I've been looking at the former, but more recently, the HD100 has been brought to my attention. Can anyone give me any advice? I really like the interchangeable lens option on the JVC - is an adapter required when using photography lenses?

[edit] Oh, and what are the main differences between the 100 and the 110?

If you can afford the Xl-H1, then you should look at the HD200/250 since they are in the same price range.

Advantages of the 110 over the 100:

Black & white viewfinder display mode
Simultaneous use of both eyepiece viewfinder and tri-mode LCD display when powered by Anton Bauer or IDX battery system
Selectable mirror mode on vertically flipped LCD display
Adjustable setting of FOCUS ASSIST function
Choice of 3 image formats on composite out (letterbox, squeeze, side cut)
User-selectable ON/OFF DNR level menu setting
13 segments audio level indicator
Manual audio control within FAS (Full auto shooting) mode
Audio limiter available in manual mode
Parallel power off management of DR-HD100 recorder

Here is the page where JVC compares the models:

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/desc/prohd_camcorders.html

I've been looking at the former, but more recently, the HD100 has been brought to my attention. Can anyone give me any advice? I really like the interchangeable lens option on the JVC - is an adapter required when using photography lenses?

[edit] Oh, and what are the main differences between the 100 and the 110?
If you are tasking about the XH-A1:

http://dvinfo.net/canonxh/index.php

the similar progressive camera might be the new Sony V1U.

The XH-A1 is 1080i while the JVC 110 is 720p.

The XH-G1 has the same small form factor as the A1, but it also has SDI and timecode genlock -- which you have to go up to the JVC 250 to get.

It seems it would be most helpful to decide:

--what features you need
--what kind of shooting you will do
--what the final product will be
--where you will be using the camera (on the run in East European countries or around town or in a studio)
--what editing solutions you have and the power of the computer (720p edits more like DV while 1080i requires a higher end computer)
--and what your budget range is.... the LX-H1, $3700... and the JVC 250, $10-20,000, depending on the lens you get.

Oh, thought he said the XL-H1, not A1....in that case, yes the new Sony is more comporable, although between those two, I like the Canon.

Having said that, I am not a fan of Interlaced formats at all...one of the reasons I chose the HD100 since it is 720p native. Also, another thing to remember is that the CCD is a full 1280x720 and there is no pixel shifting at all in the HD100.

I`m too torn between XH-A1 and HD111E.

Main deciding point for me is the ability to shoot and focus handheld with DOF adaptor but nobody actually seem to know if and how does the LCD/EVF flip function on the HD110/111. The abitlity to shoot slo-mo in SD is good too.

XH-A1 in the other hand seems to be the best handycam, with widest and longest lens and with imaging properties even better than of H1 it seems quite a bargain. Farame mode on Canon 1080i cams produces images not worse in resolution than HD100 by my observation.

T

anyone done a image comparison of the two? One guy said the jvc has a softer image...

My friend just got the a1 and we compared the two.

To my eye, the jvc's footage is softer.

The canons are real resolution whores.

less money, better image. sounds like a great deal.

Actually, it is a great deal. I was very impressed with my friend's a1.

But it is a completely different type of camera.

I would still choose the jvc in a heartbeat. Nothing beats shoulder mount and manual lens. I have become a better camera operator because of it.

I also like that it shoots progressive.

My friend just got the a1 and we compared the two.

To my eye, the jvc's footage is softer.

The canons are real resolution whores.


Is a 'softer' image necessarily a bad thing? I for one think it gives a more filmic feel - if thats not what you intend the JVC for then perhaps the sharper Canon is more suitable.

Andrew

More resolution is always a good thing.

In general terms, more resolution is not necessarily always a good thing.

More resolution means worse low light performance and a greater difficulty in finding focus. Most importantly, though, having more resolution does not impact the quality of the images you create.

Just wanted to put this in its proper perspective.

Thread moved from JVC ProHD to General HD / HDV Acquisition.

Another point of resolution comparison is the consideration of progressive vs. interlaced. The Canon has been tested to offer higher resolution in its interlaced mode compared to the JVC, but lower then the JVC in its progressive mode.

the lower resolution HVX200 caused it to have a softer image ala 16mm film.

With regards to focusing the A1 has the new "Instant AF" which from what I read and saw is very good. Secondly the colours of the hd100 don't even start with the colours of the A1. The colours of the hd100 are not vibrant like those of the A1. If you want a good shoulder mounted hdv camcorder go for the XL H1, its worth the extra cost.

With regards to focusing the A1 has the new "Instant AF" which from what I read and saw is very good. Secondly the colours of the hd100 don't even start with the colours of the A1. The colours of the hd100 are not vibrant like those of the A1. If you want a good shoulder mounted hdv camcorder go for the XL H1, its worth the extra cost.

Default setting on the hd100 do yield a bland image. However colors can easily be punched up via the extensive manual setttings. Paolo Ciccone has also come up with a series of custom setting that produce a "poppier" picture.

What are the reasons which make one go for the HD100 and not the XH A1?

What are the reasons which make one go for the HD100 and not the XH A1?

I'm starting to wonder that myself. In my case, the xh a1 wasn't out yet. I'm not sure which has better color. The Hd100 does have interchangeable lenses and a more pro look/ergonomics. I'll never be able to afford those expensive lenses though.