Canon vs. Sony

Sig Wong · July 11th, 2005, 04:41 PM

well nobody can say that sony makes bad cams, they did afterall make the cinealta cams that captured SW epII. (i think...)

anyhoo, if you want HDV I would suggest waiting a little longer and get a JVC GY-HD100U. Unlike the sony units, the JVC records 720p. This is much better than the 1080i standard, if you ask me...

Ian Thomas · July 12th, 2005, 04:05 PM

Come on I wish that we could al stop slagging 1 camera from the other, my friend has just got the the XL2 and still likes the picture of his old xl1, infact he buying it back,

I have the PD 170 and the XL1S they are both top class cameras, and I for 1 are going to wait for a year or 2 two see how this HDV works out,

All I can say is that both Sony and Canon make fine Cams, It just depends what you want them for, Wildlife Canon, in you face stuff Sony both do a bloody good job.

Tommy James · July 13th, 2005, 01:21 AM

The problem with the Cannon XL2 is that it does not shoot in high definition. The problem is that most people think that high definition is just some sort of gimmick. Well maybe color television is just a gimmick and when color television was introduced 50 years ago many people were dead set against it. They were dead set against it because most people do not want to change. It always amazes me that HDTV the biggest advancement in technology since the introduction of color television is treated by many as just being another synthetic snake oil. If people cannot see the improvement in picture quality they must be blind or they turn a blind eye. the quality of HDTV is nothing less than stunning and as such maybe people are afraid of it. One person claimed that it was too radioactive and HDTV causes cancer.

The problem is that your average Joe Six Pack thinks a bigger screen is all that is need for better picture quality. He would actually pay more for a standard definition 36 inch television than an HDTV 27 inch. What he doesnt realize is that if you blow up standard definition you can see the interlace scan lines and it looks like you are peeking through the venetian blinds. In other words the image looks awfull.

Steve House · July 13th, 2005, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy James

The problem with the Cannon XL2 is that it does not shoot in high definition. The problem is that most people think that high definition is just some sort of gimmick. ....

The problem for shooters is that HD in the camera is only one part of the chain. Moving one's edit suite to high def is quite an expensive proposition. The delivery side of the chain is even trickier - there are no HD DVDs as yet and while they're close to deciding on a standard it's still aways away. Very few of your clients have DV tape players. There is no such thing as HD VHS. So while you may be getting beautiful HD footage from the camera, unless you are shooting for HD broadcast there's no distribution pathway for the finished product from you to your client without dropping it back down to SD somewhere along the chain. I agree we should be ready - our home theatre is a 57" Sony Hi Def screen and we love it so it's not a tchno-phobe speaking here - but it doesn't make sense to invest in an HD camera just yet UNLESS your target audience is, as I said before, HD broadcast or theatrical release (and if that's the target destination, we're not shopping for Canon versus Sony pro-sumer gear anyway). 5 years from now, when HD screeens and more importantly HD-DVD players have begun to make signifigant inroads into the market and your clients will actually be able to view your work in HD it'll be another story. We'd like to think we're shooting gems for the ages but in reality most of the things we'd shoot are rather ephemeral and will be of little interest by the time our clients are able to view them in HD. Also, that's about the time the onrush of camera technology would have many of us thinking about an upgrade for any camera we're purchasing today anyway. Meanwhile, so for now spend the SD-HD dollar difference on a higher quality SD camera, shoot on SD and work on gradually upgrading the edit suite in anticipation of a move to HD a few years down the road.

Greg Boston · July 13th, 2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House

The problem for shooters is that HD in the camera is only one part of the chain. Moving one's edit suite to high def is quite an expensive proposition. The delivery side of the chain is even trickier - there are no HD DVDs as yet and while they're close to deciding on a standard it's still aways away. Very few of your clients have DV tape players. There is no such thing as HD VHS. So while you may be getting beautiful HD footage from the camera, unless you are shooting for HD broadcast there's no distribution pathway for the finished product from you to your client without dropping it back down to SD somewhere along the chain. I agree we should be ready - our home theatre is a 57" Sony Hi Def screen and we love it so it's not a tchno-phobe speaking here - but it doesn't make sense to invest in an HD camera just yet UNLESS your target audience is, as I said before, HD broadcast or theatrical release (and if that's the target destination, we're not shopping for Canon versus Sony pro-sumer gear anyway). 5 years from now, when HD screeens and more importantly HD-DVD players have begun to make signifigant inroads into the market and your clients will actually be able to view your work in HD it'll be another story. We'd like to think we're shooting gems for the ages but in reality most of the things we'd shoot are rather ephemeral and will be of little interest by the time our clients are able to view them in HD. Also, that's about the time the onrush of camera technology would have many of us thinking about an upgrade for any camera we're purchasing today anyway. Meanwhile, so for now spend the SD-HD dollar difference on a higher quality SD camera, shoot on SD and work on gradually upgrading the edit suite in anticipation of a move to HD a few years down the road.

Acutally Steve, there is a HD VHS format.

Scroll towards the bottom of this page to read the whole story.

Granted, I only know one person who owns one. I don't, and I've had an HDTV for 2 1/2 years now. So client delivery options would be limited on this medium as well.

-gb-

Chris Hurd · July 13th, 2005, 07:24 AM

To add to Greg's link about HD VHS, see this one also:

http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/D-VHS/dvhs-e.html

It's the main resource page for that format (I need to bookmark it).

Steve House · July 13th, 2005, 03:34 PM

Forgot about D-VHS but you must admit those decks are pretty rare birds.

Greg Boston · July 13th, 2005, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House

Forgot about D-VHS but you must admit those decks are pretty rare birds.

I did admit that at the end of my last post. ;-)

-gb-

Ash Greyson · July 13th, 2005, 04:06 PM

The XL2 has a problem because it can only shoot in the resolution that 99% of all media is delivered on? It might be a problem in 5 or 10 years... not now.

There are many people who get the XL2 and at first think the image is not as good as the XL1s or XL1. This is because people are not used to seeing an image with detail across all ranges and somehow, to their untrained eye, the picture looks milky or flat. In fact, it is a far superior image with the most flexibility in post production. That being said, you can match the look of just about any 1/3" CCD camera with the XL2, it just takes some skill and manipulation of the custom settings.

ash =o)

July 12th, 2005, 04:05 PM	#17
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	Come on I wish that we could al stop slagging 1 camera from the other, my friend has just got the the XL2 and still likes the picture of his old xl1, infact he buying it back, I have the PD 170 and the XL1S they are both top class cameras, and I for 1 are going to wait for a year or 2 two see how this HDV works out, All I can say is that both Sony and Canon make fine Cams, It just depends what you want them for, Wildlife Canon, in you face stuff Sony both do a bloody good job. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

July 13th, 2005, 07:24 AM	#21
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	To add to Greg's link about HD VHS, see this one also: http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/D-VHS/dvhs-e.html It's the main resource page for that format (I need to bookmark it). __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 11th, 2005, 04:41 PM	#16
Sig Wong Tourist Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3	well nobody can say that sony makes bad cams, they did afterall make the cinealta cams that captured SW epII. (i think...) anyhoo, if you want HDV I would suggest waiting a little longer and get a JVC GY-HD100U. Unlike the sony units, the JVC records 720p. This is much better than the 1080i standard, if you ask me...

July 13th, 2005, 01:21 AM	#18
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	The problem with the Cannon XL2 is that it does not shoot in high definition. The problem is that most people think that high definition is just some sort of gimmick. Well maybe color television is just a gimmick and when color television was introduced 50 years ago many people were dead set against it. They were dead set against it because most people do not want to change. It always amazes me that HDTV the biggest advancement in technology since the introduction of color television is treated by many as just being another synthetic snake oil. If people cannot see the improvement in picture quality they must be blind or they turn a blind eye. the quality of HDTV is nothing less than stunning and as such maybe people are afraid of it. One person claimed that it was too radioactive and HDTV causes cancer. The problem is that your average Joe Six Pack thinks a bigger screen is all that is need for better picture quality. He would actually pay more for a standard definition 36 inch television than an HDTV 27 inch. What he doesnt realize is that if you blow up standard definition you can see the interlace scan lines and it looks like you are peeking through the venetian blinds. In other words the image looks awfull.

July 13th, 2005, 03:34 PM	#22
Steve House Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Posts: 5,742	Forgot about D-VHS but you must admit those decks are pretty rare birds.

July 13th, 2005, 04:06 PM	#24
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	The XL2 has a problem because it can only shoot in the resolution that 99% of all media is delivered on? It might be a problem in 5 or 10 years... not now. There are many people who get the XL2 and at first think the image is not as good as the XL1s or XL1. This is because people are not used to seeing an image with detail across all ranges and somehow, to their untrained eye, the picture looks milky or flat. In fact, it is a far superior image with the most flexibility in post production. That being said, you can match the look of just about any 1/3" CCD camera with the XL2, it just takes some skill and manipulation of the custom settings. ash =o)