AG-HVX200 vs GY-HD100U for Adventure Sports
 

Hello.. I'm trying to make a purchase decision between the Panasonic and JVC based on shooting adventure sports - extreme mountain biking, kayaking, skiing, rock climbing, sailing, racing events, and aerial water & mountain footage. My understanding is that 60p works better for fast motion (vs 30p), but how much better? I really like the JVC, but if it's that much of a difference, then I'll spend the money on the Panasonic, P2 cards and Firestore. While the JVC HD200 does come out later this year (in 60p), it's also got a price tag of around $8k. I'm also interested in exporting stills, so perhaps the Panasonic in 60p would provide the best still frame vs a JVC in 30? A lot of my hesitation going with the Panasonic has to do with ergonomics and complete reliability (and cost) on solid state. Perhaps I've already answered my own question (Panasonic is probably better form me), but suggestions are welcome.

Thanks!
Jeremy

Based on experience with both, I'd suggest this:
The JVC will give you the better image color depth due to it's imager, and non-bitstarved stream, assuming the camera is attached to one of the vehicles involved in the extreme sport. But you need to take the GOP somewhat into consideration. The HD100 is the only full raster, low cost HD solution right now. That has some significant benefits. *If *the HD200 has full raster sampling at 60p, it's safe to assume it will be a visibly, if not significantly, more accurate image than the Panny.
The Panny won't have GOP considerations, but it has less information to start with, as it's resampling the pix both vertically and horizontally. We tried it on a motorcycle, and it was less usable than the Sony A1U or the Z1.
Then you have to consider over/undercrank, which is very useful for sports and high action, and none of the HDV camcorders offer over/under crank while the Panny does.
There is no "complete reliability" in solid state. Period. That's far, far more hype and theory than reality. You're taking the card in/out at least 10 times an hour if not more, (27 times in 1080 mode) and that can easily compromise the workflow and reliability. Additionally, where does the P2 data end up? On a hard drive. Always. That also incurs some compromise to "complete reliability." On the other hand, if you use 720 native, you'll cut about half the capture time from your workflow.

In other words...each has its advantages and disadvantages, and you need to determine which compromises you're ready to make.

One thing to consider is the 480p60 mode of the JVC. Yes it is SD but it is true 16:9 and does not use the lower quality DV codec. We have found that it upsamples to 720p very well. Use the 720p30 for locked down or long shots, and the 480p60 for all of the high motion shots. I would hate to think of how fast a P2 card would disapear at 60fps! The JVC will give you a full hour on the HDV tape.
Maybe rent a cam and see how well the 480p60 mode works for you.

Hey Dougles (or do you prefer Doug?).. I attended several of your classes this year at NAB and met you briefly at Adobe's booth. Great job - I learned a lot from you, especially with regards to audio. I'm excited to see your name on the reply & thanks for the feedback :)

Ken.. being that you're in Vancouver, are you shooting bikers in Northshore or going to Crankworx? I can't wait to go again this year. I'm in Seattle, and frequent Whistler - thank you for the info as well, much appreciated. I'm leaning toward the JVC now.

I actuall live north of Van in a small town called Powell River. But people actually know where Van is ;>)
No mountain bikes, but some hand-held running shots and some close up traffic with a pan. Looked awsome. I don't normally shoot 60p unless I will be using it for a slow-mo. Unless you are disrtibuting in 720p60 HDTV, there is no point in shooting at that frame rate. All my work is for DVD, so no point.

I'll second that the 480p60 upsamples well. I have images of upsampled footage in my newest book on HDV, showing how the BR 50 upsamples. It's a pleasant surprise when you go to work with it. Of course, it's entirely dependent on the hardware or software you use to upsample as to the results you'll achieve.

Jeremy, most friends call me "Spot." Thanks for the kind words.

I'd second that wholeheartedly. And add that one of the biggest disadvantages (IMO) of the HD100 v the HVX200 is due to go away shortly with the arrival of the HD200 and true 720p/60. P2 may be good in some circumstances, but I'm not sure action sports is one of them, and if you intend doing a lot of handheld work, the HD100 is a far nicer camera to handhold. The addition of a Firestore gives it back many of the tapeless advantages of P2 working.

What about the DVCPRO50 mode on the Pana?

Douglas, can you explain further what you mean by the problems with the Pana?

Thanks.

I didn't realize I'd cited "problems" with the Panny? I said the cam isn't useable as a 1080 camera on a fast moving dirtbike, and even if it had been, I don't know that I'd consider it for such work. With tape or Firestore, we can put a cam in a safetybag for an hour. It takes quite a bit of time to put the cam in a bag and seal it, then mount it. If I have to do it every 8, 12, or 16 minutes, it becomes a huge problem. Add to that taking the card in/out/in/out/in/out etc in a very dusty environment, it's not going to survive. Either the card, computer, or camera are going to suffer some sort of failure, almost guaranteed. With a Firestore, we can do several hours in a bag, starting and stopping with a remote, never opening the safety bag.
In its native mode, the Panny is a good camera, not outstanding, IMO. It's just not what I'd been led to believe it was gonna be.

?
What context do you mean?

I think I have heard of a hard drive interface to the PS slots, but how does tape hold up under these conditions?

I don't consider that a "problem", I consider that how the cam was designed.
You've got a cam with an imager that is 720 x 540. PAL SD is 720 x 576. Using pixel shifting, the cam upsamples that image to 1280 x 720. That works fine for 720p. I personally prefer the JVC, but it's not enough of a diff, IMO, to call one "significantly" better than the other. That said, now take that same 720 x 540 image and upsample it to 1920 x 1080. Then it becomes bitstarved, and by no stretch of the wildest imagination is it "4:2:2" media. The Sony and Canon both are better by a long shot when it comes to color richness and quality of overall image.
As far as tape on a motorcycle, we've been mounting cams to Xbikes for years, no issues at all. Nicest thing of all, is that removing the mic mount from the Z1 allows it to fit a safety bag made for a PD 150. Shooting dirt events kills all cams regardless, after about 6 months of shooting if you're careful. I'd wager that an HVX might last for a month tops, because it's always gonna be out of the bag, in the dirt, and taking in dirt/dust/etc every few minutes. You can't run off the track every few minutes to dump.
There are indeed HDD recorders for the HVX, but that sorta kills the value of P2, doesn't it? The whole marketing concept of P2 is "No moving parts." Eventually, it's gonna end up on an HDD anyway tho, if you're going to be editing.
Again, I don't see these as problems, I see them as part of the format/design/element of the camera. Just like you're not going to see great low light capability in an A1U, just like you're not likely going to be happy with the CF24 in a Z1, and just like you're not going to be happy with the servo in the XLH1, or the potential for split screen in the HD100. In other words, every cam has its faults. You just have to decide what you're going to do with it.
Kinda like the story of the 10.00 hooker....We know what it is, now we just gotta establish the price we're going to pay.

This is not correct, the sensors are 960 x 540, and are scanned at 1920x1080, and all internal processing is done at 1920 x 1080. Panasonic claims a de-bayered, de-mosaic'd resolution of 1440 x 810 pixels, and resolution charts show that it's every bit a match for the JVC and Sony.
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/3-Cams-Charts.JPG

Not correct. It's always 1920 x 1080 internally, and at no point is it "bit starved" (which is a term used to describe what happens when HDV runs out of bits in its GOP). The image doesn't have enough discrete definition to fully round out a 1920 x 1080 display, but then again neither do the Canon or Sony in their 1080 modes either.
Again, quite disagreed. One doesn't need to stretch their imagination, they only need to look at the footage and the HVX is notably higher in color resolution than the 4:2:0 competition.

Here's an example, a blown-up extraction of a JVC HD100 shot vs. an HVX200 shot. You'll notice much more clarity vertically in color definition, which is exactly what one would expect when comparing 4:2:2 to 4:2:0, as both sampling systems provide the same horizontal chroma res, but 4:2:2 is twice the vertical color resolution. Again, exactly what the comparison footage shows:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/petermhsu/barrypic.jpg

Again, I respectfully disagree, and I submit that what has been stated here is one man's subjective opinion, and there are many, many who would disagree with that, most especially on the subject of color richness.

Visit the various camera forums here on DVInfo, all of them feature clips that can be downloaded, clips that have been posted by shooters who are generous enough to share them. For the HVX, I'd recommend looking up the clips by Steev Dinkins, Cassidy Bisher, and the Wolves footage from Kevin Railsback. For the HD100, look for clips posted by Stephen Noe. For the XLH1, Barlow Elton and Steve Dempsey have posted excellent footage. For the Sony, vasst.com has several clips available.

On that element we are in complete agreement. Every product in this price range has unique capabilities that make them more suitable for some jobs than for others. People would probably serve themselves best by choosing between these tools based on the differences in functionality/ergonomics/lens/battery life/tape/P2 etc., rather than worrying about pixels here or there.

Of course, it's subjective...based on our particular RW uses of the cams and not shots of flowers, charts, or cars moving down a street. YMMV.

That is the confusing bit, it has upto 100Mb/s, and you seam to be implying that the interpolation effects the amount of bits it has, which i now understand that you are implying something else.

I would have thought that the high bit rates for HVX would out do the bit starved 19Mb/s GOP structure.

But a hard drive is a lot cheaper than flash, who cares about marketing fantasies.

back to the topic.. not that resolution isn't important but its kinda not.

The HVX does have some incredible features for adventure sports.

First of all P2.. its a tapeless non moving recording format. I used to race mountain bikes and I have strapped a dvx to road bikes and mountain bikes.. and when things got rough the tape heads would slide and garble the footage up... you dont get that with a solid state cards. Heck even when I was in NY doing a 3 way shootout with the cameras the Sony got bumped for less than a second and it resulted in a gop half a second drop.

About the time thing.. two 8gb cards gives you 40 minutes in 720pn mode.. sure thats a bit far from 60 minutes on tape, but later this summer when the 16gb cards come out (probally at the same price the 8gb are now) it gives you 80 minutes of non stop record.. so it will beat Tape. period. And dont start on the whole cost thing because Ive already saved enough money not buying tape stock to pay for my P2 cards.

Another thing is the slow motion and fast motion cranking of the camera that is very unique.. for sports its invaluable.

Another thing is the prerecord feature of the HVX.. you can sit and point at something and press the button 5 seconds after it happens and the camera automatically records it.. so if your standing at a jump waiting for the guys to come out of the trees you dont need to sit there and burn through tape waiting.. you just press the record button when you see them, it takes the pre-record and lays down all your shot. Of course this saves disk space and "capture" time as well all the way down the line.

The last thing is durability.. I would like to bet, but am not about to test it myself, is that the HVX would survive alot more beating than the JVC. I could be wrong though there.. thats just a wild guess.

Barry, is that .jpeg that you link to a result from your "lemon" HD100 that you claimed had extreem split Screen and a horrible lens with tons of CA? I find your HVX/HD100 comparison on DVXuser.com to be extreemly slanted, and in no way close to what other comparisons are showing.

This is from a newer HD100 that I've managed to borrow for shooting things. The "lemon" was back from September and was long ago returned to the store.

The comparisons I've done on DVXUser are to explore the limits. We all know that under normal/ideal conditions they all perform quite similarly. We proved that at the first shootout, and Chris & co. did so again at the Texas shootout. There's no need to show how similar they are under normal circumstances again. So I showed what can happen when things aren't so normal. When things get out of control. And the results are exactly what I posted, including posting the original .m2t file of the footage.

Every stitch of any comparison I've done has been documented thoroughly for methodology -- anyone is free to either duplicate the results, or point out errors in methodology. That extraction was from a comparison where I took the two cams onto the Las Vegas strip and pointed them at traffic and at the Wynn hotel. Settings used were Tim Dashwood's Cine-Like-D emulation setting for the HD100, matching them for comparable edge enhancement, setting the HVX on cinelike-D gamma, so the attempt was to make them look as similar as possible. Iris was wide open on both, and they were both focused on infinity, and they were both set for an equivalent field of view, letting the chips fall where they may. There was nothing unusual about that shot at all, it was basically a locked-down shot exploring the comparative sharpness of the two products. Later on I pushed them to their limits, but that particular shot was a very simple how-do-they-look-side-by-side-in-wide-angle shot. The original full frames are here:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HD100-n-...00-Strip-1.JPG
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HD100-n-...VX-Strip-1.JPG

and

http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HD100-n-...00-Strip-2.JPG
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HD100-n-...VX-Strip-2.JPG

Obviously, I'd have to agree. I don't think anyone with half a thought is strapping a removeable, longer focal structure lens to the forks of a dirtbike. Which is why the A1 is perfect for this, but back to topic; the question isn't about putting a cam on a bike.

actually.. it was. Shooting "xtreme" action sports usually leads to putting the camera on the "talent".. at least the better shooters put the camera where the money is.

Hmmm - all true, except that now means 24fps shooting, and for the subject being talked about it's the 720p/60 mode of the HVX that would seem to make it preferable (IMO) to the 24/30 only HD100. But then using the HVX 60p means back to square one with runtimes on the P2 cards of course - 16mins for 2x4GB cards, and 32mins with 8GB. Which is why waiting for the JVC HD200 may give the best of both worlds?

A lot of filming action sport is surely done showing the action, rather than being part of it, though the POV shots can be an important part. For these, I wouldn't consider either the HD100 or HVX to be too suitable for bolting onto bikes or whatever - too expensive to risk, and maybe a bit big and heavy?

I'm not spending $2000 on P2 to get the same recording capacity I get out of a $10 MiniDV tape. I'm confused as to the thought process that actually goes into this. What's the upside? Recording high bitrate DVCPro that throws away a quarter of your resolution? Though I suppose DVCPro res is still higher than the res of the chips in the first place. Note to Panasonic: If I wanted to shoot SD, I'd have bought an XL2.

In terms of shooting any kind of sports, you will be doing a lot of handheld shooting, and the JVC's on-the-shoulder ENG form factor is unquestionably better for handheld shooting. I don't want to imagine trying to hold a tiny camcorder at arm's length for an entire sporting event. The full manual lens also offers greater control and flexibility for shooting unpredictable events in the field, and you can shoot a lot tighter than the HVX if you're farther from the action. And here's the kicker, if you don't like the stock lens, you can replace it.

And the money isn't necessarily always on the guy's helmet. You can see the world going upside down, maybe, but you don't see tricks he's doing with his hands and feet. It's like the net cams in hockey, you see the puck coming into the goal, but you don't see the play that put it there, which is far more important. Having that view is nice, but only if you have the big picture covered elsewhere. If you only have one camera shooting the event, I'd rather have it on the ground.

I think everyone is right in some way on this, the HVX will certainly be EASIER IMHO. One thing about the cost of P2 is that you much factor in proper archiving and back-up. Any money you save on $3 60 minute DV tapes is quickly eaten up by the time it takes to back-up and the proper RAID5, DVD-R, etc. solution.

It is my personal feeling that while tape might indeed be on the way out, it will be replaced by other media, be it solid state or laser, that is NON-DESTRUCTIVE. Unless you are doing local news, it just makes no sense at all to have valuable data living on moving platters...


ash =o)

Actually at 60p the p2 cards use the same full 100mb/s rate as 1080i HD so 2x8 GB cards only gives you 16 minutes of record time compared to 60 minutes.


Also if you buy the firestore and a few p2 cards the price of the camera will go over $10,000.00 whereas the JVC HD200 with 60p is cheaper than that.

Eventually if you fill up the firestore or use only p2 cards you will also need to bring along a laptop with plenty of extra hard drives to dump the footage to.

HVX200 + 2 p2 cards + firestore + laptop + external hard drives could almost run you double the cost of a HD200.

its called native mode.. if you shoot 60p for the slow motion effect, the HVX can drop that down on a 24frame timeline on the fly (not like the varicam) and you get your extended run times of the P2 cards.

As for the price of the P2 cards.. like i said its only a 100 tapes and they are paid for. Some people shoot 6 tapes a day, so that becomes profit sooner for some than others.

Of course, if you only shoot 1 tape a day, it will take you 100 days to pay off that p2 card.

and you dont need a laptop to dump cards.. you can use a $100 external drive to offload the cards too directly from the camera.

Actually, the topic would be more how does it handle footage and use under these circumstances, and rather then avoiding the issue, what problems with resolutions, and how is 100Mb/s supposed to be worse then 19Mb/s for that sort of extreme movement (unless you lock it off and let them fly past, and not attempt to vary the footage with close tracking shoots of them whizzing past and going down the track). But I'm done.

Barry, the cameras look like they have two different exposures, and two different colour setups. The colour on the HVX looks over saturated, the yellow side light look wrong color compared to the JVC (which might be a bit understated) unless that is the colour they have in the states. The lights on the cars in the JVC appear to be more glary because of more exposure, which is why you can seem more road detail then the HVX (might also be affecting saturation levels). Is this best both cameras could render the shot? Otherwise, for now, the HVX looks better. Don't get me wrong, I prefer the idea of the HVX just because under extreme conditions (low light+lots of noise, lots of movement) that 100Mb/s DV, should hold up better then 19Mb/s Mpeg2, I know it should not let me down very much. Now, on the other hand, what Douglas said is also very relevant as to how much to expect from each camera.

Thanks and have a good day.


.

Except you don't have to buy a new tape every time you need to shoot some footage. You can reuse the same tape dozens, even hundreds of times, meaning I'd have to shoot tens of thousands of hours of footage before a P2 card will pay for itself, by which point I'll have bought a new camera anyway.

60 minute DV tapes are $3... last time I checked 8gb P2 cards were $600. You also must factor the extra back-up, archiving, etc. that must be done with destructive media. I have people all the time ask me for content from a tape that is months or even years old. Like I said, destructive media is NOT the future and certain nothing like film. Tape and film are their OWN back-ups...




ash =o)

you will need to invest in a lot of external hard drives to keep all of your footage or still bring that laptop to start burning small chunks of clips onto DVD's.

That 100 tapes worth would equal a major butt load of hard drives at around $100 each or an insane amount of DVD's (4.7 minutes of 60p per disk = 13 disks per hour tape) sitting on a shelf.

I'm sure in the case of rock climbing the dude isn't going to climb back down every time to burn a few disks or take the time to hook up a hard drive. That might be a neat trick to try while white water rafting as well.

To say 100 tapes equal a P2 card doesn't really matter since you have to build in the archive costs. Those hard drives, DVD's, HD-DVD's or Blu-ray's will add to the cost and keep adding to the cost.

This is for 60p or 1080i on P2.

External bus powered 2.5" hard drive costs:

2x 8 GB p2 cards = $1,200.00 = 16 minutes of video.
400x DV tapes = $1,200.00 = 24,000 minutes of video.

P2 route storage onto hard drives = 60 GB = 60 minutes at roughly $110.00(according to Newegg) per drive.

Backup costs for p2 = 60 x 400 = 110 x 400 = $44,000.00 for backup.

$44,000.00 compared to $1,200.00 in terms of backup costs.

oops I forgot to add the $1,200.00 for the P2 cards.

$45,200.00 for P2 compared to the same amount of video on DV tapes costing $1,200.00.

Wow I could shoot over 15,000.00 DV tapes to equal that cost!

Now if you wanted to you could transfer to desktop hard drives and get 3x the space for around the same cost cutting the $45,000.00 to around $15,000.00 but that is still much higher than $1,200.00

DVD DL backup costs:

$3.00 per DL disk. 8x3 = roughly 60 minutes with a little extra to spare = $24.00 per 60 minutes.

400x24 = $9,600 + $1,200 = $10,800.00 compared to $1,200.00.

For this option you will have to sit there and wait and burn 8.5 minutes of video at a time to backup.


Blu-Ray costs:

$20.00 per disk holding 25 GB or 25 minutes. Every 60 minutes will need 2.4 disks.
2.4x20 = $48.00 per 60 minutes = 48x400 = $19,200.00 + $1,200.00 = $20,400.00 compared to $1,200.00 for tapes.


While the costs of some of these backup methods will go down so will the price of tapes. By the time the price of hard drives or Blu-ray disks fall down to a point for P2 backup to equal the current cost of tapes the HVX200 will be replaced by the ultra HD cameras.

For 30p shooting cut the totals for P2 in half.

We don't. For us, tapes (MiniDVCam) are single pass only. The only tapes that ever get into our cameras are the ones that just came out of their cellophane wrappers. It's not worth the minor savings to risk a shoot on a tape that may exhibit a problem from repeated passes.

When I eventually start shooting in HD it'll most likely be on a tapeless system. The only tape system I'd trust right now is Varicam or HDCam, and those are well beyond my budget.

And, unfortunately, hard drive capacity and DVCPro HD tapes are about the same in terms of cost per minute, about 50 cents per minute. Except with hard drives you don't have to buy a deck for $25,000.

Regardless of the image quality (where I think it's been proven that these 1/3" cameras are pretty comparable), I think for the HVX to be viable in any sort of "real-life" video (i.e. sporting events, documentary, concerts, etc.) you will absolutely need to have a firestore or other long-format hard drive recording device. P2 just doesn't cut it (yet).

On a film set you can easily stop the action to dump off a full p2 card. Something you can't do when recording a race, or action sports.

People say that the p2 workflow saves you time by not needing to digitize into your NLE. But it saves you time in the wrong place. I'd much rather spend an hour digitizing footage once I'm back in the edit suite, than spend 15 minutes swapping and dumping cards while I'm on location missing the action.

So if the HVX is appealing for you, skip the p2 card and go for the Firestore.

Tell me where your getting 8GB P2 cards for $600, do you know too Thomas?

sorry I got them mixed up with the 4 GB cards. The 8 GB cards from one place I just checked are $1,400.00 each bringing the total to $2,800.00. This however does not change the cost of backing up all of your footage. Even if you use a firestore device you still have the huge cost of raw footage backup.

Whoops! You're quite right, I just adjusted Jarreds figures to compensate for 60p being 100Mbs and was assuming it was for 4 and 8 GB cards - I now realise his figures are for 8GB and 16GB. Which means that the total continous record time at 60p without reloading is indeed currently only 16 minutes.

For action sports, I'd expect to shoot everything at 60p (or interlace) to avoid the jerky motion. So then no slo-mo from the HVX, and it will use the card capacity up at the maximim rate. But at least it will actually do 60p, unlike the HD100, and that's why I think the HD200 is something to really look forward to.

As for all the pricing figures, then yes indeed, the tapes ARE the backups, and comparisons of tape v P2 costs are meaningless without factoring in the P2 backup costs, both in time as well as cost of backup media. That's what is potentially so good about the HD100 plus Firestore currently - the Firestore gives all the ease of ingest into an NLE that P2 does, whilst creating a tape archive/backup at the same time.

Unless one is distributing on 720p60 HDTV, shooting 60p is quite pointless except for slo-mo shots. If one is shooting for SD broadcast shoot using the HD100's 480p60 mode for high action shots and interlace.

Yep, that's right. And actually it's the tape vs hard drive cost that I found interesting. The per-minute cost of the media for Varicam tapes (to store DVCPro 100 material) comes to about 50 cents per minute. The cost for SATA hard drive storage is about the same. Perhaps a few cents less. Duplication is in real time for tape, in less than real time for a hard drive.

Then, as you mentioned, you have to figure in the cost of backups: Should one back up all the original source material as well as the finished edited product? Maybe just save the edited project as it can be set up to "point" at the original source material, rather than save seperate project and media for each project? Or backup just the finished project, along with extra-long handles on each clip, and delete the source media?

If nothing else, the source media really needs to be backed up immediately after shooting and kept that way until it's edited. I'd like to do that with a mirrored RAID but imagine bringing that on a road trip. They're not huge but I don't think I'd be comfortable running a mirrored RAID w/o some sort of UPS, even a small one. And even a small UPS is heavy enough to anchor a small boat.

Then for archiving: perhaps go through the original media later and cull all the obviously unusable shots (how tedious would THAT be!?). Lots of questions to ponder.

Of course the cost of media always gets passed along to the client. Unless it's your own production. In which case you're stuck with it...

I havent bought any P2 cards myself but I do use an HVX some... I was TOLD the cards were purchased for $600 each from B&H.... could be wrong though...



ash =o)

Just to inject a little reality based humor here...

All of you are making an excellent case for the XDCAM HD and it's affordable, nondestructive (if you want it to be that way) disk system.

Sounds like he could use a F330 and rent a lens to get by. I heard it's 60i is great and it does 30p really well. And you can connect to it like an external HD and copy things over.......

Since we're all speculating about cost here, you're getting pretty close in price.

double post sorry

so, jeremy, is this discussion helping you with your decision-making process? i'm curious to see where this lands for you. i shoot a lot of outdoors, wildlife, and some adventure sports, climbing, paragliding, kayaking and the like, and i can't seem to pull the trigger on any one of these new-breed cameras yet. HVX tempts me for the over/undercrank for adventure sports. H1 has no peer for wildlife shooting and i own a lot of long lenses. and JVC, which i would never have considered in the past, seems to have knocked the ball out of the park this time around...the best overall footage of all the dvinfo-posted footage seems to come from this camera, in my highly subjective opinion. the one thing i have not done is taken the time to play with all three, and i think personal operator comfort will be the ultimate determining factor.

i'm curious bout where all this information is leading you, so far. interesting thread...