I've had a HD100U for about a year and a half, and coming from the Xl1 it had a very steep learning curve. But, once i started messing with the settings and using proper light, the camera really came to live. it definitely puts to shame to early sony cameras IMO.

I do echo some of the other issues posted about (poor low light performance, weak battery, not a "point and shoot" camera).

Well worth it though.

I love my camera as well. You just have to know its limits.

The battery problem can be fixed with using either the IDX, my solution, or the AB batteries. They help settle the camera better on the shoulder anyway.

Daniel Weber

Sometimes i regretted getting the JVC I admit, but then I had to edit some footage shot with my 2nd choice of camera, the Canon HDV line or maybe a Sony HDV 3 chip, and I shrug my shoulders at the footage, and I HATE handy cam size and shape with a passion. Always have. Not saying that lugging around a Panaflex or any 35mm is a picnic, but I still prefer a ENG format. In the 80's I loved moving to the small handy cams size and moved away from tube sensors to CCD's but there were trade offs. I mean they are all good cameras from the main brands, and I wish I could have a HPX500 or lets be honest a CineAlta, and yes, I wouldn't mind a cheap sony A1u to knock around either, but for where my head is at, and what I think is important to me, true 24p is it, the 24fs sometimes are convincing and most often not with double the render times that lowers my hourly income.... No I'm sticking with JVC till I need a CineAlta or HD-CAM. I think I might skip over DVCPROHD entirely unless they come out with a REAL 1080p camera and format for significantly less than a HD-CAM or CineAlta.

Or maybe I'll spend the summer working on my own documentary or narrative that I want to do, and this camera is good enough so that if it shown on a digital projector or DVD or perhaps bluray, no one is going to wonder what camera I used, only if the narrative is any good or not, and no one wonders "Ugh.... was that shot with video?"

I had a choice with an hpx500 and chose the jvcs (two! 111 and 210- and cheaper than an hpx even without any lens).
The hpx has a nice form factor. It was certainly much better in low light. But the pictures, to me, didn't look any better (I was only using the cheapish XS lens- and also tried a few 2/3" SD lenses I had). I felt it was a little soft on a wide shot- something I don't like at all. And, surprisingly, the hpx felt like a cheaper build. Very off-putting: the viewfinders (and focus "histogram") were poor. I really really wanted to like it! But the jvc pics are, when I'm shooting carefully, very nice indeed. So far no regrets.

Echo what you guys said - still one of the best images for an under $10 grand camera.

Great form factor, tough, interchangable lenses, excellent images, "prints" to $5 tapes (and not $2 grand P2 cards).

For me, only the EX-1 is real other option, but it doesn't do 1080p. For me, not worth the price of an upgrade for better light sensitivity (and few other goodies).

Nope, I'm very happy with it.

john

Sorry your wrong. The EX1 does do 1080p. It does it very well.

Daniel Weber

Not from what I've read:

Sony : PMW-EX1 (PMWEX1) : Product Overview : Other

But hey, I'd love to be wrong!

john

1080P at 24, 25 and 30
720P at 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60

Found under Tech Specs on the link you provided.

Just to clarify for John -- the XDCAM EX camcorder family does indeed record 1080p. Specifically 1080p24, 1080p25 and 1080p30. Hope this helps,

Awesome - I got some bad info on that....

john

To be fair to Sony the PMW-EX1 is the first Sub $10,000 Sony that has interested me in a long time. But I'm a 24p fan, hence the first Sony in a while I would be interested in other than home movies. my JVC HD110 is doing fine for now and the next couple of years. Though a 17x, 13x or even a 18x would be sweet.