To everybody interested in a Sony-Canon comparative test...

http://www.eidomedia.com/test

Matteo

It is hard to compare the images shown on my 17" TFT screen, but it is still interesting how well the old 14X lens and XL2 lens compares to the new HD 20X.

It makes me want even more to buy a H1 body and use my 16X Manual Servo lens and Nikkor lenses instead of the new lens!

Canon H1 is so much sharper than Sony Z1, one can hardly believe it. The old Canon manual 14x lens is excellent.

Amazing isn't it?

Sharp & filmlike. It's amazing to look at. Like I'm looking at 35mm dailies or something.
Beleive me, if you give a good DP this weapon he would be a KILLER! We'd have to restrain him in chains like a wild mad dog gone crazy.

- ShannonRawls.com

In the "Test ottiche canon HD, 14X Manual, XL" the pic using the H1's lens definitely shows some abberation on the upper right corner house's roof. 35mm like? No way jose. But still looks good. I actually like the look of the old 14x manual lens better than the H1's lens.

I prefer the 14X lens as well. I expect that my 16X Manual servo lens would produce similar results.

so much for the theory that you need a special HD lens to shoot HD...that manual lens is a thing of beauty...

i'm not shocked by the increase in rez on the h1, it costs twice of that sony cam...

1/3 lenses have to be good in the first place because of the 1/3 target size. A 1/3 target requires critical lens specs..So those lenses are made very good in the first place. When a 1/3 lens is made bad, it's quite ugly...

Pappas

Yeah, the official Canon position is that you need an HD lens to shoot HD, but the reality is that the existing XL lenses do pretty well. I did a crude rez test and even the allegedly "soft" 3x lens looked so good that I quickly decided I would NOT be selling it when my XL2 finds a new home. It wasn't quite as sharp as the new HD lens, of course, but if I really need a WIDE shot, the 3x will do just fine.

Yeah, the official Canon position is that you need an HD lens to really shoot HD, but the reality is that the existing XL lenses do really pretty well. I did a crude rez test and even the allegedly "soft" 3x lens looked so good that I quickly decided I would NOT be selling it when my XL2 finds a new home. It wasn't quite as sharp as the new HD lens, of course, but if I really need a WIDE shot, the 3x will do just fine.

Peter,

What sort of results did the different lens produce? 3x/20xSD/20xHD?

http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm

Sorry if I'm the odd guy out.

But those Canon XL-H1 photos look like utter Sh****t to me!
So do the Sony ones.

I know it's not an "IMAGE" test and it's more of a comparative resolution test between sony & canon. But still, I gotta say, those snapshots look like crap.

- ShannonRawls.com

Thanks a lot for the comparison. Very interesting, indeed.
The quality difference comes as no surprise to me. Here in Europe street prices of the Canon are actually more than three times as much as the FX1. You can expect a better quality for that, couldn't you ?
However I would like to compare moving images. Perhaps we could get some original clips of both cameras ?

so much for the theory that you need a special HD lens to shoot HD
This is a mystery I could never understand myself as well. Compared to digital still image photography even true 1080p is no high resolution.
Why would one need a "special" lens to fully resolve just 2 megapixels ? Come on.
A high quality "SD" lens should do the trick just as well - and these photos prove just that.

I would agree that non of the actual images look that great and definitely wouldn't make me rush out and buy the H1, but as a comparison to the HD lens, the 14X shines...well at least copes far better than Canon was saying at the launch.

I'd like to see some more comparisons with the different lenses - both zoom and primes, HD & non-HD, in a variety of situations and light conditions.

As far as the H1 goes, I'd like to see how it copes with low light and harsh natural sunlight outdoors at dusk, midday and dawn.