HD200 compared to XL-H1 or HVX-200?

[Tyson Perkins]

How does this camera or the HD250 scale against these other cameras in its range? In terms of image quality, low light performance, etc?

[Yves Fortin]

I don't know HVX200 compare to HD200 or HD250 but here is a link who compare HVX200 to HD100.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/HDVHVX.htm

[Stephen L. Noe]

HD-250/200/110/100 = Full Rez CCD

The others = no full rez CCD

Encoders are different as well and len's options are different (which are self evident).

[Stephan Ahonen]

Actually the XL-H1 has a higher resolution CCD, but since it's the same physical size chip as the HDxxx, the laws of physics decree that low light performance takes a hit. It's also an interlaced scan, so its 24"p" and 30"p" modes are interpolated from fields.

Until now the only really substantial thing HVX200 has on JVC was ability to shoot 60p. That's obviously not an issue anymore. In terms of picture wuality they're very similar, what really sets them apart is the form factor, which is where I believe JVC wins hands down. Shooting handheld on your shoulder beats shooting handheld literally in your hands every single time.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

Actually the XL-H1 has a higher resolution CCD..

Not in relationship to it's recorded format.

[Justin Ferar]

You should really choose your criteria and then choose your camera.

format- 720p or 1080i
ergonomics- shoulder or handycam
lens- manual interchangeable or fixed pseudo manual

Personally- I need a manual lens and shoulder mounted camera for run and gun. There is no other choice but the JVC so the decision was easy. Format was not as important to me but with all the LCD and plasma screens as the future- I don't see why anyone would purchase an interlaced camera anymore.

[Pete Bauer]

I don't follow JVC stuff so much, but the HD200 isn't quite actually out in the field yet is it? If that's the case, it might be a tad early for indepth, definitive comparisons. Pending comprehensive, objective reivews and actual camera comparisons, most of the answers to the original question are really guesses.

Further info re: XL H1

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

. It's also an interlaced scan, so its 24"p" and 30"p" modes are interpolated from fields.

Actually, although most of the technicalities are still not publically known, Canon has recently stated that although the CCD is produced as an interlaced chip, they've somehow managed to design the camera so all 1080 lines are read at the same instant in time. They say it is a true progressive process, named differently.

I understand what you're saying theoretically about chip size and low light performance, but many other factors come into play, including choice of lens and image processing. I'm not sure which of these cameras would win an objectively conducted low light test (doubt that any solid tests have been published yet with the HD200 vs HVX200 vs XL H1), but in any case they're probably in the same ballpark.

I'm not an HVX200 user, but I'm pretty sure those who use it would at least add the many other frame rates it'll shoot besides the usual suspects and 60p, and give consideration to the workflow (good or bad depending on your needs and desires) of P2.

Justin, as much as I personally detest interlaced video, I suspect it is premature to dismiss it. From what I can tell, it looks like 1080i60 is what most of the HD networks require. Would I buy a camera that doesn't do a good progressive image? Personally, no. But there's a lot of market for interlaced HD out there at this point and probably will be for a good while yet. Indies probably don't care, but folks going in the HD network direction would care about the interlaced image quality.

I'm sure these will be great cameras. When DVinfo members have them in their hands and start posting facts, then we can get a better idea of how they stack up without having to speculate too much.

[Yves Fortin]

Not in the same price range too. HVX200 sell for around 5000$ now with a free P2 card and book. (about 1250$ return) The HD250 will be in the 8000$ depending on the lense choice.

I personally prefer the JVC HD110 better than the HVX200. So to compare the HD200 or 250 to the HVX200 is may be not appropriated.

[Tyson Perkins]

Just for my note - are there any other cameras coming soon within the 8-14 thousand dollar range? i.e. from companies like canon or sony or even panasonic?

[Bart Walczak]

Sony PD-330 (XDCAM HD) is $12,000, and it really leaves all 1/3 cameras behind in terms of quality. I used to be a JVC fan, but when I saw this one... The workflow is great, 100% digital, much better than any firestore or P2 (I've used both, believe me). A pity that Adobe Premiere does not support it yet.

[Justin Ferar]

Originally Posted by Bart Walczak

Sony PD-330 (XDCAM HD) is $12,000, and it really leaves all 1/3 cameras behind in terms of quality. I used to be a JVC fan, but when I saw this one... The workflow is great, 100% digital, much better than any firestore or P2 (I've used both, believe me). A pity that Adobe Premiere does not support it yet.

Bart- where did you find the PD-330 for 12K? Average quote is usually $15,500 with no lens.

Do tell.

[Tyson Perkins]

But you have to consider the fact that a good lense for this camera costs around 6-7k

[Diogo Athouguia]

I know both cameras very well, I own a HD101 but use to work a lot with the HVX200. Image quality is very similar, the HD100 has better resolution but more colour compression. Besides the better format (DVCPRO HD) and more frame rates options, I can't find any other reason for chosing a HVX200. It looks like a brick, it's to heavy and unbalanced for handhelding, doesn't have a pro look, uses an expensive and limited media (you may use a firestore but you can't attach it to the camera because of the weight), the zoom starts too fast and is too slow at full speed, the viewfinder is too smal, doesn't have a macro ring, focusing has poor precision, the focus assist is a crap, it's hard to find a camera light for it (I've seen a SWITT one that has an adapter for using the Pana batteries, but the camera is heavy enought)... it is not an option for someone who needs a versatile camera.

I really don't like working with it, unfortunatly I have to use it 3 days a week. I feel that my work has worst results because of it's form factor.

[Stephan Ahonen]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Not in relationship to it's recorded format.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The H1's chips are 1440x1080, the same pixel-for-pixel resolution as HDV 1080i. 1440x1080 is more pixels than 1280x720.

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

I understand what you're saying theoretically about chip size and low light performance, but many other factors come into play, including choice of lens and image processing. I'm not sure which of these cameras would win an objectively conducted low light test (doubt that any solid tests have been published yet with the HD200 vs HVX200 vs XL H1), but in any case they're probably in the same ballpark.

It's the laws of physics. The smaller photosites in the H1 sensor collect fewer photons each. Camera processing can recover a more usable picture but at the expense of creating a higher likelihood of CCD flare and decreased shadow detail.

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

I can't find any other reason for chosing a HVX200 ... it is not an option for someone who needs a versatile camera.

The reasons you state are exactly why I didn't even consider using the HVX.

[Garrison Hayes]

Well You have to Realize That the HVX200 Records uncompressed HD video... on a totally different format (P2)...the XL H1 doesnt... and it's DV or HDV