im into film-making and my criterea is that the picture is film-like, that it looks as simular as possible to hollywood :D But after reading a review of the XH-G1 I was starting to wonder. The XH-G1 is nicer (I like black, this looks neater I think), its newer (which means that it will maybe be easier to sell when the camera's career is over, besides, the DVX is kind of getting old, right?) and it can film with HD. What I don't get about the HD thing is why people are so excited about it? I know some people that have a home-cinema in their basemant which is capible of viewing a film experience which is better than in a cinema. The DVD's that they run is PAL dvd's, with a resolution of 576i. What I am asking here is if you can watch a hollywood film and get the same experience as in the cinema with 576i, how can a 1080 home-made movie make it any better when, as I said, a 576 hollywood film is good enough for most people?

But back on topic. Is the XH-G1 worth the extra cash? Is the picture nicer, has it a more film-like picture? What advantages has the XH-G1? Please explain simple, it is the big diffrences I care about.
 
Picture is MUCH sharper.

If you shoot in 16:9 mode with DVX100 the real vertical rasolution is less than 400 pixels. With XH-A1 and G1 you get 1080 pixels.

Compared to 35mm theater projection DVX100 is less sharp, XH-A1 at 1080i is much sharper.

HD video is the future. And you can always downconvert to SD if you want to for some reason, the other way is not possible.
 
There is a forum specific to the A1/G1 and you'll learn a lot about this camera there. The two cameras (the A1 and G1) are essentially the same (from an image perspective), but the G1 has a few more "high-end" features. If you can live without those features, you'll save yourself thousands.

The A1 is available at some respectable retailers for $3500ish (USD).

Certainly, if I had a choice between the DVX and an A1/G1 - as great a camera as the DVX is, I'd pick the A1/G1 hands down.
 
The DVX has advantages, but at the price point of the DVX and A1, the A1 is the clear winner. You'd have to be a somewhat irrational DVX loyalist to deny it.

But at the price point of G1, you start getting into HVX territory, and that's a different ballgame.
 
Yea, okay. So if we don't consider the HD and consider the price, the DVX is to prefer? Im a school student so the budget is kind of low to.
 
If you take the HD out of it, the A1 still has native 16:9 and a longer lens.

But the DVX has the DVX mojo, which no one else has been able to touch.
 
By downrezzing HDV you get better SD and specially much better SD 16:9 than from a DVX100, not to mention chromakeying.

Canon has much longer lens as mentioned.

The downside is slightly higher price and a bit worse audio-in options.

I would still get the Canon, HD is becoming the norm.

(actually I'll get one next week)
 
not sure why someone would go G1 instead of HVX

same price, hvx is a clear winner.

When you concider that the G1 has the uncompressed output, however its still dooable on the A1, and you compare it to the price of the HVX, it almost puts the G1 in no ranks at all.
 
The price of the HVX in Norway: Around $8300
DVX100AE: $4200
XH-G1: $5000

I know it is expencive, but so is everything else here in Norway :P Does this prices change your view of the situation a little bit?
 
I think you mean the XH A1, G1 is higher price as it had SDI output.

Seriously though if you can afford the extra $ A1 is a better cam all round. Please also consider though the real cost of the cameras. The real cost includes, hardware and software to run them, solid tripod, maybe you need sound?

If the purchase of the A1 puts these out of reach then go the DVX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top