Looking at the Sony Z1 vs the Canon XH A1
 

I am a Sony PD170 owner user and will be up grading soon.
I have been looking at the Sony Z1 vs the Canon HX A1.

Has anyone gone through this problem as to which cam has a better look/picture?

If i stay with Sony at least the batteries/charges and to a certain degree the look will suite. Or is the Z1 an old Cam now?

I love the look I'm seeing on this web site of the Canon XH A1 . Or is the XH A1 an old Cam now?

Cheers
Simon

oh, i have gone through agonies, agonies i tell you, over this one.

it's really too close to call. the things that tipped the scales towards the A1 for me: 20x zoom, in-camera progressive imaging which i use a lot, pre-set options, but the big one was PRICE. since i was buying two cameras, this amounted to hundreds in savings. at the time, i couldn't even find a used Z1 for the price of an A1. and, at the time, the owners that were willing to meet the A1 pricing were selling cameras with hundreds of hours on the heads.

i already owned an FX-1 and was looking to upgrade 2 more DV cams.

the A1 and FX-1/Z1U play very well together, so if image is the primary concern, lay that to rest and focus on other reasons for choosing your camera. it is not that easy to tell them apart.

the Z1U is easier to operate. the button layout is easier. the viewfinder is bigger, the focusing seems substantially easier (better, imho, manual focus ring--the A1s is squirrely by comparison).

you can't really go wrong.

*rant mode on*

i've heard the claim that the Z1U is "old" technology, but, having shot a lot with both of them, i'd say that's silly. we don't even have good delivery systems to support 1080i technology yet. once Apple starts supporting blu-ray output in DVD Studio Pro. once we are all firing up blu-ray players to watch "Shrek IX". once we all are actually watching the evening news "presented in high definition" in high definition. then it will be old technology.

*rant mode off*

i think these cameras have some life in them yet....

Just wondering why you havent looked at the Sony V1U. I really like the HDV format but going from DVCam to HDV is a double edged sword. DV Cam has much better low light capabilities and also the audio is a better format. HDV has a much cleaner picture and is future proofing your library for when HDV hopefully becomes a format broadcasters except without question. The Z1 is a great little camera but the zoom is lacking, I would take a look at the V1U but it also has a worse Lux rating than the Z1, If low light is an issue to you and you must go HDV there is really only one camera to choose, the Z1.

It is a hard decision indeed! Coming from PD170 you will hate the low-light of any Canon; the Z1 has a decent electronic gain even though it doesn't come too close to the PD.

You need to also consider what will you be using this camera for...

in daylight or high light, all of these 1080i cams are equal. i produced an event with 8 cameras two weeks ago. and my little canon HV10 was in the mix, being driven around on a speedboat, and it cuts perfectly with the shore footage from a Z1U. you can't tell them apart. it's been said before, but the image quality with these HDV cameras isn't really what you're paying for--it's the ergonomics and feature set.

in low light conditions, this would be a whole different story.

I have a VX-2000 and an HVR-Z1. I think the Z1 is about 1.5 f-stops slower, but you can boost gain by 6 or even 9dB and still have a nice image, especially if you're downconverting to SD in your final product.

Another advantage to the Z1 is that it can shoot both PAL and NTSC (with the DVCAM option as well) in standard definition, or 50i/60i HDV. In fact, I originally bought my Z1 in order to do a big PAL project.

Yes the agony of it all.
With so many choices its doing my head in.
Great advice from you all.

Thanks

Cheers
Simon

From what I read, the greatest weak point in the V1 is just the zoom, because the Z1's can go wider. The V1 can go longer, but I think wider is more needed most of the times. For me it is, and most people asking add-on lenses on this forum seem to think so, because that is what I mostly find.

I am not sure about the low light capability of the V1, but I don't think it's better than the Z1.

The V1 has real 24p, if you need it. But the Z1 is PAL and NTSC, which all top HDCams already are. It's a shame that capability is not standard now that we are going digital and HD.

I have a Z1. If I bought today, I would go with the A1, regardless of the battery issue.

Of course, since I already have a Z1, it's now a waiting game for the Sony EX.

I'm now looking at the V1 with serious intent. Some of the footage i have seen here on this web site is what i'm after and since i already own a Sony PD 170.
lOW LIGHT is a worry but i can always put a light on the thing.
And the size looks very good.

The V1's size and shape is very much like the PD170. But it can't go as low-light as the PD does and it can't go that wide.

Of course you can always use a light, but only in closer situations. You can't go into darker and wider situations as you did with the 170. I can't say for sure, but I think it may be at least 3 stops darker or more than the PD.

I think you should try the V1 first and see if you can get used to it.

From what I've seen and read, the Canon HDV cameras do poorly in dim lighting unless you adjust some low-level camera settings to reduce image noise. The FX1 and Z1U can produce a usable image in poor lighting with plenty of gain but no special camera adjustments, so they're a little easier to use in that sense. Battery life on the Sony cameras is also excellent: with the BP-970 I've shot weddings up to eight hours long before the battery finally ran down - owners of Canon HDV cameras tell me they have to swap batteries to get through a typical wedding. The Canons do have better zoom range and come with XLR inputs standard on the base model, something my FX1s don't have. The Sony V1U would give you an equivalent zoom range and XLR inputs but not be as good in low light as the FX1/Z1U, plus it doesn't have as good a sensor as the Canons. In fact the sensor on the Canon HDV cameras is the highest resolution of any HD camera under $10K, and this has resulted in measurably higher real-world resolution in comparison tests.

If I was shopping for HDV cameras today I'd be torn between the FX1, V1U and XH-A1. Best advice would be to personally test all cameras which interest you before buying, if you can arrange to do that.

Regardless of what you get, I'd hang on to you pd170 for as long as you can. I've found that the pd170 (in low light situations) cuts very well with HDV footage if the final prioduct is standard definition.

Great advice everyone.
It seems we need a bit of the PD170,Z1,V1 and the Cannon HX-A1 all rolled into one.

Which is the better cam? Z1,V1,HX-AI. Which gives the overall better rating/comes out on top?

Which is the better flavor of ice cream? Chocolate, Vanilla or Strawberry?

I think there's been some very good info in this thread about all of these cameras. Spend awhile in each of our forums to learn much more. You need to match your own needs to each of their different strong points and weaknesses. Try to visit a store where you can actually try them, there's really no substitute for that.

On a news shoot today, the producer requested it shot in NTSC SD in 4:3 aspect ratio. He also wanted it shot on miniDV tapes so his editor can work with it. Not a problem on the Z1.

I'll have other producers who request stuff shot in 16:9 or in DVCAM mode. Other times, I'll shoot a narrative in PAL HDV for later conform to 24fps. The Z1 makes this all possible. Hard to give up such versatility.

But then again, the Canon A1 has a superb imager, 2x sharper images with better colour reproduction. So for the times I shoot only in HDV NTSC frame rates, it makes sense.

Boyd you are right.
I have been spending a lot of time in each fourm and i feel like i have gone around in circles. Thanks for your advice

Ian,
You bring up some great points about the Z1 and it's verticality as i live in Pal land and who knows what the client could want in the future.

Regards
Simon

You're making the mistake of looking at this in a linear "good, better, best" fashion and that's not a valid way to examine these choices. Boyd's ice cream analogy is excellent. "Which is the best flavor: chocolate, vanilla or strawberry?" Ask three different people and you'll get three different answers.

It's all about what's right for you, and you're the only one who can answer that. By all means, try before you buy. The right one for you is the one which feels best in your hands. No other consideration is nearly as important.

I had the Z1 and now have the XH-A1. I thoroughly enjoyed both. Out the of box, the Sony was easier to use and delivered the colorful vivid picture I wanted. The XH-A1 video at first was so identical to what I saw posted from the XL-H1 I was at first disappointed. It was one reason (price being the other) why I chose the Z1 over the XL-H1 at that time.

The learning curve was steeper for me on the Canon. That changed but it took a while to find the preset that gave me the look I was after, which in the end was not unlike the Sony. My opinion differs from some in that I think my low light footage from the XH-A1 has been better for two reasons.

1.) Most comparisons are made at the same gain level. +12 on the Canon is much grainier than +12 on the Sony which is hardly noticeable at +12. But the Canon also seems more sensitive to light at a lower gain setting. I never use more than +6. Others push it more but use coring and noise reduction. I don't. +6 is usually enough. Whether it actually is or isn't better, it's for sure close. I don't obsess over it.

2.) The other reason I think the low light is good on the Canon is that the lens remains razor sharp at F1.6 where the Sony gives up a bit at wide open aperture.

The Carl Zeiss lens on the Sony is best at the wide end, which is not all that wide. The XH-A1 lens is wider but fringes red/green when wide. At the long end, the Canon lens is sharp and aberration free. The Sony softens slightly on the long end and fringes blue/yellow. I judge the lenses overall about equal, with a slight lean toward the Canon for it's 20:1 range versus 12:1, and better telephoto performance, but both are really very good, just with different characteristics.

I totally miss the wonderful flip shade of the Sony, the Canon uses a conventional lens cap.

The optical stabilization is on or off for the Canon, the Sony gives a choice of a hard or soft setting, the hard setting is closer to what the Canon has. My video has been a bit steadier with the Canon, but had I been using the hard setting on the Sony more, I might have made a more valid comparison.

The LCD as everyone knows is unbeatable on the Sony. I prefer the audio sensitivity of the Canon built in stereo microphone. The Canon has the very useful iris ring. The Sony is better balanced, the Canon has a solid feel.

I judge the video from the Canon to be slightly more transparent, owing to the sensor, and has an organic halo-free non-sharpened look with nicely resolved detail. The Sony more than holds its own in many areas, picture clarity is understandably where it can't quite equal by comparison only, it stands fully on its own merit.

I would conclude by saying you can't go wrong with either one, except when you get to this level you're never quite satisfied either. I want HDCAM 2/3 inch 4:2:2 1920x1080i/p performance in a small format with a low price. Don't we all?

Thanks guys for all your advice.
At the end of the day all these cameras will be great no matter which one is chosen.


To quote Tom Roper
I want HDCAM 2/3 inch 4:2:2 1920x1080i/p performance in a small format with a low price. Don't we all?

Yes please


Regards
Simon