Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Kevin Dooley]

My only connection with wedding videography is some shooting I do freelance... I never have dealt with a client and delivering a final copy, etc., but I would think that Avel play is a great idea for the copy for the bride and groom. For all the other copies they order, deliver in SD DVD--unless someone wants to order an Avel player and an HD copy. Just make them additional items on the order form. If someone wants it, fine. If no one does, they don't order it...

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Tommy James

If you are a wedding videographer and are getting 1500 bucks to shoot a wedding in high definition you can very well afford to bundle a free D-VHS deck with the package.

Absolutely false. Do not pretend to understand the wedding video market unless you've done it yourself (and yes, I have). What you propose is fine for the corporate / industrial sector, but not the wedding market, at least not at the low-end range of $1500, at least certainly not "for free." I can see offering it at cost, but then you're turning a $1500 invoice into an $1800 one. Not all wedding customers would be agreeable to that, especially not if they're down at the $1500 range to begin with.

[Tommy James]

Well I suppose $3500 could very well indeed be the going rate in the Las Vegas area. And it is true that wedding videographers can get away with shooting in standard definition and that providing a free D-VHS deck would indeed cut into potential profits. However one must remember that the church is not a marketplace and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits. I am not saying that a wedding videographer should not be very well paid for his work however I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.

[Barry Green]

Again, I must completely disagree. First, the videographers charging $3500 weren't from Vegas, they were from California, but that's beside the point.

Giving away a $250 piece of equipment doesn't amount to "10 percent of his profits". It amounts to more like 50%! There are a lot of costs involved. $1500 for a wedding is way too cheap, first of all, because it's just too much work. But second there are a lot of fixed costs that go into that. It's not like if you charge $1500 for the wedding, that that's $1500 of profit... not by any stretch. Profit is what you get to keep after all the bills are paid (and your labor is one of the bills). Profit is what you get to build your business up with, etc. Some wedding videographers work all week, between prepping for the job, dealing with contracts, the actual shoot, then editing, then changes/revisions, etc... $1500 would leave pretty much no profit margin, and certainly not enough that you'd have to a) pay off your new high-def equipment, and b) hand out $250 worth of hardware. Not a reasonable business model at all.

Chris said it right -- offer it as an option if you want, and mark it up as such. But if someone's trying to skate by on a cheapo $1500 wedding price, there is practically no profit margin. Once you subtract out business costs and labor costs and equipment costs and taxes -- man, that would be a rough living. Unless there's no editing, I guess. If all you had to do was show up, shoot, and hand over the tapes -- then $1500 would be fine. A nice living, actually. But no way would I want to do a typical wedding job for $1500 -- way too much expense, stress, and cost!

Originally Posted by Tommy James

Well I suppose $3500 could very well indeed be the going rate in the Las Vegas area. And it is true that wedding videographers can get away with shooting in standard definition and that providing a free D-VHS deck would indeed cut into potential profits. However one must remember that the church is not a marketplace and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits. I am not saying that a wedding videographer should not be very well paid for his work however I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Tommy James

However one must remember that the church is not a marketplace

Actually when it comes to video, it's an enormous marketplace... One trip to NRB (see the www.nrb.org site for National Religious Broadcasters, which is the largest of any number of conventions and associations centered around the church /video market) will bear this fact out immediately.

Originally Posted by Tommy James

and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits.

Artistic reasons have nothing to do with it. The decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done in order to meet customer demand for it, where it exists. There is nothing at all "artistic" about HD. Choice of format does not determine what is or isn't art, and shooting in high definition does not automatically create art. Poorly shot video in HD is just as bad as poorly shot video in standard definition, except wider and sharper, and just as unwatchable.

Originally Posted by Tommy James

I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.

Sorry, but a $300 D-VHS player amounts to much, much more than ten percent of the profit from a $1500 wedding. In fact there's not much profit at all on a $1500 wedding.

Tommy, it's clear that you have a lot to learn about the wedding video business, so please visit the DV Info Net forum that we already have that's dedicated to Wedding & Event videography. There you'll find a lot of folks who are actively pursuing wedding and event vfideo either as a primary business or as a sideline hobby, and I think your understanding of that market will benefit greatly from browsing the discussions from that forum.

Meanwhile, we've drifted far enough off topic here, so let's please get back to those matters which specifically concern the HD100 and the Mini35. Thanks in advance,

[Joe Carney]

First, to get back on track...I'm grateful for Chas, Barry and Nate for conducting this test. Unfortunately it's led me to some other questions.

One of the reasons I was interested in the camera was it's relative affordability in terms of camera, equipment and computer costs. Now it seems the included lense is almost unusable and there requires considerble expense to make the hd100 able to produce quality video.. (ps teknik plus rented 35mm lenses, or the 13x 12K dollar lense) which in fact makes it more expensive than the upcoming Pana and far more expensive then the Z1. At least as far as using it straight out of the box. Had the above mentioned been options instead of requirements I wouldn't be bothered at all.

Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

I'm very aware that my comments can be construed as cheerleading, but rest assured I'm trying to be fair and balanced when I say that:

I'm not nearly as bummed out by the 16x as Barry. I absolutely knew that for Fuji to make a lens that passed X amount of lines, and be included at the price it's selling at, there were going to be compromises.

Optics are one of the few things that haven't been following the same light-speed advances in electronics as for quality/price. Great glass costs a lot, and I suspect it will for a long time to come.

Before I spent time with the camera on the test, I was really dissapointed by the clips on the web, in addition to reservations I already had about the build quality. I seriously was considering cancelling my order.

Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

First, to get back on track...I'm grateful for Chas, Barry and Nate for conducting this test. Unfortunately it's led me to some other questions.

One of the reasons I was interested in the camera was it's relative affordability in terms of camera, equipment and computer costs. Now it seems the included lense is almost unusable and there requires considerble expense to make the hd100 able to produce quality video.. (ps teknik plus rented 35mm lenses, or the 13x 12K dollar lense) which in fact makes it more expensive than the upcoming Pana and far more expensive then the Z1. At least as far as using it straight out of the box. Had the above mentioned been options instead of requirements I wouldn't be bothered at all.

Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

Joe, just think about it. Before the HD100, if you wanted to shoot 720 24p, your only option was the Varicam. Now how much does it cost? How much for a lens alone? One thing people seem to forget when judging the HD100 and the HVX200 is that their are made to meet a price point. Some times, I have the impression people just expect JVC and Panasonic to give them Varicam's and Cinealta's for XL2 prices. That's not happening. We are not that far yet. There will be the day we will have it. But not yet. I think the fact we can now shoot HD for "under" 10,000 is just so great. I remember in 1997, when the XL1 came out with the frame movie mode, how excited independent filmmakers were. Just some short 7 years ago. Compare the HD100 with the XL1. I know video is not going as fast as the computer industry, but then again, what is? The fact you can grab an affordable digital camera today, and produce a movie which will rival 16mm quality is just great. 10 years ago, that was not possible. Video was just not on pair and 16mm cost way more even today. Specially back then. Think about it. I think we are just getting to spoiled. :)

Another thing people seem to forget and I'm not specially talking about you, is that HD is not DV. Even HDV is not DV. HD production comes at a cost. It's not just the camera. I see some people complaining that it doesn't matter the camera is cheaper, but he can't afford the rest of the gear (like decks, monitors, NLE) anyways. But they say that in a way which sounds like they are blaming JVC and Panasonic for it. It's just not right. HD has got cheaper and simpler. But it’s not DV cheap and simple. If one wants to get into HD, he needs to be willing to pay the price for it. If one wants more quality, he needs to pay more. ;)

Coming back to the HD100, it seems there is nothing out there right now in it's price range, which offers better performance. Even with the stock lens. Which to be honest, is not what I'm worried about. As Nate said, I was also expecting that for that price, the lens would have compromises. If JVC can workout the other problems, like the split screen etc, I'll be a happy boy. The lens, as said many times here, is just a give away. Now which one would you prefer? The HD100 selling for the price it does now, with a less than optimal lens, or the HD100 selling for $800 less(which seems to be the price difference without lens) without the lens, and the only option you had was the over 10,000 lenses? The idea is to give you a cheaper option. You don’t have to go for it. You can also go for the better lens. But that is gonna cost you. But what is not happening is Fujinon giving away top notch HD lenses for the cost of beans(remember that the cheapest HD lens before the HD100 was around 15,000, so 800 bucks is dirty cheap and 10,000 is already cheaper). It’s just a compromise.

Yes, if you add the optional lens the HD100 will cost more than a HVX200 with 2 P2 cards. But, and that’s a big but, you will have a true HD lens, which most likely the HVX200 will never offer in that price range, for the same reasons JVC didn’t. The difference is that with the HVX200, you are stuck with it.

Now, I’m not saying the HD100 is a better camera, because it’s impossible to say either way now. The HVX200 is 4 months away. All we know now is that the HVX200 will record in a superior codec. That doesn’t make it better. Yes, it will record 1080p, but will the CCDs be native 1080? If it will upsample, you might as well upsample the HD100 too. It will have more frame rates which is great. Really is. Only the Varicam can do that. But the DVCPRO-HD codec and variable frame rates won’t make it superior if the images are not. It has great chances of being the best sub 10k camera. But right now, it’s just that, chances. We already know the lens won’t be a top notch HD lens. For that price, you can’t ask that from Panasonic. We already know it will have compromises. You can’t expect Panasonic too offer a Varicam for $6,000.

So, all I’m saying is, to ditch the HD100 because it doesn’t come with a top notch HD lens, and comparing the price of the HD100 plus a real HD lens with the HVX200, a handheld, fixed lens camera, is not really apples to apples. It’s like complaining a DSR370 with a good Fujinon lens is more expensive than a DSR250. Or to be more fair, complain a Panasonic D215 with a good fuji lens cost more than a DSR250 or XL1.

The final point is, all those cameras are made to meet a price point. The HD100 offers the option to use basically any lens you want, probably the option of using a different viewfinder, the flexibility of not being obligated to bring a computer to the set to record, the flexibility of not being obligated to buy and store dozens of HDDs and just buy cheap and practical DV tape instead, but records to a more compressed codec. Which quite frankly has surprised me with it’s great performance, to the point of not making much difference anymore. A solid proof that specs alone doesn’t make a camera.
The HVX200 offers a less compressed codec, superior colour space, variable frame rates. (not considering 1080p yet, since we don’t know if it will be native or upsampled). But it’s a handheld camera, meaning fixed lens and viewfinder. Meaning it is what it is. You can’t improve it. You don’t even have the option.

Which will perform better is yet to be seen. The HVX200 sure has the edge in the paper. In the paper is the key word here.

Bottom line is. Affordable HD, at this point in time, doesn’t exist without compromises. One needs to pick the compromises which better suits his needs. ;)

[Chris Basmas]

I'd like to see a test between the stock 1/3" lens and a quality 1/2" lens with the adaptor. This distinction between HD and SD lenses bothers me..

[Bill Pryor]

I'd assume that using a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" chip camera would result in the 1/2" lens operating as if it were a longer focal length lens. Not as much difference as between a 35mm lens and a 1/3" chip camera, but still a magnification factor.

I'm thinking about renting this camera for a day once it's available at our local dealer. My main interest is in seeing if its 720p is as good as Sony's 1080i. Professionally-shot footage I've seen from the Z1 looks great, much better than I expected for 1/3" chips.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

. I remember in 1997, when the XL1 came out with the frame movie mode, how excited independent filmmakers were. Just some short 7 years ago. Compare the HD100 with the XL1.

That is an interesting comparison. I was one of the indie filmmakers excited about the XL1 and frame movie mode. I bought the XL1 and all three lenses in 1999 but ended up selling in 2002. The XL glass choices were unsatisfactory, frame mode looked shockingly soft on film festival sized screens and the XL1s was a letdown as unless you were a sports/nature shooter, the XL series was not a good price-performance buy.

I sold my XL1 kit, I bought a DVX100 instead. Then came the XL2 but despite 24p and native 16:9, lens choices got no better. I bought a DVX100a instead.

My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lens - what's the point of the waste? Especially at HD resolutions, cheap glass is a killer for many shooters. Why not develop simple 8X or 10x lens for release with the camera and price the cam at $7-9K?

I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices and they solve the CCD issues (which should be much easier than the lens stuff), it looks like a nice mount for the mini35 but others like me will sit tight for awhile and see how the HVX turns out and if Sony decides to join the 24p camp.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

That is an interesting comparison.

It was really an exemple of how far we have come in a short 7 years. From the bad frame movie mode to true 720 24p.
Not really a comparison with the XL1.

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lens - what's the point of the waste?

Stephen, I'm sure there are many who care and think different from you. I'm sure many are glad they can have a HD camera for under 6k.

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

Especially at HD resolutions, cheap glass is a killer for many shooters. Why not develop simple 8X or 10x lens for release with the camera and price the cam at $7-9K?

As said many times, the cheaper HD lens before the HD100 was 15K! JVC is selling a HD lens for 10K and giving a lower end HD lens with the camera all for under 6k(street will probably be lower). When the cheaper HD lens cost 15K, expecting Fujinon to make a HD lens for 3K is not really realistic. SD lenses cost more than that. I think it might be a case of being spoiled by the times, like I mentioned before. No matter what the companies do, people always want more. As I said in my prior post, I'm sure many prefer the camera coming with a giveaway lens for under 6k, than to buy the camera for 5k without lens and have to buy the 10k optional lens. Because a 7-9k HD camera with a good HD lens is not realistic in today's reality, when the cheapest HD lens we have cost 15k alone.

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices and they solve the CCD issues (which should be much easier than the lens stuff), it looks like a nice mount for the mini35 but others like me will sit tight for awhile and see how the HVX turns out and if Sony decides to join the 24p camp.

The CCDs will sure be solved as will also the achromatic aberration on future lenses.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Stephen, I'm sure there are many who care and think different from you. I'm sure many are glad they can have a HD camera for under 6k.

I'm sure that's true, but my point is that I don't think I'm alone and they have limited their market by not working harder to make a more reasonable glass option available.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices...

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I'm sure that's true, but my point is that I don't think I'm alone and they have limited their market by not working harder to make a more reasonable glass option available.

You don't need an adapter for more lens options. The JVC is exchangable mount. That already gives you options. You can't buy a cheaper HD lens than the 13x JVC is offering for the HD100 anyways. They are not limiting their market. They give you options. You can buy the body only if you want. You can buy the optional 13x. You don't have to go with the 16x if you don't want. Limiting is a fixed lens camera, where you are stuck with the lens forever. But anyways, adapters will sure follow.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

You don't need an adapter for more lens options.

I aware of that - my error. To clarify, I meant adaptor for 16mm cine lenses and other lenses that can be found in the $2000 - $ 4000 range. I tend to think quality 16mm glass will do just fine for HDV.