a few questions before purchase...

Jay Kavi · January 7th, 2009, 09:02 PM

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.

Daniel Weber · January 7th, 2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Kavi

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

Alex Humphrey · January 8th, 2009, 12:17 AM

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?"

Rob Stowell · January 9th, 2009, 05:00 AM

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.

John Vincent · January 9th, 2009, 02:38 PM

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

Daniel Weber · January 9th, 2009, 08:54 PM

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

Daniel Weber

John Vincent · January 15th, 2009, 04:57 PM

Not from what I've read:

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

But hey, I'd love to be wrong!

john

Shaun Roemich · January 15th, 2009, 05:29 PM

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

Found under Tech Specs on the link you provided.

Chris Hurd · January 15th, 2009, 05:34 PM

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

John Vincent · January 15th, 2009, 05:59 PM

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

john

Alex Humphrey · January 15th, 2009, 07:33 PM

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.

January 15th, 2009, 05:29 PM	#38
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	1080P at 24, 25 and 30 720P at 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 Found under Tech Specs on the link you provided. __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

January 15th, 2009, 05:34 PM	#39
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Just to clarify for John -- the XDCAM EX camcorder family does indeed record 1080p. Specifically 1080p24, 1080p25 and 1080p30. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 7th, 2009, 09:02 PM	#31
Jay Kavi Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 243	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.

January 8th, 2009, 12:17 AM	#33
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	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?"

January 9th, 2009, 05:00 AM	#34
Rob Stowell Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 55	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.

January 9th, 2009, 02:38 PM	#35
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	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

January 9th, 2009, 08:54 PM	#36
Daniel Weber Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 696	Sorry your wrong. The EX1 does do 1080p. It does it very well. Daniel Weber

January 15th, 2009, 04:57 PM	#37
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Not from what I've read: Sony : PMW-EX1 (PMWEX1) : Product Overview : Other But hey, I'd love to be wrong! john

January 15th, 2009, 05:59 PM	#40
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Awesome - I got some bad info on that.... john

January 15th, 2009, 07:33 PM	#41
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	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.