Cut to the Chase... HD100/101 Vs Z1e - (blow for blow)

[Relievo]

I really want to buy an HD camera.

I loved the Sony HVR Z1 - but now there is a new boy in town, the JVC GY HD100, and now the 101

They are both really good in different ways, I know people say "get the one thats right for you". Well I am wanting to use it for Short films, maybe a low budget feature, or documentaries.

The HD100 has an interchangable lenses, and is shoulder mounted, I guess it could be better, but it also costs £1000 more than the Z1.

So I guess I am asking: Is the HD100 £1000's better than the Z1?
I haven't really got £4500 for the JVC, but its worth considering.

So which is the biggest bang for the buck? I am always one for looking for the best deals you see http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

..and really I haven't seen a blow for blow comparison / review

Cheers Guys
__________________

[Alan Roberts]

The JVC looks better made, aimed more at the pro market than the Sony. I've said many times, that the FX1 is a consumer camera and the Z1 is the same camera with bells and whistles. Those goodies don't make it a pro camera in my book.

But, there's a down side to the JVC, the cost of lenses. HD lenses aren't cheap, good modern broadcast-quality SD lenses are pretty good at HD, but you dont get that sparkle and glint that a true HD lens gives to pictures.

Decide how much you can afford to spend, then buy in that category and don't look back. There will always be a better deal just round the corner.

[mooblie]

Is it correct: the HD100 is around £4K? But that is body only, without lenses (or microphones)?

[Relievo]

Is it correct: the HD100 is around £4K? But that is body only, without lenses (or microphones)?

The cheapest I have found it was about £4200 inc vat, with lens etc. If you find it any cheaper let me know.

OK so we've decided on the GY HD, but now the question is 100 or 101???

If you get the 100 I think you will have to fork out an extra £2500 for the deck, but for £500 extra you could go for the 101, so you could hold off on buying the deck straight away, am I right?

How much of a con is this on JVC's side - to hold back on the most simplest thing like DV-in and charge us through the nose for it. :mad:

[Alan Roberts]

Given the market they're aiming it at (pro and broadcast), DV-in is irrelevant. So I'd expect it to be an extra charge. Most pro operations will have an edit base servicing several shoots, so the camera will never go near the edit operation. That's why edit decks are needed.

[Unicorn]

Also, don't forget that the JVC is 720p rather than 1080i. There are plenty of arguments as to which is better in the real world, but personally I think it's an important issue to consider... 720p doesn't really give you much more vertical resolution than PAL, though you do get about 2/3 more horizontal resolution.

[Mad_mardy]

hpreston seem to be doing the hd100/101 at £3999

[infocus]

How much of a con is this on JVC's side - to hold back on the most simplest thing like DV-in and charge us through the nose for it.
I don't think it's JVCs fault, rather the way tax is applied. Presumably that applies on a percentage basis, so the more expensive the camera, the more the DV-in costs! Used by big users it's likely to be predominantly acquisition only, with decks back at base anyway, so a no input option makes sense. That said, JVC could be more upfront about it - and likewise the 25p, not 50p.

Regarding Unicorns point: - "720p doesn't really give you much more vertical resolution than PAL", then don't forget it's progressive, not interlace, so the 720 v 576 argument is only a part of the story.

Regarding the original point, the HD100 is a professional camera, the Z1 is not, and I suspect in their hearts Sony know that as well as anyone. That said, the HD100 is at the bottom of the pro market, and the Z1 is a very high quality non-pro camera. Beware of lens issues. The standard lens on the HD100 has a wide end of 5.5mm, the Z1 is 4.5mm - much more respectable. Many of the better points of the HD100 are likely to be significant when used hand held, when the wide lens for it is even more desirable (3.5mm) - and that costs more than the basic camera.

[Relievo]

Beware of lens issues. The standard lens on the HD100 has a wide end of 5.5mm, the Z1 is 4.5mm - much more respectable.

AARRghhghggg.... now Im confused, hehehe....:confused: :D


I was just thinking RE: no DV-in

If I get the HD100 -Couldn't I just use my crappy £300 Dv camera (with DV-in) to record back to DV? Just for printing a short film-type-thing.

Or is that a stupid question?

[infocus]

If I get the HD100 -Couldn't I just use my crappy £300 Dv camera (with DV-in) to record back to DV?
Presumably for DV mode, but not presumably for HDV?

[Unicorn]

For any serious use, you don't want to be recording edited footage back to the camera anyway: since HDV uses seriously lossy compression, it makes a lousy master format. Unless you're just shooting holiday videos, about the only sensible use I can think of for the HDV-in capability is to duplicate master tapes, where you won't need to recompress.

[Richard Payne]

For any serious use, you don't want to be recording edited footage back to the camera anyway: since HDV uses seriously lossy compression, it makes a lousy master format. Unless you're just shooting holiday videos, about the only sensible use I can think of for the HDV-in capability is to duplicate master tapes, where you won't need to recompress.

If you transcode like Canopus Edius into HQ or CineForm with Premiere or Vegas then this loss is much less apparant. Infact even with Pinnacle Edition that edits native MPEG2 there is not an apparant loss even when viewing on a large screen so I would question your statement that it is 'Not for Serious Use'. Have you tried this? Because with the greatest respect, I have.

[Unicorn]

So you're going to record MPEG-2 to tape, transcode to some other codec for editing, transcode back to MPEG-2 and output to a master tape, then take that tape to some broadcast company which will transcode it _AGAIN_ to a lower bit-rate MPEG-2 for broadcast?

Maybe it will look acceptable on a TV set when it gets there, but to me that looks like a really bad idea... and if you ever have to recut the master for some reason, you'll be adding yet another MPEG-2 generation on top. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but if I was producing HD movies or programs that I expected to get any serious viewing (or to get paid for), I'd rent a high-end HD suite for a day to output the master direct from HDV files to a more robust format like HDCAM.

[Richard Payne]

I fully understand where you are coming from, and that less compressed HDCAM will produce much better results, but we are talking about kit that is 10X the price.

"take that tape to some broadcast company which will transcode it _AGAIN_ to a lower bit-rate MPEG-2 for broadcast?"

This is a stage I have yet to see - however that was not mentioned in your previous post.

I understand your concerns, but my experience is that it is not as significant a loss as you fear.

If I were 'paid' to rent the kit and the editing stuff - no competition, but personally I would rather own a semi than rent a room at the Hilton.

I think that the losses associated with MPEG2 transcoding, compositing and editing should be witnessed before criticised.

[Relievo]

I found some footage of someone using the Sony FX1, here: http://www.vilekyle.com/ Just so you can see what people are doing with it.

Anyone know of any places doing HD100 footage?

[cstv]

nowhere will be doing HD100 footage yet except JVC USA or Japan. JVC UK don't have a final, working one yet... the first batch (including our one! :D) will be arriving next week.

I'll get some footage up on t'internet as soon as i can but i'll tell you now i'm no camera op.

Initial tests will include:
some lowish light stuff
some high contrast stuff (indoors with windows in the frame - should be sunny next week!)
high frequency stuff for the mpeg encoder (pans across grass or water)

anything else people would like to see?

mark.

[Alan Roberts]

I like the analogy (own a semie rather than rent a room at the Hilton), but for much serious HD work, the production stands the kit cost so they pay for the room at the Hilton. It's only the owner/operator semipro/consumer who has to make that decision.

[MattDavis]

Is the HD100 £1000's better than the Z1?
I haven't really got £4500 for the JVC, but its worth considering.

I'm renting Z1s until the JVC arrives. The Z1 is fine... 'The PD170 is dead, long live the Z1E', but there comes a time when you outgrow a PD170. You trust manual focus over any autofocus system, you want a back-focus facility, a shoulder mount is more stable than a quasi-plamcorder grip or a cradle-hold. Yada yada yada.

I was going to go for an XL-2, but now I've done an HDV shoot/edit I'm sold on it. However, Sony's interlaced version still requires deinterlacing and downsampling, as 1280x720p is much easier to play back than '1920x1080i' (my HD video is played back on plasmas and data projection).

A colleague can't wait. He has to upgrade his kit from two PDX-10s, so he's gone Z1. He knows the issues with the camera, but will work around them. I want an HD version of an XL-2 with better ergonomics and as good glass as I can find at the price point.

It's all so familiar! Most will go for the ubiquity and superficially usable Windows XP (after all it is 'cheaper' and has lots of buttons to press). Meanwhile, a significant minority will hold off for the more specialist OS-X, with its clearer focus on its market and objectives at the expense of a little ridicule and the occasional splinter.

Oh belgium, it's another platform war.