SOLD HVX200, Bought CANON XH-A1 - - FIRST SHOOT; PLEASE JUDGE

T

Tyler Shoemaker

New member
After purchasing an Panasonic HVX200 a few years ago and receiving it WITHOUT a P2 card, (Due to lack of experience and knowledge in the digital world) I was forced to shoot in SD for those couple years not being able to justify the cost of the ridiculously expensive HD workflow that comes along with the Panasonic purchase, until now.

I made a WONDERFUL decision to sell my HVX200 and buy a used Canon XH-A1 (which was in mint shape), and walked away with an extra 1500$ to spend on even more equipment (likely a rode shotgun and a 35mm adapter). What a great decision!

I read lots of articles to justify the decision, it just happened to work for me, I'm not saying the switch is for everyone. Here I am with my first few captures ready to be judged against the HVX. Personally, I've shot on P2 and can't help but LOVE the look of the Canon over the HVX, but that's just me. What do you think?

Day One:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui1p0BXWlgg

Day Two (utilizing an apparent flaw as an artistic gesture: Noise)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0ONH_sF2Q
 
I've shot on both the HVX200 and the XL-H1 (basically, interchangeable lens version of the XH-A1) and the XL definitely delivered worse results. HDV is an awful, awful codec. The only way I can see a tape based HDV workflow being better than P2 is if you record events and need a lot of long record times with no time for offloading. Otherwise P2 is great (it's a one time cost, like buying a harddrive...it's not so expensive when you think of it like that), it's faster than logging and capturing from a tape, and DVCPRO is a far better codec than HDV.

If you want a comparison, here's something I shot on the HVX200:

http://www.vimeo.com/9851490
 
Great job on the XHA1 test shoots, they look really good. The A1 is a fantastic camera, the it's HDV codec is probably the strongest ever made. I've been shooting broadcast documentary and corporate films for for 3 years with that camera, and it's never let me down - in hundreds of hours of tape, I never saw the picture fall apart once. So don't let people tell you that HDV is worthless. In the right hands, it's as capable as you want it to be.

The customization of the picture is really a sweet part of the camera, so make sure to take some time to learn what all the settings and options do.

Congrats on the purchase, don't listen to the naysayers - everybody wants to believe that their camera purchase is the best.
 
I have owned both cameras and the HVX200 by far blows the XL-H1. I know you were looking for comments on the footage but why did you switch? You could have gotten the same if not better out of the HVX200 IMHO. Shots look good though.

-Gearie
 
Well basically I summed it all up. If I can get 'close' almost, 'nearly' as great of an image with a different setup PLUS walk away with an additional 1500$ for a rode mic and a 35mm adapter, it's a great decision. If I would have traded the HXV200 for the Canon, with no additional cash, the decision would have been much harder, and I probably would have stuck with the HVX.

I also like the idea of using tape. Also if I ever want to go tapeless I could buy a cheap netbook, upgrade the hard-drive, teather it and shoot direct to disk PLUS have a decent external monitor. (The ONLY thing that really bothers me about the Canon is the tiny tiny LCD, making focus practically impossible).

Non the less, I was nervous about HDV, but after close inspection, the loss of quality wasn't NEARLY as bad as I thought it would be.

Great work on the HVX Gabrobot, I definitely see sharper motion on the HVX. I love the customizable presets of the Canon, within 20 minutes I was able to crank out a somewhat 'filmic' image, something I found way more difficult on the HVX. Also I find the Canon has weak ND filters, unlike the Panasonic, therefore the Panasonic tends to get a better depth of field (allowing you to open up more) that people seem to love. I think if I stacked an extra ND filter over the lens, I could get even better depth of field and crank out a more HVX type look.

I realize the videos are hard to judge over net-compression, no worries. But who doesn't love to show off their first initial footage when buying new toys?
 
That makes perfect sense. In the end it's not so much the camera but user preference :)
 
Well, quite honestly these are all top notch cameras in the end. You get great stuff out of your camera, and that's what really matters. :)
 
The real test will be when you get the Canon under artificial light especially tungsten. Pretty much anything looks great in an outdoor environment (no disrespect against your work). If the image it captures works for you, that's all that matters.
 
GRENCH said:
I have owned both cameras and the HVX200 by far blows the XL-H1. I know you were looking for comments on the footage but why did you switch? You could have gotten the same if not better out of the HVX200 IMHO. Shots look good though.

-Gearie
Click to expand...

Well I've used both these cameras together, and I think its the opposite. The Canon XL H1 is a good deal better camera.

The HVX200 has the better codec, but the Canon has a much better front end. It's lens and sensors definitely capture a cleaner, much sharper image. And it's HDV is certainly very good as well. Plus I do a lot of live capture through the Canon's HD-SDI, and the image out of that is in another league all together.

But in the end, both these cams have pros and cons.
 
I'd love to know what your HD-SDI work flow looks like (in terms of hardware/software) I'd love to be able to bring my macbook pro 13" along to studio shoots and capture full HD direct to disk. I'm not quite sure if this is possible yet, and how much it would be. I know it's possible via a desktop computer . . . let me know if you have any tips.

- - - & also I can't help but agree with you on that the Canon's front end is much more finer. The zoom isn't the best, physically, but the glass itself is just superb. Like I said, it could use an extra ND up front, but other than that, it's just fantastic. The shot in my first video of the U.S. on the other side of the Detroit river from us (in Canada) around 5:40 is a great example of its extra reach and plain superiority. You can see a couple walking side by side in an entirely different country, awesome! (If you're not from around here, that river is much, much more expansive than the video suggests) & in terms of the sensor, the colors just seem more natural, and 'real' looking to me, perhaps Panasonic has the edge for that out-of-the-box falsified filmic look, but that's not always the best for working with in post.

Let me know about that SDI thing you got goin on, that would be just awesome!
 
Last edited:
Panasonic uses less aggressive in camera noise reduction which may be confused with a noisier sensor output. Their cine style gamma is also designed for post work, so it'll look washed out unless you actually work with it in post.

Everything I've shot with the XL-H1 disappointed me when I looked at in the editing room. Everything I shot with the HVX200 surprised me in a good way. The HVX200A/HPX170 is even better, I've intercut 720p footage with 5d footage with DOF being the only clear tip-off between the two. Which reminds me, the HVX has some great framerate options. The XL-H1 ones are non-existent.
 
Gabrobot said:
Panasonic uses less aggressive in camera noise reduction which may be confused with a noisier sensor output. Their cine style gamma is also designed for post work, so it'll look washed out unless you actually work with it in post.

Everything I've shot with the XL-H1 disappointed me when I looked at in the editing room. Everything I shot with the HVX200 surprised me in a good way. The HVX200A/HPX170 is even better, I've intercut 720p footage with 5d footage with DOF being the only clear tip-off between the two. Which reminds me, the HVX has some great framerate options. The XL-H1 ones are non-existent.
Click to expand...

Again, funny you say this, cause it is the opposite in my case. The HVX's image never really worked well, it was noisier and fairly soft. The XL is much sharper and has that amazing custom preset section where you can literally "paint" whatever look you want.

I still use the Canon XL H1 (s) to this day and it works very well for my broadcast and film work. And its a very flexible camera... on higher end shoots, I'll record HD-SDI to an AJA IO HD for far spectacular results, putting the camera again another league further than what the HVX can do.

But I don't intend this to become a this vs. that thread. Use whatever works best for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top