Well I'm a little alarmed at that because I've had my 200 for just one week and although the noise from the fan is barely noticeable, I am a little worried that the fan is actually always on regardless of temperature. Lee, is JVC saying that the fan is not supposed to be on all the time?

Also something I had not heard about until now, is this whole thing about the image quality from the 200 not being as good as the 100?? What gives?? I thought a 14bit processor with the better signal to noise ratio would have yielded a better image - at least that's what I thought when I decided to pay the extra $2,000 for the 200 model!!!

I don't own a 100 to do a side by side comparison and now quite concerned about this. I can't compare it to my Canon XH-A1 because the Canon is obviously superior to the Pro-HD image resolution.

Don't get me wrong I'm not having buyer's remorse, I love the HD-200's ergonomics however, is the difference in picture quality between the 100 & 200 just a one off case with Lee's camera or a documented fact??


JT

James -- I'm curious about this as well. I can assure you that my HD200's fan is ALWAYS on, from the second you flip on the power switch until the moment you turn it off. It never seems to vary in speed or sound -- it's clearly noticeable (and surprised me at first), but it's not objectionable. I've pretty much only used the camera indoors, at an ambient temp of around 75 degrees, so I can't say whether it would rev up at a higher temp or even shut off at a much lower temp. But I'd like someone in the know to confirm that this is normal operation for the fan.

The sound of the fan does not bother me at all because weddings are usually fairly raucous affairs, but even in the quietness of my studio I barely notice the fan running. As soon as I got the camera I took one look look at that Fisher Price mic that came with it and replaced it with my Rode NT1 which could explain why I'm not hearing any Iris or fan noises in my footage.

I'm more concerned about what Lee and others were saying about the quality of the image between the two Pro-HD models. I just looked on the JVC site and it clearly states that the new 14bit processor is supposed to have better handling of noise in low light and better highlight handling.

Well in terms of low light handling my Canon XH-A1 is a whole stop more sensitive & less noisy, however I can deal with that by slowing the shutter down to 1/25. The real disappointment for me is the highlight handling because it shows that terrible purple fringing on blown highs akin to what I'm used to seeing on my DVX100. If it weren't for the HD-200 ergonomics which I love, I would have bought another XH-A1.

On the plus side, after shooting my first wedding with the 200 last weekend I can say that I'm really pleased with how 50P looks when it is slowed down!

JT

James, like many thing regarding our trade, this is my personal interpretation so takes it for it is. When I talk about image quality I don't refer to grain or noise issues. For what I can see both the HD100 and the HD200 have the same quality there. I did a lot of calibration with these cameras and the image quality that I refer to is related to calibrating the cameras for a 1:1, neutral, recording of a scene. Cameras come out of the factory with given configurations that are not necessarily designed for a neutral recording of reality. All scene files in the JVC ProHD cameras have a bias of some sort. Regardless, there is a starting point in the color matrix from where you do the adjustments that ill cause each color chip on a DSC chart to fall in the right place. With the HD200 the matrix is skewed in the blue/cyan area in a way that the HD100 doesn't show. The skewing is asymmetrical, it doesn't show in the red/yellow/magenta area. This makes it hard to calibrate the HD200 accurately because moving one element in the RGB matrix influences the others so you can just go so far with the skewed portion before you introduce excessive alterations in the red/yellow portion that.
I thought that this problem was caused by the specific model of 250 that I tested but I got reports from DSC and others that this phenomenon is shared by all HD250.
This might not be a huge issue but I personally like the HD100 better. The 250 of course has features that are not available on the older model and that is really the reason for the price difference.

Got some more info on you hd200/xh-a1 comparison? Image wise.

Brian, I've just posted a new thread with images.

Njoy!

JT

Perfect Experience
 

Sorry about duplicating information

I started this mess, so I thought I would chime in with an update:

- JVC was wonderfully cooperative and sent me a 250 to use until my 200 can be replaced. I simply could not have asked for better customer service.

- One post asked if there was a definitive answer about the fan being on all the time. I spoke with a JVC rep and was informed that the fan is supposed to be 'always on', but there should be no intermittent change in the sound of the fan like I was experiencing with my 200.

- I must say this (and I'm glad Paulo posted)- (IN SD MODE!) -->> the HD100 simply gets a better image. The 250 I received was noticeably better than the original 200 that is being replaced, but still was not as crisp as the 100. (Before we go on a journey of what 'crisp' means, I will just say that all of the experimentation I have done has not yielded the same quality image. In the hands of Dashwood or another expert -- who knows? I can only say that I've done everything I know to do an cannot get an equal image). I know that this has been addressed by several respondents, and I can't speak for the camera's performance in HDV at this time, but it is odd that the 100 is so clearly superior IN SD MODE considering the upgraded processor. I asked JVC this question: "Is it reasonable to expect that, with the 200, the image quality should be at least equal to the image quality of the 100 in either SD or HD?" The answer was that the 200's image quality in either SD or HD should be at least equal to the 100's image quality. I haven't found this to be the case. I'm hoping the new 200 I receive (apparently there are some tweaks being made) will bear this out. I do not hold myself out to be an expert (though I'm no neophyte), so maybe it's just me.

- I addressed this in an earlier reply, but for any that missed it, I made an error when swapping the lenses originally. They are interchangeable, as Tim (and others) pointed out.

With that said, I am getting acceptable SD footage with the 250 loaner.

This post is mostly to say that JVC's response to my original issue was first-rate. I simply cannot imagine getting better customer service than I received -- my dealer and his JVC rep went the extra mile to ensure my problem was addressed and that I had the equipment I needed for my shoot, which ends this Saturday.

Thanks to all,

Lee Roberts

I hadn't heard this before. I've never shot SD with my 100 because the downrezzed 720p is supposed to look better than footage originating in SD.

Thanks for verifying that info for me -- sounds like my fan works as expected, and you definitely had a lemon.