For those who own and have been using the HD1000....I'm hoping that hindsight is 20/20 and you can help me make a final purchasing decision...

Would you rather have an HD100 new out of the box
or
a new Sony Z1 with the UWPc1 Lav Mic Kit, Wide Conversion lens, Shoulder Brace, soft carrying case, two batteries and sennheiser shotgun mic.

I will be using the camera for documentary and eng purposes primarily/ I may want to use teh camera for some short film work that will NOT be transferred to film.

Anyhow, I like the ergonomics of the JVC, and the manual control. I don't like the breathing lens, but then the lens on the Z1 can't get in all that tight I also don't know if the JVC will be as versatile or reliable as the Sony. Generally the consensus on the HD100 forum appears mixed. The Z1 forums report generally good feedback, but the camera has also had it's hiccups as well. Any feedback or advice users may have would be greatly appreciated.

Huiy,

What are you leaning toward? and why?

I own the HD100, and had access to a Z1 for free any time I wanted for months on end.

The HD100, for my needs, is the superior camera. Even with it's problems, which have been admittedly not a big deal for me.

Try out both cameras for yourself. The right one for you is the one which feels best in your hands and whose video output most pleases you. Nothing else matters but that, not even internet message boards.

Anyhow, I like the ergonomics of the JVC, and the manual control.

Yes the JVC controls are wonderful while the Sony are those of a typical DV consumer camcorder -- in their placement.

But -- and here I hope I don't start another war -- focusing outside under bright light is not EZ on the JVC. The FA only shows on hard edges not soft contours. It shows red over a broader range than focus is really sharp.

In my experience with the Z1/FX1 if you point the camera so the subject is centered and press One Touch focus -- the AF is 100% accurate. After you have focus, you can reframe.

Now on film set this won't matter, but for ENG it will. It's now clear to me that JVC needs one of the new AF HD lenes. Plus, for ENG the greater lite sensitivity and 1080i may be a better bet. (And, folks think I'm biased toward JVC! In the last two weeks I've recommemded Sony camcorders because for ENG type work they are very good.)

I like the ergonomics of the JVC, and the manual control. I don't like the breathing lens, but then the lens on the Z1 can't get in all that tight I also don't know if the JVC will be as versatile or reliable as the Sony.

I like the Sony HDV cameras, but if you prefer the feel and controls of the JVC that's an important consideration. They're definitely very different cameras, so if you try both for even a few minutes that should tell you a lot about which will suits your style best. Based on your comment about ergonomics, I'd guess you'll enjoy the JVC.

I dont suppose one can go past Chris's advice on this point.

I have used both. For ENG work I would be leaning toward the Sony. The first time I ever had to use it was in an emergency situation where I was told "Quick get all this right now" (for a building fire sadly) and some one just handed me the camera. I picked up the camera for the first time and shot a couple of hours of tape. God, it was just so easy and kind of felt good for that situation. LCD crystal clear. You could hold the camera comfortably for quite a while.

Rob

It's now clear to me that JVC needs one of the new AF HD lenes.

Oh my lord. No, it needs operators who practice focus skills. Having a manual lens is part of the market that the JVC has staked out, and for that I'm thankful.

All the rest of the under-10k HD cameras out there have AF. We can leave one without.

Oh my lord. No, it needs operators who practice focus skills. Having a manual lens is part of the market that the JVC has staked out, and for that I'm thankful.

All the rest of the under-10k HD cameras out there have AF. We can leave one without.

You miss the point. The VF and LCD are not good enough on any of these camcorders to trust for critical focus. All the skill in the world won't help if you can't see fine detail -- which you can't. Especially in bright light! And in many situations there isn't time.

The plain fact is a computer connected to a hi-rez sensor and fast servo can focus faster and better than any human. It is "old macho" thinking that says "I can do better." We have several decades of digital SLR experience and the AF lens -- like an automatic in an F1 -- is the way a PRO goes because he/she is interested in results not proving some point about their skill.

Why do you think CineAlta and Varicams have camera mounted monitors that cost $10K if a 3.5 flip-out viewfinder can be trusted? Or, a 1/2-inch LCD VF?

Why do they have elaborate focus systems if turning a ring at the end of a lens is good enough. I guess you would say these pro cinematographers just don't have enough skill to use the lens itself. I guess they use a tape measure for focus beeause they're too wimpy to trust their eyes.

Let's get real. What counts is results not the way you get them.

Moreover, the new AF lenses don't require you to use AF.

You don't have to use AE either -- although it will get a 100% accurate exposure faster than you can. And, you don't have to use the servo zoom -- although it will zoom more smoothly than you can.

The pro is a person who can use ALL the tools available.

You miss the point. The VF and LCD are not good enough on any of these camcorders to trust for critical focus. All the skill in the world won't help if you can't see fine detail -- which you can't. Especially in bright light! And in many situations there isn't time.


I have been using it for months now and never had an out of focus shot. I don't even use F.A., just normal peaking. But then again, I have to sight and never need glasses. But the viewfinder is sure good enough for focusing.
I agree with Nate. I'm thankful this lens is a real manual lens and not a consumer auto focus type.


Why do you think CineAlta and Varicams have camera mounted monitors that cost $10K if a 3.5 flip-out viewfinder can be trusted? Or, a 1/2-inch LCD VF?
Why do they have elaborate focus systems if turning a ring at the end of a lens is good enough. I guess you would say these pro cinematographers just don't have enough skill to use the lens itself. I guess they use a tape measure for focus beeause they're too wimpy to trust their eyes. .

To make things easier and faster, because on the set of a big Hollywood production, time is much more crucial. But have you see a DP requesting a prosumer AF lens for his Varicam, Cinealta or Panavision?

Let's get real. What counts is results not the way you get them.Moreover, the new AF lenses don't require you to use AF.

Yeah, but an AF lens is just that, an AF lens. It’s a pseudo manual lenses, since manual focusing with the is hell. Have you never used one of those before ? Since you warn us to “get real”, I think you never used a prosumer AF lens before.
No thanks, I take a MF over an AF anytime.

You don't have to use AE either -- although it will get a 100% accurate exposure faster than you can. And, you don't have to use the servo zoom -- although it will zoom more smoothly than you can.

These is not a correct comparison. The auto exposure and servo zoom don’t get in the way of their manual counterparts in a Broadcast style lens. But they do in a prosumer style fixed lens. The AF lens would be of the prosumer fixed style and if you need to manually focus with those lenses, it’s not the same as a real MF lens, as you are not directly spinning the focus ring, but activating a dumb motor to do so for you. That’s very different from real manual focus.

The pro is a person who can use ALL the tools available.

And the person who favors professional tools over consumer ones, and an AF prosumer lens is not the professional standard and will never be.

With all due respect, can we leave the focusing aspect of the cameras to: Sony had auto focus JVC does not?



Huiy,

What are you leaning toward?

All the skill in the world won't help if you can't see fine detail -- which you can't. Especially in bright light!

The pro is a person who can use ALL the tools available.

Steve,

Focus assist works fine for me. I understand what it is (glorified peaking). I know how to work it to my advantage. I know when it is not working or helping (full wide, stopped down).

Why do you think CineAlta and Varicams have camera mounted monitors that cost $10K if a 3.5 flip-out viewfinder can be trusted? Or, a 1/2-inch LCD VF?

You can't see focus in these things either. Even the hi-res viewfinder on any given Sony HDCAM offering doesn't show you all available res, and you have to rely on knowing how to use peaking to get the focus you need, if you're shooting without an A.C.

Why do they have elaborate focus systems if turning a ring at the end of a lens is good enough. I guess you would say these pro cinematographers just don't have enough skill to use the lens itself. I guess they use a tape measure for focus beeause they're too wimpy to trust their eyes.

What on earth are you talking about? Elaborate focus system? You talking about a Panatape? wha? A 1st. A.C. uses a tape measure because he is responsible for focus, but generally never gets to look through the eyepiece when setting focus marks. LCD monitors on a Varicam, Cinealta, or even 35 are so the A.C. can know what the shot is, and focus accordingly. Not so they can set focus itself by looking at the monitor.

An A.C. setting focus by looking at an onboard LCD is eventually going to get burned, especially if the show is shooting for the big screen.

I think you need to understand that all the do-dads you're used to seeing attached to a camera are for the benefit of the A.C., but are also used in specific ways in accordance to how the 1st AC traditionally does their job. If you're shooting HD solo, then it's a whole 'nother ball game.

I guess you would say these pro cinematographers just don't have enough skill to use the lens itself.

Oh come on. That's a gross perversion of my assertion that a manual lens is preferable on the JVC. It's especially retarded in light of the fact that I was a working AC for almost 10 years.

Steve, all this boils down to your assertion that the JVC needs an AF lens. Mine, and Michael's counter is that it doesn't need it, and only makes getting good shots more difficult. JVC was never going after the prosumer market with this camera, they proclaim it loudly whenever they get the chance.

The manual lens is the MAIN selling point of this camera. Period. Far better than any servo if one knows how to use it. I totally agree with Nate and Michael.

The manual lens is the MAIN selling point of this camera. Period. Far better than any servo if one knows how to use it. I totally agree with Nate and Michael.

Who said anything about a servo lens?

Who said anything about "... a consumer auto focus type?"

These are your assumptions -- and were never mine.

You'll note that two of the lens controls already give you a CHOICE of servo or full manual. It is my understanding that several Canon AF lenses offer you a similar choice. That's what I'm talking about.

It seems you may be against servo control -- which I agree is horrible. But, there is no inherent reason you have to have servo ring.

Here is a decription of the Canon AF Lens system:

"The full-time manual (FTM) focusing lenses have an internal focus ring. On one side lies the ring USM motor, on the other the manual focus ring. Via a system of rings and wheels, which allow either the ring USM or the manual ring to turn the real focus ring without turning the other component, real full-time manual focusing is provided. It is manual because it is the force of your hand that physically moves the focusing group, rather than signaling to the focus module information which then turns the internal focus ring for you."

I meant a servo controlling the focusing ring. The terminology gets sometimes confusing. Servo option for zooming has been a part of pro-grade lenses from both Canon and Fujinon since ever.

As for the AF, well, on still cameras it works because you get your focus point in focus and reframe to take the picture. That doesn't work in video/film. Also, AF is of course useless for rack-focusing.

Steve, if you are not talking about a prosumer type of lens like the ones in the PD170/DVX100a/HVX200 when you suggested an AF lens for a $5,000 camera, so what are you talking about? I hope you don't mean the extremely expensive Broadcast style special lenses with AF and IS. Because if you do, you are even more off than I initially thought. A lens like that, being HD capable and all, would cost way more than the 13x wide angle. Most likely the double. Not a realistic thing for a $5,000 camera. Might as well ask them why don’t we have 4:4:4 uncompressed HD recording on board.

All I said was: " It's now clear to me that JVC needs one of the new AF HD lenes."

I never said one was available because I know it's not. I also said the HD100 needs more sensitivity for ENG work. I also know the HD100 won't have that either.

I even said "... and here I hope I don't start another war ..." but some folks just can't resist jumping in after not reading the words "new AF lenes" and making assumptions about "consumer" and "servo." By doing so, it gave them an excuse to start an argument with a comment "Oh my lord. No, it needs operators who practice focus skills."

Wouldn't have been a lot more reasonable to ask "what are these new lenses? Do they use servo manual control?"

But no -- asking questions seems to be far less fun for some than jumping in with remarks that had no relation to the topic which was "for ENG should I go Z1 or HD100."

My answer was on this topic. And I stand by it. The Z1 AF is a very strong positive for ENG. And, LCD and VF are not adequate for HD focusing because of their low rez. The Sony solution is far smarter because it deals with the lack of LCD resolution. And, yes, I would like one of the Canon's AF lenses for the HD100."

Worse, even with clarification of how these AF lenes work, the diatribe about AF and servo continues. Have fun beating a strawman.

As to the original question...it's a difficult decision. My first inclination might be to pick the JVC because it is a shoulder mount camera and has most controls positioned where they should be. On the other hand, it's the first batch of a brand new camera. The Z1, I think, could be considered second generation because the FX1 was on the market first, and perhaps Sony jumped on any early issues. Or not, that's just speculation on my part.

Assuming both cameras turn out pretty good images for their price range, then it gets down to questions of reliability, what's comfortable for you, and what type of shooting you will be doing now and in the near future.

If you do a lot of hand-held shooting, then I'd advise strongly on some kind of detachable shoulder mount if you get the Sony. It's difficult for me to hand hold a "handycam" type camera for long periods.

This is a wishy-washy answer, because it's not really all that black and white to me. My leanings would be toward the JVC because of functionality. I'm much more comfortable with professional type cameras than the others. As to the focusing issue, I have had trouble with JVC low res viewfinders in the past on their SD cameras. I guess that's what the focus assist is for. Sony has something similar in that it doubles the size of the middle of the image in your VF, or something along those lines.

I've seen some really, really nice footage from a couple of the Z1 cameras, and I've yet to see anything as good from the JVC. I don't think that's a camera issue--it's more of who's shot the stuff I've seen.

One thing I would do before buying either of them--I would absolutely 100 percent go try both of them out.

Having said that...if that wide angle expensive lens for the JVC dropped down to a couple of thousand bucks or so, then I would most likely go for the JVC.

...if that wide angle expensive lens for the JVC dropped down to a couple of thousand bucks or so, then I would most likely go for the JVC.
You don't have to own it, just rent it (or other lenses) when the project/budget requires/allows it. Or go with any of the other micro35/primes whatever combinations, again, as a rental option to the stock lens.

Steve, I see your point. But keep two things in mind . The Z1 AF lens is a prosumer lens, and the HD100 was never marketed to ENG, or it would have an interlaced mode.

I suppose what I was trying to get at by asking would you rather have a pimped out z1 or a bare bones hd100, is which camera will give me more bang for my buck? I have worked with both cameras and the sony was incredibly easy camera to work with, even the AF was wonderful in run and gun situations. And one battery, even on the low end lasted three times as long as the JVC's largest battery (excluding the anton bauer and idx batteries, which would be a hefty financial investment.) The lenses are the worst of two evils. The JVC is soft and breaths way too much, but you can get in nice and tight, and I agree with Steve that the View Finder and LCD Screen suck. On the other hand the sony lens is very limited as well, tough to achieve a rack focus at times, and you need to be up close and personal to get good shots. Don't use it in the back of an auditorium if you want close ups of whats happening on the stage. The view finder and lcd ont the z1 are far superior as well. For the money I can pimp the camera out with plenty of accessories. But the shoulder mount for the z1 makes no sense, as it only makes the camera that much more front heavy. I interview a lot of celebrities and notable people, and showing up with the z1 sucks, but when you only have 5 minutes with someone, it's the convenience that counts. However, I don't know if press agents are going to put you at the top of the interview list if you look like a bush league operation showing up with the z1 in hand. Shoulder mount or no shoulder mount. Huzzzahhhh....I have to spend around $7000.00 before my companies year end and don't know which camera to invest in. I owned the z1 and returned it because it was plagued with issues. I hoped that JVC would have ponied up and correct the cameras problems and was led to believe that they would have by a JVC rep. Despite what has been reported on the forums. These forums (though often speculative) are a more reliable source for info than even hearing it from the horses mouth. Sad really. Back to my point...Pimped Out z1 or basic hd100 package????

over the past Sony has been able to win over it seems much more customer loyalty by providing A+ customer service, and reliable gear. I am afraid that if I buy into the JVC and the huge investment that will be required to make the camera as versatile as I need it that I may end up with egg on my face. Do I make the risk to invest in the slicker, and more upgradable camera for the long haul? or do I settle for the old reliable which will make me happy at least for the interm. The way I see it a camera is a 4 to 6 year investment. Hopefully six in this case with the advent of the firestore drives.

Thoughts-feedback are more than welcome????

OK,

Do you already own some of the accessories that you've listed you'd purchase with a Z1?

Actually the The JVC HD100 has been marketed extensively for ENG applications. On JVCs website you see a barage of photos of news cameramen using this camera. Of course you can only record 30 frames per secound but does this mean the camera cannot deliver the live look ? Well yes and no. As far as spatial resolution is concerned the camera will have a live look like you are really there in person which is good for news but its temporal resolution gives it the film look which is not so good for news. At any rate its a welcome improvement over 480i. For years up until the late 1970s news was captured using 16mm film cameras at low temporal rates. So for the 720p networks this camera may be a good choice for ENG and remember for tethered operations 720p60 can be captured for a price.

Of course you can only record 30 frames per secound but does this mean the camera cannot deliver the live look ? Well yes and no. As far as spatial resolution is concerned the camera will have a live look like you are really there in person which is good for news but its temporal resolution gives it the film look which is not so good for news.

After the first gen 720p30 I too thought interlace was necessary. But with the camera shooting 60p and the Motion Filter engaged I doubt anyone is going to see it as "worse" than 60i. Perhaps, "diffferent" -- at worst.

Plus stills are wonderful.

Steve... how do stills shot with the motion filter look? Is there any difference between those, and still used from footage with the filter off?

Steve... how do stills shot with the motion filter look? Is there any difference between those, and still used from footage with the filter off?
The difference will be motion blur in proportion to the amount and speed of movement.

I'll run some tests -- although its hard to think of some continous motion.

The motion smoothing filter shots will have a double-image on them. You definitely don't want to be taking stills from anything shot with motion-smoothing on.