So for Filmmaker, V1 or HD-110?

[David Ziegelheim]

Remote focus/zoom adapters, batteries (if you go the AB route), tripod plate (which I doubt the Sony needs). My guess is filters and matte box are the same. The camera starts out 28%/$1200 more expensive.

[Bill Pryor]

One thing about the JVC that can cost more is batteries, as you mention. You can use the standard small "prosumer" type batteries the camera comes with. However, my understanding is that if you want the flip out LCD screen to be on without turning off the viewfinder, you need to use professional lithium ion batteries such as IDX. A couple of batteries and charger will probably be around $1500 or more. Even so, the JVC is an amazing camera for its price.

[David Ziegelheim]

The JVC HD110 and HD200 bring some capabilities to the table--potentially higher quality lenses, manual lens adjustment, a more professional look and field, no extra lens in front of the adapter, and with the HD200, potentially 60 frames/sec for sports, etc.--for a price.

Until now, the HD100 was the least expensive higher end prosumer progessive solution. The V1 and Canon A1 move that price point down with excellent quality.

I'm sure future cameras will expand the capabilities in the $2500-$5500 market even further.

[Bill Pryor]

The JVC is really in a different category, I think. It's a fully professional camera, while the Sony V1 and Canon A1 are more "prosumer" in their handycam form. As such, they have all the auto stuff and OIS the JVC does not. So really the choice depends more on the type of thing the individual user wants to do.

[Chris Hurd]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Bill. Thanks for stating it better than I could. It's a serious mistake to look at the current HD camcorder offerings in a linear good-better-best fashion, especially the two subjects of this thread (the Sony V1 and the JVC HD100). They're in two completely different classes. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they'll both record an image on a Mini-DV cassette. The similarities pretty much end there.

Determine your budget... pick your format... then choose the camera, and by all means, try before you buy.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

... and by all means, try before you buy.

I've been meaning to post that you have in the past mentioned this and it is critical. Every camera has a "feel" and most folks have a preference for how a camera should "feel." And, these "debates" ignore this critical issue.

It's hard for me to imagine comparing technical details when one is talking about two such different cameras.

I also reject the notion that have OIS, AE, and AF means the camera is not "professional." For many in the V1's target market, these features are critical to coming home with perfect HD footage.

[Bill Pryor]

I'm not trying to dis the cameras that have OIS, etc., and not saying you can't use them professionally. But the generally accepted version of a "professional" camera is one that has all manual control, interchangeable lenses and standard things like all the switches located on the outside, etc. But that's probably getting to be an obsolete definition because the lines are pretty blurred between "prosumer" and "professional" anymore. Still, the electronic lens, in my opinion, takes a camera out of the "fully professional" category. Which doesn't mean I don't use them.

[Bob Grant]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I also reject the notion that have OIS, AE, and AF means the camera is not "professional." For many in the V1's target market, these features are critical to coming home with perfect HD footage.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
I recently shot two long events. One with a 570 and the second with a 250, the footage I was able to bring home with the 250 was way better than what I got with the 570.
For sure the 570 is a much, much better camera and the mate who owns it gets gorgeous results from it but he has that camera on his shoulder every day. The reason I do a lot of work for this guy is he's so busy driving the camera his audio is usually a bit of a mess.
With the 250 in auto everything I was able to get perfectly acceptable images and have the wits left to worry about other things like audio levels, 'helpfull' people moving my mic out of the way, stopping the wandering public getting in front of the camera etc.
To suggest you're not a pro because you use AE etc is bunk, a pro uses the best tool for the task and one that he can work with given his own limitations and the ones the shooting environment dictates.

[Paulo Teixeira]

I’m going to have to agree with Steve Mullen on this one.

Why would a camcorder with a lot of automatic features not be considered professional? I’m one of those people that loves to use camcorders in almost manual everything but there are situations where having auto features is a must for example you could be in a building with many different types of light sources and your tasked to walk around, well it would not make sense to white balance every minute. Another situation is in a battlefield where you’re running with the camcorder while trying to manual focus at the same time. Its always best to use manual features more so than automatic features but as I already mentioned, having auto features can sometimes be very useful. Just look at the latest and most expensive Digital SLR cameras, they have extremely good auto focusing and I don’t hear anybody calling them Prosumer cameras.

To me the V1u and the top JVC HD camcorders are equally professional just like the Panasonic HVX200 and the Sony Z1u. It can be argued that the HD110 is more professional than the HVX200 because of the interchangeable lenses but people will tell you that the HVX200 is more professional because of the 720 60p DVCPRO-HD recording.

Each camcorder has their own strong points and weaknesses and you can’t really say that one is a professional camcorder and the other is a prosumer camcorder based on auto features, manual features, interchangeable lenses and having 720 60p. If I was in a battlefield I’d much rather have a V1u than the HD110 or HD250. In this case I can consider the V1u as being better.

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira

If I was in a battlefield I’d much rather have a V1u than the HD110 or HD250. In this case I can consider the V1u as being better.

If I was in a battlefield i'd much rather have full ceramic-plated body armour, NO camera as it could look a bit like an RPG from a distance, and I'd like a ticket outta there ASAP.

[Paulo Teixeira]

At the moment I’m so desperate for money that if someone were to offer me at least a few to several thousand dollars to help shoot a documentary or News report for a month I’d be willing to pack up and go to the Airport first thing tomorrow night and I wouldn’t mind if its Lebanon, Palestine or even Iraq. I choose the night so that I can spend the day signing a will but in the bright side I would have enough money to get myself a PS3 and pay of a good portion of my college loan if I come back alive and it would be one extra thing for my résumé.

I’d just hope the producer doesn’t give me a full size 3 ½ inch or 3 2/3 inch CCD camera because I saw a documentary that was shot in the Middle East that showed a guy walking into the hospital injured with a full size camera in his hand. I was thinking that if he had a brought a Z1u or a PD170 he wouldn’t have gotten injured.

[Bill Pryor]

A cameraman was killed by U.S. gunfire in Iraq a couple of years ago. The soldier said he thought the camera was a missile launcher or something. I don't necessarily belive that, but you have a valid point--at least if they blow you away, they can't use that excuse.

One of the best documentaries I've ever seen, and also the best looking, was shot with an XL1. it was called "Death in Gaza" and I don't remember the name of the filmmaker but he was a well known British documentarian and winner of numerous award. An Israeli tank crew shot and killed him. There was home video of the incident--he was waving a white flag and was clearly identified as not being an enemy soldier, but they killed him anyway. He was doing the documentary about fundamentalist religion breeding fanatics among children in Palestine, and he was going to Israel to do the same thing. He wasn't holding the camera at the time. My point is, if they want to blow you away they will, regardless of the camera. However, I agree that in those conditions I too would rather be using a Z1 than a DSR570. Especially in Iraq where blowing sand is a serious enemy of any camera. You could half a dozen Z1s for the same price as one DSR570 (with lens and power); one dies, pitch it and use the next one.

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

One of the best documentaries I've ever seen, and also the best looking, was shot with an XL1. it was called "Death in Gaza" and I don't remember the name of the filmmaker but he was a well known British documentarian and winner of numerous award. An Israeli tank crew shot and killed him.

James Miller was the UK filmmaker.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/dea.../synopsis.html

very sad indeed.

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I also reject the notion that have OIS, AE, and AF means the camera is not "professional." For many in the V1's target market, these features are critical to coming home with perfect HD footage.

Professional DSLR camera users rely on these features, so I think the video equipment market is just lagging.

[Tony Tremble]

There is nothing professional about an inanimate object. Cameras cannot be professional.

On BBC4 in the UK there is a programme that challenges 3 professional photographers working with film to try using digital imaging. One of the photographers get a high-end camera, one gets a point n click while the last one gets a camera-phone. What is apparent from the programme is that professionalism is independent of technology as all photographers produce quality images no matter which camera they were given to work with. Producing professional work has less to do with equipment than some would have us believe.

I am a pragmatist and I realise that to consistently hit focus when viewing on a low resolution LCD VF or 2.5" flip-out screen is nigh on impossible without some electronic intervention. I welcome the inclusion of selected assistant functions as the ability to capture high resolution images far outstrips our ability to effectively monitor it on camera even on larger format camera to a degree.

To reject electronic assistance functions and come back with poorly focussed and exposed footage is deeply unprofessional by any reasonable measure.

I am not suggesting using the camera in full auto all of the time far from it but to embrace the fly by wire functions for purely pragmatic reasons.

TT