Canon HF-S10 vs Sony XR500

Martyn Hull · May 15th, 2009, 01:52 PM

Ken i have a hv30 arrived today,i will probobly keep my sr12 as well as the fx7.
Dave my pc is as powerful as i could buy last year,regarding pq the FX7 is as sharp as the sr12,it also has nice color there are plenty of adjusments as you know, first test with the hv30 shows it has less noise than the fx but i will need further tests before i decide which cam i shall mostly use i doubt if the fx will get the majority its a bit big but i love the lens.

Ken Ross · May 15th, 2009, 06:13 PM

Martyn, I have no doubt the HV30 has less noise than the FX7. I owned the FX7 for awhile and although finding it sharper than my FX1, I found it had quite a bit more noise. The Canon HV series has always been very nice. I had the HV10 and still have the HV20. Color on both units were very nice and sharpness & detail were right up there.

Truth be told, I like the image that either of those cams produces better than the HS-10 I just tested. Yes, they're still tape, but I found their overall image more pleasing.

Dave, your post was spot-on! Very well put on all fronts. Every small cam I've ever owned, I shoot 'on the fly'. I don't want a camera where I need to tinker to get the best image when many shots I take are spur of the moment. When I need to tinker it's generally work related and I have a Z5 for that purpose. Now to be perfectly honest, I never really had to tinker with the HV10 or HV20 to get a really nice image...same with the HG21. But there was just something about the image of the HF-S10 that didn't do it for me. Of course the addition of the hugely refined OIS on the Sony together with the low light capability, made a combo that was hard to pass up.

For what I do with a small camera, the XR500 is as good as I've seen.

Martyn Hull · May 16th, 2009, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Martyn, I have no doubt the HV30 has less noise than the FX7. I owned the FX7 for awhile and although finding it sharper than my FX1, I found it had quite a bit more noise. The Canon HV series has always been very nice. I had the HV10 and still have the HV20. Color on both units were very nice and sharpness & detail were right up there.

Truth be told, I like the image that either of those cams produces better than the HS-10 I just tested. Yes, they're still tape, but I found their overall image more pleasing.

Dave, your post was spot-on! Very well put on all fronts. Every small cam I've ever owned, I shoot 'on the fly'. I don't want a camera where I need to tinker to get the best image when many shots I take are spur of the moment. When I need to tinker it's generally work related and I have a Z5 for that purpose. Now to be perfectly honest, I never really had to tinker with the HV10 or HV20 to get a really nice image...same with the HG21. But there was just something about the image of the HF-S10 that didn't do it for me. Of course the addition of the hugely refined OIS on the Sony together with the low light capability, made a combo that was hard to pass up.

For what I do with a small camera, the XR500 is as good as I've seen.

Ken your a friendly sort of chap[creep creep]i know this is a bit off topic by the way,there a few things i dont like about the HV30 ,1 build quality i knew this was not one of its strong points and the worse thing is the cassette door seems a bit on the loose side,i have heard others say the same thing, how is your HV20s.
2 I thought there was a color saturation adjustment on it like the sony HC cams but all i can find is the image effect which on the color section does not seem to alter the color to any noticable amount do you find the same.Not that i dont like normal setting.
3 We are 25 P here and after my first test with it i was not realy impressed,i did not do any panning by the way as i know any pans in P mode must be slow,i have not tried the cine mode yet so that may be better and i have seen some lovely looking films made with the
HVs in progressive mode.Lets leave it at that for now so any comments will be appreciated.Martyn

Ken Ross · May 16th, 2009, 05:36 AM

Martyn, yes, the build quality of the Canon HV series is not their strong point. ;)

My door is a bit loose too and the overall feel of the HV20 is somewhat on the flimsy side.

The good news is that it hasn't ever impacted the cam's ability to shoot nice video. Yes, the color adjustment (as well as brightness, sharpness & contrast) is in the custom setting of the image adjustments. Each of those settings doesn't have a dramatic effect, but the effect is certainly there if you go from one extreme to the other. To be honest I wish the Sony XR had these adjustments. The problem with altering the color level is that if you use AWB, you'll have a nice adjustment at one AWB setting, but then the next time the AWB adjusts, you might find that you either oversaturated or undersaturated the image. I wound up leaving it at the default level.

You also have to be careful with raising the sharpness too much since that can lead to edge enhancment and ringing in these units. Once that's in your image, you're kind of stuck with it.

As for the 'p' mode, I'm probably not the one to ask, I never ever liked them on any Canon I ever owned. I don't find it gives a 'film-like' appearence and I hate (no, DESPISE) the stuttering effect you get. No matter how careful I was with panning or fast motion in the scene, my eye could always detect that stuttering.

I also found the cine mode cut the sharpness too much and, at times, added too much color saturation. So I abandoned all those modes and shot in a normal 'i' mode. But that's me, some people love these modes.

Darrin McMillan · May 16th, 2009, 08:48 AM

I think it's clear who the Sony & Canon fanboys are. So why don't we leave it at that. I will say one last thing. Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.

Ron Evans · May 16th, 2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darrin McMillan

Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.

I think that comment applies to all these camcorders from Sony , Canon and Panasonic. If you want a camera for professional film making these are not your choice. Get a Sony Z5, Canon XL or Panasonic HMC150 or better. The cameras we are talking about here are for consumer use and maybe as a backup( unattended "B" camera) to the more professional models.

Ron Evans

Dave Blackhurst · May 16th, 2009, 12:28 PM

Darrin -
I think we've already covered that the XR isn't designed around a "Filmmaker" - I think we'd ALL agree on something from Canon (HF-S looks like a good choice for that!) or a higher end Sony (more $)... so it's not a matter of "fanboys", that's not appropriate here. You're talking to people who either have owned or have hands on experience with one or more of the cameras in question, not "fanboys" who spout specs as a reason to dis a camera over another. Image matters here, and if you stick around you'll realize we're equally critical of EVERY manufacturer, and we all share a general "vision" of the "ideal camera", and where the "real world cameras" either measure up or fall short.

What we have been discussing is the relative merits of each camera, which is the thread title, got it? Adding a sentence that adds no signal to the signal to noise ratio isn't really helpful. If you had specific likes or complaints about your XR when you owned it, or specific likes or dislikes about your HF-S, then feel free to put it out there.

For event and live shooting as well as just "regular use", the XR makes a lot of sense once you learn what it can do, if that's not what you do with your camera, and the Canon suits you better, that's fine too. They both have their plusses and minuses - until Sony or Canon hire some of the regular crew around here as consultants on their next-gen camera, that's probably how things will be!

Martyn -
There's a forum just for the HV20/30/40 here on DVi, you can probably find every answer known to mankind there with a little search! Lots of good stuff, and lots of guys using the cam with great results, so it should help you find how to get the most out of your new cam.

Havning owned the HV20 briefly (and the basic design remains in the 30/40), I would say it was one of the creaky-est things I've run across... I tried several of them in hopes build quality varied, to no avail. You'll find that an external mic is a necessity, and shooting handheld yields a lot of body noise on the tape if you don't. It's a shame that such a great imaging engine got stuck in a Yugo body...

I ended up with the HC9, though it was right when I was going tapeless, so that's basically around for a tape deck...

The image adjustments in the HV's are minute, but fairly effective, lots to play with - I wasn't able to get past the body noise, but in the time I spent with the cam, I could see it had lots of adjustability, so there's a learning curve there. I had certain specific concerns about the Canon image, but I've seen them in allmost every Canon - it's how they design them, and most people like the results, so you have to say it "works" - I've seen enough end footage to say you can adjust the cam enough to get what you want. You can't argue with the results people get from the HV's, I'd have to recommend it if one was sticking to tape.

Darrin McMillan · May 16th, 2009, 12:50 PM

Dave. I've actually stuck around here for 2 more years then you have. I've owned a professional video production company and I normally listen and don't post. I have had both cameras at the same time and I think your findings are inaccurate and Biased. I have never quoted 1 spec and I have not mentioned a thing about sharpness. In fact that is the least favorite thing about the HFS- for me (although you can correct that). Back to my comment a couple of pages ago. They are both great cameras. The Sony is more of an AUTO run and gun. While the Canon you have a bit more flexibility in image quality. The thing I liked about the Canon over the Sony was the color, better blacks and when the AGC is used correctly a very clean grain free image. I think both cameras appeal to a different type of user.. That's all.

Martyn Hull · May 16th, 2009, 02:56 PM

The trouble is they are not all as friendly and helpful as ken,i always use externals and most of the time tripods and despite the fact i have used film and video for 35 years[hell i must be getting old]there is never a time when you dont need help with something,sorry if i invaded this thread a bit.Thanks for your HV help dave i still have the SR though as well.

Buba Kastorski · May 16th, 2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Bubba, one of the biggest mistakes in buying electronic equipment is to buy by 'spec'. You're likely to fail more often than not.
But trust me, don't ever buy soley on 'spec'.

strange , I always do, it never failed, but not solely on specs though :-)
I read the specs ,but I also I do my own tests (that's why I have HF not XR)
so you're saying your test showing that XR has better resolution than HF,
can we see it, mine is here MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
download and take a look, sony is approx. at 60% of a Canon's resolution; just like the specs say - 16mb/s vs 24mb/s, even if you don't trust them :)
Sony just can't be sharper, it has smaller imager, smaller lens and lower data rate, it's impossible for XR to be sharper than HF, brighter in low light - yes, but there is no details and lots of infrared noise,
I'm sorry, I don't believe in miracles, it can't be better camcorder just because it's Sony,
if it has lower specs - it can't have better image, so far this rule applies with no mistakes

:)

Ken Ross · May 16th, 2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darrin McMillan

I think it's clear who the Sony & Canon fanboys are. So why don't we leave it at that. I will say one last thing. Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.

It's really not productive or accurate to label the contributors here "fanboys"...it sounds rather defensive. I've got 2 canons and two Sonys. I pick my units based on picture quality and overall performance. Sometimes that leads me to Canon and sometimes to Sony. Being "brand loyal" doesn't always get you the best product.

Ken Ross · May 16th, 2009, 08:20 PM

Bubba, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you as you seem intent on doing. But to be informative, you are confusing bitrate with resolution. They are two different things. Yes, you.can indeed have a lower bitrate and higher resolution, it all depends on the cameras.

I also never said the Sony had higher rez than the Canon, so please don't put words in my mouth. I DID say I found the Canon sharper in good light and the Sony sharper in low light. That's because the Canon softens the image as light decreases...not an unusual approach for cam manufacturers to take.

But if you really think the Canon has 40 or 60% more rez, you're mistaken. If you take CCI #s, the Sony had higher vertical rez and the Canon had higher horizontal rez. CCI themselves said the two were close in overall sharpness. Enjoy the Canon, it's a great cam and it works well for you, that's all that matters!

Michael Shaw · May 18th, 2009, 05:32 PM

Maybe this is off-topic by now, but in the very recent past got a 520V and my dvinfo.net credentials verified.

My last camera was a (Sony) A1 which I sold while getting the 520V. I went thru a lot of the back and forth like this forum has on the HFS10 and the XR models and finally settled on the Sony. Half of its usage will come from my better half in full-auto. (Do they make half-auto? ha ha) For the time being the Sony makes a lot more sense for us. It seems like one can really go either way depending on your needs and wants.

Here are a couple links to some of my first few days of filming:

First Footages ~ Sony HDR-XR520V on Vimeo

Sony HDR-XR520V ~ Smooth Slow Record Shots on Vimeo

Thanks,
Michael

Wolfgang Winne · May 19th, 2009, 09:44 AM

Nativ AVCHD streams from XR500 vs. HF100

19.05.2009 Wolfgangs VideoBlog - Mai 09

in my german blog.

Ken Ross · May 19th, 2009, 12:53 PM

Well in looking at the comparisons on my 22" computer monitor, what strikes me is the following:

* Low light is no contest. Again the Sony is remarkably free of noise. Very nice and unprecedented in a consumer HD cam.
* The exposure on the Sony seems to me to be better in general. The indoor mall shots certainly showed this. The outdoor shot with the woman looking at flowers has the Canon too dark in shaded areas and obscuring detail.
* Some outdoor shots seem a bit sharper on the Canon and others a bit sharper on the Sony. There didn't seem to be a consistency with this.
* Colors also flip flopped, perhaps because of the way the AWB was behaving on both. At times the Canon colors were richer and at other times the Sony's colors were richer.

Thanks for the comparisons Wolfgang.

May 16th, 2009, 08:48 AM	#35
Darrin McMillan Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Kingston, Ontario Posts: 96	Disappointed film maker I think it's clear who the Sony & Canon fanboys are. So why don't we leave it at that. I will say one last thing. Any Film maker that I've ever ran across would be extremely unhappy with the lack of controls on the Sony XR series. Point and shoot is not geared to professional film making experience.. That's just my opinion.

May 16th, 2009, 12:50 PM	#38
Darrin McMillan Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Kingston, Ontario Posts: 96	Interesting.. Summary Dave. I've actually stuck around here for 2 more years then you have. I've owned a professional video production company and I normally listen and don't post. I have had both cameras at the same time and I think your findings are inaccurate and Biased. I have never quoted 1 spec and I have not mentioned a thing about sharpness. In fact that is the least favorite thing about the HFS- for me (although you can correct that). Back to my comment a couple of pages ago. They are both great cameras. The Sony is more of an AUTO run and gun. While the Canon you have a bit more flexibility in image quality. The thing I liked about the Canon over the Sony was the color, better blacks and when the AGC is used correctly a very clean grain free image. I think both cameras appeal to a different type of user.. That's all.

May 18th, 2009, 05:32 PM	#43
Michael Shaw New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5	Some 520V footage from my first week Maybe this is off-topic by now, but in the very recent past got a 520V and my dvinfo.net credentials verified. My last camera was a (Sony) A1 which I sold while getting the 520V. I went thru a lot of the back and forth like this forum has on the HFS10 and the XR models and finally settled on the Sony. Half of its usage will come from my better half in full-auto. (Do they make half-auto? ha ha) For the time being the Sony makes a lot more sense for us. It seems like one can really go either way depending on your needs and wants. Here are a couple links to some of my first few days of filming: First Footages ~ Sony HDR-XR520V on Vimeo Sony HDR-XR520V ~ Smooth Slow Record Shots on Vimeo Thanks, Michael

May 19th, 2009, 09:44 AM	#44
Wolfgang Winne Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bremen, Germany Posts: 176	XR500 vs. Canon HF100 Nativ AVCHD streams from XR500 vs. HF100 19.05.2009 Wolfgangs VideoBlog - Mai 09 in my german blog. __________________ Wolfgang Winne www.ohrwurmaudio.de www.fxsupport.de

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

May 15th, 2009, 01:52 PM	#31
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	Ken i have a hv30 arrived today,i will probobly keep my sr12 as well as the fx7. Dave my pc is as powerful as i could buy last year,regarding pq the FX7 is as sharp as the sr12,it also has nice color there are plenty of adjusments as you know, first test with the hv30 shows it has less noise than the fx but i will need further tests before i decide which cam i shall mostly use i doubt if the fx will get the majority its a bit big but i love the lens.

May 15th, 2009, 06:13 PM	#32
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Martyn, I have no doubt the HV30 has less noise than the FX7. I owned the FX7 for awhile and although finding it sharper than my FX1, I found it had quite a bit more noise. The Canon HV series has always been very nice. I had the HV10 and still have the HV20. Color on both units were very nice and sharpness & detail were right up there. Truth be told, I like the image that either of those cams produces better than the HS-10 I just tested. Yes, they're still tape, but I found their overall image more pleasing. Dave, your post was spot-on! Very well put on all fronts. Every small cam I've ever owned, I shoot 'on the fly'. I don't want a camera where I need to tinker to get the best image when many shots I take are spur of the moment. When I need to tinker it's generally work related and I have a Z5 for that purpose. Now to be perfectly honest, I never really had to tinker with the HV10 or HV20 to get a really nice image...same with the HG21. But there was just something about the image of the HF-S10 that didn't do it for me. Of course the addition of the hugely refined OIS on the Sony together with the low light capability, made a combo that was hard to pass up. For what I do with a small camera, the XR500 is as good as I've seen.

May 16th, 2009, 05:36 AM	#34
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Martyn, yes, the build quality of the Canon HV series is not their strong point. ;) My door is a bit loose too and the overall feel of the HV20 is somewhat on the flimsy side. The good news is that it hasn't ever impacted the cam's ability to shoot nice video. Yes, the color adjustment (as well as brightness, sharpness & contrast) is in the custom setting of the image adjustments. Each of those settings doesn't have a dramatic effect, but the effect is certainly there if you go from one extreme to the other. To be honest I wish the Sony XR had these adjustments. The problem with altering the color level is that if you use AWB, you'll have a nice adjustment at one AWB setting, but then the next time the AWB adjusts, you might find that you either oversaturated or undersaturated the image. I wound up leaving it at the default level. You also have to be careful with raising the sharpness too much since that can lead to edge enhancment and ringing in these units. Once that's in your image, you're kind of stuck with it. As for the 'p' mode, I'm probably not the one to ask, I never ever liked them on any Canon I ever owned. I don't find it gives a 'film-like' appearence and I hate (no, DESPISE) the stuttering effect you get. No matter how careful I was with panning or fast motion in the scene, my eye could always detect that stuttering. I also found the cine mode cut the sharpness too much and, at times, added too much color saturation. So I abandoned all those modes and shot in a normal 'i' mode. But that's me, some people love these modes.

May 16th, 2009, 12:28 PM	#37
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Darrin - I think we've already covered that the XR isn't designed around a "Filmmaker" - I think we'd ALL agree on something from Canon (HF-S looks like a good choice for that!) or a higher end Sony (more $)... so it's not a matter of "fanboys", that's not appropriate here. You're talking to people who either have owned or have hands on experience with one or more of the cameras in question, not "fanboys" who spout specs as a reason to dis a camera over another. Image matters here, and if you stick around you'll realize we're equally critical of EVERY manufacturer, and we all share a general "vision" of the "ideal camera", and where the "real world cameras" either measure up or fall short. What we have been discussing is the relative merits of each camera, which is the thread title, got it? Adding a sentence that adds no signal to the signal to noise ratio isn't really helpful. If you had specific likes or complaints about your XR when you owned it, or specific likes or dislikes about your HF-S, then feel free to put it out there. For event and live shooting as well as just "regular use", the XR makes a lot of sense once you learn what it can do, if that's not what you do with your camera, and the Canon suits you better, that's fine too. They both have their plusses and minuses - until Sony or Canon hire some of the regular crew around here as consultants on their next-gen camera, that's probably how things will be! Martyn - There's a forum just for the HV20/30/40 here on DVi, you can probably find every answer known to mankind there with a little search! Lots of good stuff, and lots of guys using the cam with great results, so it should help you find how to get the most out of your new cam. Havning owned the HV20 briefly (and the basic design remains in the 30/40), I would say it was one of the creaky-est things I've run across... I tried several of them in hopes build quality varied, to no avail. You'll find that an external mic is a necessity, and shooting handheld yields a lot of body noise on the tape if you don't. It's a shame that such a great imaging engine got stuck in a Yugo body... I ended up with the HC9, though it was right when I was going tapeless, so that's basically around for a tape deck... The image adjustments in the HV's are minute, but fairly effective, lots to play with - I wasn't able to get past the body noise, but in the time I spent with the cam, I could see it had lots of adjustability, so there's a learning curve there. I had certain specific concerns about the Canon image, but I've seen them in allmost every Canon - it's how they design them, and most people like the results, so you have to say it "works" - I've seen enough end footage to say you can adjust the cam enough to get what you want. You can't argue with the results people get from the HV's, I'd have to recommend it if one was sticking to tape.

May 16th, 2009, 02:56 PM	#39
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	The trouble is they are not all as friendly and helpful as ken,i always use externals and most of the time tripods and despite the fact i have used film and video for 35 years[hell i must be getting old]there is never a time when you dont need help with something,sorry if i invaded this thread a bit.Thanks for your HV help dave i still have the SR though as well.

May 16th, 2009, 08:20 PM	#42
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Bubba, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you as you seem intent on doing. But to be informative, you are confusing bitrate with resolution. They are two different things. Yes, you.can indeed have a lower bitrate and higher resolution, it all depends on the cameras. I also never said the Sony had higher rez than the Canon, so please don't put words in my mouth. I DID say I found the Canon sharper in good light and the Sony sharper in low light. That's because the Canon softens the image as light decreases...not an unusual approach for cam manufacturers to take. But if you really think the Canon has 40 or 60% more rez, you're mistaken. If you take CCI #s, the Sony had higher vertical rez and the Canon had higher horizontal rez. CCI themselves said the two were close in overall sharpness. Enjoy the Canon, it's a great cam and it works well for you, that's all that matters!

May 19th, 2009, 12:53 PM	#45
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Well in looking at the comparisons on my 22" computer monitor, what strikes me is the following: * Low light is no contest. Again the Sony is remarkably free of noise. Very nice and unprecedented in a consumer HD cam. * The exposure on the Sony seems to me to be better in general. The indoor mall shots certainly showed this. The outdoor shot with the woman looking at flowers has the Canon too dark in shaded areas and obscuring detail. * Some outdoor shots seem a bit sharper on the Canon and others a bit sharper on the Sony. There didn't seem to be a consistency with this. * Colors also flip flopped, perhaps because of the way the AWB was behaving on both. At times the Canon colors were richer and at other times the Sony's colors were richer. Thanks for the comparisons Wolfgang.