Would you rather...
 

For those who own and have been using the HD1000....I'm hoping that hindsight is 20/20 and you can help me make a final purchasing decision...

Would you rather have an HD100 new out of the box
or
a new Sony Z1 with the UWPc1 Lav Mic Kit, Wide Conversion lens, Shoulder Brace, soft carrying case, two batteries and sennheiser shotgun mic.

I will be using the camera for documentary and eng purposes primarily/ I may want to use teh camera for some short film work that will NOT be transferred to film.

Anyhow, I like the ergonomics of the JVC, and the manual control. I don't like the breathing lens, but then the lens on the Z1 can't get in all that tight I also don't know if the JVC will be as versatile or reliable as the Sony. Generally the consensus on the HD100 forum appears mixed. The Z1 forums report generally good feedback, but the camera has also had it's hiccups as well. Any feedback or advice users may have would be greatly appreciated.

Huiy,

What are you leaning toward? and why?

I own the HD100, and had access to a Z1 for free any time I wanted for months on end.

The HD100, for my needs, is the superior camera. Even with it's problems, which have been admittedly not a big deal for me.

Try out both cameras for yourself. The right one for you is the one which feels best in your hands and whose video output most pleases you. Nothing else matters but that, not even internet message boards.

Yes the JVC controls are wonderful while the Sony are those of a typical DV consumer camcorder -- in their placement.

But -- and here I hope I don't start another war -- focusing outside under bright light is not EZ on the JVC. The FA only shows on hard edges not soft contours. It shows red over a broader range than focus is really sharp.

In my experience with the Z1/FX1 if you point the camera so the subject is centered and press One Touch focus -- the AF is 100% accurate. After you have focus, you can reframe.

Now on film set this won't matter, but for ENG it will. It's now clear to me that JVC needs one of the new AF HD lenes. Plus, for ENG the greater lite sensitivity and 1080i may be a better bet. (And, folks think I'm biased toward JVC! In the last two weeks I've recommemded Sony camcorders because for ENG type work they are very good.)

I like the Sony HDV cameras, but if you prefer the feel and controls of the JVC that's an important consideration. They're definitely very different cameras, so if you try both for even a few minutes that should tell you a lot about which will suits your style best. Based on your comment about ergonomics, I'd guess you'll enjoy the JVC.

I dont suppose one can go past Chris's advice on this point.

I have used both. For ENG work I would be leaning toward the Sony. The first time I ever had to use it was in an emergency situation where I was told "Quick get all this right now" (for a building fire sadly) and some one just handed me the camera. I picked up the camera for the first time and shot a couple of hours of tape. God, it was just so easy and kind of felt good for that situation. LCD crystal clear. You could hold the camera comfortably for quite a while.

Rob

Oh my lord. No, it needs operators who practice focus skills. Having a manual lens is part of the market that the JVC has staked out, and for that I'm thankful.

All the rest of the under-10k HD cameras out there have AF. We can leave one without.

You miss the point. The VF and LCD are not good enough on any of these camcorders to trust for critical focus. All the skill in the world won't help if you can't see fine detail -- which you can't. Especially in bright light! And in many situations there isn't time.

The plain fact is a computer connected to a hi-rez sensor and fast servo can focus faster and better than any human. It is "old macho" thinking that says "I can do better." We have several decades of digital SLR experience and the AF lens -- like an automatic in an F1 -- is the way a PRO goes because he/she is interested in results not proving some point about their skill.

Why do you think CineAlta and Varicams have camera mounted monitors that cost $10K if a 3.5 flip-out viewfinder can be trusted? Or, a 1/2-inch LCD VF?

Why do they have elaborate focus systems if turning a ring at the end of a lens is good enough. I guess you would say these pro cinematographers just don't have enough skill to use the lens itself. I guess they use a tape measure for focus beeause they're too wimpy to trust their eyes.

Let's get real. What counts is results not the way you get them.

Moreover, the new AF lenses don't require you to use AF.

You don't have to use AE either -- although it will get a 100% accurate exposure faster than you can. And, you don't have to use the servo zoom -- although it will zoom more smoothly than you can.

The pro is a person who can use ALL the tools available.

I have been using it for months now and never had an out of focus shot. I don't even use F.A., just normal peaking. But then again, I have to sight and never need glasses. But the viewfinder is sure good enough for focusing.
I agree with Nate. I'm thankful this lens is a real manual lens and not a consumer auto focus type.

To make things easier and faster, because on the set of a big Hollywood production, time is much more crucial. But have you see a DP requesting a prosumer AF lens for his Varicam, Cinealta or Panavision?

Yeah, but an AF lens is just that, an AF lens. It’s a pseudo manual lenses, since manual focusing with the is hell. Have you never used one of those before ? Since you warn us to “get real”, I think you never used a prosumer AF lens before.
No thanks, I take a MF over an AF anytime.

These is not a correct comparison. The auto exposure and servo zoom don’t get in the way of their manual counterparts in a Broadcast style lens. But they do in a prosumer style fixed lens. The AF lens would be of the prosumer fixed style and if you need to manually focus with those lenses, it’s not the same as a real MF lens, as you are not directly spinning the focus ring, but activating a dumb motor to do so for you. That’s very different from real manual focus.

And the person who favors professional tools over consumer ones, and an AF prosumer lens is not the professional standard and will never be.

With all due respect, can we leave the focusing aspect of the cameras to: Sony had auto focus JVC does not?



Huiy,

What are you leaning toward?

Steve,

Focus assist works fine for me. I understand what it is (glorified peaking). I know how to work it to my advantage. I know when it is not working or helping (full wide, stopped down).

You can't see focus in these things either. Even the hi-res viewfinder on any given Sony HDCAM offering doesn't show you all available res, and you have to rely on knowing how to use peaking to get the focus you need, if you're shooting without an A.C.

What on earth are you talking about? Elaborate focus system? You talking about a Panatape? wha? A 1st. A.C. uses a tape measure because he is responsible for focus, but generally never gets to look through the eyepiece when setting focus marks. LCD monitors on a Varicam, Cinealta, or even 35 are so the A.C. can know what the shot is, and focus accordingly. Not so they can set focus itself by looking at the monitor.

An A.C. setting focus by looking at an onboard LCD is eventually going to get burned, especially if the show is shooting for the big screen.

I think you need to understand that all the do-dads you're used to seeing attached to a camera are for the benefit of the A.C., but are also used in specific ways in accordance to how the 1st AC traditionally does their job. If you're shooting HD solo, then it's a whole 'nother ball game.

Oh come on. That's a gross perversion of my assertion that a manual lens is preferable on the JVC. It's especially retarded in light of the fact that I was a working AC for almost 10 years.

Steve, all this boils down to your assertion that the JVC needs an AF lens. Mine, and Michael's counter is that it doesn't need it, and only makes getting good shots more difficult. JVC was never going after the prosumer market with this camera, they proclaim it loudly whenever they get the chance.

The manual lens is the MAIN selling point of this camera. Period. Far better than any servo if one knows how to use it. I totally agree with Nate and Michael.

Who said anything about a servo lens?

Who said anything about "... a consumer auto focus type?"

These are your assumptions -- and were never mine.

You'll note that two of the lens controls already give you a CHOICE of servo or full manual. It is my understanding that several Canon AF lenses offer you a similar choice. That's what I'm talking about.

It seems you may be against servo control -- which I agree is horrible. But, there is no inherent reason you have to have servo ring.

Here is a decription of the Canon AF Lens system:

"The full-time manual (FTM) focusing lenses have an internal focus ring. On one side lies the ring USM motor, on the other the manual focus ring. Via a system of rings and wheels, which allow either the ring USM or the manual ring to turn the real focus ring without turning the other component, real full-time manual focusing is provided. It is manual because it is the force of your hand that physically moves the focusing group, rather than signaling to the focus module information which then turns the internal focus ring for you."

I meant a servo controlling the focusing ring. The terminology gets sometimes confusing. Servo option for zooming has been a part of pro-grade lenses from both Canon and Fujinon since ever.

As for the AF, well, on still cameras it works because you get your focus point in focus and reframe to take the picture. That doesn't work in video/film. Also, AF is of course useless for rack-focusing.