Jvc GY-HM70 is coming out in May. Why is JVC not so popular here.

D

Deer Film

Well-known member
Hi, this looks like a camera I would like to try out. Low light, and able to shoot 300fps at 720. Some other nice features, but would need to find a work around on the audio, because of no XLR's. But the price is under 2000$
I searched here on this whole forum, and JVC is not a popular brand it seems. I have no experience with JVC cameras, so I would be interested in what you think and will look forward to reading the reviews when this camera comes out.

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2013/releases/gyhm70u.html

WAYNE, NJ (March 11, 2013) – JVC Professional Products Company, a division of JVC Americas Corp., today announced the GY-HM70 ProHD shoulder-supported camcorder, which delivers 60p full HD images and innovative features at a cost effective price point. With a 12 megapixel CMOS imager, it records 1920x1080 footage in the AVCHD Progressive format at 28 Mbps to dual solid-state memory cards.
The GY-HM70 is equipped with a high quality 29.5mm wide-angle GT lens that offers smooth 16x dynamic zoom performance. Veteran shooters will appreciate the camera's manual focus, iris, and shutter controls, as well as manual and automatic white balance. The camera also provides an optical image stabilizer, auto focus, and focus assist.
At the core of the GY-HM70 is its 1/2.3-inch 12 megapixel CMOS imager. When combined with JVC's advanced FALCONBRID high-speed processor, it captures, processes, and records 1080/60p, 1080/60i, and 480/60i (SD) footage at various bit rates to SDHC/SDXC memory cards. It also allows high-speed video recording for slow motion footage at 300 fps (720x480 resolution), and captures 12 megapixel still images.
JVC's unique, hot swappable dual battery system allows hours of continuous, uninterrupted shooting. For shoulder shooting, the GY-HM70 has a .24-inch LCOS color viewfinder, but it also includes a three-inch LCD flip-out touch screen display for tripod shots and playback. Audio features include a built-in zoom microphone, 3.5mm microphone input, and 3.5mm headphone jack.
“With the introduction of the GY-HM70, JVC immediately focuses on the entry-level professional video market with a very cost effective shoulder-mount camera,” said Craig Yanagi, JVC national marketing and brand manager. “At this price, and packed with innovative features, the GY-HM70 will appeal to various market segments where budget is limited but a full-sized camcorder is the preferred choice, such as schools and universities, as well as event and wedding videographers.”
The GY-HM70 has an MSRP of $1,995 and will be available in May 2013.
 
Just make record straight, it's 300 fps at 480, not 720. I used to own 2 JVC cameras in the past- GY-HD100 and GY-HM100 and they pretty much sucked.
 
Thanks for the info. I guess I am really really wishing it turns out to be a good camera, but until I hear otherwise, I will stick with Canon and Panasonic.
But it is nice to see they are trying to compete and maybe turn out something good.
 
I'm not particularly biased, brand-wise--I started with a Panasonic camera, moved to a Canon, and I have a Canon and a Sony now--but I've always kind of viewed JVC as Canon and Panasonic's slow cousin. Some of their cameras showed promise but didn't quite hit the mark; their 4K fixed lens unit for example.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, for some reason JVC always manages to have something that looks good on paper, looks good on price but then delivers a camera that just isn't quite there.
 
Why the hell do they have a 12MP sensor in a shoulder mount 1/2.3" camera?? its like a point-n-shoot sensor almost wtf? no wonder is only $2000k sounds like its a piece of garbage.
 
1/2.3" is not "lika a point-n-shoot sensor almost". It is "deep in low-end point-n-shoot territory".

If you look at Canon's P&S range right now, you have 1/2.3" sensors in cameras going from $80 to $350 (PowerShot A2300, ELPH 520, ELPH 130, SX260, SX280), and 1/1.7" sensors in cameras from $400 to $500 (S110, G15), with a 1.5" sensor on the $650 G1X.

So yes, it's difficult to create excitement if your $2K camera is using a sensor that, looking only at the specs, could also be found on a cheap P&S stills camera.
 
The only time I wanted a JVC or thought about getting one, compared to Panasonic, Sony and Canon was back in the HDV-days around 2006, since JVC did 720p HDV with interchangeable lens instead of 1080i with "fake progressive" and fixed lens that Canon and Sony had at the time. Now, over the last 4-5 years I don't think I've seen a single camera from them that have been interesting at all, but I think (I don't know) they do OK "TV-cameras" (ENG and Studio) and consumer cameras, i.e. stuff of no concern to me.
Simply put, they don't cater to the needs of average dvxusers, people that want the "movie look".

JVC is as I understand also owned by Panasonic, so no need for them to compete on the same market segment.
 
Last edited:
High1ander said:
Simply put, they don't cater to the needs of average dvxusers, people that want the "movie look".
Click to expand...

I think this is the main reason. DVXUser is the small budget indie film maker crowd / industrial video makers who still want that indie film look.

High1ander said:
JVC is as I understand also owned by Panasonic, so no need for them to compete on the same market segment.
Click to expand...

Not any more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JVC
In 1953, JVC became majority-owned by the Panasonic Corporation. Panasonic released its ownership in 2007
Click to expand...

I think JVC has made some cameras with unique features that are amazing & blow away the competition. But at the same time, the image they produce doesn't look as nice as cameras in the same class made by Sony / Panasonic / Canon (though this is subjective & if you like the JVC look, then you probably hate the competition's look).

The JVC HD1 was the first "affordable" HD camera. Image was complete garbage, but it had a rotating handle. Sony implemented that same handle design in the EX1 / EX3, when Sony removed the rotating handle in the PMW200 many people complained about the loss.

I think the JVC HDV HD100 / HD200 & the XDCam HM700 series cameras are a brilliant shoulder mount design. Much better balanced on the shoulder than a EX3 or Canon XL1.

The JVC HM100 / 600 / 700 series cameras all shoot in the XDCam codec & can put the footage in a quicktime wrapper. If you're on FCP, this is just amazing. Eject the card, start editing. The only other way you can get this workflow is if you have the BMCC or an off board recorder that records in ProRes or DNxHD.

The HM600 / 650 can record in either XDCam or AVCHD. I think this is an amazing selling point. Go into the menu & adjust to what works best for your post.

So there are some great things that JVC has done, but I don't think they have yet to make a camera that hands down beats the competition in the same class. Which I feel is disappointing, because if JVC was a bigger threat, then the other camera makers would have to compete with some of these unique features.

---

Now as for the HM70, I find the camera to be lacking.

The 1/2.3" chip sounds really large (almost EX1 size), but this is very deceptive as less than 50% of the chip is actively used.

Also, no XLR inputs. That is a deal breaker for me. Now for people who don't care about audio, this camera might be fine for you. But I'd much quicker take a JVC HM150 at the same price over the HM70, as the HM150 has more professional controls.
 
Deer Film said:
I searched here on this whole forum, and JVC is not a popular brand it seems.
Click to expand...

Post some JVC footage that looks pretty and cinematic. I haven't seen any. Nobody cares about brands so much as good looking footage and price. Specs don't mean much when it comes to looking at the footage. It either looks great or it doesn't.
 
zijital said:
The 1/2.3" chip sounds really large (almost EX1 size), but this is very deceptive as less than 50% of the chip is actively used.
Click to expand...
That sounded odd to me, so I dug a little deeper. If you read the press release, they say that it has a "29.5mm wide angle lens". That is obviously stated in "full-frame equivalent", because only in full-frame photography would 29.5mm be considered wide-angle. I then looked at the high-res photos and in one of them you can see that the lens is printed at 3.76-37.6mm.

Two things about that. First, that gives a crop factor of 7.8, which means that the actual effective chip surface area is a small 1/3". The actual sensor they put in there might be 1/2.3" but that does appear to be irrelevant like zijital is saying, because the patch they're using is no bigger than a small 1/3". 1/3" sensors usually have a crop factor of around 7.2, so it's about 10% smaller than a 1/3" chip.

But second -- the text of the press release says that the lens offers "16x dynamic zoom performance." But the lens is clearly printed with an optical range of 3.76 to 37.6mm, which is obviously a 10x optical zoom. So what does "16x dynamic zoom" mean? Does it mean it has integrated digital zoom within that range? Or is it a typo in the press release? Or is the photo showing 3.76-37.6mm old/incorrect? I don't know. My guess is, it's got integrated digital zoom. Other manufacturers have a similar feature, so I'm guessing that is what's going on here.

Odd positioning. The press release makes you think you're getting an EX1-caliber performer (sounds like a nearly 1/2" chip, and a 16x optical zoom) but in reality it looks more like a single-sensor 1/3" with a 10x zoom. Which, frankly, is about what one should expect at the tiny price point they've positioned it at.

As to who this product is aimed at? Clearly not filmmakers, etc... JVC has been focusing pretty much all their attention on the small independent news stations over the last several years. And we've seen stories posted where small stations are actually using consumer camcorders instead of traditional broadcast cameras (since budgets are tight everywhere). So actually, this product might hold appeal in that market -- a shoulder-mount camera that looks more "pro" than a little palmcorder, but still operates simply like a consumer camera, for the one-person reporter/shooter news crew... that could find a market, I bet.
 
High1ander said:
The only time I wanted a JVC or thought about getting one, compared to Panasonic, Sony and Canon was back in the HDV-days around 2006, since JVC did 720p HDV with interchangeable lens instead of 1080i with "fake progressive" and fixed lens that Canon and Sony had at the time.
Click to expand...

zijital said:
I think the JVC HDV HD100 / HD200 & the XDCam HM700 series cameras are a brilliant shoulder mount design. Much better balanced on the shoulder than a EX3 or Canon XL1.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the HD100 cameras suffered from the split screen problem which is another example of JVC having an appealing looking product that fails to perform. Interchangeable lens and nice ergonomics don't mean much if your footage is bisected by a visible seam. If the HD100 didn't have the split screen problem I think JVC could've made some real in roads back then.


-Andrew
 
zijital said:
The JVC HM100 / 600 / 700 series cameras all shoot in the XDCam codec & can put the footage in a quicktime wrapper. If you're on FCP, this is just amazing. Eject the card, start editing. The only other way you can get this workflow is if you have the BMCC or an off board recorder that records in ProRes or DNxHD.
Click to expand...

I owned GY-HM100, which was a piece of garbage. It was like tossed together five to five on Friday night. Recessed lens did not allow for filters (good luck placing a polarizer without a pair of tweezers!), zoom that was so sensitive- it was basically unworkable. Add no markers on LCD, which btw was so low res, it was next to impossible to use it for focus. Iris control was on the back of the unit, and had this funky lever, which made it impossible for smooth iris adjustment. The camera also suffered form weird interlacing problem, if you were shooting in low light at shutter 360 degrees, it would interlace the footage. Which brings me to the main issue with JVC- no customer service. While Panasonic and Sony are really easy to deal with, JVC is a nightmare. I had to send my camera to fix the interlacing issue, took several phone calls, and it took JVC over 6 weeks to do it. They actually LOST my camera for about 2 weeks! Mr. Yanagi from JVC also is notorious for over promising and doesn't deliver (like firmware fixes for LCD and zoom). Anyway, I would recommend staying away from the JVC cameras due to these issues.
 
My last SD cameras, and last tape-based camcorders, were a pair of JVC DV-5000s, 3-chip 1/2" cameras recording to DV tape (either mini or full size). Superficially very appealing (for 2002) -- sturdy metal bodies, interchangeable lenses, shoulder mount, a full range of professional controls, XLR audio, Anton Bauer batteries standard, etc. They felt good on the shoulder and seemed very sturdy. They also made nice pictures (by ENG type standards) and were pretty sensitive in low light, with minimal noise and a usable DRS option.

Unless the subject moved.

Rapid motion of a small subject near the middle of the frame invariably produced a weird interlacing-like effect with sawtooth-shaped waves moving through the image -- but vertically oriented, not horizontally as you'd expect from a true interlace problem.

Both cameras I had did exactly the same thing, so I am pretty sure this was a design flaw, not a broken camera.

And that nifty combo DV/miniDV deck needed a pass from a cleaning tape after about every hour of operation. I got in the habit of doing it every time I white balanced. At least I can say it was good about reminding me, and I never lost anything critical because of dirty heads.

So, as others have said here, they got it just almost right -- and with first rate ergonomics, as others have praised their HD shoulder mount designs. But there always seemed to be a nasty surprise lurking right under the surface that would ruin the video, or the shooting experience. I came to really dislike them after a few years of fighting with these issues, and was kind of happy to sell them off after I switched over to AVCHD cams about 2-1/2 years back.

They'd have to work pretty hard to entice me back.

- Greg Smith
 
Last edited:
My view of things-
Panasonic camcorders are simple, but solid and have a pleasing image; generally cheaper than Sony.
Sony cams have lots of high end features.
Canon's prosumer camcorders have very nice lenses.
JVC cams don't really offer anything besides being cheap.

I like Panasonic gear because of loads of warranty you likely won't even need, and it always just works, it's the owner's camera.

If anyone here has a story of how they broke their Panasonic camera, it will probably involve white water rapids and bears.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
First, that gives a crop factor of 7.8 ... 1/3" sensors usually have a crop factor of around 7.2, so it's about 10% smaller than a 1/3" chip.
Click to expand...

Barry, how did you do the math on this? Just courious on how you figured it out. Is there is a standard formula?


Barry_Green said:
The press release makes you think you're getting an EX1-caliber performer (sounds like a nearly 1/2" chip, and a 16x optical zoom) but in reality it looks more like a single-sensor 1/3" with a 10x zoom. Which, frankly, is about what one should expect at the tiny price point they've positioned it at.
Click to expand...

This is a post I put together on another video forum. It pretty much comes to the same conclusions you do, but goes a little deeper on the 16x dynamic from 10x optical glass.

-------

So I think it is pretty obvious that the chip in the HM70 isn't the same as the HMQ10. But I was still bugged by the quoted size of the chip & the FOV, so this is what I think is going on.

JVC specs say:

Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] Image sensor 1/2.3" 12M pixels progressive scan 1CMOS
Recording area Video 5.4M to 2.07M* pixels

....

* The 2.07M is when "Dynamic Zoom: ON." [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So....

At 5.4M, with a 16:9 ratio, you have a native resolution of approximately: 3010x1743

At 2.07M, with a 16:9 ratio, you have a native resolution of 1920x1080

So it looks like that is how they get 16x out of a 10x zoom. It appears after you've run out of the 10x optical zoom, the camera starts cropping the chip from 3010x1743 to 1920x1080 for the rest of the dynamic zoom. Meaning when you have dynamic zoom enabled, you're not losing any resolution. (This is of course in theory, it'd be interesting to see how this looks in reality.)

When you use the 200x digital zoom, you're going to lose some image resolution (like any other camera with digital zoom).

Now a standard 1/2.3" is 6.17mm x 4.55mm. The aspect ratio is 4:3, which means 12M = 4000 width x 3000 height, and each pixel is then 0.0015mm x 0.0015mm.

If the pixel is 0.0015mm, then the active area of the sensor is

4.65mm x 2.61mm for 3100x1743, which is slightly smaller than a 1/3" sensor

2.88mm x 1.62mm for dynamic 1920x1080 is about the size of a 1/6" sensor

The numbers I pulled off the internet break down to this as standard sensor sizes:
1/3" - 4.8mm x 3.6mm
1/3.2" - 4.54mm x 3.42x
1/4" - 3.2mm x 2.4mm
1/6" - 2.4mm x 1.8mm

These are all 4:3, & I'm assuming the HM70 is 16:9, so the sensor active areas don't match up 1:1.

If all my math is correct then, the HM70 has a 1/2.3" chip, but only uses an active area slightly less than a 1/3" sensor, and as little as a 1/6" sensor when dynamic zoom is enabled.

My conclusion & personal opinion: I think JVC is giving misleading information to say this camera has a 1/2.3" chip, when a lot of that area isn't used.
 
Excited the GY-HM600 has 1080 native chips. This camera, the GY-HM70, seems to borrow the chip from the GY-HMQ10. High megapixel count there makes it able to shoot 4k. All those pixels on a 1/2 sensor mean the pixels are small. Small small small. 2.07 megapixels for recording video. What does it do in terms of line skipping or "selecting" these pixels? It's going to be super organic and filmic right? Right?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Silicon-Eye-Swashbucklers-Innovation/dp/0393328414
 
My general impression of JVC in terms of where it sits in the video equipment industry is that it tends to be 'a day late and a dollar short'. With the exception of its pro-level ENG cameras maybe - I'm referring to the HM600/HM650 series and up, their products appear to be mediocre and expensive at the same time. I once considered buying an HM100, but was dissuaded after reviewing some sample footage shot with the camera. Even Panasonic does a better job with 1/4" image sensors, so it's not the size of the sensors that accounts for why HM100/150 footage tends to look a bit crappy. It all comes down to engineering and implementation.

If JVC were smart, they'd be ditching the HM100/150 series cameras, and bringing out a new single-chip camera with a similarly small form factor to compete with Canon's new XA20/25 cameras, and pricing it accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top