Canon XH A1/G1 vs. JVC GY-HD110U

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Aaron Frick

The problem I have with the new Canon's is that you lose a lot of resolution when in 24f mode.

I don't think "a lot" is an accurate way to describe it, but loss of resolution in 24F mode is an issue only for those who fixate solely on numbers and specifications and who have never actually seen the images.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by David Ziegelheim

What is really amazing with this latest generation, is that discussions between the cameras are indeterminate. There is no deciding feature set that makes one the 'must have camera'.

Indeed this is a crucial, in fact fundamental concept to grasp, at least around here it is. The biggest single mistake anyone can make in selecting which HD camcorder to buy, is to think in superlative terms of one camera being the "must have camera," because that is a highly subjective determination which has absolutely nothing to do with "image quality." It is instead, as Chuck Fadely correctly pointed out previously in this thread, primarily a question of ergonomics, to which I'll also add budget and workflow. The "must have" camera for one person will be a different choice for another person. There is no single right or wrong answer; there is only the fact that what's right for one person won't be right for another, and thanfully there are a number of relatively inexpensive systems from which to choose. And that's not really amazing. What's really amazing is that we have an array of affordable choices at incredibly low price points, enabling more people to access the tools required for High Definition acquisition.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by David Ziegelheim

The Canon had the highest resolution, but the JVC had the highest resolution in frame/progressive modes. Chirs Hurd may have more specific input.

My specific input is to echo Chuck Fadely's comments from earlier in this thread, about the biggest difference between these cameras being ergonomics, and that the images from all can be tweaked every which way, depending on what you want; and to reiterate the single most important point that Adam Wilt was trying to get across in his assessment from our Texas HD Shootout, when he said "any of these cameras can create stunning images."

Choose your format first, be it either 720p or 1080i or something else; then choose your camera. More importantly, realize that your equipment does not affect "image quality" in any way. You can create award-winning video a cel phone camera. Pixel count does not make or break the quality of your image. What you point the camera at, and how you point it, is what governs image quality.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Joseph Olesh

i am on the fence on which of the two to purchase. both seem relatively similar, but maybe i am missing something.

As others have suggested, the Canon XH-A1 and JVC HD100U are actually quite different cameras: different body design and controls, different recording formats, etc. If you really want a 'film look' camera you may also want to consider the Panasonic HVX200, as it seems to be popular with people who are so inclined. If you like shoulder-mounted cameras then the JVC is your best choice for HD under $10K, but then you still have to decide if you like the image it produces. If you want an affordable camera with a decent zoom lens and inexpensive recording then the XH-A1 is worth a look, and so on.

[Aaron Frick]

I would suggest that a drop from 1440x1080 to 800x540 in Frame Mode is a lot. But as Chris suggests it is really about what you need. Like the Panasonic 200 the 1080 is interlaced and if you are going to shoot in a progressive mode or frame mode you lose resolution taking it below where the JVC's progressive resolution is. If resolution in frame is not your primary concern the new Canon's seem a steal to me at $4000. Especially if you are looking to use something like a Redrock 35mm adapter. I have been using the JVC with a Redrock M2 and it is really, really long. If you plan to use a stock lens I am quite sure that the Canon is much better glass. On the other hand I prefer a true manual focus lens like the one of the JVC.

[Aaron Frick]

Original Poster: what will be your primary use for the camera and what type of cameras and lenses are you use to working with? I think the answers to these questions will help point you in the right direction. I have heard people say that the learning curve on the JVC is high, I didn't find that to be the case but that has to do with the cameras I have worked with in the past. Personally I would love to get my hands on one of the new Canon's.

[Joseph Olesh]

i am quite new to this site, and really to the more sophisticated world of DV. the primary use for this camera will b for lower budget short films and documentaries. i edit with FCP. as a still photographer, i always used canon and enjoyed their performance and interface. my previous shorts were shot in 8mm, so HD will be quite a welcome jump.

my decision on the camera will depend on it's ability to shoot in low light, versitility (in the A1's case, with the fixed lens), and the ability to obtain a "film-like" feel/appearance - statistics aside, if lower res would equal a more realistic "35mm" look, than that is something i would consider a plus.

i can't tell you how impressed i have been by the wealth of knowledge on this site and the amount i have learned in this thread alone. thanks for all the input!!

[Aaron Frick]

Joseph...the first time i shot something with a 24p camera i was really blown away by how much it really did look like film. The contrast ratio isn't the same but I was impressed. The one thing I found missing was the depth of field look. There are a few good articles on DVinfo about achieving a shallow depth of field by cheating your iris open and us ND filters. Recently I have been using a 35mm adapter, there are several options available now. They allow use to use prime still lenses and give that depth of field look that you can aler by adjusting your f stop. Take a look out in the main forum at the P+S Tech page and alternative image pages. And if you like the Canon's and are familiar with them then that is half the battle as far as I'm concerned. Best of Luck with which ever route you choose!

[Joseph Olesh]

that sounds good.

would a 35mm converter work on the new XH series, seeing how the lenses appear to be fixed? if not, would the difference be great enough to then look more seriously at the JVC?

[Dan Keaton]

I believe that you need an interchangable lens to use most 35mm adapters.

If there is one that used the fixed lens, then I expect someone will make a post to that effect.

What are your plans for the camera? Are you going to make films?

Edit: Aaron Frick, below, posted that adapters do indeed exist for fixed lens cameras. I stand corrected.

[Joseph Olesh]

i will be doing mostly short film with a few documentaries. for the most part, the films are for festival circuits and resume' pieces.

have you compared the difference between using the converter vs. the effect in post?

[Dan Keaton]

By "doing the effect in post", I assume you mean creating a shallow depth of field, by unsharpening the background in an otherwise "in focus" video.

If this is the case, then I feel that this would only be feasible if you had very little movement in the scenes and you had a lot of time to do the effect in post.

Please let me know if you meant something else.

[Aaron Frick]

I am using a Redrock M2 and it works on fixed lens camera. Even with the JVC you have to fit it over the stock lens as they do not have a relay lens out yet. The P+S Tech also works with fixed lens camera, but they do have relay lenses available for cameras that have interchangable lens systems. If you were to get a 35mm adapter then the JVC lens would actually be a disadvantage in my opinion. It makes the camera very long. The new Canon's look like they would be great for using 35mm adapter.

[Pete Bauer]

Aaron, I think you're mixing and matching the very different terms "effective pixel count" and "lines of resolution." I'll leave it at this: it is my opinion that NOT using Canon 24F mode simply because its resolution is a little less than the same camera's 60i mode is a mistaken idea.

Picture detail, which I'll define as the product of horizontal and vertical resolution in line pairs, is just one of many variables in the largely subjective pursuit of finding "the best picture." The picture detail of 24F is not inferior to the progressive images of other cameras in its price class. The only camera in that range that gives it a run for its money in motionless luma charts of 24fps images was the HD100, at 700x700 (which I thought was a bit generous; I'd have called it 700x640). Adam called the Canon F-Mode at 800x540, but I don't have those images to look at. My own test, put F-Mode at 800x600 +/-20 lines in each directions. And in actual shooting of video with motion the Canon codec does an admirable job, so I think that this constant picking at F-mode for "lost resolution" is as pointless as people complaining about the out-of-the box color in any of these new cameras that are totally tweakable from luma to party colors.

So as has been said many times already, people should choose a camera within their price range based on ergonomics, workflow, features. They all look great in skilled hands.

[Aaron Frick]

Peter: Fair enough and well said. Why is it that we are constantly hearing these report comparing these numbers? I fully understand buying a camera that fits your needs. I would not invest in the Panasonic 200, not becuase of whatever the pixel count is in 24p but because P2 just wouldn't work for what i do. It seems that all I read in magazines and online is about pixels and resolution. AARRGH!