PDW-F330 vs. JVC HD100 at DVinfo.net

Tip McPartland · July 22nd, 2006, 11:29 AM

This may be a model upgrade that current owners can forego, especially those contemplating buying the 200 or 250.

But spending that much money makes me wonder about spending a few bucks more for the XDCAM HD 330 which can be had for prices the 13,000 USD range. But while that includes a viewfinder, it does not include a lens.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Tip

Jonathan Nelson · July 22nd, 2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tip McPartland

This may be a model upgrade that current owners can forego, especially those contemplating buying the 200 or 250.

But spending that much money makes me wonder about spending a few bucks more for the XDCAM HD 330 which can be had for prices the 13,000 USD range. But while that includes a viewfinder, it does not include a lens.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Tip

Too bad the cheapest hd lens is like 7k.

So maybe at the cheapest, the xdcam could go for 20000-23000 dollars. You could buy two hd250s at that price.

Nate Weaver · July 22nd, 2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Nelson

So maybe at the cheapest, the xdcam could go for 20000-23000 dollars. You could buy two hd250s at that price.

There's a place in Burbank selling an F330 with Fujinon S20x6.4 for just under $16k.

It's an SD lens, but if you go in the XDCAM forum, there's a couple guys using SD glass and getting acceptable results. I've gotten a close look at XDCAM HD with SD glass and with the right lens, it goes from anywhere to "I can live with that for how cheap it is" to "That's not an HD lens? Could have fooled me"

Bill Pryor · July 22nd, 2006, 02:07 PM

The 330 actually comes with a lens. The 350 doesn't.

Jonathan Nelson · July 22nd, 2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

The 330 actually comes with a lens. The 350 doesn't.

Does the 330 that comes with the hd lens sell for 16000? I did a quick search but couldn't come up with anything but a few articles that mentioned that it comes stock with no lens. I thought it was something you had to buy separately.

Bill Pryor · July 22nd, 2006, 04:06 PM

My understanding, and I've asked others, is that it comes with the lens for that price. That's the silver colored lens you see in the photos. I'm sure it's not going to be a great lens, but it should be useable until a guy can afford a better one, if the price is important (when isn't it).

I'm going to the Sony/Apple XDCAM HD seminar in Chicago on Aug. 1, so I'll find out for sure then. Even with the lens, this $16K price is more than double the JVC with lens. Of course it's a 1/2" chip camera and records to optical disc, but the JVC is still the best deal in terms of cost/benefit, in my opinion. I'm considering the Sony mainly because of some advantages the Blu-ray discs would give us. For personal use, I'd go for the JVC, I'm sure.

Nate Weaver · July 22nd, 2006, 04:34 PM

The 330K kit, the one with the lens, is not available in the states. Euro prices for that kit put it at about $19K USD.

So here in the states, you can get the 330 for about $15K, and put a cheap lens on it for about $1K.

Not ideal, but it will get you going. Funny enough, so far the 330 stills and footage I've seen with a cheap Fuji seems to have the same shortfalls as the HD100s cheap Fuji! I've been told the stock Fuji is just a renamed SD lens, now I'm starting to believe it.

Guy Barwood · July 22nd, 2006, 11:35 PM

I saw the 330 with Stock lens the other day. It is a white Canon lens with autofocus (I watched it do a full auto backfocus adjustment). I was quoted roughly AU$23,000 for the body only, and I think about $29,000 with lens. Memory is fading as it was only a very brief moment.

I certainly would like the 330 over the HD100, or more specifically I want a practical no tape solution with 1/2" over tape and 1/3" but I'll freely admit the price difference is nothing short of a joke (the joke is on Sony). The codecs of the two cameras are the same (MP@HL & DV), and while the 330 has higher bit rate options I don't believe it has native progressive support (its 720p is a conversion from its native 1080i). 50/60p? Don't think so.

Nate Weaver · July 22nd, 2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

but I'll freely admit the price difference is nothing short of a joke (the joke is on Sony). The codecs of the two cameras are the same (MP@HL & DV), and while the 330 has higher bit rate options I don't believe it has native progressive support

The Sony is a far cry from the JVC. I just used 7 F350s to shoot a concert and now that I'm editing (7 camera multicam 1080p24 on a dual 2.0 ghz G5, I might add), it's plain to see that the Sony is the far better camera.

The specs and numbers for the Sony do not tell the entire picture; it looks much much better than if I had used the JVC for the same shoot. But it should, at $23k for the body and another $20k for the lenses we had on each camera.

Specifically, the highlight handling of the current XDCAM HDs in a concert setting (lots of automated luminaires causing massive blowouts) was very graceful.

Guy Barwood · July 22nd, 2006, 11:55 PM

And thats why I want 1/2" over 1/3" but to me (and this is always relates to a personal position) the price difference isn't justified. No client I have ever had would notice the difference let alone pay extra to get it.

I sprung a lot more for my DV500 over the PD150s of the day, and I'd possibly go that far again for my own personal preferences, but the 330 is twice that price all over again, way out of my league.

Keith Ward · July 23rd, 2006, 03:06 AM

I love many things about the 330, although I've only read about it. I had an incident on my recent shoot where we shot over 20 minutes of previous footage; that little mistake required an afternoon of re-shooting. That doesn't happen with the 330. Also, the fact that FCP supports it without the horrendous workarounds required for HD100 footage is appealing, as are the 1/2" chips in terms of getting much better DOF. But it will probably be awhile until I have the scratch to get one.

Jonathan Nelson · July 23rd, 2006, 03:10 PM

I love the 330. Being able to shoot hd on tape and blu ray is just the shit IMO. I wouldnt mind having that autofocus lens either, even though it sucks.

My next leap will probably be in something like the xdcam. I am too poor right now, lol

Bill Pryor · July 23rd, 2006, 03:45 PM

You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.

Nate Weaver · July 23rd, 2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.

Correct. Disc only.

Jonathan Nelson · July 23rd, 2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.

Sorry, my bad.

Sony website says it records in dvcam format. I am guessing it records dvcam to the optical disks. I scan too much instead of actually reading!

That would be cool though

July 22nd, 2006, 11:29 AM	#1
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Or wait for the 200 or 250 This may be a model upgrade that current owners can forego, especially those contemplating buying the 200 or 250. But spending that much money makes me wonder about spending a few bucks more for the XDCAM HD 330 which can be had for prices the 13,000 USD range. But while that includes a viewfinder, it does not include a lens. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Tip

July 22nd, 2006, 04:34 PM	#7
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	The 330K kit, the one with the lens, is not available in the states. Euro prices for that kit put it at about $19K USD. So here in the states, you can get the 330 for about $15K, and put a cheap lens on it for about $1K. Not ideal, but it will get you going. Funny enough, so far the 330 stills and footage I've seen with a cheap Fuji seems to have the same shortfalls as the HD100s cheap Fuji! I've been told the stock Fuji is just a renamed SD lens, now I'm starting to believe it. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

July 22nd, 2006, 02:07 PM	#4
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	The 330 actually comes with a lens. The 350 doesn't.

July 22nd, 2006, 04:06 PM	#6
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	My understanding, and I've asked others, is that it comes with the lens for that price. That's the silver colored lens you see in the photos. I'm sure it's not going to be a great lens, but it should be useable until a guy can afford a better one, if the price is important (when isn't it). I'm going to the Sony/Apple XDCAM HD seminar in Chicago on Aug. 1, so I'll find out for sure then. Even with the lens, this $16K price is more than double the JVC with lens. Of course it's a 1/2" chip camera and records to optical disc, but the JVC is still the best deal in terms of cost/benefit, in my opinion. I'm considering the Sony mainly because of some advantages the Blu-ray discs would give us. For personal use, I'd go for the JVC, I'm sure.

July 22nd, 2006, 11:35 PM	#8
Guy Barwood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 423	I saw the 330 with Stock lens the other day. It is a white Canon lens with autofocus (I watched it do a full auto backfocus adjustment). I was quoted roughly AU$23,000 for the body only, and I think about $29,000 with lens. Memory is fading as it was only a very brief moment. I certainly would like the 330 over the HD100, or more specifically I want a practical no tape solution with 1/2" over tape and 1/3" but I'll freely admit the price difference is nothing short of a joke (the joke is on Sony). The codecs of the two cameras are the same (MP@HL & DV), and while the 330 has higher bit rate options I don't believe it has native progressive support (its 720p is a conversion from its native 1080i). 50/60p? Don't think so.

July 22nd, 2006, 11:55 PM	#10
Guy Barwood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 423	And thats why I want 1/2" over 1/3" but to me (and this is always relates to a personal position) the price difference isn't justified. No client I have ever had would notice the difference let alone pay extra to get it. I sprung a lot more for my DV500 over the PD150s of the day, and I'd possibly go that far again for my own personal preferences, but the 330 is twice that price all over again, way out of my league.

July 23rd, 2006, 03:06 AM	#11
Keith Ward Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Westminster MD Posts: 44	I love many things about the 330, although I've only read about it. I had an incident on my recent shoot where we shot over 20 minutes of previous footage; that little mistake required an afternoon of re-shooting. That doesn't happen with the 330. Also, the fact that FCP supports it without the horrendous workarounds required for HD100 footage is appealing, as are the 1/2" chips in terms of getting much better DOF. But it will probably be awhile until I have the scratch to get one.

July 23rd, 2006, 03:10 PM	#12
Jonathan Nelson Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Kingman Arizona Posts: 298	I love the 330. Being able to shoot hd on tape and blu ray is just the shit IMO. I wouldnt mind having that autofocus lens either, even though it sucks. My next leap will probably be in something like the xdcam. I am too poor right now, lol

July 23rd, 2006, 03:45 PM	#13
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	You can't shoot tape with the 330, can you? I thought it only used the discs.