Camcorderinfo XH A1 Review
 

That review isn't nearly long enough. War and Peace has it beat by at least a dozen pages.

I wish they had compared it to the FX1/Z1 a little.

What's pretty amusing is the fact the little Canon HV10 beats all the big Canon HDV camcorders in resolution....go figure.

Why? For a start the FX1 is dead in the water. The Z1 maintains some quality on a noise perspective. The A1 shoots in 30f and 24f neither Sony does. Why compare an apple to an orange.

The one thing I have trouble with in these lengthy reviews is no one thinks Audio is a concept relative to a camera.

"Why?" Obviously, to provide some frame of reference. There are many more folks familiar with the Z1/FX1 than the other cameras they compared. The Canon also shoots 60i, so there's plenty of features to compare, from lowlight abilities to resolution to the LCD.

Someone can tell me that the lowlight response is great, but unless they are comparing it to a camera of which I am familiar, I find it hard to quantify their remarks.

totaly agreed with you. The audio bars alone without "db numbering" is not acceptable.

I know there are the db numbering on the dial but it is not lighted nor in a strategic place for constant monitoring

I thought that was a pretty decent description of the cam. The resolution charts at different light/shutter/gain levels should give event videographers an idea of what this cam can do. I think if someone were considering this cam, that would be a good read (and probably push them towards the purchase).

It certainly is a lengthy description of the camera, but it contains too many factual errors for my taste (I'll take accurate brevity over inaccurate verbosity any day). To cite just a handful of examples:

"a focal distance of f/1.6-3.5"

"the cavity door must remain open when the DC power is plugged in."

"both rockers can be adjusted for variable, touch-sensitive zoom speeds"

"this camcorder is not compatible with Canon’s BP-930 or BP-945 batteries."

It's not my intention to pick it apart, but mistakes such as these make me reluctant to recommend that particular link to a prospective buyer.

How on earth does that rating system work?? FWIW, the A1 has the highest rating on the site.

OK, no argument there. Their reviews can sometimes provide a nice overall description of the cam, but when it comes to actual specifications and complete feature accuracy.. umm.. probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Almost makes me wonder if they'd be better off providing subjective opinions and feature descriptions and then just link to the manufacturer site for specifications (or, in the case of this cam, the DVInfo XH site).

For that matter, they should probably kill the whole "ratings" thing too. Just show us some screen caps and let the reader decide if it looks good.


Oh well, on another note, has anyone actually written a negative review or posted any extensive criticism on this cam? I mean, the HVX, XL H1, HD100 and Z1 all had their critics for various reasons (qualified or not), but the XH A1 just seems bullet proof. Even people that dislike the HDV format don't have much to say when you factor in the actual image quality and sub $4K price point.

So it is compatible with the BP 945's!

Phew

Any of the BP-9xx series batteries are fully compatible with the XH A1 and G1, including not only the BP-945, but also the BP-915, 927, 930, 941, 950G and 970G. Hope this helps,

Personally, I have never been impressed by any of the reviews at camcorder info. From all that I have read, each reviewer allready tends to have made up their mind about either liking the camera or not before the testing is done. There are always numerous errors in reviews and it seems that they prefere to be first with the review rather than have good factual information. I take whatever I read on that site with a grain of salt and would never base a purchase on information gathered from them.

Their reviews remind me of the big corporate franchise restaurants where they go for huge portions over smaller quantities of tastier food. I've seen dumb factual errors in their other reviews too. Maybe their reviewer is like the old newspaper free lancers who got paid by the column inch, or the pulp fiction writers who got a penny a word.

I don't know what their inner workings are like, but I really don't want this to turn into a "bash the other site" discussion, so it's time to put a lock on it. They've always been listed on my Top Ten Resources page and probably always will be. Meanwhile we should probably make sure that our own act is squared away and try our best to make sure that the info we're putting out is completely accurate. That's enough to worry about, believe me.