Q for Tim Dashwood - Would you buy it again if you could only use stock lens?
 

Given your extensive experience with cam, I was just wondering if you would still buy it given you knew could never put another piece of glass on it. If I do the pull the trigger, I don't ever see myself buying another lens. If the lens is not that good, do u think it's still worth getting.

I'm not Tim, but I would buy it again.

Nate,

How do you compare it to the Z1 in 50i mode or 25CF?

I'm hoping you've used both.

Thanks,

Gary

I'm not Nate, but I think that's an apples and oranges comparison. But in my opinion, sweet apples(25p) and sour oranges (25CF) :)

Yes!
The lens is good enouge. I am going to stick to it for quite a long time I think


Despite the splitscreen problem.
Its a wounderfull cam. Its a cam with pro features at a price of a semipro cam.

And remeber, its not just a HD progressive cam, its a SD interlaced as well.

Thanks guys. Hey Mikael, is the breathing of the lens that bad?

I feel comfortable making the CF25 comparison...since I almost bought a Z1 to shoot CF25 and then conform everything to 24.

The HD100 is a hair sharper horizontally and two notches more sharp vertically, but requires much more user care to get good images...focus, etc. My own informal comparisons show the HD100 suffers a little bit less from motion artifacts on whole-frame quick movement.

I'd definitely recommend the Z1 to the non-pro cameraman.

[edit: and yes, I've used both]

Ed,

I know we made the right decision for our shooting timeframe and budget.
I think that even if I had known about Canon's plans for the XLH1 in June, I still would have placed the order for the HD100.

It is tough for me to exclude interchangable lenses as a buying factor because that has always been very high on my list. I have a DVX100, and have always wished it had a longer lens.
It is the main reason I didn't even consider the HVX200, even though it may be a technical wonder with 1080p recording to P2.
I've been designing my own 35mm imager with a relay lens, so that is another reason I wanted a removable lens.


I think what you are really asking is which "under $10000" HD camera has the best lens. I really can't say because I haven't tested the other HD cameras.(HVX200 and XLH1 aren't available yet.) I'm sure that the Canon will have a nice piece of glass because Canon makes good lenses. The flourite helps reduce CA, but I have to say that I really hate Canon's "infinity" focus rings on the electronic lenses.
I prefer to work with their manual lenses, but I haven't heard any official word on an HD quality manual lens from them.
The JVC stock lens is not the greatest around, but what do you expect for a HD rated lens included with a HD camera for $6000?
For most practical purposes I don't really think the CA will cause most people any problems. If you are shooting wildlife on the long end all the time, then invest in a better lens.

Ergonomically, I like the form factor of the HD100 much better than DVX/HVX or XL. This was also a huge deciding factor for me.

Tim

I find the breathing is no worse than other ENG style lenses. Remember, the 16x fujinon looks like an internal focus lens, but it is not. You can use a clip on matte box though, as well as linear polarizers.

Breathing is most noticable on wide angles, but I can't see having to rack selective focus marks on wide shots with this camera since the DOF generally extends to infinity on most focus points with 1/3" CCDs, even at ƒ1.4.

Check out this rack-focus at about 80mm focal length.

http://homepage.mac.com/timdashwood/.../breathing.mp4

Thanks Nate,

I'm looking to update.

But I'm not a shooter, I've always been in the producing and directing end.

Knowing just enough about cameras etc. to get me into trouble.

Looking to do a no budget feature and I'm looking at the Canon but waiting another month or so might hurt with an actor who'll sell the film.

Someone was telling me that the Z1 would be better if I shot 50i vs. the JVC.

But I think you gave me some things to still think about.

I have a dp who's shot both film and video, (including the Sony FX1, forgive me if that's the wrong model number) and he'll be taking a look at the JVC on Friday when he gets back from a shoot in Tahoe.

What the dp is worried about is that in low light it'll suffer more than the Sony since we're only using 2k's instead of HMI's, unless you have some thoughts on that as well.

Thanks again,

Gary

Right off ALL progressive cameras are 6dB less sensitive. So far I know I can't use +15dB or +18dB. After tonight's tests, I may be able to know if the max is +9 or +12 to avoid split-screen. But, for quality, you might want to limit gain to +6 or +9 anyway.

One thing is clear -- unlike the Z1/FX1 -- simply adding gain does not work like adding light. You really need to add light to get good COLOR!

That's what we're going to have to do is add more light.

I know he doesn't want to push the gain on any camera he says.

Thanks Steve, let us know the results of your test.

Gary

Mmmm, I wouldn't agree with that at all.

I think the Canon could possibly be a tremendous solution for people wanting to make "films" but are not expert cameramen...my money is that people will be able to make very very good looking images with that camera without quite the effort/skill one needs for the HD100.

I saw the JVC at Birns and Sawyer under their little lighting set up and running to a nice HD tv and the image looked great.

Like you said Nate and I've heard from others you have to tweak the camera. Its not like the DVX where the out of the box 24p settings are good.

Then the more you tweak them the better they get also.

If going with the JVC and shooting at night what would you suggest in terms of getting the best image out of the camera?